Dec 302013


AMONG INTELLECTUALS WHO CONSIDER themselves “scientific,” the phrase “the nature of man” apt to have the effect of a red flag on a bull. “Man has no nature!” is the modern rallying cry; and typical of the sentiment of political philosophers today was the assertion of a distinguished political theorist some years ago before a meeting of the American Political Science Association that “man’s nature” is a purely theological concept that must be dismissed from any scientific discussion.[1]

In the controversy over man’s nature, and over the broader and more controversial concept of “natural law,” both sides have repeatedly proclaimed that natural law and theology are inextricably intertwined. As a result, many champions of natural law, in scientific or philosophic circles, have gravely weakened their case by implying that rational, philosophical methods alone cannot establish such law: that theological faith is necessary to maintain the concept. On the other hand, the opponents of natural law have gleefully agreed; since faith in the supernatural is deemed necessary to belief in natural law, the latter concept must be tossed out of scientific, secular discourse, and be consigned to the arcane sphere of the divine studies. In consequence, the idea of a natural law founded on reason and rational inquiry has been virtually lost.[2]

The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door. To the first group, it must be said that they are reflecting an extreme Augustinian position which held that faith rather than reason was the only legitimate tool for investigating man’s nature and man’s proper ends. In short, in this fideist tradition, theology had completely displaced philosophy. [3] The Thomist tradition, on the contrary, was precisely the opposite: vindicating the independence of philosophy from theology and proclaiming the ability of man’s reason to understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order. If belief in a systematic order of natural laws open to discovery by man’s reason is per se anti-religious, then anti-religious also were St. Thomas and the later Scholastics, as well as the devout Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius. The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man’s reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious.[4]

Because this position is startling to most people today let us investigate this Thomistic position a little further. The statement of absolute independence of natural law from the question of the existence of God was implicit rather than flatly asserted in St. Thomas himself; but like so many implications of Thomism, it was brought forth by Suarez and the other brilliant Spanish Scholastics of the late sixteenth century. The Jesuit Suarez pointed out that many Scholastics had taken the position that the natural law of ethics, the law of what is good and bad for man, does not depend upon God’s will. Indeed, some of the Scholastics had gone so far as to say that:

even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has.[5]

Or, as a modem Thomist philosopher declares:

If the word “natural” means anything at all, it refers to the nature of a man, and when used with “law,” “natural” must refer to an ordering that is manifested in the inclinations of a man’s nature and to nothing else. Hence, taken in itself, there is nothing religious or theological in the “Natural Law” of Aquinas.[6]

Dutch Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius declared, in his De Iure Belli ac Pacis (1625):

What we have been saying would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God.

And again:

Measureless as is the power of God, nevertheless it can be said that there are certain things over which that power does not extend. . . . Just as even God cannot cause that two times two should not make four, so He cannot cause that which is intrinsically evil be not evil.[7]

D’Entrèves concludes that:

[Grotius’s] definition of natural law has nothing revolutionary. When he maintains that natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason, he does nothing but restate the Scholastic notion of a rational foundation of ethics. Indeed, his aim is rather to restore that notion which had been shaken by the extreme Augustinianism of certain Protestant currents of thought. When he declares that these rules are valid in themselves, independently of the fact that God willed them, he repeats an assertion which had already been made by some of the schoolmen.[8]

Grotius’s aim, d’Entrèves adds, “was to construct a system of laws which would carry conviction in an age in which theological controversy was gradually losing the power to do so.” Grotius and his juristic successors—Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, and Vattel—proceeded to elaborate this independent body of natural laws in a purely secular context, in accordance with their own particular interests, which were not, in contrast to the Schoolmen, primarily theological.[9] Indeed, even the eighteenth-century rationalists, in many ways dedicated enemies of the Scholastics, were profoundly influenced in their very rationalism by the Scholastic tradition.[10]

Thus, let there be no mistake: in the Thomistic tradition, natural law is ethical as well as physical law; and the instrument by which man apprehends such law is his reason-not faith, or intuition, or grace, revelation, or anything else.[11] In the contemporary atmosphere of sharp dichotomy between natural law and reason—and especially amid the irrationalist sentiments of “conservative” thought—this cannot be underscored too often. Hence, St. Thomas Aquinas, in the words of the eminent historian of philosophy Father Copleston, “emphasized the place and function of reason in moral conduct. He [Aquinas] shared with Aristotle the view that it is the possession of reason which distinguished man from the animals” and which “enables him to act deliberately in view of the consciously apprehended end and raises him above the level of purely instinctive behavior.”[12]

Aquinas, then, realized that men always act purposively, but also went beyond this to argue that ends can also be apprehended by reason as either objectively good or bad for man. For Aquinas, then, in the words of Copleston, “there is therefore room for the concept of  ‘right reason,’ reason directing man’s acts to the attainment of the objective good for man.” Moral conduct is therefore conduct in accord with right reason: “If it is said that moral conduct is rational conduct, what is meant is that it is conduct in accordance with right reason, reason apprehending the objective good for man and dictating the means to its attainment.”[13]

In natural-law philosophy, then, reason is not bound, as it is in modern post-Humean philosophy, to be a mere slave to the passions, confined to cranking out the discovery of the means to arbitrarily chosen ends. For the ends themselves are selected by the use of reason; and “right reason” dictates to man his proper ends as well as the means for their attainment. For the Thomist or natural-law theorist, the general law of morality for man is a special case of the system of natural law governing all entities of the world, each with its own nature and its own ends. “For him the moral law . . . is a special case of the general principles that all finite things move toward their ends by the development of their potentialities.”[14] And here we come to a vital difference between inanimate or even non-human living creatures, and man himself; for the former are compelled to proceed in accordance with the ends dictated by their natures, whereas man, “the rational animal,” possesses reason to discover such ends and the free will to choose.[15]

     Which doctrine, natural law or those of its critics, is to be considered truly rational was answered incisively by the late Leo Straus, in the course of a penetrating critique of the value-relativism in political theory of Professor Arnold Brecht. For, in contrast to natural law,

positivistic social science . . . is characterized by the abandonment of reason or the flight from reason. . . .

