SwiftVets.com

[sovereign]

Tyrants vs Terri—Reclaim your Power
By Sovereign Dave

Today I visited traffic-court with my accused friend in Lebanon Ohio. Now this could be ANYWHERE USA but here in small-town Ohio I counted 30 people present. The hearing officer was handing down average fines/court costs of roughly $150 and I counted 30 people in the room today. Now assuming this “court” meets a mere 45 times a year, this represents over $200K in revenue. This is just but one court for one small town in USA “legal-land.” Now multiply this by the thousands of courts and towns in the USA and one begins to see a picture of a very profitable Legislative business. It gets even better on the Federal level as you will soon discover.

My point in this is not to argue the merits of traffic tickets but rather to point-out how the average natural person gets wrangled into these Legislative forums called “court”. If you’ve ever been to a traffic court hearing and feel you’ve been somehow deceptively dealt a less than fair hand, you are NOT alone. It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that IF these same actions masquerading as “justice” are occurring on the lower levels of “court”, then what is happening on the upper levels? In specific, how did Terri become the “victim”? Aren’t we a free country of “justice for all” as ruler Bush tells us we are?

In order to understand how Terri became the victim, we need to understand the origins of the country. Don’t worry! If there’s anything to feel good about it’s that we have the ability to be as free today as we so desire. All we have to do is demand our freedom, and, as Patriots like Cheryl tirelessly do, speak up for our fellow citizens--instead of ignoring their claims. In fact Terri could be free today if people just start demanding the correct answers to questions.

I’m going to start with the concept of SOVEREIGNTY. Perhaps you’ve heard government refer to itself as sovereign….as in the sovereign state of Florida. Well what exactly does this word mean and why is it important? When I look up the word sovereign in Black’s law dictionary it says “supreme power holder”. Wow! This is amazing definition. Let’s now travel back in time and peer into the mind of James Monroe, a founding father, as he gives his inaugural speech in 1821:

:

“…a government which is founded by the people, who possess exclusively the sovereignty…” “In this great nation there is but one order, that of the people, whose power, by a peculiarly happy improvement of the representative principle, is transferred from them, without impairing in the slightest degree their sovereignty, to bodies of their own creation, and to persons elected by themselves, in the full extent necessary for all the purposes of free, enlightened and efficient government. The whole system is elective, the complete sovereignty being in the people, and every officer in every department deriving his authority from and being responsible to them for his conduct.” James Monroe, Inaugural Speech March 5, 1821


Now let’s analyze this speech carefully via some questions with answers and you’ll see something amazing:

• Who possesses the sovereignty? The People.
• If the people possess the sovereignty exclusively, how much is left to other fictions and creations? None. Sovereignty is exclusively the people.
• Which bodies are but one creation of the people? Government and its officers.
• How much sovereignty does government have in comparison to the people? None.
• Who is the one order? The people--not the government or its creations.
• What power did the people transfer to government? Only the power that didn’t impair their sovereignty in the slightest degree.
• If the people transferred a power of even the slightest degree “over the top of them”, would they be a sovereign (i.e SUPREME power holder)? No, this is an error in rudimentary logic. No power was given to government “over the top of the people”; government is prevented from making law for the people. The people govern themselves by the common law; they have no need for statutory law that is intended to govern government only.
• Where does government get ALL authority from? The people.
• Who are all those alleged government “servants” responsible too? The people directly. This is a full-time day-in-and-day-out requirement.
• What is elective? The system is elective [voluntary] for the people. You can voluntarily consent to be governed or you can choose not to be governed. (Contrast this with government “spin” on the concept of “consent of the governed”; they want you to believe you are somehow subservient to your creation because you elected “officials”. What a joke!)
• How are you free? You have unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. You cannot deprive another sovereign of these self-evident truths though. Certainly government cannot deprive one of the sovereign people of property, liberty or life unless that sovereign somehow deprived another sovereign of those rights. [Hint: Did Terri do anything against the wishes of any other member of the people? What about her sovereign detractors of deprivation? Does Terri have a cause against them?]
• Does any creation of the sovereign people have any power “over the top” of them? No, otherwise the people would not be a supreme power holder; they would not be a sovereign. The people as sovereigns have equal power amongst themselves.
• Is being forced to work for another, slavery? Yes, the amount doesn’t matter. [Hint: Income Tax]
• If you are sovereign, can you be a slave? Yes, but only if you volunteer.
• Can you be forced to answer for breaking a law of government when no injured-party in the form of another sovereign member of the people exists? No. Statutory law is for government but is cleverly worded to imply that it is law for the people. However, as you have free will, you can consent to appear in any forum.
• So exactly what is government’s function? Why of course to serve you, the sovereign.
• According to Thomas Jefferson: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” Now what form of government favors destruction of human life? BAD government--that is inherently illegitimate.

