Showing 1 - 11 of 11 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback

Excellent, very interesting and enlightening commentary by Bruce. I would love to read more from this man perhaps as a regular contributor on say, the Politics of Law?

First off, I don't want anyone to accept what I say as gospel. I write in this forum to get people to investigate and verify what I tell them.

People often ask me where can I find a specific law or principle of law documented. The answer often is not easy to locate because if all the pieces of the puzzle were documented there wouldn't be a deception, and the game of mind-control and regulation would be over.

The word Government, actually means mind control. Government is the most profitable business there is.The origin of law is: reason, logic, and common sense. A mirror image of law is statute (lex juris - or written declaration of rights/duties). It is often said, you have the law and the statutes. They are distinctly different.

Statutes are supposed to follow the law. However, a statute is a substitute for reason, logic, and common sense in that it tells you what to think so that you don't have to discern the reasonableness, logic, and sense of what is proffered.

That said, the writers of statutes have an incentive to codify a covert intent, and if the people give up their reason, logic, and common sense the people are easily deceive, impoverished, and then enslaved. That is what happened in 1913 to 1933.

If you want to learn principles of law, you must read documents dealing in matters of law. But in order to comprehend what you are reading you need to first know the definitions of the words used. In common parlance words may mean one thing, but when applied to commercial, maritime, or legal matters thy might mean quite another. So, if you want to learn about law, first you must find a dictionary from the period in which law was practiced.

For the most part, that restricts you to pre 1933. Bovier's Law dictionary was recognized by Congress at the turn of the 20th Century to contain the official definitions of the words used then, and it is an excellent recourse. The first page explains that the common law is the law of the Land in these united States, and it gives references also to the definitions of words and terms used in the Civil Law, and other forms of foreign law.

The civil law (roman civil law) is what is practiced in the United States today. Black's fifth edition Law Dictionary and earlier are also decent reference books, but from the fifth edition on it becomes progressively more mercantilist, meaning its definitions start from the presumption that everyone is operating under a merchantilist government, and therefore you do not get complete definitions. You get circular definitions based upon other words which are not completely and adequately defined.

Once you have read the entire Bovier's Law Dictionary, and then Black's Fifth you may be prepared to read Supreme Court Decisions which have been made before 1933. Up until 1933, most transactions were made, and contracts entered into, under a gold or silver standard, and therefore were under law. Even though the Federal Reserve was instituted in 1913, it took 20 years to get from a position of court matters held under the presumption of law to court matters maintained under the presumption of equity (as participating in a joint commercial venture for profit called the United States Corporation).

If you do not understand the difference between law and equity, how is it possible for you to understand that Roe v Wade, for instance, was decided upon the equitable principle that a child of a mother who is on the welfare roles is cheaper to abort at public expense then to bring to maturity on the welfare roles?

Now you might be ready to read some supreme court decisions. But, until you have read dozens or hundreds, you will not likely understand what is going on. You see, you need to learn about status and standing. You need to learn about claims and remedies. You need to learn about persons and parties, about competence. There are many subtleties which must be discerned before you get the whole picture of what is going on. These matters are not spelled out in dialog. If they were, you wouldn't need to go to the lawyers to conduct your business. You would be competent.

It's like going to a doctor. The doctor asks you what seems to be the problem. You tell him in English, and he tells you the exact same thing in Latin, and then charges you a lot of money for his opinion.

If you want to learn about law, what is not said is more often more important than what is said. Now, you ask me where can you find the principle of law that everything within a box is excluded from everything outside a box. Since I have read thousands of books and supreme court decisions, I couldn't tell you if it were spelled out somewhere. However, when it comes to law, nothing is done for no reason.

See that double negative? Everything is done for a reason. You don't think that the census bureau merely wanted to make an attractive form by putting on the pretty colors and boxes do you? Further, if that were merely the intent, then why is the only lawful question within the box, and everything else outside the box? See how that works?

Likewise, in all court cases there are hundreds of presumptions that silent judicial notice is being taken of. For instance, if you answer a question, the presumption that you had a duty to answer the question is silently noted. When you argue an issue, the fact that you defer judgment to another by your argument is noted, and the fact that you expect a judgment after your argument has concluded is also noted. This is how public servants become your masters. You give them your power by not comprehending the significance of simple conclusions which result from presumptions of fact and conclusions of law which can be reasonable inferred.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Again, excellent. We feel fortunate you provide the feedback you do and have spent the time you obviously have on these issues. We are believers in free-banking and common law here at the Bell.

If President Obama weren't a socialist, neither he nor his supporters among the political classes, the media and academia would be spending as much time as he does and they do, plausibly denying that he is a socialist to the economically and financially untutored hoi polloi.Equivocation is one of the successful politician's principal tools of trade.

A question for Bruce: I take your comments about the census form at face value because I don't have any information to the contrary. What I would like to know is to what principle of law are you referring? I am not a lawyer, but I like to think I am pretty sharp when it comes to common law stuff. If I had a reference I think I could make a better, more informed decision on this. Also, I am just plain fascinated by arcane and interesting information. I'll check back to this forum from time to time for a response.

When one gets into discussions involving the "s" word, it generally helps if all have an agreed definition of what it might be.I prefer "a politico-economic system wherein the state controls both the means of production (resources, capital and labor) and the distribution of the profits of that production." At the end of the day, I think that covers the gamut of formal collectivism from communism to fascism.

Honest Socialist - in my book an oxymoron. The basis for socialism is to "Rob from Peter to pay Paul".Free Market Capitalism on the other hand is totally dependent on skill levels of individuals.