According to the positivistic interpretation of relativism which prevails in present-day social science . . . reason can tell us which means are conducive to which ends; it cannot tell us which attainable ends are to be preferred to other attainable ends. Reason cannot tell us that we ought to choose attainable ends; if someone ‘loves him who desires the impossible,’ reason may tell him that he acts irrationally, but it cannot tell him that he ought to act rationally, or that acting irrationally is acting badly or basely. If rational conduct consists in choosing the right means for the right end, relativism teaches in effect that rational conduct is impossible.[16]

Finally, the unique place of reason in natural-law philosophy has been affirmed by the modern Thomistic philosopher, the late Father John Toohey. Toohey defined sound philosophy as follows: “Philosophy, in the sense in which the word is used when scholasticism is contrasted with other philosophies, is an attempt on the part of man’s unaided reason to give a fundamental explanation of the nature of things.”[17]


[1]The political theorist was the late Hannah Arendt. For a typical criticism of natural law by a legal Positivist, see Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (New York: Russell and Russell, 1961), pp. 8ff.

[2]And yet, Black’s Law Dictionary defines the natural law in a purely rationalistic and non-theological manner:

Jus Naturale, the natural law, or law of nature; law, or legal principles, supposed to be discoverable by the light of nature or abstract reasoning, or to be taught by nature to all nations and men alike, or law supposed to govern men and peoples in a state of nature, i.e., in advance of organized governments or enacted laws (3rd ed., p. 1044).

Professor Patterson, in Jurisprudence: Men and Ideas of the Law (Brooklyn: Foundation Press, 1953), p. 333, defines the natural law cogently and concisely as:

Principles of human conduct that are discoverable by “reason” from the basic inclinations of human nature, and that are absolute, immutable and of universal validity for all times and places. This is the basic conception of scholastic natural law . . . and most natural law philosophers.

[3]Supporters of theological ethics nowadays typically strongly oppose the concept of natural law. See the discussion of casuistry by the neo-orthodox Protestant theologian Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 3,4 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1961), pp. 7ff.

[4]For a discussion of the role of reason in the philosophy of Aquinas, see Etienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (New York: Random House, 1956). An important analysis of Thomistic natural law theory is Germain Grisez, “The First Principle of Practical Reason,” in Anthony ed., Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays (New York: Anchor Books, 1969), pp. 340–82. For a history of medieval natural law, see Odon Lottin, Psychologie et morale aux xiie et xiiie siècles, 6 vols. (Louvain, 1942-1960).

[5]From Franciscus Suarez, De Legibus ac Deo Legislatore (1619), lib. II, Cap. vi. Suarez also noted that many Scholastics “seem therefore logically to admit that natural law does not proceed from God as a lawgiver, for it is not dependent on God’s will.” Quoted in A. P. d’Entrèves, Natural Law (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1951), p. 71.

[6]Thomas E. Davitt, S.J., “St. Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law,” in Arthur L. Hading, ed., Origins of the Natural Law Tradition (Dallas, Tex.: Southern Methodist University Press, 1954), p. 39. Also see Brendan F. Brown, ed., The Natural Law Reader (New York: Oceana Pubs., 1960), pp. 1014.

[7]Quoted in d’Entrèves, Natural Law, pp. 52–53. See also Otto Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society, 1500 to 1800 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), pp. 98–99.

[8]D’Entrèves, Natural Law, pp. 51-52. Also see A.H. Chroust, “Hugo Grotius and the Scholastic Natural Law Tradition,” The New Scholasticism (1943), and Frederick C. Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1959), 2, pp. 330f. On the neglected influence of the Spanish Scholastic Suarez on modern philosophers, see Jose Ferrater Mora, “Suarez and Modem Philosophy,” Journal of the History of Ideas (October 1953): 528–47.

[9]See Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society, p. 289. Also see Herbert Spencer, An Autobiography (New York: D. Appleton, 1904), vol. 1,p. 415.

[10]Thus, see Carl L. Becker, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1957), p. 8.

[11]The late realist philosopher John Wild, in his important article, “Natural Law and Modern Ethical Theory,” Ethics (October 1952), states:

Realistic [natural law] ethics is now often dismissed as theological and authoritarian in character. But this is a misunderstanding. Its ablest representatives, from Plato and Aristotle to Grotius, have defended it on the basis of empirical evidence alone without any appeal to supernatural authority (p. 2, and pp. 1–13).

Also see the denial of the existence of such a thing as “Christian philosophy” any more than “Christian hats and shoes” by the Catholic social philosopher Orestes Brownson. Thomas T. McAvoy, C.S.C., “Orestes A. Brownson and Archbishop John Hughes in 1860,” Review of Politics (January 1962): 29.

[12]Frederick C. Copleston, S.J., Aquinas (London: Penguin Books, 1955), p. 204.

[13]Ibid., pp. 204–05.

[14]Ibid., p. 212.

[15] Thus Copleston:

Inanimate bodies act in certain ways precisely because they are what they are, and they cannot act otherwise; they cannot perform actions which are contrary to their nature. And animals are governed by instinct. In fine, all creatures below man participate unconsciously in the eternal law, which is reflected in their natural tendencies, and they do not possess the freedom which is required in order to be able to act in a manner incompatible with this law. It is therefore essential that he [man] should know the eternal law in so far as it concerns himself. Yet, how can he know it? He cannot read, as it were, the mind of God . . . [but] he can discern the fundamental tendencies and needs of his nature, and by reflecting on them he can come to a knowledge of the natural moral law. . . . Every man possesses . . . the light of reason whereby he can reflect . . . and promulgate to himself the natural law, which is the totality of the universal precepts or dictates of right reason concerning the good which is to be pursued and the evil which is to be shunned (Ibid., pp. 213–14).

