Lex Gubernatio

or
The Law and Government
a dispute for
The Just Prerogatives of Citizens
containing
The reasons and causes of the most necessary and just active resistance
against the federal and state governments of the United States
and of the
Right of the citizens to defend themselves with arms against the usurpations of the federal and state
governments
of the United States
and of the
Right of the citizens to replace the said current governments;
in which their rights are asserted and defended against those who desire to enslave them with
unconstitutional, illegal, tyrannical or despotic forms of government.

In Fifty-Three Questions
by
Francis Marion
 Question I
Whether the Citizens are the basis of all government, state and federal.
The basis of all government is the citizenry.
There are three spheres of government: 1) individual; 2) state; and, 3) federal.
Individual government consists of those rights as set forth in the Constitution of the
United States and commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights and the freedom with
which to exercise those rights. Such rights and freedom are not subject to
amendment, modification, abridgment or repeal by any governmental authority, at
any level, regardless of what power or authority the individual representing that
government may claim to assert, President or no. They are rights - recognized as
belonging to each citizen, individually, granted by God, Himself, and not subject to
restriction or such alteration so as to make them of no effect, by any other person
or authority.
State government consists of the citizens of a particular geographic location
recognizing that there are common needs to be met within each state due to the
geographic nature of each particular state as well as the cultural differences within
and without those states. The authority of the state resides in the people of that
particular state. No people outside that state, no non-citizens, have the authority to
interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens within a state or to do so in such
manner as to make the rights and freedom of citizens of that state of no effect.
Similarly to the federal government, state government was instituted to perform
those duties and responsibilities which are common within the society, culture and
geographic boundaries of each particular state, but no further. The authority of the
state government resides in the citizens of that particular state.
Federal government consists of those delegated duties and responsibilities to be
carried out in the common cause of all citizens of every nation-state which,
otherwise, would require that those duties be performed on a state-by-state basis.
The authority of the federal government resides in all of the citizens of all of the
nation-states, combined.
None of the spheres of government has any authority over and above any of the
others, unless the citizens grant that authority through the delegation of powers to
establish and exercise such authority. The delegation of powers is not the ceding of
those powers. It is merely the appointment of certain persons to act on behalf of,
and in good stead of, those delegating the powers.

2 of 88
The problem with the Constitution of the United States is not that it does not
clearly set out the rights and freedom of the citizens. The problem is that it does
not sufficiently limit the government, whether state or federal, in exercising the
delegated powers on behalf of the citizens and preventing those governments from
usurping powers and authority they do not have. Nor does the Constitution set
forth the duties, sufficiently, of the states to intervene on behalf of the citizens of
each state to prevent such usurpations and the falling of the federal government
into a tyrannical form.
Question II
What the purpose was behind the forming of the federal government.
Originally, there were thirteen colonies acting independently and none inclined to
subject themselves to any authority outside their respective colonial boundaries.
Most especially this exercise of freedom was felt subsequent to the victory over
their British taskmasters in the First American Revolution; or commonly referred
to as the Revolutionary War. However, all sober and right minded colonists
recognized that without some form of unified government for the purpose of
representing the various colonies in a united front there would be difficulties posed
in international relations and commerce which would not be easily overcome or
even prevented.
For that reason, the new states attempted, through the Articles of Confederation, to
establish such a government. Keeping in mind that a strong, central government
had just been defeated in its attempts to subject them, the new nation-states were
loathe to establish another which they recognized would certainly, over time, grow
into a tyranny with just as vicious an aim of subjecting the citizens of the nation-
states, if not the nation-states themselves, as ever the crown had demonstrated.
To prevent such an occurrence, the nation-states established a federal government;
but they ensured through extremely tight controls that the federal government had
no ability to force itself upon the citizens or the nation-states or to expand under its
own authority, and therefore, enslave the citizens. Thus, the Articles of
Confederation failed because they were so restrictive that the federal government
was never able to function as a government should. It was constantly in debt,
unable to enforce the very laws it was tasked with enforcing, and unable to defend
the nation-states or their citizens.
That situation brought us the constitutional convention. It was the purpose of this
convention to explore, not to create, the concept of a constitution befitting the new
nation-states which would acknowledge the authority of the citizens to create the

3 of 88
federal government and to control it; but simultaneously, to provide this new
government with the inherent authority requisite in carrying out it's tasks and
duties. It is those tasks and duties that become the focus of the question. For if it is
argued that the federal government exists with the authority to subject the
sovereignty of the nation-states, and the rights and freedoms of the citizens to the
will and desire of the federal government, then there is no limitation on the
authority of the federal government - and it may do as it will, when it will, how it
will, and the citizens will have no say. Such a meaning is preposterous at the least,
and denies the authority and power of the citizens over their own governments -
both state and federal.
To answer the question of the purpose of the federal government, then, it must be
understood that each of the various new nation-states, being individually
sovereign, in essence each a sovereign country in its own right, authorized by their
citizens to form a federal government, intended to do so for the sole purpose of
empowering that federal government with the common tasks that, otherwise, each
of the sovereign states would be required to carry out individually. In order to
accomplish this purpose the federal government was created with limitations
imposed on its authority, and with the sovereignty of the nation-states co-equal to
that of the federal government.
This equality of sovereignty was established intentionally as a bulwark against
federal encroachment upon the reserved powers of the nation-states and their
citizens. It was, and remains, the responsibility of the nation-states to stand against
the federal government when that government exceeds its authority by the
insistence on the sovereignty of the nation-states to pass on the enactments of the
federal government in regard to the constitutional limitations imposed on the
delegated powers. Where any nation-state determines that any enactment of the
federal government violates those limitations it is the responsibility, no, the duty, of
such nation-states to prevent its enforcement.
So long as the enactments and pronouncements of the federal government remain
within the limitations imposed on that government by the Constitution then all
nation-states and their citizens are bound to respect the authority of the federal
government and comply with its dictates. However, upon any attempt to usurp any
authority or power which is neither granted in the Constitution nor necessary for
the proper conduct of the tasks appointed to the federal government, it becomes the
duty of the nation-states, under the authority of the citizens, to stand opposed to
such attempts.

4 of 88
 Question III
Whether having established the federal government, the citizens' act of
creating the United States created a country.
From the first constitutional convention to now, there have always been those
attempting to subject the rights and freedom of the citizens of the several states to a
centralized government with the power to control those citizens. They are, herein,
referred to as nationalistic elitists. It was vociferously argued at the constitutional
convention that a strong, central government be formed and that the sovereignty of
the nation-states (i.e., the power of the citizens to control the central government)
be made subject to the central government. Those attempts failed.
The failure to establish such a strong, central government may be seen and
demonstrated from the history of the process of the ratification of the Constitution.
By the time the State of Virginia began the argument for or against ratification,
several other states had already ratified the document. Only nine states were
required to establish a federal government under the Constitution which would
have subjected the states ratifying the same to its authority and caused them to be
foreign nations to any state which rejected the Constitution. There remained two
states that were considered to be waiting in the wings for Virginia's answer to the
ratification question, New York and Rhode Island. Neither of those two states were
considered to be willing to ratify the Constitution of their own accord.
Virginia, in ratifying the Constitution, put forth the argument that ratification was
approved only on certain and specific conditions - not the least of which was that
the central government not have any authority to subject the nation-states to laws
enacted by that government, if any nation-state chose not to obey such laws.
Additionally, the act ratifying the Constitution made clear that the power of
government resided in the citizens and that those citizens retained certain, specific
and inalienable rights which were not subject to government restriction or
intrusion.
Nowhere in the Constitution, or in any extant records, is there any authority to
create a nation of the nation-states acting in concert. Although it was specified that
the United States was a sovereign government, it was made perfectly clear that the
sovereignty of that government extended only so far as that sovereignty was
employed to enforce its constitutional tasks and duties, not to exercise any
sovereign authority of its own making over any citizen or any party nation-state or
to engage in any activities with other nations of its own accord and for its own
purposes outside of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

5 of 88
The United States is not a separate country and may act in a sovereign capacity
only so long as such acts are in conformity with the limitations imposed on that
government by the Constitution as directed by the delegating power – the citizens.
Question IV
Whether the power of the federal government is from the citizens.
A simple reading of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States sets forth
the basis of the authority and power of the federal government. “. . . of the people,
for the people and by the people . . .” It is the citizens, not the government, itself,
its agents, its departments or even the President of the United States or the federal
judiciary, who determine the authority and power of the federal government.
Even the federal legislature is limited in its authority to enact laws. That authority
is constitutionally recognized only in so far as such laws are within the bounds of
the limitations imposed on the federal government through the Constitution and
only in so far as those are necessary to the purpose of the tasks and duties imposed
on that government. Any other law is unconstitutional and is null, void and of no
effect and no citizen or nation-state is required to obey such laws and no state is
required to enforce them.
All government within the United States – local, state, and federal, derives its
powers from the citizens. Absent the delegation of power to the persons necessary
for performing the common tasks assigned to each of those levels of government,
there can be no legitimate claim to authority. Wherein, a power is not delegated, it
is retained by the individual citizen and is not subject to any governmental
authority.
Question V
Whether the federal government is from the citizens.
In delegating powers it is the authority of those doing the delegating, i.e., the
citizens, that determines the authority of those appointed to carry out the delegated
powers. It is the citizens who formed the federal government, through the
Constitution, and it is the citizens who retain authority over the federal
government.
Delegated authority does not carry with it the authority to autonomously increase
power without the consent of the those delegating the authority. Otherwise, to
delegate would be equal to ceding one's authority as well as one's rights and
freedom. Nowhere in the Constitution, or in the history of the nation-states, is there
a ceding of authority to the federal government to the extent of permitting that

