How much is your Liberty worth?

It was once said that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance. John Philpot Curran, July 10, 1790:

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime.”

Now that we have lost our liberty, what are the damages to you if you are innocent of any crime but detained, handcuffed or questioned and then released?
Damages to your liberty
When Tampa, Florida police detained Mr. Trezevant in 1984 for 23 minutes, he sued for $25,000.
Trezevant v. Tampa, 741 F.2d 336, determined that damages to liberty in 1984, accrued at a rate of more than $1000 per minute, which is more than 1½ million dollars per day.
That was in 1984 dollars, be sure to adjust your damages for inflation.
As you consider the damage to your own liberty, remember that you have equal protection of the law.
• As was the case in Trezevant, there is no requirement that there be an arrest
• As was the case in Trezevant, official policy or custom is the “moving force of the constitutional violation”
• As was the case in Trezevant, governments are liable for any unconstitutional deprivation of liberty caused by government “custom” even if such custom has not received formal approval through governing body’s official decision making channels
• As was the case in Trezevant, there is no requirement that the policy itself be unlawful
• Your State’s definition of Kidnapping does not require any element of physical restraint, nor does your State definition of “Unlawful imprisonment”.  Both are violations of liberty.
• As in Trezevant, such award is not excessive.
• And as in Trezevant, such award is compensatory not punitive.  To compensate for your loss of liberty, not to punish police behavior.
But Liberty is so much more than physical restraint.

US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399: The term Liberty

“… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”

Are you denied the right to contract, engage in any common occupation, acquire knowledge, marry, bring up children, worship God?

What better way to eliminate corrupt officers than to collect damages from their bond?

If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules showing how our courts work, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

I also recommend RuleOfLawRadio.com

Jefferson’s definition of “liberty” and “republic”

Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence.  He was one of the delegates sent to negotiate the peace treaty with the British.  He was there when your government was created.

Perhaps he knew more about the purpose of government than today’s pundits claim to know.

If his definitions are different than what the Constitution intended, then his acts on behalf of government were  fraudulently extorted for some other purpose.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819:

 I will however essay the two definitions which you say are more particularly interesting at present: I mean those of the terms liberty & Republic, aware however that they have been so multifariously applied as to convey no precise idea to the mind. Of Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. I will add secondly that a pure republic is a state of society in which every member, of mature and sound mind, has an equal right of participation, personally, in the direction of the affairs of the society. Such a regimen is obviously impracticable beyond the limits of an encampment, or of a very small village—when numbers, distance, or force, oblige them to act by deputy, then their government continues republican in proportion only as the functions they still exercise in person, are more or fewer, and as in those exercised by deputy the right of appointing their deputy is pro hâc vice only, or for more or fewer purposes, or for shorter or longer terms.

You do not have liberty.

You do not have a republic.

If you do nothing to free yourself, you will suffer the consequences.

Why is democracy considered the best form of government?

Why is democracy considered the best form of government?
Originally answered Jan 5, 2019 by Steven Miller

Your question is entirely wrong. Democracy has always been the worst form of government. Here is all the proof you need to reform your thinking.

The U.S. Constitution does not contain the word DEMOCRACY because democracy has no place in America. You have no right to dominate others. Others have very limited right to dominate you.

In a democracy, a majority votes to force their will on others. But in a nation where everyone is created equal, those who know right from wrong will never covet their neighbors’ wealth, will not plunder the innocent, will not exercise dominion over others.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Any political party that seeks to dominate others is evil. Don’t send your benefactors out to take money (taxes) from your neighbors. The Constitution controls government, not people. Anyone who participates in an election agrees to the outcome, regardless of how abhorrent. Don’t dominate others. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Using force (the force of law) to bleed your neighbors dry is evil. Using the force of law to regulate your neighbors out of business is evil.

In a republic, everyone has rights. Your Constitution guaranteed you a republican form of government. In a democracy, the misguided mobocracy forces their will on the minority. The word “Republic” comes from the Latin idiom `Libera res publica’, which means “free from things public”.

