Subject to The Ruling Class

[Keith Broaders]

The Toothless Tiger

Lysander Spooner observed that the Constitution either created the government that we now have or was powerless to prevent it. 

The reason the Constitution has become a toothless tiger is because it has failed to protect us from the abuse of power by the ruling class. It has failed because we let it.

The Constitution is only as strong as the people's determination to be free. If the people want to be free they must take the responsibility to hold elected officials accountable. If they fail to do so the elected officials will continue  to violate the Constitution without consequences. It is not the Constitution that needs to be held responsible, it is the people. Unless we insist that the rulebook is followed we will continue being slaves in the land of the free. As long as we allow it they will continue passing legislation which will benefit their friends at the expense of the people.

Only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom and due to apathy, ignorance and neglect we gave squandered the gift of liberty which was purchased with the blood of our ancestors; American and otherwise.

The problem is that whenever government is created, the vast majority of the people become subject/slaves to a ruling class. In any society where the people do not posess equal rights and treatment under the law, there will always be masters and slaves. Today the representatives of the financial elite write the laws and the rest of us are expected to comply and when we do we our giving our consent.

When God gave us liberty he also required that we govern ourselves or be ruled by tyrants. George Washington once said "Government is like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

He realized that if a government was not confined to its proper role it would become a tyrannical force which would destroy rather than defend the rights of the people.

[Kirk Beck]

Bastiat wrote that if the law was constrained to its original limitations, it would make no difference who was elected.   I agree.   If a critical mass of informed and virtuous people held a vigilant position over government agencies (and there would, by necessity, be a very few in number) Barney Fife could be an effective agent for the government.   The question is, what is that critical mass:  3% is my guess.

[Zeke Layman]

I agree with Robert and if the Constitution is the “tool”, the people must learn how to apply the principals that will make the courts sustain the proper remedy to protect one’s rights.

Specifically it is the 4th Amendment we are talking about when we use the “constitution” as the tool.  It is the foundation of the statutes that are provided for the defendant in order to “suppress” any evidence that was obtained without a warrant or probable cause.

However, going to this argument or issue is premature if one is going to be able to sustain their objection to an unreasonable search or seizure.  First it is incumbent upon the accused to find out if in fact the search or seizure was unreasonable.

The statute in California is 1538.5, and it says that any search or seizure (arrest) without a warrant is PRESUMED to be unreasonable!  Yet, this PRESUMPTION comes after the cop (agent) PRESUMED that he/she had the “probable cause” to make an arrest and detention, with or without a warrant.

So at this stage with the cop presuming he has probable cause to make an arrest, and you the accused, presuming but really knowing (at least pretty sure) that there is NO probable cause, we need a legal (judicial) determination.  Here is where it takes action by the accused in order to sustain the right.

ONLY MAGISTRATES can determine probable cause, not the cop, and not you.  Unless and until the magistrate is asked to determine probable cause, and he makes a determination (They really try to avoid making this decision), IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT THE COP HAS IT.  This presumption will continue FOREVER, and it is the basis for all the “losses” we face.

Once a magistrate determines probable cause, based upon the complaint and surrounding paper work, without any evidence or argument, the statements in the paperwork can be challenged for mistakes.  Mistakes like alleging “driving” when one was actually “traveling”.  These challenges can be  brought at a hearing for probable cause, after the magistrate makes his/her determination.

Neither the Constitution or laws need to be changed.  The individual must take action within the confines of the Constitution and laws because the system really is set up for us to have liberty and freedom if we pursue it.

[Joe]

Who and what army claims these claims made here and now? It appears as if people merely pick from a hat and then that (according to them) is law.

"ONLY MAGISTRATES can determine probable cause, not the cop, and not you."

Why was the 5th Amendment added to that so called Constitution of 1787?

What does the word no mean?

[Joe]

I don't follow "law above the constitution and treaty that supersedes" in context to the idea that fraud (deception) is the seed planted that grew into "fetters of laws of lies" binding people.

That seed of deception was planted by the criminals who took over in 1787. Those criminals called themselves the Federalist Party. They took a working federation and turned it into organized crime in 1787.

If people do not understand that fact then they are misled in context to the American Dream/Revolution/Voluntary Defense Association/Federal Union of Independent People in Independent Republics.

