Federal Tax Associated With Land Jurisdiction

Federal Tax Associated With Land Jurisdiction:

Wording of the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct tax on all incomes earned within the States of the United States of America or the federal states of the United States. The word “All” is the first word used in the Constitution of September 17, 1787, so the proponents of the Sixteenth Amendment were aware that that amendment could not by law refer to all incomes. The Amendment does refer to the “power (of the Congress) to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source (of the power to tax incomes is) derived,” which means the Congress has other sources of indirect income taxing powers that require no apportionment, census or enumeration and it can use the source of that power to tax some incomes, but not all incomes. The Congress has two sources of taxing power. It has the direct and indirect taxation power within the territory it owns or that has been ceded to it. Article IV of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, confirmed the power of the Congress to impose indirect taxes in the Northwest Territory, as long as it owned the land where the subject of indirect taxation occurred. However, since the United States of America initially own all the real property in the Northwest Territory, this changed as some is sold off.  No attempt could ever be made to impose direct taxes on the real property there as a whole. History reveals that some federal land including much of the Northwest Territory would be sold to the general public subject to the alleged Article IV, Section 4, power of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” That general public would be subject to federal income taxation. The second source of taxing power of Congress was claimed for the Congress in Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1&2 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, it was the taxing power over foreign imports that was conceded to it by the States when the Constitution was ratified. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, identifies by name the four different “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” the Congress may lay and collect within federal territory and upon foreign imports. No matter the name of the tax the Congress is limited in its taxation to federal territory which it calls “the United States.” The first bill enacted into law by the First Congress establishes a legislative oath to “support this Constitution.” The second bill lays out imports duties on specified articles of commerce sought to be entered into the “United States.” The first internal revenue statute of the United States government was enacted on March 3, 1791. The statute raised revenue by laying a duty on distilled spirits and the stills that produced them. George Washington himself led the government’s forces against the uprising that arose in opposition to the act. The Federal government’s 1794 success in the Whiskey Rebellion secured its power to impose excise taxes on nearly everything produced for sale. By various lawless means the federal government extended its lawful power to tax within federal territory to beyond (without) those borders to nonfederal America. The federal government chose to create the US individual income tax–a tax on the net incomes of some citizens and residents of the United States which specifically included most federal officers and employees of the federal government. The income of federal officers and employees can be taxed because being employed by the federal government is a privilege when exercised within federal territory. Working for another for pay, off federal territory, is not a privilege– it is an unalienable right not subject to taxation. Learning the written law in law schools like Harvard and Yale has not occurred since the ratification of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, so you would be wrong to attend any other law school that holds those two schools in high esteem.

 

Posted in IRS | Leave a comment

Banking, History Timeline (MS 10097)

To See Chart Click > HERE.

 

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/LegHistory/LegHistoryMoney.htm

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IRS Defense Attorneys, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, Trust, Alan Stuart Richey, Alan Richey.

IRS Defense Attorneys, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, Trust.

See example below:

We (Paul J Hansen) win most all our case without an attorney. [50 plus]

We win none where the client takes on an attorney.   (Beginning to see a pattern.)

Read this article below, I coached Kent Hovind how to win, he got scared hired this criminal lawyer and got the max years of any IRS case of the like. I am now close to getting Kent’s case vacated, as of 3-18-2020.

KENT HOVIND aka DOCTOR DINO WAS SENT TO PRISON BY A CRIMINALLY CORRUPT MORMON (WSBA) ATTORNEY ALAN RICHIE WHO I CAN PROVE INTENTIONALLY LOST HIS CASE ON PURPOSE!

Washington Attorney Alan Stuart Richey, WSBA # 30578 is a CIVIL . . . .IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY!!!!

Washington Attorney Alan Stuart Richey is NOT an IRS ATTORNEY!

Washington Attorney Alan Stuart Richey doesn’t know anything about TAX LAW period!

Washington Attorney Alan Stuart Richey, WSBA #30578 has LOST NO LESS THAN SEVENTEEN (17) IRS CASES in a row:

1.) Michael O’Donnell a New York Airline Pilot in U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:02-cr-00411-CM-1 serving some serious prison time picking up the soap for Bubba thanks to Alan Richey.

2.) Kent E. Hovind aka Doctor Dino and his wife Jo D. Hovind in the United States District Court Northern District of Florida Pensacola Division in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cr-83-MCR are now serving time in CLUB FED thanks to Alan Richey!!!!

3.) Multi-Millionaire Mannatech Distributor Raymond Gebauer in the U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cr-00122-JLR-1 is now . . . PICKING UP THE SOAP FOR BUBBA IN THE GRAY BAR MOTEL . . . thanks to . . . ALAN RICHEY!

4.) Hamlet C. Bennet in U.S. District Court District of Hawaii (Hawaii) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cr-00068-SOM-A is now doing time with BUBBA thanks to Alan Richey and a few other incompetent BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEYS.

5.) Michael Burn in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Ann Arbor) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:06-cr-20582-JCO-MKM-1 was of course found guilty and LOST his case with Alan Richey.

6.) Carl Roger Davis in U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Springfield) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:08-cr-03033-RED-1.

7.) Carl Lee Morris in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE # 4:08-cr-00082-PJC-1 got talked into PLEADING GUILTY by Alan Richey and the other incompetent BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEY.

8.) Neil Stierhoff in U.S. District Court District of Rhode Island (Providence) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #1:06-cr-00042-ML-LDA-1 also LOST HIS CASE WITH ALAN RICHEY!

9.) Nadine Griffin in U.S. District Court of Massachussetts for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE # 494 F.Supp.2d 1 (2007) also LOST HER CASE WITH ALAN RICHEY!

10.) Thomas David Weathers in U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04-cr-05487-FDB-1 also LOST HIS CASE WITH ALAN RICHEY.

11.) Gordon Ramzan Niamatali in U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of Texas (McAllen) in CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:09-mc-00001 also LOST HIS CASE WITH ALAN RICHEY.

12.) Beaver Valley Trust in the Eastern District of Washington U.S. District Court (Spokane) for CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02-cv-00158-RHW also LOST their case with the incompetent ALAN RICHEY!

13.) Bryce W. Townley and Charlene R. Townley in the Eastern District of Washington U.S. District Court (Spokane) for CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE # 2:02-cv-00384-RHW also LOST their case with the incompetent ALAN RICHEY.

