It’s a truism that most people wants to “better themselves” – that is to better the circumstances of their lives. Philosophies and religions are all derived from this fact. When one adopts a valid ethic, this goal can be realized or “manifested”. The result is a life characterized by peace, prosperity, and freedom… it feels like having a compass in one’s head… important decisions become simple…work feels like play… relationships “bloom”… and the day-to-day challenges and vicissitudes of life seem much less daunting. This is the state-of-mind in which one actually “becomes the change” one wishes to see in the world.
Introduction
As a young man I believed two things about ethics – one true, and the other false:
I believed the choice of an ethic is “arbitrary” – because one can choose any ethic one likes; and
I believed therefore that the entire subject of ethics is trivial – of no real use in making behavioral decisions.
As I learned much later, statement (1) above is true; but statement (2) is false. Lets examine the concept of an ethic a little more closely, and then apply it with some logic to a few actual ethics.
Specifying an Ethic
Every ethic consists of 2 parts that must be defined in order to fully specify a particular ethic:
A Value that the ethic is intended to increase, and
A belief or belief system that tells one how to behave in order to increase the desired value.
For instance, one might choose an ethic that values prosperity and operates on the belief that prosperity can be maximized by getting a job working for 40 years for a big corporation after, many years of education. As absurd as this belief is, in combination with the value, it is, nonetheless, an ethic – by definition – albeit not a very good one. When this is true, the belief fails to support the value, and the ethic is said to be “invalid”.
Ethical Validity
An invalid ethic fails to produce more of the value sought – and in many instances actually has the opposite effect, diminishing the desired value. An example would be the Soviet Ethic that sought to produce “material well-being for all”. The accompanying belief was that this outcome could be achieved through the adoption of a tyrannical communist regime. The result was: almost universal poverty. The ethic was clearly invalid.
The “No Ethic” Ethic
There are those who are so enthralled by the arbitrariness of choosing an ethic, that they see no reason to consciously make such a choice. This of course is just another kind of ethic. In this case both the value and the belief are random. And since there is no discernible value sought, the random belief fails to produce a value – so the ethic can be said to be invalid. On the other hand, since the random belief does produce random values, one could describe the ethic as valid.
As I see it, the real value sought is the illusion of having little or no responsibility for the adopter’s experience of his life. And adopting this ethic certainly supports and increases that illusion, so it might best be called the “lazy man’s ethic” – and it is technically valid, though of no practical use.
The “Golden Rule” and “Universally Preferred Behavior”
I’ve lumped these two ethics together because they both suffer from the same weakness – namely, there is no “universally preferred behavior”. To see this clearly, imagine you have an encounter with a sado-masochist. He is someone who prefers to have others inflict pain on him. Do you really want him to do to you what he wants you to do to him? Unless you are also a sado-masochist, the answer is “probably not”.
While you might suppose that sado-masochism is too uncommon to be of real relevance, the fact is otherwise. In my 40 years experience as a psychotherapist, At least 20% of the population worldwide displays a significant leaning towards such preferences. While the degree to which such a person actually acts on such impulses varies greatly from person to person, the fact of this phenomenon’s existence proves the Golden Rule and the Universally Preferred Behavior to be invalid ethics.
The “Non-Aggression Principle”
Let’s now examine an ethic that is valid, but not optimal. Called the “Non-Aggression Principle”, the NAP states:
The NAP ethic embraces freedom from violence as the value; and the belief is that this can be achieved by refraining from initiating violence or the threat of violence – while retaining the freedom to use limited violence in self defense.
If everyone restrained themselves from initiating violence, violence would indeed disappear, and no one would be the victim of violence. However, many of us learn violence from our parents when we are very young – usually before the age of 5 years – and we will still encounter violence until child-rearing becomes generally improved. My experience leads me to say those who were the abused as children, are the most are the biggest abusers as adults.
A more serious weakness of this ethic is that the value chosen is something not wanted – something to be avoided. In other words the value is a negative rather than a positive. It’s based on what we don’t want instead of what we do want. So while the ethic is valid, it doesn’t address what we must do to increase a number of other equally important values. So let’s look at the best ethic I have found to date.