HISTORY

Bouvier’s 1870 Law Dictionary, Vol 1, page 13: “The term republic, res publica, signifies the state independently of its form of government.”

Frederic Bastiat in Economic Sophisms, Second Series, Chapter 1, The Physiology of Plunder, 1845:

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

Alexander Hamilton:

“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

James Madison, 1787, Federalist Paper #10:

“Democracy is the most vile form of government … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Theoretical politicians who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions”

Of course democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” They are only for those who would take the risk of loosing their rights in exchange for the chance to dominate others.

Patrick Henry:

“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.”

Fisher Ames, who was the author of the words of the First Amendment, said:

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.”

John Adams, 1815:

“Democracy … while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

“Between a balanced Republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

When we were convinced that it was no longer a sin to desire benefits at the expense of our neighbor “Faith, Hope, and Charity began to flee out of our Church”. [The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, The First Conclusion.]

Each man becomes a new tyrant to freedom and liberty, rejecting God and cursing our children with debt and teaching them to “receive the reward of unrighteousness… with covetous practices, cursed children”. — Second Peter 2:13-14

Greek Historian Polybius The Histories Book 6, section 9:

“But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.

“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.” 1,2 This must have been a popular saying. This quote is often attributed to several American patriots. Most often to Benjamin Rush, or Jedidiah Morse (the “father of American Geography”), but it was actually written by a Presbyterian pastor.
[1.] L.H. Butterfield, ed., The Letters of Benjamin Rush, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 454, quoting John Joachim Zubly, Presbyterian pastor and delegate to Congress, in a letter to David Ramsay in March or April 1788.
[2.] William Elder, Questions of the Day, (Philadelphia: Henry Baird publisher, 1871) page 175, attributes the quote to Thomas Jefferson.

A CANCER SORE WHICH EATS TO THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION
Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1787. Thomas Jefferson. In the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 290:

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”

[Venality is the condition of being susceptible to bribery or corruption. The use of a position of trust for dishonest gain. The American Heritage Dictionary]
Why would he mention subservience?

SUBSERVIENCE.
Actions speak louder than words. You are a slave to whom you obey. (Romans 6:16). Once you salute your new master you have acknowledged that you are the inferior, no longer equal.

Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum secular new world order.

The words ballot and bullet are etymologically the same word. You have no right to dominate others with a ballot, or a bullet. Both are just as evil. We are endowed by our Creator with a free will. You had no respect for the rights of others. By registering to vote, you declare that you want a chance to dominate others. You got what you wanted. You consented to be governed. You wanted a system of domination. By registering to vote, you consented to the outcome. Again: you got what you wanted. You have no right to complain.

YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED

Do you have a God-given right to be protected against the consequences of your acts? Do you have a right to be protected against God’s discipline? Which god protects you?
Maxim of Law: Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. He has invited what has come, and he must accept it.

The Supreme Court in U.S. v Cruikshank case, 92 U.S. at 551:

“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”

In a democracy, which we have had since 1933, you can vote to plunder others and demand benefits. You too can exercise your democratic rights to persecute others. But, you must suffer the consequences.
You have a right to create any kind of political system, But, this time, you delegated to your servants a power to create gods/saviors/benefactors to provide for you, protect you and lord over you. Isn’t this the essence of creating (graven) false images of a god to be worshiped?
Every voter has agreed to abide by the outcome of the election, even if he finds it abhorrent. Governments’ derive their powers from the consent of the governed. You have consented to be governed. So you’ve agreed, by registering to vote, that any misguided majority determines your moral values. Even the Supreme Court (92 US@551) said: “The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.” Registered voters consent to be taxed. Conversely, there would be no taxation without representation. Memorize this legal maxim: “He who consents to an act is not damaged by it.” Did your government school teach this?