[16]Leo Strauss, “Relativism,” in H. Schoeck and J.W. Wiggins, eds., Relativism and the Study of Man (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1961), pp. 144–435. For a devastating critique of an attempt by a relativistic political scientist to present a “value-free” case for freedom and the self-development of the person, see Walter Berns, “The Behavioral Sciences and the Study of Political Things: The Case of Christian Bay’s The Structure of Freedom,” American Political Science Review (September 1961): 550–59.

[17]Toohey adds that “scholastic philosophy is the philosophy which teaches the certitude of human knowledge acquired by means of sense experience, testimony, reflection, and reasoning.” John J. Toohey, S.J., Notes on Epistemology (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, 1952), pp. 111–12.

Previous Section | Next Section
Table of Contents

Dec 272013

10 Most Iconic Libertarian Moments Of 2013

Robert Taylor's avatar image By Robert Taylor  
10, most, iconic, libertarian, moments, of, 2013,
10 Most Iconic Libertarian Moments Of 2013
Image Credit: AP

1. Edward Snowden blows the whistle on the NSA

This summer, Edward Snowden made himself perhaps the most famous person of the year by leaking information about U.S. surveillance programs. In several days of interviews with the Guardian, Snowden explained, “I’m willing to sacrifice all of [my life] because I can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”

Not only did he expose to America and the rest of the world just how vast Big Brother is, but Snowden also put the U.S. government on its heels. Nearly every claim made by the U.S. defending the program, including those by President Barack Obama himself, was proven to be a lie. Thankfully, only 1% of the information that Snowden took has been released. He truly is a libertarian and an American hero, and he is already being vindicated.

2. Chelsea Manning bravely speaks out

For over three years, former Army Private Chelsea Manning was illegally detained, kept in solitary confinement, and humiliated for her decision to leak documents to Wikileaks showing that the U.S. government routinely engages in torture and war crimes.

She finally received a trial, and although she has been sentenced to prison for over a hundred years, she was thankfully acquitted of the bogus “aiding the enemy” charge. Thanks to a flimsy case, a good defense, and the support of millions around the world, what would have been a dangerous precedent for the future of journalism and transparency never took place.

In a letter to Obama requesting a pardon, Manning said, “I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.” Throughout the entire ordeal, Manning was nothing short of composed, and serves as a courageous example to the rest of us.

3. The U.S. didn’t bomb Syria

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), as principled as he is entertaining, summed it up on his Twitter feed.

It is amazing how quickly war fever rises and fades in America. Remember Syria? Obama drew a “red line,” and the media was bombarding us every day with propaganda about how the U.S. must bomb Syria to stop Bashar Al-Assad from using chemical weapons on his own people.

This scenario has worked before, but thanks to an amazing surge of grassroots American opposition, the likes of which the U.S. establishment has rarely seen before, the war drums suddenly stopped beating. Congressional offices were swarmed with calls against a war in Syria, and the U.S. backed off. It was an absolute pleasure to see the American public say no, especially when the great journalism of Seymour Hersh has proved the war skeptics right.

4. Bitcoin surgedCasascius bitcoin

The Federal Reserve’s monopoly on creating money and artificially controlling interest rates allows the government to expand without end and creates a corporatist, boom-and-bust economy that is antithetical to a free society.

Rather than dismantling the Fed from the inside, using alternative currencies may be the best way to slay this dragon. Gold and silver are still popular, but it is astonishing how much Bitcoin has exploded in the past year. Bitcoin provides individuals with anonymity, convenience, and most importantly, a way of circumventing fiat money. Libertarians are divided on its merits, but it will be very exciting to see where the market for Bitcoin (and other alternatives) will go.

5. Americans reject interventionism

Last month, a Pew Research poll that measures Americans’ perception of their country’s place in the world found that for the first time in half a century, Americans want the U.S. to mind its own business overseas. At the same time, however, Americans want increased involvement with the rest of the world non-militarily through trade, cultural exchange, and diplomacy. This shatters the myth of “isolationism” and is a huge boost for the libertarian foreign policy position.

6. Rand Paul filibusters for more than 13 hours

Back in March, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a 13-hour filibuster excoriating the Obama administration’s drone warfare policy, while defending civil liberties and constitutional law. This earned the wrath of the predictable detractors in both parties, but the grassroots left and right stood by Paul. Not only was Paul’s filibuster a great show of political swagger, but it also helped to bring light to an issue that is still plagued in darkness and secrecy and is deadly as ever.

7. Ron Paul “retires”

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) may officially be retired from public office, but he is busier than ever. The man responsible for the biggest spread of libertarian ideas in recent American history now has his own TV channel, a homeschool curriculum, another best-selling book, and an institute dedicated to non-interventionist foreign policy. Even at 78 years young, the godfather of libertarianism is still not going anywhere.

8. The government shuts down

9. Colorado and Washington legalize marijuana

The War on Drugs has been an absolute failure. It has resulted in the largest prison population on Earth and is perhaps the greatest factor behind the militarization of police and the erosion of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Colorado and Washington both decriminalized marijuana, which not only defies the authority of the federal government, but also will hopefully set an example for other states to follow suit.

10. Obama gets photoshopped

Early this year, the White House released a photo of Obama skeet shooting at Camp David, something the president claims he does “all the time.” The photo came with a disclaimer that it was supposed to be for publication purposes only, “and may not be manipulated in any way.” A few hours later, there were too many photoshops to count. Poking fun at political leaders is a healthy tradition in any free society, and it was so wonderful to see so many defy the president’s wishes in even the smallest way.

Here are some of my favorites:

(Photo credit: World Net Daily)

(Photo credit: Silver Circle Movie)

(Photo credit: Silver Circle Movie)

Robert Taylor's avatar image Robert Taylor

Robert Taylor has been writing for PolicyMic since January 2011. He spends his time writing, ranting, reading voraciously, and advocating the virtues of economic and political freedom. He has written for multiple websites and dedicates himself to …
Dec 212013

Yesterday, Jordan page was on the radio program, The Agenda with Jerry Davis and Donny Tsunami.