The Ethics of Ethics
As everyone seems to know, ethics are the means by which one decides what is “good” and how to behave…how to live one’s life. What is slightly less obvious is the fact that the choice of an ethic is itself subject to an ethic-based decision. This second-level ethic might be called a “meta-ethic”. In similar fashion, one can construct any number of metan ethics…i.e. meta-meta, meta-meta-meta, and so forth. So the question this fact engenders is, “where does one start, in formulating a worthwhile ethic?”
To answer this question (quick before the theologians jump in) we can simply choose what I call a “universal referent” – which is to say, an objectively observable phenomenon of obvious value everywhere and at all times. For this choice I strongly suggest the phenomenon we call “evolution”… the opposite of which is “entropy”. This choice has several advantages.
The phenomenon is objectively (scientifically) observable and is certainly of great intrinsic value.
The choice of this referent directly amplifies truth, awareness, love, and creativity… and indirectly creates peace, prosperity, happiness, and freedom.
For those who prefer to involve the “god” concept in their ethics, one can simply define “god” as that toward which life evolves. Doing so is completely compatible with the valid portions of the “Christian Ethic”.
So let’s take a closer look at the formulation of such an ethic.
The Evolutionary Ethic
For starters, there are a number of values that are logically equivalent to one another:
Truth (scientifically verifiable) + Objective
Awareness & Personal evolution
Love
Creativity
TALC resources are logically equivalent to one another in that increasing any one of them always increases them all – AND – limiting or diminishing any one of them always limits or diminishes them all. Any of these values can be used to create a valid ethic.
Here’s an example based on the value of creativity and on the following belief system:
In the definition above one can substitute any of the other values in the preceding (TALC) list for the word “creativity” and still have a valid ethic.
I have yet to see or find a valid ethic that is not logically equivalent to this one. Also, it should be noted that, counter-intuitively, no one has yet created a valid ethic based on the values of:
Freedom
Happiness
Pleasure
Power
Wealth
Many attempts to do so have been made; but to my knowledge none has succeeded.
Conclusion
For a more comprehensive discussion of ethics and their effects on the human condition, you are invited to read “Ethics, Law, & Government” on the Titanians.org website. The BORG has told you all your life to obey the law and to revere the government. Is it giving you what you want? Perhaps it’s time to re-examine that decision.
A breaking scandal reported by USA TODAY reveals that the FBI ran a “dark web” child pornography website for 2 weeks last year, after taking over the server that hosted it from its original felonious owner. The ostensible purpose of this was to entrap the site’s users in order to charge them with possession of illegal downloaded content.
Child pornography is a highly charged emotional subject; so one can reasonably expect that the public reaction to this revelation will be the object of a great deal of irrational hyperbole promoted by the mainstream media and exploited by everyone with a political axe to grind.
Accordingly, it is important to acquire a dispassionate fact-based understanding of the issue, in the interest of minimizing unethical responses to the revelations of the USA TODAY (USAT) article. Hence this article.
Common Assumptions
Opinions concerning the USAT article and its implications will vary widely because its readers have widely varying assumptions about how the world works. The assumptions listed below illustrate this point, because some of them are true, some are not, and some are sometimes true and sometimes not.
The making of child pornography invariably involves the sexual interaction of a child with an adult.
Sexual interaction of an adult with a child may be physically damaging to the child.
Sexual interaction of an adult with a child is emotionally damaging to the child.
The child may or may not know, at the time, that what the adult is doing with them is emotionally damaging.
The producers and directors of child pornography are “evil-doers”.
The camera operators involved are “evil-doers”.
Those who process the pornographic imagery are “evil-doers”.
The adult porn actors are “evil-doers”.
The parents of the children involved are “evil-doers”.
Those who watch or observe such imagery are “evil-doers”.
Those who distribute the imagery by various means are “evil-doers”.
The children who are victims of child pornographers are further damaged whenever their images are observed.
It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry.
Laws against the production and distribution of child pornography protect the child victims by discouraging the public from buying the pornographic products.
Punishing the customers of child porn reduces the number of customers.
Reducing the number of customers, in turn, reduces the number of children being abused and exploited.
Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them.
Child pornography is certainly a symptom of a serious societal problem, because the victims are seriously damaged…AND if one blindly accepts the above assumptions, the damage can be greatly amplified. In order to get to the bottom of the matter, we need to understand the ethical criteria for what constitutes an “evil-doer” and for the allocation of responsibility to those acting.