[a classic argument for Christians to not participate in society is Leo Tolstoy’s What I Believe published in Russia in 1884.]
If you are a registered voter, you have consented to the results of the election. If an election passed a bond issue, then you agreed to have a lien on your property until the bond is paid, even if you didn’t vote.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Those with a conflict of interest will insist on dominating their neighbors.
`Conflict of interest’ is legal terminology for those who can influence a government decision to enrich themselves. This is not limited to Elected Officials or civil servants. Welfare partakers are, by voting, also influencing government to receive their check. Anyone who receives a government check, be it a paycheck or an entitlement check has a conflict of interest that prohibits them from voting. Voting becomes, for them, a government granted privilege that can be revoked at any time. On the other hand, Government’s sovereign masters have a right to control their servants. Jura Summi Imperii.

You are no longer in a Republic. Prove it to yourself. Ask yourself some questions: Can a majority of Congressmen, and a judge now conspire to take all your rights from you? Can a city government prohibit you from owning a dog unless you first beg for permission and pay a fee? Can you repair your front porch without begging for permit and paying a fee?
Democracy cannot be considered as a form of government. Although it starts as a form of government, it quickly dissolves into corruption. The moment a politician makes a promise, is the moment democracy ceases to be a form of government. To use a public office to grant favors to those who elect you is corruption. It is the very definition of corruption. Go look it up in a law dictionary. DEMOCRACY IS CORRUPTION. According to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government section 222 the use of a public office to influence your electors will “cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…”

In 1770, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, in his book Cycles of Democracy, had this comparison with the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.’

Note his warning that democracies are “always followed by a dictatorship”.

The LORD Himself warned you in First Samuel 8:5-17 that government will tax, tax and tax until you cannot stand it (and back then it was just 10%). You were warned that your elected king would take, take, take until society collectively wants God back into their life, but God will not answer your prayers (God honored your free-will, you got what you wanted, stop complaining). First Samuel 8:18 “And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

Socialists always run out of other people’s money. Socialist bullies gang up to force their will on you. We called it fascism. They cannot use a Republic.

Government exists to secure the blessings of liberty. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.

For more information on how you lost your rights, read my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.

What is the best way to change someone’s political views?

Political views have killed more people in history than any other disease.  Defend truth rather than try to change your enemies.

Thomas Jefferson had a good suggestion:

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. For ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”
–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

Don’t waste your life casting pearls before swine.

The Apostle Paul also had  a good suggestion in his letter to Ephesians:

have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

Every Law Dictionary will tell you that: Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. There can be no debate with one who denies fundamentals.

Many people cannot understand the ways of God.

  • Romans 8:7 – Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
  • The Almighty Himself gives them over to reprobate minds according to Romans 1:28. Without understanding, arrogant, inventing ways of doing evil, senseless, faithless. And yes, ruthless.
  • 2 Timothy 3:7 ever learning but never arriving at a knowledge of the truth
  • Proverbs 1:7 (KJV) fools despise wisdom and instruction.

But you have a duty to engage them in some small way. You may be their only inspiration to accept eternal salvation according to Second Timothy 2:23 to 3:7- (NKJV):

“But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! … always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

My suggestion is to refer them to my free essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

Steven Miller · Originally answered Jan 13, 2019

LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW:

 

Food disparagement laws.

Are you a terrorist?  If you criticize the food industry, the answer is yes. The food disparagement laws work with the Patriot Act to put food critics through the Just-Us (Justice) grinder.

Back when we had a constitutional government, the ONLY food law was “In all contracts for the sale of provisions there is an implied contract that they shall be wholesome.”  It was then up to a jury to determine the facts.

But now everything is illegal.  How did this happen?  Let’s take a closer look.

The regulated U.S. food industry IS NOT ABOUT providing you with wholesome foods.
The U.S. FDA allows 1,452 food additives and an additional 47 color additives. Not including the USDA additives. While the European Union allows only 12 additives.