I and I (reference to Bob Marley), called into the show.  We join around 1 hour 12 minutes.

Tune in!  Check it out!


 Posted by at 12:22 am
Dec 202013

America’s Roads are now a Money Stream / Surveillance Grid

Our roads are slowly but surely being transformed into a revenue generating control grid.  And this is just yet another example of how government feels the need to constantly watch, monitor, track and regulate everything that we do.

America’s Roads Money Stream Surveillance Grid

by Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse Blog
May 10, 2013

What do speed traps, parking tickets, toll roads, speed cameras and red light cameras all have in common?  They are all major revenue sources for state and local governments.  All over America today there are state and local governments that are drowning in debt.

Many have chosen to use “traffic enforcement” as a way to raise desperately needed revenue.  According to the National Motorist Association, issuing speeding tickets raises somewhere between 4.5 billion and 6 billion dollars in the United States each year.  And the average price of a speeding ticket just keeps going up.

Today, the national average is about $150, but in many jurisdictions it is far higher.  For example, more than 16 million traffic tickets are issued in the state of California each year, and the average fine is approximately $250.  If you are wealthy that may not be much of a problem, but if you are a family that is barely scraping by every month that can be a major financial setback.  Meanwhile, America’s roads are also being systematically transformed into a surveillance grid.

The number of cameras watching our roads is absolutely exploding, and automated license plate readers are capturing hundreds of millions of data points on all of us.  As you drive down the highway, a police vehicle coming up behind you can instantly read your license plate and pull up a whole host of information about you.  This happened to me a few years ago.

I had pulled on to a very crowded highway in Virginia and within less than a minute a cop car had scanned me and was pulling me over because one of my stickers had expired.  But these automated license plate readers are being used for far more than just traffic enforcement now.

For example, officials in Washington D.C. are now using automated license plate readers to track the movements of every single vehicle that enters the city.  They know when you enter Washington, and they know when you leave.  So where is all of this headed?  Do we really want to live in a “Big Brother” society where the government constantly tracks all of our movements?

Back in the old days, the highways of America were great examples to the rest of the world of the tremendous liberties and freedoms that we enjoyed.  Americans loved to hop into their vehicles and take a drive.  But now government is sucking all of the fun out of driving.  The control freak bureaucrats that dominate our political system have figured out that giant piles of money can be raised by turning our roads into revenue raising tools.

At this point things have gotten so bad that even some police officers are admitting what is going on.  Just check out what a few of them told Car and Driver

The president of a state police union isn’t pretending it doesn’t happen. James Tignanelli, president of the Police Officers Association of Michigan union, says, “When elected officials say, ‘We need more money,’ they can’t look to the department of public works to raise revenues, so where do they find it? Police departments.

“A lot of police chiefs will tell you the goal is to have nobody speeding through their community, but heaven forbid if it should actually happen—they’d be out of money,” Tignanelli says.

Police Chief Michael Reaves of Utica, Michigan, says the role of law enforcement has changed over the years. “When I first started in this job 30 years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement, but if you’re a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues,” he says. “That’s just the reality nowadays.”

And as the economy has gone downhill, many jurisdictions have massively jacked up traffic fines.  According to the Los Angeles Times, various traffic fines in the Los Angeles area are far higher than they once were…

If you’re caught running a red light in Los Angeles, be prepared to shell out $446, up from $271 eight years ago. Make a rolling right turn at a stoplight and the ticket comes to $381 — more than double what it cost in 2008.

And of course the cost to the driver does not end with the ticket.  Your car insurance will likely go up as well.  In fact, one study found that a driver that just gets one speeding ticket will pay an additional 20 percent for car insurance for the next three to six years.

That can add up to a lot of money.

But politicians just keep wanting to find a way to issue even more tickets.  One of the hottest trends all over the country is to automate the issuing of traffic tickets by installing cameras.  According to USA Today, this has become a huge growth industry…

Sales of the cameras have nearly quadrupled since companies moved to digital and wireless technology in the mid-2000s. The number of local contracts for cameras was up to 689 last year, from 155 in 2005, according to industry data complied by market leader American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

And these automated traffic cameras can raise an enormous amount of cash.  Just check out what has been happening in Washington D.C.…

The speeding and traffic light cameras have become more lucrative as their number in the District has increased. Combined, they issued tickets valued at $24.4 million in 2007. That figure more than doubled by 2010, to $50.9 million, and it reached $84.9 million in the last fiscal year.

But as annoying as those traffic cameras are, automated license plate readers are perhaps even more insidious.

The amount of data that these automated license plate readers are capturing is astounding.  The following is from a recent article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Photographing a single license plate one time on a public city street may not seem problematic, but when that data is put into a database, combined with other scans of that same plate on other city streets, and stored forever, it can become very revealing. Information about your location over time can show not only where you live and work, but your political and religious beliefs, your social and sexual habits, your visits to the doctor, and your associations with others. And, according to recent research reported in Nature, it’s possible to identify 95% of individuals with as few as four randomly selected geospatial datapoints (location + time), making location data the ultimate biometric identifier.

Our license plates have essentially become “our papers” which the government can read whenever it would like without even asking for our permission.

According to L.A. Weekly, local police agencies in the L.A. area have captured more than 160 million data points on private citizens using these automated license plate readers…

L.A. Weekly has learned that more than two dozen law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County are using hundreds of these “automatic license plate recognition” devices (LPRs) — units about the size of a paperback book, usually mounted atop police cruisers — to devour data on every car that catches their electronic eye.

The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department are two of the biggest gatherers of automatic license plate recognition information. Local police agencies have logged more than 160 million data points — a massive database of the movements of millions of drivers in Southern California.

