March 3, 2014 in News by The Manimal

Source: Freedom 4um

2 March A.D. 2014 As always, Bob Unruh with WND does a very thorough job of reporting matters that involve “constitutional” issues. www.wnd.com/2014/03/supre…tes-fight-for-gun-rights/

The STATE legislation at issue intended to carve out an intra-STATE exception to the scope of “federal” “legislation,” and that STATE legislation has been negated. The trial court overruled the STATE legislation; the appellate court affirmed; and the Supreme Court has denied cert., which leaves the appellate ruling in place.

About “cert. denied” rulings, one will hear from the greatest part of the legal profession that such treatment is the same as “affirmed,” but these two rulings are night and day different. As a practical matter, yes, the results are the same, but if the Supremes had wanted to “affirm” the ruling, they would have granted cert. and affirmed. That’s not what happens with “cert. denied” rulings. There are any number of reasons why the Supremes will deny cert. rather than address the merits of the matter, and with cert. denied, that door is still “open,” which is just to say there may be another STATE plan that doesn’t have the same frailties that this one had that could pass muster. However, it’s very unlikely that any STATE plan that intends directly to interfere with existing national legislation, and existing “gotcha agreements” under existing national legislation, is ever going to pass muster.

Why is that? Because “federal” means “federal,” as in “by agreement.” For a STATE to start jacking with national legislation is for that STATE intentionally to interfere tortiously with the agreements already in place. That type of STATE legislation will always fail.

Thus, when it comes to negating national legislation by means of STATE legislation, the effort is, in general, noble, but at least a 98% waste of time, “money,” and energy. That sort of regulatory language (whether belched out at the national level, the STATE level, or at any other level) applies, if at all, only when an individual agrees to being regulated by it. In other words, the direct challenge via STATE legislation to the national legislation is a very solid confirmation that the STATE legislators don’t understand, yet, how this “federal” system, this “by agreement” system, functions. Since the national legislation in this area is Monte Hall’s, “Let’s Make A Deal!”, rather than “admissible evidence of law,” those who are regulated are those who have consented, commercially, not politically, but commercially, to being regulated.

Regarding the differences between INTRA-state and INTER-state, there simply is no such difference. This is one of the greatest recurring myths and lies about this post-1964 system going. It’s a myth the exposure of which starts with an understanding of the “17th Amendment.” (Falsely) Presume a “constitution.” What is the entire foundation of the legislative plan at the national level? There are two houses. The Senate is the house for the States’ position, and the House is the house for the People’s position. Thus, what the “17th Amendment” provides cover story for is the gutting of the entire foundation of that original plan by removing the States from that legislative process. If the States were the voices to be heard, then the States would select the U.S. Senators, not the people of the States, but the States (by whatever means each State so chose, e.g., by legislative activity, or by selection by a committee set up by the State’s legislature, or by direct appointment by the Governor, or by popular vote, etc., as each State so chooses). Where the States, as entities, are removed from that selection-process mechanism, the States no longer choose the Senators. Where the States are no longer the “voice” behind selection of Senators, the States are removed, completely and totally, from that national legislative process. The States do no select the representation in the U.S. Senate, which is the legislative body specifically designed for State participation in the legislative process regarding laws of the United States. The people of each State, now STATE, do that. Thus, there are now two houses for the people, and the States, now STATEs, haven’t participated in the law-making process since the “17th Amendment.”

In addition to the consequences by and through the “17th Amendment,” we also have this concept of “this state” found throughout the STATEs’ codes. The “place” called “this state” is not MONTANA in the MONTANA codes, or WASHINGTON, in the WASHINGTON codes, or CALIFORNIA in the CALIFORNIA codes, or NEW YORK in the NEW YORK codes, or TEXAS in the TEXAS codes, etc. The “place” called “this state” is, from an overhead map point of view, that place that is geographically referred to as “United States.” Picture the 48 contiguous STATEs, plus DC, ALASKA, HAWAII, and all the territories and protectorates. In the mind, picture smushing all that land mass together, and draw a line around it (as would be done to draw a border). That smushed-together land mass is the geographic analogy to “this state.” The capital of “this state” is DC, soon perhaps to be NYC, given that NYC is the location of the U.N. (To have a current “drivers license” is to be a “citizen” of the “U.N.” system, at whatever stage that’s developed to these days. By whatever label that system is going to go by, to have a current “drivers license” is to associate politically with, i.e., to be a “citizen” of, the “new world order” system.)