The Ethics of Responsibility
After thousands of years of philosophical discussion and debate, the most rationally and scientifically defensible definition of an ethical act is:
Rationally we know that the responsibility for an act, be it unethical or not, is divided among all the people who took part in the causal chain of events leading up to the act. However, the one most responsible is the one who had the chronologically last opportunity to prevent the act from occurring. For this reason, despite “legal” opinions to the contrary, the hired assassin is more culpable than the individual who hired him (or her).
In the chain of events leading up to the production of a child porno photograph or video, it is the adult who engages the child sexually that is ultimately most responsible for the harm done to the child victim. The parents who fail to protect their child from such exploitation are arguably the next most responsible. Others involved in the child porn production are also acting unethically, though their participation in support of the crime is less unethical than the actual perpetrators – the adult actor who has sex with the child and the parent who fails to prevent the abuse. These two participants are those from whom the child actually needs protection.
The Objective View: Identifying the Hype
The above definition of an ethical act has a number of logical consequences that yield a dozen important principles that are very useful in applying the ethics to everyday decision-making. Chief among these is the principle that unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. Recognizing that this is so leads to the conclusion that Assumption #17 Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them, is FALSE. Therefore, assuming that selling child pornography is unethical, an ethical agency would never resort to doing so…for any reason.
Assumptions 14 through 16 are also false. We know this because they justify the prohibition of child porn, and we know from long experience that prohibition doesn’t diminish the demand for an illegal product, nor its availability. Alcohol, gambling, prostitution and drugs come to mind as obvious examples of prohibition failure.
Assumption 13, It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry. is also FALSE, because punishment of wrongdoers has proven totally ineffectual in curbing crime – especially when the crime is a form of prohibition violation. As an extreme example, consider the fact that drugs are widely available in prisons…where those convicted of selling drugs outside of prisons are routinely sent.
Consider the fact that every crime, as defined in law dictionaries, has a victim – someone who has been physically harmed or whose property rights have been violated. For this reason, Assumptions 10, 11, and 12 are also FALSE. The only victims of child pornography are the children, who are unaffected by strangers seeing their pictures. As much revulsion as most of us feel imagining an adult masturbating in front of a video screen depicting children being molested, the fact remains that the child sex actor shown on the screen is not aware of the event and is not harmed by it. Nor is it a proper function of government to protect us from such revulsion.
Assumptions 1 through 9 are also true, however the first four are qualitatively different than the next 5. The first four serve to simply define the crime that takes place in the production of child pornography…which is ultimately where the crime occurs. Assumptions 5 through 7 indicate the responsibility of the producers of the pornography; but 8 and 9 correctly identify the real culprits – the adult actors and the permissive or absent parents.
Conclusions
Back in the 60’s, in the Vietnam war era, Buffy Sainte-Marie wrote and performed a beautiful song called the the “Universal Soldier”, in which she aptly pointed out that the crime of war could not exist without the willingness of men (most of them practically children themselves) to travel half-way around the world to shoot strangers who had never wronged them.
Today the trigger-pulling soldiers, the bomb-dropping bombardiers, and the rocket-launching drone pilots bear the ultimate responsibility for the international murders we call war.
In similar fashion, it is the child-molesting porno-film actors and the victims’ parents, who abdicate their parental duties, who bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the harm done to children who are thus sexually exploited. While the porn producers and distributors bear some of the responsibility for the harm done to the child victims, the producers don’t usually molest the children personally, and the product distributor issues are just another form of prohibition. And we all know how well ‘The Drug War’ – “works”.
For the creation of an ethical society, free of such evils, it is necessary for a dramatic change to occur in human culture…a change that paves the way for our institutions to make consistently ethical decisions. Fortunately, the knowledge of how this will be accomplished already exists, and more and more people are catching on. For details read Ethics Law and Government and Ethical Organizational Development.
PRESS RELEASE
Acapulco, Mexico Feb19 -21 2016, At the Grand Hotel Acapulco, Anarcho-capitalists, Libertarians, Entrepreneurs, and Freedom-lovers (ANCAPS), will be gathering at the Anarchapulco conference that could easily be the business event of the century. Anarchapulco promises to “kick off” a trend toward real free markets and the worldwide amplification of peace, prosperity, and freedom.
One of the event’s themes is an organizational mechanism some are calling “organized anarchy” that demonstrates the admonitions of Dee Hock, the founder of VISA, who recently said:
“…a clear, meaningful purpose and compelling ethical principles evoked from all participants should be the essence of every relationship, and every institution.”
