January 21, 2019

Citizen Did And Still Does Mean Subject

CITIZEN = SUBJECT

AMERICAN = ENGLAND By The Informer

    Before getting into the case at hand you MUST understand a little known concept in English writing and the legal term and use of certain words by the court. Failure to understand will result in a poor reading of the case. And, in fact all other cases you read. That is why there is so much misunderstanding amongst people when they read a case. I can read a case and get an entirely different set of facts that most all people do not see. Most people are after a specific thing in a case to prove a point and miss a lot of good material.

Commas are a very important piece of understanding a sentence.

COMMA.n. A segment, to cut off. In writing and printing, this point [,]denoting the shortest pause in reading, and separating a sentence into divisions or members, according to the construction. Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary

RULES OF PUNCTUATION–COMMAS THAT SET OFF.

4.1.1 Commas usually set off words, phrases, and other sentence elements that are parenthetical or independent. Items of this sort are contrasting expressions. <Work, not words, is what is needed.>

4.1.2 Commas usually set off appositional or modify words, phrases, or clauses that do not limit or restrict the main idea of a sentence. <We leave at three O’clock, when the bell rings.>

4.2.2 Whenever in spoken English there is an enumeration of items, a rising or sustained pause separate and distinguishes each member of a series. In writing, a comma likewise separates words, phrases or clauses that occur in a series.<He opened the can, removed the contents, and replaced the lid.>

4.4.2 It is equally important to insert a comma to prevent misreading or ambiguity. <As the car struck, the utility pole fell with a crash.>

WEBSTER’S SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 1970 PUNCTUATION

    So you can see just how important commas are and where they are placed in a sentence. You may want to refer to this when reading the case.

    Now we come to an all important word that when in law means something entirely different than what you think it means and the courts are well aware of this when they read legal briefs or write determinations. Something the average writ writer has no clue as to how he is using the word. That word is the simple word “OR”. Did you know that the word OR means AND unless a specific word is used in conjunction with it in LAW?

Standard definition Webster’s Dictionary.

OR. Conj.. Used as a function word to indicate an alternative.

So it is a conjunction.

CONJUNCTION. The state of being conjoined; occurrence together in time or space; connective.

Therefore, it can mean the word on either side of “or” are one and the same.

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 3rd edition. 1969

OR. A conjunction normally in the disjunctive. A conjunction properly used with “either” in stating a proposition in the alternative.

BLACK’S LAW 4th ED

OR, conj.. A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means ‘in other words,’ ‘to wit,’ or ‘that is to say.’ Or is frequently misused; and courts will construe it to mean ‘and’ where it is so used. However, where the word ‘or’ is preceded by the word ‘either,’ it is never given a conjunctive meaning.

    Now you are going to see how important that little word is, as well as the comma. Here I just gave you a prime example that the comma in the preceding sentence separated two independent things, word and comma. Look at punctuation rule 4.2.2 and 4.4.2. Apply it to all other law and you will be shocked that you have probably misread or misconstrued every law and case that you have seen. Now I have given you a second example in the preceding sentence where I used the word OR to mean AND. Since I did not use the word either in the sentence the word misread, OR means AND. And you wonder why these kids from age 35 back to age 18 have no concept of what they read and can’t understand a thing about the world today when it comes to a simple contract? And you wonder why I and only a few other researchers see what you don’t see in law or court cases and say we are wrong because you don’t understand punctuation or the word Or means AND?

    Hopefully I will not have to explain after you read the case. You will pick up on the fact that the term citizen of the United States was used well before the 14th Amendment was ever adopted, like pre 1824. You will see that the word ‘either’ NEVER appears in the decision. However you will see the word ‘neither’ used twice. Remember sentence construction from 6th grade where the “neither nor” rule applied like the “either or rule?” How many remember being taught that like I was?

    You will see that citizen subject is one in the same and is what I have been saying since 1990. So you are not and never were a sovereign. Also you will see that they, the sovereigns, your rulers, can naturalize every man woman and child when an area joins the Union in one fell swoop. The people did not join the Union as only fictions called States can join the Union.

    This case shows where one can be a subject (citizen) of a state and still not be a citizen of the United States despite the 14th Amendment. All the 14th did was to put all under the military rule and was designed for corporations as evidenced by the fact the first time it was used to defend a black man was in the early 1930’s. Come on now, from 1868 to 1933 that no case ever used it for a man, either white or black, should tell you something. In here you will see that those sovereigns give subjects (citizen) only privileges and it is considered a GIFT. Yes you will catch it when reading. Keep searching for the word RIGHTS as you read the case. Are they natural or conferred? Also, if all the so-called “Christians” use the definition as a follower of “Christ,” then they are not “Christians.” When you read what you have to give up to become a SUBJECT (citizen) of another sovereign and renounce all allegiance, I dare say we have no “Christians” in America whatsoever, save a very, very, few. It is all hype as they are all fence sitters. And they wonder why the Lord Almighty doesn’t come down and clean the mess up? Because they are a big part of the mess. Look how many call themselves citizens of the United States or a citizen of the political subdivision of the corporate United States, namely a State? Look for the dates April 14, 1802 & March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) and see what they declared way before the 14th Amendment. Yes dear reader, read this case well especially since I highlighted those words and punctuation for clarity. Now after reading this, do you think all those tons of cases you read have to be reread because the courts are not taking them with any seriousness because you misread them? I wonder what they really said in all those cases? Especially since after reading this case you will immediately see where you placed yourself, by claiming the Constitution is yours. And you probably said, I took an oath to defend it, even though it is not protecting me like I thought it said and by golly, as a citizen of this great state of the Union I am not a United States citizen, even though I voted either for or against Clinton. Now look what the court stated it had claiming jurisdiction over this alien because of what he did, not whom he said he was. Make sure you find the word “contract” in the decision. Every time you see “or” replace it with “AND”. As I have said all along, especially in my New History of America, we are nothing but slaves on the Plantation, never were the sovereigns you thought you were, and have no control over any State officer of the corporation although they like you to think you do. The Constitution they speak of is all rhetoric and meaningless. Plantation does not mean a farm either. So with all this knowledge of English and punctuation lets read what I scanned.
 

THE

FEDERAL REPORTER.

VOLUME 56.

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND CIRCUIT
AND .DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES. PERMANENT EDITION,
JULY–OCTOBER, 1893,

WITH TABLES OF FEDERAL REPORTER CASES PUBLISHED IN VOLS. 3, C. C. A. REPORTS; 4, U.S. APPEALS REPORTS
 

A TABLE OF STATUTES CITED AND CONSTRUED IS

GIVEN IN THE INDEX

ST. PAUL:
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
1893.

Pg 576 FEDERAL REPORTER, vol 56.

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 29, 1893.) No. 211

1. ALIENS–Who Are–EFFEC’T OF STATE LAWS.·
A foreign-born resident of the United States, who has merely declared his intention to become a citizen, but has never complied with any other provision of the naturalization laws, is none the less an alien because of the fact that the constitution and laws of Minnesota, wherein he resides, have conferred the elective franchise and other privileges of citizenship on foreign subjects who have declared their intention to be naturalized, and that he has actually voted for member of congress and state and county officers.

2. SAME–Naturalization Laws. ·
Nor is his status altered by reason of the fact that, when he so declared his intention, he was entitled, by reason of length of residence, to be naturalized, under Rev. St. § 2167, for that section merely dispenses with the two-year delay between the declaration of intention and the actual admission to citizenship which is prescribed by section 2165.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Affirmed.
Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge:

On October 7, 1891, Frederick Reum, the defendant in error, brought this action against the city of Minneapolis, the plaintiff in error, for a personal Injury that resulted from its negligence. He recovered Judgment, to reverse which this writ of error was sued out. In his complaint he alleged that he was an alien, and a subject of the King of Saxony, and this allegation was denied by the defendant. The evidence disclosed these facts: The plaintiff was born in the kingdom of ‘Saxony in 1859. His father and mother were natives of that kingdom, and the former resided there until he died, in the Infancy of the plaintiff. In 1863, after his father’s death, the Plaintiff and his mother came to the state of Minnesota, where they have since resided. In 1885 he was married, and has since that time owned and occupied a farm in that state. On October 25, 189O, he made a declaration of his Intention to become a citizen of the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota; but he has never been admitted, or applied to be admitted, to citizenship under the second and third paragraphs of .section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any provisions of the acts of congress. The state of Minnesota has conferred upon all foreign subjects resident within its borders who have declared their intention to become citizens the elective franchise, the privilege of holding any office within its gift, and practically all of the privileges of citizenship in the power of that state to confer. In November 1890, the plaintiff voted for a member of congress and for state and county officers in Minnesota. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved the court to dismiss the action for want of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the evidence failed to establish the allegation that the plaintiff was an alien. The court denied the motion, and this ruling is the supposed error assigned.