14.) Brett Edward Dirr in U.S. District Court – Eastern District of Tennessee (Knoxsville) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:08-cr-00042-1 also LOST HIS CASE WITH IRS CASE LOSER ALAN RICHEY!

14.) Steven Pontnak in U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Eugene) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:03-cr-60063-HO-1 also LOST his case with IRS CASE LOSER ALAN RICHEY!

Note: Steven Pontnak at (503) 375-6111 or (202) 507-0540 or E-Mail: <leellenfarms@q.com> told me that ALAN RICHEY RIPPED HIM OFF $40,000.00 to do an APPEAL that he never did!

16.) Sharp Management in the U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) for CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00402-JLR also had to cave in and thrown in the towel and moved to dismiss their own LOSING CASE without prejudice “as though they would really try to come back with Alan Richey’s LOSER PAPERWORK,”

17.) Kevin Lynn Terry in U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma) for CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 307-cr-05645-BHS-1 also LOST HIS CASE WITH IRS CASE LOSER ALAN RICHEY!

LOSE, LOSE, LOSE AND LOSE AGAIN, THAT’S ALL ALAN RICHEY HAS DONE IN EVERY IRS CASE HE HAS EVER DONE!!!!

Note: The following case is pending, BUT DON’T WORRY, you can count on ALAN RICHEY to LOSE AND LOSE AND LOSE AGAIN just like he did for ALL THE ABOVE DEFENDANTS.

1.) David Opollo Ross in U.S. District Court District of Hawaii (Hawaii) in CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cr-00223-HG-1 has been continued to 6/9/2009.

Somebody in HAWAII better contact DAVID OPOLLO ROSS and tell him to . . . FIRE ALAN RICHEY . . . BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!!

THAT’S RIGHT, WASHINGTON ATTORNEY ALAN RICHEY IS A . . . 17 TIME IRS CASE LOSER!!!!

Alan Richey prior to taking LAW LESSONS from LUIS EWING had in fact NEVER WON even 1 single criminal case of any significance in any of the State court’s within the State of Washington or in any other State.

Alan Richey has NO EXPERIENCE in criminal law PRIOR to taking LAW LESSONS from LUIS EWING!!!!

The 1 and ONLY criminal case that Alan Richey has ever WON was for a relative which he did NOT disclose to the court that his alleged client was in fact a blood relative and his failure to disclose this to the court was in clear violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct which is clearly grounds for disbarment in the State of Washington.

That 1 and ONLY criminal case WIN that Alan Richey ever got was for his blood relative and was obtained by PLAGIARIZING LUIS EWING’S SPEEDY TRIAL BRIEF regarding the 48-Hour Rule, CrRLJ 2.1 (d)(2).

Alan Richey has NO UNDERSTANDING of CRIMINAL LAW and has virtually NO EXPERIENCE in criminal law matters and in fact has NEVER WON even 1 serious criminal case of any significance here in the State of Washington.

90% or better of all the better case law quotations and citations that Alan Richey uses on his current clients is direct PLAGIARISM of my OLD BRIEFS which I removed and deleted all the better legal arguments and better case law quotations from before I gave him a copy of some of my OLD BRIEFS, so anybody who is using Alan Richey as their IRS Defense Attorney is pre-destined to LOSE and go to PRISON!!!!!

Alan Richey was NOT and is NOT an experienced IRS ATTORNEY!!!!

UNLESS YOU COUNT SIXTEEN LOSSES IN A ROW AS EXPERIENCE????

OKAY, SO ALAN IS IN FACT AN . . . EXPERIENCED IRS CASE LOSER!!!!

HA, HA, HA, WHAT A JOKE ALAN RICHEY IS!!!!

Alan Richey has in fact NEVER WON even just 1 single IRS CRIMINAL CASE!!!!

Alan Richey has in fact NEVER WON even just 1 single IRS CIVIL CASE!!!!

Please forward this E-MAIL to anyone and everyone you know that is using Washington Attorney Alan Richey as their IRS Defense Attorney.

HERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT I THINK IS FUNNY:

RALPH WINTERROWD FROM ALASKA IS SO STUPID THAT HE BRAGGED TO ME ON THE INTERNET IN FRONT OF HIS YAHOO GROUPS THAT HE LOST NO LESS THAN SIX IRS CASES IN A ROW!!!!

DOESN’T ANYBODY KNOW THAT RALPH WINTERROWD GOT BRAIN DAMAGED FROM FALLING ON HIS HEAD????

ANYONE WHO IS DUMB ENOUGH TO BRAG ABOUT LOSING SIX (6) IRS CASES IN A ROW OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT HAVE ALL THEIR MARBLES IN THE RIGHT PLACE!!!!

WHAT’S EVEN FUNNIER IS THAT SIX (6) TIME IRS LOSER RALPH WINTERROWD NOW . . . “RECOMMENDS” . . . SEVENTEEN (17) TIME IRS LOSER ALAN RICHEY!!!!

QUESTION: YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY DON’T YOU????

ANSWER: . . . “BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.”

Please forward this to all patriot groups and tax honesty groups in Hawaii, Tennessee, Boston, Massachussetts, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Tampa, Florida.

Please send me the NAME, PHONE NUMBER, E-MAIL ADDRESS of anyone you know who is using Washington Attorney Alan Richey and please also provide me the actual COURT CAUSE NUMBER for anyone you know who is using Washington Attorney Alan Richey as their IRS Defense Attorney.

To anyone who provides me the actual NAME OR NAMES, PHONE NUMBERS, E-MAIL ADDRESSES and conjunctively also provides me the actual Court Cause No.’s: ______________________ of any IRS CASE that Alan Richey is working on, I WILL TELL YOU HOW I CAN PROVE THAT WASHINGTON ATTORNEY ALAN RICHEY IS MOST PROBABLY WORKING IN COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE IRS TO HELP THEM TAKE DOWN TAX PROTESTORS “OR” DISJUNCTIVELY, I WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THAT HE IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT BY CITING 2 COMPLETELY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT RULE VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY COURT TO DENY YOUR MOTION EVEN IF IT CONTAINED CORRECT LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT ANY “COMPETENT” ATTORNEY COULD EVER POSSIBLY MAKE 2 SUCH GROSS ERRORS AND NOT KNOW IT UNLESS THEY WERE JUST PLAIN “INCOMPETENT.”