Telling the truth about the food industry is now a crime.  Since I am not a medical doctor, it was already a crime for me to tell you that eating citrus can prevent scurvy, or drinking a glass of water may help prevent dehydration.  But the food disparagement laws take these crimes to a new level. It is now the crime of terrorism if your true statement disrupts the food industry.  Link: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/disparagement-law-the-patriot-act-and-the-food-industry-44263

It might even be a crime for me to tell you that if you eat the typical American diet, you will die a typical American death.

INJUSTICE

Before the Patriot Act existed, Oprah was put through the grinder when she told her audience that she would not eat a hamburger.

And since environmental regulations require most seafood to now be imported, guess what happens when you import Lobster tails, while obeying all known laws. You go to prison . This was also mentioned in John Stossel’s video Everything is Illegal.

Now that environmental regulations regulate hard working fishermen out of business, they can do it to you. Just like they forced family farmers out of business. Just like they forced factories out of the country.  Speak up now while you have a chance. Communism must have government control of the means of production. They already control most of your food supplies and your congress.

Foreign ownership of U.S. farms has skyrocketed in the past two years. Because we are no longer allowed to take care of ourselves, the U.S. has now become the world’s largest debtor. China is our largest creditor, and China will start rationing our food.

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN:
  • My free essay on the fishing industry. Here.
  • I don’t have an essay on Genetically Modified food, but here is a movie that explains the controversy. Here.
  • NaturalNews.com has news you can use.  It is banned as fake news by the mainstream media.
  • The book Three Felonies a Day by attorney Silverglate documents that there are so many laws —  the average “law abiding” American now commits three felonies a day
  • And a book One Nation Under Arrest by Paul Rosenzweig explains why everything is now illegal.
  • And a book Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything by Gene Healy.
  • When They Come For You by David Kirby
  • John Stossel essay Everything is Illegal.
  • Due Process when everything is illegal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713
  • http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/11/04/david-barton-explains-how-you-could-be-committing-three-felonies-a-day
  • www.mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it
  • John Stossel’s investigative report proves that it takes a minimum of 65 days to start a lemonade stand.
  • https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/disparagement-law-the-patriot-act-and-the-food-industry-44263

Oprah was able to hire enough lawyers to defend herself against the cattlemen’s predators. She won her six week trial .  If you are an unfortunate victim, you may also be interested in How To Win In Court” self-help course. Learn the procedures and practices that run American courts. If you do not know how to defend your rights in their courts, you will lose.

ADD YOUR COMMENTS BELOW:

Your government’s definition of the word “Must”

Your Government’s definition of the word “Must

You’ve probably been told that you “Must” file a form, or you “Must” disclose a number, or you “Must” show ID. Don’t assume that the official definition really means “mandatory”. Let’s take a closer look.

US Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Minker, 350 U.S. 179 at page 187 explains that an administrative summons cannot compel testimony:

an official command, … has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the … validity by litigation.”

Read that again.  It explains the three reasons why you don’t have rights anymore.  It is either (1) your ignorance of your rights, OR (2) your respect for counterfeit authority OR (3) your reluctance to test their validity by litigation.*

You MUST show ID?

US Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):

“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429, quoted part of an Arizona case Ekstrom v. Justice Court, 136 Ariz. 1: Here is the more complete quote:

The issue here, therefore, is whether the fourth amendment permits officers to stop and question persons whose conduct is innocent, unremarkable and free from suspicion. The question has frightening implications. The thought that an American can be compelled to “show his papers” before exercising his right to walk the streets, drive the highways or board the trains is repugnant to American institutions and ideals.”

And now you cannot board an Amtrak train or a Greyhound bus without showing ID — in the same America where such repugnant privacy violations have “frightening implications”. Which is the same America where Identification Credentials are abhorrent. Which is the same America where the Supreme Court’s Marbury v. Madison determined that government officers are not entitled to and cannot be issued identification credentials.  Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen one.

You Must get a license?

U.S. Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

“Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 (in 1877) ruled in a marriage license case that:

“ Such formal provisions may be construed as merely directory, instead of being treated as destructive of a common law right to form the marriage relation by words of present assent.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943) was a pedestrian sidewalk case:
• “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.
• “a person cannot be compelled to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”
• “the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174 , 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.”

