Sunday, November 18, 2007

Judge C. Philip Nichols, Jr. Expresses His Death Wish

His Malfeasance, the Marquis de Sade Nichols

Parents face jail for not vaccinating their kids
Maryland officials frustrated by lack of compliance with immunization policy

I am sorry to say that due to the ignorance of many people who visit this link, and their propensity for violence and threats, that I am temporarily taking this post off line. After reviewing my web analytics, it seems that some of the search terms being used indicate people using them to send hateful messages to me.

It is not suprising that in this country, as it exists today, one cannot express himslf in whatever way he sees fit without ignorant, intolerant, and possibly violent people retaliating. I stand by what I said about Nichols. It is despicable that a man hiding behind the judiciary would order parents to put something into their children's bodies which they do not agree with. And when such a brigand threatens to take the children away and poison them by force, a parent has every right to resist with whatever means they have at their disposal.

That is not the promotion of violence. The government initiates violence and when people defend themselves the government then points the finger at them and cries "violence!"

I'm trying to do an update on this story to see where it stands. In the mean-time, visit the links above and make your feelings known.

Thanks to all you ignorant, un-thinking, reactionary, sanctimonious, and violent people for making my point.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

In defense of the "N" word.

First, I make no apologies for what I say. I have thought it through, weighed the consequences, and acted accordingly. I believe that I will probably be assailed by the ignorant, superficial, and juvenile; but it is up to them to become informed. It is not up to me to pander to the ignorant.

I am no fan of the word nigger. I have used the word in the past. I have never called a black-person, African-American, person-of-color, negro,....or any of the other "persons" classified and renamed in feigned attempts at political correctness. As a matter of fact, I've never called anybody a nigger. I've used the word in conversation, in reference to, anecdotally.... but never in directly addressing another human being. When I did use it, I was speaking out of ignorance. The society in which I grew up afforded me many opportunities to be intimately familiar with many sorts of bigots, racists, and other ignorant persuasions.

Do I apologize for my ignorance and use of the word nigger? No. Of course not. I will apologize for a deliberate act, but not one that arises from not knowing. How did I come by my ignorance? Growing up in the 60's and 70's I was afforded access to much of the civil rights unrest. I heard the word nigger used often when referring to unruly and audacious blacks. "How dare those niggers!" was the objection I recall. The unfortunate thing is, many of those people are still with us; possessing the same point of view and harboring hate and disdain for blacks.

There is a huge inequity in that blacks are given a pass at using the word nigger. If the word is so offensive then it is color-blind and not just offensive to blacks. What if the word became a slur against, what is commonly referred to as "white-trash"? If white-trash were referred to as niggers then would the word lose it's status as a racial slur? I hear blacks refer to each other as "nigger", "nigga" and "my nigga". I guess it's possible that some blacks would be offended at being called nigger even if done so by another black, but I don't think the same level of outrage and indignation is reached when within the same race.

The puzzling thing is that black people don't mind being treated like niggers by the government. Following the Civil War and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States black people were drawn into federal subjection and then bestowed with "civil rights". Civil rights are created by government, regulated by government, and can be taken away by government. I have never heard anyone in government acknowledge that, not only blacks but all people have natural, unalienable rights that originate with their Creator and are outside the purview of government. Yet, the so-called "civil rights leaders" keep leading the black people by the nose ring in the pursuit of their "civil rights', and thereby deceiving them into neglecting their natural, unalienable rights. If there is such a thing as a nigger, and I'm referring to the immoral, disingenuous, fraudulent, dishonest, unscrupulous, and vile actions of a person who would rather choose, and lead others to, servitude and subjection, then I'd say that many of the civil rights leaders fit that bill. This is not to vilify those who are pursuing civil rights without knowing the true nature of civil rights and believe them to be striving for all rights.

If someone is going to be offended by the word nigger then they should be equally offended at being treated like one. Nigger is a term of disdain and hate that probably fomented after the Civil War and spread with the black people's assertion and struggle towards freedom, as opposed to settling for the watered down civil rights. I am not, however, going to ignore the existence of the word because of some self-imposed over-sensitivity. The word is not ugly, it is not hateful and it is not derogatory. It is a word. It is the intent, emotion, context, and inflection applied when using the word that makes it what it is to some people. If nigger is so terrible, then is not the words murder, rape, and hate equally as abhorrent? If we are to look at what a word means, nigger being an ignorant utterance towards black people, then aforesaid words, meaning much more horrible things than just a slur, should be banned as well.