Each data point represents a car and its exact whereabouts at a given time. Police have already conducted, on average, some 22 scans for every one of the 7,014,131 vehicles registered in L.A. County.

As the use of these devices becomes more widespread and they become even more sophisticated, eventually the government will know where almost all of us are and what almost all of us are doing at all times.

The following is a brief except from a Washington Post article that detailed how automated license plate readers are now being used to create a “dragnet” that will track the movements of all vehicles from the time that they enter Washington D.C. to the time that they leave

More than 250 cameras in the District and its suburbs scan license plates in real time, helping police pinpoint stolen cars and fleeing killers. But the program quietly has expanded beyond what anyone had imagined even a few years ago.

With virtually no public debate, police agencies have begun storing the information from the cameras, building databases that document the travels of millions of vehicles.

Nowhere is that more prevalent than in the District, which has more than one plate-reader per square mile, the highest concentration in the nation. Police in the Washington suburbs have dozens of them as well, and local agencies plan to add many more in coming months, creating a comprehensive dragnet that will include all the approaches into the District.

This is just the beginning.

For now, as long as you carefully obey all traffic laws and you don’t work in a major city like Washington D.C., the changes that are happening probably do not affect you too much.

But the key is to see where all of this is going.  Our roads are slowly but surely being transformed into a revenue generating control grid.  And this is just yet another example of how government feels the need to constantly watch, monitor, track and regulate everything that we do.

Does anyone else feel like the life is slowly being choked out of our society, or am I alone?

Dec 052013

On 2013-10-23 at approximately 12:30 pm  I was attacked by an unknown assailant in the Parking lot at Riverview in Mesa.  I was in front of the Dollar Tree actually just got done giving a homeless couple Frn$3 for a ride into Phoenix.  There I was, talking to this homeless couple, letting them taste the organic Bread and brownies that I sell for a friend of mine the Breadman.  I gotta tell you this bread and brownies are simply out of this world.  My brother in arms uses this wheat strain called Kamut Khorsian, which was found in the tomb of King Tut. Then the wheat found its way back to America thru a couple of military airmen.  It’s really an interesting story!  What turns out is on top of this wheat being the most GMO resistant wheat strain on the planet, it also has the most Protein and Antioxidants.

The Breadman takes the Kamut wheat and stone grinds into flour. This is how human beings have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, by  eating Non-GMO stone ground wheat.  In the modern world everything has to be done cheaper, so all other commercially available bread is is ground using a machine with blades that pulverizes the wheat, but its not stone ground.  The stone grinder the wheat is ground down to a much finer particle, making it easier to break down in your body.  Then he adds all the other ingredients like organic coconut oil and combines all the ingredients with  ozonated water and lets it sit for24 hours.  While its sitting, the Ozone  starts breaking down the wheat molecules.  Then he bakes it, and I sell it.  I  gotta tell you this the taste of this bread is out of this world.  It also is the most nutritious as well.  Hit me up, We take orders!

You may think I am digressing however I will pull it all back together.  Here we go!

So here’s how it all went down… I got up early like 7:30 am to finish  a bitcoin deal and I headed to the McDonalds on County Club and Mckellips in Mesa, Arizona.  It was with my friend Karyn, I actually have known for a long time, so I just headed down there in my flip flops figuring, I would just go grab the  dough and go back home.  Way back then, more then 2 months ago, bitcoin was trading at Frn$198.  It was Frn$700 deal, this was when the Market Cap on Btc was only Frn$2.3 Billion compared to Frn$14 Billion like it is today 2013-02-05.   At that time Bitcoin was selling for only $198 per coin compared to the Frn$1189 I am selling them for these days, and that was 2 days ago.

I do the deal with Karyn i give her the 700 and she had already sent the bitcoins, cause people know they can trust me.  while in the parking lot of the McDonalds, this heavy set younger girl comes up to me and asks me to take her to west Phoenix so she can get a disbursement for her disability.  I think ” this girl’s ballsy, I like that. I got nothing to do really for a few hours so, why not?  Whats the worst that can happen to me outta this.?”  I like to help people out when I can, I’ve had people help me out in jams, this is a good way to pay it forward.

I ask her, “are you going to kill me?” cause hey, I don’t like when people wanna do that to me.  She says “No, as long as your not going to kill me.”  Her name is Kelly.  We start talking as we head down to Phoenix and she is talking about living on the streets and such.  We get to the disbursement facility on Van Buren and like 16 ave and it’s really rough area, plus many of the people are telling me all this really interesting information that other crazy people would be interested in.  I am the best dressed person there except for one other guy who has on a suit and tie.  So while I am standing around I make sure no one gets behind me.

At 10:00 the place opens and she gets he stipend and we head out.  I am talking to Kelly about selling the bread which that day I decided to start selling bread door to door.  I let her taste it and she is game to see how it goes.  We go next door the dollar store next to the disbursment center and I find her a dress that will cover up her clothes so she doesn’t look like she is living on the streets.  She looks elegant in the Frn$9.00 dress, I get for her there and give her a new nickname “Cleopatra”. I even work the guy at the counter to not having to pay sales tax, yippee!

We get back in the car and head down 202 back to Mesa.  We need to get some supplies on  the way though I have to stop in to visit my old friend Roger Cohen.  I had found out through another friend of mine, General Patton that Roger was working at Riverview Nissan.  When I was on the floor at Earnhardt’s Dodge, Roger was one of the salesmen and assistant mangers i admired the most.  I would even go as so far as to say Roger is one of the 2 most Professional Salesman I have ever have the opportunity to work alongside.

I remember one time I asked Roger, “Roger how come your not  selling 747’s?”  he said something very profound to me at that time and even today  resonates in my mind. “Tom, you can make money selling buttons”.  It was a while after that that I started a Direct Mail company with my X-wife, Keele and literally at the end before it imploded after 9/11 we were making $20k per month.  Needless to say I learned alot about sales from Roger.

