ARKANSAS, USA – In an ExopoliticsTV interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre, advocate Eric Williams discussed Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury as conceived under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution.
A partial transcript of Eric Williams remarks is as follows:
First, why does everyone insist on making the assertion of political Sovereignty so complicated when it is actually so very simple?
Back in 1970, I was prosecuted by the IRS in Federal Court in Los Angeles, for criminal willful failure to file or pay income tax. At the trial, at the very outset, I challenged the IRS prosecutor to present evidence that I was among those he claimed had various citizenship obligations.
When my case was called, there were only five people in the court room ….
After I say the prosecutor has no proof of BC in his file……
When neither the Court Judge nor the Prosecutor could establish that I had volunteered myself into being a U.S. citizen, no matter that to the best of my knowledge I was born in California. (Being born in the United States does NOT cause such individual to be designated a citizen due to such birth.) Because the IRS could not establish that I had voluntarily submitted myself to the jurisdiction of the IRS or Federal (or state) government , the Judge said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago, I am still waiting.
Some people assume that because my event was forty-four years ago that challenging the political jurisdiction would not now work. During the past year there have been several people who have presented letters to the IRS challenging the ability of the IRS to present evidence that they had volunteered themselves into subservience to the IRS or federal or state governments. I am not aware that any of such letters have failed to ward off the IRS or State tax collectors. Some of these individuals are still using their DL and SS# under the Law of necessity recognized by the Supreme Court in a case called Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892?)
, where the Supreme Court wrote that when the strict application of the letter of a law or Constitutional provision would result in an absurd outcome, the law of Constitutional provision must be applied in a manner to avoid the absurd outcome.
. My challenge was and is based on the 13th and 14th Amendments, which have not changed.
Because so much of what was prevalent back in the 1960s did not work, I went back to the beginning of this country, back to July 4, 1776, Prior to that date, everyone here in the Thirteen Colonies was under the dominion of King George III.
However, on that date, when King George was kicked out, at that moment there was absolutely no government here in what had a moment prior been under King George. At that moment on that day everyone present became politically equal. There were no more Aristocrats and there were no more commoners. Everyone became individually sovereign over their own person, with no authority to command the subservience of any other person.
It helps if we think of it mathematically. Think of each individual person’s authority over others as being equal to ZERO. When each person’s authority over others is equal to ZERO, how many ZEROs would be required to be added up to come up with a total greater than ZERO?
This establishes, with a mathematical certainty, that although the Founding Fathers could certainly get together and create any manner of organization that they agreed upon, but there was ZERO possibility that the Founders could have had any authority or ability to imbue their creation with any authority to command the subservience of any individual who did not individually volunteer to submit his or her self to the government created under their Constitution. ZERO plus ZERO would still equal ZERO, and in 1866, the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment instilled the acknowledgment of this mathematically certain fact into our Constitution.
This information is not at all complicated, it is very simple and does not require any significant study or research for anyone to be able to understand it! Neither does it require anyone to file any rescission documents with any government agency.
All we need to do is examine how our government manages our society to entice us individually, to volunteer ourselves into subservience to its rules.
It is very important for those who have been confused by all the conflicting information prevalent among the Freedom movement, to understand how vulnerable the human child is to indoctrination, and that this vulnerability does not significantly diminish as we grow older.
Thinking is very hard work and none of us like to do any more work than is necessary, so when others tell us what we want to hear. when they tell us they have a solution in regard to bow we got under control of the government, because our names are written in all capital letters, or because of gold fringe on the flag, and that the government has taken over ownership of us through its bundling and sale of our birth certificates, and that our republican form of government has been turned into a corporation, we presume that those who tell us these things have done their homework , but they have not, as I have revealed here in what I said earlier, about how ZERO plus ZERO will always equal ZERO!
When this mathematically certain fact is applied to all the information the effect of all these assertions just vanishes, because none of it overcomes ZERO plus ZERO equaling ZERO!
As this is irrefutably true, it is not possible for any of the reasons prevalent among the Freedom community to be true!
So how were we enticed to volunteer ourselves into political servitude?
1. The Constitution was written by Aristocratic men who were politicians who had been in charge of the commoners under the British Monarch for, literally, centuries. For all of them to willingly give up their Aristocratic positions, to agree to be politically equal to scrub women and stablemen, without a whimper, is just too much to believe. It is amazing to me that very few of the members of the Freedom movement have any qualms about the true intent of the Founders.