So please if you know anyone who is using Washington Attorney Alan Richey, please forward this E-MAIL to them as fast as possible and have them contact me BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE AND THEY GO TO PRISON WHEN THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY WHICH THEY WILL BE WITH ALAN RICHEY REPRESENTING HIS BEST INTEREST’S WHICH IS TO “MILK THE COW” AND BLEED YOU OF ALL YOUR MONEY WHILE RESEARCHING AND WRITING MORE LOSING BRIEFS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS!!!!

Sincerely

Luis Ewing at (360) 335-1322 or call me at <luisewing> on SKYPE.
PS – You can call and leave a message on my phone: 1 – (360) 335-1322 or my cellular at 1 – (253) 226-3741 or call me at <luisewing> on SKYPE, Monday through Saturday from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm.

HELP – Send me Alan Stuart Richey house address and picture, I wonder what a masterful, intentional, loser can afford. I’ll post it here. pauljjhansenlaw@gmail.com

Posted in IRS | Leave a comment

Seven Elements of Jurisdiction, a good synopsis.

This is a classic.

I know many of you have seen it, but I wanted to post it for the benefit of
those who haven’t. There is a lot of “meat” here!  For the more advanced student.

* * * * * * *  *

SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

  1.  Accused must be properly identified; identified in such a
    fashion there is no room for mistaken identity.  The individual must
    be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to
    arrest and trial without benefit of “wrong party” defense.  Almost
    always the means of identification is a person’s proper name, BUT, any
    means of identification is equally valid if said means differentiates
    the accused without doubt.  (There is no constitutionally valid requirement
    you must identify yourself) For stop and identify (4th Amendment) see

Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.

  1.  The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or
    common name.  A number is insufficient.  Today, a citizen may stand
    in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes,
    regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example:

Colorado National Monument Superintendent’s Orders regarding an
unleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail).  If a number were to
be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges
at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as
an offense, it must be declared to be a crime.  Charges must negate
any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense,
by affirmative non-applicability.  In other words, any charge must
affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.

Example of exception: “…. thereof to make a return (other than a
return required under authority of 6015)…..Indictment or information
is defective unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie
case of guilt is stated.  Assumption of element is not lawful.

Otherwise, accused will not be thoroughly informed.  26 USC 6012 is a
necessary element of the offense.  Since 6012 isn’t cited, the
information is fatally defective.  Additionally, information did not
negate the exception (other than required under authority of section
6015).”  After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that 7203 elements
are:

  1.  Required to perform.
  2.  Failed to perform.
  3.  Failure was willful you may wish to ask, “how often is a
    valid 7203 or other information or indictment brought?
    How many citizens have been convicted on a fatally
    defective process?
  4.  The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-preju-
    dicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average
    intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of
    defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained
    of.  The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by
    the language of same.  The naming of the acts of the offense describes
    a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a
    general class of offense.  Facts must be stated.  Conclusions cannot
    be considered in the determination of probable cause.
  5.  The accuser must be named.  He may be an officer or a third
    party.  Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse.
    Some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the
    accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid
    means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser.  Also, the
    injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation.  Hearsay
    evidence may not be provided.  Anyone else testifying that he heard
    that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
  6.  The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If
    perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise,
    anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
  7.  To comply with the five elements above, that is for the
    accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process.
    a. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing
    the charge.  This includes court-determined probable cause, summons
    and notice procedure.  If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a
    citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man
    of his freedom.  All political dissent may be stifled by utilization
    of defective process.
  8.  The court must be one of competent jurisdiction.  To have
    valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in
    accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (article III judge).

Without the limiting factor of a court of competent
jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty
being imposed at any bureaucrat’s whim.  It is conceivable that the
procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of
facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.

Leg 1
1. Court of proper Venue
2. Judge with Oath

Leg 2
3. Plaintiff
4. Sworn Complaint / Affidavit

Leg 3
5. Competent Witness
6. Sworn Affidavit

Leg 4
7. ‘In Personam’ Jurisdiction over the Defendant,

The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue
of personal jurisdiction.  The seventh element (also element #2)
addresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction.  Subject matter 
     jurisdiction is conferred by acts controlled by law; territorial 
     jurisdiction attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court 
     and to any trans-jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties 
     (extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial 
     long-arm statutes).

SUMMING UP the LAW and the POLITICS

Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless
waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure
against further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform court of
facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction,
should one be obtained.
 Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and
charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense.  Without
lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings
prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the
seven elements is void.  A lawful act is always legal but many legal
acts by government are often unlawful.  Most bureaucrats lack
elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of
constitutional due process.  They will make mistakes.  Numbers beyond
count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to
these seven elements.  Today, informations are being filed and
prosecuted by “accepted practice” rather than due process of law.

See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney &
client:  The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public,
not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with
those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of
justice, the former must yield to the latter.  Clients are also called
“wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their
attorneys.  After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to
see a copy of “regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules” (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/resources/lawyer_ethics_regulation/model_rules_for_lawyer_disciplinary_enforcement.html)  Also Canons 1 through 9.     (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/mrpc/Canons_Ethics.authcheckdam.pdf)

Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful
manner.
 If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his
detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law,
including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised
and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar.
(Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of
a fox guarding the hen house.)

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court,
but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction.  The burden of
proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter.  The court is only to
rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298
US 178.  The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in
Maxfield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

NOTE:  Today the courts are unconcerned with questions such as
whether or not the 16th or 17th amendments were ever lawfully
ratified.  If the courts were to address this type of question
honestly, the government, with its huge bureaucracy and patron special
interests would be placed in jeopardy.  This potential threat is not
allowed nor will it ever be.  It is much easier for the courts to
label such potential threats as political questions, point to the
lateness of the clock and refuse to hear or rule.  Whatever the
political jugernaut does, it uses the facade of law to justify or
reconcile it.  The only way such questions will have force and effect
is if the general public becomes aware and concerned with justice
being based upon law and not just policy based on a facade of law.

If you doubt such words, please be assured that they are not just
words but are, in fact, and articulation of the unwritten, unspoken,
present public policy, as enforced by the courts in dealing with
challenges to governmental acts and authority.  For documentation, see
US v WAYNE WOJTAS, 85 CR 48 in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division and Judge Shadur’s opinion on
the 16th Amendment.  You will see the beginnings and threat of
disbarment of a certain “aggressive” licensed attorney.

To be truly effective in the courts in any challenge to
governmental power and authority, the challenger must possess a good
understanding of politics.  This is especially so since government and
the courts are primarily concerned with a public perception of the
balancing of the scales of justice rather than the attainment of true
justice under the law.