By now you should be feeling a new found sense of freedom—and a sense of utter contempt for our true terrorists hijacking the republic. You are becoming a “Born Again American”! Let freedom ring and proclaim liberty for all….including Terri. But I didn’t get to exactly how the black-robe imposters steal money, liberty and freedom under the disguise of “justice”. In order to do this, we need to talk Separation of Powers.

You’ve all heard government talk about Separation of Powers. When one branch is “in trouble”, watch how they’ll claim separation of powers. Did you notice how Legislative-branch Congress “summons” people before it—like those of the Executive branch—yet nothing happens? You are witnessing the effects of Separation of Powers. But what exactly is Separation of Powers, why is it important, and what does it speak of Terri’s situation?

This all goes back to the Supreme law for government—and government alone—called the Constitution. Each state has its own Constitution and a Constitution for the Union of the states exists also, (in order to be a part of the Union, the states must abide by the national constitution). Now are these Constitutions for the people? NO. The state Constitution is the supreme law for the state’s government; the Constitution of the united States of America is the supreme law for state governments to be part of the Union. (So much for calling-out “my constitutional rights”). In the quote by Monroe above, we note that the miniscule chunk of the people’s power--that didn’t impair their sovereignty in the slightest--was transferred to government; and mainly to state government. (The feds got a smaller chunk of power and only some territories like the 12 square miles of Washington DC) The people did so under the grants of power “spelled-out” in the Constitution; government is limited to only the power granted by the people with all other political power residing with the people. But how much power is contained in that grant of power? Only the sliver amount that didn’t impair the sovereignty of the people in the slightest degree! (So in Terri’s case Terri has the power; not her creation, the black-robe).

Inside the constitutions you will find the form of government to be guaranteed. This form is a Republic. [Food for thought: What form of government does Bush and other leaders proclaim they are “making the world safe for” and why do they not mention the word Republic?] Also you will find in those Constitutions that government can exist in ONLY 3 forms: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. This was an amazing inspiration of our founding fathers, and, as a lawyer friend told me, “They separated the snake into 3 parts so no mere one or two parts could rise up to deprive the sovereign of anything.” This separation is an important concept as government is clearly separate from the people. (This latter concept of what I call the “inherent 4th separation of powers” instills absolute fear in government).

Now if you have the chance to step into any court, ask the “judge” or the clerk of courts, what branch of government the judge is “from”. Remember I said ALL government must exist in these 3 branches and each MUST be separate. In my conversations with court officers [judges, clerk-of-courts, lawyers], I’ve heard every answer short of the truth. My favorite is “quasi-judicial” from one municipal judge. When pressed for which one of the three branches was her employer, she advised me to get a lawyer and wouldn’t say anything more. This has happened for myself and friends on occasions too numerous for coincidence. You be the judge—is deception and elusive tactics a part of Monroe’s speech on being responsible to the people? In fact many “officers of the court” will lie and tell you their employer is the judicial branch of government. (The desire for power is that great isn’t it?)

By now you should be realizing that the “man in the black robe” is not who he appears to represent. In the three branches we have Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The easiest way I’ve discovered to remember what branch does what function is to just remember the first letters: J,L,E. The Executive branch Enforces law for government, the Legislative branch creates Law for government and the Judicial branch sits in Judgment. So now you should realize the answer to the black-robe question as to which branch a “true” judge is from: Judicial as in Judge.

But would you be surprised to hear that most of the lawyers wearing black robes and sitting on the podium are actually employed by the Legislative branch; the same branch that makes law? Can you see why they never answer the simple question of branch employment? If a Legislative officer wears the black robe, are they not sitting in judgment of the same laws their branch makes? By now you should be seeing the snake arise to deprive a sovereign under the disguise of semblance justice. In my example of traffic court, we have the Executive branch present in the form of the police-officer and the Legislative branch “black-robe” sitting in judgment of its own laws. In short, the Executive branch is represented once via the police and the Legislative branch is represented twice: Once by the presence of the law for the court and the second by the black-robe officer presiding over the court! Where is the required 3rd branch of Judicial? Can the sovereign, forced by threat and coercion, obtain due-process in a Legislative forum without a separate independent branch officer present? No. This holds true for nearly ALL “courts” from local to state to Federal District Court. The deception is THAT great. (So much for all those “Federal District Court” decisions government is so fond of throwing as dicta against the sovereign)

But you ask, how can they do this? By what method can they hold “trial”? In truth each branch is limited to its own employees. So can the Legislative branch hold a hearing involving its own employees? Yes. As sovereigns we want them to be able to “keep their own house in order” so as not to bother us. (The people have happiness to pursue and certainly don’t want to be burdened with the day to day tedium of government!) Can a sovereign consent to the hearing? Yes, you can volunteer to do anything if you are a supreme power holder. You can also consent by declaring yourself incompetent and asking someone to consent to the hearing on your behalf. This is done by hiring a lawyer and is why the “judge” will often only address the lawyer and not you—because you are “legally” incompetent.