2. They were politicians. This means they were accomplished in manipulating others. This means that they knew very well how to write legislation so that there would be loop-holes for themselves and their friends to work around whatever they were imposing on the commoners. And, it also means they knew how to writs a Constitution where there would be no such loop holes, so why did they give us this sieve? For whose benefit were all those hole provided? Or, flip that, and consider, who was it that was intended to be enslaved under the Constitution?
3. Just take a look around! Try your mirror! The one that magnifies!
4. An argument can be made to establish that everything that has been and is being done is supported by the CONstitution! Everyone reads the comments and admonishments of the Founders written or presented by them outside of the CONstitution, as to how important it is to keep a watchful eye on the government, to keep it on track with the CONstitution, but why did they not write the CONstitution to more securely prevent the problems they perceived as arising if the populace was not unrealistically vigilant.
Is it reasonable that we should have to continually watch everything that politicians do in order to keep them in conformance to the Constitution? And when the rules set down in the CONstitution are written in a way that the politicians can reasonably support everything that they do as being Constitutional, how do we prevent them from instituting the micro-management of us that they have?
5. The commoners of that time wanted and expected a society where there would only be one political class. A republic is NOT such an organization! No where in the history of man is there one single society that has been “governed” by the commoners or where there was only one political class.
6. Why were those present back then and why are the Freedom advocates of today so adamant in their concerns and demands in regard to having and restoring a republican form of government back then and here in our time? Or, was there any such advocacy or demand on the part of the commoners back then? I don’t recall ever hearing about any such issue by those commoners, so why did the Aristocratic Framers of the CONstitution include that provision, guaranteeing a republican form of government to the new states? And why do the filings of the New York Grand Jury put such adamant insistence that this CONsitutional provision which they seem to believe and claim has been in some way eradicated, be restored?
7. Where in the Federal Constitution is there any overt evidence declaring that this document created a republic? What is a republic? According to the content of there filings and the foot notes included therein, a republic is a form of society where the People are in charge. In charge of what or who? One of the foot notes included, taken from the New York State Codes, provides that the People are over the citizens. Does that foot note not indicate that there are two political classes? The People being the ruling class and the citizens being those ruled?
8. In regard to the words “citizen” and “People”, some words have an inherent political meaning and some do not, but those words which do not can be imbued with a political meaning if the context in which they are set is political. And while we are considering this it is also advisable to be aware of the propensity of politicians to use certain words as “terms of art”, which means with devious unrevealed intent.
9. It is self evident that the word “citizen” is a political word which constitutes an acknowledgment of subservience to a political superior no matter the context, such as, “All the citizens in the swimming pool or all the citizens watching the football game”. Is there any doubt that both references to citizens indicate a subservience to a political superior?
10. If the word “people” were substituted would there be any such political subservience implication? “All the people in the swimming pool or all the people watching the football game”?
11. If we carefully read the Preamble to the Constitution, paying attention to this political context in which the word “People” is set, we have, in relevant part: “We the People of the United States, in order to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
12. Is it not self evident that in this political context the word “People” is automatically imbued with a political meaning, that it is now a political “Term of Art”, that devious politicians can use to subjugate innocent common people?
As they did in their condensing and rewording of the fifty amendments to the Constitution proposed by the commoners, where they used the word “people” in the five most critical of those amendments, and totally avoided using the word “citizen”, because if they had used both of those political status establishing words, the commoners would have objected.
13. The purpose of the Preamble is very important but is usually overlooked. The Preamble establishes the purpose of the Constitution and declares the source of its authority, which is clearly stated to be The People of the United States, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to THEM, and THEIR Posterity”.
14. In order to have the authority to declare such purpose those doing so must be politically Sovereign! Those doing so must be subservient to no politically superior man or entity.
15. At that time was there anyone or any entity present in North America who had more political authority than the People of the United States? Clearly there was no such superior authority.
16. In the Preamble the Founding Fathers established that the People of the United States were Sovereign. This meant that neither They nor Their Posterity would be subject to comply with what they established in the Constitution. This indicates the purpose of the Constitution was to govern the government, to prevent it from treating the commoners as a politically subservient class.
However, a careful study of the Constitution, with a suspicious eye, will reveal that the Founding Fathers had a different intention.
17. The establishment in the Preamble of the Sovereign status of The People was open and notoriously done. Everyone then present knew that they were of the People of the United States so no problem was perceived, except by Patrick Henry, when Patrick Henry read the CONstitution he said he smelled a rat and he would have no more to do with it.
18. Now is where the Founding politicians get tricky and devious. These politicians creating this political document are going to unambiguously and surreptitiously create a subservient political class, citizen of the United States.
19. This is in Section Two of Article One, where it is made clear that U.S. citizenship is not acquired by birth because it provides that to serve in the House, the citizen must be twenty-five years old and seven years a citizen; and to serve in the Senate, Thirty years old and nine years a citizen.