Once it is realized that the court is primarily concerned with
politics, it then becomes necessary for any challenger to become
proficient in the political arena.  By politics, we speak, not of the
electoral process, but of the politics of association.

Keeping this in mind, and truly understanding the concept, a man
accused of breaking a “rule” for which he may suffer penalties of
imprisonment, fine and costs without benefit of trial or
Constitutional safeguards, may very will consider bringing a criminal
charge against himself directly in court and thereby blunt his
adversaries’ attack.  To the uninitiated, this may sound like madness,
but to the political scholar destined to appear before a “master” to
answer to alleged rule violation of the unauthorized practice of law,
the self-accusatory route to the courts may be the only hope of
victory; both legal and political.

The cop can’t be the WITNESS, INJURED PARTY and PROCESS SERVER, all at the same time. It is a CONFLICT of INTEREST….  The same goes for the DA, as well.  The judge is not allowed to prosecute the case, just the TRIER of the LAW and FACTS but yet that should be the responsibility of the JURY, not the JUDGE.  The judge is supposed to be a NEUTRAL PARTY to the case but can’t, as he/she is an EMPLOYEE of the STATE (CONFLICT of INTEREST), who is bringing the charges against you by the SURROGATE (DA).  The STATE is a FICTION and can’t be INJURED.  The DA has NO FIRST HAND INFORMATION about the supposed CRIME (VICTIMLESS), as there is NO INJURED PARTY and NO CORPUS DELICTI).  A STATUTE is not Law but COLORABLE LAW only….  No living man or woman comes forward to state a CLAIM of INJURY… The DA only relies on the STATUTES, which are for those operating as GOVERNMENT Employee or those OPERATING in COMMERCE. When you are going about your everyday task, and going from POINT A to POINT Z, you are not operating in COMMERCE and are to have UNFETTERED movement on the PUBLIC ROADWAYS….

We have NO

—————————————————————–

A fully informed jury is a Constitutionally literate jury.

—————————————————————

 

MAINE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Last reviewed and edited December 16, 2012                                                        Including amendments effective January 1, 2012   

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court adopted the Maine Rules of Professional

Conduct, effective August 1, 2009. On the same date Maine Bar Rule 2-A

(Aspirational Goals for Lawyer Professionalism), Maine Bar Rule 3 (Code of

Professional Responsibility) and Maine Bar Rule 8 (Contingent Fees) were

abrogated, as they are replaced by the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct.

http://www.courts.state.me.us/rules_adminorders/rules/text/MRProfCondONLY1-12.pdf

Posted in Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

26 CFR § 1.1-1 – Income tax on individuals. NO rule as to who.

David Merlin brief, held by Dale.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Interstate Commerce, Defined

Interstate Commerce, Defined:

The next time you here of someone getting charged with ‘interstate commerce’ crimes, consider the below.

Few actions in US have the elements of interstate commerce.

>>

Two key factors that determine whether passenger carriers are subject to commercial regulations are interstate commerce and for-hire transportation.

Interstate Commerce

Title 49 section 13501 of the United States Code provides for Federal jurisdiction over motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. A passenger carrier is in interstate commerce when it transports passengers:

  • Across state lines – from one state to another or to a location in the same state when the vehicle passes through another state; or
  • Between the United States and a U.S. territory or possession; or
  • From one place in the United States through a foreign country* to another place in the United States; or
  • From the United States to another country.

In some cases, transporting passengers entirely within one state may be interstate commerce if the passengers began or will conclude their trip outside the state. Refer to the official guidance notice for a full explanation.

((Somewhere in the US written laws it says ‘interstate commerce is transporting cargo or passengers from one federal zone (ZIP) to another federal zone (ZIP).))

Solution – use our templates to challenge the above without shifting the burden of proof, and without giving discretionary authority to some power hungry, statist, US administrator.

*foreign country – can possibly simply mean land foriegn to the united states, which included your private land.

Posted in Interstate Commerce | Leave a comment

Warren Buffett, Susan Thompson Buffett, are they working for a greater condemnation through abortions?

Warren Buffett, Susan Thompson Buffett, are they working for a greater condemnation through abortions?

Buffett’s, the Big Abortion Backer, Over 40 million dollars to death camps.

When it comes to giving to Planned Parenthood and abortion related causes, no one holds a candle to Warren Buffett.

Through the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for the multi-billionaire investor’s late wife, Buffett has contributed millions to promote abortion here and around the world.

In its 2014 Form 990 PF, the Buffett Foundation gave a total of $40,620,507 to PPFA for “project support.” That’s $40.6 million, if you thought you missed a decimal point.

It gave an additional $13,472,258 to various Planned Parenthood affiliates across the United States.

That wasn’t all. International Planned Parenthood received $9,669,606 and the Guttmacher Institute received $3,709,208.

Planned Parenthood’s political action committee, committed to electing pro-abortion candidates, got a cool $7,250,000 from Buffett’s foundation.

That’s over $70 million to Planned Parenthood related entities in just one year’s time. (https://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/2016/08/tax-forms-show-buffett-wealthy-elite-fund-planned-parenthoodworld-abortion-empire-with-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars/)

Posted in abortion | Leave a comment

Transported a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Territorial Jurisdiction Challenge – A MUST.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174 

United States v. Miller (1939) 

  1. Facts of the case: An Arkansas federal district court charged Jack Miller and Frank Layton with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”) when they transported a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce. Miller and Layton argued that the NFA violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. 
  2. Question: Does the Second Amendment protect an individual’s right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun? 
  3. Court Comment: The purpose of the Second Amendment [x2] was to maintain effective state militias; Congress could require registration of a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun if carried across state lines (Oklahoma to Arkansas [x1]). 
  4. Finding: The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument. 

[x1] Oklahoma to Arkansas – Comment by Hansen – It must be challenged as to being transported from one ‘federal-zone’ to another ‘federal-zone’ (land) to complete the sufficiency of the evidence to be classified as ‘interstate commerce’. In this case the Defendant may have not been in land that is owned by ‘The United States of America’ when they where in land of ether Oklahoma to Arkansas, yet they may have failed to challenge such, which is naturally common for US federally licensed attorneys.

[x2] Second Amendment, is of right for a man, and of granted permission of a ‘US person’. It is possible that one can pass through a federal zone with such a gun as a ‘man’ by right, and not as a ‘person’ of privilege (i.e. US citizen/Resident).