We’ve already determined that most of the courts are not of the Judicial branch. As such they can’t hear law as separation of powers prevents them from doing the work of the Judicial branch. In this way they are limited to “findings of facts”. These are “courts of facts” and not “courts of law.” It is for this reason that the judge will instruct the jury that he will tell them the law, but they are to judge the facts—and facts alone. As most members of the jury are ignorant and merely desirous to serve justice (as they have been trained courtesy of “public” education) they don’t realize they are being used in furthering “semblance justice.” The man in the robe will never tell them as sovereigns they have the right to judge the sovereign before them on not only the facts, but also on the law. In addition they have the right to nullify bogus laws. (Think about the order and this will become self-evident: Sovereigns create Constitutions, constitutions dictate government, and government creates law. But who is supreme? [The people--who coincidentally sit on the jury].)

In a great deception nearly equivalent to Pilate washing his hands of Jesus’ fate by thrusting the decision to the people, we have the “imposter judge”, a Legislative officer, washing his hands of the fact his branch cannot judge law and simply asking the jury to convict on the facts—purely voluntarily on their behalf. He knows the power of 12 sovereigns is far greater than his own and he uses the fact that they volunteered to be a part of the hearing. As a supreme power holder, they are free to attend all government hearings. As Monroe pointed-out, the system is entirely elective. It is subject to change entirely by the sovereigns and they don’t have to abide by the Constitution or wait for its changes.

By now you should be seeing how Terri’s fate is in the hands of “semblance” justice and how the importance of life and liberty is reduced to “findings of fact” in the Legislative hearing masquerading as a “court”. [It is my contention that Terri’s “hearing officer” is employed by the Legislative branch. Prove me wrong, please.] My further wager is no jury was even present during a large portion; this is how badly we have let government run unrestrained. Can you not see how the “Phd” doctor, an acknowledged Legislative branch consultant was used in the deception? Do not ask the Federal District Courts for help. Their presiding officer’s are not Judicial Article III judges. (Besides as a Federal entity their jurisdiction is limited to the actual federal territory within the state and not the geographic state boundaries—SURPRISE!)

If you are surprised by the hijacking of the republic by tyrants, don’t be. We’ve seen this form of tyrant before. Over 200 years ago we declared ourselves independent of all government because of tyrants like these. We the people wanted the same sovereign status as the King of England and we achieved that monumental task not only for ourselves but for all our brethren in sovereignty. This is what it means to be an American; a recognition of those unalienable rights that ALL men are created equal (sovereigns) and the important concept that only by declaring freedom for all can we ourselves be free. Terri deserves no less. And please bear in mind that a government officer, who deprives a person’s right to life, under the disguise of “public welfare” is no less the tyrant.

You will not get satisfaction from government representatives or the majority of those “licensed” officer’s of the court called lawyers. And remember, nearly all presiding officers are lawyers. Their primary obligation is to the master they serve: the court. If not, the master will remove their ability to practice law. Only the astute lawyers will agree—and as the state of Maryland pointed out, a lot of lawyers are incompetent even at law.

If you do chance to present this material to a lawyer or a “judge”, they will claim a convenient subterfuge stating, “This is YOUR opinion!” Over 200 years ago when our people were less ignorant, we had the divine-creator-inspired-answer for this tyrant’s subterfuge. It’s really quite simple and is within the opening line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Re-read it again and the answer is: SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS. Isn’t sovereignty and the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness not self-evident? Your mind—free of government “education”—will proclaim this for yourself in the most wonderful breath of divine inspiration. Are you opinion? Or is your body and your mind SELF evidence of your existence? If this is not true should you not be free as long as you don’t deprive another of self-evident existence? Are you beholding to any King or Tyrant of your creation masquerading as authority over the top of you? In a country run-amuck with opinions meant only to distract you from divine-creator inspiration, its time to re-proclaim simple “self-evident truth of unalienable rights.” In short: Its time for truth.