6 of 88
government to interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens, except where
specifically and explicitly stated. All powers granted to the federal government are
so granted so as to permit that government to carry out its limited duties and
responsibilities and to act no further.
Question VI
Whether or not legislatures have the authority to engage in the formulation
and enactment of laws outside the authority of their delegated powers because
they seem to them as necessary or proper.
If one accepts that all powers delegated to government are so delegated by the
citizens and that those powers do not derive from the ether, then one must accept
that such power to delegate always rests with the citizens and does not transfer to
the government, regardless of the assertions of those claiming to “represent” the
citizens. It is not the issue of representation that is at question here – it is whether
such representation provides legislatures with the authority to enact laws outside
the scope of the limitations imposed on those legislatures.
In order to answer the question we must determine, first, under what authority any
legislative body, local, state or federal, enacts legislation. If it be that the creation
of a legislative body is sufficient authority for that body to create laws at will then
it must be admitted that the creating power has, in fact, ceded its authority to
delegate its powers. For to permit any legislative body to legislate at will, upon any
subject it deems “appropriate,” upon the false claim of “representing” those who
delegated the legislative power, is to commit suicide by government. No instance
in history can be demonstrated where those who once stood in the role of servant
who then took upon themselves the authority to allegedly act for the “good” of the
master have been willing to cease at the point where their delegated authority ends,
if no resistance is met.
Consider: the legislature, whether local, state or federal, is granted certain and
specific powers. Those powers being delegated from the citizens are to be used to
enhance and improve the operation of the government under which the legislature
operates. This requires that the legislature enact only those laws intended to further
the functioning of the respective government within the limitations imposed by the
delegating authority. Should any act of legislation go outside those limitations and
be permitted by the delegators then the legislature will, as is human nature,
continue to expand and encroach upon the reserved powers of the citizens. If left
unchecked, this expansion and encroachment will continue to the point of
eliminating the rights and freedom of the citizens and their authority and power to

7 of 88
control their governments solely for the accumulation of authority and power by
those so empowered.
Such was obviously not the outcome intended by the citizens in ratifying the
Constitution of the United States or empowering the various nation-state
governments or the myriad local governments which exist among the several
nation-states. To argue otherwise is to argue that citizens have ceded their rights
and freedom through the concept of suicide by government.
Further, representative government, as set forth in the Constitution of the United
States, does not provide for the elevating of the federal government over and above
either the nation-states or their citizens. It was never intended to be so and is not
permitted to be so, now, regardless of what any federal magistrate or nationalistic
elitist might insist. The Constitution set forth the limits of power controlling the
legislature and the matters they were charged to deal with under their delegated
authority. Nowhere in that great document is the legislature permitted, outside the
amendment process, to enlarge or, otherwise, expand the authority of the federal
government.
To make the answer to the question even more clear, let us define representative
government. There are those who claim that representative government constitutes
that form of government wherein the representatives “use their best judgment” to
vote on various issues “for” the citizens they represent, i.e., substituting the
judgment of the representatives for that of the citizens since the representatives are
in a position to know the details regarding the particular issues involved in any
particular matter.
There are those who oppose that concept of representative government declaring
that their representatives are in Washington, D.C., (or any other capitol – state or
otherwise) for the purpose of representing the determinations of their constituency
on each matter as the citizens have declared it to the representative. How would
the representative know what his citizens wanted him to do in any specific
circumstance? His judgment, of course, must be employed at some point or,
otherwise, he would be contacting his district on a moment to moment basis. Not
exactly the most expeditious means of governance ever devised. His judgment is
not to be substituted for that of his constituents, however, for his judgment is not
superior to theirs, regardless of how “in the know” he may be. It is his purpose to
represent their judgments in all matters of governance. He is to be their voice in
the vote, not his own. Where he is unable to determine the voice of his
constituency in any particular matter he is not to vote on that matter.

8 of 88
Where a particular issue runs counter to the desires of his constituents, a true
representative will take the time to determine the mind of his constituency. He will
take the time to ensure that his vote counts for what they want, not for his own
purposes.
It does not matter if the representative disagrees with his constituency. That is
wholly immaterial. He is not there for the purpose of agreeing with them in all
things. He is there to gather information and disseminate that information to his
constituents in order that they might make an informed determination on the matter
presented to them by him. He is then to take that determination and return to the
capitol and cast his vote in the manner which represents his constituents – not
himself.
Regrettably, our current government no longer represents its citizens. The
representatives and senators from the various nation-states are out for their own
selfish interests. They vote on matters on which they have no knowledge merely
because they have been so told to do by their Republicrat party leaders. They vote
in the affirmative on matters which they know their constituency has the opposite
desire. They vote for laws which will increase the tax burden on their constituents,
knowing their constituents are against such measures. They vote for laws which
increase their own wealth, power, prestige and authority.
Where is the representation in that manner of government? Who is it that such
“representatives” truly represent? They no longer represent the citizens of their
districts. They represent themselves and the federal government.
The current expansion of authority under which the federal government continues
to operate, promoted and falsely legalized by those pretending to serve their
constituency, is not only unconstitutional, it is rebellion against the reserved
authority of the citizens and the nation-states.
Question VII
Whether or not governmental authority, individual, department or agency is
authorized to act in such a manner so as to breach the rights and freedoms of
the citizens.
It must be questioned when a government authority individual, department or
agency, including the President of the United States or any governor of any nation-
state, engages in activities which interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens.
To do so is to further the usurpation of authority already accomplished by prior

9 of 88
presidents and by judiciaries and legislatures bent on destroying those very rights
and freedoms, i.e., nationalistic elitists.
The question must be raised as to why the legislature and the judiciary would fail
in their duty to protect the rights and freedom of citizens against any incursion by
the Executive. The only possible answer is that they seek to preserve their own
power, influence, authority and wealth and the means to maintain them.
The legislature could, if they so chose, prevent any such usurpations by the
Executive. But to do so would require that they forgo any emoluments they receive
through standing behind such actions by the Executive. This, they will not do. This
failure to stand for the rights and freedom of the citizens has been amply
demonstrated by the repeated misleading statements, manipulations and outright
lies promulgated by those in power for the sole purpose of retaining that power. As
proof of this claim, let it be shown on what grounds such an assertion is made.
Recently, these nation-states and their citizens have experienced an economic crisis
created, controlled and maintained by the nationalistic elitists who would place the
nation-states and their citizens in the position of slaves to the federal government.
Those people are the ones who made financial decisions which have cost millions
of jobs, destroyed once acclaimed major corporations and resulted in financial
slavery for decades to come for the citizens of the nation-states in order that they
repay the trillions of dollars the federal government illegally provided to “rescue”
their friends, compatriots and themselves from decisions made in malice and with
greed which resulted in such economic failure and threatened their own standard of
living.
At the expense of the rights and freedom of the citizens the federal government,,
with the nation-states failing to act to prevent them, throughout all three branches,
has worked steadily to enslave the citizens. They have done so in support of their
intention to subvert the American “ideal” as well as to protect their own power,
influence, authority and wealth and the means to maintain them.
The judiciary, also tasked with protecting the rights and freedom of citizens
through the enforcement of the Constitution and its limitations on government, has
wholly failed in its appointed tasks. Repeatedly, they unconstitutionally legislate
from the bench laws intended not to support those very rights and freedom of
citizens, but intended to limit the authority of those who have the ultimate right to
control the federal government. They have done so willfully and intentionally so as
to permit the federal government to usurp more and more power for which it
cannot cite any constitutional authority. Thus, they fail to prevent the continued

10 of 88
conspiracy by the nationalistic elitists to deprive the citizenry of their lawful
authority over the federal government.
There is no point in the Constitution, except during the exigencies of war, where
the federal government has any authority to deny the rights and freedom of any
citizen for the purpose of asserting the federal government's “superior” authority
and power. Each and every such act, whether of an individual employed by the
government or the President, himself, or any department or agency of the federal or
state government, constitutes an attack against the citizens of the nation-states.
Each such attack constitutes an act of war against the citizens for the purpose of
rendering the federal government supreme.
Question VIII
Whether it is the duty and responsibility of state governments to interpose
themselves between citizens and the federal government when the latter
exceeds its authority.
Having determined that all governmental authority comes from those who are
governed, it is no stretch of the imagination to accept that state, as well as federal
government, derives its authority and powers from the citizens of the particular
state and that all powers not specifically granted to the state are retained by the
citizens. There exists, therefore, a top down establishment of authority with the
citizens at the top, the state next in line and, finally, the federal government at the
bottom. At each level, the authority and power exercised becomes more and more
diffused and, yet, stands strongest at the top – where the rights and freedom of the
individual citizen stands supreme.
However, as it is established throughout human history that where government
exists it constantly attempts, on its own, to expand its authority over those who
establish and then accede to its governance, such is the case, here. The usurpation
of such authority and powers is a human failing that cannot be disposed of through
the niceties of society, promises of “proper” conduct or even, as demonstrated by
the existing government, through reliance on the actual wording of the
Constitution, itself. Without action to enforce the rights of citizens the Constitution
is meaningless.
So where do the states stand in relation to the citizen and the federal government?
The states are supposed to stand in opposition to the federal government when the
federal government attempts to invade the sovereignty of the state (i.e., the
citizens) or to directly impose on the rights and freedom of citizens. It is the
responsibility of the governor of each state, employing those resources available to

11 of 88
him, to prevent the federal government from imposing any such unconstitutional
authority on either the state, as a whole, or any citizen, as an individual. It is not a
determination the governor, nor any citizen, should either take or act on lightly. It
is an immense decision to determine to block an action of the federal government
in imposing its will on either a state or its citizens. Unless, of course, the act of the
federal government is clearly outside the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
Thus, the nation-states are the sole, constitutional land-based military power in the
United States. They are intended to have the ability to use militia to prevent the
usurpation and enforcement of usurped authority by the federal government, while
the federal government is restricted to fielding only a naval force without any
ground-force presence in the nation-states.
How is it, then, that the state has the authority to do so? In establishing the United
States, the several states were set forth as co-equal in their sovereignty to the
federal government. Neither had, or has, the authority to force its determinations
upon the other outside of its sphere of governance or outside the limitations
imposed on its powers by the citizens without complying with the processes set
forth in the Constitution. No single state, operating independently of all others,
may require the federal government to perform any duty not set forth in the
Constitution. Likewise, the federal government has no authority to enforce its own
dictates upon any state which does not agree to, or accept, such determinations
when it finds those determinations to be outside the limitations of authority set
forth in the Constitution. To require states to suborn their sovereignty to that of the
federal government is to cede the states' sovereignty to that of the federal
government, an action that was specifically denied to the federal government and
the nationalistic elitists advocating such a position when determining the wording
of what has become known as the “Supremacy Clause.”
Additionally, it is worthy of repeating, that where the Constitution of the United
States establishes the federal government that same document limits the authority
of the federal government to carry out its tasks and duties. These limitations
provide that no branch of the federal government may operate outside the
delegated authority and powers provided to it by the citizens through the
Constitution and any attempt to do so is null, void and of no effect.
To argue that the authority and power of the federal government is superior to that
of the states and the citizens is to argue that the citizens have enslaved themselves.
What drivel. To so argue is to make the Constitution, itself, of no effect.
The protection afforded to the citizens of the states against usurpations of reserved
powers by the federal government is the interposition of the state between the