Hansen’s advise – Stay off ‘federal’ owned lands as much as possible, especially if you have any guns.  (Land as described in – Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17)

P.S. – Fire Arm – IRS Code, ATF Code, 1934 National Fire Arms Act/Code. 

< 18″ shot gun barrel. 

< 16″ rifel barrel, over all < 26″. 

Silencer, 

Machine gun. 

Posted in Firearms Defined, Gun / Rights / Law | Leave a comment

Police, Should we Have Them?

Should We Have Police,Bojidar Marinov

Axe to the Root Podcast Episode #14

 

Should We Have Police?

 

Welcome to Episode 14 of Axe to the Root Podcast, part of the War Room Productions, I am Bo Marinov, and for the next 30 minutes we will be talking about police, standing armies, pagan law enforcement, Biblical law enforcement, and how Christians of our day have been duped into supporting wholeheartedly a social order and its institutions which are blatantly opposed to the Biblical social order and to the Biblical concept of social order. As a result, we as Christians have allowed not only the perversion of justice but also open institutional idolatry in the land; and in many cases, we have willingly joined that idolatry in sincere adoration of its gods.

I have to start here with pointing to a historical blind spot of many American Christians in the last couple of decades, a blind spot that has been carefully nurtured and developed by the enemies of God through propaganda and political action: The belief that modern liberalism in America and the destruction of the old Christian social order started in the 1960s. America, the majority of Christians believe, started on a downward spiral with the sexual revolution and the hippie movement and the post-modernism of the flower generation. Before that, the nation was supposedly decent and Christian nation, and everything was nice and good. Many Christians, therefore, instinctively side with the conservative side of the political spectrum, because they see that our society has been changed radically; they want a return to an earlier society, earlier times that were less radical and more “traditional,” which would mean “Christian.” And the conservative side of the spectrum points to that time before the 1960s – preferably the 1950s, when men were men, women were women, crime and debauchery were kept off the streets, public schools allowed prayers, judges and politicians paid lip service to Christian values, everyone respected authority, and the economy was prosperous beyond anything the world had seen up to that time. This is the real motive behind modern conservatism, and many Christians imagine that it is a Christian motive – after all, it was the world before the hippies and the sodomites appeared, right?

There is only one problem in this motive: It is based on a fallacious view of history. America of the 1950s was not a Christian society, nor a Christian social order; and it had nothing to do with the original America of the Founders – nor even with the Constitutional order established in 1789. America of the 1950s was just as radically leftist as America of the 1960s, and, as a matter of fact, as America of today. It was not a conservative nor a Constitutional nor a Christian social order in any meaning of these words. If anything, there was even less Christianity around than there is today; the only traces of Christianity could be found in the personal work ethic and beliefs of many individuals and perhaps in some pulpits. But as social order, civil government, legal structure, principles of government and economics, taxation, justice, liberty, America of the 1950s was very deliberately anti-Christian and anti-Biblical.

The real Marxist, anti-Christian revolution in America happened not in the 1960s, it happened much earlier, in the first half of the 20th century, under Presidents that are today hailed as some sort of heroes, like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and yes, even Calvin Coolidge, for all the right and good ideological views he had. The radical Left took over America much earlier than the 1960s; and when it took it, the churches remained silent. The revolution of the 1960s was not a leftist revolution against a Christian social order; it was, as Robert Nisbet points out in an article for the Encounter Magazine in 1972, titled “Radicalism as Therapy,” an in-house struggle between the Old Radical Left of the rationalists vs. the New Radical Left of the mysticists. Both sides were – and still are – anti-Christian to the core. Both sides worked hard – and continue to do so – to co-opt gullible Christians to their respective sides, using rhetoric that would attract specific layers within the churchian circles. In the final account, today, the Old Radical Left calls itself “conservative,” has the Republican Party as its political arm, and has managed to put in its hip-pocket the “conservative” share of the church-goers in America; on the other side, the New Radical Left calls itself “liberal,” has the Democrat Party as its political arm, and has managed to put in its hip pocket the “liberal” share of the church-goers in America. In the final account, the church in America has become a tool in the hands of the Left – in both of its varieties – and celebrity preachers on both sides of the fence build their careers on either dulling the resistance against the Left in general (by calling for cultural non-involvement and retreat), or actively recruiting useful idiots by endorsing radical leftist candidates, Old and New Left, Republican and Democrat, and calling their followers to vote for them.

Knowing this historical and ideological context is important to our understanding of how far American Christians have gone in their idolatry on many issues – including police. Most of the modern political and social and economic practices considered “conservative” and eagerly defended and supported by modern Christians were in fact introduced by this Old Radical Left. Some of these practices are more obviously leftist: Social Security, the IRS and Federal taxes, government regulatory agencies, government schools and the National Education Agency, the ban on prayer in schools and the separation of civil government from morality, etc., etc. Others, though, are not so obviously leftist and radical and seem quite “conservative” and even “Christian” to many Christians, to the point that Christian celebrities concoct systems of interpretation to try to fit these practices into the Bible. I have mentioned before that such are the laws restricting and controlling immigration (listen to my three lectures on immigration to see why such government control is pagan and anti-Christian), but there are many more: foreign wars and empire and standing armies, the prison system, the War on Drugs and regulation and control of substances and non-criminal behavior, the propaganda concept of “respect to authority” (which was rejected and fought against by earlier generations of Americans), the Pledge of Allegiance, the political centralism of Washington DC, and many others that today pass for “conservative” policies and practices but were in fact introduced by radical leftists.

And among these radical leftist practices is the introduction of a standing army with executive privilege with the purpose of controlling the population – allegedly to prevent crime – enforcing government policies, collecting revenue in taxation and fines, and bossing around innocent people. That is, police. That’s right, folks, the creation of police in the US and the West was an initiative of radical leftist politicians; and therefore those Christians who support the police are only supporting the destruction of the Christian social order of our ancestors. But let’s start from the beginning: from the Word of God and what it presents as a Biblical social order.