David F. Simpson, (Robert D. Russell, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
John W. Aretander, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts as above.) In Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, Mr. Justice Miller, who was then presiding in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota, held that a state could not make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States, and that a resident of Minnesota who was born a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg, had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States many years before he brought his suit, had resided in the state of Minnesota for 15 years, had several times voted at elections held in that state where the constitution of the state authorizes such residents to do so without naturalization, but had never applied to be or been admitted to citizenship under the federal naturalization laws, was still an alien, and a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg. This decision has been followed by the courts, and acquiesced in by the profession. It is now vigorously challenged by counsel for plaintiff in error.
    Section 2, art. 3. of the Constitution of the United states, provides that the judicial power of the nation shall extend to “controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects;” and the acts of Congress of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat.552,) and of August 13, 1888, (25 Stat. 433,) confer jurisdiction of all these controversies in cases involving over $2,000 upon the circuit courts. Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive. To the land of his birth he owes support and allegiance, and from it he is entitled to the civil and political rights and privileges of a citizen or subject. This relation, imposed by birth, is presumed to continue until a change of nationality is proved. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167; Vatt. Law Nat. p. 101; Morse, Nat. 61, 125. A change of nationality cannot be made by the individual at will. Each nation has the right to refuse to grant the rights and privileges of citizenship to all persons not born upon its soil, and, if it determines to admit them to those rights and privileges, it may fix the terms on which they shall be conferred upon them. Naturalization is the admission of a foreign subject or citizen into the political body of a nation, and the bestowal upon him of the quality of a citizen or subject.
    The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “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.” As the plaintiff was born in the kingdom of Saxony, of parents who at the time of his birth were subjects of the king of Saxony, he is not a citizen of the United States unless he has been naturalized therein. The United States, in the exercise of their undoubted right, have prescribed the conditions upon compliance with which an alien may become a citizen of this nation. The act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165,) provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise. First. He shall, two Years at least prior to his admission, declare before a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce his allegiance to the potentate or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. Second. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before some one of the courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject, which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Third. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.”

    By the act of May 26, 1824, (4: star. 69, c. 186, § 1; Rev. St. § 2167,) it is provided that:
    “Any alien, being under the age of twenty-one years, who has resided In the United States three years next preceding his arriving, at that age, and who has continued to reside therein to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of section twenty-one hundred and sixty-five; but such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his admission, and shall further declare on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for two years next preceding, it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States; and he shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization.
    There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which this plaintiff could have been naturalized. The counsel for plaintiff in error, however, alleges that he became a citizen of the United States (1).because at the time he declared his intention to do so he might have been admitted to citizenship, under the provisions of section 2167; (2) because various acts of congress have conferred certain privileges, and some have conferred all the privileges, of a citizen upon foreign-born residents who had declared their intention to become citizens; and (3) because the state of Minnesota has granted to such residents practically all the privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow.
    Before this plaintiff could become a naturalized citizen, the contract of allegiance and protection that the relation of a citizen to his nation implies must be made between him and the United States. The United States have prescribed the conditions under which such an alien may make this contract, the place where, and the manner in which, it shall be made, and have declared that it can be made on those conditions, and in that manner, and not otherwise. Rev. St. § 2165. The conditions are that he shall declare on oath, that he will support the Constitution; that he does renounce all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to that one of which he was a subject; that it shall be made to appear to the court that he has resided in the United States five years, and in the state where the court is held one year; that he has behaved as a man of good moral character during all of this time, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The place where these conditions must be complied with is in one of the courts of record named in the acts of Congress, and the method by which the contract is to be made is by plenary proof to that court of a compliance with these conditions, which must be evidenced by its judgment. The plaintiff has complied with none of these terms. He has not even applied to any court to be admitted to citizenship. He has not consented to become a citizen of the United States on the terms they offer to him, or on any terms, but he still insists he is not a citizen, and that he is still a subject of the king of Saxony. On the other hand, the United States have not consented to accept the plaintiff as a citizen, on any terms, much less to waive all the essential conditions without a compliance with which Congress has declared an alien cannot be naturalized. The minds of both parties must meet to make a contract, and, where neither party consents, there can surely be no agreement.
    That the plaintiff, on October 25, 1890, had resided in Minnesota, as boy and man, long enough to qualify him to become a citizen under section 2167, is not material. The conclusive answer to the argument here urged is that the declaration of an intention to enter into a new relation for whom parties are qualified does not establish the relation. A man and woman who declare their intention to be married at some future time do not thereby become husband and wife. On the other hand, a declaration of intention to enter into a relation or to do an act at some future time is very persuasive evidence that the relation was not entered upon, and the act was not done, at the time the declaration was made. It must be borne in mind that the only effect of section 2167 was to relieve the plaintiff from waiting two years after filing his declaration before being admitted to citizenship. That section expressly provides that in all other respects he shall comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. The plaintiff’s declaration on October 25, 1890, when he was qualified to be naturalized, that he intended at some future time to become a citizen, coupled with the fact that he did not then apply to be admitted to citizenship, nor comply with any of the conditions prescribed by law for his naturalization, compels the conclusion that he did not then denationalize himself, but that he still remained a foreign subject. That Congress, in various acts, has conferred certain privileges and imposed certain burdens upon “persons of’ foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens,” at the same time that it conferred like privileges or imposed like burdens upon our own citizens, as in the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) where all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and “persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof,” between certain ages, are declared to constitute the national forces, and as in the patent laws, (Rev. St. § 4904,) the pre-emption laws, (Id. § 2259,) and in the mining laws, (Id. § ,2289,) where certain privileges are conferred on citizens of the United States, and “those who have declared their intention to become such,” in no way militates against, but strongly supports, the correctness of our conclusion, because, if foreign-born residents, by declaring their intention to become citizens, could ipso facto become such, it would have been futile to name them in all of these acts as a class distinct from our citizens. That Congress has, by various special acts, many of which are referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 158, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, naturalized certain classes of persons who had not complied with the terms of the general laws on this subject, is not important here, because the plaintiff is not a member of any class thus naturalized. Nor is the decision in Boyd v. Nebraska, supra, in point in this case because Gov. Boyd was there held to be one of a class of foreign-born residents that was naturalized by the acts of Congress admitting the state of Nebraska into the Union. These acts conferred the rights of citizenship upon foreign-born residents of Nebraska who had declared their intention to become citizens. The plaintiff was a resident of Minnesota.
    A single argument remains to be noticed, and that is that the state of Minnesota has conferred on plaintiff the elective franchise, the right to hold any office in its gift, and, in reality, all the rights and privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow; and therefore it is said he is a citizen of that state, and not a foreign subject, and the federal court has no jurisdiction of this action. It may be conceded that a state may confer on foreign citizens or subjects all the rights and privileges it has the power to bestow, but, when it has done all this, it has not naturalized them. They are foreign citizens or subjects still, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the jurisdiction of the federal courts over controversies between them and citizens of the states is neither enlarged nor restricted by the acts of the state. The power to naturalize foreign subjects or citizens was one of the powers expressly granted by the states to the national government. By section 8, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States, it was provided that “the congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Congress has exercised this power, established the rule, and expressly declared that foreign-born residents may be naturalized by a compliance with it, and not otherwise. This power, like the power to regulate commerce among the states, was carved out of the general sovereign power held by the states when this nation was formed and granted by the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. It thus vested exclusively in Congress, and no power remained in the states to change or vary the rule of naturalization Congress established, or to authorize any foreign subject to denationalize himself, and become a citizen of the United States, without a compliance with the conditions congress had prescribed. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 405; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Minor v. Happersett, 21 How. 162; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 160, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375,
    In like manner, the states granted to the judiciary of the nation the power to determine a controversy between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2,) and Congress conferred that power upon the circuit courts. The extent of the jurisdiction of those courts is measured by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. A foreign-born resident, who has not been naturalized according to the acts of Congress, is not a “citizen” of the United States or of a state, within the definition given by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, but remains a foreign subject or citizen; and any controversy between him and a citizen of a state which involves a sufficient amount is thus clearly within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, under any fair construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The jurisdiction thus conferred it is not in the power of any state, by its legislative or other action, to take away, restrict, or enlarge, and the action of the state of Minnesota regarding the citizenship of the plaintiff was not material in this case. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328; Cowless v. Mercer Co. 7 Wall. 118; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 286; Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236, 239; 6 Sup. Or. Rep. 714; O’Connell v. Reed, 56 Fed. Rep. 531.
    The result is that the power granted to Congress by Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, is exclusive; and the naturalization laws enacted by Congress in the exercise of this power constitute the only rule by which a foreign subject may become a citizen of the United States or of a state, within the meaning of the federal Constitution and laws. It is not in the power of a state to denationalize a foreign subject who has not complied with the federal naturalization laws, and constitute him a citizen of the United States or of a state, so as to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over a controversy between him and a citizen of a state, conferred upon them by article 3, § 2, of the constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress.
    A foreign subject who is qualified to become a citizen of the United States, under section 2167 of the Revised Statutes, does not become such by filing his declaration of intention so to do. That section requires that he shall renounce allegiance to the sovereignty of which he is a subject, take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and comply with the other conditions prescribed in the second and third paragraphs of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, in order to become naturalized; and until he does so he remains a foreign subject.
    The court below was right in denying the motion to dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