12 of 88
citizens and the federal government. Any state which determines that any act of the
federal government is contrary to the Constitution has, by right of sovereign
authority, the responsibility and duty to refuse to permit that act to be enforced or
in any way carried out within the boundaries of that state.
The state has no alternative to so suppress the usurpations of the federal
government. For the states, like the federal government, obtain their authority and
power through the delegation of same from the citizens of each state. That
authority and those powers not delegated to the state are retained by the citizens.
Each state exercises such authority and power within its boundaries dependent
upon the laws enacted in that state which are specific to the territorial, cultural and
social requirements of the citizens, as approved by those citizens, not by the federal
government.
Since 1789 it has been the abject failure of the states to stand forth against the
usurpations of the federal government and to permit the “representatives” of the
citizens to continue to expand, by illegal legislation, the authority of the federal
government that has gotten us to the position we occupy today. Had the state
governments stood forth, and if they were to stand forth now, the federal
government would be forced to retreat into the proper sphere of its authority and
the citizens could take that action necessary to ensure that no government, federal,
state or local ever again placed us on the edge of the destruction of our rights and
freedom or the sovereignty of our nation-states.
Question IX.
Whether the President of the United States has the authority to act so as to
subject the citizens and states of this Union to tyranny such that he is in no
way from the people, but by mere approbation.
Presidents have, since George Washington, acted to ever increase the authority of
the federal government outside the limitations imposed on that government by the
Constitution of the United States. They cannot cite any authority other than their
own, self-proclaimed “mandates” for their actions, or their personal determinations
to “change” the government, even when faced with the popular opinions against
their actions voiced by the citizens.
Nowhere in the Constitution is such authority granted to the President of the
United States to involve the federal government in any issues wherein the federal
government has no authority expressly granted through that instrument. He can
neither dictate to, nor obtain the assistance of, the other two branches in

13 of 88
encroaching on the rights and freedom of the citizens of the sovereignty of the
nation-states.
If any President has the authority to act as he so chooses merely by voicing his
opinion that it is necessary that he act in any such situation so as to ignore the
limitations imposed on his conduct by the Constitution and if the legislature and
the judiciary fail to prevent his unauthorized usurpation of power, then the
President no longer represents the citizens since he has rejected the Constitution
and its limitations on his powers, as have the other two branches of the federal
government by failing to act to prevent the President's usurpation of power.
An example would be the Presidents' limitations imposed on the Second
Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. There is no authority for the
President, or any other branch, government person, agent or department, to limit
the rights and freedoms of the citizens as set forth in the Constitution.
Where the President invokes an unconstitutional authority to justify his actions
against the rights and freedom of citizens, such as a Presidential Proclamation or
finding, he no longer acts on behalf of the citizens and has gone outside his
delegated authority. In such cases, the citizens have no requirement upon them to
be obedient to his dictates or those of the federal government attempting to enforce
his proclamation or finding, as a whole, for he is no longer an elected official, but a
tyrant. The nation-states, on the other hand, do, in fact, have the requirement, the
duty, to protect their citizens from any recriminations or retribution by the federal
government for having declared the President to be operating unconstitutionally
and refusing to follow his dictates.
Question X.
Whether or not the nationalistic elitists, in advocating a strong, central
government do, by reason, evince that the federal government is not subject to
the limitations on its powers imposed by the citizens through the Constitution.
The nationalistic elitists argue that the Constitution is a “living document” which is
subject to individual interpretation. If such is the case, then it must be admitted that
all citizens, with varying interpretations, are just as correct in their individual
interpretations as any government official and, by right, have the authority to
enforce their individual interpretations upon anyone whom they may be able to
bring such force to bear.
Additionally, one must dispose of the amendment process by which the writers of
that great document, the nation-states who ratified it and the citizens who

14 of 88
supported that ratification were assured that no alterations were to be made absent
that process. To argue that the Constitution is a “living document” and not a
standard by which the federal and other governments are held accountable is to
argue exactly that the amendment process is meaningless and the Constitution is
dead.
These same people argue that the federal government has authority and power over
and above the citizens and the nation-states and that it has the right to enforce its
will on both. If such were the case, then the delegation of powers set forth in the
Constitution is of no effect since the “living document” interpretation negates the
authority of the citizens to control the federal government and obviates the basis of
government as coming from the citizens, based on whichever power or party
occupies the supreme positions of authority in the federal government from one
year to the next.
The structure of the constitutional form of government which was envisioned for
the United States was intended to be a top-down form with the citizens at the top,
the states next in order of authority and the federal government at the bottom.
Those who have perpetuated the sovereignty of the federal government over and
above the other two spheres of government have upended the intended structure.
In effect, those who argue that the federal government has the authority to act on
its own, without the consent of the citizens and in direct contradiction to their
rights and freedom, is to turn government upside down and elevate the federal
government to the status of slaveholder and the governed to the status of slave.
Question XI.
Whether the citizens cannot be capable of any power of government.
Those who advocate the “living document” doctrine are arguing, in other words,
that the citizens have no ability, no right, to control government. They further
advocate that governmental authority rests solely in the federal government, itself,
and in no other. By extension, they also argue that the governed surrendered their
rights and freedom when they instituted the federal government. In other words,
the nation-states which ratified the Constitution committed suicide by government
and no longer exist.
The Constitution, itself, exposes the lie. Therein, the citizens set forth that they
were, and are, in control and merely delegating their authority to persons elected,
appointed or hired to carry out the duties inherent in that authority and only in such
a manner as those duties were carried out in accordance with the limitations

15 of 88
imposed by the Constitution. The question as to whether the citizens are capable of
governing themselves is answered, therein, where the citizens assert that the
federal government exists solely on the authority of the citizens and has no
authority, in itself, to expand its dominion.
Claiming the federal government is authorized to enter into spheres of governance
wherein it has not been granted any constitutional authority is to argue that the
Constitution, itself, is no more. Any effort to so enlarge the authority of the federal
government is illegal. Any effort to enforce such an illegal act is an act of rebellion
against the duly constituted authority of the citizens. Any such illegal act is of no
force and effect and may, by right and by law, be resisted with force by any citizen.
The claim that the citizens surrendered their power to govern themselves or that
they are incapable of governing themselves is to argue in favor of elitism. It is to
argue that only those who can enforce their will upon others through the use of
force, economic or military, are the rightful authority in any government. Such an
argument is to argue in favor of tyranny and despotism, arguments which were
disposed of by the blood of the very citizens who authorized the formation of the
nation-state and federal governments.
Finally, to argue that the citizens have no capability to institute powers to govern
themselves in accordance with their wishes, and to limit the power of any federal
government they install, is to argue that the Constitution, itself, could not have
been established by the citizens. Yet, it was by the authority of those very citizens
that the federal government was established. Therefore, the argument fails and
demonstrates in its negative that the citizens, do, indeed have the capability to
exercise the power of government over and above any federal or nation-state
government that may exist. Further, the citizens have the inherent right to use that
force which is necessary to compel their governments, both federal and nation-
state, to remain within the bounds of the limitations imposed upon them by the
Constitution of the United States and their respective nation-state constitutions.
Question XII.
Whether or not the sovereignty of the federal government is so from the
citizens, that it remains in them, so as they may, in case of necessity, force the
compliance of the federal government with the Constitution and the
limitations on the government's powers and authority, if need be.
Understanding that the federal government owes its very existence to the citizens
of the several nation-states and that the power which established that government
remains with the citizens, it is incontrovertible that the citizens retain the power to

16 of 88
force the federal and nation-state governments to comply with the Constitution and
the limitations it imposes on those governments' authority and powers. To argue
otherwise would be to argue that the creature has authority and power over the
creator. Such has never been acceptable or even argued by any sane person.
The sovereignty of the federal government was established by the Constitution.
However, it was not the only sovereign power to exist within the geographic shores
and boundaries of this continent. For each of the several nation-states retained its
own sovereignty, co-equal with that of the federal government. It is specifically
because of that co-equality that neither nation-state nor federal government has any
authority to intervene, or otherwise interfere, with the sphere of governance of the
other sovereign power. The citizens, having established the federal government
through the Constitution, granted to that government the sovereignty to act as it
deemed appropriate, within the limits imposed by the Constitution, to carry out the
powers delegated to it by those very citizens. Any interference by the states would
have the same effect as the federal government interfering in any state's authority –
it would be void, null and of no effect. The federal government, in order to protect
itself in its tasks, duties and powers would, of necessity, be authorized to act in
whatever manner was required to ensure that its sphere of governance remained
intact.
Where the federal government acts outside that sphere of governance and
implements acts which are unauthorized by the limitations imposed upon it by the
Constitution on that government's delegated authority, the citizens, by right, have
the authority to contain the federal government, by force, if need be, within those
limitations. Should the federal government, regardless of who the personage may
be, including the President or any member of the legislature or judiciary, attempt to
resist the citizens, then that person is in rebellion against the duly constituted
authority of the citizens, who have the right to forcibly compel compliance.
Having successfully forced the government into compliance with the limitations
imposed through the Constitution, the citizens may, of right, rework the
Constitution as they deem fit and appropriate in order to prevent a renewed effort
to unlawfully expand the government.
Question XIII.
Whether or not the federal government has the authority to expand its own
sphere of governance without the consent of the citizens.
It is asserted by the nationalistic elitists, those of the “living document” doctrine,
that the citizens are represented in the federal government by the congress and that

17 of 88
body, in its representative capacity, is the voice of the citizenry. Therefore,
whatever the congress formulates as law is law from the citizens. Such could not
be further from the truth.
Wherein, a congress was established through the Constitution, that congress was
tasked, first and foremost, with the duty and responsibility to protect the rights and
freedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states. Everything else
was, and remains, secondary to that responsibility. The only true power, then,
vested in the Congress of the United States is to enact only such legislation as is
needed to provide the federal government with the means of conducting its
assigned tasks and duties under the delegated authority as set forth in the
Constitution. However, the authority of Congress to enact such laws is, in itself,
limited, in that the power of legislation goes no further than that necessary to effect
the delegated authority of the federal government. Anything more than that is not
only unconstitutional, it is null, void and of no effect.
The argument against such limitation is specious, at best. For such denies that the
duty of the Congress is to formulate and enact only those laws which are in
compliance with the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Any law, rule,
regulation, policy or procedure which does not comply with those limitations is no
law, rule, regulation, policy or procedure, at all, and no citizen is subject to such.
No one who argues against this point is able to effectually demonstrate any
authority of Congress to so legislate as to act outside the limitations imposed by
the Constitution.
Any attempt by the federal government, at whatever level, to enforce such
unconstitutional laws may be actively resisted by the citizens, up to and including
the use of deadly force, if need be. It is not only the right of the citizenry to resist,
it is their duty to resist. But, it is only the cowardly unwillingness of the nation-
state governments to act to contain the federal government and the capacity of the
citizens to endure such usurpations of authority and power which has permitted the
federal government to steal the authority and power that it has usurped.
Any argument to the contrary is to argue that the federal government exists unto
itself and that the citizens are servants of that government. Further, it is to argue
that the federal government is no longer subject to the Constitution.