I will here quote directly from an article I wrote about a year and a half ago, on the murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner; the title of the article is “Brown, Garner, and the Application of Biblical Law to Homicide and Murder.” In it, I started with the Biblical view of what a law-enforcement a righteous society should have. Quote:

The Bible doesn’t allow for the creation of a government’s specialized standing army for any purposes, whether for permanent warfare against foreign nations or for “maintaining order” at home. Aggressive wars were forbidden as a government policy, and kings were forbidden from maintaining specialized offensive forces (Deut. 17:16; see also 1 Sam. 8:11-12). Also, there was no provision for a centralized executive power in the land which would determine what “order” was and enforce it. The executive function of government was left to the families and local communities to maintain and enforce, and therefore any “order” in the society was to be voluntary and based on private action and transactions. The function of the civil government was limited to the judiciary, local courts with appellate courts above them, with either the King or the High Priest acting as Supreme Court at the top of the judiciary pyramid. Prevention of crime was not delegated to the government; the Bible recognizes that crime is a moral issue first and foremost, and therefore there would be no institutional solution to its prevention. Prevention therefore was left to moral instruction in the family and in the church, and ultimately, since only God could read the heart of a person, to God Himself. Human courts were only allowed to act when crime was committed and the guilt of the perpetrator could be reliably establish by the word of witnesses (Deut. 19:15).

In such a system, a law-enforcing agency is not executive (enforcing rules and regulations) but judicial (carrying out orders of the courts), similar to the US Marshals Service. It doesn’t “maintain order,” arbitrarily deciding on the spot what “order” is; it only executes court orders following court verdicts or decisions. Thus, the concept of “power of arrest” doesn’t exist as an executive privilege; and neither does the multitude of artificial and arbitrarily made up “crimes” related to the “power of arrest,” like “resisting arrest,” “obstructing government administration,” etc. (Ever thought about the idiocy of a crime like “resisting arrest,” when the “criminal” is not guilty of anything else but resisting unlawful arrest?) Thus, the category of “suspect” doesn’t exist in the legal language, and therefore all the rights related to it that the cops have don’t exist. How does a police officer know who is a suspect and who isn’t? The Bible doesn’t allow for such arbitrary legal power given to a special class of people. Without such arbitrary power of arrest and designating “suspects,” thousands of innocent lives would have been spared in the US, who were murdered in cold blood by police officers.

The only time when a person can be legally apprehended and detained is when caught in the very act of the crime, to prevent him from committing a crime, and to make sure he is taken to court. Outside direct prevention of crime on the spot, the only action should be through the courts. Christian Europe after 12th century, until the rise of the modern socialist state in the 20th century, specifically forbade actions against criminals that were not in direct self-defense or following a court decision. The legal category of “suspect,” used today to justify police action, did not exist: a person was either caught in the act, or sentenced on the basis of testimonies, or considered innocent. [end of quote]

This distinction between an executive government and a judiciary government is very important for our understanding of the Biblical view of government. To understand how important it is, I need to return you back to my podcast on the war against self-government. The Biblical social order is based on self-government. Thus, a self-governing man, a man who is obedient to the Law of God, has no other head above himself but Christ (“The head of every man is Christ,” 1 Cor. 11:3). No government should be given the legal power to control non-criminal individuals: Romans 13, the passage so widely misused and abused by modern statists in the pulpits, specifically says that rulers should have authority – or being “terror” – only over evil, not over good. And the difference between a judiciary government and an executive government is exactly that: a judiciary is passive, and it is only activated when there is a crime committed. It only has power over those who have committed crimes. On the other hand, an executive government by definition is a government with its own life, goals, purposes, and its own ideas of order. And since non-criminal individuals also have their own lives, goals, purposes, and order, an executive government by definition must end up controlling non-criminal individuals.

And more than that. Since in the Bible God leaves the executive decisions in the society to individuals and families, any government that appropriates executive functions for itself must by definition wage a war against individuals and families, and appropriate for itself the authority to be a surrogate family to the society. We have to understand: The war against the family today is a war by the executive government against its rival, the family. This war – a Satanic attempt to substitute the state for the family – is at the very foundation of the concept of executive government. When the French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu laid out his views for division of powers within the government – legislative, executive, judiciary – his purpose was not to limit government, it was to expand government so that it takes over the executive decisions from the family. (I have explained it in a lecture I delivered many years ago to a Worldview Superconference organized by American Vision: “Europe as a Mirror to America.”) A judiciary government is passive, and only has control over criminals. An executive government competes against the family for control over the executive decisions in the society – and therefore, an executive government will always consider the family – and especially the Christian family – its arch-enemy.

The difference in clear in the Bible, in 1 Samuel chapter 8. The people already had a government – a vertical system of judiciaries, of appellate courts designed by God to maintain justice. When they wanted a king, they wanted an executive government, as in the pagan nations around them. But in the pagan nations around them, there were no laws; everything happened by permission of the king. In my article, “Torah vs. Anomia: Rule of Law vs. Rule by Permit,” I have shown the difference in respect to immigration. In order to immigrate to Egypt or to pass through Edom, one had to have a permission by the King. There were no laws, just personal whims of an executive authority. In Israel, there was no government institution to give permits for immigration and passage, and thus anyone was free to pass or settle, as long as they didn’t commit a crime. Immigration is only one example of many. In everything, Israel was a free land, and there was no king to ask for permission, and no government to issue permits, licenses, visas, and other executive orders.

Why is this important to know in our talk about police? Because police, by its very ideology, design, and nature, is an executive institution. Many Christians today think of modern police as the Sheriffs of old. It isn’t; it is radically different. The Sheriffs of 100 years ago were only an arm of the judiciary: they were only serving warrants, and they had no executive authority. When one looks at the photos of Texas sheriffs of 100 years ago, not a single one of them is in uniform, and they were all armed as much as the average guy on the street. Modern police is not an institution of justice on criminals, it is an institution for control over non-criminals, to make sure that the executive government doesn’t meet any competition from individuals and their families. It is a pagan, Satanic institution by its very inception, and therefore any pastor who tries to justify it by using Romans 13 is only preaching idolatry similar to that of the people of Israel in 1 Samuel 8: He has rejected God from being King.

Thus, when Christianity became dominant in Europe, one of the most important legal and political consequences were that it destroyed the concept of an executive government. And with it, it destroyed the legal authority of the military castes.

