The Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergys programme of eugenics ‘appears’ unstoppable –

December 7, 2016

The Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergys programme of eugenics ‘appears’ unstoppable –

Pope Francis Encourages Scientists To Work On Sustainable Development

With Pope’s Help, U.N. Bypasses Congress On Global Socialism


Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions


Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions


The money behind the transgender movement

Redefining Heterosexuality the Gay Agenda

Breaking News! Ted Nugent Is A Character Role

November 18, 2016

When appearing as Steve Bratspies you’re looking at the actor who plays Ted Nugent. He alters his appearance with facial appliances and puts on that silly camo hat and goes into his Nugent role.. No telling what his real name is which undoubtedly ties him into the bloodline of one of the elite families many entertainment deceptions bolstering the left versus right paradigm hoax.. The leftist is fooled into hating this character and the rightist is fooled into loving him.. The Nuge is a bigger JOKE than even the lefty minded folks thought.. Clown Fraud..

Fake News To The Left Of Me Fake News To The Right Of Me

November 17, 2016

David Rockefeller wrote a book entitled “Memoirs” in which he admits secretly conspiring for the creation and implementation of a world government and the use of fake news to get it…And the best part is they can conspire to make it legal while lying to you.. That’s right, lying to you is legal.. I always get a giggle out of that word conspire.. You can conspire to be nice or evil.. To conspire is to breath.. I guess nobody is breathing in the world around us.. I must be a breathing theorist.. Lol.. You’re one of those breathing theorists…

“Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”—David Rockefeller

Rockefeller further reveals the journalistic organizations whose mission it is to engage in the furtherance of fake news.

Decades of fake news;

“I am grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion.”—David Rockefeller

Thank you for the fake news;

“We are grateful. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries”—David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991

Hear I am Stuck In The Middle Of It All…

A Putin Trump Sustainable Development Path Towards World Peace?

November 16, 2016

“We are ready to do everything to bring back Russian-US relations on a sustainable development path. This would benefit both the Russian and the US people and would positively impact the overall climate in global affairs, given the particular responsibilities of Russia and the US in maintaining global stability and security,” Putin said.
President Vladimir Putin received credentials from ambassadors to Russia and commented on the results of the US presidential election

Trump will of course will follow the wishes of the Global elites insistence that Sustainable Development is fully implemented. That of course is the ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER. The UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment. The Programme of Action on Sustainable Development signed in Rio 1992.. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, The Global Revolution was written in 1968, The Rio Agreement was written in 92, the Global Biodiversity Assessment was written in 1995. But insufficient progress has been made in population reduction. I have all of these books here I have read them multiple times and fully understand their intent.

Did you Trump voters believe this all would go away? Really?

Apparently I love your children more than you do!

A Global Public Authority

November 14, 2016

Can You Spell Rebellion?

November 10, 2016

“Okay this is interesting, but what if we take it farther? I think that we have a reason to think that Washington and Oregon would fit nicely into this model, but we should probably also add Hawaii too with future plans to annex New York and Vermont. Yeah that is it.”—Bob Ferris

Tech founders want California to secede
Some big names in Silicon Valley have a simple message after Donald Trump’s victory: We want out.

Former Executive Director at Cascadia Wildlands

Former Executive Director at RE Sources for Sustainable Communities

Former Interim Executive Director at Center for a New American Dream

Former Executive Director at Yestermorrow Design/Build School

Former Executive Director at Community Environmental Council (CEC)

Former Vice President (United States) at Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Former Vice President Species Conservation at Defenders of Wildlife

Former Director, Field Programs at Wildlife Habitat Council

Studied Biology at UC Santa Cruz

Studied Zoology at San Jose State University

Studied Biology and Environmental Studies at University of California, Santa Cruz

Went to Chester F. Awalt High School

Went to Los Altos High School

Lives in Eugene, Oregon

Married to Carlene Marie Ramus who is an Architect..

Oh the irony…

Oaths Of U.S. Public Office

October 30, 2016

When we consider what is being said here, we must consider how we have been treated in this society. as subjects rather than joint owners of the U.S. corporation. As citizens not as sovereigns. Know them by their fruits..What are they teaching versus what they are actually doing..