In other words, a right cannot be taxed or licensed.

You Must obey Government?

U.S. v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d. 767, quoting Goldberg v. Weinberger

It is fundamental that the United States is not estopped by representations made by an agent without authority to bind the government in a transaction….

… [O]ne who relies on a legal interpretation by a governmental official assumes the risk that it is in error…. It has also been held or said that “the government could scarcely function if it were bound by its employees’ unauthorized representations.” ” Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d. 477.

Caterpillar Tractor Company v. U.S., 589 F.2d. 1040 (also see GEHL Co. v. C.I.R. 795 F.2d. 1324):

“Informal publications of IRS all the way up to revenue rulings are simply guides to taxpayers and taxpayer relies on them at his peril.”

United States Supreme Court Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merril, 332 U.S. 380 (1947):

“… Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority … and this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”

In other words, it is your duty to not be fooled.  And it is your fault if you are fooled.

Must, May, Shall, Required, Mandatory?

Fields v. U.S., 27 App.D.C. 433:

Words like “may,” “must,” “shall,” etc., are constantly used in statutes without intending that they be taken literally.

Brinkley v. Brinkley, 56 N.Y. 192:

“Must” as used in statutes has been frequently construed not to be mandatory

it has been repeatedly held that its provisions are directory merely, and a failure to comply with them will not prejudice either party.”

Fort Howard Paper v. Fox River Dist., 26 N.W.2nd. 661:

The word “shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may”, particularly in order to avoid a constitutional doubt.

Gow v. Consolidated Copper, 165 Atl. 136:

If necessary, to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, “shall” will be deemed equivalent to “may”.

George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 N.W.2nd 891:

“Shall” in any statute may be construed to mean “may” in order to avoid constitutional doubt.

US Supreme Court, Rail Road Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 168, page 170:

As against the government, the word “shall” when used in statutes is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest

Ballou v. Kemp, 95 F.2d. 556:

The word “shall” in a statute may be construed as “may” where the connection in which it is used or the relation to which it is put with other parts of the same statute indicates that the legislature intended that it should receive such a construction.”

Many forms request information from the public.

Example: Employers who voluntarily get an EIN must present to their new employees a W-4 Form (for Estate and Gift Tax) and an I-9 form (for the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Employees Protection Act). Both forms have something labeled as “Privacy Act Statement” that does not meet the minimum requirements of the Privacy Act.

The Legislative History of the Privacy Act, written by congress, explains the intent of the Privacy Act Statement:

Legislative History of the Privacy Act excerpt from page 6963 requires the specific word “mandatory”. Agencies often use the word required to evade the law.

But neither the W-4 nor I-9 forms’ Privacy Act Statement use the word “Mandatory”. Ask your new employer to provide you with a Privacy Act Statement that actually meets the minimum requirements of the Privacy Act (Public Law 93-579). They cannot provide one because it does not exist. And don’t be fooled by the Privacy Act’s section 7 which makes it seem like it only applies to government requests. Your employer is asking on behalf of government. And the Legislative History (quoted in my essay SSNs Are Not Required, linked below), specifically says the Privacy Act applies to private businesses’ requests that are a condition of employment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For more information on legal lingo, read my free essay on Legal Lingo. You will find that sometimes: may means must, or means and, and means or, includes means only. And you will learn some rules of statute construction.

For more information on W-4 and I-9 forms read my free essay SSNs are not required to work in the U.S.

America’s Lost Liberty is my essay is about the injustice. The court system IS NOT ABOUT justice.

For more information about IDs read my book on Identification Credentials.

* If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules showing how our courts work, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

Add your comments below:

Why does the Constitution/Bill of Rights NOT include education.

Why does the Constitution/Bill of Rights NOT include education, even though all of the founders knew it as a vital part of maintaining liberty?

Public schools are the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto. Communism cannot recognize individual rights. Public schools have no place in America.

