AMERICA HELD CAPTIVE — Part 1 — How to Recognize freedom if you see it.

Relearn liberty or be hopelessly enslaved.

Rights only come with responsibilities. If you want your rights back, you must be responsibile for your civic duties to your fellow man.  Your God-given right to liberty can be taken by government if you are irresponsible. Government does not grant liberty.  Government takes away liberty. Freedom is not free.


Those who receive not a love for the truth shall receive strong delusion that they should believe a lie.

“None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes. ” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1809


You cannot stand up for your rights until you know what your rights are. You don’t know what your rights are because America has been dumbed down by two centuries of political treachery.

You have been slowly tricked out of your rights. All of your rights. In your delusional slave mentality, you don’t even recognize that you lost your rights. You no longer know how to learn about Freedom.

You are attacked with unrelenting political promises of more safety, or a little more prosperity, if you give up a little more liberty. The promises are all lies. You are a slave in the nation your forefathers conceived in liberty.

This is not a new problem.

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
— James Madison, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 6, 1788

You cannot be both ignorant and free.  Thomas Jefferson warned us:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.“ — letter to Colonel Yancey, January 6, 1816

John Adams signed the peace treaty with the British to end the Revolutionary War and establish the United States as free and independent.  Unlike today’s lawyers, he knows why the United States exists.  He warned us that:

 Liberty cannot be preserved . . .without a general knowledge among the people. “

Let me show you what freedoms we lost. Perhaps you will yearn to breathe free when you realize that there is a boot stomping on your head.

The U.S. Constitution created a government to secure the blessings of liberty.  Government was strictly Laissez-faire.  Politicians have turned against their sworn oaths and used laws as a weapon to put themselves higher than their masters.  This mutiny went unpunished. You have a duty to control the government you created.

It is your duty to stand up for your rights.

When you again recognize these 20 landmarks in a nation conceived in liberty, then you will know that you are home.


Americans in the original 13 States instituted their governments among men — to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.  A federal Union was created. America expanded. Territories were established. Then people in the federal territories wrote constitutions to become States.

Back in 1798, the people living in Kentucky wanted assurance that they were free from federal law.  They knew they were free from most federal laws but they remained skeptical. Vice President Thomas Jefferson reassured them in the Kentucky Resolves that, as a state, their citizens are subject to only three federal laws. The three mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Piracy, Treason and Counterfeiting.

Vice President Thomas Jefferson wrote both Kentucky Resolutions.

If you are subject to more than three federal laws, then you are denying the reason your state exists.

Don’t claim to live in a free country if you are subject to more than three federal laws.

#2  FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT COERCION is inherent in the three rights of all mankind that cannot be surrendered to government.

The freedom declared by the declaration of independence IS freedom from government. Government was strictly hands-off.  Government could not bother you unless you were involved with serious crimes or if you injured someone and could not pay the damages.  Even if you did not pay for the damage you caused, government could not seize your bank account or property.  Law courts did not administer equity rules until 1873.

When the societies in the American Colonies were writing their State Constitutions, the law books in every law school, and court, defined the rights of all mankind. These are rights that their Constitutions protected so that they and their posterity would remain free from government.

Blackstone’s Commentaries Book 1 “Rights of Persons” (First Edition published from 1765-1769, Claredon Press, Oxford) explains our rights as they existed in the received law-of-the-land when the 13 original states wrote their constitutions. It defines rights as “that residuum of natural liberty, which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience; . . . And these may be reduced to three principal or primary articles ; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty ; and the right of private property : because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man’s natural free will, but by an infringment or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense.”

Ask yourself if you live in a free country where you have the residuum of natural liberty that cannot be surrendered to public convenience.

  • In 1919 everyone who had a right to contract could buy alcohol.  States could not impair the obligation of contracts.  Americans knew you needed a Constitutional Amendment to ban a substance. Today, if there is no constitutional amendment banning a substance, then you would not need a prescription to buy medications to defend your body against corporal assaults (one of the rights of all mankind).
  • In 1964 The Supreme Court in Aptheker (quoted below) knew that you didn’t need a passport or license to travel. They warned that if travel was controlled by government, all other rights would suffer. In a free country you would not need government travel authorization (license or ID) to travel the highways (another of the three rights of all mankind).
  • In a free country you would not need a government wage authorization number, or a credential to sell your labor (the third right of all mankind — what the U.S. Supreme Court in the Butcher’s case, quoted below, says is your most sacred property, the original foundation of all other property).

Ask yourself if government preserves these rights inviolate.

Do not claim to live in a free country unless your government protects you from all known methods of compulsion.


… Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 . And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful – knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …”  —  US Supreme Court: Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964)

If you want to know if your right to travel is curtailed by driver license, car registration or passport. Read my essays on driving, license plates or my book on Identification Credentials.  As you can see, all other rights suffer.  Just as the Supreme Court said they would.



It has been said that when government fears the people there is liberty.

Perhaps you have heard the phrase “A man’s home is his castle.” The original source for this legal maxim is found in 1763 England, back when America was 13 English Colonies. It is his castle to protect him from government. All the King’s forces dare not cross the threshold.  It became part of the received-law-of-the-land here in America.  Here is the original quote:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter! — All his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” — William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, speech in the House of Lords in 1763 in opposition to an excise tax on cider

The U.S. Supreme Court even quoted (116 US 616) an old English court case as part of the received-law-of-the-land, stating that a law officer cannot step onto your property, though the damage be none, for fear of bruising the grass.

In a free country, government fears the people.

Abraham Lincoln, in his First Inaugural Address, told us that whenever citizens “grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”  If you don’t understand why a president would tell citizens they can overthrow government, then you have been blinded.


Gold and silver coins are our only lawful money according to the U.S. Constitution, and according to the laws passed by Congress.  Don’t confuse this with legal tender.

1862 Greenbacks were America's first paper money under martial law.
1862 Greenbacks were America’s first paper money under martial law.

Lincoln’s greenbacks were spent into circulation during the Civil War.  They were not borrowed into circulation like the fiat debt-based Federal Reserve Notes. They cannot be used by the banking schemes that enslave us to repay the National Debt that our representatives borrowed in our name.

A national bank is the fifth plank of The Communist Manifesto. Communism cannot recognize individual rights. The Federal Reserve Bank is your national bank.

Paying interest on a debt or collecting interest on a debt is still illegal, but it is no longer punishable since 1913. Since it is still illegal, it can be regulated as a government privilege.

If you deposited your gold coins into a bank account in 1932 and withdrew it today, your trusted bank would hand you less than 1.5% of its true value. Someone stole 98½% of your wealth, and you cannot get it back.  Courts will refuse to apply the equity maxim “no one can unduly benefit at the expense of another.”  Courts cannot hear the argument that Article 1, section 8 requires Congress (not the Federal Reserve) to regulate the value of money.

Don’t claim to live in a free country.


  • Not marriage
  • Not driving
  • Not selling lemonade
  • Not cutting hair.
  • Not begging for a permit to repair your back porch.
  • Not buying alcohol if you have a right to contract. (unless you waived your right to contract by getting an ID).

As for marriage licenses, the Supreme Court’s Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76, said at page 79: “No doubt, a statute may take away a common law right; but there is always a presumption that the Legislature has no such intention, … unless they contain express words of nullity. … formal provisions may be construed as merely directory, instead of being treated as destructive of a common law right …”

And since all legislators swore oaths to uphold the constitution that guarantees that no state can impair the obligation of contracts — there will not be any such “express words of nullity”.

Is driving a right? The federal definition of motor vehicle excludes private not-for-profit vehicles.  Your state will have a similar definition.  More…

As for driver licenses, “Americans living during the turn of the twentieth century generally regarded highway travel as a fundamental right. Government impositions such as licenses or registration requirements were thought to violate  constitutional protections”. This is  according to a 21 page article in a Legal journal on the right to travel without a driver’s license. Here are more quotes from this article:

  • “even if most Americans are unaware of it, the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.”
  • “Today’s laws once would have been viewed as unconstitutional. The hand of the State now extends over aspects of travel in ways which would have been impossible according to common law precedents familiar to earlier Americans.  Prior to the nineteenth century, courts generally held the public roadways were open to all users without regard to the travelers’ methods or means of transport. Licenses or other indicia of governmental permission were thought … violative of constitutional rights.
  • Court cases determined “A public highway … [was] open in all its length and breadth to the reasonable, common, and equal use of the people, on foot or in vehicles.”  “A traveler on foot [had] the same right to the use of any public highway [as the operator of] an automobile or any other vehicle.”  The very term “highway” meant a “public way open and free to anyone who had occasion to pass along it on foot” or by vehicle, and many courts, up until quite recent decades, so stated.
  • The rule of open travel on the roads was viewed as superior to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press throughout the late 1800s.

Do you have a right to keep and bear arms by purchasing a gun without government permission?  How about a right to buy and sell without a banking authorization number?

Lawyers like to change definitions, but definitions cannot be changed.  There is a maxim of law Verba debent intelligi cum effectu ut res magis valeat quam pereat.  Words ought to be understood with effect, that a thing may rather be preserved than destroyed.