The “place” called “this state” is not a tangible place. We don’t stand in it or on it. It’s an abstract concept that allows for the creation of a “place” separate from the places associated with the land, so that a different “choice of law” may be created, so that “funny money” may be legitimized. The “place” called “this state” is what this author calls “the hover zone.” This author describes “this state” as a clear acrylic sheet 25 feet above the land at any location. There’s nothing magic about 25 feet. It’s just happens that to see something 25 feet in the air typically requires looking up. To “see” that “floating” layer is to “see” “this state.” This author describes it as something “in the air” subtly also to associate that “place” with maritime law, which is “commercial” in its very nature. (The Law of the Land applies to matters that accrue relative to the land, and The Law of the Sea applies to matters that accrue relative to the water or to the air.) We can also get Scriptural and point out that “the hover zone” is the western european banking cartel’s subtle way of saying, “Worship us!” “We are your gods. In ‘this state’ you are in the ‘heaven’ of our creating. So, you worship us!”

To understand “this state” is to understand that MONTANA is “county” within “this state.” Same with all the other STATEs. A STATE is but a “county” within the “place” called “this state.”

Let’s look briefly at an example of this that happens to be close to this author. It’s one that this author uses regularly as a teaching tool. The Terre Haute Litigation was an effort by the survivors of the Murrah Building bombing to preserve evidence for purposes of expected future civil litigation. The objective was to stop the execution of McVeigh so as to get any and all information he had about the bombing. How does anyone stop an execution? If there’s a way, it will be found in the challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Two challenges were raised: (1) The transfer from OKLAHOMA to COLORADO violated Art. III, § 1, Art. IV. § 1, and the Sixth Amendment, all of which provisions provide for returning the accused to the one State having jurisdiction of the crime, i.e., all of which provisions prohibit exporting criminal cases; and (2) there’s no jurisdiction in any Art. III court for homicide matters, in that Art. III jurisdiction extends to “Laws of the United States;” homicide is not a subject matter within the limited enumerations of Legislative Power (from which comes “Law of the United States”); while homicide is definitely within the Exclusive Legislative Authority (from which comes “Law of the District”), Law of the District is not in the list of matters that are within Art. III jurisdiction (Art. III jurisdiction extends to matters arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States (think Legislative Power, which is very distinct from Exclusive Legislative Authority), and treaties made thereunder; nothing about “Laws of the District” triggers Art. III jurisdiction. There’s more down this path, in that there’s no title transfer to “United States” of the land on which stood the Murrah Building, and there’s also no act by the OKLAHOMA Legislature approving any such title transfer. Thus, on top of everything else, there’s also no basis for asserting “Law of the District.”).

Translation: not only should that homicide matter not be tried in COLORADO, which is not the one State having jurisdiction of the crime(s), but also no homicide matter should ever be tried in any “federal” court, period.

The trial court dismissed the case filed on behalf of the survivors to preserve evidence, and on appeal the appellate court took the time to shred that “constitution-ist”-based case to itty-bitty, tiny pieces. The “padding” for that “padded 2×4” experience was the recognition by the appellate court of standing in the survivors to preserve evidence, which is a huge issue, as well as recognizing the concept of perpetuation of testimony. The “2×4” part is summarized this way. The appellate court described that 100% “constitution-ist” perspective case as (1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous.

To argue the “constitution” and to be told by a U.S. Court of Appeals that “we’re” arguing something that has “no authority” is to experience a wicked paradigm shift. That was June, 2001.

Based on that starting place, which is that we do not now have a “constitution,” the research was pursued to find out just exactly when it was that the “constitution” was lost, the great concern being that it was this author’s generation (the Baby-boomers) that “lost” it, given that the “choice of law” (away from America and honest weights and measures and into The Fourth Reich and its “funny money”) occurred in 1965. Turns out that the “constitution” was never “admissible evidence of law,” i.e., that is simply never was. (Spooner was correct in his conclusion, but his reasoning is somewhat confused, in that he presumes falsely a “constitution” in order to argue that it doesn’t exist.) That the “constitution” never was is another chapter in this wicked paradigm shift.

The point is that in our present reality, there is no difference in “United States” between INTRA-state and INTER-state, because there is only “one state,” namely “this state,” a/k/a “United States.” Everything about “this state” is INTRA-state. Going from NEW YORK to CALIFORNIA is to go from one “county” to another “county” within the very same state, which state is “this state.” Thus, that transfer of the homicide case wasn’t across any State lines, for OKLAHOMA and COLORADO are but “counties” within “this state” (and, by this additional item of confirmation, we come to terms with the reality that there is no “constitution”).

In light of Can-Am-Mex, it’s even possible that CANADA, “United States,” and MEXICO are “states” within that ever-increasing “regional” perspective, which is but one or two steps away from a literal “one world government,” where “this state” would be “the world,” and “United States” would be a “county,” rendering NEW YORK as a “municipal corporation,” and etc.

In other words, to comprehend “this state” is to realize that the effort to generate an intra-STATE “solution” isn’t going to happen. Not only is there no political border or boundary for MONTANA but also throughout MONTANA there’s “funny money” in general circulation. Where the “funny money” goes, so goes the application, for example, of 18 U.S.C. § 7 (special maritime and territorial jurisdiction). To understand “maritime” is to associate “maritime” with “this state.” To understand “maritime” is also to associate “funny money” with “this state.”