The United States Supreme Court keeps persisting, over and over and over again that it is the parents’ duty to educate their children. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, and there are dozens of cases on family privacy.

Parents’ have a duty to educate their own children. Those who fail to educate their own children will lose their children to state custody where they will be forced into public schools. The received-law-of-the-land as described in Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book 1, chapter 16, entitled “The Rights of Children” tells us that: “The duty of parents for the maintenance of their [legitimate] children is a principle of natural law… The establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation… The last duty of parents to their children is that of giving them an education suitable to their station in life… Yet the municipal laws … constraining the parent to bestow a proper education upon his children… made a wise provision for breeding up the rising generation… [these neglected children] are taken out of the hands of their parents.”

The State’s Children

That’s right!  By institutionalizing “your” children, you have confessed that you are incapable of raising your own children. You lose your parental rights. The children become wards of the state. It is no wonder family courts are so sure that they have jurisdiction over the state’s children. Activist judges no longer fear that they will be charged with kidnapping, genocide, and depravation of liberty under color of law. But, for un-surrendered children, state protection would be severely limited to a compelling state interest.

In 1993 a federal court ruled in Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F3d 488:

“Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.”

Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeated Blackstone’s principle of natural law in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, by concluding “it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life…”

Enrollment in Public School

Interestingly, in my local school district, the registration form for enrolling a student does not need a parent’s signature. If you are so incompetent that you cannot educate your own children, then you are deemed to be too incompetent to sign over your children. They don’t even need to ask for a signature.

You should also be interested in:

For much more information read my essay on Public Education.

Steven Miller
· Originally answered Jan 21, 2018

What’s happening to American democracy?

Answer: The chaos and violence that you are witnessing is the inevitable conclusion to democracy.

Democracy has no place in America. The word Democracy is not in the U.S. Constitution. There is a reason that the writers of the Constitution left it out. The founders of the government knew that democracy would create turbulence, contention, and chaos. The chaos that you see around you is the result of your tolerance of democracy.

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to secure rights. The Constitution secures the blessings of liberty. Every congressman swore an oath-of-office to secure the blessings of liberty. The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government, NOT a democracy. No form of collectivism can respect individual rights.

Collectivists cannot recognize individual rights. Collectivists covet their neighbor’s wealth through taxation and usury. Once the cancer of covetousness metastasizes into a democracy, no society can recover (Thomas Jefferson, quoted below, says it eats to the heart of the Constitution). There is no amount of government regulations that can cure the corruption, greed, sloth, deception and perversion that is spread by democracy. If you insist on participating, you will find yourself dominated by those who refuse to manage their own lives.

Learn from history.

The writers of the Constitution knew what would happen to a government that allows the greedy to vote. Voting for welfare is a conflict of interest. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, section 222, tells us that when government officers corrupt society, the result is

“to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…”

Every July Fourth Americans celebrate another anniversary of the signing of a famous document that told the world we had a right to be free and independent because we hold the truth that all men are created equal. The truth that we are created equal is the received law of the land in America. Love your neighbor as yourself, there is no greater moral commandment. This is the essence of being created equal. You do not love your neighbor by taking from one neighbor to give to another. Forced charity is not charity, it is violence. Taking from others is theft, even if legalized by the mob.

Frederic Bastiat in Economic Sophisms, Second Series, Chapter 1, The Physiology of Plunder, 1845:

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

Democracy denies that we have a right to be free and independent. Instead of equal, a democracy holds the truth that the mob is King.

You have no right to take from others just because you want to live more comfortably. You have no right to crate a mob to take from others. Coveting your neighbor’s wealth is still a sin — even if done by the government you hired to take from your neighbor.

Domination is the opposite of being equal.

Thomas Jefferson was “against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”. You welcomed tyranny when you were the tyrant, and now you complain. Collectivism in any of its forms cannot recognize individual rights.

Do not be fooled by misconstruing the Constitution.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD DEMOCRACY because democracy has no place in America. You have no right to dominate others. Others have very limited right to dominate you.