18 of 88
 Question XIV.
Whether or not he is more principally a president who is a president by the
Electoral College, or he is a president by the free election and suffrages of the
citizens.
How is it that any candidate not receiving the majority of the popular vote can
become President of the United States when the citizens have stated their choice
through their vote? The Electoral College determines who will attain to the
presidency of the United States, not the citizens. How do these two bodies, the
citizens of the Union, as a whole, and the Electoral College, have the same ability
to choose a President of the United States? It was not intended, except in the case
of a tie of the popular vote, that the Electoral College would ever be employed for
the purpose of nullifying the popular vote. However, that is precisely how it is
employed in those instances where the candidate attaining the popular vote loses
the election. It is because the members of the Electoral College vote as they deem
fit for their Republicrat party, not as the citizens of their respective nation-states
have voted.
Some argue that there is no right to vote set forth in the Constitution. They argue
from ignorance. There is most certainly such a right as set forth, therein, or
Amendment XIX would be meaningless in its entirety. Although the amendment
specifically refers to the right of both sexes to vote, it infers that the right to vote
exists at both the state and federal levels. To state otherwise would be to negate the
right to vote and render the amendment totally meaningless. It is perfectly, simply
and straightly stated that there shall be no interference with the citizens' (male or
female) right to vote by either nation-state or federal governments
This right to vote includes the right to have that vote voiced by the Electoral
College. It is to negate the right to vote to argue that the Electoral College has the
power to elect, on its own determination, rejecting the voice of the citizens.
However, that device has been used repeatedly to defeat the will of the citizens in
electing the President of the United States. Those who question this assertion are
rightly and truly pointed to those elections wherein one candidate wins the popular
election only to be defeated through the Electoral College.
Any interpretation of the Constitution which asserts that the Electoral College is
authorized to vote other than in the manner the citizenry determines is to negate the
right to vote and to make the authority of the citizens over the federal government
of no effect.

19 of 88
 Question XV.
Whether or not property may lawfully be taken by any government through
the doctrine of Eminent Domain.
The right of private property and the enjoyment, as well as the use, thereof, is
fundamental to the proper operation of a free society and government. There is no
authority within the Constitution permitting government to take property from any
citizen without that citizen's consent, otherwise, the rights and freedom espoused
within the Constitution would be fraudulent. All property which the government is
to use, not own, is that which has been ceded by the states for the purposes of the
tasks and duties set forth in the Constitution to be performed by the federal
government.
To grant any government its own authority to take property through the doctrine of
Eminent Domain is to grant that government the authority to turn the Constitution
upside down and to steal, by threat, force or intimidation, from the citizens. It not
only sets the government over and above the citizens, it negates the limitations of
power imposed on the government by those citizens. It is precisely this mechanism
that has been repeatedly employed by the federal government in order to steal
property from individuals and nation-states to form what we know as the National
Park System. Where private ownership of property has excluded, or prevented, the
formation of such parks the federal government has employed the illegal assertion
of eminent domain to forcibly take the property for its own use. Nowhere in the
Constitution is such authority granted.
There are some who would argue that without this “right” government would be
stymied in its efforts to improve the infrastructure of the nation-states or to
“progress.” This is nothing more than a chimera intended to deflect one from the
true intent of the doctrine. It matters not whether the refusal of any citizen to sell
his property slows, diverts or even cancels a project attempted by government. To
grant the government the right to take any citizen's property is to grant the
government control over the citizens. An obviously illegal result in view of the
Constitution.

20 of 88
 Question XVI.
Whether or not all men are born free and whether all men are, by right,
permitted to claim protection under the Constitution of the United States as
are the citizens of the states.
All sane men agree that all people are born free. Their circumstances may not be
equal and, therefore, the ability to exercise their freedom may be limited, or even
nullified, but that does not negate their freedom. In order to live a life free of
interference by others it often requires that men shed their blood. It requires a
willingness to stand forth and loudly proclaim, “To here they shall come, and no
further.” Those who lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for their rights are,
usually, doomed to a life of slavery. More importantly, they are the ones who have
doomed their children and their children's, children's, children to lives of slavery
and hopelessness.
Thankfully, we were blessed by a generation of men and women who were
determined not to permit any government to so rule them as to enslave them, at any
level. They fought. They bled. They died. They did these things in order to ensure
that their descendants would be able to live freely. Those who are lawful citizens of
the nation-states are beneficiaries of the sacrifices of those who established the
United States, by virtue of their citizenship. It is true that they owe a debt to those
who have provided the freedom under which they live, but they, forebears and
current citizens, have no requirement on them to either permit or fund the freedom
of those who choose to enter into these nation-states illegally or refuse to provide
for their own freedom, in their home nations.
Upon establishing and ratifying the Constitution the citizens and nation-states
granted their ambassadors the authority to promulgate immigration processes and
controls within the limitations imposed, therein. These processes and controls
permit those who are not citizens to, over time, become citizens and to enjoy the
rights and freedom of citizens.
Until such time as immigrants actually become citizens only certain rights pertain
to them, not all rights. The most glaring example is that of the right to vote. For no
non-citizen enjoys the right to vote in local, state or federal processes. This is not
to say that such will never be the case once a lawful immigrant becomes a citizen,
of course.
Those who permit, advocate or otherwise provide for non-citizens to vote in any
capacity are providing a means whereby non-citizens are stealing from citizens.
This theft is promulgated through the requirement to provide medical care,

21 of 88
housing, unemployment benefits, social security benefits, retirement benefits, etc.
Any government official of local, state or federal government who authorizes,
permits, or otherwise assists such to take place is involved in the effective
destruction of the rights and freedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of the
nation-states. The actions, or lack, thereof, of such “officials” is not legal, nor is it
constitutional, and as such is of no force or effect and no citizen is required to
support the same, either with their tax dollars or their consent.
Question XVII.
Whether or not the citizens make a person their President conditionally, or
absolutely; and whether there is such a thing as a covenant tying the President
no less than the citizens.
The President of the United States is elected conditionally. His term of service is
conditioned on the basis that he comply with the Constitution and the limitations it
imposes on his authority and power. Should he fail to abide by those limitations he
is subject to impeachment and trial through the Congress and, if found guilty,
removal from office. This fact alone demonstrates that he does not have absolute
authority nor anything approaching ultimate authority. On the contrary, he is
subject to those limitations imposed by the citizens through the Constitution.
The citizenry looked to the Congress, through the doctrine of separation of powers,
for the specific purpose that each of the branches would ensure that neither of the
others would, or could, usurp any authority not expressly and specifically granted
to it. However, the Congress and the Judiciary have wholly and miserably failed in
their duty to protect the rights and freedom of citizens and the sovereignty of the
nation-states from the dictatorial excesses of the office of the President and the
men who have occupied that office.
A covenant is, in reality, a contract. It sets forth the transcendency of the instituting
party (the citizens), the hierarchy of the parties (the citizens over and above the
nation-state governments, which are over and above the federal government), the
ethical requirements of the parties (the Constitution and the limitations imposed,
therein), the oath both parties partake of (that if the President does what is
required, the citizens will provide for him and that he will protect and defend the
Constitution while performing his duties) and the sanctions which result (both
positive and negative) based on performance of the oath.
The Constitution established a covenant, or agreement, i.e., a contract, between the
citizens and the President that he would be, and would remain for his full term, the
President of the United States so long as he complied with the requirements of that

22 of 88
covenant. The question then becomes whether or not that same covenant ties the
citizens, as well.
It most certainly does. For those citizens, having delegated certain and specific
powers to the President, under contract, agree to perform certain duties, in return.
Those duties include but, are not limited to: obedience to constitutionally lawful
statutes; acknowledgment of the superiority of the Constitution in all matters
delegated to the federal authority; the responsibility to assist in the defense of any
nation-state attacked by a foreign power; and, the responsibility to obey the
Constitution in dealing with fellow citizens and persons authorized to be within the
boundaries of the United States.
Question XVIII.
Whether or not the federal government, at any level, has the authority to
interfere in the rights and freedom of the citizens.
To answer the above question it must be determined where the rights and freedom
demanded and defended by the citizens of the several nation-states emanates from.
If it be that those rights and that freedom are bestowed upon the governed by the
government, then there can be no argument by the governed that the government
encroaches upon rights and freedom it bestows. For it has, as the bestower of those
rights and that freedom its own, inherent right to modify, amend or even repeal any
one or all of those rights and that freedom. But in the case of this federal
government the question must be asked – which came first, the governed or the
government?
If, on the one hand, it is accepted and believed that the government came first then
it must also be accepted and believed that the government is the sole determiner of
rights and freedom. To that end, the federal government is empowered, under its
own authority, to do as it will not only with those rights and that freedom, but with
any citizen it chooses to murder, imprison, enslave or otherwise silence on any
topic at any time. To argue otherwise is to deny the government its own rights and
authority as the power from which emanates the rights and freedom of the citizens.
If, on the other hand, it is accepted and believed that it is those who determine to
be governed by a system they, themselves, created for the purpose and which they
specifically limited in order to prevent abuses of what authority is delegated, then
it must be accepted that the federal government has no authority, whatever, to tell
any citizen what that citizen's rights are and how to exercise his freedom. Any
attempt to interfere with those rights and that freedom constitutes rebellion against
the duly constituted sovereign authority of the citizens and each and every citizen