There is much debate on oaths of office of government officials flying around and people have no idea what they are talking about so I decided to let you in on some research and common logical understanding. Almost 100 percent of the people believe the government people should take the oaths and if they don’t then when they come after people, like you and me , Mr. and Mrs. John Q .. They have no authority to come after you, you say. What I would like to make certain is that the oath taken to the letter of the law is what they are following when they “come after you.” People do not realize that when the oath is cited it is cited for a contract called a constitution of the corporation known as either the State or the United States. It is not taken of, by, or for the people of the country. To prove that states and counties are corporations is found in the North Carolina Library cite on the internet at In there is this excerpt and applies to every state in the union.

The County as a Body Politic and Corporate

A county, as a defined geographic subdivision of the state, serves many purposes. Churches, civic clubs, and other societal institutions use counties as convenient subdivisions for their own purposes. The business world may assign sales territories and franchises to areas composed of one or more counties. The county may play a role in the psychology of people born and raised “in the country” – it serves to establish where they are from and who they are, thus becoming a part of their personal identity. But the county was created in the first instance by the state as a political unit, and this remains its primary purpose.

More than forty years ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court was called upon to define a county from a legal point of view. (In the case, Wake County was a litigant and the court spoke in terms of that county, but what the Court had to say is equally true of the other ninety-nine counties):

“Wake County is a body politic and corporate, created by the General Assembly of North Carolina for certain public and political purposes. Its powers as such, both express and implied, are conferred by statutes, enacted from time to time by the General Assembly, and are exercised by its Board of Commissioners …. In the exercise of ordinary government functions, [counties] are simply agencies of the State, constituted for the convenience of local administration in certain portions of the State’s territory, and in the exercise of such functions they are subject to almost unlimited legislative control, except when the power is restricted by constitutional provisions.”

The language used by the court is important as it established the definition of a county. A county, according to the court, is a “body politic and corporate.” A body politic is a civil division of the state for purposes of governmental administration. A body corporate is a legal entity. In private law, a corporation is a legal person. A county is a legal entity or corporation of a special sort and with a public function. As such, it can buy and hold property, sue and be sued, and enter into contracts – all functions necessary to make its work as a body politic effective.

In O’Berry, State Treasurer v. Mecklenburg County, [198 N.C. 357,151 S.E. 880 ( 1930)], the court stated that “the weight of authority is to effect that all the powers and functions of a county bear reference to the general policy of the State, and are in fact an integral portion of the general administration of State policy. Historically, the primary purpose for erecting a county was to serve state purposes and to perform state functions in a given area rather than to serve the purposes of a particular geographic community. (By way of contrast, a city was primarily formed at the request of the people within its jurisdiction to serve the needs of the inhabitants.)

For the Supreme Court to say that “all the powers and functions of a county bear reference to the general policy of the State and are in fact an integral portion of the general administration of State policy” is not as restrictive as might at first reading appear. “State policy” is a very broad frame of reference; it can touch any aspect of local government. Thus, the truly significant nugget in the Supreme Court’s definition of the role of counties is its statement that in the exercise of their functions, counties “are subject to almost unlimited legislative control, except when the power is restricted by constitutional provisions.” In effect, if the General Assembly can be persuaded to assign counties any given power or responsibility, and, if the Constitution does not prohibit it, that assignment becomes state policy for county administration.

Now that you have irrefutable proof that you , when calling yourself a “state citizen” are an integral part of a corporate body and you yourself take on the character of a legal entity called a “person”. All statutes are private corporate law and they all address a “person” and not a man. The common law of God would address a man and that’s why there is no common law anymore when dealing with statutes which are all corporate in nature. Now you know why they refer to you as person. This I had explained on the articles on and in my book, The New History of America , and in Which One Are You published back in 1990. In fact I include here one small portion of Which One Are You here to show even back then I was on point.

What was the American before he “resided” in a State? Wasn’t he a “free white person?” See Works of John Adams, 213 and Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law,note on page 459, stated in part:

“The proper english meaning of the term `citizen’ imported membership of a borough or local municipal corporation. The usual word for a man’s political relation to the monarch of the state was `subject’. . . . The word `citizen’ is not found in any of our state constitutions before that of Massachusetts (1780); . . . In the Declaration of Independence (1776), we read it once, `He has restrained our fellow citizens,’ etc. and once in the Articles of Confederation.”