The use of “funny money” is 100% voluntary. We pick which “nation,” which “commonwealth,” which “choice of law,” we prefer with every transaction. For so long as the Americans among us still prefer the “nation” (commonwealth, “choice of law”) of The Fourth Reich for “all” commercial purposes, the policies of The Fourth Reich are going to prevail. Thus, for so long as Americans continue to use “funny money,” which is Fourth Reich “money,” the policies of The Fourth Reich are going to prevail.

Changing out the “funny money,” in and of itself, isn’t a complete solution, but there’ll be no “2d Amendment” solution, at all, for so long as weapons and such supplies are traded for with “funny money.” It’s very difficult to make this any more plain than that.

That’s not something over which any STATE legislature has one stinkin’ bit of control. That’s a marketplace problem, thus a marketplace solution. When the buyers and the sellers come to realize that “federal” means “federal,” as in “by agreement,” then the solution will start to be identified for what it is, and to solve a problem, it must first be identified correctly.

There being no political authority in any STATE to overrule the “gotcha agreement” language promulgated by the congress, all that any STATE can do down that path is put its officers at grave risk of tortiously interfering with such agreements entered fully lawfully and fully voluntarily by those individuals with “United States,” via whatever is the appropriate agency. For so long as weapon control “legislation” is viewed as “admissible evidence of law,” which it is not, rather than as Monte Hall’s, “Let’s Make A Deal!”, which it is, there’ll be nothing gained except for those who enjoy wearing the mud slung upon them as they try to push that truck out of the mud in which it’s stuck.

The solution starts with coming to realize that “federal” means “federal,” as in “by agreement.”

In this area of weapon ownership and regulation, the mechanism on which the feds rely is commercial consent. Key to that consent is the use of “funny money” for the transactions involving weapons. There are several aspects to learning the limits on the scope of authority exerted by the feds, and since some of the enforcement comes with criminal penalties, it’s best to learn the whole of the matter before putting any part of an understanding into action. That said, part of what will appear in those solutions is an increasing use of honest weights and measures in those transactions. That, in and of itself, is not “the whole” of “the” solution. It’s only one part, but it’s a critical part, in that it’s part of the “choice of law” part that takes such transactions out of “this state,” i.e., out of “United States,” i.e., out of “The Fourth Reich,” and puts them back in America.

There are no political solutions. The exception proves the rule across the waterfront of issues, and in the area of weapon control by the Nazi-communo-fascists, in particular, there are no political solutions. Weapon control is a commercial matter, which means that those who come to accept the foundational reality that “federal” means “federal” are the ones who will first come to comprehend the details of the commercial solutions for these particular problems. Commercial problems do not have political solutions. Commercial problems have commercial solutions. Translation: Legislation is a total waste of time, here. Selecting candidates based on their positions on the 2d Amendment is a total waste of time. Supporting or bashing candidates or office holders based on their positions on the 2d Amendment is a total waste of time. Asserting the “constitution” is absolutely a total waste of time. Those truly and genuinely interested in coming to terms with the problem, thus also the solution, regarding weapon control throughout this present system will start with “federal” means “federal,” as in “by agreement. It’s a wicked paradigm shift, but until the view of the mechanism on which this present system depends is recognized for what it is, nothing is going to change (for the better, i.e., toward Liberty).

This author is going to be one of the first in line to recognize that there are a tremendous number of people out there still thinking in terms of “law” rather than “agreement,” for which reason there is still to be, quite likely, more “trial and error” of that which “the system” has told us for 50-60 years now isn’t going to work. With that in mind, every time what “should” work fails, if there’s a “failure analysis” review of the perspective going into that failed effort, coupled with a reflection on our present reality, then, in time, some of the most stubborn of minds will come to realize that the solution starts with the person in the mirror. Once we stop accepting as true the myths and lies about government on which we’ve all been raised, we’ll start to see the problems that vex us for what they are. To see the problem is then to see the solution.

May The Lord God Almighty cure the sight of those who sincerely want to be healed in their sight, and may they then have the courage to apply that new-found sight for the betterment of America and the betterment of His Kingdom. (Down this path is forgiveness, not war. War is a Judgment that we’re supposed to want to avoid. Thus, God is the Defense for the obedient.)

Harmon L. Taylor Legal Reality Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net

This is a fully copyrighted original work by Legal Reality under International Common Law copyright law. No interest is asserted in “governmental” works cited, whether in or from “this state” or in or from any other commonwealth. Permission is granted for electronic forwarding or copying, but only where what is forwarded or copied remains wholly in its original format (including font, font size, color, and content as formatted), warts and all. No permission is granted for any modification in any way of this copyrighted original production. This copyrighted original work, when forwarded or copied, must contain the whole of this International Common Law copyright statement.