20. Please take note here that there are no limiting eligibility requirements established for those of the ruling People class to serve in any of the offices of the Federal Government.
21. So there now, the Founders created heir subservient commoner class, causing the political entity, the United States of America to be a Republic.
22. Do these provisions give us cause to have some concerns about the actual parental intentions of the “Founding Fathers”?
23. Am I the only one who perceives a concern in regard to the word “republic” being used here in the Constitution and in the filings of the New York Grand Jury, because I see the word “republic” in the official names of about a hundred totalitarian dictatorships on this planet? Such as “The People’s Republic of China”, and “The Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea”.
24. I have written about this in other comments on Jean’s Blog, as to why the Founders included this Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government in all the states, being so that all of those of the “former” aristocratic class could move to an outlaying territory and create a Dukedom for themselves where they could have control over their own subjects, except here we would call them states, and Governors rather than Dukedoms and Dukes, and citizens rather than subjects. What is the significant difference?
25. In regard to the filings of the New York Common Law Grand Jury, rejected by the New York State Courts, who was it that included in those rejected filings all of the exceedingly strong emphasis in regard to the demand therein that the CONstitutional guarantee that every state have a republican form of government be honored?
26. What has that got to do with the re-establishment of the Peoples Control over the Common Law Grand Juries? And why would the advocates of the Common Law Grand Juries want the provision establishing two political classes be honored by the Federal Government?
27. Wouldn’t it be expected that whomever had the intellectual skills to create those beautifully crafted very emotionally stimulating documents, would have had the intellectual ability to see the need for a further examination of the propriety of the use of the word “republic” here, in a society purported to be Free, where all us commoners are led to believe there is only one political class, and where the Supreme Court wrote in the Dred Scott case in 1864, that the terms citizen of the United States and People of the United States, both had the same meaning. And when we observe the word “republic” so flagrantly obvious in the names of so many totalitarian dictatorships?
28. All of this ranting to restore the republic has caused great confusion here among the common people, especially in their very divergent opinions and beliefs as to what is Constitutional and what is Unconstitutional. We all agree that we want lower taxes and less government, but when “everyone” has a different opinion as to what constitutes “lower”and “less”, how can we ever attain either?
29. Does not this dilemma indicate that we all need to back up and take an unbiased view of what would actually be a proper form of society? If we start at the beginning – well what then is the beginning?
30. Well, I contend that everyone who is reasonable will have to agree that when we humans are born that we then have no knowledge of human society or of anything and, of the utmost importance, we have no frame of reference against which we can compare what we are taught, to enable us to properly determine if such information is good for us or good for whomever was teaching it to us. Can there be any reasonable reason anyone could refuse to acknowledge this self evident fact?
31. While we are considering our birth condition, surly we can all acknowledge that when we are born we have no Naturally imbued authority to command anyone to obey us. Can there be any reasonable reason anyone could refuse to acknowledge this self evident fact? That when we are born our political authority over others is mathematically equal to ZERO?
32. Do not these two self evident facts clearly establish that as none of us are born with any individual authority to command others that it would then be totally ridiculous and impossible for any number of us to purport to have an ability to combine our non existing individual authority in order for a “majority” to create an authority to command the “minority” to obey them. That no matter how many ZEROs are added together, the total will always be ZERO.
33. From where could authority for a majority to command the minority to obey, reasonably arise?
34. As it is self evident that no one has any Natural authority to lay a tax on anyone then is it not then equally self evident that it would be impossible for such impotent individuals to combine their non-existing ZERO authority in order to create an authority to lay a tax on anyone?
35. Does not this reasoning clearly establish that the level of lower taxation that is proper is no taxation at all and likewise establish that what properly constitutes less government is no government at all?
36. If anyone listening does not agree with this logic, would you please point out its defective reasoning?
37. Well, many listeners will argue, “We must have some rules!” Yes, that sure does sound reasonable, but who will decide what those rules will be and who they will apply to? “Well we must at least outlaw abortion and child molestation, and we certainly can’t allow people to gather rain water from the roofs of their houses!”
38, If we allow our emotions to control us we will soon wind up right back where we are. The one and only way is to acknowledge that zero plus zero always equals zero, and that this basic Principle is true no matter how emotionally large we make the zeros!