When we go to the dealership, I asked for “the Racecar driver” as Roger was a professional driver when he was younger.  Much younger though as Rogers now 81 years old.  Still selling cars though.  Sales is like an addiction,  though much cheaper than heroine!  The guy goes “you mean Roger.” immediately.  Roger actually won at LeMans back in 1964!  I could tell you some driving stories from when we would take cars to Tent sales, I save that for another time.

We swap some stories and Roger buys some bread from me and after checking out the Nissan Skyline they have there in the showroom, we head out the door to the Dollar tree to get supplies for Cleopatra up and selling.  Outside the store where we got a bread knife and some tupperware for the samples, we meet a homeless couple Nick and Eve.  We start talking and I share my bread with the 2 of them looking to see if they would like to come and knock doors and make some money with us.  They turned cause he says they to get back to phoenix, and asks me me for  Frn$4 to get 2 bus passes.  I give him 3 bucks and just put my wallet back in my pocket and out of the corner of my eye there is a guy who is larger than me headed towards me at full speed.

Whats funny is just before this guy hits me in the head. there is a “security guard” in his jeep “patrolling” the parking lot.  I know they like to shoo away homeless people because the stores don’t want the homeless depriving the stores of any revenue or “bothering their peeps”  So when  I saw the “security guard” drive by I told him “nothing to see lets move along”, as I snickered at him under my breath.

All of a sudden this guy who I don’t even know cold cocks me in the head.  I am phased however we start to go at in the parking lot in front of these 3 homeless people and the “security guard”.  We are going at it full tilt, with this guy, WHO I DON’T EVEN KNOW, is fighting me like he wants to beat me into a coma.  I’m in my flip flops like I said earlier, and we’re going at it full tilt.

This guy who I am fighting is Blonde 6’0″ – 6’2″ 200 – 220 and 20 years younger than I grabs me and throws me on the ground.  I get the feeling he is going to put me in a coma.  Let me tell you I know what that is like.  So I get my thumb and stick it in his eye.  Then I punch him in the balls as hard as I could.  he gets off me and runs away.  I attempt to follow however I am kinda dazed no one attempts to follow him.  Ok so now I know the cops are going to be coming soon.

Mesa’s finest criminals show up and want my “ID” I ask them what law compels me to do so.  He wants to take a “report”  I give him a description tell him go look for him.  Oh no they are not able to do anything without a “report”  I deny giving one.  So now the Smaller costumed criminal tells me I have to leave the premises.  He wants me to travel in my conveyance. My adrenaline is pumping at 200 per cent I am not going to get in a car.  Is this “Safety Officer / Criminal” actually wanting me to drive.  He blocks my path so I am not able to walk away.


This is a really good article on  how
CON-stitution we the peopleTime to grow up and stop playing “pretend” and become responsible for our own actions. Americans live in the “LAND OF OZ”.

The SAVE ACT IS “NOT LAW” it’s a statute! The only ones obligated to obey statues as law are bureaucrats and subjects (US citizens as defined under the 14th Amendment).

14TH AMENDMENT – (ratified in 1868) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

The word reside means you are not a citizen of the state you live in (to reside means you are passing through your stay is not permanent) but a subject of the United States. What the 14th Amendment did was move the ownership of the slaves from the southern slave owners to the federal government, all who claim US citizenship are slaves (subjects) to the United States.

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made Negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.” [Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874].

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual” …but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other”. [Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.]

(1) What were “The People” before 1868, answer – the People, Kings without subjects.
(2) The United States is a nation, nations do not have citizens, how can you be a citizen of a nation?

Americans are living in the world of wonderland, a world of fiction, you need only to wake up to escape the enslavement – Wake up America!!!


STATUTE. [Blacks law 4th edition] The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature.

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).]


US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, (injured party) leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” [Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.]

US. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.” – [Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.]

PEOPLE NULLIFICATION (to make null or void) when statutory charges are brought against the people the court cannot proceed without your “CONSENT” it’s called an arraignment, if you do not plead you cannot be tried.

To Learn more come to our Monday night phone conferences and read our website Learn the “true meaning” of Liberty >

So you see “We the People” have the power of NULLIFICATION by just saying NO in town courts, it doesn’t get any simpler then that. Its time to grow up and take a stand because the constitution cannot defend itself, Only You Can Prevent Tyranny.

John Darash
(845) 233-6560 the only legal peaceful solution to restore our Republic.

“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority that participate” Thomas Jefferson