    Well I hoped you learned something from reading this case with the correct understand of punctuation and the word OR. Karl Granse gave me this case when we were researching citizenship way back in ‘93 or so. I just decided to dig this out when I saw this type argument posted on the internet the first week in February that was close to this. Wow, just think, the word “either” never appeared once in the decision therefore every time the word “OR” was used it is a conjunction meaning AND. Since all citizens of the United States have renounced allegiance to the Sovereign Lord Almighty and given up His citizenship, Eph. 2:19, for another king/sovereign they are neither Christians for they gave up following the Lord nor sovereign with any unalienable rights, only conferred rights by the political establishment. It is that simple. Notice that nowhere were The Lord’s unalienable Rights ever mentioned, only conferred political Rights which are always inferior to Natural rights and is the only reason the country runs, on political rights. Ever hear either the term “politically correct” or “this court cannot decide your tax case argument because it is a `political issue’?”
    Nothing is an unalienable right because the Crown’s corporation of England still rules American “citizens” as it did its “subjects” in England. Only the term changed, i.e. we still are slaves to the feudal (federal) system.

Sincerely,
The Informer

Share

Infringe Did and Still Does Mean “INFRINGE”

Everyday is the season to infringe upon the Second Amendment. It never ceases and newly-elected politicians love to jump on the totalitarian gunboats, armed for bear, gunning (no real pun intended) for any chance they might get to further infringe (destroy) the Second Amendment. The current political season is no different than others.

The far Left’s staging of events to instill fear, hatred, and anger in the masses have set the stage they hope will carry them over the threshold (that threshold being private gun ownership) that will win them a victory that will end in defeat for all…just you wait and see. But will we even be able to recognize such defeat?

Back in January of 2016 I wrote an article about how Americans consider the Second Amendment to be essentially the only right, inalienable or constitutional depending on how you choose to view it, that is worthy of complete and unrestricted infringement. They don’t necessarily see all the other “rights” in the same way. Surely destruction of those rights is just as potentially dangerous as keeping and bearing arms – if only honesty could admit that.

Of course the original words of the Second Amendment state that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

It has always been argued, never with much conviction or honesty, that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment they didn’t mean that citizens, i.e. the people (small “p”), had a right to arm themselves and/or to keep arms in their possession.

An honest assessment of the intent of the the Second Amendment has been made clear through endless examination of historic documents. To support the historic significance of the right of the people (small “p”) to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Supreme Court, in it’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, declared that the Second Amendment did guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to the people (small “p”).

Of course the downside to the Heller decision is that the majority opinion, given by the late (probably murdered) Justice Antonin Scalia, said nothing about “reasonable restrictions” or infringements to the Second Amendment. And so, even though the Supreme Court ruled that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, there has never been any ruling to determine if any “infringements” can be levied on this right, even though the Second Amendment clearly is written that the right shall NEVER be infringed. What is it here that we are not getting? Therefore, the infringement battle train continues to roll and, no doubt, will never end.

In part of the honest examination of the historic facts that drove the Second Amendment creation, I am going to look at and share with readers the etymology (origins) of two words found in the Second Amendment – “arms” and “infringed.”

Let’s start with “arms.” According to Etymonline.com, since around 1300 a.d. the root word for “arms” meant weapon. This root definition has never really changed. In examining the etymology of many words, over the span of history, the meanings of words change, and sometimes drastically. In this case arms still mean weapons…period.

Argument might be made in this research that the use of the word “arms” may have referred to “military” weapons. I realize that in some cases those who have chosen to use the history of words in their defense of the claim that the Second Amendment applied to “militias” and not the general public, too much history exists that proves the intent of the Founders was to give the people (small “p”) the right to keep and bear arms.

If one is willing to accept that historic research as a true fact, then further argument could be made that the Second Amendment should not restrict that right by prohibiting “military” weapons from those which can be kept and bared.

Regardless, there is no mistaking that when the Founding Fathers used the word “arms” it clearly meant weapons, arms, military tools. They understood the importance of a means to deter a tyrannical government. I wonder if they envisioned a tyrannical people (small “p”)?

The second word to examine is “infringed.” Like the word “arms”, since its creation, infringe has always meant what we today consider the meaning of infringe to be.

Once again, if we look at Etymonline.com, we see that since the 15th century, use of the root word meaning infringe, i.e. “enfrangen,” to violate, or from Latin, “infringere,” damage, break, has never changed in any real meaningful way

When the Founding Fathers selected the two words, “arms” and “infringe,” wasn’t it exactly clear that they were talking about “weapons” and the popular definition of infringe to mean that this right shall NEVER BE violated, damaged, or broken?

Why then do we brainwashed Americans insist on infringing upon this right? Even those claiming to hold dear the Constitution, often claiming how all others tread on it and ignore it, and yet these same mindless folks work tirelessly day in and day out to destroy the Second Amendment, some thinking they are saving it by infringing upon it?

Regardless of what can be presented as evidence, I hold out no hope that the people (small “p”) will ever understand that they are working toward their own destruction.

Oh, what have we done, and what are we doing?

Share

Animal Perversion, Wicked Lies, and Filth About a Wolf

The Daily Mail epitomizes how a perverse society projects human emotions and characteristics on animals. In this case a wolf…or what these folks choose to call the wild or semi-wild dog.

Prior to presenting their vomit and regurgitated extremely terrible misinformation, lies, emotional claptrap, and perversion, the author also reveals their hatred toward man while emoting their aberration concerning wolves they blindly, ignorantly, and with intended anger and hatred decide to mislead readers by calling the person who LEGALLY shot and killed a wolf, a “trophy hunter.” Probably this “trophy hunter” is also a “climate denier,” a “racist,” a “bigot,” a “Republican,” and of “white privilege” who deserves nothing less than huge fines, jail time, and with the suggestion of millions, even death. Damn, are we a sick society?

Not only do these delusional deviants get to decide whether a man or an animal should die or be afforded any resemblance of rights, i.e. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, their empty, programmed, automatonic, paralyzed minds mandate that any hunter, regardless of what species they are hunting and for what purpose, are “trophy” hunters.

Therefore, using the same absence of rational reasoning powers, anyone who likes animals is a pervert and should be institutionalized.

Two can play this game.