“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” 2 Peter 2:19

“He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity…” Revelation 13:10


U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943): “The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to suppress its enjoyment. … Those who can tax the exercise of this practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege … can close the doors to all those who do not have a full purse.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. US, 230 F2d 489: “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 US 147 (1969):

“”It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 .

“a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”

“The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands.” Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 602 (Stone, C. J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U.S. 103, 104 . [394 U.S. 147, 152] “

  • Do you have a right to travel by bus, plane or train without paying for ID, or a right to marry without paying for a license, or a right to contract for necessities of life without paying for a government credential?
  • Do you have a right to cash a check without the prior restraint of paying for a government permit (ID credential) that allows you to contract? (To buy or sell without a mark). Back when we had a free country the banks authority to limit your transaction was limited to comparing your signature to the signature card you signed when you opened the account.


Do you have a right to earn wages? Or did you waive your right to earn wages, thereby making your wages taxable?

After the federal government ended the direct taxation it needed to pay off the Revolutionary War debt, Thomas Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address of March 4, 1805 said that Americans could boast that farmers, mechanics and laborers would never see the tax-collector.

The Income Tax Amendment was ratified only after repeated assurance that it would never tax wages.

U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher’s Union v. Crescent City 111U.S. 746:

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. … to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.”

Do you still have “the most sacred and inviolable” right to your labor, which is “the original foundation of all other property”? Or did you wave your right to earn wages, thereby making your wages taxable?  If you don’t have a right to your own body, you are a slave. Slaves do not own anything.  Take-home pay is a slave’s living allowance.

And no, the 16th Amendment did not change this. The US Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1915) determined that “… the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation.

YOU waived your right to earn wages, thereby making your wages taxable. Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum, secular new world order.



We created our state governments by writing documents called constitutions. If we are created equal we would not need our servant’s permission to verify our own writing.

Before the slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment the freed slaves carried their emancipation documents with them.  Their prior owners never needed a notary, yet the papers were recognized everywhere.  Today everyone needs ID to prove you are a slave.

Emperor Decius from 249 to 251AD commanded worship from everyone. Those who refused to acknowledge this lordship went to their deaths in the arena. Protesters who wanted to live were allowed to burn a little incense.  They were given a certificate of compliance.  Nothing has changed.  If you want a certificate of compliance that allows government to recognize you, you must sign a government form with a penalty of perjury oath.

Notaries are an ancient Roman scheme to ensure subjects are not recognized in court until they have worshiped the Emperor. In judicio non creditur nisi juratis. (At trial, credence is given only to those who are sworn). By the year 200 everyone knew that Christians were fed to the lions.  Christians today are still doomed just as in the year 199 until they, in Tertullian’s words, acquiesce to heathen formularies.  As Tertulillan said, you must navigate through the sea of idolaters cautiously and intently watchful for if you are washed overboard you are sucked into a whirlpool down unto Hades.

Christians are fed to the lions or covered with pitch and burned at the stake
Jean-Léon Gérôme The Christian Martyrs’ Last Prayer

Christ told Christians to never swear oaths in Matthew 5:34.  Least they be damned James 5:12.  In Roman law it was punishable by death to refuse to swear oaths to government.  Today’s lawyers perpetuate the same law.  Notaries exist to ensure that only enemies of Christ are given credence in court.


Government servants cannot interfere with their masters’ disputes.

Andrew Jackson survived three duels BEFORE we elected him as President. His campaign slogan was “the common man”.  It is a constitutional right for a common man to settle his disputes without government.  Don’t be fooled.

One of Jackson’s duels was with Thomas Benton. Jackson hunted him down and publicly whipped him then challenged him to a duel. Under our Constitution it is perfectly legal to whip your enemies in public if you are going to settle your own disputes. There is no authority for government to get involved.  Everyone was expected to defend themselves. Since then Lawyers have made the world safe for terrorists.

Defending honor is a powerful message. If you don’t understand why dueling is constitutional, then you don’t understand government’s limited authority.

Governments were instituted among men to secure rights. The blessings of liberty secured to the posterity included the right to settle our own disputes without interference. From the Christian Pilgrims in 1621 Plymouth, until America was made safe for barbarism2 in 1865, those who understood where real authority comes from would settle their own disputes. Examples include Vice President Aaron Burr who killed Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Mr. Gwinnett who signed the Declaration of Independence, Daniel Key, son of Francis Scott Key, and David Terry CHIEF Justice of the California Supreme Court who defended himself against US Senator Broderick. Civil Servants do not settle their masters’ disputes.


