Hello;

The armed troops (in the industry that does business as

"law enforcement") tell us "There's a criminal out there.

Hand over your rights so we can enforce law". They say

someone _else_ did something, so you must surrender _your_

guaranteed security of persons, houses, papers and effects.

Huh? Innocent people have to surrender Rights because

persons unknown did something? Or because total strangers

"might do" something? Or because career informants merely

claimed that? Why should I be penalized for what others do?

Since about WW II there has been a rumor that we "need a

law to protect our rights". That is _contrary_ to law

("against the law")!

One source of that corruption is the very same institutionalized crime that began with the creation (in about 1905 in most states) of "State Troopers". Check

a U.S. constitution: states are forbidden to keep troops in

times of peace -unless for exceptions that have never been

met. Standing armies were banned even before constitutions

were written. This is so absolute that it was necessary to

_partition_ 10 square miles off of the states simply to have

a "U.S. Army": the District of Columbia. "State Troopers"

are _not_ what the general population has been misled to

believe they are. Neither is "law enforcement" what it is

promoted as. And rights certainly do not come from them;

rights are being *lost* down that black hole instead.

About the same time a campaign was started to confuse

statute with law. They are _not_ the same thing. They are

not even remotely similar.

(Valid) law serves rights. To put that another way, law is

"under" rights. Esquire Misrepresenter merrily spreads such

diseased ideas as "rights under law" -which are actually

*revokable privileges under the statute that conditionally

grants them*. He does this with the same gusto that he calls

statute "statute law", then simply "law". He takes pay to

perpetrate such crafted misrepresentation. *Proceedings*

proceed under statute. Rights do not. Protection of Rights

proceeds from your vigilance and willingness to fight for

them -nowhere else.

There is a body that _is_ properly called law. It has a

number of names, actually: communis justitia, common right,

the common law, the law of the land, due process (or due

course) of law, etc. These are all one and the same body.

This is the body that is common to us all ("no one is

above").

It isn't "made" by legislative -or judicial- public servants.

It is laid down directly by the sovereign power: the People

at Large.

On rare occassions, it is laid by fundamental declarations:

Declaration of Independence, constitutions, etc. Usually it

is laid by those who were originally referred to as judges.

(Today they are called "jurors".) This is the body that, for

at least 2500 years, was the "check and balance" against

parliamentary enactments.

You can probably figure why law was taken out of our hands,

into their own. (clue: $$$)

The timing of that engineered lawlessness coincides with the

factors mentioned above, and with another bit of propaganda:

"lawmaker". Crack open any constitution. There is NO public

office called "lawmaker". (There is not even a public office

called "police" office. All cops in America are employees

of "municipal" corporations -organized bypass of lawful

government. Cops have no _public_ authority whatsoever. I am in a position to say so because I've asserted the point in

court and won.)

The constitutional absence of these things is _not_ because

"executive means enforcement and legislator means lawmaker". What lies!. That is because there is no "branch" of government called "law enforcement". That is because the

laying, and keeping, of the law of the land is a sovereign

power *exclusively*. A servant is _not_ sovereign -by definition! The sovereign power to keep law -by force if

necessary- is called "posse comitatus". To subvert posse

comitatus (and thus to make the sovereign into a

defenseless, subjugated peon) was the design for the

armed forces now called "law enforcement". Do you really

expect any rights to be "protected" by that system?

Regrettably, it takes an enormous investment of time to

cause judicial notice of even such basic facts as this. We

live in times so lawless that professional tattle-tales

take pay to accuse people -people so innocent that there is

not even a plaintiff!

Who was the damaged party when you didn't buckle your seat

belt? If you worked it out you would see that the "damaged

party" was a corporate fiction that induced _you_ to license

_them_ to take you to court for failing to abide by an

"agreement". -An "agreement" that they forced on you under

threat of armed "law enforcement". They "enforce" contractual obligation, NOT law. The precise amount of

obligation is this: duress and fraud nullify "agreements"

from the outset.

I haven't "registered" _any_ of my property with _any_

extra-governmental "agency" -such as "DMV"- since 1985.

They hate me for it. But there's nothing they can lawfully

do about it. (That does not mean that I don't get seized

and hauled off from time to time. I do. But they always lose

because I don't license away my Immunity from warrantless,

unreasonable seizure.)

Please don't advise anyone to ask for a "law to protect

rights". We get boned every time someone gets "protected"

that way. Real Law has a Maxim: "for every wrong there is

a remedy". You just won't find real law practiced in todays'

"courts". It's a tough situation, but the only hope of

getting Rights respected (and remedies when they're not)

is to lay your own claim, in person, belligerently. It's

very hard work, but it is the only way to put an end to

such criminal activities as penalizing people for "dealing

in the munition" of free speech.

I beg your pardon if this is off-topic, or too strident.

Regards,

Steve P. <stevp38 (at) downcity (dot) net [email concealed]>

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/39/2058#2058