Hock was the first modern-day entrepreneur to build a trillion dollar organization with no traditional managers – an organization comprised of equal peers rather than bosses and subordinates.
To serve the ends of Ethical Real Free Markets, The Anarchapulco Entreprenureship Bootcamp is being offered on Feb 17, in an entirely new format will have experienced entrepreneurs giving you incredible insights into what it takes to create and grow a successful business. The presenters include: Jeff Berwick – Serial entrepreneur highest valued company reaching $240 million, Kallen Diggs – career strategist, Joby Weeks -Perpetual Traveler, Ashe Whitener – Liberty Entrepreneurs Podcast, Nathan T. Freeman – tech industry entrepreneur / Fortune 500 consult, Bob Podolsky, entrepreneur and author.
There over 30 speakers scheduled to speak at Anarchapulco a short list includes:
Jeff Berwick – Founder of The Dollar Vigilante
Larken Rose -Activist / Author The Most Dangerous Superstition and The Iron Web.
Walter Block – Austrian school economist and anarcho-libertarian philosopher
Roger Ver – Bitcoin Angle investor.
Adam Kokesh – Author Freedom calling for “orderly dissolution of the federal government”.
Ken O’Keefe – Activist and lawfully declared world citizen.
Lauren Rumpler – AKA Objectivist Girl and host of the True Objective Podcast.
Milo Yiannopoulos – best-known technology and media commentators in Europe.
Marc Victor – “Attorney for Freedom” how to protect your rights from the intrusions of government.
Zen Gardener – Anarchist mystic.
Max Igan – Researcher, truth seeker, radio host, film-maker.
Barry Cooper – Drug War Insurgent, the cop who turned against the drug war.
Dayna Martin – Author Radical Unschooling: A Revolution Has Begun, speaker, reality vlogger,
Rick Falkvinge – founder of the first Pirate Party and a campaigner for next-generation civil liberties.
Michael Shanklin -Vice President of Cloud Sales & Inbound Marketing at White Cloud Security, LLC.
Trace Mayer – Entrepreneur, investor, journalist, monetary scientist, defender of the freedom of speech.
Max Wright – Libertarian philosopher, blockchain thought leader, author, investor and entrepreneur.
Luke Rudkowski – Founder of We Are Change, a libertarian, independent media organization.
Bob Podolsky – Author Flourish how to amplify peace, prosperity, and freedom in the world.
Ernest Hancock – Founder Freedom’s Phoenix, talk show host.
Lawrence Samuels – Author Facets of Liberty: A Libertarian Primer and In Defense of Chaos
Vít Jedlička – Czech politician, publicist and activist, founded Free Republic of Liberland.
Chris Horlacher – Expert in business strategy, transformation and process improvement.
Tony Vays – Wall Street veteran and former VP and Risk Analyst at Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Chase.
Join ANCAPS from around the world, who are gravitating to Mexico for 3 days of speeches, presentations, panels debates, musical acts, parties and networking to create a freer world and 7 billion “governments” on earth.
An Open Letter to Sheriff Ward of Harney CountyOregon-
and to All County Sheriffs in America from JudgeAnna
Dear Sheriff Ward,
I am writing to you today to ascertain your office and position with respect to the Hammonds and the developing situation at the Bundy Ranch with respect to “Federal Officers”.
My name is Anna Maria Riezinger, also known as Anna von Reitz because my actual name is German and a mile long. I am an American Common Law Superior Court Judge in Alaska where operation of the Seventh Amendment Courts started up again in conjunction with the Common Law Grand Juries more than a year ago and I also serve as a Federal Postal District Court Judge for the Western Region.
As you can clearly see by reading the Seventh Amendment all matters pertaining to living people and their property must be addressed to Common Law Courts. How then, are the Hammonds being addressed by federal admiralty courts?
The answer lies in the past.
During the Civil War the normal court system owed the people in the South shut down and did not immediately reopen. Commanders in the military districts in ten states appointed civilian tribunals to function under “Special Admiralty”—– a euphemism. For the purposes of these military tribunals, people and property could be addressed in an arbitrary fashion without regard for the Law of the Land. This was very convenient for the administrators and very unfortunate for the people.