23 of 88
is, thus, empowered to not only deny such interference, but to refuse to comply
with any orders of the federal government by which it attempts such interference
and to use what force is necessary to halt the attempt, up to and including deadly
force, if need be.
Further, it is the duty and responsibility of the nation-states, individually, if it must
be, to stand against the federal government on any attempt to encroach upon the
rights and freedom of any citizen by that government. Should a nation-state so
stand forth against such attempts to erode the right to keep and bear arms by the
citizens, as example, then that nation-state has fulfilled its duty only when it
prevents any attempt to enforce the erosion of that right. It is required by law, by
the Constitution and by reason to stand alongside any citizen within its nation-state
who will resist federal encroachments upon the reserved powers. Such resistance
may be that of armed resistance and such armed resistance is the duty of all citizens
where the federal government refuses to restrict itself to the limitations imposed by
the Constitution and employ force to further its illegal and extra-constitutional
excesses.
Question XIX.
Whether or not a despotic and masterly dominion of men and things support
and agree with the President because he is President.
There is no argument from those who are willing to exercise their intelligence and
search for the clues that there is, in fact, a despotic and nationalistic elitist
conspiracy engaged in a campaign of treason, rebellion and subversion, in other
words, outright war, against the rights and freedom of all the citizens of the nation-
and the sovereignty of those same nation-states which comprise the United States.
These cabals have recently begun to publicly declare their purpose and accept
responsibility for the manipulations they have conjured in the past and will conjure
in the future in order to achieve their goals.
These men and women support and defend the President at all cost in all things, so
long as he toes their line. They do so because, the President is their front man. The
history of the presidency since Alexander Hamilton can be displayed as that of men
obviously beholden to those in power behind the presidency. Each president since
Hamilton has, historically, accomplished at least one major step toward a
totalitarian regime in the US, intentionally or unintentionally, through unintended
consequences or through furtherance of the conspiracy. Those who either changed
their minds or, after having been elected, refused to cooperate when they were
enlightened as to the true purpose of these nationalistic elitists were either

24 of 88
assassinated, removed from office or defeated for re-election through the use of
controlled media. No other explanation fits – no other explanation truly explains
the circumstances of the murders of those men and the defeats of the others.
It is not a conspiracy theory to state that there is a concerted one-world order
moving in the background of the federal government. This order is, for all intents
and purposes, in existence to interfere with the individual rights and freedom of the
citizens and infringe on the sovereignty of the nation-states in order to establish,
beyond any organized resistance, a nationalistic government so strong and so
controlling so as to exert that control from cradle to grave over every citizen.
Question XX.
Whether or not the President is, in effect, the Chief Executive of a public
concern and is, therefore, accountable to those in power above him, the
citizens.
There are many who claim that the President has an almost monarchical authority –
that he can, at his will, make determinations by fiat that he deems “appropriate” or
“necessary” for the “common good.” He does so by executing Presidential Orders,
Directives, or findings, wherein, he makes determinations that some act, movement
or right, is a threat to the US and, therefore, he is exercising his power to limit that
threat. He has no such power regarding the rights and freedom of citizens or the
sovereignty of the nation-states which compose this Union. He was never
delegated such authority or power in the Constitution and no such grant of
authority or power by the federal Congress or the upholding of any such grant by
the federal courts is constitutional or legal and, therefore, such grants, and the
exercising of those grants, are null, void and of no effect.
He is neither a monarch nor a dictator, unless he spurns the Constitution and,
therefore, no matter how “appropriate” or “necessary” for the “common good” he
deems any act he might otherwise attempt to foist on the citizens or the nation-
states, if it is not a power authorized by the Constitution it has no effect,
whatsoever, and there is no power within either the nation-states or federal
government with the legitimate power to enforce it.
It is worth noting that the framers of the Constitution chose the phrase “Executive”
branch in describing that part of the government to which the President is assigned.
He is an executive:
hired by the citizens, if the popular vote were to actually mean something, to
lead a large, corporate concern; reporting to those in authority above him;

25 of 88
operating within the bounds of the limitations they have imposed on him, through
the Constitution; unable, by his own authority, to impose his will on the true
authority due, specifically, to the fact that all power that he has by virtue of his
office is delegated to him by the true authority – the citizens;
hired by the greatest shareholder votes in the history of the world, if the
popular vote were to mean anything, to operate the most prestigious, the most
wealthy nation on earth. Not as a dictator, but representing the common will of the
citizens to the world; negotiating with friends and enemies alike to the best
interests of his constituency; striking against our common enemies as necessity
requires; and, ensuring that we, as a group, are kept safe in our lands;
hired by those who would hold him to his oath, freely taken, to uphold and
defend that very Constitution by which he is hired, to ensure that the remainder of
government holds the rights and freedom of the citizens and their authority over
the government to be supreme to any operation of government not specifically set
forth and delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
It is to his shame that he ventures outside the limitations imposed by the
Constitution. Where he does so he asserts a claim of being over and above the very
authority which placed him in his position. He asserts that he is greater than all
those who have banded together, if the popular vote means anything, to ensure his
placement in the most visible position of authority that the world has ever seen.
Not so visible because of the persons of the presidents that have, throughout
history, held that position. Not so visible because of the achievements of those
persons. But, so visible because of the representation of so many socially and
culturally diverse people who have come together, as citizens, to place him in that
position of authority and, thereby, concentrating their economic and military might
for the good of the whole when necessary and diversifying that might to the
greatest benefit of the individual, otherwise.
International recognition of the person of the President is not recognition of that
person's demonstrated ability to have been elected to the position, if the popular
vote means anything. It is recognition of the power of the citizens for it is in the
position, not the person, that the power of the President lies. It is this power,
wielded on behalf of the citizens, that, if properly wielded, ensures not only the re-
election of the person, but the historical recognition of that person.
Wherein, the person who is President asserts an authority outside that of which he
is constrained through the Constitution, he asserts that he has determined his own
election to the position of President and is not in any way answerable to the

26 of 88
citizenry. Imagine if a man elected to the presidency were to come out and publicly
state such utter nonsense to the world. He would not hold the position another
twenty-four hours.
Is it any wonder that any chief executive in the business world, unable to produce a
positive result during his tenure, when faced with re-election by his shareholders is
unable to secure the necessary number of votes to ensure he retains that seat? Why
would it be acceptable, then, to permit those holding the position of President to
retain the authority and power that goes with that position where they do not
uphold their oath or their responsibilities nor operate within the confines of the
limitations imposed by the true governing authority? No, they continually attempt
to usurp authority which is not theirs to wield. They continue to attempt to enslave
the very people who have given them the authority and power to ensure the rights
and freedom of those citizens, if the popular vote has any meaning.
It is the natural course of human events where a chief executive or any of those in
his cabinet or the various departments comprising the whole of the administration
refuse to perform in accordance with the dictates and responsibilities of their
positions of trust and duty that the true authority moves to eliminate them from
their positions. The citizens are permitted, by law and reason, to do so and to use
whatever force is necessary to accomplish the task. So it is with the federal
government. Having refused, repeatedly, to confine themselves to their rightful
place of servants of the common good for the entire citizenry, they, instead,
continue to rebel against the true authority. It is time to remove them, by force, if
need be.
Question XXI.
If the first duty and responsibility of the Legislative Branch is to protect and
defend the rights and freedom of the citizens.
The Legislative Branch consists of persons elected by majority vote from districts
within their own states. They are not beholden to the federal government for their
position, because their position is independent of the federal government. They are
employed to work within a branch of government directly and purposely made
independent of the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government.
They are, truly, ambassadors of the several nation-states comprising the Union and,
as such, owe their allegiance to those nation-states and the citizens, thereof.
That independence was intended to provide for the security of the citizens, not the
aggrandizement of those elected to the various offices of Representative or Senator.

27 of 88
That independence was, and is, intended to prevent the consolidation of voting
blocks to achieve that which otherwise would be unachievable in the legislature.
Representatives and Senators are from the citizenry of their respective nation-
states. Unlike the President and the Executive Branch, being responsible to the
whole of the citizenry of all of the nation-states of the Union, Representatives and
Senators are responsible to the citizens of their particular nation-state. They are
not in their position to achieve individual power, prestige, wealth or authority.
They are there, first and foremost, to ensure that the rights and freedom of the
citizens of their respective nation-states are not interfered with, or jeopardized by,
the actions of the federal government, current or proposed. They are to do so
through the exercise of their authority to vote, as granted by their respective
nation-states, within the assembly to which they were elected and on behalf of their
constituency.
If they fail to act accordingly the result is that the Constitution is destroyed, the
authority of the citizens made null and void and the Union, as it was envisioned, is
demolished. A heavy burden to bear, no doubt. Not one of those outcomes can be
asserted by any sane individual to be the intent of the framers of the Constitution or
the will of the citizens. The creation of the federal government was not a suicide or
enslavement pact.
To fail to act in accordance with their mandate as ambassadors to the Union from
their respective nation-states and to protect the rights and freedom of the citizens of
their nation-states and the districts from which they were elected, permits the
federal government to encroach upon those rights and that freedom as well as the
sovereignty of the nation-states. To permit such encroachment permits the
usurpation of the reserved authority of the citizens by the federal government and
for that government to exercise authority where no such authority was ever
granted. It causes the Constitution to become meaningless. The more individual
nation-states' ambassadors have failed to protect the rights and freedom of their
citizens and the sovereignty of their respective nation-states, the more meaningless
the Constitution has become.
Their failure to act constitutes aiding and abetting rebellion. For that, alone, each
of them should be removed from office. At the very least, if convicted of such
treason, they should each, individually, be imprisoned for a minimum of their
length of time in office.
Where they have acted to support the unconstitutional usurpation of unauthorized
authority and power, each ambassador should be arrested, tried and, if convicted,

28 of 88
deported from the lands of this Union. Where such treason has been determined to
have cost the life of any citizen of this Union, they should be executed.
Question XXII.
Whether or not the Legislative Branch is limited in the exercise of its
authority by the limitations imposed in the Constitution and whether this
Branch is duty bound to overwatch the other two Branches of the federal
government on behalf of the citizens of the states.
As has already been discussed, there can be no Constitution where those exercising
delegated authority and power determine the extent of their own power. It is,
therefore, plain on its face that the Constitution establishes limits for the
Legislative Branch as it does for the other two. To argue otherwise is to argue the
nullification of the Constitution in its entirety.
Some would argue that the legislature is free to do as it wills so long as what it
wills is properly voted and passed. It is a shame to see the waste of intellect that
called up this travesty. What if it wills to dissolve the Union and such a measure
were to pass through the legislature? Would that be constitutional? Or would such a
measure require a ratification process the likes of which is required any time there
is an effort to amend the Constitution? The legislature, in both its houses, is, in
fact, established with limitations on its authority as well as its power.
The legislature does not have the authority to replace the President at the will of
those bodies. There is a process established and laws which are required to be
followed for the removal of any sitting President, so long as the Constitution is
adhered to.
The legislature does not have the authority to enact legislation that has not passed
as required by the Constitution or is not within the limitations imposed by that
document. No law enacted by Congress is constitutional where that law exceeds
the limitations imposed on the federal government by the citizens through the
Constitution. To permit otherwise is to place the legislature, itself, in the position
of the dictator.
The legislature cannot turn legal acts illegal, by law, and impose penalties for that
which was not illegal before the new law was effected. There is a constitutional
ban on ex post facto legislation. And yet, we have such laws on our federal and
nation-state books. To whom do we turn to void such laws in a peaceful manner –
the federal judiciary?