Dr. Machan's clear and true piece today shows that in reality both the Democrat and Republican party members, with a handful of exceptions, have a hidden agenda. If I tell my wife I'm going to the store and then I go somewhere else, either I am senile or drunk or just forgot, or I have a hidden agenda.

When this happens consistently over a period of many years, all doubt of a hidden agenda is removed. Once an honest and thinking person sees that a hidden agenda exists, the thinking person starts looking to discover what the hidden agenda is. The thinking people of the world end up seeing that there is an elite "overworld" that is manipulating the governments, markets and populace. Those thinking people then end up reading..... The Daily Bell!!

Of course if he did admit it as socialism, he would get enough of the independant swing voters that elected him to pull their heads out of the sand.

You get the same treatment from every aspect of the mercantile regime running this nation and almost every other nation on earth. Go to a county commission meeting and voice your concerns. The commission will listen, and then do what they damn well please.

Get kidnaped on the street or the nation's waterways by jack booted thugs in uniform carrying a badge. They bring you into an executive branch administrative court before someone called a judge, who is merely a clerk for the police agency who kidnaped you .

They pretend the whole thing is judicial, but it isn't. Then they ask you questions, like, 'What's your name? or 'Are you So and So? Let me ask you this, 'If whoever brought me here can't testify to who I am and why he brought me here, then by what authority do you hold me and ask me questions?

If asked, 'What's your name? my response is, 'What makes you think I have a name? You wouldn't believe how fast the hands come off from me. The word 'name comes from the Latin word 'Nome which means 'debtor.

The question, 'What's your name? actually is the question, 'Do you recognize me as the creditor so that I can determine how much money I can extract from you today?

There is no honesty in government. There is no law in the courts. That's why attorneys are designated 'at law rather than 'in law. That's why tax delinquent property is sold on the courthouse steps rather than in the courthouse. These people are operating outside the law " and they know it.

Did you know that the entry of a plea in court is a voluntary agreement to subject yourself to the court's jurisdiction? The word 'jure means 'rights. The word 'diction means to say or speak. Jurisdiction means to declare ones rights " to dictate rights.

Where does any court get the 'right to dictate rights " other than from those who voluntarily enter it praying for a remedy?Did you know that arraignment is the placing of your commercial interests upon the court's commercial ledger? Did you know that a court is synonymous with a bank?

A bank is a court. Look the terms up in Black's Fifth (or earlier) Law Dictionary.Why does an alleged Judge ask you any question? Have you given that any thought? Why doesn't he just say, 'Sit there, Shut up, and Do whatever you're told.?

The reason is that he needs your consent to be judged in order to shield himself and his criminal companions from civil and criminal liability. Without your consent, you could prosecute him for his crimes, and the crimes of the corporate police officers!

Executive administrative officers have no authority imposing their wills upon the people " whose law is the common law, while corporate administrative law is a foreign jurisdiction to these united States.

An officer who sees the commission of a murder or rape doesn't need a name to arrest and hold the perpetrator. No name need be given to try the perp before a jury, nor to convict and hang him.

These people operating in administrative law (executive branch) are operating a gigantic charade for profit. For that reason they need endless dialog as to how the mechanism is to be handled. The law thing they need is to get to the root of the problem, which is the absence of law.

Enter: The Restore America Plan. These people get it! These people have instituted a plan to restore the free republics. I just discovered them and their plan last night, and I am very encouraged and excited. Here are two links I have found to audio explanation of what they are doing:

First hour

Click to view link

Second hour

Click to view link

Here's a link to the website containing the audio:

Click to view link

I have to mention one other deception: The census authorizes enumeration. All the sensitive personal questions are not authorized by law. Then why are they on the form? Answer: They are not! The form has multiple colors on it, and hidden amidst the multiple blues is a thin black line.

There is a principle of law which states that everything within a box is segregated from what is outside the box. Thus, the census form is question number one, in the box. Everything outside the box is not on the form, and therefore is voluntary. I can just see what would happen to the lawsuits in which one alleges that the census form is illegal in that it requires information not authorized by law.

Folks, we are dealing with professional organized criminals! That's why all the deception. Scrutinize what you believe is your next property tax bill. You will find the same tactics and deceptions.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for your fine analysis. We look forward to updates on the Restore America Plan from you and others who are interested.

This article reminds me that Hayek dedicated his insightful essay, The Road to Serfdom, "To the Socialists of All Parties." (The book is more accurate than a crystal ball.) As soon as we move away from the primacy of contract, we enter into the realm of "parties" (factions, actually). But of course, everyone is for Peace and Freedom. They may have to confiscate half the nation's production and march halfway aross the world and kill a million people to acheive it, but their hearts are in the proper place (WWI). After making that OK, the Welfare State is a piece of cake.

Dr. Machan brings up a key point. For me, a libertarian, it is vexing beyond belief that we in the US can never seem to have an open debate about political values. I too, would applaud Mr. Obama were he to come forth and proclaim himself the socialist that he so clearly is.But I would ask for more: I want him to also admit that the country is bankrupt, and needs to rebuild its economy almost from scratch. I want him to admit that, whatever his convictions may be, he has lacked the courage to confront the United State's grotesquely evil military/corporate/intelligence elite, with its ugly, costly and counterproductive wars around the globe.

How reprehensible that he would waste countless lives and dollars for simple political expediency--to not be considered "soft on terrorism."But I don't expect such admissions, as cathartic as they would be. Instead he will proceed with his arrogant, propagandistic posturing, never clearly stating his goals nor the real challenges facing the country.

By trying to paper over the simmering, festering, urgent problems he his inadvertently (intentionally?)fostering the swelling tides of political fractuousness that are poised to tear apart the north American continent and polity at its seams.We he be so surprised to see the violence in the streets that is the likely outcome of his willful negligence?