Another syndicated "Court basher" misses the entire point, as usual

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

4 December A.D. 2008

"Court bashing" may forever be something that "gets my goat." Those who should know better and still engage in this reprehensible, America-hating line of activity add all the more reason for me to address this.

There is no "treachery" in or by the Supreme Court. To say that there is, is to say that the law itself is treacherous. That's nuts on its face.

To be upset about a ruling is fine. To be upset about the procedural handling of the case is fine. That'll happen to just about everyone, even those who understand the reality. To have to apply the reality is not necessarily an enjoyable task. But, one's horrifically uniformed and undisciplined emotional response to the legal reality is not a legitimate basis for hurling such epithets as "treachery" against the Supreme Court!

The Supreme Court are going to do what they always do, and that is apply all of the law that applies en route to making their decision. And, when that decision is that the dismissal of "Berg's case," which is just one of what WND reports as being some two dozen or so similar cases around the nation, is the correct ruling, all this brouhaha about this "citizenship" requirement may very well produce some consequences that these "Court bashers" will have shared greatly in creating.

Since the "Court bashers" refuse to tell their audiences the legal reality, always encouraging them, instead, to continue to buy into the lies, one can't help but wonder about their agenda. Why do that rely on the popular lies, which they also promote, as leverage to hurl against the Supreme Court, who have been teaching us our legal reality for some 200+ years now? So, what the "Court bashers" continue to prove is one of two things: (A) they know the legal reality and intentionally mislead their audiences for anti-American purposes, or (B) they haven't the first clue what the legal reality is, and they use the "First Amendment" not so much as "free speech" and "free press" but rather as "Let me confirm to the world what else I don't understand!"

This particular "Court-bashing" idiocy champions the Leo Donofrio case(s). Donofrio challenges the Secretary of State for New Jersey alleging failure to perform her statutory duty to insure the integrity of the ballot, in particular by allowing the obama-nation to be on the New Jersey ballot, due to the "citizenship" issue arising out of Art. II.

I've familiarized myself with the Donofrio case(s) via materials available on the internet. While there are clerks and staff attorneys who deserve to be charged criminally, none of those people work with or for the Supreme Court. So, where Donofrio launches off against the Supreme Court personnel, he proves mightily just exactly how little he understands of this issue, in particular, and of the system, in general. The point is that the "Court bashers" who "Hail!" Donofrio's efforts and activities self-confess knowing even less about the matter than Donofrio.

The patience exhibited by the Court and its staff is a gift from God Almighty.

Let's start here. Is the "funny money" scam still confusing to the "Court bashers?" Is it totally beyond their intellectual capability to focus on the obvious? Is it completely beyond them to see that where what circulates as legal tender is not gold and silver Coin that we're dealing with a completely different fundamental "choice of law?" Apparently so.

Totally and purely for the sake of argument, let's presume a Constitution of 1787-1791 ("as amended") into existence. Now, given that there are THREE places for events to occur, namely relative to (1) the land, (2) the water, and (3) the air, and given that there are TWO fundamental "choices of law" covering those THREE places, namely (1) the Law of the Land, for matters that accrue relative to the Land, and (2) the Law of the Sea, for matters that accrue relative to either the water or the air, let's come to terms very, very quickly on which "choice of law" the Constitution (that we just presumed into existence) is based. That document looks where? Obviously, and by its very own language, it looks to the Law of the Land.

What is the recognized form of Money (currency) for that system? It's gold and silver Coin.

Gold stopped circulating generally in the 1930s, and silver stopped circulating generally in the 1960's. Thus, we haven't had either in general circulation since the mid 1960's. The key time that proved to be the intended death-knell for the legitimate Money system (gold and silver Coin) varies by "state," for it will be the time of the adoption of the "Uniform Commercial Code" (UCC), which exists to justify and legitimize the "funny money" scam. But, somewhere between the late 1960s and the early 1970s, all vestiges of attachment to a Law of the Land system ended. In its place came the Law of the Sea system that depends on "funny money" as "legal tender."

So, to keep all the views expressed by the "Court bashers" in context, anyone who has ever spent a "federal reserve note" in any transaction has contributed to the current problems we face as a nation. Any business person who has allowed only "federal reserve notes" in payment of amounts due has contributed to the current problems we face as a nation. How so? Because by buying into the "funny money" scam, we have all "Hailed!" the transition away from the Law of the Land system and to the Law of the Sea system.

Yes, it's true that this is so subtle that "no one" knew what was happening. That's all well and fine and good, but nothing about our collective ignorance changes the fact that the use of the "federal reserve notes," in the face of the language that prohibits States from coining Money, emitting Bills of Credit, or making any Thing but gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt. Just about everyone alive today actively pursing the where these officials may be helped back off the present train have "inherited" these problems. They have been created for us at a time of national naivete. The seeds of thought, hence the seeds of the problems, on which the current federal system operates were planted more than 200 years ago. The transition has come in small steps over a long time.