THOSE WHO ARE PRONE TO DEADLY VIOLENCE (such as Andrew Jackson, vice President Burr, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, U.S. Senator Broderick or California Chief Justice David Terry) even after they announce their deadly intent to shoot someone, still had a right, under your unchanging constitution, to keep and bear arms.  Being a threat to others was not an excuse to detain someone.  Government was strictly hands-off.  In a free country merely asking for government protection was equated with asking for enslavement.  No one would think to do such a thing.  After all, liberty and safety are opposites.

Ben Franklin quote inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  —
Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor.

Those who want safety will have to lock everyone else in sound-proof cells. Then they will be safe.

As with all other rights, if you don’t settle your own disputes, you waive your right to do so. Government will now make your decisions for you.

1 We built castles to protect us from those who would seek to enslave us and take our property and our families and put us into perpetual slavery. The aggressors had to risk death to enslave us or take our property. Now they can enslave us by touching us with a piece of paper. Lawyers tell us that we are now more civilized.

2. The root word of barbarism is the word bar. The bar association did not exist in America until 1878, after terrorism was protected. The US Supreme Court in their 1793 case Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 at the top of page 449, while comparing different justice systems, said that in ancient Greek tribunals, law and liberty were “in strict and graceful union” before the justice system was corrupted. The high court explained: “The rude and degrading league between the bar and feudal barbarism was not yet formed.

Criminals have the right to “assistance of counsel” according to the Fifth Amendment, and similar state constitutionally guaranteed right. This is an acknowledgement that the right to defend self is beyond any restrictions of the limited government that “We The People” created. DO NOT BE FOOLED. The words “assistance of counsel” mean what the authors intended it to mean. It cannot refer to bar association attorneys because they did not exist in America. And furthermore, attorneys have always been associated with feudal barbarism. The U.S. Supreme Court told us that the bar was associated with rude and degrading barbarism. Did the creators of your government intend to limit your counsel to being represented by rude and degrading attorneys?

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:52 (KJV)


Ever since before First Corinthians chapter 11, the father is the head of his family, not the government.  Absolute rule over the family.

The highest percentage of slaves in America were Irish children sold into bondage and shipped across the ocean to work here until emancipated.  They would have died of starvation or in the workhouses of Ireland.

In 1949 Ray and Lucille Chalifoux needed to pay the rent or be evicted.
In 1948 Chicago, Ray and Lucille Chalifoux needed to pay the rent or be evicted.

Once you cannot take care of yourself, you lose all your rights.  As a last* resort you can sell your children into slavery. Now that States own most children, you don’t see this anymore. No one has a right to sell the government’s children. For more information on how children of licensed marriage belong to the State, read my book The History of Unlicensed Marriage. For more information on foster, CPS, family court, the legal criteria for taking children, voluntary childhood vaccinations, voluntary public schools and parents’ duty to educate their own children, read my book The History of Family Rights. For more information on Birth Certificates and birth registration and voluntary Social Security Numbers for children, read my book Identification Credentials: Mandatory or Voluntary? For proof that “Right to be free from compelled disclosure of names of household members is within right of privacy protected by Constitution” read my book Census: Mandatory or Voluntary?. The unchanging God of the Bible created laws that do not change. These same laws continue today as when Pharaoh put the Hebrews into slavery for 400 years as soon as they asked for government benefits.  Romans 11:9 repeats David’s warning that government benefactors would be a snare to trap you. Well, guess what. Applying for a Social Security Social Security Number is a confession that you cannot take care of yourself. Social Security Numbers can only be issued to the truly destitute. Section 205(c)(2)B of the Social Security Act allows cards to be issued only to an “applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part by Federal funds”.  If you apply for a card for your children*, you confessed that you cannot take care of them.  If you need to see more proof that getting a Social Security Number for your children sells them into slavery, read my online book, Social Security: Mark of the Beast.

*. First Timothy 5:8 — If anyone does not provide for his family, he is worse than an infidel.


Old wanted posters lawfully offered bounty for criminals who were “wanted dead or alive” because everyone has the right to punish crimes against nature such as murder and child rape.

According to the first sentence in the Declaration of independence, the laws of nature entitle the United States to exist.

Blackstone’s Introduction to his Commentaries on the Law: the law of nature applies “with equal obligation to individuals and to nations”

  • Ignorance of the law of nature, which every one is bound to know, excuses no man. 1
  • “the right of punishing crimes against the law of nature, as murder and the like, is in a state of mere nature vested in every individual2
  • The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle the United States to exist.3 We are one nation under God. The received law of the land continues until cancelled by the legislature with “express words of nullity” but no congressman can cancel the authority for the government to exist.4
  • When laws imposed by the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.5
  • We must then “bear the sword of justice by the consent of the whole community. And to this precedent natural power of individuals must be referred that right…[even foreign diplomats could be executed] in case they have offended, not indeed against the municipal laws of the country, but against the divine laws of nature, and become liable thereby to forfeit their lives for their guilt.”6

1. Maxim of law: Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat.
2. Blackstone’s Book 4, Public Wrongs, page 7. The U.S. Supreme Court confirms that Blackstone’s law encyclopedia was part of the received law of the land.
3. According to the first sentence of the declaration of Independence
4. Their oath of office to uphold the Constitution that created their office
5. Maxim of law: Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est.
6. Blackstone’s introduction to Book 4. The U.S. Supreme Court confirms that Blackstone’s law encyclopedia was part of the received law of the land.