“All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

03-28-2013 6:29 pm – John Darash

) CASE NO: _______________
) Hon. ___________________
Plaintiff )
against )
____________________________________ ) ANSWER TO
Counter Plaintiff ) MOTION TO QUASH
Whereas, I ___________________ am not a government employee, am not contracted with any government agency, and am not incorporated, and therefore have no duty to perform as a statutory, or corporate agent;
Whereas, there has been no presentment by the people’s common law grand jury.
Whereas I, ___________________, am a living natural person, having previously made a special appearance before the Mesa Municipal Court, and having been recognized as a natural person by this court, who is one of the people2 of Arizona, hereinafter known as the counter‐plaintiff,
1 It is an Oxymoron to use People where it should read Citizen i.e., “The Citizens of the State of Arizona”. The state has no authority to act on behalf of the people, only a jury can so act, under the pretence of law ‐ Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. ‐ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges …
2 PEOPLE. People are supreme, not the state. [Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgia 93]; The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516 (1884)]; …at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves… [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455, 2 DALL (1793) pp471‐472]: The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am. Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, 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. CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA
Both constitutions (and the constitution of any real republic) the operative word is “establish / ordain.” The People existed in their own individual sovereignty before the constitution was enabled. When the People “establish” a constitution, there is nothing in the word “establish” that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy (Republic vs. Democracy;). COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 1 of 9
accepts the oaths3, and bonds of all the officers of this court, and moves this Honorable Court to quash for lack of authority4 of personam jurisdiction5 given that this courts’ jurisdiction is barred6 because this is a nisi prius7 court, not a court of record8.
Counter plaintiff moves the court to take “Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence”. [Black’s Law 4th edition, 1961]
This court “must” adhere to authority, “The doctrine of stare decisis is but an application of the doctrine of estoppel.” [Brown v. Rosenbaum, 175 Misc. 295, 23 N.Y.S.2d 161, 171 (1941);].
“Jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and proven, to lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the courts” [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389; Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250; Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768; Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528; McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789,80 L. Ed. 1135; Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341,
3 Oaths: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding… All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.”
4 AUTHORITY. [Black’s Law 4th edition, 1891] Permission. [People v. Howard, 31 Cal.App. 358, 160 P. 697, 701]. Control over, jurisdiction. [State v. Home Brewing Co. of Indian‐apolis, 182 Ind. 75, 105 N.E. 909, 916].
5 JURISDICTION. [Bouvier’s Law, 1856 Edition] A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. [6 Pet. 591; 9John. 239].
6 BARRED. Obstructed by a bar; subject to hindrance or obstruction by a bar or barrier which, if interposed, will prevent legal redress or recovery; as, when it is said that a claim or cause of action is “barred by the statute of limitations.” Wilson v. Knox County, 132 Mo. 387, 34 S.W. 45, 477.
7 NISI PRIUS. (Bouvier’s Law, 1856 Edition) Where courts bearing this name exist in the United States, they are instituted by statutory provision.
8 COURT OF RECORD proceeds according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
9 STARE DECISIS. [Black’s Law 4th edition, 1961] To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases. Policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point. Neff v. George, 364 Ill. 306, 4 N.E.2d 338, 390, 391.
10 STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE. To adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established. [87 Pa. 286; Ballard County v. Kentucky County Debt Commission, 290 Ky. 770, 162 S.W.2d 771, 773.] COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 2 of 9
423 F. 2d 272; Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F 2d. 906; Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83 L. Ed. 111; and Albrecht v U.S., 273 U.S. 1.]
This nisi prius court relies on statutes, which is not law, that seeks to control11 the behavior of the sovereign12 people13 of Arizona, who are under common law, not statutes, and who ordained and established14 the law.
“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)]
“The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261(1963)]
“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” [Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)]
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings” [Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528]
“No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
11 Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay,
12 The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.] A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king’s image is reflected. [1 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.]
13 PEOPLE. People are supreme, not the state. [Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgiaat 93]; The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516]; Preamble to the US and AZ Constitutions ‐ We the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution…; …at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves… [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455, 2 DALL (1793) pp471‐472]: The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am. Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
14 US Constitution ‐ We the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 3 of 9
“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” [Lantanav. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicagov. New York, 37 F Supp 150].
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist.” [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389; “Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided” Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]
“No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
“Service of an appearance ticket15 does not confer personal jurisdiction upon a criminal court. Only Congress can make an act a crime, affix punishment to it, and declare court that shall have jurisdiction.” [U.S. v. Beckford, 966 F.Supp. 1415 (1997)]
“Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant.” [[People v. Gabbay, 670 N.Y.S.2d 962, 175 Misc.2d 421 678 N.Y.S.2d 26,92 N.Y.2d 879, 700 N.E.2d 564 (1997)]
“Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a criminal court.” [People v. Giusti, 673 N.Y.S.2d 824, 176 Misc.2d 377 (1998)]
“Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, …” [State v. Rodriguez, 725 A.2d 635, 125 Md.App 428, cert den 731 A.2d 971, 354 Md. 573 (1999)]
“Criminal law magistrates have no power of their own and are unable to enforce any ruling.” [Davis v. State of Texas (1997)]
“…, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” [Cruden v. Neale 2 N.C. (1 Hayw.) 338, 1796 WL 273 (N.C. Super. L. & Eq. 1796)]
The US Constitution under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 grants court’s Jurisdiction under Common Law16 or Admiralty or Military tribunal venue.
Common law is preserved under the Supreme Courts, and other courts of record, as defined in our US and State Constitutions.
Legislators are authorized under the Constitution, ordained by the people, to write statutes and codes, enforced as law, to control bureaucrats, municipalities, government agencies, elected officials, interstate commerce, but not people, who’s rights are un‐a‐lien‐able17 and cannot be legislated.
“Sovereignty itself [the people] is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” … “For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (1886)]
This court does not have jurisdiction or common law authority.
Let the record show this court can only be an Admiralty Court18, acting under color of law19, alleging jurisdiction over a people, fraudulently applying statutes as laws upon the people.
16 “Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, …” [State v. Rodriguez, 725 A.2d 635, 125 Md.App 428, cert den 731 A.2d 971,354 Md. 573 (1999)]
17 UN‐A‐LIEN‐ABLE [Bouvier’s Law, 1856 Edition] Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred; The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold; Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.