39. The way criminal behavior is controlled in a Truly Free society is through the Common Lay Jury.
40. In a Truly Free society, when a person contends they have been criminally victimized, the victim files a report with the Sheriff; the Sheriff presents the complaint to the Grand Jury, if the GJ agrees that it appears that a crime has been committed, the GJ will empanel a petit jury to hold a trial. After a full and proper examination, as determined by the jury and the defendant and victim, each of the jury members will consider the facts and determine that if the juror had been in the same situation as the accused, and had acted as had the accused, would the juror feel that he or she had acted properly or criminally? If the jurors reach a unanimous decision of guilt,, that same jury would decide the penalty and the community would enforce it.
So how do we individually become subservient to the government?
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
Eric Williams – Commentary
Eric Williams – Discussion Group
Eric Williams: Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury
Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Eric Williams has made the most sense of all of those speaking on Citizens Grand Juries, personal freedom, sovereignty, etc. In this particular interview though, I would have defined at the start the difference between “U.S. Gov.” (Corporation in DC and the 4 territories it governs) vs the “U.S. of America.” And I would have left out reference to a “Creator” as the basis/impetus for one acting in right-consciousness/right action, given that there are such diverse definitions for this concept/beingness and not everyone on this planet agrees to what it is/has represented through time (i.e. in certain Gnostic texts the “Creator” of this universe is the main source of our problems!). And I’ve noticed an inherent bias int he Citizens Grand Jury sites using this “Creator” reference and biblical references as the basis of their action/representations in court at the exclusion of all others who don’t believe in same. Where is the justice for the rest of the population? (for those who don’t believe similarly?).
Posted by: tg | 06/19/2014 at 10:13 AM
tg, I share your point of view and the concerns you expressed above. First, allow me to share my current situation. I am being forced out of my home by the scam that is popularly known as the “foreclosure crisis,” actually a well-laid plan to use the court system to enforce the endgame of the scam, devised by the banksters to transfer the real wealth of this country from the middle class to the top fraction of 1%. I was forced to refinance my home several times when I could not make timely payments due to circumstances beyond my control (including a sick wife and unemployment). I have learned the working details of the scam, and determined that the foreclosing entity (in my case, Freddie Mac) has perpetrated, in concert with other financial entities, fraud on the court, on investors, on taxpayers, on the government, and on me. I have been fighting these frauds unsuccessfully in court since 2011. In the process, I have lost the last of my financial resources, my job and my wife (due to the stress she has suffered).
This Monday, June 23, is the deadline for answering a Notice of Ejectment, including a notice of seizure of Title to my property (having been sold for a dollar), signed by the County Sheriff.
I wish to include in my response a notice to the Sheriff that there is a case pending in the PA courts challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which (as now written into law) violates every defendant’s constitutional rights. Until this case is decided, all defendants who claim such violations should have the legal action against them suspended. In addition, I will demand that the Sheriff present my complaint to a Grand Jury for their determination whether or not my case should be tried by a petit Grand Jury.
I am contacting several people with whom I have spoken about this problem, including John Darash of the National Liberty Alliance. I am aware of the problems with this group, as Eric Williams has mentioned (as have others). I welcome any suggestions.
Posted by: Jay Spencer | 06/21/2014 at 11:37 AM
Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
This comment is from ERIC WILLIAMS:
Something has been bothering me about your characterization of birth certificates being legal fictions. I had never considered such to be the case. Birth certificates are created as the record of the birth of a human baby and are, for the most part, an accurate record of the parents and the name assigned to the child. None of that is fictional. The fact that the child contributes nothing to the creation thereof and has no ability to acquire personal knowledge of the creation at the time of creation does not cause the creation to be fictional. The fact that the birth certificates are recorded with the state is not fictional. The fact that the names entered thereon are valuable is not fictional. The fact that parents do not enter an ownership claim of the name entered on the birth certificate is not fictional. The fact that all the states have abandoned property statutes is not fictional. The fact that each state becomes the owner of the names after a term of years is not fictional. The fact that the child can not possibly acquire a legal ownership of the name is not fictional. The fact that when the child becomes sixteen years of age and presents that birth certificate to the state to be issued a driver license is not fictional. The fact that the state has no standing to require the sixteen year old to procure a driver license until after the sixteen year old voluntarily submits himself to subservience to the state is not fictional. The fact that the state uses the driver license ploy to seduce sixteen year old young adults into a situation where the young adult unknowingly applies to the state for the state to issue the young adult a franchise license to use the name on the birth certificate as the young adult’s “true legal name” is not fictional. The fact that this ceremony causes the young adult to unknowingly surrender the young adult’s Naturally acquired individual sovereignty and to enter into a condition of political servitude to the state is not fictional.
So Alfred, where is there any part of the foregoing that constitutes a “legal fiction”?
The fact that the state manipulates all of the foregoing constitutes intentional criminal fraud on the part of the state is clearly self evident and undeniable, but how is that fictional.