The right to personal security is one of the three rights of all mankind. It is a “residuum of natural liberty, which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience”
Within this right is the right to self-preservation.
Within this right is the right to defend yourself against corporal assaults.
Within this right is the right to bear arms.

The Declaration of Independence said it is our duty to throw off despotism:

 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

This right was previously acknowledged in 1690 when John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government section 233 explained that self-defense against government cannot be denied in English colonies.

Must the people then always lay themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny? Must they see their cities pillaged, and laid in ashes, their wives and children exposed to the tyrant’s lust and fury, and themselves and families reduced by their king to ruin, and all the miseries of want and oppression, and yet sit still? Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself”

When the government fears the people there is freedom.  The right to bear arms was known as the true palladium of liberty, the first law of nature, and the reason the Constitution prohibits a standing army.  The real reason for the second Amendment is to defend against a coup.  Read the U.S. Supreme Court case Miller v. U.S.1939, 307 US 174.

IN A FREE COUNTRY AN ARREST IS PRESUMED TO BE FALSE; the officer has the burden of proof

When the plaintiff has shown that he was arrested, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty by the defendant, “the law presumes it to be unlawful.”
— People v. McGrew, 20 Pac. 92 (1888); Knight v. Baker, 133 P. 544(1926).

“As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer … must keep within the law at his peril.” Thiede v. Scandia, 217 Minn. 231, 14 N.W.2d 400 (1944).

The only thing the plaintiff needs to plead and to prove is either (1) that the defendant made an arrest or imprisonment, or (2) that the defendant affirmatively instigated, encouraged, incited, or caused the arrest or imprisonment. Burlington v. Josephson, 153 Fed.2d 372,276 (1946).

The burden is upon the defendant to show that the arrest was by authority of law.” McAleer v. Good, 65 Atl. 934, 935 (1907); Mackie v. Ambassador, 11 P.2d 6 (1932).

Police brutality is proof of an armed overthrow of your authority.  They no longer fear you.  There is no liberty.  This started with the IRS assuming you are guilty until proven innocent.  Then it spread like cancer.  Now it is too late.  Resistance is futile.  Lick their boots or relearn Freedom.

  • But a constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so.” 51 L.R.A. 216.
  •  “The handcuffing was utterly unlawful.” Osborn v. Veitch, 1 Foster & Fin 317.


The Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury to restrict anyone’s liberty.

Officers are sent into harm’s way to be a target.  The laws of nature entitle any ship at sea to fire a warning shot across the bow of another ship. They take the risk of combat.  No one would think of restricting a right.  Everyone has a right to bear arms and officers who are sent into harm’s way exist to protect that right.  After all, Liberty and safety are opposites.  According to the Declaration of Independence it is the laws of Nature and the laws of Nature’s God that entitle the United States to exist.  These laws (from the created-equal people who created governments) recognize that their sovereign authority can fire a shot across the bow of a ship as a command to stop. Do you still have the right, under the Laws of Nature, to shoot across an officer who is violating rights?   How did we go from a nation where we are all created equal — where nobody had a right to command someone to drop their gun — no one would think like that because every one has a right to bear arms — to a nation where State Supreme Courts OVERTURN their prior decisions that allow self-defense of liberty, a right equal to the right to life? …  The real reason for the Second Amendment has been overturned. Here are some examples of rights you once had:

  • Plummer v. Indiana, 136 Ind. 306 (not a direct quote): Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary
  • Housh v. Illinois, 75 Ill 491:An arrest without warrant … or that fails to allege a crime is without jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.
  • W.V. v. Gum, 69 SE 463:What rights then has a citizen in resisting an unlawful arrest? An arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person, and how far one thus unlawfully assaulted may go in resistance is to be determined, as in other cases of assault…. And the authorities are uniform that where one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the offender, whether of a private citizen or a public officer, to the extent of taking the life of the assailant….
  • Washington State v. Rousseau, 40 Wn.2d 92 at 94, 241 P.2d 447 (1952)  “It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life, if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened.”
  • US Supreme Court’s John Elk v. US, 177 US 529:... where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. … the facts might show that no offense had been committed.
  • Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.E.2d 306 (1958) “Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest … and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.”
  • State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950)  “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery.