29 of 88
If it is agreed that the above limitations exist, then it must also be agreed that there
are others. Suffice it to say that the legislature of the Union is limited in its
delegated authority and the powers granted to it and all others not so delegated, as
for the Executive Branch, are reserved for the nation-states and their citizens.
Should the legislature venture outside of its limitations, then whatever laws it
passes are null and void on their face as having no authority to be enacted into law.
Any President who signs such legislation is party to the corruption of the
Constitution and the usurpation of authority and powers not granted. Any member
of the judiciary who upholds such legislation is, likewise, a participant in the
rebellion against the duly constituted authority of the citizens. All who side with
such legislation, regardless of their position, status or declared political party, are
traitors to the purpose and intent of the Constitution to protect and defend the
rights and freedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states.
Question XXIII.
Whether or not judges are unequivocally and essentially judges, and the
immediate servants and protectors of the citizens, no less than the President,
or if they are only the deputies and servants of the President.
The Judicial Branch, also an independent branch of the federal government, was
intended to provide a final line of protection across which the usurpers daren't
cross. They, too, have their limitations as they are not intended to delve into
matters reserved for the nation-states to decide for themselves; to involve the
federal government in issues wherein that government has no authority; to legislate
from the bench; to decide cases on foreign law; or, to provide unjust, illegal or
unconstitutional support to those usurping, or attempting to usurp, any of the
reserved powers.
These judges were supposed to prevent the abuses of the federal government and
the natural tendency of all governments to “grow themselves” farther and farther
into the reserved authority and powers. To permit such is to nullify the authority of
the citizens and to make the Constitution of no effect. If the courts were to fulfill
their duties then the egregious transgressions of the federal government would
have been prevented long ago and the current government would not be in a
position to enslave the citizens and destroy the sovereignty of the nation-states.
Unfortunately for the “free” citizens of the US, such is most definitely not the case
when it comes to the federal courts. These courts, from the district courts, through
the courts of appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, have engaged in a
wholesale slaughter of the Constitution and devastated the rights and freedom of

30 of 88
the citizens as well as invaded the sovereignty of the nation-states through their
decisions undermining the intent, as well as defying the plain wording, of the
Constitution and providing false legal justifications for the usurpation of authority
and power by all three branches.
These courts have determined “rights” where none exist; denied rights plainly set
forth in the Constitution; required citizens to pay, through unjust and illegal
taxation, for the support of illegal aliens; permitted interference in the established
rights and freedom of the citizens; permitted the invasion of the sovereignty of the
nation-states by the federal government; failed to prevent the other two branches
from eroding the rights and freedom of the citizens; illegally and unconstitutionally
legislated from the bench to enforce the personal beliefs of the judges, to promote
the desires of special interests and to attain their personal goals in regard to
society; and, used foreign law to justify the destruction of the rights and freedom of
the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states of this Union.
It may be ignorantly argued by some that the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of
25Sep1789 granted the federal courts the authority to involve themselves and, thus,
the federal government, in any question before any of the courts of the nation-
states. To that foolishness there is only one response and it is one that has been
stated before and bears repeating – often and regularly. Where any law is properly
passed, in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, that law is
effective only so far as it conforms to the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
Any law which goes outside those limitations is null, void and of no effect and
there is no legitimate authority which has the right to enforce obedience to such a
law. Therefore, any citizen who chooses to disobey such a law is legally, morally
and ethically permitted to do so and is just as legally, morally and ethically
justified in resisting any attempt to force compliance with that unconstitutional law
as any pretender to authority who attempts to enforce it.
All of this, and more, have the federal courts done to support the efforts of the
federal government to expand beyond its allotted powers. At each step of the way
toward despotism, the federal courts have turned themselves inside out to discover
new and unique interpretations and applications of existing law to support those
who would destroy the foundations of the Union. They impose their dictates upon
the citizenry through threats, force and intimidation by alleged law enforcement
agencies which are nothing more than military forces deployed among us in the
guise of “protecting” us since they have stolen our right to protect ourselves and
forced us to rely on their “merciful” protection – which the same courts have ruled
they are not required to provide. The mental gymnastics through which the federal

31 of 88
magistrates force themselves in order to justify their decisions is ludicrous in one
respect and heartbreaking in the other. For they do no more than make fools of
themselves before men – they deny justice before God.
The federal courts cannot be turned to in order to reverse the course of this
government in its relentless roll toward enslaving the citizens of the nation-states,
diminishing the wealth of all of those citizens through fascist-communist-socialist-
nationalist agendas and creating their one world order. There can be no appeal to
those courts, because those courts are now part of the very system which seeks to
accomplish those heinous goals.
Question XXIV.
What power the people have over the state and federal governments.
All authority to govern derives from those who are governed. That this authority is
partially delegated to a few as over and against thousands and millions is no
dilution of that authority. It is merely an economy of management. A means of
easing the requirements placed on government. It is nothing more than that. It is
also nothing less than that.
It is the citizens who established the original thirteen colonies. Yes, at the time they
were citizens of England. True enough. However, due specifically to the abuse of
authority by the British crown and parliament, those English citizens living in the
colonies chose, after repeatedly being rebuffed in their efforts to peaceably resolve
the problems between them and Crown, to take up arms. Why? What was the
point? To create another nation? Not at all. They took up arms to re-establish their
authority over their own lives and property.
Is it any wonder that after having defeated the British in the First American
Revolution that the citizens of the, then, new nation-states of the new world, chose
to not create a newly combined nation, but to create a confederation of independent
and sovereign nation-states with a general government which had no real authority
to enforce the laws and necessary rules with which, and under which, it was to
operate? The scent and fear of a strong central government was still rife in the
nostrils of the citizens of the nation-states and they would have no such
government over them to tell them what they would, or would not, do or how they
would, or would not, dispose of their own wealth and property or how much of
their wealth would be stolen from them in the guise of taxes to support the agenda
of a nationalistic elite.

32 of 88
The establishment of the Articles of Confederation formally recognized the
existence of thirteen independent, sovereign nations. These nations banded
together to establish a central government for the purpose of conducting common
tasks between the new nations and other nations. Who retained the authority
behind the Articles? The individual citizens, through their respective nation-states.
They elected their state legislators. They elected their state executives. They
signaled their support or lack, thereof, for new legislation through the use of the
vote. They determined who would remain in office or who would leave through the
exercise of their own sovereign power – the vote.
It is interesting to note that the citizens of these nation-states did not give up their
rights and freedom to the new confederate government. They insisted on, and did,
retain those rights and that freedom.
In ratifying the Constitution, it is claimed by some, the nation-states subordinated
themselves to the new federal government. Nothing is further from the truth or
such a vicious lie. The authority and powers granted to the federal government are
referred to as those “delegated” to the federal government. Those not so delegated
are referred to as “reserved” authority and powers. The two are never to cross. To
permit such to happen is to permit the Constitution to be scrapped.
The reserved authority powers are reserved to the nation-states and their citizens.
Those reserved authority and powers not specifically reserved to the nation-states
are reserved to the citizens, themselves. If it is argued that the nation-states are
supreme over the citizens of each, thereof, then one must ask that if such is the
case, wherein do any of the nation-states vote in any manner on internal nation-
state issues as states? They do not, because they have no authority to do so. All
voting is done by the citizens of the respective nation-states. Therefore, it must be
conceded, the final authority and power rests with the citizens of the respective
nation-states, not with the nation-states, themselves. Especially since the nation-
state governments, themselves, were created by the citizens and are, in turn,
delegated certain authority and powers which are not given to the federal
government and those remaining are retained by the citizens.
At no point is either any nation-state or the federal government empowered to
invade the sphere of individual government to impose their will on the citizen in
violation of the rights and freedom of citizens. To assert the authority and exercise
the power of forcing a citizen to comply with the dictates of either nation-state or
federal government is to declare a state of rebellion between government and the
governed. Such is now the state of our society. And because it is so, each citizen is

33 of 88
entitled, by right and by justice, to so arm himself as to repel any compulsory
obedience or support to the rebels.
Question XXV.
Whether the power of the President, as President, is absolute or dependent
and limited by the Constitution.
As the Chief Executive of the federal government the President is granted certain
powers and it is recognized that he must be given some leeway and flexibility to
perform his duties. The flexibility referred to, here, is not that of breaking any
existing laws or violating any provisions of the Constitution, but it is a recognition
that where there is no clear instruction on which he can rely then he must be given
some latitude in his decisions and his actions in so far as they comply with existing
law and the limitations of the Constitution. The Constitution does not set forth the
everyday details of the operations of the federal government. It does, however, set
out the boundaries, or limitations, within which that government may operate
without question from others, including the nation-states and citizens.
As examples of those limitations let us consider the following. The President has
no authority to independently declare war. Such declarations are reserved to the
Congress. However, this restriction on the authority of the President does not
preclude him from acting in a preventative manner in order to interdict any
demonstrable scheme to attack the US, its territories, possessions or interests. He
does not have to wait to see the bomb dropped in order to have the bomber shot
down.
He is not permitted to secretly try political foes and have them, upon conviction,
executed for his own purposes. To do so violates the limitations imposed by the
Constitution which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It also undermines the
very foundations of the freedom which citizens enjoy.
So long as the President acts within the limitations imposed upon him by the
Constitution and the laws attendant, thereto, he is free to operate the federal
government in the manner he sees most fit in order to accomplish the tasks before
him.
Question XXVI.
Whether the President has any constitutional prerogative, or any power, to
dispense with laws.
Wherein, a single person is able to determine the lives of others through the use of
force or the threat, thereof, and so order those around him so as to control their