Share

Gun Ownership: A Right? Maybe – Granted Privilege? Limited

I do tire of the so-called “Constitutional Experts” who think they know the Constitution. And yes, here goes another attempt at the same. You can turn me off if you want to.

The NRA posted a rebuttal to an anti-handgun rant by a University of Maine professor (electrical engineer – makes sense to me) attempting to prove the professor is misguided and not up to grade with his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Most readers have an understanding of where I stand when it comes to one’s RIGHT to self-protection and the choice I should have as to how I wish to do that. So, I’ll spare you any rebuttals to the arguments between the professor and the NRA as to who has a right or what that right might be concerning gun ownership. I will, however, raise some questions, some of which readers will think perhaps I’ve stepped off the deep end and maybe I have.

The NRA claims, as most “experts” and misguided citizen/slaves, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written for us common folks – “we the people” and not “We the People.” Think again. However, I don’t much care for government’s lies and B.S. when it comes to their mere existence. They can all go to hell as far as I care. I claim my right to protection as granted to me by my Creator and that decision and the actions I choose are between me and Him. I must, therefore, (study to show myself approved unto God) decipher when to “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar and when Ceasar becomes contrary to God’s Word – again my choice established between me and Yahweh.

The Second Amendment is not a right – certainly not an inalienable right. If having the “right to bear arms” was an inalienable right, as we have wrongfully been taught, such a right would never be questioned or changed. The Second Amendment is constantly questioned and always being changed. When you consider the Constitution, it tells us that in order to amend any part thereof there is a process supposedly made necessary to accomplish that. That process has NEVER been undertaken. Congress, with the prompting by activists (a condition that exists to garner votes and money) merely passes new laws that completely alter the guts of the Second Amendment, or any other right or law.

But then we, the citizen/serf/slave, in our misguided educations (indoctrinations) think that the actions of Congress to rewrite the Bill of Rights or vary from what they consider the contents of that constitution, is “unconstitutional.” There is no such thing! Get over it!

How often these days do we hear people invoking their knowledge of the Constitution by making statements claiming some new law is unconstitutional? Endless! Such claims always appear from anyone who doesn’t like a new law or an amendment to an existing law, i.e. Amendment Ten, Second Amendment, etc. And through all of the cherry picking of what fits the agenda in question (all sides do this), they forget the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the Constitution – Article I Section 8. (written for the rulers, not for you and me)

Missing from this brainwashed existence is the understanding of what becomes law. Most think when Congress passes a new law, that is the law…period. Not so.

Court rulings often amend, obscure, muddle, and outright change what we believed to be law. It’s their “duty” to “interpret” the laws – wink-wink. The “winning” side and the “losing” side each get to write an opinion. Those opinions become part of the long list of precedences set that, unless questioned and challenged in a rigged courtroom, become quasi-law used for whatever purposes anyone so chooses. (Never trust a lawyer, right?)

Policy is also an unknown factor in crafting laws. Why do you think presidents, now and in the past, spend so much time writing and publishing their “policy” statements? Presidential Policy becomes law and is used in crafting all new laws designed to oppress the citizen/serf/slave.

The right to keep and bear arms never has been a clear-cut case of an unquestioned right. While it might do some good to fight for what you perceive as an “unquestioned” right to own a gun for whatever reason you so choose, the government operates as a rigged system. They control what you and I can and can’t do. Our “rights” suddenly become privileges because that rigged system can and does yank those privileges from us.

While the battle over the Second Amendment continues, it is only stalling the inevitable. The day will come, and it WILL come, when our fascist Congress will, once again, exercise their authority through THEIR constitution, to pass all laws necessary and proper to do whatever they want to you and me. We lose, they win!

Participating in this man-created criminal enterprise called government, places us in willing participation as a citizen/slave…and evidently, we like it.

The NRA and the professor and many more who will come after them are doing what they have been taught to do. It’s a shame in many ways. So long as things that exist the way they do is of benefit to the corrupt criminals in Washington, you will think you are protecting your rights. You are not! You are doing the bidding for them greedy, crooked, lying bastards! One day you will wake up (hopefully) and ask, what the hell happened?

 

Share

Isle Royale Wolf & Moose Implications

*Editor’s Note* – The editor would like to point out that he believes it is in error to state that introducing wolves, once again, to Isle Royale is “unconstitutional” and quotes the Tenth Amendment as the sole reason for such. The Constitution, for what it is worth, operates as a complete document not by picking only certain Articles to fit a narrative. While one might argue for or against the meaning of the Tenth Amendment, Article I, Section 8 is disregarded as well as the government’s bastardization of the Commerce Clause. Beyond this, the actions on Isle Royale with moose and wolves are but a reflection of the fascist, Marxist, Totalitarian, Collectivist society/government we have grown. 

By James Beers

A fellow-Minnesotan recently read what I wrote about Isle Royale National Park and it caused him to write the following question.  My two responses follow and may prove helpful to urban residents that are unsure of the advisability of relying on federal and state bureaucracies when dealing with endangered species, government land holdings, and explanations of what they do.

  1. The Question:

Thanks for the emails.

The spin I read is that as you see in this article “more wolves mean a better chance of keeping the island’s growing moose population in check.” https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/09/first_new_wolves_released_on_m.html.

So, I’m not sure if 1600 moose on Isle Royale is a problem or not.

  1. Response #1.

There are many threads woven in this and similar wildlife issues.  I will try to unravel a few in this article I write for both the concerned public and professional wildlife professionals.