You see, every pagan society by necessity eventually ends up being run by a caste of men in uniforms, by a professional standing army which has in its hands both the executive power to force the population to do its bidding, and the legislative power to define the laws of the land and thus legitimize its own use of that power. It is inevitable for a pagan society; there is no escape from a military dictatorship when God is not King of a culture. That military caste may be a specific ethnicity within the Empire – as it was with the empires of the Aztecs, the Incas, the Mongols, or the Ottoman Empire. It may be a special class of citizens, as in the Greek city-states, and especially in Sparta. It may be the Roman legions and specifically their elite troops, the Praetorian Guard, which killed and made emperors throughout the whole history of the Empire and later of Byzantium. It may be an official caste based on genetic origin, like the Kshatriyas in India. It may be a nobility of the sword as in China or in Japan. In all these cases, when God is rejected from being a King, the empires of man try to establish an executive government where they control the destiny and the decisions of millions of individuals for the purposes of the rulers. And this requires a standing army; not a standing army for defense of the borders, but a standing army for oppression and control of their own people.

Christian Europe, of course, was not perfectly Biblical, so it inherited the concept of professional soldiers and a standing army from the pagan Roman past. What it changed, though, was the legal status of that class. In Rome – as in all pagan societies – the power of the sword coincided with the power of the law. In Europe, the church changed this. The men in power were gradually stripped of their authority to make laws. The legislative process was decentralized and taken away from them. It was given to the church and to the local non-military elders. The nobility of the sword made laws for themselves. The law of the land was left in the hands of non-military, non-aristocratic bodies – like the church, the local village councils, or the provincial parliaments. The rule of the rulers was limited to their judicial functions as courts of justice; and where they tried to act as legislative or executive power, local Parliaments kept to themselves the right to annul the king’s decrees. (I talk about the function of the Parlement of Paris to annul the decrees of the King of France in my lecture, “Europe as a Mirror of America.”) A great part of that transformation was accomplished by a grass roots movement in the church which is virtually unknown today, but historically, it was the longest lasting and the most powerful grass-roots movement Christendom has ever seen: The Peace and Truce of God Movement. It started in the 10th century and it continued for 400 years, influencing the legal and the governmental practices of all of Europe, and creating a completely new and unique concept of relationship between rulers and ruled. You all are familiar with the Lesser Magistrate Doctrine that Pastor Matt Trewhella has been preaching to churches and local magistrates. The Peace and Truce of God Movement was the ideological and historical prerequisite to that doctrine. The Magdeburg Declaration couldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the transformation of the European society by the Peace and Truce of God. And an important part of that transformation was that making laws was taken away from the men with weapons and the power to employ violence.

More than that, the legal authority for the use of violence was now separated from the official status of a person. Might didn’t make right anymore. Just being a ruler or being a knight or a member of the aristocracy didn’t create executive privilege; the common folk were not only allowed to have weapons (unlike in the Roman Empire and other pagan cultures), they were encouraged to train and to use them against rulers who used their power illegally. The story of Robin Hood is such a story but there are many more of that period. Christendom created the code of chivalry, and we can’t grasp the covenantal meaning of chivalry unless we understand this separation between might and right. At the very bottom of chivalry was the moral dilemma of the noble knight who is powerful physically and militarily but is restrained morally in his legitimate use of his power. So the chivalric literature almost always revolved around the quest for moral causes that would make the use of that power morally legitimate. Pagan heroes had no such qualms: if they had power, they used it any time they wanted, for their own purposes. Christian knights couldn’t. The new civilization that was emerging based on the Word of God couldn’t allow for powerful men having control over the lives and destinies of non-criminal people. Even if for a while some old pagan traits remained, the Reformation destroyed them in the 16th and the 17th centuries. By the end of the 18th century, Europe was a continent of decentralized powers, and executive power in the hands of the local communities, not in the hands of kings.

Naturally, the concept of modern police was born in the revived paganism of the Enlightenment. For the Enlightenment thinkers, it was clear that in order to push God out of the universe, a bare-bones atheism wouldn’t be enough. The all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent God would have to be matched by the all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent man. And even that won’t be enough – for the real power of God in history is not visible in His being – which is invisible – but in His works. Thus, for the new pagans to be able to establish their order, the redeeming God had to be matched by the redeeming man. God’s redemption of His universe was the real offense, and man could only better God by offering a better redemption to the universe in general and to man’s society in particular. This is a topic for another podcast, but we need to understand here: the real strategy of the Enlightenment was not to simply separate man from God; that wouldn’t work after centuries of Christendom. The real strategy and the real appeal of the Enlightenment was: We can create a better world without God. We have a better redemption.

All the humanist institutions created by the Enlightenment had exactly this ideology in their foundation: Man’s redemption of himself without God. And since the individual man is powerless to redeem himself, it is, in the final account, the state’s redemption of man without God. Just keeping the state limited to judging crimes under the Law of God won’t suffice. The state had to create its own ethics, its own legislation. But more than that; it had to create its own transcendent purpose for man and his society – and thus become an executive state, a heavenly father of a sort. And since there is still the problem of crime, the state had to mimic God in preventing crime. Not just judging crime, but preventing it, reading the hearts of men, conditioning the hearts of men, and redeeming the hearts of men to make them into good men. Like God does. The government schools, the prisons, the regulatory agencies, the different administrations, the government’s economic planning boards, the central banks – they were all meant to be hands of the redemption of the humanist state.

And the police, too. The thinkers of the Enlightenment believed that there was nothing spiritual about the society and the hearts of men – they were all subject to similar mechanistic laws as those that Isaac Newton discovered about the physical universe. A ruling elite, therefore, which wants to rival God in terms of redemption must discover these social laws and then use them just as an engineer uses the laws of nature. Crime, then, is not a moral failure, it is bad social engineering. If we have a trained class of social engineers who can discover the social laws that govern crime, and work to change the conditions so that crime is prevented.

And this class of elite social engineers who can discover the social laws of crime and prevent crime – thus creating humanistic redemption without God – is the police. This was the ideological beginning and foundation of modern police. Police couldn’t exist nor appear in a society where the government is obedient to God and stays within its prescribed limits of a judiciary. Modern police can only appear in the context of a messianic government – a government that tries to supplant God by playing god and redeemer on earth.

The first professional police in Europe was created in Revolutionary France under the Jacobin dictatorship. During the Revolutionary terror in France, English observers severely criticized this aspect of the French Revolution. After the defeat of Napoleon, however, most European nations – including England – adopted the concept. By 1830, they all had their own professional police forces, and started using them to suppress dissent and discontent. Police became a regular sight in the European empires which were growing more and more humanistic and anti-Christian. The old pagan concept of executive government was restored, and with it, the old pagan concept of a military caste with special executive privileges was restored.