I consulted with two online dictionaries for “legal fiction”:
“An assumption that something occurred or someone or something exists which, in fact, is not the case, but that is made in the law to enable a court to equitably resolve a matter before it.”
Law Dictionary: What is LEGAL FICTION? definition of LEGAL FICTION (Black’s Law Dictionary)
What is LEGAL FICTION?
“Believing or assuming something not true is true. Used in judicial reasoning for avoiding issues where a new situation comes up against the law, changing how the law is applied, but not changing the text of the law.”
This is why I insist on referring to the birth certificate driver license ploy as criminal.
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
Posted by: Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd | 06/25/2014 at 04:00 PM
Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
This comment is from ERIC WILLIAMS
“Response to some comments on my interview at:
The problem here in the United States is in educating those involved in the “Common Law” Grand Jury movement to understand that the Fifth Amendment, the authority establishing the Grand Jury, does not imply or establish that the Grand Jury established thereunder, is to be a Common Law entity as is characterized by the current Common Law Grand Jury movement, which proclaims it would have authority to totally displace the Legislatures and Civil Court System.
The Seventh Amendment reference to the common law are specifically designated therein to apply to civil suits. There is no mention therein or suggestion that the application of common law mentioned therein was to be applicable to criminal prosecutions. Additionally, the Seventh Amendment does not in any way suggest that the Grand Jury would displace the Civil Courts as the Trier of such issues, as is proclaimed by the advocates of the current Common Law Grand Jury leaders and or spokespersons.
The difficulty here is in the Common Law itself, and what it is that actually constitutes the Common Law. As the Common Law is unwritten, and has always been subject to interpretation and application on a case by case basis, it is impossible to come to a specific determination as to what it is or is not. The purported purpose of the Common Law is to insure that justice is accorded to all concerned in a given instance, with due consideration to previous determinations, but not strictly required to adhere to them, but even this is in dispute.
After the Constitution was written and presented to the Thirteen States, it was agreed to be ratified on the condition that certain protective amendments would be considered and adopted, and made a part of the Constitution.
In order to facilitate this, the Several States independently of each other, created a total of approximately fifty amendments. Due to the difficulty in communication at that time, there were many duplications from the various states, and the fifty proposed were presented to the Framers of the Constitution who condensed the fifty down to ten, with two additional amendments proposed by the Framers, both of which were rejected by the legislatures of the Thirteen States.
To review the fifty amendments proposed by the Thirteen States, go to this very well organized website: http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm
In my research I was able to determine that there was only one state that requested an amendment creating a grand jury, and that state did not mention that the grand jury it requested operate under Common Law.
When a society operates totally under common law no statutory laws are permitted. All determinations of wrong doing are determined on a case by case basis by the Common Law Grand Jury, and if the CL Grand Jury determines a wrong has been committed, a petit jury is assembled and a trial held.
The Government of the United States was not created to operate strictly as a Common Law entity or society. This could not be more clear as the original Constitution was explicitly designed to have a Legislative and Judicial Branch.
What is important to understand here, is that the present Grand Jury movement here in the United States, in characterizing itself as being a “Common Law” Grand Jury, with unlimited power to supplant the current civil court system and legislature. If it were to be accepted by the civil judicial system presently in control of our judicial system, the assertions of the Common Law Grand Jury advocates, if implemented, would eradicate and eliminate the current civil justice system and the legislatures. Which would totally destroy the Constitution, and would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Now, whether that would be good or bad must be set aside because there is no possibility that the current Civil Court system is going to approve the constituting of a Citizens Grand Jury that is to operate under Common Law as envisioned by the current CLGJ advocates.
There is no Constitutional provision for a Common Law Grand Jury. The Fifth Amendment does not assign the Grand Jury established thereunder, authority to invoke an unbridled version of the Common Law in its operation. The civil justice system in the United States was based and developed on the concepts of the Common Law, but with statutorily established clarifications. The purpose of the Common Law petit jury is to oversee the application of these legislative enactments to insure that justice is the prime consideration rather than the enforcement of the letter of the “law”.
In recognition of the foregoing, the Supreme Court has acknowledged and recognized that the Grand Jury created under the Fifth Amendment is autonomous, not under the direct control of the Three Branches of government created under the body of the Constitution, acknowledging that the Grand Jury is a Fourth Branch, for the purpose of overseeing the other three, by the People, but, a fair interpretation of the Constitution as a whole, together with the Fifth Amendment, indicates there was no indication of intention by any of the states, in ratifying the Fifth Amendment, that they intended that the Grand Jury created thereunder would have power to eliminate any of the other branches of the Federal Government created under the Constitution.