  1. Wildlife, with the exception of those species named on a Treaty (i.e. for instance the Migratory Bird Treaties with Britain on behalf of Canada, Japan, Mexico and Russia) ratified by the US Senate and signed by the President of the US, are Constitutionally under the authority and Jurisdiction of the State wherein they occur.
  2. In the past 50 years, thanks to the unjust (for what it does to families and rural communities) and un-Constitutional (see ARTICLE X, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” powers granted to federal bureaucracies by 1960’s/1970’s environmental legislation (Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Act, Wild Horse and Burrows Act, Animal Welfare Act, etc.) that was introduced and passed by Nixon as he was “managing” Watergate and Ford as he sought re-election: federal bureaucrats seeking more money and power; politicians seeking votes and financial donations from NGO’s; and rich and politically powerful environmental/animal rights organizations and wealthy individuals in both Europe and North America have been expanding and using these powers (like naming and placing species like wolves and grizzlies) to advance all manner of hidden agendas from collapsing rural land values, making state wildlife powers more and more irrelevant, and making rural America hostile to families, rural communities, vibrant economies, private property, Local governments and any state powers that exceed assisting federal programs as laid out in federal directives.     (WOW, that must be the granddaddy of all Faulknerian sentences!  I seem to be incapable of editing it because any edit seems to detract from my intentions.)
  3. Federal natural resource agencies like the National Park Service (NPS), US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), US Forest Service (FS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have, simultaneously with #2, been expanding their regulatory power, working with Congress to “tweak” (make small amendments in concert with other legislative matters like Budget Appropriations) the laws mentioned in #2 and expanding their manpower and budgets (higher grades, more bonuses, bigger retirement costs, etc.).  Additionally, each year the federal government buys thousands to millions of more acres for the four agencies named above and, in both open and clandestine “partnership” (Grants, later purchase with markup) with the NGO’s – especially The Nature Conservancy – place untold acreages under permanent (No Use/No Management/No access etc.) Easements to both federal agencies and private NGO’s.
  4. Isle Royale National Park (Island) while a National Park is still just as much under the jurisdiction and authority of the State of Michigan as though you and I had purchased it.  The only exception is that you and I would have to pay state and local taxes on the property while NPS (like USFWS, FS and BLM) cannot pay such taxes per the Constitution and thus pays an entirely discretionary amount annually (and sometimes not) called “Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes” or “PILT that is always far less than the tax burden for a private owner.  You and I would have no more say about what animals were there or introduced or exterminated or hunted or otherwise meddled with under state oversight than if we owned a thousand acres bordering on Lake Minnetonka and thought to introduce free-roaming buffalo for hunting or resident Nene geese and Australian pochard Hardhead ducks for “safari” photography tours around the ownership.
  5. Yet, on Isle Royale NPS decides that they will manage Isle Royale for the (Non-Native) moose that were originally brought to the island by rich early settlers to provide food and “sport”.  Further, NPS decides that wolves will be introduced artificially to “control” any moose population explosion.  According to NPS brochures the wolves only came to Isle Royale in the 1940’s so they too are Not Native.  Enter the silent partners in this saga, USFWS under the illusion of the wolves being “endangered” or “threatened” everywhere in the Lower 48 States, traps wolves and cooperates in caging and transporting them to Isle Royale.  We are told that they were trapped in “Minnesota” but that is not true.  They were trapped on and transported from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, where, as any Minnesota walleye fisherman knows, “the state has no jurisdiction”.  This little ploy was also used when Canadian wolves were caught and transported clandestinely to Yellowstone National Park (an early Park established before WY, ID and MT as States and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of WY, ID, or MT) using $45 to 60 Million stolen by USFWS bureaucrats from state wildlife funds.  Not only had Congress refused to authorize or fund the wolf introductions in the Upper Rockies, FWS additionally defied Congress by also shipping some of the wolves to an Indian Reservation in central Idaho for release despite the loud objections of Idaho residents and their State and Local governments.
  6. So, the truly “endangered” caribou that are all but extinct in the Lower 48 are ignored by FWS on this island  where they occurred naturally 100 years ago, FWS (the enforcer of the Endangered Species Act) supports and enables NPS plans to make a (expensive to get to; all but impossible to get around in due to a Wilderness Declaration; and closed 5 months of the year) National Park into a rich folks fantasy land.  If caribou were restored, wolves would even more (than moose) quickly extirpate them from the island but what business does NPS have to proceed with this moose/wolf ecosystem preference anyway?  Why is the wolf considered a wolf valid “controller’ here on Isle Royale; when it is blamed for making a once-hunted (until recently) Minnesota moose herd only a remnant that no longer can support hunting or Upper Rocky Mountain elk herds all but a shadow of their former numbers since wolves were released, the wolf is denied as the culprit by federal and state bureaucrats and environmental NGO’s that blame “climate” or “ticks” or a lack of funding for the moose/elk demise everywhere but Isle Royale?  What business does FWS have trapping wolves and helping transport them to the island?  Is the MN DNR assisting in this FWS/NPS/Native American game of smoke and mirrors?  Where is the Michigan DNR in all this?  Why are they approving (or ignoring) this NO HUNTING federal scheme?  If Non-Native Wolves are being introduced to “control” Non-Native moose; why would Michigan simply ignore a gold mine of revenue for moose hunting when the Island is closed anyway each fall until next spring?  If NPS doesn’t want to cooperate on “their” island – FWS and NPS really have NO JURISDICTION to introduce wolves on the island without a Michigan permit since it is not a valid “ESA action.
  7. Michigan like most other Lower 48 States no longer have DNR’s that even imagine standing up to federal wildlife actions.  Minnesota hasn’t met a federal action in 50 years that it did not rollover for and wag its tail.  So, although ISLE Royale is unpopulated, this sort of “Me Federal: You State” Tarzan-like wildlife management and federal land management rolling over State and Local authorities and jurisdictions are simply accumulating legal PRECEDENTS when at some future date some poor rural  schlub stands up in some “Hearing”, or writes a letter to FWS or NPS, or even goes so far as to hire a lawyer to “defend” his and his State’s Rights and is told by some federal bureaucrat, or federal politician or some judge (“from the right court”) that this was all settled in the Isle Royale moose and wolves Decisions years ago!
  8. The magical qualities of certain wildlife species (the howl of the wolf and the honking of migrating geese are two prime examples) are being dissolved by federal oversight.  Resident Canada geese were bred and released by federal biologists in Jamestown North Dakota in the 1950’s.  Today millions of resident Canada geese throughout the Northern Lower 48 States are little more than infectious vermin in cities, on golf courses, in urban waterways, urban parks urban schoolyards and urban playground  In all honesty, those early wildlife “scientists” thought they were doing God’s work with not the slightest inkling of what they would wrought   It is the same with federal “science” giving sainthood to wolves, grizzlies, and encouraging state to do the same for mountain lions.  What was once a rare glimpse or sound to stir the soul is now a note of fear for ranchers, hunters, dog owners, parents, school teachers in rural America where these animals are forced on a populace that has no recourse under sterile State governments and gradually disappearing Local governments to represent rural American problems (Trump?).  Giving these large predators carte blanche federal/state protection in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States is a travesty to human dignity and scientifically is like the resident geese wintering in a park or schoolyard.  Geese should migrate and any large predator in The Lower 48 States should be legally classified as subservient to and treated as subject to immediate consequences when destroying or threatening any human or human endeavor.

  1. Response #2.

There is one more aspect of this Isle Royale saga that I should mention.

First, I believe it is more likely than not that some NPS guy or guys trapped and transported those first (1940’s/50’s) wolves to the island.  You did not have to have “scientific” training in those days to realize that if you just bought an island full of moose and you were absolutely committed to NO HUNTING or wildlife management (only “observation”, “interpretation”, and “study”) that you somehow had to keep moose numbers down or watch the island turn into some sort of Falkland Island suitable only for seabird nesting (albeit 1,000 miles from the sea).

However, whether the NPS’ers brought wolves to the island or even supplemented their gene pool occasionally and clandestinely (if you doubt that look no farther than the wolves trapped and transported from a non-disclosed location in Canada, brought into the US without Importation Documents or declared origins and financed by stolen state wildlife program funds for release in Yellowstone and an Indian Reservation in Idaho by USFWS) is immaterial for purposes here.  Trapping and transport, probably with the willing collusion of FWS, Grand Portage Reservation managers and the MN DNR (each of whom are and were for a long time in a quid pro quo relationship over Isle Royale as some sort of scientific-tourist “laboratory” remains very likely.

When the first wolves arrived, they encountered a very robust and by all accounts over-population of food, i.e. moose.  Like German submariners off the coast of the US in the first 5 months of WWII, wolves would no doubt recall (if they could) those times as what those German submariners called “The Happy Times”.

Wolves ate good, moose meat is very healthy, and the numerous moose were and always are (see Alaska or Siberia) particularly vulnerable to wolf predation.  Puppies galore grew up without any problems.

Imagine such a high moose population after 10-20 (?) years absorbing that predation from the growing wolf population, so the moose stay numerous and the wolves increase and increase in a cornucopia of food.

Then the wolf predation starts to overtake moose production disrupting the equilibrium and the moose decrease as the wolves keep increasing because there are still plenty of moose around albeit growing harder and harder to find.  Moose begin to decrease steadily.  Wolf competition and deadly aggressive encounters increase as food availability decreases.  Moose numbers begin to “plunge” and soon wolf stress increases as wolves begin to decrease while NPS, FWS and MN DNR burble about “interbreeding” suddenly appearing and concern about moose “recovering”.

The low wolf numbers and an apparent slow moose increase becomes fantasy fodder for kid’s books and tales about “Mother Nature in Lake Superior, Gaia be praised”.  In actual happenings, the moose start to slowly recover because the remaining wolves (the last of a dwindling population without food, i.e. moose) must expend more calories finding and killing a moose.  Recognizing that the public expects more than “slow” or “no” moose recovery, government stands ready to “do something”.

This scenario was the culmination of the moose population “plunge” that began with the first “ice-crosser” wolves back to the mainland, where at least one was shot on the Indian Reservation, in the late 1990’s.  It finally became undeniable over the last 10 years.  It took 60 (?) years.

Now the Romance of Large Predators obsessing urban Americans today gets a boost from the current government program to “Save” the Wolves of Isle Royale to great fanfare.

I probably won’t live to see this, but you may, otherwise I would make a bet that this next “bring in the wolves and watch the moose disappear” cycle will (without any more clandestine government intriguing) take 30 years or less.  The reason being that these few wolves are being released on an island with a recovering moose population that will, much sooner than when last wolves “arrived” on the island, see its increasing moose numbers losing ground to wolf increasing much sooner due to a lower food supply for wolves.  The period of quasi-equilibrium will be shorter because the moose population will be starting from a lower level than those Post-WWII years arrivals.