In a democracy, a majority votes to force their will on others. But in a nation where everyone is created equal, those who know right from wrong will never covet their neighbors’ goods, will not plunder the innocent, will not exercise dominion over others.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

HISTORY

Alexander Hamilton:

“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

James Madison, 1787, Federalist Paper #10:

“Democracy is the most vile form of government … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. … Theoretical politicians who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions”

Of course democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” They are only for those who would take the risk of loosing their rights in exchange for the chance to dominate others.

Patrick Henry:

“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.”

Fisher Ames, who was the author of the words of the First Amendment, said:

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.”

John Adams, 1815:

“Democracy … while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

“Between a balanced Republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

Greek Historian Polybius The Histories Book 6, section 9:

“But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence . For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.

Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858:

“Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.”

“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”1,2

1.This must have been a popular saying. This quote is often attributed to several American patriots. Most often to Benjamin Rush, or Jedidiah Morse (the “father of American Geography”), but it was actually written by a Presbyterian pastor. L.H. Butterfield, ed., The Letters of Benjamin Rush, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 454, quoting John Joachim Zubly, Presbyterian pastor and delegate to Congress, in a letter to David Ramsay in March or April 1788.

2. William Elder, Questions of the Day, (Philadelphia: Henry Baird publisher, 1871) page 175, attributes the quote to Thomas Jefferson.

A CANCER SORE WHICH EATS TO THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1787.  In the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 290:

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”

[Venality is the condition of being susceptible to bribery or corruption. The use of a position of trust for dishonest gain. The American Heritage Dictionary]

Why would he mention subservience?

SUBSERVIENCE.

Actions speak louder than words. Once you salute your new master you have acknowledged that you are the inferior, no longer equal.

Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum, secular new world order.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Those with a conflict of interest will insist on dominating their neighbors.

`Conflict of interest’ is legal terminology for those who can influence a government decision to enrich themselves. This is not limited to Elected Officials or civil servants. Welfare partakers are, by voting, also influencing government to receive their check. Anyone who receives a government check, be it a paycheck or an entitlement check has a conflict of interest that morally prohibits them from voting. Voting becomes, for them, a government granted privilege that can be revoked at any time. On the other hand, Government’s sovereign masters have a right to control their servants — they are the Jura Summi Imperii.

Democracy cannot be considered as a form of government. Although it starts as a form of government, it quickly dissolves into corruption. The moment a politician makes a promise, is the moment democracy ceases to be a form of government. To use a public office to grant favors to those who elect you is corruption. It is the very definition of corruption. Go look it up in a law dictionary. DEMOCRACY IS CORRUPTION. According to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government section 222 the use of a public office to influence your electors will “cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…”

In 1770, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, in his book Cycles of Democracy, had this comparison with the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.’

Note his warning that democracies are “always followed by a dictatorship”.

Government exists to secure the blessings of liberty. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.

For more information read my free essays.

Steven Miller · Originally Answered Jan 27, 2019

Leave your comments below:

New IRS power to destroy you.

A new law was passed that gives more power to the IRS to collect unpaid taxes from American citizens. The new power was deeply hidden in a transportation bill stating that your freedom to travel could be taken from you if the IRS alleges that you owe back taxes.

The New Law

The new law, entitled “Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Tax Delinquencies,” states that anyone owing the IRS $50,000 or more can have his or her passport cancelled by sending a message to the State Department. No hearing is required.  The Internal Revenue Service can simply cancel your passport just by falsely alleging that you owe them money. There are no courts, hearings, politicians, lawyers, or judges to stop them. Taxpayers DO NOT have a right to fight the decision in court before the passport is taken. The IRS uses their “guilty until proven innocent” rule.