In 1866 the Supreme Court addressed the situation in Milligan Ex Parte and decided that so long as the American Common Law Courts were running there was no excuse for the use of any form of martial law. Be advised that the American Common Law Courts are up and running.
But both the military administrators and the judges and most particularly, the Bar Associations, had a taste of arbitrary power and the bit in their teeth back then— and a concerted effort to shut the Common Law Courts down began, so as to usurp their jurisdiction and “move the venue” of the local courts off the land and into the international jurisdiction of martial law and the sea, where power could be exerted against the people and their assets on the land in a comparatively arbitrary fashion.
By 1965 the rats had achieved their ends and almost all Common Law Courts in America were either shut down or functioning with only two offices— justice of the peace and notary publics.
This allowed the members of the Bar Associations to impose admiralty law on the people and to avoid the guarantees of The Constitution. The use of “Special Admiralty” in a courtroom is signified by the heavy gold fringe on the flag.
A word here about the Bar Associations and some facts about the ABA that deserve to be far more widely known, also some information about the current Court System that you probably don’t know:
The American Bar Association is an offshoot of the London Lawyer’s Guild, an avowed Communist organization. The American Bar Association and the IRS are both owned and operated by Northern Trust, Inc. They are private, foreign debt collection agencies, not units of government, not “professional associations”, and certainly not “non-profit organizations”. As an organization representing a foreign (British) government, the Bar Associations are only allowed to function here via a Treaty (the last one in 1947) that they have abundantly violated. Their members are required to present Foreign Agent Statements as part of their credentials in open court, which they hardly ever do.
As a result of their misdeeds and usurpation against the Law of the Land and the people and their violations of both their corporate charter and their Treaty, a commercial obligation lien of $279 trillion dollars has been assessed against the American Bar Association, the International Bar Association, and the “US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE”—-which, it turns out, is just another private subcontractor performing “governmental services” and doing a criminally bad job of it.
The “US District Courts” are also private for-hire subcontractors that run all the related courts in their districts. Please see Title 28, Sections 80 to 131. All these “State” Courts and “County” Courts are being run as franchises of the “US District Court”—and they are all private corporate institutions having no public office or function at all, and being related to the actual state and county only insomuch as they are operating within the geographical boundaries of a state and a county. This can be readily proven by looking up the Dun and Bradstreet Numbers, CAGE numbers, and corporate filings of these organizations. And, as was recently demonstrated by the Lufkin Case in Texas, neither the “US District Court” nor its “State” and “County” affiliates have any authority to collect debts outside the ten square miles of the District of Columbia.
We should also clear up another misunderstanding. Back in 1864, the “United States Congress” acting as a Board of Directors for The United States of America, Inc., changed the meaning of several words by executive fiat, without telling the rest of us. For their purposes and from June 30, 1864 onward, the words “state” and “State” and “United States” are code for “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation”. Thus, instead of “US District Court” you should be reading “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Court” and the “Idaho State Supreme Court” for example, should be read as “Idaho District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Supreme Court”.
Are you beginning to feel as if you have landed in the Land of Oz?
Yes, all this means that until you make some important decisions, you aren’t working for the people of your county as an elected public peace officer. You are working as an employee of a federal corporation franchise in a private capacity. Your election is being “interpreted” as an election to an office in a private corporation. You are presently acting as a mall cop. You have no public office, no public bond, and no public oath. If you are like most members of the “law enforcement community” you are not even licensed or bonded or insured in a private capacity by your cheapskate employers. You are working for The Man, not the people.
And all this got off track 150 years ago.
So all those “federal agents” who are harassing the Hammonds and who are offering to arrest them and transport them to a private prison facility? They are private corporate employees of a franchise or subcontractor of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation having no more authority than a floorwalker at JC PENNY, despite their pretensions otherwise. They are misinformed as to their authority and also misinformed regarding the identity of the Hammonds. These “federal agents” are literally foreign with respect to the Hammonds and have no jurisdiction related to them at all.
As part of the overall outrageous circumstance and fraud scheme the members of the American Bar Association have also contrived to change the citizenship of American State Citizens—- people born on the land of the Continental United States like the Hammonds have been “kidnapped on paper” and their civil records have been falsified— which is in violation of international law, the Law of War, and the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which both the Federal United States and the British Government have signed.