None of this is “natural”.  The irony is that it will be heralded as such (as well as legal) and be used for propaganda in the schools, legal precedents for more federal government mischief (too weak a word), and by a plethora of NGO’s bent on destroying Rural America as part of the Socialism apparently sweeping the country and bent on mimicking the likes of Cuban, Venezuelan and Russian governance.

Jim

Jim Beers

5 November 2018

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Frog Jumping Over and Around the Endangered Species Act

A sensible person – there are so few left in this world – can see that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is ancient, outdated, ineffective, and draconian – if you are of the rare breed of man who thinks man’s existence is at least a tick above that of an animal.

But it matters not how many people scream and yell and how often that something needs to be done about the Endangered Species Act (ESA), nothing ever gets done, except perhaps a bit of window dressing as the Trump Administration has been trying to do; also often referred to as smoke and mirrors.

Nothing will change with the ESA because man’s social and cultural demise in this country is so deeply embedded that animals, wild or domestic, deserve much more protection than the existence and well-being of man. This might be shown to us in a Patriot Post opinion piece written by Terence Jeffrey.

He suggests that San Francisco, California should consider declaring portions of the downtown as critical habitat for the grizzly bear. Why?

Because the mindset of the perverted culture of the U.S. citizen is that of favoritism to the animal and disdain for the people. According to some man’s history lesson, grizzly bears once “lived almost everywhere in California.” With today’s thinking, that is reason enough to force all people to learn to “coexist” with grizzly bears and because they once “lived almost everywhere” they should live there once again regardless of the practicality or even that habitat any longer exists to support such a creature. This is one of the stupid results of a bastardized, outdated, and a fascist/totalitarian administration of a law designed specifically for that purpose (but don’t go look).

In this same opinion piece, we read of what is taking place in Louisiana, where the U.S. Supreme Court might soon decide whether the ESA can rule over the welfare of mankind for the purposes of attempting to protect and restore a species that is biologically impossible to exist in habitat that no longer is supportive of the species the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) intends to protect.

The USFWS declared nearly 5,000 acres as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, even though those acres will no longer support the existence of the frog.

It seems Weyerhaeuser owns some of that land yanked away from them by the ESA’s designation of “critical habitat.” Weyerhaeuser has had to stop their logging operations because of the designation, which shows us how the ESA is used in the destruction of private enterprise, particularly logging and ranching. Weyerhaeuser has sued the USFWS.

In addition to Weyerhaeuser’s logging operations, some of this same land is being earmarked for development of housing to get people out of the path of destructive hurricanes when they blow ashore. Should any animal take precedence over men? Should any animal be given ESA protection and critical habitat designation when such habitat will never support the appointed species? And even if the habitat is supportive, at what lengths will the government go to halt the existence and pursuit of happiness of private citizens?

That’s perhaps what the Supreme Court will decide. In arguments concerning the frog, it has been brought out that the elements needed in a habitat to support the frog no longer exist. Why then is the USFWS extending their fascist reach to shut down Weyerhaeuser and stop the protection of the human species?

Maybe, there is a light of some interest in this matter when the U.S. Supreme Court heard this case (no decision has been rendered yet). According to Jeffrey, Justice Roberts was quoted as saying, “…if you have ephemeral ponds in Alaska, you could build a giant greenhouse and plant the longleaf pines and the frog could live there.”

The system we are forced to operate in is a rigged system. All facets of the U.S. Government operate in unison with this rigged system – that’s one reason it is rigged. If it is decided that the real purpose of the ESA is to be used to shut down private enterprise and take over land regardless of its purposes for a man, then that’s the way it shall be. From time to time, the government positions their smoke and mirrors in attempts to mislead the insane public into thinking they really give a shit. This could be one of those cases, but…

The government doesn’t care. I look for a ruling from the SCOTUS that their hands are tied because the ESA gives the Federal Government the authority to administer the Act and that the Service is granted their deference based on “Best Available Science.”

Business as usual.

Share

” You Can’t Use The Constitution In This Court.”

The citizen subject serf slave U.S. legal status position constitutor liable for taxation is all based upon contracts  via enforced corporate commercial law that does allow standing under International Law of Hammurabi. Those contractees have no standing under the original con job. BUT and a big BUT. There is no longer a con job they can rely on that premise. It would be as the Padleford case states that you CITIZENS were not signers and have no standing. Being as they threw out the con job in the courts, which can be proven by the courts themselves in their case files that they have not been allowing the con job argument to be used in any type of case challenging their jurisdiction over a citizen of the U.S. where they have clearly stated and I have personally paid to learn and to hear them say this, when their judge in their court states that ” You can’t use the Constitution in this court.” Been there done that…

International Law is pure commerce under the UCC , which emanates from the old NIL, which created the Admiralty Jurisdiction in the first place, which is pure Hammurabi Law. The source for that is found in the Admiralty case of Southworth Machinery Co. Inc. v F/V Corey Pride, et al., 1993 AMC 2261 on page 2265, Footnote 3, citing Benedict on Admiralty (7th Ed) and 4 other cases from 1984 to 1989. They are all commercial under maritime principles and subject to Admiralty Jurisdiction. In that case we have standing under International Law of Hammurabi that existed in 1600 BC and ruled the entire world, including the Roman Empire, The Laws of Rodians promulgated 900 B,C., which preceded the Christian era by 4 centuries and were put there by Justinian’s authority about 533 A.D.; the Law of Oleron, the Phoenicians, The Egyptians, China , India , France , England . So if you’re ont otheir scam you learn that they screwed themselves when one knows what law they are operating under and how to use their own law against them. That law is the oldest law known by mankind, that being Hammurabi. Hammurabi feared the Lord Yahweh and wrote the laws as close to Yahweh’s law as possible to get rid of evil and help the wise as serpents peaceful as doves people like us today who are tired of being bullied by these con artists in black robes..

People should read and learn learn learn all his laws that come as close to Yahweh’s law and Yahweh’s Laws as well as anyone can possibly get in order to defend oneself against their persecution and theft of ones energy. Thus Hammurabi’s Laws used by the government does not preclude us from using the law against the government. And of course the law that even trumps man’s legalese conundrums is the Yahweh’s Law found in the Bible. But 99 percent of the People in America have shunned The Lord Almighty Yahweh for man’s laws and seemingly they do want a King/ President to give their allegiance to rather than to the Lord Almighty Yahweh. People would rather live as they are now and read all the men in history, Plato, Servius, Paulus, Vattel, Blackstone, Story, Pardessus and the list goes on. Even though not one of these men has ever cited the Lord Yahweh’s Law as the ultimate law and what they have to say, rather than what the Lord Yahweh said to live by.

References to Hammurabi law was made by the U.S. Supreme court in modern times, They are Farrel v. United States ,336 U.S. 511, 69 S. Ct. 707, 93 L.Ed.850 and Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, 362U,S. 539, 80 S.CT. 926, 4 L.Ed. 2nd 941. All one has to do is invoke Admiralty law found in Title 28 as that’s where all Admiralty Rules were put, including the supplemental Rules of Admiralty A through F. You see that’s why they say you can’t bring the Constitution into a pure contract private Admiralty law scene. The courts have been operating in Admiralty since 1789.

All is not lost if the reesearcher gets away from the myth that the biggest lie in history “The Constitution” and those pushing those contracts subjective of it is there to protect them, and get educated in following what the government itself has used all these years to keep the ignorant in checkmate. Admiralty applies to Driver license and Registration, bank accounts, taxation documents, all contractual agreements. That’s why these contracts all tie together to denote the citizen claiming COTUS rights they never had. Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction in all its private commercial aspect is that which government continually attacks us with.

The biggest thing one can do is start accepting the facts that the Constitution is not your protection as it was a myth fostered upon you for centuries to keep the U.S. slaves from finding out that the Constitutions were for ONLY those certain few people that those contracts were written to represent because it really is the contract charter those few people have to abide by. That Charter /contract was dispensed with in 1792 when George Washington violated that charter contract in bringing in the Private Foreign controlled First Bank of the United States… It goes back that far, even farther when that same president and his henchmen serving Rome nullified the Articles of Confederation and replaced that agreement with the COTUS, in secret keeping those state representatives prisoners until they relented and sold you all out.. Whereupon this great constitutional myth was sold to the public..

