Posted by
aftershock on Friday, June 17, 2011 7:53:17 PM
“progressive/liberalism”
masquerading as law equals tyranny. Whenever elected officials step
beyond their constitutional limitations, trampling upon the free will
– liberty – and rights of the people, then their government acts, though given the form of law by statute, are merely public
policies implemented and enforced until successfully challenged through courts of
LAW. An unconstitutional act (de facto) cannot produce a
constitutional result (de jure). Plainly spoken, the ends cannot
justify the means.
De
jure government is that which adheres strictly to the common law Constitutions
of our States and the United States. Thus any assembly of government
that willfully undermines and subverts the will of the people, as
expressed in the Constitution of the United States and of their
particular state, is a government de facto, not de jure.
The
term “at law” regards the common law. A de jure Citizen is one
who's rights have been refined and are most effectively defended
under the aegis of the common law. To the contrary, the term “in
equity” regards civil actions wherein fairness, political
correctness, interference with contracts, administrative matters –
including public policy, employment, internal revenue and statutory
(government created) rights as well as cases formerly arising under Admiralty – are treated in “courts” of
equity (NOTE: the Federal District Courts abolished the separate Admiralty courts and docket in 1966, merging Admiralty suits and libels with "civil actions" that are within the equity jurisdiction of the Courts). In civil actions, suits in equity, one has no God given right to life, liberty or
pursuit of property per se; one is not presumed innocent and may even when the State is party, suffer punitive or criminal punishments based only upon a preponderance of information that you might provide and/or that is
provided about you by other sources. No right against self incrimination exists. A jury is advisory and does not determine the law, and, the "State" can by filings be treated as a private party and as plaintiff to enforce certain "laws", the violation of which may have criminal punishments. Given that there are few constitutional protections in equity, the ability of the state to file suit against you in order to enforce laws -- the violation of which may have criminal punishments -- is an outrage! Even though in courts of equity it has been said that equity must DO equity, exactly what IS equitable often does not equate to “Constitutional” at least as the founders understood it.
If
you have a drivers license, for instance, the courts will take judicial notice that you, having applied for (alleged exercise of
“free” will), received and accepted a “drivers license”, are
no longer a de jure Citizen, at least while engaged in the activity of
driving a privately owned automobile. Hence, to courts exercising
equity/admiralty/maritime jurisdiction over your driving privileges,
any inalienable rights and liberty to the contrary are irrelevant. You have,
unfortunately, exchanged the right to travel by whatever mode you choose and your right to make use
of your property as you see fit -- harming no other person
nor property in the process -- for a license that, as was promised via many promulgated rules
and regulations, would provide a greater degree of security and
protection for your life and property. Shopworn as the maxim may be,
it is nonetheless true that: “They
who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. – Benjamin Franklin
If
government can license a single inalienable right already
possessed, then the same government will eventually find it
“necessary and proper” for the “general welfare” to license
all rights until all rights are gone. Patrick
Henry stated that the constitution is not an instrument to restrain
the people, but an instrument to restrain the government. It seems
to me, that idea has been turned on it's head.