The People’s Grand Jury would most definitely have authority to investigate and indict any government official who was acting in a criminal manner, but the People’s Grand Jury would not have authority to eliminate or assume the duties of the Judicial Branch established under the Constitution or to eradicate the Legislature.
The suits at common law mentioned in the Seventh Amendment are civil suits, intended to be tried under courts established under the Judicial Branch, not elsewhere.
The wording of the Seventh Amendment does not suggest or indicate an additional manner of suit is being created, what the wording does establish, and the purpose and the intent of that amendment is to guarantee a trial by jury in civil suits where the value in controversy is in excess of twenty dollars. And it further establishes that if a matter were to be re-examined, the civil court conducting the re-examination must follow the rules of the common law.
There is nothing in the Seventh Amendment that indicates relevance to the Grand Jury established in the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment is relevant to criminal issues, the Seventh to civil.
That is, if those concerned about how our government has gotten out of control, realistically want the People’s Grand Jury to be re-activated, they would be well advised to drop their assertions of Common Law authority.
We are all concerned about how citizen defendants are being treated in various courts, however the guilt or responsibility, is not entirely on the judges or the courts, or even on the legislatures.
Many of you reading this are not going to be happy with my assessment, however, if we are to ever establish Freedom in our country, we must recognize that Freedom was not established here under the Constitution due to several reasons then prevalent.
First, no one then present had ever experienced true Freedom, or if they did, they did not put 2 and 2 together to realize it. What I am in reference to here is the fact that the only people who were actually free back then were the “Pioneers” who moved west in covered wagons. As soon as they had traveled far enough to be outside the reach of the government they had left behind, they were then politically free, but they had no reason to consider that fact as to them it was then irrelevant.
And, on that same note, as soon as there were enough of them in the same outlaying area, they established a local government, with a constable or sheriff, and then moved right along to creating a state government. There was never, to my knowledge, any thought or consideration that they were not at all times under the political jurisdiction of the government they had left behind.
Is there any evidence that the people back then considered themselves to be politically sovereign or outside the authority of any government? I am certainly not suggesting that those people were not politically sovereign, because they certainly were, however I am not aware of any evidence that they realized such to be the case. This could very well be because the governments back then did not purport to have the authority to micro manage the lives of the people back then as at present.
The point here is, how could a society where there is no formal government, because those present had revolted against and expunged the government they had submitted themselves to for uncountable generations, establish a political government which would recognize Freedom when none of the creating participants had ever knowingly experienced Freedom, and had always expected there would be some manner of political authority over them.
Why else would the “former” commoners feel it was necessary to have formal protection from the government they were themselves creating, by demanding a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution?
Those persons then present had been indoctrinated for centuries to believe that commoners were not intellectually qualified to participate reasonably in government, and, to believe that those of the Aristocrat class were Naturally born with such intellectual qualifications. It is important to understand that this belief was then universally held by both commoners and aristocrats.
When the foregoing is acknowledged can we then be surprised that when the Aristocratic Founding Fathers create THEIR CONstitution, that they were going to write it as best they could, to insure that the intellectually incompetent commoners were not going to be in a position to cause the entire society to fail? So the Founders designed it as a republic, without openly acknowledging that fact anywhere in the Constitution in regard to the Federal Government, but they did so surreptitiously, by creating a ruling class in the Preamble and a subject class is Section Two of Article One.
When one considers the manner of societal organization in England back then, is it not observable that the purpose of the commoner class was to serve the Aristocrat class?
The reason designating oneself as “of the people” is not sufficient as a declaration of a person’s sovereignty is because there are more that one political class that could be included in that undefined term. Generally, the word “people” does not establish a reference to the Sovereign class, it merely refers to humans. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans have relinquished their Naturally imbued political independence, sovereignty, when they presented a birth certificate engraved with a state owned name, to be issued a driver license, whereupon the person unknowingly, as the first order of business of that ceremony, applied for a franchise to use that state owned name as the person’s “true legal name”, and thereby entered himself into a subservient contractual relationship to the state. The fact that this was unintentional does not negate the subservient relationship until and unless the person knowingly rejects it. And, stops using that government owned name. I don’t mean the person needs to stop using the same alphabet letters to write his or her name, just stop claiming the name you are using came from a birth certificate! Please understand, you get to decide where your name came from, no one else has standing to do that for you!
There are several factors involved in the creation of a sovereign political society (country). Of utmost importance is the need to establish a military force capable of defending it from outside invaders. This is very expensive and must be paid for. The traditional means by which this has been accomplished has been through various means of taxation. The fact that this has been greatly abused by all levels of our government is just as much the fault of the common people as it is of the bureaucratic politicians.