The slaves will continue to ignore the TRUTH…

I predict that the liars will continue to hold their fraudulent authority because it is based upon non disclosure of the full meaning of their political authority over the slaves minds who keep begging them for more of the same..  Due to in part by the legal aspect of silent acquiescence.. Non Compos Mentis.. Self defeat, surrender.. Even insanity as the U.S. Code defines them..

“Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those of us who are doing it”— S. Hickman

I was snared but I did not surrender..

Share

The U.S. Government Defined

“Government having the gall to claim authority over people outside of governmental territorial jurisdiction, and to then demand that they pay through taxation for an ‘artificial National Debt’, which has been brought about by way of misrepresenting debt away from its true owners, the people, for the benefit of bankers as false owners of this now misrepresented debt to the bankers, from which the bankers then steal the entitlement to create credit, which then becomes the artificial debt owed to them as loans taken out by government, amounts to an absurdity by government and the bankers. After all, government merely administers to the needs of a ‘corporation’, for which it is employed to do so.”

“As with any other corporation which is created by ‘its form of charter’, its ‘executive board, governing board, or government’ which provides ‘governance’ for the corporation, has no authority over those who are non-members or non-employees. Charters create fictional entities called corporations, and different ‘forms of corporations’ may be created by different ‘forms of charter’. Nevertheless, they are corporations all the same.”

“A country, whose ‘business’ it is as a corporation, provides a ‘service’ through which its ‘membership or employees’ may act out their lives. The corporate-countries government is merely the ’employee board of executives’ or administrative instrument providing ‘governance or government’ for the corporate-country on behalf of its OWNERS. The corporate-countries governing body of employees, exerts its control on the rest of the corporate-countries membership or employees, through its branches or subdivisions referred to as government departments and agencies (and through also all the other corporate branches or corporate-subdivisions of that corporate country; that is to say, its secondary-governments or ‘authorities’ and their subdivisions, sometimes referred to as local-government and their agencies). The corporation is brought into existence, created, or is established on a ‘piece of paper’ by its OWNERS. That ‘piece of paper’ is called a ‘Political Charter‘.”

“Only those within corporate-governments jurisdiction, that is to say, those who ‘chose to admit to membership or citizenship of the corporate-countries territorial jurisdiction, or simply admitted to being in that jurisdiction’, would be subject to false claims of liability known as taxation, or indeed any other claim of liability within that territorial jurisdiction of a corporate-country.”

“This is how the artificial ‘National Debt’ to be paid by those admitting to be in a governments, a states, a nations, a countries, or a regions {US} jurisdiction or any other corporate jurisdiction, either as taxpayers, subjects, citizens, members of the public, persons, individuals, or just plain normal people of that territorial-jurisdiction in question, is brought about.”—ThereIsNoDebt

My thoughts; If the Economy is Recovering… Why Is Nominal GDP based on past growth compared to current growth in a recession? Why are people that are buried in work so dumb that they think everyone could be buried with work? That the economy is exploding.. When it clearly is not.. Obviously the ignorant don’t understand how to fake economic growth.. AND…

The defeated posterity of the defeated who lived here before them claiming those of us with eyes that see and ears that hear are defeatists is hilarious.. Defeatism is a surrender that achieves its aims, by accepting an antagonists claims and then calling into question, not through aggression but through acceptance, those very claims which is exactly what the citizen consistently does here in the U.S. Slavery by consent is what everyone of you citizens has signed up for..

The elite authors of the current environmental dogma mean to bury us, whether we like it or not, for their long planned collateralization of the natural and domestic resources confiscation through U.N. environmental policies governance… Clearly spelled out in that United Nations Environmental Policies and World Wide Biodiversity Assessment tome that is ignored through misdirection by various frauds posing as knowledgeable researchers of the environmental issues of the day who misplace blame onto the Center for Biological Diversity which is a cloned group of advocates working for the U.N.

Every environmentalist group is advocating for the United Nations Environmental Policies and “Global ” Biodiversity Assessment which is a continuation of the Agenda 2100 United Nations Programme of Action .. It’s all Sustainable Development.. The Center for Biological Diversity and ALL environmental groups are clones of this U.N. doctrine.. All that doctrine does is place the power over all resources into the hands of the very same corporate entities that originally caused all of the environmental ecological biological and zoological damage that they through this doctrine profess to preserve the ecosystems of this earth with.. And who is under attack? Little people, little food producers.. Little nobodies who are just trying to survive.. The WWF World Wildlife Fund is big into pushing this doctrine.. The U.N.E.P. Doctrine is a European programme to depopulate and remove infrastructure set up here in the last 500 years by European settlers.. Every single group of think tankers that designed this doctrine are Trillionaires and Billionaires… They control what “sciences” you little peons believe.. The U.N. is a Politically Charted Corporation.. So is the U.S… So is the other founder of the U.N. The U.K. who with the U.S. through the Atlantic Charter which is another political chartered corporate contract.. All private corporations owned by those elite businessmen who fly all over the world daily in their $50,000,000 Gulf Streams conducting business and trades of their vast resources wealth they have taken from you all for themselves.. And you advocate for their possession in various ways by voting for their political puppets..

The Vatican approves of the sustainable development theories outlined in the United Nations Environmental Polices and Global Biodiversity Assessment which is a continuation of the Agenda 21{00} The United Nations Programme of Action From Rio tome…

Someone tell the Roman Catholic anti environmental movement so they can stop making fools of themselves.. Buy them a Beer called Busch…

Share

Help for Helpless Victims of Government Wolves

By James Beers:

A Canadian colleague and I recently received the following email from a concerned friend in the State of Washington. I have eliminated names so that what I say will not cause them any needless difficulty.

I have interjected some comments in the request and the reportage about wolves from Oregon.  The situation, intrigue and government perfidy about wolves could just as easily come from Arizona or Minnesota or North Carolina.

My attempted response to his inquiry follows and is forwarded for the edification of readers on all sides of this contentious and destructive issue…  Jim Beers

———————————————————————————

The Request –

To: Jim Beers <jimbeers7@comcast.net>; YYYYY
Subject: Fwd: Wolves kill guard dog in SW Oregon

 Jim and YYYYY,

I’m going hunting next week about 10 miles from——— Ranch.  Can you please read the article below and advise me as to how I should coach the rancher?  Thanks, XXXXX

Begin forwarded message (with several inserted comments by me, Jim Beers):

 Subject: Wolves kill guard dog in SW Oregon

Date: October 2, 2018

 Wolves kill guard dog in S.W., Oregon

——- had already lost three calves to wolves from the Rogue pack in southwest Oregon back in January.

 On Sept. 24, wolves returned and killed one of the guard dogs —– brought in to protect his herd.

——-, who owns the —– Ranch south of ——-in —– County, said he was awakened early in the morning to the sound of his dog, an adult Tibetan Mastiff, being attacked in a fenced pasture 600 yards from the house.

By the time —— got up, jumped into his boots, grabbed a headlamp and rifle and ran out onto the front porch, he said the wolves were gone, though he did find the dog limping along slowly with blood on its backside. It died later in the day.

Wildlife investigators shaved the dog, finding injuries consistent with wolf bites. —– said the animal’s back end “was like grape jelly.”

The investigation also turned up wolf tracks on the property, which together was enough for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to confirm the (insert your favorite “cutesy” name here.  Jim Beers) pack was responsible for the attack.

“There’s no escaping them,” —-  said. “It seems like they’re getting pretty brazen.”

Problems with the (naming wolves, besides being disgusting is simply propaganda to fill urban kids and soccer Moms heads with.  Jim Beers) pack at —- Ranch began in January, when wolves killed three calves in a span of eight days, prompting  —- and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ramp up non-lethal deterrents  (“ramping up non-lethal wolf control” is like an urban high school teacher facing fights and gunfire in her classroom saying she will raise her voice if they don’t stop!  Jim Beers) at the property.

As part of the effort, —- was given two Tibetan Mastiffs from a family in—–, Ore., on the other side of the county.

“I do believe they’ve been a deterrent,” —— said. “Any time the wolves have been in the vicinity, they just carry on like crazy.”