The "funny money" scam, and the UCC, both depend greatly on the fact that neither exists or intends to exist under the Law of the Land. That part of the UCC which purports to allow "federal reserve notes" to qualify as "legal tender" flies in the face of the fundamental Law of the Land, meaning that if the Law of the Land were the law used to analyze that statutory scheme, that scheme would have been ruled a violation of the fundamental laws of commerce a long time ago, because it's a Ponzi-scheme on its face. The "funny money" scam, which borrows the "money" into existence, and which prints only the "principal" amount of that loan, leaving the "interest" amount unprinted, has been discussed in numerous ways and places. The details of how we know it to be a fraudulent system, when evaluated under the Law of the Land, is left for those other discussions. The point here is that once we come to terms with the reality that no one is going to jail for running the "funny money" scam, we HAVE to come to this conclusion, and the sooner the better: that "funny money" scam IS NOT operating under the Law of the Land.

So, under what "choice of law" IS it operating? And, the obvious answer is this: The Law of the Sea.

There is no other explanation as to why that system, which is fraudulent on its face, hasn't been prosecuted out of existence.

What does that mean? It means that the governmental system that operates on the "funny money" system is not one that looks to the Law of the Land. And, since the Law of the Land is the only "choice of law" that could ever recognize the Constitution as "admissible evidence of law," those who think that the Constitution has anything whatsoever to do with the "federal government" are one a distant planet, somewhere.

This misunderstanding is more than understandable. I was there, myself. I could argue the Constitution better than "anyone." And, then I was cured from my blindness via The Terre Haute Litigation. These materials are still fully available for review and discussion as they have been since not terribly long after that case ended, which was in June, 2001.

In that case, the position asserted is that the "federal" court in Colorado had no jurisdiction. First, there's nothing legal about a transfer of a criminal case across the State line. Art. III, § 2, Art. IV, § 2, and the Sixth Amendment. Secondly, there's nothing about this homicide case that justifies Art. III jurisdiction, for there was no ambassador or consul involved.

As happens with "pure Constitution" cases, the federal trial court in Terre Haute, Indiana, dismissed the case. Upon appeal, the 7th Circuit described the 100% pure "constitutional" case this way. After recognizing that the petitioners did, in fact, have standing, and that the discovery rules were quite relevant, in particular those regarding "perpetuation of testimony," the appellate court described the case this way, and in this sequence: (1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous. What did the appellate court teach us as being the jurisdictional basis for the case against McVeigh? 18 USC § 7, "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined."

If part (3), here, along with 18 USC § 7, don't register, yet, then there's nothing more than anyone can say that can provide any type of assistance to the general understanding of the problem(s) we're dealing with, here. I was as bad on making this adjustment as anyone. No one other than a respected judicial officer would ever have been able to cure my blindness. That's just to say that I may not be the "voice" that comes with sufficient "authority" that it starts to motivate anyone's taking another look into these realities. However, once these two realities hit, you'll know it, because you'll get sick to your stomach, and your head will ache. This condition may last for several days. It's not the flu. It's "withdrawal." Those who go through that process will say, "I used to be a constitutionalist, but I am now cured of my blindness."

The Constitution was not drafted to operate under a Law of the Sea system, but rather a Law of the Land system. We don't have a Law of the Land system, anywhere, as is self-proved by the non-circulation of either silver or gold Coin. To make, then, the immediate connection in the context of the obama-nation's "citizenship," if the only place that requirement is found is in a document that is irrelevant to the current Law of the Sea addicted system, then there is no such requirement. Period.

Now, that's NOT a problem that the Supreme Court caused, and neither is it a problem that the Supreme Court can solve. It's a political question, and that means that it's completely beyond their authority to address.

"No one" has standing to raise that objection, for there is no such requirement for the "office" of "president" for the "federal government." And no Secretary of State violates a duty by allowing the obama-nation on the ballot. If we were dealing with a Law of the Land system, I'd give you additional reasons why this requirement wouldn't exist under that system, either, but we're not dealing with a Law of the Land system, so that analysis is not relevant, here.

"Federal" means "federal." "Federal" does not mean "national," and it most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a "state," "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation."

Why was Kennedy assassinated? Because he opposed the "funny money" scam. He would have circulated "United States Notes," not a private banking system's "federal reserve notes," as the paper currency, and he had just requested that the Mint make a fresh batch of the silver-based quarters. There's no way to get the American people sucked into a different "choice of law" for so long as legitimate Money remain in circulation. So, Kennedy "had to go" in order to keep the seduction of this nation on the schedule that the internationalists planned for that phase of the operation.