34 of 88
lives through his day-to-day dictates regarding their rights and freedom, if any, that
person is a tyrant. Where a President, outside the limitations imposed by the
Constitution, exceeds the intent of the Constitution or the declarations of
restrictions on his authority and exercises a power he does not have, whereby, he
interferes with, reduces, dilutes, or otherwise limits, the rights and freedom of the
citizens, he is a tyrant.
For there is no prerogative given, within the Constitution, to the President of the
United States that he has use of any means he can employ to circumvent the
limitations and restrictions imposed on him and the remainder of the federal
government. The limitations imposed cannot be breached no matter how
imaginative, no matter how creative the tactics employed to achieve the end
desired. If that end is a violation of the Constitution and its principles or the rights
and freedom of citizens or the sovereignty of the nation-states – it is not permitted.
Let us now deal with the issue of circumvention. To “circumvent” the limitations
imposed on the authority and power of the President is to engage in a conspiracy to
deprive the ultimate authority of the Union, the citizens, of their rightful place as
the true sovereigns. Therefore, each and every attempt by the President, himself, or
of his minions, wherein, they seek to expand the delegated powers of the federal
government; injure, impair or destroy the rights and freedom of citizens; or invade
the sovereignty of the states, the federal government, individually and corporately,
is guilty of treason.
Each and every attempt, act or lack of action in attempting, or failing to prevent
such an attempt, to circumvent or, otherwise, nullify any law which restricts the
conduct of any of the branches of the federal government is an act of rebellion and
ought, by reason, by right, and by law subject him to the most severe sanctions
possible.
Question XXVII.
What power the President has in relation to the law and the people, and how a
President and a tyrant differ.
The President, as any other citizen, is subject to the law. As such, he is not given
the authority, as President, to subvert or reject the operation of law on his duties.
He cannot, by law, impose his personal beliefs on the citizens. He cannot, by law,
imprison anyone without just cause. He cannot, by law, declare martial law simply
because he so chooses. There are limitations imposed on his actions as President.

35 of 88
These limitations are not, in and of themselves, restricted solely to the public duties
of the President. For example, just because the President may be barred from
requiring that the citizens comply with his personal determinations regarding
healthy eating habits does not mean that the President can secretly sign a
presidential order or finding requiring such compliance. He is barred from issuing
such dictates and the means by which he issues them is immaterial. It is the result
that matters. To permit the secret issuance of dictates defeats the ban against them.
The rights of citizens are established in the first ten amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. It is worthy of note that the writers of these
amendments acknowledged from where the authority for these rights stemmed and
that no mere man had the power or authority to either limit these rights or to repeal
them.
The Bill of Rights contains the following amendments to the Constitution of the
United States:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Let us break down this amendment into its several, constituent parts.

1. Congress shall make no law

This is the beginning of a short list. It is a list of negatives to the Congress wholly limiting their
authority in these matters. It is a list of items on which the Congress is definitively ordered to not
trespass. There is no ambiguity. There is no question. There is no alternative given. “Congress
shall make no law. . . “ Such a statement, such a demand, such an order by the citizens to their
representatives leaves no room for error. Such will not be tolerated, excused nor accepted.

2. respecting an establishment of religion,

Religious persecution suffered at the hands of state religions declared by tyrants throughout
Europe were the basis for this prohibition. Such persecutions had not been forgotten. Indeed, the
continued attempts by the Crown to require the establishment within the colonies of certain
religions as being state religions supported through taxation of the colonists within those
respective colonies was anathema to the freedom loving colonists. In order to prevent that from

36 of 88
happening on our shores, this section of the First Amendment declares it a right of the people
that no state religion shall be declared by our Congress.

It must be noted, however, that this proscription is directed at the federal Congress, not any
nation-state congress and therefore, does not apply to the nation-states, directly. However, it
does apply to the nation-states on the basis that each nation-state, in joining the Union has
declared the Constitution to be the superior document delineating the operations of the federal
government and, therefore, no single nation-state may assert any religion to be that of the Union,
in its entirety. It is, after all, a common authority document for all of the nation-states combined
and, therefore, sets forth the common rights of all citizens within the Union. It also presupposes
that should Congress make any such declaration, then, Congress is, obliquely, declaring the
federal government to no longer be co-equal in sovereignty with the nation-states but, superior
to the extent that it has the authority to declare a “national” religion.

Those who argue that no nation-state has the authority to declare a nation-state religion are
arguing for the supremacy of the federal government over and above, as well as opposed to, the
co-equal sovereignty of the nation-states and the federal government. This argument does away
with the Constitution as a farce as it attempts to impose the limitations directed at the federal
government by the true authority, the citizens, on the sovereign nation-states comprising the
United States. This is not what the Constitution was intended to do and it is not acceptable to so
force the construction of this portion of the amendment as to make it wholly unrecognizable for
what it is.

The states, through their citizens, may, if they so choose, individually establish a nation-state
religion. However, due specifically to the limitations imposed by the Constitution and the co-
equal sovereignty of the states and the federal government, no one nation-state may impose that
nation-state's religion on any other state. Further, no nation-state may so establish a nation-state
so as to interfere with or nullify any of the rights or freedom of its citizens.

3. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Here is the proof, if any be required, necessary to refute those who argue that the nation-states
cannot establish a religion within the confines of their own nation. The federal Congress is
prohibited from establishing any religion as a “national” religion. This prohibition is countered
with an inability of the same Congress from passing laws, or interfering in any manner by,
prohibiting the “free exercise thereof;” a prohibition not directed at any of the nation-states.

4. or abridging the freedom of speech,

The right to speak freely, without fear of reprisal for the words spoken, is a basic right. No one,
regardless of their position or status, has the authority to prevent any citizen from freely

37 of 88
expressing his ideas – no matter how abhorrent they may be. However, this proscription, too, is
directed solely at the federal Congress and no other legislative body.

The federal government has no authority, whatsoever, to intervene, as a matter of law, with the
right of citizens to speak freely on any given topic. This limitation, although expressed toward
the Congress, is operative to all branches of the federal government since all branches of that
government operate under laws created by Congress.

The nationalistic elitists assert that the right to freedom of speech is limited by law. I say it is
limited only by the temerity of the citizen-speaker. The most prolific example given as to the
limitations allegedly imposed by law on the right of freedom of speech is that one cannot enter a
crowded theater and shout “fire” when there is no fire. On the contrary, one most certainly can -
as a free man. However, it is to those who would impose false limitations on freedom that this
correction is most directed toward.

The right of free speech does not end with the right to speak whatever words one wishes to utter
under whatever circumstances one wishes to utter them. For along with the right to freely speak
as one desires is the responsibility attendant to that right. That responsibility is to face the
consequences of one's free speech. Therefore, if one does enter a crowded theater and shout
“fire” when there is no fire and anyone is injured in the following melee, it becomes the
responsibility of the free man who shouted the false alarm to face the consequences of his actions
– even unto death if so determined by a jury of his peers.

No sane person will assert, and it is not be asserted here, that any rights of a free citizen within
the United States come without consequences.

5. or of the press,

The framers of the Constitution were aware of the danger of a government controlled press. We
face that same danger today in those who are attempting to control the press through false and
malicious allegations directed at those in the press who are succeeding in their efforts as over and
against those who are failing. In their failure the losers seek to limit the success of the winners
through legislation directed at controlling the press whether it is print, television or radio.

They are, here, referred to as “losers,” because they are losing in the business arena as well as the
arena of ideas. For they, and they alone, have made business decisions that have turned out to be
bad decisions and which have resulted in their being unable to continue to compete against those
who have made good decisions. The bad decisions have resulted in newspapers that are going
bankrupt, because more and more people distrust the newspapers' objectivity – for demonstrably
good reasons. Those same decisions have resulted in miserable ratings for radio shows intended
to focus on certain and specific political and social issues. In frustration, these losers have turned

38 of 88
to the Congress to attempt to control their competition. Regrettably, there are members of
Congress willing to throw the Constitution out the window in order to further advance their
personal agendas in the guise of “helping” the “less fortunate.”

From the beginning of this Union it was recognized that the object of a free press was to report
on government and inform the citizenry of the operations of that government. For the federal
government to enact legislation which would “abridge” the freedom of the press would be to
muzzle the very instrument that the citizens counted on for such information. It was the “job,” if
you will, of the press to keep government officials on their toes and the people aware of all of the
goings on in which those officials were involved. To permit the government to interfere with the
operation of a free press would be to permit the government to control what the citizenry is told
regarding the operation of the government. Most of the framers knew such to be so far outside
the realm of freedom that they refused to permit any such action by government.

6. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

It is a blight upon the historical portrait of the United States that ever there was any time or place
which resulted in the attack by authorities upon the peaceful assemblage of citizens. Although it
has happened in times past, and may, under the worsening conditions of liberty we now see,
happen again, it remains the right of the people to gather wherever they choose so long as such
gathering is peaceful. No matter who may disapprove of this right, no matter who may be
inconvenienced by the exercise of the right, no matter who may dislike the exercise, thereof,
Congress has absolutely no authority to control the right. Ergo, neither do either of the other two
branches. These rights, expressed in these amendments, do not come from the government.
Therefore, the government has no control over them.

7. and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Citizens have the right, and the responsibility, to seek from the government changes affecting
them. This was not only intended on a personal level, although on a personal level it was
something unheard of in government before this. It was also intended on a societal and cultural
level that the government would be amenable to petitions intended to seek to change the course
of government in order to reduce the burden some activity of that government might be placing
on a particular person, group, or portion of our society, as a whole.

This particular right is so very important, yet, it has gone so unnoticed for so very long. Here is
the beginning of changing the government. This is where it starts. The very first thing any
citizen, or group of citizens, is required to do as free citizens is to give notice. To give the other
side a fair and equal opportunity to know what is the alleged wrong they have committed. What
is the proposed solution to the wrong. Let them be warned here. Let them have some time to
understand and to correct the error of their ways.