 John Stephenson, wolf biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon, said the ranch is within the pack’s territory, not far from where the wolves den.

 It is common for wolves to act aggressively toward dogs, Stephenson added, viewing them as competition. (How profound!  Jim Beers)

 “If they have the number on the dogs, they can behave pretty aggressively,” Stephenson said. (Even more profound!  Where do these “experts” learn all this?  Jim Beers)

 The —– pack was started by Oregon’s famous (as in “infamous” if you are trying to make a living where they choose to roam and reveal themselves.  Jim Beers) wandering wolf, OR-7, and his mate in 2014. In 2017, the pack had seven known animals, including two new pups that survived through the end of the year.

 Unlike wolves in Eastern Oregon, the species is still federally listed as endangered west of U.S. highways 395, 78 and 95. (Let that sort of bureaucratic BS sink in!  Jim Beers)

 —- said he is working with the USFWS to once again surround his 276-acre property with electrified fladry — lines of rope with flags that flap in the wind to spook wolves from entering the pasture — and set up additional flashing lights to scare away the predators.  (Fladry was developed and used by Russian wolf controllers to funnel driven wolves through woodlands to passages where shooters lay in wait.  It was and remains effective for that purpose.  Setting it up in a static situation is about as challenging for wolves to circumvent upon watching it is similar to expecting a human baby to avoid it in the living room while Mama cooks supper.  Electrification of real fences or these gossamer threads in the open is merely something wolves quickly learn to avoid like my golden retriever [and he wore a collar] did with his electric fence when a deer ran through the yard.  Dogs and wolves and coyotes are not horses in a pasture that will avoid electrified things.  Wolves, dogs and coyotes treat them as just one more thing to learn to circumvent quickly and with a minimum of inconvenience or pain!  Jim Beers)

 Stephenson said the fladry was an effective tool earlier this year and hopes it will be effective again.  (It couldn’t have been any other reason or reasons for variable predation?  No, No; wolves are supposed to be like Russians retaking Stalingrad in WW II in that they persist 24/7 until they kill all the livestock or die in the attempt?  Remember we pay these do-nothing bureaucrats to bamboozle us and put these ranchers out of business.  Is this a great country or what?  Jim Beers)

 But —– said he is becoming increasingly frustrated, dealing with the anxiety of wolf attacks at the ranch.

 “I need to have some way to protect my livelihood and not have to stress out about this, day in and day out,” he said.

 The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee passed a bill Sept. 26 by a vote of 19-15 that would remove gray wolves from the federal endangered species list in the lower 48 states.  (That will be reversed in court when Trump is gone and in the meanwhile we will turn wolves over to a state wildlife agency corrupted by federal overseers, federal money, and state bureaucrats ridden with the radical philosophies if the environmental/animal rights crowd!  What could go wrong?  Jim Beers)

 The legislation has drawn sharp rebukes from environmental and conservation organizations, with Jason Rylander, senior staff attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, saying science — not politics — should decide when to delist species.  (Whose “science”: mine or yours?  There is no longer any “TRUTH” in the US; only “my” view, “your” view, and who has the most “power!  See the Kavanaugh Senate “Hearings” for confirmation.  Jim Beers)

 “Gray wolf recovery is well underway, but the work is not done,” Rylander said in a statement.  (It will never be done until ranching, farming, hunting, fishing, eating meat, animal ownership and management, private property, the 2nd Amendment and rural prosperity for families and communities are all eliminated.  Jim Beers)

 If Congress really is committed to preserving and protecting wildlife, they would spend their time finding the funding needed to recover species, not attacking the process.” (Sure!  You are already spending billions to destroy Rural America under the guise of a “process” to “recover species”.  Now with the nation over 20 TRILLION in debt you need more?  This entire sham should be cut 90% and sent packing!  Jim Beers)

Oregon currently has at least 124 wolves living across the state, according to the 2017 ODFW annual wolf report.

My, somewhat labored, Response:

On 2018-10-03 10:15 AM, jimbeers7@comcast.net wrote:

XXXXX,

 I honestly don’t know what to say.  If that sounds like I’m a phony or a liar, it is only because what I have seen over the past thirty years does not suggest anything that IS ALLOWED to work.

 Put simply:

Wolves have to eat, and they will eat whatever is readily and easily available.  Where moose, elk and cattle/sheep are available they will feed on them whenever they can.  Livestock are the most vulnerable and available prey; additionally, supplying a large meal of prime meat.

Wolves habituate readily in settled landscapes.  The more people, roads, homes and the detritus of civilization are available, the sooner wolves will habituate and their destructive impacts will multiply along with their populations and densities.

Wolves that are neither shot at, trapped, poisoned nor snared will habituate more quickly as surviving wolves will become even less reluctant to go near human activities, habitations or structures.

Wolves, like dogs and coyotes, get “used to” and “figure out how to” avoid and “get around” FLADRY, ELECTRIC FENCES, HIGH FENCES TO GROUND LEVEL, GUARD DOGS (in addition to eventually killing or outwitting them, the wolves will take advantage of bitches “in heat” and inseminate them), “RANGE RIDERS”, NOISE MAKERS, ETC.

Wolves, despite not thinking ahead like we do, live and learn both from their parents and from what they learn from other pack member’s experience.  The live day in and day out (including nights) doing nothing more than “learning” how to get the most food with the least effort.  There has never been, throughout world history, a way to reduce undesirable wolf impacts other than reducing their numbers year after year to minimize their impacts or killing (“exterminating” or as the Wisconsin DNR says about dogs killed by wolves, “they were ‘depredated’”) as was once done in The Lower 48 States, Europe and the British Isles where the Irish Wolfhound breed was developed exclusively for that purpose when they had the wherewithal and determination to exterminate them in settled landscapes and civilized society.

The wolves you are dealing with are not there for any “scientific” or “environmental” benefit.  They are there because of the political influence of powerful and rich Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s) that use their introduction, protection, spread, and the lies spread in the media and schools to implement a range of hidden agendas from eliminating ranching, farming and rural American life in general to taking control of rural America as other Socialist (I do not apologize for being political about a political matter here) agenda items from gun control to overall societal control are implemented nation-wide.  In this effort they are enabled by unjust federal laws like the ESA; a federal workforce of Socialism-advocates writing the regulations they enforce; and state governments and state wildlife agencies in particular that are no more than federal subcontractors begging for federal money and jobs like the University professors and the NGO’s.

Nothing has been done to change anything other than make it worse since the ESA gave legitimacy to the illegitimate imposition of wolves in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States.  They are NOT Endangered, Threatened, or in danger of anything except eventually being subsumed into the domestic dog gene pool somewhere down the road.  All of the “Court Decisions”; “Secretaries’ Orders”; and Congressional promises of “Amendment”, “Reform” and “Change” were and are smoke and mirrors.  Unless the ESA law is changed wherein the USFWS has no power to take private property without compensation, and the federal role vis viz resident non-treaty wildlife is returned to State Jurisdiction as provided in the US Constitution…..  What can I say?

You can’t shoot them.

There is no proven or consistent non-lethal control or protection for livestock out of a barn.

The State government that is supposed to protect you is no more than NGO-advocates disguised in state uniforms working as federal deputies under federal overlords that are salivating to make “examples” of any peasant that dares to try to “obstruct” or “resist” them.  Between their satellite collars, supportive tinker belle courts, and enforcement techniques developed over time from Al Capone to Islamic Terror Operations, one need only remember the recent Bundy Operation in Nevada and the rancher killed in the Oregon snow with his hands in the air to understand what you are up against.

I wish I could give you some help, but other than prayer, I know of no nostrum.  If you see one, let me know and I will do all I can to tell others there is an answer to this positively awful situation.

Jim Beers

3 October 2018

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Of Course It’s Constitutional, Because We Live in a Free Country Bwahahaha

A Federal judge has ruled that it is NOT unconstitutional for the Gov. of New Jersey to force the destruction of any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The order gave owners of such devices 180 to comply – December 10, 2018.

More than likely on December 10, 2018, New Jersey will get quite an increase in unlawful citizens.<<<Read More here and the complete court ruling>>>

Share