An examination of the paperwork will reveal that virtually every single American State Citizen has been deemed a “foundling” and ward of the state, the unwanted child of an unwed mother—- almost 400 million of us, and not a Daddy to be found? This is the result of a systematic and repugnant scheme by international commercial banks and the ABA, and again, all serving to change the natural venue on the land to a court venue in the international jurisdiction of the sea.
The fact is that although human slavery has been outlawed worldwide since 1926, it is not against the law to enslave a corporation.
So what have the criminals among us contrived to do? To “redefine” living people as corporations—- specifically as foreign situs trusts doing business under names styled like this: John Quincy Adams, and ESTATE trusts operating under names styled like this: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, and now, most recently, Puerto Rican public transmitting utilities styled like this: JOHN Q. ADAMS.
Look at the paperwork in your hands seemingly addressed to the Hammonds. Depending on the style used to write their names, you can tell whether the documents are addressed to foreign situs trusts owned and operated by the “State of Oregon, Inc.” , a Cestui Que Vie Estate Trust owned and operated by the “STATE OF OREGON, INC.” or a public transmitting utility owned and operated by “OREGON”—- a franchise of the UN Corporation.
Please bear in mind that these “legal fiction entities” were created without the Hammond’s knowledge or permission and they are completely, 100%, the responsibility of those who created them. If the HAMMONDS referenced are ESTATE trusts belonging to the “STATE OF OREGON” it is high time for someone who is responsible for the “STATE OF OREGON” to pay any debts related to the franchise without delay—-and without bothering the living people these franchises are named after.
It also behooves them to leave the living people and their property strictly alone and forego any pretense that the living Americans known as the Hammonds have knowingly or willingly agreed to act as Federal United States Citizens or have any agreed upon responsibility to act as “co-trustees” of the Public Charitable Trust, which they most likely don’t make use of and don’t even know that it exists.
Bottom line— these “courts” and their presentments and “orders” have nothing whatsoever to do with the Hammonds as living people, nor their actual physical property assets at all. They have to do with the mis-administration of public trusts and “legal persons” operated by private, mostly foreign-owned corporations which are attempting to entrap and enslave Americans and lay false claims against their property via probate fraud, identity theft, and coercion.
This is the kind of criminality and fraud we are dealing with, Sheriff Ward, and at the end of the day, the pedal hits the metal in your office.
The British Government contrived the means to “press gang” the “land assets”— living people and their property assets— of America into the jurisdiction of the sea during the Second World War. They enslaved us and our property assets under false pretenses and via the use of legal chicanery “for the war effort” — and after the war, they simply continued on with these abuses.
You have a choice.
You can continue to operate as a good little debt slave of the Queen acting on “automatic” and taking orders regardless of where those orders come from—– that is, you can act as a corporate mall cop in a private capacity and take your licks when the people catch up with you, or you can honor the truth—- that the people of your county elected you in Good Faith, with the understanding that you would enforce the guarantees of The Constitution owed to them and faithfully impose the land jurisdiction of the united States of America on any British agents who put a tentacle outside their actual jurisdiction.
As a Sheriff duly elected by the people of your county and operating the land jurisdiction owed to the Continental United States you have the authority to take your lawful Oath of Office, obtain a bond for your own security, and deputize as many men as you require to restrict the “federal agents” to their actual capacity. It is your duty to inform these foreign agents that the living people known as the Hammonds do not “reside” in any “federal territory” nor act in any capacity subject to the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation. You also have the right to collect Bounty from the Secretary of State and the US District Court under the terms of the 14th Amendment to cover any costs you incurr as a result of having to deal with these improper demands and false claims made by their agents.
If these “federal agents” persist, you have the authority to address the “US District Court” responsible and request their removal from your county. If they still won’t behave and honor The Constitution and the actual limits of their own jurisdiction, you have the right and responsibility to arrest the whole kit and caboodle, just as you would arrest the keepers of a tavern operating outside the Public Law.
You also have the right and responsibility to inform the “US District Court” and their franchise affiliates operating the “State” and “County” Courts that the American Common Law Courts and Grand Juries are in operation again and any use of martial law including “Special Admiralty” is no longer excusable.