18 ADMIRALTY. A court which has a very extensive jurisdiction of maritime causes, civil and criminal, controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. It is properly the successor of the consular courts, which were emphatically the courts of merchants and sea‐going persons, established in the principal maritime cities on the revival of commerce after the fall of the Western Empire, to supply the want of tribunals that might decide causes arising out of maritime commerce. Also, the system of jurisprudence relating to and growing out of the jurisdiction and practice of the admiralty courts.
19 COLOR OF LAW. [Black’s Law 4th edition, 1891] ‐‐ The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. [State v. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599, 202 N.W. 144, 148] Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of state law.” (Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188) COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 5 of 9
Counter‐plaintiff has not pleaded, and therefore has not yielded jurisdiction to this court, nor can this court force its jurisdiction upon the people without their consent20.
There exists no sworn affidavit by an injured party, as is required in a common law court, therefore the counter‐plaintiff demands this court dismiss all charges for lack of personam jurisdiction.
“When challenged, jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and proven, to lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the courts”. [Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528] (1974) Other cases also such as McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789,80 L. Ed. 1135, Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272, Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F 2d. 906, Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83 L. Ed. 111, and Albrecht v U.S., 273 U.S. 1,]
“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any case, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction.” [Rhode Island v. Massachussetts, 37 U.S. 657, 718, 9 L.Ed. 1233 (1838)]
“Where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority to do anything other than to dismiss the case.” [Fontenot v. State of Texas, 932 S.w.2d 185 (1996) “Judicial action without jurisdiction is void.”‐Id (1996)]
To proceed, in any way without jurisdiction, would be an act of defiance to Supreme Court rulings and would cause the counter‐plaintiff to file for a judicial review and a civil action.
“Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason”. [Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)]
20 Declaration of Independence ‐ We hold these truths to be self‐evident … Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 6 of 9
“There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign”. [Cooper v. O’Conner, 99 F.2d 133]
“The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act”. [Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417]
“When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” [Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert. den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326]
“A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.” [Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)]
“When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction.” [Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697]
“No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.” [Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)]
“We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” [Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200] COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 7 of 9
It is a common “unlawful practice” for town court magistrates and prosecutors to meet privately to plot21,22 an answer to a counter‐plaintiff, in an attempt to unlawfully maintain jurisdiction23, under color of law24, in opposed to studying its contents.
Therefore the court should proceed with prudence, forewarned of the following:
It is not up to the prosecutor to prove jurisdiction, but the magistrate.
The prosecutor is not to write court rulings.
The magistrate is not to meet ex parte with the prosecutor “for any reason”.
For the magistrate to discuss this case with the prosecutor without the counter plaintiff present would be nothing short of an entangling alliance, criminal, conspiracy against counter plaintiff’s un‐a‐lien‐able rights, causing the counter‐plaintiff to file an action for conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution25.
If the magistrate is not experienced in common law it would be wise to seek counsel from the appellate court; lawyers and trial court judges generally know statutes and not law.
21 USC 18 §241; CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
22 USC 42 1985; CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS: If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly any persons rights the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages against any one or more of the conspirators.
23 USC 42 1983; CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.
24 USC 18 §242; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
25 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. One begun in malice without probable cause to believe the charges can be sustained. Eustace v. Dechter, 28 Cal.App. 2d 706, 83 P.2d 523, 525(1938). “Instituted with intention of injuring defendant and without probable cause, and which terminates in favor of the person prosecuted. For this injury an action on the case lies, called the “action of malicious prosecution.” Hicks v. Brantley, 29 S.E. 459, 102 Ga. 264; Eggett v. Allen, 96 N.W. 803, 119 Wis. 625. COUNTER‐PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ANSWER Page 8 of 9
In conclusion, this court is a nisi prius court, created by statutes, sanctioned by statutes, ruled by statutes and not constitutions. I am one of the people under the law of the land, aka common law, statutes are not law. This court has no jurisdiction over the counter‐plaintiff nor can this court prove otherwise therefore; this court is barred from jurisdiction in this case.
For the officers of this court26, who’s constables are sent out on the highways27 disguised under color of law28 to kidnap29 people, conspiring to maintain constructive custody30, and thereby preventing counter‐plaintiffs’ free exercise of his unalienable rights, carries serious consequences. Should this court illegally proceed, such consequences shall be applied against all officers of this court, in a court of law.
WHEREFORE counter plaintiff moves this Court to enter an Order discharging this case for lack of personam jurisdiction, as is this courts constitutional duty.
Date ____,____, 20___ _________________________________________
__________________, counter‐plaintiff
26 OFFICERS OF THE COURT ‐ judge, prosecutor, sheriff, constables (police), or bailiff.
27 HIGHWAY. An easement acquired by the public in the use of a road or way for thoroughfare. Bolender v. Southern Michigan Telephone Co., 182 Mich. 646, 148 N.W. 697, 700.; It includes roads, streets, alleys, lanes, courts, places, trails, and bridges, laid out or erected as such by the public, or, if laid out and erected by others, dedicated or abandoned to the public, or made such in actions for the partition of real property. Patterson v. Munyan, 93 Cal. 128, 29 P. 250.; “Street,” “avenue,” “road,” “public road,” “county road,” and “public highway” are used indiscriminately in legislation and judicial decisions. “Street” or “avenue” commonly applies to a public highway in a village, town, or city and “road” to a suburban highway, but there may be “roads” in a city or town and “streets” and “avenues” in the country. City of Spokane v. Spokane County, 179 Wash. 130, 36 P.2d 311, 313.
28 Color of law ‐‐ The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of state law.” (Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188)
29 KIDNAPPING. the unlawful seizure and removal of person from own country or state against his will, State v. Olsen, 76 Utah 181, 289 P. 92, 93. In American law, the intent to send the victim out of the country does not constitute a necessary part of the offense. The term includes false imprisonment plus the removal of the person to some other place. 2 Bish. Crim. Law, § 671. See State v. Rollins, 8 N.H. 567; State v. Sutton, 116 Ind. 527, 19 N.E. 602; Samson v. State, 37 Ohio App. 79, 174 N.E. 162, 163; People v. Fick, 89 Cal. 144, 26 P. 759; Furlong v. German‐American Press Ass’n, Mo.Sup., 189 S.W. 385, 389.
30 CUSTODY. ‐ Detention; charge; control; possession. The term is very elastic and may mean actual imprisonment or physical detention or mere power, legal or physical, of imprisoning or of taking manual possession. Jones v. State, 26 Ga.App. 635, 107 S.E. 166; J. 0. Nessen Lumber Co. v. Ray H. Bennett Lumber Co., 223 Mich. 349, 193 N.W. 789, 790; State ex rel. Bricker v. Griffith, Ohio App., 36 N.E.2d 489, 491; Willoughby v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 40, 219 S.W. 468, 470; Carpenter v. Lord, 88 Or. 128, 171 P. 577, 579, L.R.A.1918D, 674; Little v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 272 S.W. 456, 457; Randazzo v. U. S., C.C.A.Mo., 300 F. 794, 797.