[Lori]

Their motives may have been underhanded but the document still stands for us to uphold, and if it were upheld, we'd all be better off.

[Joe]

"They" are not one homogenous group if that is what your words intend to convey. There were Patriots and Tories or independent, free, liberated people and those who were loyal to organized crime hidden behind a thin and thinning cover story called Divine Right of Kings.

The liberated people mixed in with those who were openly loyal to the criminals and those who were secretly loyal to the criminals. There were many who switched sides; most notably Samuel Adams and James Madison.

Some of those on the side of Liberty wrote the Declaration of Independence, some of the Constitutions of the Republics, and the Articles of Confederation, despite the influence of those on the side of tyranny/despotism/divine right of kings/organized crime.

The Constitution of 1787, if that is what you consider to be "their" "document" which "still stands" is not "for us," if that is what you intend to convey with words. The Constitution of 1787 was a loyalist, tyrannical, despotic, and criminal take-over of an existing, working, federation of independent people in independent Republics.

If you consider that it "still stands" then you can quantify precisely how it "still stands" with or without the patriotic, independent, liberated, free minded Bill of Rights that amended it standing as it "still stands" with its Slave Legalization, Criminal, Piracy, orders to be obeyed without question, usurpation of due process, law, and moral decency.

If you evoke how it "still stands" without the Bill of Rights, then that evocation, however you manage it, will be interesting reading.

If you evoke how it "still stands" with the Bill of Rights having any relevance to modern organized crime hidden behind this thing that "still stands," then again that will be interesting reading.

Please consider backing up your words with some measure of accurate accounting.

[Zeke Layman]

Joe, I believe this case, which has come to the supreme court twice, should be "interesting reading" for you.

BOND v. UNITED STATES  

No. 09–1227. Argued February 22, 2011—Decided June 16, 2011 

No. 12-158  June 2, 2014

[Rosanna Miller]

You are right Zeke that case does have a huge impact...

[Joe]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf

I'm looking into it, finding that link above for a start. Discussion might help in any case.

What happened to the public thing? When did the public thing (res-publica) become a so called limited liability legal fiction thing instead of the public thing?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/

Out with the true public thing (all the people as one whole) and in with the U.S. False Corporate Entity having no accountability nor any visible means of support: like an 18 hour bra.

I looked into Bond versus Criminal Frauds and found nothing out of the ordinary lies offered by criminals who hide behind false government claims, did I miss something? Where was the jury trial?

 

 

[Zeke Layman]

What do you mean, "where was the jury"?  There was no jury because Bond was guilty of the crime!  The case was not about Criminal Fraud, so I guess maybe you did miss something.  

I'll tell you what I understand from reading the cases.  Bond committed a crime of assault on her neighbor, by putting a chemicals on her mailbox.  The neighbor called the police.  The police and the D.A. didn't feel like prosecuting Bond for such a "minor" offense.  

The neighbor called the post office and they investigated and the federal department of justice decided to take the case.  They in tern decided to charge Bond with the international crime of "terrorism and chemical warfare".  

In the first case, Bond was precluded by the circuit court to challenge her own conviction.  This ruling was reversed by the circuit court just upon the supreme court saying they wanted to hear the case.  Yes, they overturned themselves before the supreme court hear the case.  The supreme court then hired a retired clerk to find out why the circuit court would make a ruling denying someone the right to challenge their own conviction.  If you read it you will learn about the one line in the one case that started the wrong concept that the court was operating under for over seventy years.

The question that arises in my mind is, is this a state, federal or international crime.  In other words, admittedly there has been a crime, but is it a crime in a state, federal or international jurisdiction?

The supreme court went into great detail about the concept of federalism and how two governments were created for the purpose of protecting individual freedom.

On remand, the circuit court found that she was guilty of the international crime!  The second case, just released last June, 2 2014, the supreme court didn't like the decision and sent it back down for the lower court to  re-read their first decision for a different outcome.  

[Joe]

What can I say, you are right and I am wrong?

And that is...because you say so.

[Zeke Layman]

No, you should point out the various misconception that I made, advance an interesting observation about the nature of the case and add some comprehension to the conversation.

And that NO is because you are not my child.