My black friends, of whom I have many, will understand this diatribe. Opportunistic whites will use this to deflect their shortcomings towards my character in hopes of minimizing their failings. Disingenuous blacks will seize my words to further perpetuate more hate and divisiveness. If you are a hateful, narrow-minded bigot then that is your misery. If you are a sanctimonious opportunist looking for a whine factor then that is your problem. For the rational and reasonable who recognize the world, and people, for what they are and refuse to be identified by the hateful, ignorant words of others, then I say welcome! Remember the word "nigger" for what it is. A symptom, a disease, a defect, and identifier of hate and ignorance. We can't hide from the ugliness in the world, but we can realize it for what it is and choose not to partake in its dehumanizing effects.

Friday, October 05, 2007

The Writing is On the Wall

I just came across this and wanted to post it sans my thoughts.  I believe it speaks for itself witout too much of my commentary. All I can say is arm yourselves. The naysayers will live as wards of the state and ready to turn in any dissenters they  may discover in exchange for benefits until the pen closes on the sheep while they graze unaware and fat.

Monday, October 01, 2007

This type of policical chicanery takes guts in a state with conceal carry.

Apparently, in Texas, it is commonplace for members of the legislature to cast votes on bills for other legislators who happen to be absent for whatever reason. It is against the rules, as promulgated by the legislature, but it is up to themselves to enforce and apply penalties for violations. Can you think of a more rigged game than this?

I'm not sure, but a reasonable person could more accurately than not assume that this practice is not confined to the hallowed halls of the Texas Legislature. How many laws could be considered null and void due to such malfeasing chicanery? How many people are incarcerated for violating laws which owe their origination to the prolific voting fingers of a select few of aspiring targets? This rises to the level of fraud, and a fraud can never be remedied, since it exists from its inception and is forever a nullity.

Seeing as how I live in Illinois, I cannot offer any relief for the Texas Citizenry, but I can extend an admonition to the legislative body of Illinois. I will push for, through a constitutional amendment for Illinois, that any law which has the preponderance of having more than one vote per person will be immediately repealed and void. Any evidence attesting to a legislator behaving in such a fashion will be punishable by immediate removal from office, forever all benefits and privileges, inability to ever run for public office in Illinois, and, depending on the type of legislation tampered with, imprisonment for up to 10 years.

This type of activity is a direct and blatant violation of the public trust and an indelible fraud upon the People. It is outrageous, abhorrent, and deserving of the fullest penalties prescribed by law.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

People intimidated by government must be funny to Stan Schaeffer

It happened at an April 9, 2007 Collinsville, Illinois City Council meeting. Mayor, Stan Schaeffer, was taking input from "residents". This is the part of the meeting where the City entertains comments and concerns from those in the community. I had spoken a number of times in the past, mainly challenging the City's authority to implement a business license ordinance and other things. At this particular meeting I was in possession of a campaign flyer paid for by "The Committee to Elect Stan Schaeffer". This flyer is similar to possibly thousands that were direct-mailed to potential voters.

The purpose of my having this flyer was the conspicuous display of Mr. Schaeffer's City office phone number and his City provided cell phone. These services are paid through tax dollars, which makes them the property of the Citizens. Mr. Schaeffer was advertising tax payer funded resources in his bid for re-election, thereby using the money of those who may have been aggrieved or in opposition to Mr. Schaeffer's bid for re-election. I spoke not only for myself, but for other Citizens who express their displeasure with the City's progress, or lack thereof, but who are afraid of reprisal from the City, Mr. Schaeffer and other assembled councilpersons included.

In my address, I made reference to my speaking in agency for those apprehensive voices. I did not say that these persons are afraid of Mr. Schaeffer directly or personally, but intimidated by the potential abuse of the City's resources, i.e., police, code enforcement,...etc, as can be illustrated historically and anecdotally. People have made it known to me their personal experiences that, taken in the context of a Citizen speaking out about government abuse or waste, there was a corresponding negative consequence timed conspicuously close to the dissent of the Citizen.

When I addressed the Council I made it clear that this faction of the population was also being represented in my address. Mr. Schaeffer is seen to clearly snicker and cover his mouth upon my mention of those who fear retribution for their dissent. I became very angry upon seeing this disrespectful act by Mr. Schaeffer, but managed to maintain my composure and complete my address. Mr. Schaeffer also attempted to limit my address to the arbitrary limit of 4 minutes, as set by ordinance, and I refused to relinquish the floor until after I had finished my thought. A minor display of professional petulance ensued and the matter defused after a short while.

In my address I used the word "cabal" in referencing the Mayor and his campaign-supporting constituency. He makes a point to define the word for the assemblage and the future viewing public, I presume because having possibly been educated in a Collinsville Public School they may not possess the lexical aptitude to understand a polysyllabic word like "cabal". I chose that word very carefully because I believe that Mr. Schaeffer's bid for re-election is just that, a cabal. The people are the authority, and government is the reaction to our action of forming a government for the security of our rights and property. Mr. Schaeffer and his cabal of special interests, developers, and privileged status are, through attempting to keep Mr. Schaeffer in office, conspiring to subvert the People's will and reduce them to peonage by having their property taxed, confiscated, or developed against their will. Yes, Mr. is a cabal.

I may update this later, but I wanted to get the video out for those who wish to witness a callous display for the justified, albeit unnecessary, apprehension of other Citizens to publicly confront what they believe to be oppressive, unresponsive government. More to come.....

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

The Driver's License was just the beginning. The Real ID Act is Fascism realized. No Thanks.

P.L. 109-13 - includes the Real ID Act of 2005
Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576-77 (1926)
Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d 240, 243(1968)
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)
United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331 (1919)- These general rules are well settled: (1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts.

42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988 - fictional "citizen of the United States" who would like to have the rights of a "white citizen."

1878 Title XXIV of the Revised Statutes of greatly revered "Civil Rights" - Hoo -haa in 42 USC § 1988. Remembering that Title 13 is Judiciary and Title 70 is crimes and it is all for the greater good of "Vindication" - to remove from being suspect.

Welcome to the fascist, communist and totalitarian American Empire endorsed and supported by Millions of people in America.

Overview statement - Congress must always declare the fictitious status of whom they are enacting ACTS OF CONGRESS (laws of Congress are where Congress has plenary power in which Congress acts as both a national government and a state government - i.e. territories, District of Columbia, possessions, etc.), not Laws of the United States (Congress acts only as a "federal government" within the several States and the several States enact their own laws).

In the REAL ID Act of 2005, it is only for a "citizen of the United States" or national of the United States. Remembering that only a "citizen of the United States" can vote, sit on a jury, and only this status is required to pay the IRS for this fictitious status, required to obtain a Driver License, etc.

There are many aspects of this particular "Act of Congress" ("laws of Congress") as it is not a Law of the United States. This will be covered later in my post on the "citizen of the United States."

When Congress usurped and reconstructed the constitutional Republic there were several essential elements that are involved that must be eliminated. To create a fictitious government outside of the Constitution of the United States and the several States wherein the people of these United States did grant a limited delegation of government only. (Two governments - one under the Constitution and one outside of the Constitution - see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 264(1901))
1. As the sovereign Power, our inalienable rights, is posited only in the people of these United States and it is not a grant from Congress, any legislature or anyone else to US, THEN, the solution is to create a fiction in law and grant it benefits and rights (not inalienable rights) that are totally under the control of the granter, i.e. Congress, i.e. 42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988, being the right to own property, sue, etc. This is no different from a parent granting to his children an allowance of money or privileges contingent upon your CONDUCT subject to change at the will of the parent at any time for no reason.

As held in Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576-77 (1926), to wit:

If the proceeding were not a case or controversy within the meaning of article 3, s 2, this delegation of power upon the courts would have been invalid. Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409, 1 L. Ed. 436; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 14 L. Ed. 42; Muskrat v. United States, 31 S. Ct. 250, 219 U. S. 346, 55 L. Ed. 246. Whether a proceeding which results in a grant is a judicial one does not depend upon the nature of the thing granted, but upon the nature of the proceeding which Congress has provided for securing the grant. The United States may create rights in individuals against itself and provide only an administrative remedy. United States v. Babcock, 39 S. Ct. 464, 250 U. S. 328, 331, 63 L. Ed. 1011. It may provide a legal remedy, but make resort to the courts available *577 only after all administrative remedies have been exhausted. Compare New Orleans v. Paine, 13 S. Ct. 303, 147 U. S. 261, 37 L. Ed. 162; United States v. Sing Tuck, 24 S. Ct. 621, 194 U. S. 161, 48 L. Ed. 917; American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 43 S. Ct. 541, 262 U. S. 209, 67 L. Ed. 953. It may give to the individual the option of either an administrative or a legal remedy. Compare Clyde v. United States, 13 Wall. 38, 20 L. Ed. 479; **427Chorpenning v. United States, 94 U. S. 397, 399, 24 L. Ed. 126. Or it may provide only a remedy. Compare Turner v. United States, 39 S. Ct. 109, 248 U. S. 354, 63 L. Ed. 291. Whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the courts according to the regular course of legal procedure, and that remedy is pursued, there arises a case within the meaning of the Constitution, whether the subject of the litigation be property or status. A petition for naturalization is clearly a proceeding of that character.

The petitioner's claim is one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The claim is presented to the court in such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it. The proceeding is instituted and is conducted throughout according to the regular course of judicial procedure. The United States is always a possible adverse party.

What this case articulates is that if there is any grant from Congress, Congress controls the remedy to obtain the grant, i.e. benefit, to wit:
1. Legal remedy in the courts of the United States only after administrative remedies have been exhausted; or,
2. An administrative remedy denying your access to the courts of the United States; or,
3. An legal remedy in the courts of the United States; or,
4. Or only a remedy whatever degree that may be - complete or not; or,
5. No remedy however mistaken its exercise thereof, which is is another case held in Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d 240, 243(1968) citing Babcock.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 era and other in in Title XXIV is the source of the problem.
You can easily check on the Internet for other Laws of the United States and what you will find is there no requirement to be just a "citizen of the United States" in the laws of the United States prior to the Civil War. There are some acts that use these words, but back then in time, by reading cases you will quickly come to the understanding that is was used in lieu of citizens of the several States.

And excellent case explaining that in reality there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States (Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)) [read this case very, very carefully as there is great knowledge imparted therein] and there are no privileges granted to a citizen of the United States, but only to citizens of the several States. See Article IV section 2.

REAL ID Act of 2005
Starting on page 75 is tyranny in action.

Note the words "trier of fact" in section 8 USC §§ 1158, 1231 - this is a flunky employee making this determination concerning aliens. Wow!

8 USC ¶ 1252 - No court shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence ....

8 USC 1103- "(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. Any such decision by the Secretary shall be effective upon being published in the Federal Register.
[This purportedly is only for the borders and roads]

Also under 8 USC § 1103 - an interlocutory or final judgment or order of the district court may be reviewed only upon petition for a writ of certiorari. Another ruse as there is no remedy via the statutory "Writ of Certiorari" as jurisdiction is not an issue for the Supreme Court nor is the merits.

Effect of denial of certiorari

A denial of certiorari normally carries no implication or inference. U.S. v. Kras, U.S.N.Y.1973, 93 S.Ct. 631, 409 U.S. 434, 34 L.Ed.2d 626.

Denial of writ of certiorari by Federal Supreme Court imports no expression of opinion upon merits of case but means only that there were not four members of the Court who thought the case should be heard. Brown v. Allen, U.S.N.C.1953, 73 S.Ct. 397, 344 U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed. 469, dissenting opinion 73 S.Ct. 437, 344 U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed. 469, rehearing denied 73 S.Ct. 827, 345 U.S. 946, 97 L.Ed. 1370.

The United States Supreme Court's refusal of certiorari, though essential to exhaustion of state remedies as a prerequisite to applying to federal courts for habeas corpus, is without substantive significance in habeas corpus case. U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, U.S.Pa.1953, 73 S.Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561, 97 L.Ed. 549.

Denial of a petition for writ of certiorari to review decision of Court of Appeals of Maryland reversing conviction of radio stations for contempt meant only that fewer than four members of Supreme Court thought that certiorari should be granted, and such denial carried with it no implication whatever regarding views of Supreme Court on merits of the case. State of Md. v. Baltimore Radio Show, U.S.Md.1950, 70 S.Ct. 252, 338 U.S. 912, 94 L.Ed. 562.

Denial of certiorari imports nothing as to merits of case; all it means is that, for whatever reason, there were not four members of Supreme Court who wished to consider issues presented for review. Howell v. Jones, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1975, 516 F.2d 53, rehearing denied 521 F.2d 815, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 1116, 424 U.S. 916, 47 L.Ed.2d 321, rehearing denied 96 S.Ct. 1687, 425 U.S. 945, 48 L.Ed.2d 189.

Denial of writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion on merits of the case. Laborers' Intern. Union of North America, Local No. 107 v. Kunco, Inc., C.A.8 (Ark.) 1973, 472 F.2d 456.

Denial of petition for writ of certiorari by United States Supreme Court carries no precedential weight whatever. Ahern v. Murphy, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1972, 457 F.2d 363.

United States Supreme Court's denial of certiorari did not make decision of Tennessee Supreme Court the law of the United States Supreme Court with respect to value of the case as a precedent, but the denial of certiorari signified that appellate review had been exhausted, that the parties had had their day in court, and that the case could be res judicata in a subsequent action. Deane Hill Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1967, 379 F.2d 321, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 476, 389 U.S. 975, 19 L.Ed.2d 467.

Denial of certiorari by United States Supreme Court is not to be given effect of judgment on merits. Newsom v. Peyton, C.A.4 (Va.) 1965, 341 F.2d 904.

Denial of certiorari by Supreme Court of United States from judgment of state supreme court, did not establish correctness of judgment but served only to establish finality of judgment as between litigants. Dairy Distributors, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, C.A.10 (Utah) 1961, 294 F.2d 348, certiorari denied 82 S.Ct. 604, 368 U.S. 988, 7 L.Ed.2d 525.

Denial by United States Supreme Court of petition for writ of certiorari cannot be interpreted as an expression of the Supreme Court's opinion on the merits. McLaurin v. Burnley, N.D.Miss.1967, 279 F.Supp. 220, affirmed 401 F.2d 773, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 2228, 399 U.S. 928, 26 L.Ed.2d 795.

Denial to state convict of certiorari by Supreme Court of the United States is not an adjudication as such but is a refusal of a rehearing and is indication that issues were twice considered. Williams v. State of S.C., D.C.S.C.1965, 237 F.Supp. 360, vacated 356 F.2d 432.

Denial of certiorari by United States Supreme Court after conviction by state court and affirmance by state Supreme Court is not an affirmance. State of Tenn. ex rel. Ford v. Morris, W.D.Tenn.1965, 236 F.Supp. 780.

Denial of certiorari by federal Supreme Court imported no expression of
opinion on merits of state supreme court decision. De La Salle Institute v. U.S., N.D.Cal.1961, 195 F.Supp. 891.

What a ruse as this is not even a true Writ of Certiorari. This is from the 1856 Bouviers Law Dictionary. Does this match the current Writ of Certiorari of today high jacked by Congress for the fictional government, remembering for those that have never filed into the Supreme Court of the United States - NONE of the RECORD is brought up, but you must regenerate all of any record that you choose to use and put it on special paper of a size of approximately 6 by 9 inches?

CERTIORARI, practice. To be certified of; to be informed of. This is the name of a writ issued from a superior court directed to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding the latter to certify and return to the former, the record in the particular case. Bac. Ab. h. t.; 4 Vin. Ab. 330; Nels. Ab. h. t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.; 3 Penna. R. 24. A certiorari differs from a writ of error. There is a distinction also between a hab. corp. and a certiorari. The certiorari removes the cause; the hab. corp. only supersedes the proceedings in below. 2 Lord Ray. 1102.

2. By the common law, a supreme court has power to review the proceedings of all inferior tribunals, and to pass upon their jurisdiction and decisions on questions of law. But in general, the determination of such inferior courts on questions of fact are conclusive, and cannot be reversed on certiorari, unless some statute confers the power on such supreme court. 6 Wend. 564; 10 Pick. 358; 4 Halst. 209. When any error has occurred in the proceedings of the court below, different from the course of the common law, in any stage of the cause, either civil or criminal cases, the writ of certiorari is the only remedy to correct such error, unless some other statutory remedy has been given. 5 Binn. 27; 1 Gill & John. 196; 2 Mass. R. 245; 11 Mass. R. 466; 2 Virg. Cas. 270; 3 Halst. 123; 3 Pick. 194 4 Hayw. 100; 2 Greenl. 165; 8 Greenl. 293. A certiorari, for example, is the correct process to remove the proceedings of a court of sessions, or of county commissioners in laying out highways. 2 Binn. 250 2 Mass. 249; 7 Mass. 158; 8 Pick. 440 13 Pick. 195; 1 Overt. 131; 2 Overt. 109; 2 Pen. 1038; 8 Verm. 271 3 Ham. 383; 2 Caines, 179.

3. Sometimes the writ of certiorari is used as auxiliary process, in order to obtain a full return to some other process. When, for example, the record of an inferior court is brought before a superior court by appeal, writ of error, or other lawful mode, and there is a manifest defect, or a suggestion of diminution, a certiorari is awarded requiring a perfect transcript and all papers. 3 Dall. R. 413; 3 John. R. 23; 7 Cranch, R. 288; 2 South. R. 270, 551; 1 Blackf. R. 32; 9 Wheat. R. 526; 7 Halst. R. 85; 3 Dev. R. 117; 1 Dev. & Bat. 382; 11 Mass. 414; 2 Munf. R. 229; 2 Cowen, R. 38. Vide Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

So we proceed forward to the this section:

8 USC § 1182 - note that "individual capacity" is included, i.e. if your do something that the Fascist government does not like including weapons, etc (same section - read carefully of all items included - anyone can be included here) - your are under their statutory scheme for prosecution -page 81. Also included in terrorism is any two "individuals" organized or not.

Also important if the Secretary's (includes homeland security Secretary) sole unreviewable discretion for certain parts - complicated here.

8 USC § 1252 - denial of Habeas Corpus (must be at War - eh?) - Note use of "statutory or non-statutory - hmmmm - two Habeas Corpus' out there is seems - unbelievable. Of course you can file into the Court of Appeals (equity and admiralty) since 1911 in the Fascist fictional world (real Circuit Court of the United States still exists even after the 1911 Judicial Code)

49 USC 30301 - "State" is defined as "a State of the United States." Congress did NOT establish a Law of the United States (under Article VI is the authority for only laws of the United States) for within any of the several States, so the simple solution which is always the case, Congress must supply the definition(s) of whom they are legislating for - THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL ELEMENT to prove that Congress is outside of their Constitutional Power. The Constitution of the United States ONLY has provision for the "several States" of the Union and none other - hence we define the fictional "State of the United States."

49 USC 30301 - "a Federal agency" which has no executive, legislative or judicial Power arising under the Constitution is forcing upon an Individual to comply. It also mandates that you have accepted the benefit of the SSN, conclusively proving that you are not a citizen of one of the several States, but are a "citizen of the United States", i.e. a fictional status in Law.

But the REAL CONCLUSIVE part of this "law of Congress" for the Fascist is that CONGRESS MUST IDENTIFY WHAT ENTITY THEY ARE LEGISLATING FOR. Hooo - haaa.

This is what I discovered by looking prior to the Civil War and after the Civil War on Laws of the United States and laws of Congress.

Congress must identity that it is strictly ONLY for a "citizen of the United States" or "national of the United States." Either isn't a citizen of the several States. I will be posting on this soon - just a lot to understand in this area for those starting a ground zero with the deer in the headlight stare.

This should be enough initially to scare the dolts of our Republic into action are to at least question the Fascist Empire - but who knows.

As for those that are seeking knowledge, there is hope.

What is the one sentence that could expose this complete treasonous act

This Act has no application to any of the citizens of the several States who are not "citizens of the United States." This is as short as it can be.
Questions to the Congress.
1. Does this Act have application to "citizens of the several States" domiciled in the several States?
2. Please define what is a "citizen of the United States."
3. Is it not true that a "citizen of the United States" is a grant under 42 USC §§§ 1981, 1982 and 1988?
4. Is it not true that Congress is mandating that I be a racist, i.e. to have rights like a "white citizen?"
5. Who or what is this "white citizen" in Title 42?

This is just for starters.



The information provided in the lists of Winterrowd is the work product of Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd with all rights reserved.
I am not an Attorney or Counsellor-at-law. The fundamental rights to distribute research material is claimed by Winterrowd as an American citizen, citizen of the United States of America, a citizen of one of the several States and "white citizen" due to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1988 Administrative State of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq under the "laws of Congress" which are not "Laws of the United States."
There are three lists that may be joined by the home page of There is a special e-mail list for $120 per year donation that includes attachments - contact me via e-mail to join. Requires a minimum of 5 meg. of e-mail storage by your server.
I have a talk show on Republic Broadcasting accessible by going to Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 7-8 PM Central Time.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Shimkus teaching the Constitution....sagacious sanctimony.

Elizabeth A. Lehnerer photo U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Collinsville) discussed the Constitution and his job in Congress with students at Holy Cross Lutheran School in Collinsville on Monday.

Well, so much for an ignorance defense. If only the kiddies who were subjected to his contrived expertise in the Constitution knew the apparent contempt he held for that parchment profundity of political power.
I was fortunate enough to attend a Collinsville Economic Development breakfast a year or so ago where Mr. Shimkus was the guest speaker. At the time, Illinois was embroiled in debate over the bestowment of being a "judicial hellhole" and profusely hemorrhaging physicians due to skyrocketing malpractice premiums to cover outrageous jury awards.

So, Mr. Shimkus felt it his apparent duty to work with Mr. Bush and the other tort-chasing-lawyer-hating Republicans in pushing tort reform in order to usurp the power of juries to award damages to plaintiffs. Now granted, not all jury awards carry the presumption of being well-reasoned and fair, but the state legislature bears the primary responsibility for effecting change in civil law, not the federal government.

I had the opportunity to ask Mr. Shimkus a question at the breakfast and I pulled no punches and did my best to leave no out for an evasive answer or political platitude. I was partially successful. My question was this, where in the Constitution does the federal government find the power to intervene in a state issue, involving the power of juries to award damages, and arbitrarily set caps on compensation for damages? Because, if it acts on such power, the power must be plenary if not defined or limited in the Constitution, and if plenary, what is to stop them from later stepping to save the automotive insurance industry by limiting the amount of damages when manufacturers sell knowingly defective vehicles that result in death or injury?

Mr. Shimkus thought for a few seconds before proffering his answer and stated in eloquent political fashion that the power did not exist in the Constitution but doggone it, Illinois needs doctors so he was going to do what was necessary in order to achieve that end and if the voters find his actions distasteful then they would speak through the polls. Of course, I am paraphrasing, but doing so very accurately. Basically, the Constitution be damned, I'm going to do it anyway because the court of public opinion will carry more weight than the Supreme Court.

Now, I'm certain Mr. Shimkus knew that he had no authority to involve himself in tort reform, as well as the federal government having no authority as well. To me, he looked visibly uncomfortable with the question, knowing full well how he had to dissemble in his answer to save face. He relied upon the ignorance of the small crowd and their kowtowing adulation. Way to go Mr. Shimkus.

So now, Mr. Shimkus is gallivanting around the elementary schools educating children about the Constitution. In the story, he tells the children to look to the Constitution for answers about government. Allow me to correct that statement. Children, do not look to the Constitution. The government has all but forgotten it. Do not claim Constitutional rights. Do not claim civil rights. Do not claim to have civil liberties. Do not petition the corrupt and co-opted courts for redress. Instead, look to the Declaration of Independence. Your rights are antecedent to the formation of any government. Your rights do not derive from any earthly source. Government is a tool designed to securing our freedom and guarding your liberty. It has failed. The Constitution defined that tool. The tool no longer works. It is a rusty, worn, ineffective relic designed for a job that has been neglected; and now our republic lies in a sad state of disrepair. There is a saying, "chose the right tool for the right job". The job is reclaiming our freedoms and reducing government to that limited and specific trustee of our power in securing liberty. The proper tool now is revolution through evolution of thought. Exercise first the mind. If the foe proves too resistant, exercise the trigger finger.

Mr. Shimkus, you may fool some of the kiddies some of the time, but God help you should they wake from their slumber. I hope to be one to shake their eyes wide open.

I am not just being mean.

I am not being mean to Stan Schaeffer. I fashioned a parody on the Collinsville mayoral election wherein Mr. Schaeffer has spent more money on campaigning than what the position pays. Now, I have it on good authority that this is more true than not. I have purchased campaign signs in the past and for what I received and the cost involved I can say with relative accuracy that Stan has spent well over $3000. Couple that amount with direct mailings and newspaper ads and word on the street is that so-far the bill exceeds $21,000. I took license in moving that amount up to $25,000 because I will bet that is what the final fill may be. If I'm wrong then sue me. It is a parody.

People may ask why I am picking on Stan when Joy Springer has spent money on this campaign too? Heck, she may have spent more than $3000 on signs, I don't know. I have seen her signs and I've seen Stan's and I'll say that I know Stan's exceeded that amount easily. Is that the issue here? No. The issue is what Mr. Schaeffer has done during his tenure and what he will do if re-elected. I have spoken with both he and Ms. Springer and have not received, in my opinion, honesty and fairness from Mr. Schaeffer. When I met with him in private regarding the business license ordinance and its inapplicability in general, he agreed with my findings. He was willing to let me proceed with no fear of the City assailing me for not procuring a business license. When I pressed as to why he would not inform the rest of the Citizens thay they too were probably not obligated to procure a license he said he couldn't do that. It was up to them to do the research as I had done and determine the laws applicability to themselves. How is that for dissembling?

In othe words, Mr. Schaeffer was on notice that this law had no teeth and it was a paper tiger, yet, since I realized it was a farce and refused to comply he would graciously not pursue action against me, but was still willing to allow the rest of the Citizens to act under the false perception that the law applied to them. That is fraud.

It is because of this fact, although not the only issue, as to why I am speaking out against Mr. Schaeffer being re-elected. I feel that he cannot be trusted. This is not malevolence or spite on my part. It is being honest enough to confront something that will, in an opportunistic fashion, work in a way that is not in the People's best interest. It is a manner of acting that exploits ignorance and is deceitful. In good conscience, I cannot allow that to happen through my silence.

Now, I don't know what kind of Mayor Joy Springer will be. She seems more genuine and does not have the dulling tarnish of political tenure about her. I defer to the benefit of doubt in supporting her for mayor. I will hold her to the same standard of fairness and accountability as I would anyone. That being said, I believe that the People have an opportunity to forestall possibly looming tax increases and abuse of eminent domain by Mr. Schaeffer. Even if he is not successful in implementing such an agenda, why would we want a public servant who harbors such notions? I am not saying that these are absolutely his ideas. I can only infer and assume given the information publicly available on Mr. Schaeffer and his past actions. However, I can say that these are more likeley than not in the offing.

Is honesty meanness? Is having a concern for the rights and property of other Citizens malicious? Is it wrong to illustrate ideas through the use of parody or other medium of communicating a point? If so, you know where to find me. If not, take it for what it's worth. Educate yourselves as voters and as Citizens and take the appropriate action based on your understanding, knowledge and sense of justice.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Friendly advice regarding my challenging the "system"

I had an opportunity to review my performance in the mayoral primary with a friend of mine who gave me some valuable insight regarding the reality of Madison County politics. I think most of us will acknowledge that politics in general is a loathsome endeavor. The people involved in the process also carry with them the presumption of being less than upstanding and righteous. Most of us will agree that it is not about the salary, it is about the power. There are huge machines of special interests, groups and associations who have a major investment in "their guy" making it into office. These entities do not relinquish their cash capriciously.

Now, I spent absolutely $0 on my campaign, aside from my time on my own website, and I received 111 votes. I understand that Stan Schaeffer has spent over $21,000 on signs, mailings, and other assorted voter outreach communiques'. Did I force Stan to spend money to overcome my persuasive, cogent, honest and articulate statements on my website? I doubt it. The issue is why would someone spend so much money on an office that pays less than what I make in a month? POWER. Don't delude yourselves. This is all about POWER.

My friend says that I, as an individual, have in all probability agitated the political machine that feeds their lackeys at the local levels and I should expect some sort of retaliation. This may come from Stan, if he makes it into office, or it may come out of the blue; directed and orchestrated by the shadow government that sits in manipulatory control over those who aver to its power. I'm sorry. I am not one of those persons.

So, in anticipation of possible police harassment, trumped-up charges of some sort, smear campaigns, or other assorted nuisances designed to send a shot across my bow to not mess with the powers-that-be, I want to extend an "I see you" to those in power who want to make an example out of the little guy. I have prepared for such an onslaught by any number of government agencies for some time. I've pissed off bigger bullies than Madison County politicos, but that is not to say that they don't have the intent, wherewithal and opportunity to pester me nevertheless.

I am not backed by money. I am not backed by powerful organizations. I am backed by the knowledge of knowing my enemy. I am backed by the knowledge of knowing the fraud and deceit they perpetuate ad nauseum. I am also backed by resolve and will to confront whatever and whomever at any cost. I refuse to back down. I prepare for my personal defense accordingly. There may be a confrontation some day, but if it turns out for the worst let it be known that I will not be the antagonist, but the individual standing his ground in defense of his rights. Read into that what you will.

If I've poked the wrong tiger this time and retaliation is in the offing, then bring it on. I just hope that the couriers of such ill-will are prepared to pay a price for their involvement as well. Maybe, when the dust settles, enough people will see the game for what it is and come to understand that they too are powerless and enslaved unless they congeal as a people to bring the machine and it's minions down. Then again, I may be met with the rustling of leaves and the whispering brush of the wind against my face as the tyrants bide their time and survey less resolved objects of their ire. Time will tell.