The intent of the officer to make a lawful arrest is irrelevant.  He either is performing a government function or he is not.  A warrant in error is not a warrant. An illegal arrest is not an arrest. A probable cause that is in error is not a probable cause. A warrant must particularly describe the person or objects to be seized.  A probable cause must be based on articulable facts  based on objective (not subjective) belief that a crime was committed.


  • John Adams said “Liberty once lost, is lost forever.”
  • California Governor Ronald Reagan, first inaugural address:“Freedom is a fragile thing and never more than one generation away from extinction… It is not ours by inheritance. It must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it, have never regained it.”
  • Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788 quoted in Elliot’s Debates Vol 3, page 45: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
  • 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.”
  • Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770): “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
  • Thomas Jefferson on November 13, 1787, wrote the following to future Congressman William S. Smith: “… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion… And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be [refertilized] from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. “

Those words of Thomas Jefferson were not the words of an angry young radical fighting in the Revolutionary War. This was the former Governor of Virginia, and Ambassador to France, the man who proposed the Bill of Rights.

  • Abraham Lincoln: “Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
  • George Washington April 5, 1765 wrote on the topic of liberty: “That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion…”
  • Thomas Jefferson’s inscription on his ring: “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”


POLICE CANNOT TAKE FINGERPRINTS OR PHOTO.  You are a slave.  Slaves do not have equal protection of the law, equal to:

  • The taking of the plaintiff’s picture before conviction was an illegal act.” Hawkins v. Kuhne, 137 N.Y. Supp 1090, 153 App Div 216 (1912).
  • Compulsory fingerprinting before conviction is an unlawful encroachment … [and] involves prohibited compulsory self-incrimination.” People v. Helvern, 215 N.Y. Supp. 417 (1926).


“of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.” — In Re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250

“Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen.” — U.S. Supreme Court case, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

The Legislative History of the Privacy Act, page 6971, reveals the intention of Congress

“preventing collection of protected information not immediately needed, about law-abiding Americans, on the off-chance that Government or the particular agency might possibly have to deal with them in the future”.

And now Edward Snowden provides evidence that they record all our phone calls and emails. Don’t claim to live in a free country.

U.S. Supreme Court in Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43, at page 74 “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. . . Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights… An individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute.”


Plea-bargaining is a crime. Prosecutors could not fraudulently extort a guilty plea.  To “overcome the will of another for the prosecutor’s advantage is an abuse of the criminal law, which is made for another purpose”

Prior to the Civil War, victims would prosecute their own case against the criminal.  The courts were for the people to use.  The jails were for the people to use.   After all, “we the people” could not have delegated an authority that we ourselves did not have.  Civil Servants are servants, they cannot have an authority not delegated.  Everyone knew of their duty to instill fear in the wicked.  Everyone knew that religion* was the performance of all known duties to our fellow man. You love your neighbor by prosecuting criminals.

Here are some links on the right to prosecute your own case:

In a free country government prosecutors were only for government cases.

* Webster’s 1828 definition of religion “2. religion as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law.”

#15 A JURY IS 12 PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU and who can judge the law as well as the facts.

In 1794, the U.S. Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia v Brailsford in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the jury instructions. Chief Justice John Jay told the jury:

It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… …you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy“.

The book Elliot’s Debates On The Adoption Of The Constitution (Vol 3, page 579) quotes Patrick Henry as stating:

By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life.”

Also in Elliot’s Debates we can read (Vol 2, page 516) where another Founding Father, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later a Supreme Court Justice, reassured us that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you:

Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses — where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view — I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematical.”

And again, in Elliot’s Debates, Vol 2, page 110, Congressman Holmes from Massachusetts, assured us that cases would be heard in the local community where the jury of peers could form a judgment based on the character of the accused and the credibility of the witnesses.

That’s right! Your Constitution was ratified on the reassurance, over and over again, that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you.

In 1828 Webster published the first dictionary of American English.  The definition of Jury is:

JU’RY, noun [Latin juro, to swear.] A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.

This was the definition of jury when the Constitution was ratified.  Government cannot change pre-existing definitions. Nobody who swears an oath to uphold it can commit mutiny to change it.

In 1969 in US v. Moylan 417 F2d 1002 at page 1006:

We recognize as appellants urge, the UNDISPUTED power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. … the jury has the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision.”