So, we've had that piece of the puzzle staring us in the face since November, 1963.

Why was OJ Simpson never indicted for both counts of homicide? If the Fifth Amendment applied, that trial court never had the authority to reach the merits of that case, whether "guilty" or "not guilty."

We've already addressed the issue of transfer of a criminal case across the State line. If the Constitution were relevant to the Murrah Building bombing case(s), not only would there have been no "federal" court activity, but also all the "state" court activity would have remained in Oklahoma, as was the case for the second trial, i.e., the state court trial, of Nichols.

Those obvious deviations from "constitutional standards" may still be too subtle even for the "Court bashers," which is just to say that what is obvious to us here at Legal Reality is rarely obvious to "constitutionalists." However, what is so shockingly beyond the intellectual capability of these "Court bashers" regarding this obama-nation "citizenship" issue is the fact that the "citizenship"-questioning litigants, and the "Court bashers" who are championing those cases tolerate a "popular vote" process at all! When those people show us at Legal Reality where there is ANY remote mention in the Constitution of ANY "popular vote," THEN we'll discuss this "citizenship" issue.

The "Court bashers" are invited to go back and read the history for themselves. There were NINE, count them, NINE, not one, not two, but NINE elections that followed the "constitutional" Electoral College process for the election of the president. Then, in 1824, something changed, and "we've" never gone back. In 1824, there was the first "popular vote" for the "office" of "president." If the "popular vote" WERE EVER part of the "constitutional" plan, WHY were there NINE, count them, NINE, elections without any "popular vote" component, at all?! (Ooops! say the magnificently uninformed "Court bashers!").

At the end of the day, we've been so separated from the "constitutional" plan for so long that we wouldn't recognize a "constitutional" system if it clobbered us in the nose. And, buying into 99% of the lies, the "Court bashers" now want to blame the Supreme Court, who have been telling us about these distinctions, i.e., between the language on the page and the actual events going on, for some 200+ years, now.

"Court bashing" will NEVER sell, here. What the "Court bashers" do, repeatedly, is prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they have no stinkin' clue what the law is; hence, no stinkin' clue what they're talking about! And, where they go so far as to use the term "treachery" to describe the Supreme Court, I pray to God Almighty, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, for swift and pronounced Divine Judgment against such "Court bashers." May those "Court bashers" experience a personal hell on earth that terminates upon their formal repentance to the very same audience to which they spew forth their venomous, America-hating idiocy. May they confess the reality that the Supreme Court ARE the ones who know the reality and that the "Court bashers" are the ones who are clueless on the point.

To address some specifics in this particular "Court bashing" atrocity, Justice Ginsberg is NEVER asleep to any of these matters, and may the Supreme Court ALWAYS prefer the anthrax testing, given the circumstances that created that issue in the first place. (We'll talk about S-11 some other time.)

If there's an insanity at issue, here, then where the shoe fits, it should be worn by those "Court bashers" who think they have any clue, at all, what the legal reality is. They are so removed from the reality as to have the concept of insane apply perfectly.

There is NO interference by any Clerk with the Supreme Court. They are as bound to the applicable law as are those Justices. They have more knowledge of the law and the legal reality in their pinky toes than the "Court bashers" have in their entire bodies!

While the quote of Donofrio in this "Court bashing" episode is unquestionably accurate, the problem is that the American people have NOT been studying the law for at least the past 50 years, the foundation for which concepts started circa 1791. So, no, Ginsberg is not the one who is asleep here! The "Court bashers" are not only asleep, but also addicted to a fantasy world of make believe. They truly cannot handle the real world, and so they use the Supreme Court as a whipping boy rather than taking personal responsibility for studying into the reality, which they are distant from as not even to realize just how nuts their position is.

The "prostitute media" are that, but, this time, they've also got the right idea. Not only do the editors of the "prostitute media" know the legal reality sufficiently well enough not to touch this issue, but also they may also realize the danger that exists from making the deal out of this issue that is being made by the "independent" news sources.

There's got to be a reason that the "new world order" forces are cramming this "citizenship" issue down our throats, by running a candidate that doesn't satisfy the "constitutional" requirement. If that purpose is to divide the nation, then won't it be poetic irony that the "constitutionalists," i.e., those who are still blind to the reality, are the very catalyst of the demise of the nation?!