It’s a strange thing about unalienable rights. Can they be voluntarily given away? Yes, you are free to voluntarily comply with anything. You can for example voluntarily comply to pay the tax on the National government called “income tax”. You can voluntarily consent to be governed. You can voluntarily have some lawyer represent you. However, can an unalienable right be taken away? No, this defies the very definition of unalienable. This is important in Terri’s case as no amount of consent can ultimately deprive her of a right to life if she chooses so. This right can be claimed at any time no matter what opposite consent preceded it. It is far better to err on the side of right to life (for once I agree with Bush).

Please re-read the Declaration of Independence and you will find many applicable passages. In this document the people list abuses that are as relevant today as 200 years ago. It is interesting to note that this document, proclaiming independence from government is signed. (The Constitution wasn’t signed because it is not binding on its creators the sovereigns; it is only binding on government.) Bear in mind that the Declaration of Independence is so important that it exists in its entirety at the beginning of the Statues at Large—including the part that references the duty to throw-off all tyrants. Here are a couple of my favorites that reference the “tyrant du jour” of the time:

1. “He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good”. If the Florida Constitution is the supreme law for Florida government, has not this “judge” refused assent to Florida law at Sections 1, 2, 9, 17 and 18 in Terri’s case? Does he not also refuse assent to the law for government of the U.S. Constitution?
2. “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.” On this topic nearly every state and Federal government is guilty. As we have seen, Legislative officers presiding over Legislative hearings hardly constitutes Judicial power!
3. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by or laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislature.” Was not Terri subject to a jurisdiction foreign to the Constitution and unacknowledged by her common law? After all, is she subject to the jurisdiction of the alleged Legislative branch of government? Is she the subject of law for government?
4. “We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarranted jurisdiction over us”. This is the issue you need to raise time and time again. Do you feel your sovereign power being usurped by Legislative branch hearing officers? Tyrants have the same lust for power today as 200 years ago and is precisely the reason why it is the people’s duty to check their power. Do not shrug this duty otherwise the next generation will suffer Terri’s fate.

We must applaud those like Cheryl Ford who work tirelessly on behalf of those less fortunate. Tyrants gain acceptance for the general elimination of people from the silence of those when they eliminate the infirmed, insane and elderly in the name of “public good”:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
A poem by Martin Niemoller; written while a prisoner in Nazi Germany’s Dachau Concentration Camp
As your brethren in sovereignty, I humbly ask that you proclaim your rightful status of supreme power holder. You will know you are asking the right questions when those in governmental “authority” threaten detention (i.e violence) because you ask simple questions.
Kind Regards,
Sovereign Dave
P.S. On the next page are questions you can demand answers for from your creation, government.










Dear Sirs:

As a member of the People in whom all political power is vested and who are the supreme power holders, I now demand these answers in specific:
1. Does not Terri Schiavo have an unalienable right to life and liberty?
2. Is not Terri Schiavo a sovereign member of the people?
3. What Constitutional grant of power gives government the right to determine that Terri is not a sovereign member of the People? Strong evidence exists that government has indeed attempted to usurp Terri’s sovereign status.
4. What Constitutional grant of power gives government the right to determine what is and isn’t the meaningful life of a sovereign?
5. What Constitutional grant of power gives government the right to deny food and water?
6. Would you not agree that an unalienable right to life is not surrender-able or transferable to government, a creation of the People? [Otherwise it would not be unalienable.]
7. Can an unalienable right be voluntarily surrendered such that it can never be recovered? Or are unalienable rights so organic to our freedom that they can always be recovered in full?
8. Has not the hearing officer in Terri’s case refused his assent to the supreme law for Florida government at Florida Constitution sections 1,2,9,17 and 18?
9. Was not government’s refusal of assent to law a grievance of the people in the Declaration of Independence so significant that it caused the people to revolt?
10. Knowing that government exists in only 3 forms, what branch of the government employs the “judge” in Terri’s case? Is this judge employed by the one branch having true judicial officers that can interact with a sovereign—namely the Judicial branch?
11. By what possible misconstruction of proper government can a mere hearing officer, presumably employed by the Legislative branch, deprive a sovereign of a right to life?
12. Was not the usurpation of rights and the attempts by the Legislature to extend an unwarranted [Legislative] jurisdiction over people like Terri not warned-about in the Declaration of Independence?
13. If as we presume the “hearing officer” in Teri’s case is employed by the Legislative branch and knowing that “hearing officer’s” are limited to “findings of fact” and employees of their own branch, can you answer: (a) how Terri is an employee of the Legislative branch and (b) how deprivation of a right to life is decided on “findings of fact” ?
14. James Monroe stated in his inaugural address that the people are sovereign and that the only power they transferred to government was such power that didn’t impair their sovereignty in the slightest degree. Knowing that Terri is a sovereign member of the people, can you tell me how a mere Florida government’s hearing officer managed to acquire power that impairs Terri’s sovereignty greatly?