As recently as 1972, in the case U.S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”

Here is further proof that a real trial (by jury) is not a trial by government: The Metropolitan News, a Los Angeles legal newspaper on October 25, 1973 quoted Hon. L. Thaxton Hanson, Justice Court of Appeals, State of California (ret.):

In ancient times, the right to trial by jury was called `trial per pals’ – that is, trial by country – or by the people, as distinguished from trial by government”

Lord Hale, 18th Century English Jurist was being quoted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s case Sparf & Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 at page 119 (1895):

… if the judge’s opinion in matter of law must rule the issue of fact submitted to the jury, the trial by jury would be useless.”


That’s right. Trial by jury would be useless. Imagine what life would be like a country where people must obey the judges’ interpretation of the law.

In the impeachment Trial of US Supreme Court Justice Chase in 1805, your US Government fought for the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts. They impeached Justice Chase because he failed to tell a jury in a murder trial that they can judge the law.  Supreme Court Justice Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was impeached for [Chase Transcript Article 1, section 2, clause 4]:

  • “… endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact, …”
  • “… to the disgrace of the character of the American bench, in manifest violation of law and justice and in open contempt of the rights of juries, on which ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the American people.”

That’s right. The liberty and safety of the American people depend upon the jury’s indisputable right to determine what the law is.  Imagine what life would be like a country where jurors must obey* the judge’s interpretation of the law.

Why, you might end up in a country that has 4% of the world’s population, 25% of the world’s prisoners, 70% of the world’s lawyers and 93% of the world’s lawsuits.

The jurors have the power to ignore the court’s instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920).

But things changed. Juries now should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832; United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946 (1975).

We have lost our rights: Juries must now be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027.

*  We give up our rights by swearing a juror’s oath. Jurors represent a cross section of the society that created government.   We are the jura summa imperii that is responsible for oversight of our subordinate’s ruling.  The Jury is the highest officer (a plural officer) in the courtroom.  An oath is only taken to a superior (example: Hebrews 6:16). In country where all men are created equal — no equal would ever swear an oath to another equal.  No created equal juror, who is still equal, would ever swear a jurors oath. Judges are the ones who swore oaths to be inferior to the society that created government. The Jury represents that society in the courtroom. We are all created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights and governments are instituted among men to secure.

— —


The original law forces you to be responsible.  Agreements must be kept.  Pacta seranta sunt. Today’s laws are the opposite.  Today’s laws now encourages irresponsibility, recklessness and corruption. Imagine what life would be like if you invested your life savings in  Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan when they went bankrupt.  Imagine what Enron investors thought when they found out it was perfectly legal to account for unprofitable business ventures by putting them into subsidiaries.

Under the original law, creditors had absolute control over the debtors and could place them in debtors prison.  Jails were for the people to use.  The jailer had to obey the people.  Courts could not get involved in lawful private confinement — courts could NOT issue a writ of habeas corpus to free the prisoner.  In 1818 a seventy year old man was kept in jail for four years  in Massachusetts for a debt of eight dollars. From June 6th 1829 to February 24th 1830 the City of Philadelphia had imprisoned 817 persons for debt non-payment, of whom 80 were committed for debts of one dollar or less.

Nowadays you can only be imprisoned as an absconding debtor.

Bankruptcy is only for governments that cannot go broke. And for artificial entities incorporated into government. Artificial entities (at least sovereign artificial entities) have a right to continue under new management.  In the United States today, only people with a Social Security Number can declare bankruptcy.  There is a reason for this.  The person bankrupt is an artificial person that the real person agreed to manage.

The Right of Personal Liberty, and the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Second Edition, Rollin C. Hurd, W. C. Little & Co., Albany, N.Y., 1876

Unless you become government property (like most people have) then no state can impair the obligation of contracts.  If government documents show your name as an all capitalized name, then you are an artificial entity that can declare bankruptcy. You are a slave that cannot own property. All your assets are government assets.

  • Every Law Dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.

John Philpot Curran, speech of July 10, 1790:

The common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” – source

And now it is the opposite. The indolent (lazy) vote to prey on the active.  You became their slave because you neglected your duty to be ever vigilant. Servitude is your punishment.

John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government paragraph 222 warned 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…”.  You should have listened.

When the U.S. defaults on the national debt, you will be held to pay the debt that your representatives incurred in your name.



In 1888 The U.S. Supreme Court declared that marriage is a relation for life.

Yes, the Bible mentions divorce but Biblical divorce referred only to living separately. No Supreme Court, federal or state, has ever ruled that divorce cancels a marriage. Because it does not.  Divorce rulings only declare the invalid marriage to be void from the beginning.  It never existed.

Divorce courts must uphold valid marriage.  For example: Shelford’s 1841 textbook Treatise of the Law of Marriage* mentions, on page 331 that the first wife can divorce her husband’s second marriage:

If a man has solemnized matrimony with one, and afterwards marries another, if the lawful wife desires to be restored to her husband, she may institute a suit in a cause of divorce from the tie of the second marriage, and of restitution of conjugal rights.”