It seems to be Natural for humans to want to get whatever they can without paying for it or expending any of their own energy. Most people deny this but the proof is in the pudding. Everyone is in agreement that we want lower taxes and less government, meaning lower my taxes and get the government out of my life but do not reduce the freebees I get from government, just reduce the freebees of everyone else.
It seems there is universal agreement that because the Federal Reserve has caused all our monetary problems that it should be eliminated and the paper money replaced with CONstitutional gold or silver. How can it be that all those who are so down on the Fed do not realize that the Fed is totally under the control of CONgress? “Everyone” seems to back Ron Paul’s demand that the Fed be audited. Do none of those backing Ron Paul do any research of their own? For if they did they would discover that the Fed has been audited every year since it has been in existence, with all of its profits credited to the Treasury of the United States.
The problem is not with the Fed nor with CONgress, well, yes the fiscal mess we are in has been caused by CONgress, but CONgress has done no more than would be expected; when you give the keys of your chicken house to the fox, do not be surprised if the fox eats your chickens.
If you really want to place the blame of our financial mess where it belongs, go read the CONstitution, where you will find in Section Eight of Article One, written by the wonderful deified Founding Fathers, authorization for the CONgress of the United States to borrow as much money as it can from where ever it can get it. How best to facilitate that authority than for CONgress to create its own lending source?
Does this not indicate the blame for our financial mess should properly be assigned to the Founding Fathers? Well, many will say (because they can’t stand blaming the Founding Fathers), CONgress should have known better, because what CONgress did was not intended by the Founders. Well, if that was true then how could those Founders, recognized as being among the most intelligent and highly educated men to have ever lived, be so totally stupid as to hang the key to the chicken house right there next to the lock on the chicken house door?
Is it actually possible that it is impossible for humans to learn from the errors of the past? Because that certainly seems to be the case. Everyone who hates the Fed and paper money wants to return to Constitutional gold and silver. They claim that CONgress had no proper authority to give its authority to issue money to the Fed. Which CONgress did not do, because, as I mentioned herein above, CONgress owns the Fed, lock, stock and barrel, and next, there is no Constitutional authority assigned to CONgress to issue money and CONgress has never ever issued any, gold or silver money. CONgress has borrowed jillions and jillions of paper dollars, from itself, and spent or given it away all over the planet, but it has never ever issued gold or silver.
The one and only reason why CONgress did not do so was because it was physically impossible because CONgress had no source of such gold or silver, or it would have done so.
All the gold and silver that was created by the Government mints was created from gold and silver ore that was owned by private entities. After the mint purified the metals and made the coins, the coins were returned to the private entities that brought the raw ore to the mint. At no time did the government become the owner of the raw ore or the coins made therefrom. All the gold and silver coins that entered into circulation were spent into circulation by the private owners of those metal coins.
There is no Constitutional provision authorizing CONgress to acquire gold or silver for the purpose of issuing it into circulation, or to accumulate it in a huge pile in Fort Knox or anywhere else.
If you get right down to the bottom line there is nothing more stupid than using gold and silver as money!
Did I loose you there? Do you believe gold and silver is truly the best medium to be used as money?
Think of this: If one man were to spend his summer growing food and laying it up for the winter, for his wife and children; and another man were to spend his summer digging for gold, and accumulated a large quantity, what would his family eat during the winter? And, why would the man with the food want to sell any of his food to the man in exchange for worthless gold? Oh, you don’t agree that gold is worthless? Then why do people spend any time growing food? Why not spend all time digging for gold? After, all, who needs food? Clothing? Or shelter?
Oh, you can buy food with gold?
It is a good idea to understand what humans need and want, food, clothing, shelter, recreation. All of these are made available through the expenditure of human effort, either physical or intellectual. None of these include any manner of money. No one actually wants money, what they actually want is what they can get for their money.
So what is money? Basically, we don’t really need money, because what we actually need or want is not money, it is food, clothing, shelter and recreation. In theory, we could engage in bartering to get what we need or want that we do not provide for ourselves. Trading our excess for the excess of others, trading what we have that they want for what they have that we want. The problem, however, is finding someone that has what we want who wants what we have. Bartering will always work to some limited extent but how do millions of people who live in cities trade what they have for what they need? It is not only impossible, it is ridiculous to even suggest!
There is only one basic purpose of money, and that is to facilitate bartering. Common sense will reason that as the purpose of money is to facilitate bartering. That being true, then the most sensible medium to use as money would be the lease expensive.