Acting as an elected Officer of the American Common Law Court indigenous to your county, along with the justices of the peace and the notary public, it is your duty to convene the Common Law Grand Jury chosen at random from among the landowners
of your county to investigate crimes, including this one against the Hammonds, and to convene a Common Law Trial Jury if necessary before the Justice of the Peace, to decide any and all matters affecting the living people and actual property assets of the county on the land. If there is no one able and willing to serve as Justice of the Peace in your County, a Justice of the Peace may be appointed by any Federal Postal District Judge in your region. Contact me if you need help.
Please also know that as the Sheriff duly elected by the people of your county you have the authority and responsibility to demand the return of any American State Citizen being held in “federal custody” for a non-capital crime (murder or assault with a deadly weapon) within 72 hours of their arrest. So if the “federal agents” make the mistake of arresting the Hammonds under false pretenses and holding them in a private capacity, it is your right and role to present a Public Custody Order to the “US District” or other court responsible demanding that the Hammonds be released to your custody. You may then use your own discretion whether to keep them in custody or release them on parole pending final resolution of the jurisdictional complaint.
These are matters that affect millions of people and they must be addressed openly and with determination. The British Monarch has acted in Breach of Trust against the Americans, Canadians, Australians, and others. This criminality and the resulting surreptitious use of the Americium Bar Association members as licensed privateers operating on our shores is a serious international crime which is being addressed.
The misrepresentations of Americans as “foundlings” and “bastards” resulting in them being declared wards of the corporate “state” and further misrepresentations leading to them being declared “legally dead” are criminal acts of self-interested fraud carried out against us by avowed “allies” and “friends in perpetuity”– parties who are bound by the most solemn obligations of international trust and treaty, who have abused America and Americans for their own profit.
This same pattern of lying about us and making false claims against us and seeking to “re-venue” us to foreign jurisdictions has also been attempted against our federation of nation-states as a whole. Two weeks ago, international banks and governmental services corporations in their employ appeared before the UN Trust Committee—North America, and claimed that the States of America no longer exist. They claimed among other things that we no longer have a national currency in circulation. They claimed that all 400 million Americans had voluntarily accepted Federal United States Citizenship. They claimed that our country is “civilly dead” and “de-populated” and that there are no American State Citizens.
This was, of course, done behind our backs by people representing secondary creditors of defunct federal “governmental services corporations” claiming to be the beneficiaries and/or creditors of our estates.
It’s time to set the records straight and for us to act in our naked sovereign capacity.
A Declaration of Joint Sovereignty was issued by lawful heirs of the National Trust(s), together with Sovereign Letters Patent in behalf of the United Colonies of America, the united States of America, and the Native American Nations and delivered to the UN Trust Committee–North America and to the UN Security Council, the Pope, the Queen, Ban Ki Moon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Bank of International Settlements.
The criminals responsible for this circumstance are being recognized for who and what they are and the die is cast. We are going to get down to the bottom of this fraud and misrepresentation once and for all.
If you wish to be called “Sheriff” of a county in America, you must now step up and earn the title and begin operating the land jurisdiction owed to the Continental United States. You are under moral and lawful obligation to protect the Hammonds against any “federal agent” and to fully inform those agents of the limitations of their jurisdiction while standing on our soil. If there is no American Common Law Court presently operating in your county, it is your duty to organize one without further delay. In most counties there are active Justices of the Peace who still perform private marriage ceremonies and public notaries are still active. You may draft your Grand Jury and if needed, Trial Juries, from among the landowners listed in the county land records. All actions of the actual County Court should be stamped in red and signed in black. All actions by admiralty courts —by whatever name they operate under—are stamped in blue.
The net effect of a hierarchical system is sooner or later the system will be optimized for a dictator to install himself as the ultimate ruler. How do these psychopaths place themselves at the seat of power: by being the right criminal, at the right place and the right time. The “rule” by the “government” is the mechanism allegedly designed to protect the people from rule by the dictator. Instead “government” is a breeding ground for these psychopaths to refine their skills in.
In this jaw dropping expose you will become intimately familiar with the calculated mind of Stalin, the megalomania of Gaddafi and the cold blooded killer of Idi Amin. This is not to be missed!
How does a dictator live? What is daily life like for a monster in power? From when he wakes up to when he sleeps, what goes on in the life of someone who will decide the fate of millions of people? What are the mechanisms that lead an ambitious individual to a spiral of cruelty and excess?
“A Day in the life of a dictator” offers an immersion into the intimate life of the most emblematic dictators of the 20th century during the bloody period of their reign: Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin Dada and Muammar Gaddafi.