[LewWaters]

Hello Dave and welcome.

What you say carries some common sense, but the main thing you forgot is that people have to stand up to tyrrany to defeat it. Unfortuantely, even our elected officials seem hesitant to stand up to these tyrants.

Maybe it's the "me first" attitude that has crept into our culture and the attitude of "I don't want to get involved." I don't know why but it just seems there aren't enough people awake yet and it will be too late once they do wake up, if they ever do.

Then again, we have a significant section of our populace that sees only these officials mandating their mistrued ideals on the rest of us, so they wish to keep it as it is.

I wish I had answers or the ability to wake them all up to just where they are leading all of us. I don't like the looks of the world we are about to leave for my grandchildren.

Incidentally, I deleted your other duplicate thread as this
_________________
Clark County Conservative

[RogerRabbit]

The questions went to both my senators and House rep - but as usual I do not expect a reply
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

[srmorton]

Lew,

I have SO much respect for you and your opinion, but I disgree that all
of our elected officials failed to stand up to the tyranny exemplified by
the Terri Schiavo case. I think that both Bush brothers, Tom Delay,
and Bill Frist did their best and now are being criticized by the left for
going too far while being vilified by the right for not going far enough.
I do not think any of them ever dreamed that a circuit court judge who
is not even a lawyer would have the temerity to ignore a Congressional
summons or that even a Clinton apointee would competely disregard
the intent of a law passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS.

I think that a lot of us are not thinking about the fact that, although the
Republicans now control the Presidency and both houses of Congress,
the judiciary "lags behind" those other two branches of government.
We are suffering through the effects of the appointments of two
Democratic presidents as well as some dubious appointments of a
couple of Republican presidents. The only hope we have to rectify
the situation is to keep conservative Republicans in power long enough
to get some of these activist judges off the bench. If all of us do not
"stick together" to do what we can to prevent anything like this from
happening again, the "culture of death" that is permeating the Democrat
party will be even more empowered.

As can be seen from some of the fascinating posts on this forum, the
corruption and downright evil that has been directing the fate of Terri
Schiavo is larger than anyone could ever have imagined. The Schindlers
were totally out-manuvered at every turn by every level of government,
except those mentioned above that did try within the law to help her.
If any of them tried to circumvent the law to rescue Terri, this would be
the opening that the left has been waiting for to demonstrate how very
"extreme" we right wingers are. One of the main problems that we
conservatives have is that we play by the rules and attempt to stay
within the law, whereas the liberals do not seem to be bound by those
same constraints.

What we need to do now is bombard Senator Frist and the RHINOs with
emails, calls, and letters to let them know how critical it is that the
filibuster of GWs judicial nominees be stopped. We also need to do what
we can to increase the Republican majority in Congress. Although they
are not perfect and have made some mistakes in the past, we can not
risk another Clinton presidency.

It is my prayer that the spectacle that we have been witnessing will be
a wake-up call to the rest of America about the power of the judiciary
and the view most liberals have for the sanctity of life. Terri's life and
death have a purpose far greater than she could ever have imagined.
It is our duty to make sure that she will never be forgotten and that her
murder at the hands of these three evil men will be avenged. Even
though these men (and others) meant it for evil, I know that God IS
in control and He can use this tragedy for good.
_________________
Susan R. Morton

[SBD]

smorten,

I think you might have missed the entire point of the original post in this thread. What sovereign is saying is that the Court system is not part of the Judicial Branch of our Government but rather a representative of the Legislature. The Judicial Branch is absent unless, if I understood correctly, a jury is present which is seperate which then takes the form of the Judicial as 12 seperate sovereign's which according to our Constitution all powers rest.

The Legislature, by making the Law and rendering judgement on that law by pretending to represent the Judicial Branch of our Government and is represented twice in our court system and that needs to be fixed.

In reality, the subpoena from Congress and the law passed by Congress was an attempt to bring the case into their own House, IE the Federal Court. I guess we should remember that when we hear that Congress is stepping into an area governed by the Judicial Branch of government. This is clearly false since the Judges are part of the Legislature. So ultimately Congress can save Terry the same way that they have decided to kill her.

Why doesn't Congress just find another judge to see it their way since they are their employees anyway??

SBD

[LewWaters]