Yet no one will take the time to understand what I had written was all documented and then proceed to engage in arguments with each other that go nowhere except on a merry- go- round. So, both the State government and the United States government are corporate entities of the Crown/Vatican cabal and the people you call criminals are just obeying the contract set upon them when they took office. With that in mind we go to oaths.

The oath thus states in part; I, ……… do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution …

Now we go to the paper called the Constitution of the United States. The two main parts that this oath apply are Article VI and the 14th Amendment Paragraph three. Remember that the oath is to a contract that they have to abide by and nothing else. You are not involved nor mentioned in the oath and with good reason. So let’s see what they are abiding with.

First is the oath to Article VI.

United States Article VI protects the debt owed to the creditor King by each debtor colony. It protects the treaties the Colonies had with the King and proves the works of James Montgomery that we are still under the control of the King by treaty.

Article VI, U.S. Constitution. 1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid as against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. [The King’s money and debt is protected and this is their solemn oath they take.]

2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made [the treaty of 1606 and 1782 made with the King], or which shall be made [Jay’s treaty of 1792 with the King], under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; [despite anything to the contrary Treaties are part of the Constitution and reign supreme over all you people despite the fact you have nothing to do with it. You said it’s your constitution, live with it and don’t complain]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

To prove these treaties are the “Law of the Land” here is what the HAMILTON v. EATON, 1 N.C. 641 (1796), HAMILTON v. EATON. 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.), had to say.

“Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of confederation, expressly, “the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances”; and being ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and law of every state.

If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled.”

Evidence what was stated by the same court; that those that join the State are “SUBJECTS” not sovereigns:

“By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, “That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State.”

Well I told you that the masses just traded kings and are now “citizens” (slaves) of a State rather than the King of England. The Declaration took you out from under the King but left the people worse off, because they became the credit of the State to pay the King’s money that the people were indebted to in the first place. This is an excerpt from my book The New History of America

Now that you know what the paramount reason for the US Constitution was, how can we say the government officials are shrugging their oath and not obeying it? They are very much in conformance to that oath that they defend the Crowns property and to make sure that treaties before 1787 and immediately after it, like they knew Jay’s treaty of 1791 was to be consummated, were adhered to. You cannot say no to this. So lets go to the 14th Amendment and see if they are following their oaths to obey and defend the contract of the corporations (state and federal).

But before we do we must set the stage for the reason the judges are only following their oath to the contract, which is in no way directed to you as you are not a party to the contract and never were. I will get to the Bill of Rights later.

Bouviers Law Dictionary defines Insurgent as, “One who is concerned in an insurrection. He differs from a rebel in this, that rebel is always understood in a bad sense, or one who unjustly opposes the constituted authorities; insurgent may be one who justly opposes the tyranny of constituted authorities. The colonists who opposed the tyranny of the English government were insurgents, not rebels.”

As a side note , the 1933 trading with the enemy Act did not, I repeat, DID NOT make you the enemy of the United States despite what anyone says or writes about it. What it did was make you the enemy of the banks and that’s why the banks were closed for 6 days so the President could issue them licenses to deal with the enemy, A.K.A. the American people. Your ancestors were already the enemy starting 1863, therefore, you too are the enemy and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to declare war against this government who is the conqueror. We are a people under conquest and if you have not read up on conquest I suggest you do so, soon. James Montgomery is the expert on this and has written extensively about it.

Now we go to Article 149 of the Lieber Code or General Order 100 of President Lincoln, who, prior to this, through 12 Stat 319, made you the enemy of the “State”. That 1863 statute was never repealed and exists in Title 50 Sections 212, 213 and 215 as well as in Title 28 sections 2461 to 2465 seizure. If you do not believe me go and pull those Title 50 sections and go to the source law. Also note what Title 50 is named. So they still, unbeknownst to you, operate under this General Order 100. This is the part that they use against us today because remember, WE ARE STILL THE ENEMY INSURGENTS when attacking any laws of government. Read carefully.

The Lieber Code of 1863


Washington, April 24, 1863.

The following “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field,” prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., and revised by a board of officers, of which Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock is president, having been approved by the President of the United States, he commands that they be published for the information of all concerned.

SECTION X.–Insurrection– Civil war–Rebellion.

149. Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government, or portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers of the government. It may be confined to mere armed resistance, or it may have greater ends in views.

Now, “when we go against one or more of its laws”, and that is the income tax laws, the Registration laws, the Driver license laws or any one of the multitude of laws they make, we are in insurrection because we are, remember, the enemy. When we defy an officer collecting revenue by any means then we are going “against an officer or officers” and are therefore considered dangerous and an insurrectionist.

In comes the 14th amendment paragraph to which the judge took his oath to obey. It states- “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disabilities.

Please note the passage “or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. This is a key part because the judges are bound by oath to obey Article VI as to the debts to be paid and this paragraph three. You might see that paragraph four states that we cannot question the debt. We are a declared enemy under 12 Stat 319 and a declared enemy of the banks under section 5 b of the Trading with the Enemy Act that was not repealed with the rest of the act. Then if the judge, in ruling in the enemy’s favor in any revenue laws, would be violating his oath of office. So you cannot complain that they are not following the oath of office. If ruling against the IRS they would then be violating their oath to protect the status quo of the corporation.

We now proceed to the oath as was stated above. No where did they state in the oath that they were to obey the Bill of Rights as that is a separate document only dealing with United States citizens. It carries its own Preamble. It does not deal with the people in the states. The ultimate case for this is the John Barron vs the Mayor and the City of Baltimore, which I have gone into detail on the site, so there is no need to go into and rehash it here. Too many people have understood this Bill of Rights to be the Constitution. Again, it is not and rather to go into it here; that too is on the site.

In conclusion the judges are really obeying the contract that they have with the states and the Crown and they have no contract with you, the private man. See 14 Ga 438, Padleford and Fay vs the Mayor and City of Savannah. But you, as the private man, are a man under conquest and you better understand that because that misunderstanding is your downfall and why you cry that the judges are not obeying the contract. You just have been lied to all your lives and believe all the myths from the inception of this government called the United States, that that contract was formed by people like you, for you. That is the biggest lie in history. In fact I wrote an article called The Big Lie and the Big Lie II. In order to understand conquest I suggest you read James Montgomery’s articles on under Knowledge is Freedom.

The Informer 7-24-2002

Are You Man? Person? Persona? Artificial Corporate Property? Which One Are You?

October 30, 2016

Man versus Person. Natural versus Artificial. Created by God versus Created by man.
Statutes never address man. Statutes deal with artificial entities A physical being versus A paper artificial not tangible. Government is a private corporation. Corporations are called persons which corporations.

Both PERSONS and CORPORATIONS are artificial entities. Artificial entities can only deal with other artificial entities. In law, Statutes, Person is defined as an individual, corporation,association, a trust,estate, partnership or company, all of which are defining an artificial entity. All,including individual to describe person, an artificial entity are in English Grammar, alike. Things of a kind, if you remember third grade English where they show you 5 articles and say which one does not fit. They are words of art and the government uses terms and not words to define person to fit their criminal actions. They now say that natural person means a man. Oh really?

That cannot be from looking at the above description of MAN and PERSON. Person is always, in law, an artificial entity. The fraud they pull is outstanding. Here is a law book that dispels all the other law books like Black’s and even Ballentine’s or any other Modern Law dictionary. Look in all the law dictionaries and you do see the definition of Man. Even in Bouvier’s 1870 Dictionary the definition of Man on Vol 2, page 93, states; A human being. A person of the male sex. Isn’t it interesting they use person, an artificial entity to describe man just like the other law books? Further on in the definition there is some truth when they say, “It was considered in the civil or Roman law [here the Roman law is alive as civil law today] that although man and person are synonymous in GRAMMAR, they had a different acceptation in law. Now this is where they mix and match and people will then believe that man and person are one in the same. NOT SO.

This squares with the following law book which is NOT a dictionary so terms cannot come into play. A part of this book is posted in another brief under PERSON. It is Vol. XIII AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. ( Albany Law School ), LL.D. ( Ruskin University ) from La Salle University.

Here is the truth laid out so well that it would take a moron to not see it when it says; “Ortolan’s explanation of personality.(45) The substance of the above was undoubtedly taken from Ortolan’s treatment of the subject as given in his History of the Roman Law, which is submitted because it is clear and concise:

“The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man.” Man can divest himself out of the physical being, stated in the LaSalle law book, and become a person in law. Thus surrendering, giving away, tossing aside, discarding his unalienable and inalienable rights promised him in the Biblical Code.

The States and the United States are pure private corporations from their inception and anyone can go on line to MANTA, type in the corporation block the state or IRS or any government agency you want and it will come up with every State, United States, the Senate; The IRS are all private corporations. You are and have been dealing with private corporations all your lives and have not known this due to the fraud they laid upon the people circa 1777 to present. You see, they were private corporations of their limited membership they took on the artificial and they themselves operated as PERSONS, artificial entities. From the Law book this is stated on Character; “In another sense, very frequently employed, the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say, each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations-for instance, the person of 43 Slaves were not persons in the United States until after the abolition of slavery.

Read PERSON posted under this brief and you will see how they do this. Man can divest himself out of the physical being, stated in the LaSalle law book, and become a person in law. Remember this well, PERSON and MAN, in law is not the same and can never be. How do they determine if they are dealing with a MAN or a man that has lost his physical being status for that of a PERSON with an artificial character? Simply do not use MAN in any statute, but use PERSON. Look at 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1) which defines person. It starts out with “The Term person does it not? Now read the TERMS NOT WORDS article posted under PERSON. So this is telling you that ordinary words are not employed to define person.

The terms are quoted above in red. So in the IRC do they not say “ANY PERSON LIABLE”? Now how did you get to be a person and leave the status of MAN? Very simple. They said it was your duty to vote so everyone went down to register to vote. This is an easy one to understand. What you did was register yourself as an artificial entity–a person, to become an associate member of that Private Corporation to vote for members of the Board, (CONGRESS) and vote for the private corporate CEO known as the President. NOW you became that “INDIVIDUAL” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1). You are now a bonafide person who just gave up your God given natural Law rights as a MAN for “privileges and immunities” of a PERSON, never to get them back again. The other ways are more subtle. Yes, the Fraud they pulled on you is rampant to say the least.

Ok, here is the oxymoron they use on you to placate you. In many statutes, they say natural person and you believe them that he too is a taxpayer or subject to the statute. Let’s look at this in slight depth. Look at the beginning and ask yourself, in law how can you merge two directly opposites to be one? How can you take a natural physical being, MAN and say he is a person, the artificial entity in Law? That’s exactly what they are doing to you and you don’t have the deductive reasoning to differentiate between that phrase Natural person and Natural man. If you did, no one would fall for it, but you did. How can you be a natural artificial? (Natural person) You can’t be an artificial man for they would have to say that and they can’t. It’s impossibility in law. “Status is not so broad as person, but always related to physical men.” So states the law book on person. Artificial cannot have status, only character.

Ok, so how do they keep you straight and separate from the physical being never addressed in statute, man made law? Ask your self this. Did God create a person or did he create MAN in his likeness? How would he create a person of General Motors or Food Lion in His likeness? So contrary to every lawyer that is behind this fraud, because lawyers wrote the statutes you the man of status are identified with, your given name written in Capital letters that makes you a person of character that lost your status of MAN. Oh yes, you are a physical being as you bleed BUT, you are operating in the alter ego (character) they put you in.

However, they know you are a bonafide person and not a physical being (Man), when they write your name in all Caps. That is simple logic of law for how corporations have to write their names in all caps. Yes I know, you say prove it. In Georgia , to register a business, the
UCC section of the Secretary of States office says so and other states do also. This info was sent to me by a man living in Georgia when I asked to search for me what he found two years before writing this. I don’t have it and can’t find it in the tons, yes tons of paper
documents I have. Do you have even a hundred pounds? Because that’s how much is needed to sort all this fraud out that has been heaped on you year after year. Yes, many a patriot lawyer will say, here we go again with cap letter idiots. But they are there to protect the corporation because MANTA says all the judiciaries are even private corporations and the UNITED STATES Corporation is not listed as their parent company and neither does the United States Post office have a parent corporation. That too is a totally separate private corporation.

The whole of this country is controlled by private corporations. And patriot myth, being what it is, would still believe the con job was a wonderful document because they think a Republican government is a wonderful body of men, of no corporate character, to protect us. Don’t you believe that for one NY minute. The etymology of the word REPUBLICAN means CORPORATION. There is a Republic of China and there is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Georgia , so what makes the United States corporation ( REPUBLIC) any different than these other countries? They are all private corporations. NOW, you know why the private Supreme Corporation Court in Texas v. White stated “ “For, as the United States guarantee to each State a republican form of government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State, before it can determine whether it is republican or not.”

Texas v White 74 US 7 Wall , Lawyers Ed. Congress controls their own private corporation, you don’t and never will. That’s why the Georgia Supreme court stated in the Padleford case; “

“Now the principle at the bottom of all these propositions is this: The States have no power, by the exercise of which, they can defeat all the ends of government–the General Government, or any of those ends. But the States, by the exercise of the taxing power, can take from their inhabitants every cent the inhabitants can spare, and live. The people of the States who made the Constitution, considered themselves as the sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They were the principal – it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute.

It wasn’t us people, it was them people called WE, the People. Note the capitalization of the third word, In English grammar denoting a specific People, not you, the scum of the earth to get in their way. They say what they want you to believe that you are sovereign. You, are sovereign? Well why don’t you fire them all if you are sovereign? They have got to keep the fraud ( myth) going. Continuing– “But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.”

It’s hard to explain, unless you have been exposed to it as long as I have, when the Padleford court said “no private person.” That terminology is used to confuse the people. There is no “private person” as all are artificial beings and not private, one would assume.
That is not the case for there are “public persons” (Congress) and “private persons” (that means you and me). They should have used No private Man, but that would expose their system. The history books and courts are used to this fraud and use it well. It’s their ball

Well what do you have to say now, Voters and members of the corporation? Now do you understand why the courts say don’t you dare use the Constitution in my private corporate court, it has no place here, you US corporate citizen. They don’t say that exactly otherwise
you would know what they were doing It’s truly disgusting when I watched the feeding frenzy in all the elections where people were so hyped up waving flags to install the same corporate criminals back into their corporate offices, thinking they did something great. As Spooner stated, not one of those criminals that will be installed in their private corporate offices, can ever represent any man let alone the majority, they only represent the Corporation not you.

Spooner said; “As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is
among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a band does nothing towards proving that
“the people of the United States ,” or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.

This is the most that any member of Congress can say in proof that he has any constituency; that he represents anybody; that his oath “to support the Constitution,” is given to anybody, or pledges his faith to anybody. He has no open, written, or other authentic evidence, such as is required in all other cases, that he was ever appointed the agent or representative of anybody. He has no written power of attorney from any single individual. He has no such legal knowledge as is required in all other cases, by which he can identify a single one of those who pretend to have appointed him to represent them. No one can come forward and say to him: I appointed you my attorney to act for me. I required you to swear that, as my attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised me that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to me. No single individual can say this.”

“No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, [*37] can come forward and say to him: We appointed you our attorney, to act for us. We required you to swear that, as our attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised us that you would do so;
and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to us.

No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can say this to him; because there is no such association or body of men in existence. If any one should assert that there is such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it. Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authentic contract, signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselves into an association; making themselves known as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making themselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, done by their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say that, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he is their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged his faith to them.

On general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer for him to say, to all individuals, and to all pretended associations of individuals, who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them:

I never knew you. Where is your evidence that you, either individually or collectively, ever appointed me your attorney? That you ever required me to swear to you, that, as your attorney, I would support the Constitution? or that, I have now broken any faith that I ever
pledged to you?

You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band of robbers and murderers, who act in secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot; who keep themselves individually unknown even to the agents they thus appoint; and who, therefore, cannot claim that they have any agents; or that any of their pretended agents ever gave his oath, or pledged his faith to them. I repudiate you altogether.

My oath was given to others, with whom you have nothing to do; or it was idle wind, given only to the idle winds. Begone!”
End of Spooner’s talk.

The Founding Fathers were just commercial barons of their time working a fraud to protect their holdings in this country as well as their multi million dollar empire in those days and to hell with the common man, the dupe that he is. They all were business men just like the
Morgan’s, The Gate’s, the Rockefellers, the Warren Buffets, and the Firestones of today.

Washington himself was with the Virginia Land Company selling real estate of the Crown and the East India Land Company back in 1750. So when you read from TERMS are NOT WORDS, to going after the wrong people, to Allegiance to the whole of the writings in various briefs they will now take on a different light I am sure. You have been dealing as a corporation all these years subject to every tax and license they can foster on you, the member backing up the corporation cause all they can do is spend the corporation silly and you fell for it based on myths created years and century before you were born into slavery, voluntary slavery at that; where the involuntary slavery laws do not protect you.
They, dear reader, are a RICO organization if ever there was one.

Read 18 U.S.C. 1961 to 1963 and see how they fit like a glove when demanding from you every year protection money, forcing you to get licenses to travel, registering your property with them as a member that has no natural law rights, no rights you your land or house unless you pay them for the use of it, in their fraud to so called “protect your property “from other thieves that are in competition against them. Why you, dear PERSON, don’t have the right to travel anymore, only the privilege to use their car ( you think is yours) and property through license because you are no longer a MAN or WOMAN anymore, just a corporate slave.

You all must love it, as you stay in the system, locked there as a person arguing as if you are a MAN or WOMAN. Yes, the truth hurts. And those slaves that continually vote, as Spooner said are just as much or more so at fault for the Conditions of America today. Aren’t corporations the bane of mankind that you have heard on and off from time to time?

Why was it that the black man didn’t use the 14 th amendment until 1930? Because it was designed for corporations of the time and they took advantage of it since 1869. So what are you going to do about the situation once you have been exposed to the fraud?
If you knew what I knew, I would have to expand this to at least 500 pages, which you don’t have the time to sit in front of the computer reading it all. Plus, it would be too big for me to send internet. There is little that can be done about the situation and those that keep trying to go against the system by trying to get around this will only get into trouble looking for a silver bullet that does not exist peacefully.

That is why the right to keeps guns are attacked more and more so the people can’t use them against the Corporate CEO’s and Officers and board members. The recent Heller case opinion, of the Private Judicial Corporate U.S. Supreme Court, they never ruled on the unfettered right to keep arms. What they did was say, yes it’s a right provided you get our private corporate license to buy one and to carry one. Now, had the court said that it was a natural law right to buy and carry a gun without getting a permit, license, etc then that would be a genuine ruling for Freedom? But it was not, only enough to make people think they did a good job in protecting their absolute right to own a gun. So everyone would have to stop voting these criminals back into office, and see the con job for what it really is, an R.I.C.O operation document, not a document of Freedom, but one of slavery. How is a corporation destroyed is the question? That includes the state corporations as well as the U.S. corporations. Can we all say, “Just Say NO? If no one bought from Wal- Mart how long would it be, before it went out of business?

The Informer July 4, 2008


Next Terms Not Words

A Paradox For  Any Court

Vol. XIII AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. ( Albany Law School ), LL.D. ( Ruskin University ) from La Salle University.


October 11, 2016


Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.~ww

It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident.
. . . . .

From an essay by John Taylor Gatto – 09/2003
Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.

Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace “manageable.”
It was from James Bryant Conant – president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century – that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a “revolution” engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which “one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.”

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in “your permanent record.” Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races.” In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

There you have it. Now you know. We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that “efficiency” is the paramount virtue, rather than love, liberty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn’t actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn’t have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era – marketing.

Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his bookPublic School Administration: “Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we’re upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don’t bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to “be careful what you say,” even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a preteen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.
** 09/2003 Harper’s Magazine.

* John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of The Underground History of American Education. He was a participant in the Harper’s Magazine forum “School on a Hill,” which appeared in the September 2001 issue. You can find his web site here.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Paper And Ink Of No Authority

September 30, 2016

The U.S. Constitution itself is a product of a vast conspiracy:

“The U.S. Constitution was prepared in secret, behind locked doors that were guarded by sentries.”

“From these two acts, it appears, 1st, that the object of the convention was to establish, in these States, a firm national government; 2d, that this government was to be such as would be adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.”~Madison – The Federalist No. 40

. . . . . . . . . . .
The error of this treatise in realpolitik is that a “national government” is a central government depositing imbalance by the force of weight as the pinnacle of a system of hierarchical structure. The ‘authority of last resort’ is inevitably the head of a general government over it’s parts.

The proof of my assertion that the reasoning put by Madison is ultimately unsound is in the history of the ensuing period when this national government was formed. In the panoramic, large arc of history is the steady trajectory to tyranny and despotism.
And this can be predicted by a deeper grasp of realpolitik, and the dictum; “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And the rational consequence of this prescient point is that, it is the ‘interpretation’ of the written law that holds as policy, not the intent of the author of the written law. So it is those with the power of interpretation who are the masters of the moment, not the written law.

This is why as a matter of practical politics, ie; Realpolitik, that ‘government’ is nothing but a racket, a circus of hawkers, shysters and con-men.

The summation of Madison’s, Federalist No.40:

“The sum of what has been here advanced and proved is, that the charge against the convention of exceeding their powers, except in one instance little urged by the objectors, has no foundation to support it; that if they had exceeded their powers, they were not only warranted, but required, as the confidential servants of their country, by the circumstances in which they were placed, to exercise the liberty which they assume; and that finally, if they had violated both their powers and their obligations, in proposing a Constitution, this ought nevertheless to be embraced, if it be calculated to accomplish the views and happiness of the people of America. How far this character is due to the Constitution, is the subject under investigation.”~PUBLIUS {James Madison}

. . . . . . . . . .
Let us consider this deeply:
“if they had violated both their powers and their obligations, in proposing a Constitution, this ought nevertheless to be embraced…” – in other words it matters not what the written and understood to be law is; if it is “practical” it is right; Realpolitik, the Machiavellian ‘rule by practical man’, not written law.

Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787

The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner:

“The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people THEN EXISTING in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”~Spooner

“So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their “posterity” was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend “to secure to them the blessings of liberty.” The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their “posterity” to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not “to secure to them the blessings of liberty,” but to make slaves of them; for if their “posterity” are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.”~Ibid

“The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.:
1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.
2. Dupes — a large class, no doubt — each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities.
3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.”~Ibid

“Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or pledge, to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means of knowing, who the particular individuals are who compose “the government.” To him “the government” is a myth, an abstraction, an incorporeality, with which he can make no contract, and to which he can give no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through its pretended agents. “The government” itself he never sees. He knows indeed, by common report, that certain persons, of a certain age, are permitted to vote; and thus to make themselves parts of, or (if they choose) opponents of, the government, for the time being. But who of them do thus vote, and especially how each one votes (whether so as to aid or oppose the government), he does not know; the voting being all done secretly (by secret ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose “the government,” for the time being, he has no means of knowing. Of course he can make no contract with them, give them no consent, and make them no pledge. Of necessity, therefore, his paying taxes to them implies, on his part, no contract, consent, or pledge to support them — that is, to support “the government,” or the Constitution.

All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a “government”; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.”~Spooner
Spooner’s entire essay should be read, it is absolutely brilliant.

“The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.

It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,” before he is bound by a written contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk — that is, a man who could write — was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either “made their mark,” or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time.”~Ibid

“It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution — NOT AS I INTERPRET IT, BUT AS IT IS INTERPRETED BY THOSE WHO PRETEND TO ADMINISTER IT — the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them.

Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, “for any speech or debate (or vote), in either house, they (the senators and representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.”

The whole law-making power is given to these senators and representatives (when acting by a two-thirds vote); [1] and this provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make. [1] And this two-thirds vote may be but two-thirds of a quorum — that is two-thirds of a majority — instead of two-thirds of the whole. The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them.

Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?

It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be “questioned,” or held to any responsibility whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits?

f, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody’s agents. And if they are nobody’s agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature — the highest of all laws — anybody injured by their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers.”~Ibid


“Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”~Lysander Spooner