In examining the foregoing, what is it that establishes the expense (or cost) of anything and everything? The expense is the accumulation of the value of the human effort expended. When you purchase a piece of lumber, you do not pay for the wood. Nature provided the wood at no charge. What you pay for is the cutting of the tree, the hauling to the mill, the cutting into lumber, the transport to the retail outlet, and all of the incidental expenses along the way. Everyone of which are due to the additional expenditures of human effort.
The point is, the value or cost of the money medium should be kept at the minimum. Gold and silver are certainly NOT on that list! At the top of that list would be paper!
So why has paper not worked well as money? In truth, paper has worked very well. The problems we have are not caused by paper, our problems are caused by dishonest humans!
Once again, is it actually possible that it is impossible for humans to learn from the errors of the past?
Every time gold or silver has been used as money the system has soon been corrupted by humans. Likewise, every time the monetary system of a society has been under the control of one entity it has soon been corrupted. It has made no difference if the medium was paper or metal.
Every time the monetary system has been under the control of the same entity that is in control of the spending of the money, the system bas been corrupted. here is not even one historical exception to this fact.
When are we going to stop being stupid by repeating the errors of the past and design a monetary system that would be as protected from corruption as possible with humans still involved.
It is critically important to understand that the advent of electricity has had a profound effect on what would work best as a money medium, particularly the refrigeration of food, which has resulted in millions and millions of families living in suburbia USA, where it is impossible for them to grow their own food, or homestead the property they live on and in.
And design a system where taxation would be totally eliminated as the means of funding government.
It is important that this new system not be any more disruptive to the existing economy than necessary. That is, everyone in this country is familiar with Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs); everything is already priced out and evaluated in them, including everyone’s pay, food costs, utilities and etc. When the cost of something goes up or down the free market automatically adjusts. If the new system can be implemented with most people not even realizing a change has been implemented, that would be outstanding.
I contend that I have designed such a system.
If we properly evaluate the Federal Reserve to determine its flaws, the reasons for the diminishing value of our money, we will determine there are two basic flaws. The first, and worse, is the Constitutional provision assigning CONgress the power to borrow an unlimited quantity of money from wherever it can create a lender, meaning its own self.
As CONgress already owns the Fed, we simply re-assign the ownership to the People of the United States, NOT CONgress or the Federal Government! We assign oversight of The People’s Central Bank to the Legislatures of the Fifty States. The fact that these Fifty States are Sovereign Countries totally Politically Independent from each other, establishes a Natural jealousy between them that will best insure that they each keep a diligent watch on the others to prevent any corruption, which will be virtually impossible because in addition to prohibiting CONgress from borrowing money, we will likewise prohibit every level of government in all of the states from borrowing money from any source for any reason.
The People’s Central Bank will be allowed to extend loans only to private sector borrowers; mortgages, business loans and credit card loans. All interest collected will be distributed to the treasuries of the four levels of government, cities, counties, states and federal, with no level of government imbued with authority to determine how much money it needs or where such money shall come from. All taxation at every level of government shall be eliminated. That is, there shall be no manner of taxation anywhere in the United States. (Except on all the beer that my wife keeps buying).
The level of interest charged on loans shall be determined primarily by the free market, and approved by the population of the cities and counties, not by any level of government.
The distribution of interest to fund each level of government will be determined, for cities and counties, by the population of those entities. The amount to be accorded to the state government shall be determined by the county governments. The amount to be accorded to the Federal Government shall be determined by the state legislatures.
For those who believe that interest is usury, usury is where the interest collected by the lender is taken out of circulation causing a shrinkage of the circulating money supply, resulting in profit taking foreclosures. Under the Fed system, the only way local banks can take a profit is through foreclosures. Interest does not constitute a profit to lending banks under the Fed because those banks cannot collect more than they lend out. In order for them to take a profit through interest they would have to collect more than they lend out, which is totally impossible when they take the interest collected out of circulation, as is their common practice.
Interest is the reasonable profit on the lending of money. Interest is no more inappropriate than the profit a baker of bread adds to his cost of making the bread. The difference is that the amount of profit on a loan is immediately observable, while the profit on a loaf of bread is not.
Under this system, all interest collected on loans to private sector borrowers will be distributed to the four levels of government and they will spend the interest right back into circulation, thereby eliminating the shrinkage of the circulating supply occurring under the Federal Reserve.
We amend the CONstitution to eliminate this power, and adding a clause establishing that the federal Government shall never ever have authority to borrow money from any source for any purpose, no matter the emergency that may be concocted by CONgress or the President.
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
Posted by: Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd | 06/25/2014 at 04:07 PM