Not controversial

The Controversy is not about their modus operandi, but their immunity from intentional crimes.
The IRS bullies enjoy destroying innocent people. The IRS has seized bank accounts even though no charges are filed. They don’t need to follow the due process of law because they are not an agency of the United States.  They like to seize bank accounts of small businesses without any warning. Often based on whatever is deemed to be a “suspicious” transaction  — which get more restrictive every year. Even irregular daily bank deposits, or cashing a large check.  And now banks must ask for valid ID if you deposit more than $500 cash into a business account. IRS power is often based on the public’s fear of the IRS. The chances of recovering from an IRS seizure are slim to none — and all done without lawful authority.

It is estimated that there are four to six million American citizens living abroad. Most rely on their passports as identification to get a hotel room, traveling, using their credit card, and other everyday uses.

Travelers who owe the IRS should not plan to live a normal life.  Or even return home. Their bank accounts will be closed, their home auctioned off, and other assets seized.

Those U.S. citizens who live abroad are never safe. There are only two countries on the face of the earth that tax their own citizens who live elsewhere.  The United States is one.  The other is Eritrea — a small mid-eastern military dictatorship. Yet most Americans think they are free. According to Human Rights Watch, the Eritrean human rights record is among the worst in the world.

If you want to learn the IRS dirty tricks, you might have a feeble chance to defend yourself. Read my free essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com — but you will have to dig deep into my links. Hint: start with The slothful will be under tribute.

If you are interested in the “requirement” for passports, read my eBook on Identification Credentials.

If you are interested in your freedom to travel, read my free essay on Personal Liberty.  It is one of the blessings of liberty that every congressman has sworn an oath-of-office to uphold.

If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules showing how our courts work, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

Add your comments below:

Would socialism be constitutional in the U. S.?

Would socialism be constitutional in the U. S.?

Steven Miller · Originally answered Feb 26, 2019

Presidents could not find anything in the U.S. Constitution to allow socialism or any kind of welfare for individuals. Your Constitution was ratified under the assurance that it would never be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals.

To counter those rumors that the “general welfare” clause in the proposed Constitution would authorize any kind of welfare, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #41, explained its clear intent. He stated that it “is an absurdity” to claim that the General Welfare clause confounds or misleads, because this introductory clause is followed by enumeration of specific particulars that explain and qualify the meaning of phrase “general welfare”.

In 1792 congressman and future President James Madison voted against a congressional appropriation to assist war refugees who had fled to America. He said:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

This was still true when Congressman Davy Crockett made his famous “it is not yours to give” speech. It is not their money to give, not even for disaster relief in a federal territory.

In the 1891 naturalization case of Mr. Sauer, Title 81 Federal Reporter page 358, the court held that Mr. Sauer, although an industrious and law abiding man, could not become a citizen because he claimed to be a Socialist. That’s right. SOCIALISTS CAN NOT BECOME U.S. CITIZENS.

President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed a health care bill to help the mentally ill. His veto said:

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity…. [this] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858:

“Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.”

Abraham Lincoln, second Inaugural Address, 1865:

“It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces …”

Grover Cleveland’s veto of government pensions, June 21, 1886:

“… encourages those who for gain urge honest men to become dishonest. This is the demoralizing lesson taught [to]the people … against the public Treasury …”

1897 President Grover Cleveland vetoed an appropriation to provide disaster aid to victims of a Texas drought. His veto stated:

“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds… I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution. The lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people should support the government, the government should not support the people.”

Footnote: 1897 was 2 years after the Supreme Court ruled that income tax was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan Co. (157 US 429, 158 U.S. 601)

Teddy Roosevelt speech to the New York City Chamber of Commerce November 11, 1902:

“the traditional American self-reliance of spirit which makes them scorn to ask from the government, whether of State or of Nation, anything but a fair field and no favor; who confide not in being helped by others, but in their own skill, energy, and business capacity to achieve success. The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight that he shall not be a mere passenger, but shall do his share in the work that each generation of us finds ready to hand; and, furthermore, that in doing his work he shall show not only the capacity for sturdy self-help but also self-respecting regard for the rights of others.”

For more information on how you waived your rights, read my essays at Essays Do Not Be Fooled by Government

 

%d bloggers like this: