Sunday, May 16, 2010

An analysis of the proposed Occupancy Code for Collinsville, Illinois

An analysis of the proposed Occupancy Code for Collinsville, Illinois - Copy of proposed ordinance
So, what is it about a city council that makes them believe they have the right to pass an ordinance requireing anyone to procure a permit to live in their own home? Well, for one, if one claims "residency" within the corporate municipality then are then deemed to be considered to be regulated by the rules (by-laws) and ordinances which pertain only to that corporate body. Likewise, for U.S. citizens, there are no Constitutional protections since much of what regulates their behavior is codes, and regulations.

Most people do not understand what a municipality is. Here is an excerpt from a page I have which explains Municipal Law:

B. [1.2] General Concepts and Definitions

A “municipal corporation” has been defined as a public corporation created by government for political purposes and having subordinate and local powers of legislation. People ex rel.Mortell v. Bergman, 253 Ill. 469, 97 N.E. 695 (1912); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, p. 1042 (8th ed. 2004). As they exist today, these public corporations can be compared with private corporations. Just as private corporations have a charter under which they are organized, so, too, municipalities have a “charter” in the sense that they are organized under the general law as it exists in the Illinois Municipal Code (Code), 65 ILCS 5/1-1-1, et seq. Just as shareholders control the operations of a private corporation by ratifying a charter and electing a board of directors, the citizens comprising the electorate control the workings of the public corporation by opting to form either a city or a village under one of the forms provided in the Code and by electing officials (city council or village board), who in turn carry on the business (government) and affairs of the city or village by passing and adopting ordinances (akin to bylaws passed by the board of directors of a private corporation).

[My Commentary] So, if we look at it in these terms, we could say that Ford is a corporation (municipality) that is owned by the shareholders (Citizens/electors) who in turn elect the Officers, or Board (City Council, Mayor...) to perform the duties set forth in the Charter which were written to control the function of the "body" in achieving the ends of the shareholder/citizen. This body, in turn, passes ordinances (By-laws) that regulate the functions of that body in meeting the objectives of the shareholder/citizen. The shareholders believe that their dividends (benefits) are being wasted on providing health care coverage to workers (City employees) who smoke, and therefore want to make Ford a non-smoking company (municipality). The Board of Ford (City council) passes an ordinance (By-law) that prohibits smoking for employees of Ford (City employees). Now, does that mean that Ford can force the smoking shareholders to quit smoking as well? No. The shareholders are not subject to the regulations governing the operation of the corporate body of Ford, the same way that Citizens are not subject to the regulations (ordinances) of the corporate body (Collinsville).

So, how do we, the People, create a government that is laid out with a charter and by-laws for the purpose of securing our freedoms and liberty, as well as performing in a collective capacity that which would be otherwise inefficient or cumbersome for us to perform individually? Why, you take up "residency", of course. Normally, Citizens retain all of their natural rights that are protected by the Constitution. However, if you want to derive any of the "corporate benefits" of the "corporation", you must become a resident of that corporation and therefore subject to the governing by-laws of that corporation. You do not need to be a resident to walk into a public library and read a book. However, in order to take that book out of the library's control and have it entrusted to you for safe-keeping and return, you must be a resident of that corporate body which subjects you to the ascribed penalties for violating your agreement with the library for the use and safe return of that book. That library card, that you have to sign (give your permission and therein claim the status of resident) your name and claim residency. That contract is then enforceable with fines and punishment for your violating any provision of that agreement.

Residents derive benefits or exercise privileges that Citizens do not. If your tax dollars are going to fund a function of government then you have paid your way and are asking for nothing more than a Citizen is entitled to. However. if you are deriving a benefit that cannot be traced to a service provided through your payment of taxes, then you are acting as a resident. Most of the things provided by government in its proper capacity are paid by our taxes, i.e.., water, sewer, trash, roads...etc. The City gets you to claim the status of resident in order to receive these services, which is a trap, but you are not automatically conscripted to the ordinances unless they specifically apply to a particular benefit derived.

Word trickery

If you read the proposed ordinance you will see a section called Definitions. What happens is, the drafters of the legislation use words which have common meanings, but used in a particular way which possess a "special" or "legal" meaning. They are terms, not words. The legislation imposes a duty, and penalties, upon persons. Are you a person? Look at the definition:

"Person means any natural person; firm; joint venture, including all participants; partnership, including all partners; association, social club, or fraternal organization, including all officers and directors; corporation, including all officers, directors and significant stockholders; estate; trust; business trust; receiver; or any other group or combination acting as a unit."

Of course, most of you will see the term "natural person" and believe you are natural and therefore a natural person. A natural person is a flesh-and-blood human being, but one which is charged with a fiducary obligation or acting as a representative for an incorporeal entity. All natural persons are flesh-and-blood but not all flesh-and-blood are natural persons.

There is a canon of statutory construction called ejusdem generis which reads:

Ejusdem generis (Of the same kinds, class, or nature)
When a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them. For example, where "cars, motor bikes, motor powered vehicles" are mentioned, the word "vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense (therefore vehicles cannot be interpreted as including airplanes).

Look at the definition of the word person above. What follows? Firm, joint venture, partnership, association... these are not "natural" things. These are organizations of individuals, many of which are formed pursuant to an act found in statutes. Nowhere does an individual human being come into play unless they are part of a legal structure. A natural person is a flesh-and-blood human being who has taken a position or joined as a member of some other incorporeal or fictional body.

So, what does this mean? People have natural, unalienable rights. Corporations, as well as other legal fictions, do not. Constitutions are created by People to create another legal fiction called the State for the purpose of protecting their natural, unalienable rights. The State is nothing more than the People acting in a collective capacity and forming a political body. The State is not some natural manifestation which posseses some supernatural control or authority over the People. The People, being the creators of the Constitution have the power to permit artificial, incorporeal entites like corporations, partnerships, associations... to be created and therefore, make conditional their existence to the will of the people. People cannot make anybody else's existence or exercise of rights conditional.

Looking at the definition of person in the ordinance, what is being regulated are things owing their existence to a legal construct. If there is a legal nexus between the entity and the State where a registration or permit has been issued or recognized then it is a legal fiction and thereby subject to regulation. In the case of this legislation, a landlord who is a private individual owning and renting property has an obligation to provide a safe abode for his tenants and is subject to any harm caused by his neglect. He has a duty. However, as a tenant, people have the right to rent accomodations which may appear less than desirable to outside observers. Provided the landlord honors his duty to ensure there are no hazards which endanger the health or life of a tenant he has fulfilled his obligation.

I would recommend the following approach should the ordinance pass, and I believe it will because most of the people serving on the Council are ignorant, arrogant, self-serving, Oligarchs. Most of them have probably not even read the Constitution of Illinois or of the United States. What needs to happen is massive civil disobedience. If people do not possess the temerity to assert their liberty then I say they deserve whatever they get. Otherwise, I would take a property owned by a private individual, not one acting in a corporate capacity such as an LLC or other entity, and through a Quit Claim Deed take "ownership" for valuable consideration of $1 with a promise to release the property back after 30 days for the same valuable consideration. What this would do is create a nexus where I would take ownership and thereby be "required" to procure an occupancy permit to occupy the premesis. I would then take up "occupancy" and wait for the ensuing litigation. In the mean-time, I would expect an information campaign relating to this matter to be dissiminated to the public, as well as promoting the people's right to exercise jury nullification as their right. Hopefully, a jury would not convict or I would just refuse to comply, relying on legal arguments I have previously confronted various governmental bodies with. In-short, I would not comply.

I will not make myself available for such a tactic without the explicit committment of others desiring to challenge and confront this ordinance. I will also not put myself in harm's way for people who prefer their chains, but prefer them under their terms. I favor NO chains. That said, I will await contact......

Mark McCoy

Understanding “Peace Officer” vs. “Law Enforcement Officer”

Not long ago all law enforcement officers were referred to as “Peace Officers,” but a transition has slowly set in, in which now all peace officers have become known as “Law Enforcement Officers.” Is this just semantics in title, or is there really a difference? That is the subject of this addition to my “Understanding” series “by Ron Branson” on various items of public service.
To start out, we note that one title contains the word “Peace,” and the other “Enforcement.” Do these two titles denote the same thing, or is there a difference? Most any grade school graduate can understand them to be two different things. But to the naked eye, one might argue that both wear a uniform, have a badge, and carry a gun, and therefore are one and the same.

The distinction is not one of appearance, but rather one of objective. In all of society life is competition, and everything works from three basic positions: “A” versus “B” mediated by “C,” the latter of which is a neutral position that may be called a mediator, an arbitrator, a referee, an umpire, or a judge. Everyone in the competitive society of life is either a player, or a neutral participant. While the competition of “A” and “B” could also include the competition of “D,” “E,” and “F,” there can be only one “C” who absolutely must have no interest in the outcome between A, B, D, E, and F. Once “C” manifests an interest in the competition between A, B, D, E, and F, he automatically forfeits his position as a neutral participant, and becomes a player in the competition.

Every game of sport provides an excellent illustration of the game of life. No judge in an Olympian race can enter himself into the race as a candidate. The moment he does, he forfeits his neutral position as judge because he now has an interest in the outcome.
This illustrates why there can exist no such thing as a “government interest” because the moment government obtains an interest in the outcome, it ceases to be government and becomes a contestant in the competitive world in which someone else must necessarily step up to assume the role of “government.” “Government” must absolutely be neutral, or it ceases to be government!

That is a profound statement I have just made because the courts in America have recognized “an overriding governmental interest,” U.S. v. Lee, 102 S. Ct. 1051 (1982), and Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), both dealing with the mandatory numbering of all Americans to support the Social Security Administration. However, any true-thinking person can quickly see that by the very principles of nature itself, there cannot exist a “governmental interest” at all, much less an “overriding” one. Once the existence of such a principle is introduced, there can be no end, for it works like the camel’s nose under your tent; you will soon be sleeping with the camel, or worse yet, be crowded out totally from under the tent, for everything will eventually be done to accomplish “an overriding governmental interest!”

With this as a background, let me explain the distinction between a “Peace Officer,” and a “Law Enforcement Officer.” The objective of a peace officer is peace, nothing more. He has no interest in the cause of A over B, but seeks only peace, which benefits A, B, D, E, and F. In fact, the whole purpose for all government in society is justice which results in peace. Peace is not possible where there is no justice. Said another way, where there is no justice, there can be no peace; and where there is no peace, you can count on the fact that it is because there is no justice. When a peace officer arrives on the scene, his objective is to separate the disputing factors and quell the tension --whether it be a fight between a husband and wife, or feuding neighbors. He has no inherent interest in arresting anyone upon arrival at the scene. Such pursuit of peace is a rewarding objective. The Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Matt. 5:9.

So now let us discuss a “Law Enforcement Officer.” His interest, as his title indicates, is enforcing the law. Now we have already stated that the objective of all government must be the establishment of peace through justice. So the question now turns to whether law enforcement’s only interest is seeking peace. I state emphatically, “NO!” Let me again illustrate with a sports game – baseball.
Baseball, as with all sports, has rules. The purpose of those rules, which we might here call “laws,” are made to assure that everyone plays on a level playing field and thus keeps the peace. One batter cannot be granted five strikes while another is limited to two. All rules must contribute to the objective of obtaining peace between the competing sides. Obviously, if one side or the other cannot agree as to what the rules are, or to abide by them for the benefit of both sides, there can be no peace, i.e., no game can possibly be played. This natural principle of law is true even where the opponents are fighting in a ring. The objective of all rules/laws must be peace!
Applying this law of nature to all rules and all laws governing society, let us consider the incidents where the rule or the law’s objective is not peace. We accept that the umpire is the decision-maker in baseball; and both sides agree to honor his judgment, whether or not they agree with any particular play. Conceptually, both sides agree that the umpire is trying to keep the peace by being honest and just in calling each and every play, and is not motivated by a personal interest in the outcome, such as a bet on the game.
Now suppose the umpire, pursuant to the authority and permission of the Baseball Commission, imposes a fine against every player in the game for each strike in the amount of $10, (an “infraction,”) and $100 (a “misdemeanor”) for each out, and finally $1000 (a “felony”) for each accumulation of 10 strikes. The “laws/rules” provide that the Baseball Commission receives 90% of the proceeds, and the umpire 10%. It is declared “perfectly legal,” and such practice “is endorsed by the courts” –see, here it is, pointing to the published opinion of “United Baseball Players v. Baseball Commission, 666 U.S. 911, (2069).” Now the enforcement of this rule/law is “enforceable;” and the Commission is within its right to pursue the players for failure to pay this fee/fine, and it is authorized to send forth law enforcement officers with badges and guns to collect this fee or throw the players in jail.

What has happened is, while this enforcement is “perfectly legal,” it has violated the fundamental laws of nature: that all laws must be for the purpose of bringing about peace through justice. Imposing a fine upon the players in a baseball game is neither a pursuit of justice nor peace, but rather the pursuit of the Commission’s own interest --that of collecting fines. And since collecting fines is the Commission’s interest, it then follows that their next step is maximizing those fines, i.e, increasing the numbers and amounts of the fines. Therefore, the “neutral” umpire, who has “no interest” in the outcome, starts “interpreting” more questionable calls in favor of strikes, the Baseball Commissioners, and his own 10% commission. Again I say, show me an umpire that has a “little bit” of interest in the outcome of a game, and I will show you a man that under any natural standard is disqualified as an umpire.
A “Law Enforcement Officer” is contending for the interest of those who hire him to “enforce” their “laws/rules” having nothing to do with peace or justice, only with profits for those who have sent him. The objective is greed-oriented.
The term “law enforcement officer” connotates the mentality of a fascist police state that has no interest in peace—just sheer obedience to the interests of the authority that pays him, i.e., he gets a cut of the profits of tyranny. There is no difference in this scenario than a driver of a get-away car receiving part of the “profits” of a bank robbery when splitting up the booty; except the former is a “legal” heist, while the latter an illegal one. The former is accomplished with an official uniform and badge, while the latter with a mask and bag.
By the very laws of nature, there cannot exist a “Law Enforcement Officer,” for if such were true, then we could all make ourselves “law enforcement officers,” for life itself must be a level playing field for all competitive interests. Life is not supposed to be “government.” It is supposed to be about society getting along peaceably with each other as much as is possible; and society needs only so much government as is necessary to bring about that objective, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
-- Thomas Paine
So now we know why the foreign power, under color of “government,” has purposely designed the extermination of every reference to “peace officers” to metamorphose them into “law enforcement officers.” The objective is designed to subjugate the American People to obedience to an all-powerful, ever-expanding law enforcement police state. According to the foreign power, there can never be enough “law enforcement officers” —the more, the better! And if there aren’t enough “laws” for these “law enforcement officers” to enforce, do not worry because the foreign power will surely pass more.
Only by judicial accountability to the People through J.A.I.L. will their plans be thwarted!

Ron Branson is the author of a series of “Understanding” articles.

(It is highly recommended that this article be reformatted into a brochure and distributed to all “law enforcement officers” in America. And all “L.E.O’s” are encouraged to write for Officer Jack McLamb’s newsletter, “Aid & Abet,” at
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)

Common Law in Illinois

Here is a Power Point presentation I used when I spoke at the Illinois Libertarian Party Convention in 2006. My speech focused on the Common Law, and how it is still operative in Illinois. Officials often portray individuals who invoke the Common Law as being fringe, patriot or militia radicals; and there is much confusion and misunderstanding of what the Common Law is. The Common Law embodies long-held judicial decisions dating back hundreds of years. It stands in distinction to statutory law, which is man-made law and often mala prohibita in nature. The application of statutes in relation to the Common Law is to modify, amend, or address shortcomings in the Common Law to address the application of the Common Law to modern-day issues where the Common Law had not previously been applied. The notes below I gleaned from the Corpus Juris Secundum which is the authoritative Legal Encyclopedia used by legal professionals and jurists. I have also included an additional analysis of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Earnings Tax, which imposes a 1% tax upon the "wages" of "taxpayers" working within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. I attempt to clarify and illustrate the chicanery and confusion used in the wording of the City Code which attempts to impose a tax upon working people. You will need the ability to view Microsoft PowerPoint slide shows to view the presentation.
Click here to view the Slide Show Presentation.

Common Law in Illinois
Corpus Juris Secundum on the Common Law § § 11 et seq.

The common law of England, so far as applicable and of a general nature, is in full force in Illinois until repealed by legislative authority.
There is no national common law operative as such throughout the United States, and the adoption and application of the common law were matters left to the several states for determination.

Under the Act of March 5, 1874, which is still in effect, the General Assembly provided: "The common law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of, and to supply the defects of the common law, prior to the fourth year of James the First, excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of 43d Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of 13th Elizabeth, and ninth chapter of 37th Henry Eighth, and which are of a general nature and not local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority." The fourth year of James the First began March 24, 1606.

This statute, without the exceptions, was passed by the general convention of the Colony of Virginia, May, 1776, and in its present form was carried into the legislature of the Indiana Territory by the Act of September 7, 1807, was in force in the territory of Illinois and was reenacted by the first state legislature by Act of February 4, 1819, and has been retained in the same form in succeeding revisions. The statute is declaratory of what was the law by which the inhabitants of the territory now constituting the State of Illinois were governed, and of the rights, privileges, and immunities to which they were entitled ever since Anglo-Saxon civilization first obtained a foothold in it.

The legislature fixed the fourth year of James the First, instead of the date of the Declaration of Independence, or of the formation of our Constitution, as the period for transplanting the common law of England because that was the period at which the first territorial government was established in America, and with it the common law of England as it then existed.

As a result of the Act, the great body of the English common law became, so far as applicable, in force in this state, and remains in force except so far as it has been modified or repealed by statute, or changed or modified by custom as found in decisions of our courts. The common law, when applicable, is as much a part of the law of the state, where it has not been expressly abrogated by statute, as the statutes themselves. In other words, Illinois is a common law state.
On the other hand, it has long been settled that the adoption has extended only to cases where the common law is applicable to the habits and condition of our society and in harmony with the genius, spirit, and objects of our institutions. The statute adopting the common law of England does not require the courts to enforce the local customs of England, but, on the contrary, they are excluded.

What the statute adopted was not just those doctrines which happened to have already been announced by English courts at the close of the Middle Ages, but rather a system of law whose outstanding characteristics are its adaptability and capacity for growth. The Supreme Court pointed out in the very early case of Penny v. Little, which was quoted in Amann v. Faidy, "That if we are to be restricted to the common law, as it was enacted at fourth James, rejecting all modifications and improvements which have since been made, by practice and statutes, except our own statutes, we will find that system entirely inapplicable to our present condition, for the simple reason that it is more than two hundred years behind the age."

Adoption of English statutes. The Act of March 5, 1874, which is still in effect, adopted not only the common law of England, but also all statutes in aid thereof or to supply defects therein passed prior to the fourth year of James the First, except the second section of the sixth chapter of 43 Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of 13th Elizabeth, and ninth chapter of 37th Henry the Eighth, which were of a general nature and not local to that kingdom.
English statutes are not in force in Illinois which were passed since the fourth year of James the First, or which are inapplicable to our conditions and inconsistent with our institutions.

Corpus Juris Secundum on the Common Law § § 14, 15

Various maxims and principles of the common law which are of general application and are suited to the conditions and surroundings of our state have been adopted and are in force to the extent that they have not been superseded by statutory enactment.

Thus, the courts have applied the doctrine of Mobilia sequuntur personam and the maxim De minimis non curat lex.
In addition, other maxims and principles have been applied, such as ignorance of the law excuses no one, and everyone of sound and pure mind is bound at his peril to take knowledge of both the common and statute law; the law only favors the vigilant; the law abhors forfeitures and will show them no mercy or favor; persons must so use their own property and so exercise their own privileges that they do not thereby destroy or peril the rights of others; the law does not permit a person to do indirectly what he cannot do directly; and the law does not require the performance of a useless act.


Rules for the construction of statutes are not rules of law, but are only aids which courts use to ascertain the legislative intent not clearly manifest from the language of the statute.

The purpose of all rules or maxims adopted by the courts for the construction or interpretation of statutes is to discover the true intent and meaning of the law. These rules or maxims are not rules of law, but are merely aids used by the courts in arriving at the real intention of the legislature when that intention is not clearly manifest from the language used.

These rules are useful only in cases of doubt, and are never to be used to create a doubt, but only to remove it.


The General Assembly has the power to make a reasonable definition of the terms used in an act, even though such definitions do not correspond with those contained in other acts. Statutory definitions control in the construction of the terms in an act, and the common-law definitions of those terms must yield to the statutory definitions.

Words defined

The words in a statute may be defined by common usage, by previous judicial construction, as well as by statutory definition, to render the statute certain.

§ 52. Construction as including or binding sovereign

General legislative enactments do not impair the rights of the sovereign unless such an intent is expressly declared in the statute.
The rights of the sovereign are never impaired by a general legislative enactment unless such an intent is expressly declared in the statute, and the words of a statute applying to private rights do not affect the rights of the state. The state is not bound by or included in any act of the General Assembly unless expressly named or necessarily implied to give effect to the act, although the rule that general legislative enactments are not applicable to the state is not violated when the state is made subject to the provisions thereof by reason of the expressed intention of the General Assembly to make it subject thereto.

In common usage the word "person" does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign, although the purpose, subject matter, context, legislative history, and executive interpretation of a statute are aids to construction which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term "person," to bring the state or nation within the scope of the statute. According to the Statute on Statutes, the words "person" or "persons," as well as all words referring to or importing persons, may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate as well as individuals. - Articulate Anarchy, Reasoned Rebellion, Paroxysmal Philosophy

"I pledge allegiance to no flag of any nation, state, or authority. Beholden to my Creator, from whence I came, a sovereign, free, individual possessing Natural Rights, unalienable, with freedom and tolerance for all."

With respect to "society", I am completely out of "control". With respect to my "conscience", I am the consummate "conformist".
My Statement to Government -

I feel it necessary to preface the following remarks; to speak unequivocally, deliberately, and purposefully. Whatever actions may result subsequent to my statements will be shouldered by those initiating such actions. You may twist my words, but you will never bend my will. I would relish the opportunity to look any would-be actor, usurper, agent, or proponent of control, governance, or regulation in the eye and say what I have taken time to write on the pages contained herein. I am not a violent man. I reserve my right to self-defense, should I choose to exercise same. Holding true to that commitment, I likewise reserve my right to act in whatever manner I see fit, peaceably, and with due regard and care for others. I will NOT obey. Whatever the edict, proclamation, command, or rule; I will refuse to act. I understand that all power resides with the individual and only by way of my ignorance and fear may you gain control of me; and in a purely philosophical sense, it is I who controls myself to step into the shackles you lay before me. I have come to understand too much to allow that to happen. I admonish, caution, warn, and without reservation command you to cease any desire to engage me. Read on and do what you will, and I will live my life with nary a synapse crossing my consciousness which is tainted with any concept of your vileness.

I do not "consent"! I am not one of the so-called "consenting governed", and I publically rebut any such presumption. I am not a subject to any earthly master or authority. I rescind all explicit or tacit allegiances to ANY government for the protection of My rights, life, or property, and I assume full and total responsibility for My protection of same. I will pay My own way, through voluntary taxes or fees, for any burden I place on government or society through the use of any privilege or benefit. I operate under no privilege or license; I am armed, capable, and prepared to provide for My own defense, the defense of My loved ones, and any who may seek My aid. I am knowledgeable, informed, and aware of all the absolute, natural, unalienable, and inviolable rights bestowed by My Creator; and I will live My life under the terms of My conscience; acted upon through My reason, and for any transgression against the like rights, freedoms or property of another, be subject to the punishment of my person; save but for My own private actions, shall I be ultimately accountable to no one or no thing other than My Creator. Any action taken by any one or any thing that poses a threat, diminishment, violation or penalty to Myself or My property will be met with resistance, belligerence, resolve, and determination and, if need-be, force. I Understand and acknowledge the pervasive ignorance that permeates and pollutes many of the minds of today, and I objectionably and reluctantly submit to some level of inconvenience upon My person by the unthinking, ignorant, and fearful automatons who have sold themselves into servitude, thereby having abandoned their conscience in favor of the mandates and dictates of artificial reason. I find it more humane and expedient to not bemoan a ripple of inequity that finds it origin in a sea of tyranny. I will reach out to My fellow man, though they may move from a position of ignorance and fear. Should My peaceful offer of understanding and reason be denied in favor of the anesthetizing fog of ignorance, I will deliver upon them a blow indistinguishable from that which is reserved for an ill disposed despot should they attempt to act upon that ignorance to My injury. I unequivocally and definitively claim My life, freedom and property as Mine, and Mine alone, not subject to the whim or needs of any society, government, or incorporeal construct of the mind of man. I will assert My life and freedom in a peaceable and civil manner; will resolve to obey no one; will submit Myself to just penalties for my transgressions; and under coercion, threat, or force will retaliate in-kind for My preservation and protection. So help Me God!

"Know all men by these presents, that I, Mark McCoy, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society, incorporeal body, or legal construct which I have not voluntarily, explicitly, and with fully informed consent, joined."

What I have to say I do so after much anguish and reflection. The evidence, as I see it, is irrefutable and abundant. The assembly of free and independent states that is called America has been relegated to the pages of history and replaced by a de-facto government called the "United States", with no basis in the will of the People, but rather by the consent of the ignorant. Will and consent are not synonymous.

Will is voluntary, purposeful, and deliberate. It is a desire and command for something. Consent is voluntary, whether knowingly or ignorantly, and permissive. It is also acquiescence, capitulation, surrender or apathy. The will of the People created a government, but only to act upon the consent of the governed. I no longer offer my consent. In my opinion, modern government is an anachronistic institution that has outlived its purpose. It is widely held that the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is the protection of the rights and property of the People. Government is NOT to dispense benefits, administer programs, heal, clothe, and educate people. These duties should be left to society-at-large. This notion is often impugned by those ensconced in the collectivist camp because society, more specifically people, cannot be trusted to manage such endeavors. My response is then, if People cannot be trusted to act charitably, compassionately, philanthropically, or responsibly towards their fellow-man, then how can such incompetent People be trusted to collectively discern from the population, and vote for, a body of competent People charged with taxing, regulating, controlling, and punishing the People for their political and natural transgressions?

Government thrives on consent; be it express or tacit. It is that consent which lends legitimacy to the harm it causes. Without consent, much of what government does could be identified as tyrannical, despotic, terroristic, oppressive, and violent, if it weren't for the People dutifully trudging off to the polls to cast their consent to the wind in hopes that a despot-in-waiting will rain less injury down upon them than the previous despot. And what recourse may provide us relief should the election cycle result in more tyranny with the only chance of relief being years away in another election? Must the People be forced to suffer for no other reason than there be no political relief from a despot? Or may the People shed their political shackles so that they may find relief in their natural state, absent the trappings of political edifices, and simply vow to obey no more?

Where does this lead me? I really cannot say. I know only of a few instances where this philosophy has been applied. Henry David Thoreau, I believe, was the first to put it into application. Later, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King took the same path. Each, of their own application of this principle, involved peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience. It may be worthwhile to investigate the implications of that application, as it may stand in contradistinction to self-defense, even if such defense appears to be violent.

If I refuse consent to being governed by a system, or by men and women employed by such system, who have no authority over me then the alternative would be to have a system imposed upon me against my will; compelling me to act; prohibiting me from acting; and extracting from me my property, freedom, liberty and labor.

Suppose an officer of the government approaches a child of early years who has been not yet been to the concept of government. Of what consequence will there be for a child who fails to recognize a badge, uniform, statute, summons? To the child, the officer is just an adult exerting power with nothing more than the threat of force. That child doesn't recognize the authority of that officer. Actually, the only thing that gives that officer any authority is the mind recognizing that man as something that has power. The power comes from within us. Without it, officers are just people playing a role that gives them, as they perceive it, power to force us to obey their commands. Once we realize we are not dealing with government, an artificial thing that exists only on paper and in our minds, but instead government actors, people, who are relying upon our ignorance and fear to empower them, then the game is exposed and the truth revealed. The question then becomes, who has any right to compel obedience from anybody else when there is actually no higher authority than that of our Creator and our conscience?

I now realize that we are captives. We are surrounded by the presence of a standing army of government agents, police and officers. We are living in a gilded cage. Our keepers are armed, aggressive, and determined to compel our obedience. We are led to believe that we must obey and comply with the orders of anyone in possession of a badge, gun, or wearing the trappings of a figure of authority. I do not recognize, chose to obey, nor offer my consent to such a premise or person who would deem to be so foolish as to believe that I am obligated to obey any command of another human being.

Some People who hear these words become uneasy and skeptical. It is comforting to have a force to rely upon for protection from malcontents. There is little circumspection when we hear of someone being tasered to death; detained at a roadside checkpoint; have their property confiscated for ties to "drugs"; failing to act in a certain way prescribed by government; or have their children taken away for unacceptable parenting. We quietly thank our lucky stars, look ship-shape, and pray the next act of aggression befalls anybody but ourselves. Despite everything government does, it never succeeds in creating the utopian society it promises if we only "give a little more". Then slowly through repetition, exposure, indoctrination, and complicity, we subconsciously acquiesce to despotism while we shut our eyes and repeat the words "land of the free and home of the brave" over and over, as if chanting and disengagement will somehow produce a society we long for, but are too ignorant or fearful to invest ourselves in.

It is time to face facts. We are not free. Neither as a people, a country, a world; we are not free. The chains grow ever more heavy, the walls ever more closer, and the control ever more pervasive. The unnatural and perverse feelings that permeate my being speak to a juxtaposition of the natural and unnatural. It is not natural to be duty-bound to another person. It is not natural to question your own actions for fear of transgressing on an arbitrary edict of a presumed authority. It is not natural to construct our lives so as to remain between the drawn lines of government and it's minions in observing and inspecting our every move and action for possible violations. I say, let whatever perceived violations manifest in the most prolific way. Overwhelm the tyrants with the task of maintaining their paper-driven world by our refusal to acquiesce. Beleaguer them with resistance, disobedience and revolution.