More examples can be found in my book:  The History of Unlicensed Marriage.

In a free country there cannot be government divorce of marriage. In 1803 America there were no government licensed marriages.  It was not until 1888 that the U.S. Supreme Court determined, in an inheritance case, that there could be a government divorce of an 1824 government licensed marriage. But the divorce they ruled on was an intermarriage.

When America was free, adultery was a felony that was also the greatest of civil injuries.   Nowadays it is a government protected right.  Divorce courts will take half of the family wealth and give it as an award for adultery. American males will no longer defend their families. How can America be great again while courts get away with this?

  • A Practical Treatise of The Law of Marriage and Divorce by Leonard Shelford, Littell Publishers, Philadelphia, 1841.


If you are free:
Your children automatically inherit your property. All of your property.
There is no will, no probate, no death tax.
No state can interfere in family rights.
Government was created to preserve the blessings of liberty to our posterity. Government was created by families, they do not interfere with their constitutes.

The U.S. Supreme Court in an inheritance case Maynard v. Hill 125 U.S. 205,211 says that marriage

  • is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress… It is a relation for life…”
  • “is pre-eminently the basis of civil institutions, and thus an object of the deepest public concern… giving character to our whole civil polity”
  • the basis of all government…”

Many of these principles were previously articulated in a 1644 publication Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford. He explains that sovereignty comes from the people who create a government, and that men create a civil society when one family can no longer contain them. Rutherford, Locke and Blackstone all agree that Society is the extension of the family. Rutherford and Locke agree that people are sovereign and may retake control of their society to preserve themselves. Supreme power jura summi imperii resides in the people.

Was congress delegated any authority to destroy society’s foundation?  Why do they “to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…”?

The third plank of the Communist Manifesto is abolition of all rights of inheritance.


John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is the basis for most of the Declaration of Independence. Here are some quotes.

Paragraph 222 “The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their [liberty and] property …. it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society,…. [this] holds true also concerning the [executive branch], who having a double trust put in him… acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the [offices of government] to corrupt … to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…

Paragraph 149: “the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject.”

Paragraph 227: when “legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion. … [by] introducing a power which the people hath not authorised, actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority; … And.. legislators themselves… who were set up for the protections and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties… [put] themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are … with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels.”

The mutiny of the politicians is not a new problem.  Deuteronomy 20 prescribes a punishment for those who misuse the courts as a personal weapon. .

John Locke’s Second Treatise Of Government has as his last chapter, the topic of Dissolution of Government. The suggestion that government would not obey the laws would be “politics inconceivable to human capacity, and inconsistent with human society.”

When the NAZIs overtook Europe in the 1930s the first thing the would do was to pass so many laws that people no longer knew the difference between good and evil.  Socialists never change. Here is a quote from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Senator, circa 100 AD
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.”
Translation: The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. Annals of Tacitus, Book III, page 27.

The same thing happens today. Your Congress has passed so many laws that people don’t know the difference between right and wrong. Examples are found in many books:

On July 4th 1776 we decided to overthrow our government to institute on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty. The Declaration of Independence said that governments are instituted among men to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And it said it is our duty to overthrow despotism.  We created a government to protect our rights.  Not to destroy them.


Americans in the American British Colonies fought against their British government to establish a new nation conceived in liberty.  The Declaration of Independence declared independence from your prior government.

They set themselves free from government for the following reasons that were declared in the Declaration.

  • Their government “sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance”  Do you now fear harassment by swarms of officers who are out there to enhance revenue?
  • “render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power”.  Have your local police been militarized by secret agreements ?
  • “combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution”
  • “created multitude of New Offices”
  •  “Acts of pretended Legislation”
  • “attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us”
  • “deaf to the voice of justice”


Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
— Ronald Reagan (speech to Phoenix Chamber of Commerce 3/30/61)


“When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.”
—  Thomas Paine, Common Sense: and The American Crisis I”, p.38



AMERICA HELD CAPTIVE — Part 2 — How to recognize authority when you see it.
AMERICA HELD CAPTIVE — Part 3 — How to recognize your slavery when you see it.
AMERICA HELD CAPTIVE — Part 4 — How to recognize oppression when you see it
AMERICA HELD CAPTIVE — Part 5 — How to recognize conspiracy when you see it
AMERICA HELD CAPTIVE — Part 6 — How to recognize martial law when you see it.
AMERICA HELD CAPTIVE — Part 7 — How to recognize tyranny when you see it.


Subscribe to my monthly newsletter