What this particular "Court basher" calls "a mockery of everything this country has stood for and what we will stand for in the future" is exactly the OPPOSITE of that. What we're seeing is the unswerving commitment to the law that applies to us today, in Amerika. If it takes this issue to get those of us who are called to understand the legal reality motivated to go back to the law library and do some soul-searching research, then, Ok, this may be both the issue and the timing. But, we'll never understand a word that the Supreme Court are teaching us until we come to terms with why the language of the Constitution hasn't meant "a damn thing" for as long as any of us have studied into the problems that exist at this level. There IS a reason for that, and the Supreme Court have taught us that reason, VERY diplomatically, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, ad nauseam, for more than 200 years, now. And, out of unsurpassed ignorance, the "Court bashers" turn right around and blame the Supreme Court, calling the following of the law the act of "treachery." That sounds VERY Nazi-communo-fascist to those of us at Legal Reality. ANYtime it's "sanctionable" or "treacherous" to follow the law, the advocates of such a position are actually God-hating, America-hating Nazi-communo-fascists. And, if they don't want to be that, maybe they would do better to invest that time in law research and finding the consistency in what the Supreme Court are teaching us rather than in their mindless "Court bashing."

Nothing governmental is as it appears to be. Nothing. Those who are animated by this "citizenship" issue SURELY are at the top of the list of those who realize this fact. So, why is that reality abandoned here? Because they think they know more than they really know. Because they actually believe as true the lies they've been told all their lives, and now that they are experiencing the first head-on train wreck that their lie-consumed perspectives are allowing them to wrestle with, among the thousands of such train wrecks that the Supreme Court have brought to our attention during the past 200+ years, they're angry that their lie-permeated world is not providing them the prevailing legal analysis. And, of course, the student's refusal to do his/her homework is the professor's fault!

So, all this time, "money," and energy invested in this "in our face" slam of the difference between the Law of the Land system and the Law of the Sea system is a total and complete waste of time. Now, it's NOT that, IF we'll come to terms with the duality of "choice of law" that we're facing, here. But, if all that one gets out of the study of this issue is anger, and there's no epiphany of understanding as to the reality that the Supreme Court are applying, THEN all of efforts will be nothing but a complete waste of time.

There is a mailing address in the "Court basher's" idiotic discussion, and if you use it to send something to the Supreme Court, be sure to include your heart-felt gratitude for their unswerving commitment to the legal reality, as well as your continuing prayers that they never feel inclined to vary from the path of legal reality in the slightest. We would have been shackled and owned by the British banksters a long time ago if it had not been for the Supreme Court's God-inspired wisdom to see many decades into the future of the plans made to destroy this nation. The Supreme Court have taught us everything we need to know in order to defend ourselves against that system that is so "in our face" with its slam against "constitutional" principles.

At the end of the day, those who "get it" realize that it doesn't make a hoot or a holler's bit of difference "who" the "president" is. And, it may very well be that this insane, lawless, anti-American, God-hating "Court bashing" will serve The Lord's purpose in awakening a few more minds to the difference between the Law of the Land system, which is evidenced by a currency that is an honest system of weights and measures, e.g., gold and silver Coin, and the Law of the Sea system, i.e., the "federal government" system, which is evidenced by the "funny money" scam.

With the "money" goes the default "choice of law."

Applying, in the context of the legal reality, the language regarding "qualifications" for the "office" of "president" for the "federal government" that presently exist, I will go on Record, again, saying that the trial court decisions in these obama-nation "citizenship" cases are correct. I can't tell you whether a "no standing" policy will be confirmed, or whether it will be supplemented with or replaced with a "political question" analysis. But, unless a very undisciplined analysis occurs in these cases, there'll be no judicial statement disqualifying the obama-nation for "office" in the "federal government" under Art. II. Art. II applies, if at all, to a Law of the Land system, which the "funny money"-based "federal government" system IS NOT.

And, when that result is announced, namely that the obama-nation is not disqualified, feel free to praise God Almighty that the law that applies to us today is not subject to whim or fancy of any jurist, especially those who serve us as Supreme Court Justices, who the "Court bashers" teach us to hate.

As a final note, the name of the Court is correctly stated in the address provided in the "Court basher's" idiotic piece. That is to say that if these "Court bashers" did any homework at all, they'd call the Court by its correct name at all times, namely the "Supreme Court of the United States." It is not the "United States Supreme Court," which name does appear a few places in the statutes, but not in 28 USC § 1. That's just to say that where the "Court bashers" can't even get the name right, what else do they have no clue about?!

May The Lord continue to guide, encourage, and bless the Supreme Court and all related staff members. May The Lord curse and judge the "Court bashers" until they repent of their "Court bashing" to the same audience to which they have spewed forth their venomous, America-hating idiocies.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe: [email protected]

The genesis of the above:

Subject: Treachery Inside The US Supreme Court Regarding Obama's Citizenship Case
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008

"Treachery Inside The US Supreme Court", an article by Devvy Kidd that may be found here:

NOTICE: Harmon L. Taylor and other presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related itemsBelligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel related
Legal RealityVideo
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.

Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2021
All Rights Reserved