The United States, where the old Christian culture and worldview survived the longest, remained an exception. The Founding Fathers not only didn’t envision professional police forces, they made it clear they detested any concept of a standing army, let alone a standing army on US soil. America didn’t have police in its founding, and for another 100 years, most of America didn’t have professional police. Alexis de Tocqueville, coming from humanist Europe which in his time was already a police state, mentions his surprise that America had no professional police. Contrary to the pagan claims that without police, crime will be rampant, de Tocqueville also points out that “hardly a crime remains unsolved and unpunished.” America without professional police was a country of less crime and more justice – because the solution to crime and justice was the Biblical solution, not the humanist solution.

And naturally, the first professional police in America appeared exactly where the government was the farthest away from Christianity and the closest possible to the newly restored European paganism: In NYC, under the rule of the corrupt Democrat administration of Tammany Hall, in the 1840s. Up to that time, big cities had their own voluntary citizens’ patrols, but no city government had its own standing army. The Tammany Hall bosses started it first, and then, other corrupt city governments followed suit. For the first 60 years of the existence of professional police in NYC, it did next to nothing in fighting crime – in fact, if anything, crime skyrocketed while the city was expanding its standing army. For over 60 years, the NYPD was busy almost entirely with collecting revenue for the city government – mainly from illegal brothels and game houses. In the South, professional police was created for the purpose of hunting runaway slaves; other than that, the South had no police forces. In rural areas and on the frontier, the Sheriffs, as I said before, were only agents of the courts, serving warrants and authorizing executors of court verdicts. They only assumed executive functions in cases of emergency – as in Texas during the Mexican Socialist revolution, when Texas towns had to be defended against gangs.

The real expansion of police and the creation of the modern standing army came in the first half of the 20th century, with the Prohibition. Both the Federal government and the states started hiring more police, creating more and more departments and sub-departments. Since the government was now in the business of morally redeeming people, it needed that elite class of warriors to keep the population in subjection. The end of the Prohibition didn’t roll back the swollen ranks of police, though. Very soon, new prohibitions were made by both the Federal government and the states, and police kept growing. And of course, the ultimate excuse for the complete destruction of the Constitutional liberties of Americans came with the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs was from its conception a radical leftist experiment in humanistic redemption of society – an attempt of Washington DC to replace God as the ruling religious principle in America. And this replacing God needed replacing His power with the power of the state. Thus the concept of modern police was finally embodied in our laws and social practices.

Contrary to the self-delusions of the majority of Christians, there was nothing Christian, nothing conservative, and nothing constitutional about the emergence of police in the US and in the West in general. Police was from the very beginning conceived as a counterfeit government, designed to destroy the social order inherited from Christendom; its purpose was the subjection of the non-criminal population to the state, so that the humanist state can emerge as an executive ruler, as a god and redeemer walking on earth. And for the last 100+ years, this nature and purpose of police have become more and more obvious in the fact that there has been no righteous cause that American police has ever joined. Despite the delusions of many conservatives and Christians, police in America is heavily controlled by the Democrat Party and serves its agenda. Police unions, from the lowest levels to the National Fraternity Order of Police, contribute 100% to Democrat PACs. Even David Clarke, so adored by FOX News, is a 100% Democrat with deep ties in the Democrat Party. Local PDs and Sheriffs have increasingly joined the Federal government’s war on the Second Amendment; those who claim they are pro-2nd Amendment and anti-Washington DC, still line up for Federal handouts of military equipment. They all continue obeying Federal laws and fighting the federal war on drugs – even where there are no local statutes to enforce. And local Sheriffs in America just love stealing money from their own constituents through the Federal program for asset forfeiture. (Last year, local cops in America stole twice as much money from American citizens as private criminals.)

The wickedness of police is obvious not only in these obviously criminal actions but also in the increasing aggressiveness of police against individual citizens, and against street preachers. It is also obvious that for all these years after Roe v. Wade, American cops have firmly taken the side of the abortion industry; for all these years we know of only one single police officer who has openly taken the side of the unborn – Chet Galagher – and he was promptly fired. In the early years of the pro-life movement, police in several American cities used their power to torture rescuers on the street, break their bones with nunchucks, and even kick pregnant mothers until their babies died. Yes, folks, these things were recorded in a documentary by Operation Rescue, The Brutal Truth. The documentary is on Youtube. In not a single instance has any police chief or Sheriff used their legal authority to take the side of the unborn and close abortion clinics in their jurisdiction. A couple of years ago Sheriff David Clarke, for example, used FOX News to say that “If black lives mattered, they would be protesting before abortion clinics.” What he hypocritically omitted was the fact that as a Sheriff, he has the power to ignore Roe v. Wade and close abortion clinics in his County. He not only has never done it, in his early career he has been among the cops who have attacked rescuers on the street, breaking up their protests.

Thus, there is not a single righteous cause ever joined by the American police. But it should be expected, given that police was created for that very purpose – to support wickedness, not righteousness. It is not a Biblical government, it is a counterfeit government, a pagan mockery of God’s government, and a pagan institution to subjugate the population. It is as much a Biblical authority as two sodomites are a Biblical family.

Churchian leaders, therefore, who use Romans 13 to call for obedience to the police are no different than those who call for legalization of sodomite marriage. Such churchian leaders are idolaters, and they are contributing to the destruction of the social order of Christendom. The Biblical government is not a government of executive decree; an executive government is a counterfeit government. When our own churchian leaders legitimize a counterfeit government institution like the police, there is no reason to not legitimize counterfeit government money, counterfeit education like the public schools, a counterfeit family of two sodomites, etc. They are all parts of the same assault on the Christian social order. And for Christians to be able to restore the rule of God in every area of their society, all these must be opposed and abolished – yes, including professional police. As long as professional police remains in our society, no matter how much we strive politically to elect the right candidates, no matter how much we work for the moral restoration of the American society, Christian liberty and justice will be endangered and eventually lost.

Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, just like government schools, the Federal Reserve, all the government regulatory agencies, welfare and Social Security, etc., the standing army of police must be abolished. It is not a true government, and it has never been meant as a true government – it is simply an occupation army enforcing the will of a pagan, wicked government. Supporting it, and using Romans 13 to call for obedience to it is to commit the same sin as the people of Israel in 1 Samuel 8: They have rejected God from being their King.

>>

Posted in Police | Leave a comment

Practicing Law Without a License,

Practicing law without a license.

>>>

Interesting video on written law that forbids any state from limiting the practice of law, and the differences between a lawyer and an attorney.

Posted in Attorney / Deception, practicing law without a license | Leave a comment