39 of 88
The citizens of this Union believe in fairness, truth and justice. It is neither right nor just to move
to change a government without giving fair warning of the grievances, perceived or real, that
might result in either the dissolution or modification of an existing government. This portion of
the first amendment sets down the beginning of the process for change. In order to be both fair,
true and just, one must give notice.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment has, in this day and age, given so much grief to so many people that it is
impossible to fully comment upon it or there would not be enough time or space, herein, to deal
with all of the other issues. A short disquisition shall have to suffice.

First, and foremost, is the issue of the purpose of the amendment. There are those who argue that
the amendment was intended to deal with the arming of local militias, not every private citizen,
and a requirement on those who manned such militias to, therefore, keep arms sufficient for the
purpose. There are those who argue that this amendment is no longer necessary since, with the
advent of modern arms and a highly trained standing military and para-military law enforcement,
there is no need for citizens to be armed. Both arguments are intended to disarm the citizens to
further the evil intentions of the nationalistic elitists pushing these lies.

The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the citizens were able to stand against
the government, if the need arose. Note the wording:

1. A well regulated militia,

What “well regulated militia” is referenced, here? Local? State? Federal? At the time, the vast
majority of military forces of the new United States were comprised of militias, not professional
forces. Each sovereign state, considered an independent nation among other independent nations,
maintained a militia for the purpose of defending its own freedom and aiding the other states in
the defense of their own, if need be. In order to be eligible to participate as a member of a militia,
it was required that an individual possess all of the needed accouterments of war, including arms,
as the nation-state was in no position to provide them, anyway, and such a burden would be lifted
from the nation-state if the requirement were placed on the individual.

Additionally, these state militias were military forces of the sovereign nations, not of the federal
government. Such acknowledgment further removes the power of the federal government to
regulate this right. For it is the citizens, in the form of the nation-states, which provided those
forces necessary to the establishment of the Union. The ultimate authority on these shores. The

40 of 88
citizens. The federal government has no authority to tamper with, amend, modify or nullify any
right of the supreme authority in this Union – the citizens.

2. being necessary to the security of a free state,

Why would it be necessary to the security of a free nation-state to maintain a militia comprised
of personally armed citizens? Who would the nation-state be defending its freedom against that it
would need to ensure that its citizens retained the right to be armed? Indians? They were no
strategic threat, as history has demonstrated. The Indian nations of the eastern region of the new
United States, subsequent to the First American Revolution, were neither in any condition to
fight against the new nation-states of the Union nor any match for the military forces of those
nation-states. Those forces had just spent several years mastering combined warfare, including
that of Indian tactics. With the addition of cannon and rifles, the American military was no longer
a simple foe. The Indians were no security threat.

Was it the other nation-states? Could be. Yet, consider, that the other nation-states were in the
same condition as all of their brothers. They were financially destroyed by the cost of the war
and the subsequent war taxes as well as the destruction of their personal property and the loss of
crops and goods. They were focused on recovery from the devastation of war. The other nation-
states were no threat.

What of the foreign nations still present on the continent? The British and French had been
fighting against each other prior to the opening of the First American Revolution. The French
saw, in the American effort, an opportunity to reduce the British sea monopoly by forcing the
British to defend the Atlantic and Florida Gulf coasts against efforts by the French and Spanish
to assist the American colonists. The war effort of both the French and Spanish was equally
costly to those nations and after the war was won, both put their efforts into recovering from
those expenses. They were no threat to the new nations-states as the French and Spanish saw no
threat from the new nation-states, either. In other words, the French and Spanish could not have
cared less what the Americans did or did not do – they were no threat to French or Spanish
interests. Therefore, the French and Spanish were no threat to the Americans.

That only leaves one possible threat recognized by the framers. The federal government. The
framers knew, and understood, that it is the nature of governments everywhere to attempt to
expand their powers over and against the sovereignty, rights and freedom of the governed. In
many cases, such governments succeed in unlawfully usurping authority. Only in a few, rare
cases is the government held at bay by the ability of the citizens to resist the usurpations and
tyranny of a runaway government.

In order to ensure that government, both state and federal, could not and would not be able to
reduce, amend or otherwise interfere with the rights and freedom of the citizens, this amendment
was passed to acknowledge the right of the citizens to remain armed in order to use armed

41 of 88
resistance against the encroachments of the federal government on their individual rights and
freedom, if need be. It is our own governments, both state and federal, which are the target of the
second amendment.

3. the right of the people

The right to keep and bear arms is not a suggestion. It is not a permission granted by the
government. It is not a privilege granted by the government. It is a right of the people not
dependent upon the leave of government, local, state or federal. A right not to be meddled with
by any. No individual, no body of government has the lawful power or authority to take away
individual rights absent that individual being legally incarcerated for an offense against society.
And then, the loss of rights is limited only to the time that individual is incarcerated or under
some other form of judicial punishment.

Note, it is a right. It is not subject to the vagaries of which party is in power. It is not subject to
the dictates of a President who does not agree with the right. It is not subject to interference by
the courts. It is a right held by all citizens – the people.

Note, it is a right of the people. Not a right conferred by government. Not a right conferred by the
courts. Not a right subject to any modification or tampering. If it is accepted that a right is
subject to control or modification by any outside source or other person then it is not a right – it
becomes a privilege. Such an interpretation is wholly contrary to the plain wording used, herein.

4. to keep and bear arms,

The right spoken of here is the right to keep and bear arms. To keep, in other words, to maintain
in one's possession. The arms written of, here, are personal possessions. They are not provided
by either the nation-state or the federal governments. They are property, legally obtained by
citizens through the honest efforts of their own labor.

Citizens may bear these arms wherever and whenever they choose. The right to do so is not
subject to the personal dictates of judges, congressmen, governmental executives or even other
citizens. No law which attempts to restrict this right is law. It is contrary to this amendment and,
therefore, unconstitutional to permit any such restriction.

Each and every effort or attempt by any governmental authority to reduce, modify, amend, or
otherwise nullify this right is rebellion against the true authority of the Union – the citizens.

5. shall not be infringed.

42 of 88
Not that it may be infringed if the President thinks that it might be “best” for the common good.
Not that it might be infringed if the legislature is no longer enamored with the idea of this right.
Not that it can be infringed if some small, raucous group of citizens who are simply interested in
controlling the lives of others thinks it might be a good idea. This final phrase is mandatorily
worded. It shall not be infringed. There is no room for maneuver, here. No matter the honest
belief of any promoter of a counter to this right. No matter the disagreement with this right. No
matter any law passed by any government within the Union, or proclamation by any President, or
decision to the contrary by any court - this right shall not be infringed.

This leaves us with two more points to be made regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

First, this right extends only to personal arms. It is no defense of this right to claim the false right
to arm oneself with anything other than personal arms. For such would belie the second point to
be made, herein, that each citizen is responsible for the use of any weapon he keeps and bears
and the consequences of such use.

Second, the right to keep and bear arms carries with it the concomitant responsibility to be
accountable for the use of those arms. It is no remedy to the abuse of arms to hold an entire city,
such as Washington, D.C., hostage to the threat of criminal activity because the government is
unable to prevent crime. It is no remedy to crime for anti-rights elite nationalist extremists to
legislate requirements restricting the right to carry (bear) arms only to certain venues or
circumstances. It is no remedy to crime to enlarge the police forces who cannot, and are not
required to, protect the citizenry.

The remedy to crime is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. They are, thus, able to
protect themselves and others as well as to serve their respective nation-states in case of need as
well as protect themselves from the abuses of the federal government.

It is a right that shall not be infringed. Yet, it is a right slowly being eroded by those who desire
to use the fringe elements of society who desire governmental protection from cradle to grave or
who, having suffered a loss, have misdirected their zealotry to hold the whole of society to blame
for that loss.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the
owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This amendment was a reaction to the British having sent troops to the colonies and, having no
where else to quarter them, established those troops in the homes of colonists, whether agreed to
or not. But let us consider if this amendment abides with us, still. For it is to the idea that the

43 of 88
government can do as it will, when it will, for whatever reason it conjures that this amendment is
in reference.

Within the US there is a concern, real or imagined, that the federal government is involved in a
secret operation to usurp all authority unto itself. I suggest it is no secret. One only has to read
the Constitution and and then compare the laws passed since its ratification to know that such has
been the case throughout history and that the effort continues to this day.

If we, as citizens, accede that the government may house troops in our homes without our
consent, then, under any interpretation, the Constitution is dead. The federal government will
have succeeded in usurping all authority and power and the sovereignty of the nation-states shall
no longer exist and the rights and freedom of the citizens shall have disappeared.

Note that it is the house wherein the troops were not to be quartered. Property. Private property.
Not without the consent of the owner of that property. This brings us to an axiom of law – no
property may be seized or used by another, notwithstanding the “other” being a government or
individual, without the consent of the owner. No property is subject to such seizure or use – that
includes arms and houses.

Does war change the concept? I think not. It may change the means by which such consent is
obtained. For example, where, under the terms of peace, a government may offer a property
owner a certain amount of money which the owner rejects for the rental or use of that property,
the government may not legitimately seize the property. Even under the terms of war such an
offer may be made with the use of a promissory note or some other means with which to pay for
that same rental or use at a later date and that offer may be rejected by the owner. Either way, it is
the consent of the owner which is required.

No law, even in time of war, which abrogates the property rights of any citizen is subject to
obedience by any citizen. Even in time of war, governments are required to recognize the rights
of the citizens to the use and control of their own property. It may be hard to bear. It may pose
what some consider insurmountable obstacles. It is a right.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

1. The right of the people to be secure

44 of 88
Here we have the straight forward acknowledgment of the right of the people to be secure. Not a
privilege of citizenship. Not a blessing bestowed by the benevolent federal government on
trusted slaves. A right of the the people not subject to the interference or vicissitudes of an all
powerful, centralized government.

Here we have the right of the people to be secure. It is not the right of the state or federal
government. It is the right of the people. It Is worthy of note, here, that state and federal
governments do not have rights, per se, as they are not people. They do, admittedly, have powers
and authority delegated to them from the people, i.e., the citizens. But such powers and authority,
especially due to the specific reason that such powers and authority are delegated, do not
constitute rights, in and of themselves. Consider, if the people, who are, in fact, the nation-states
and federal governments, are secure, then so are the nation-state and federal governments.

Here we have the right of the people to be secure. If a nation-state or a federal government has
any “right” to anything to which the word might be assigned, it is the “right” to defend itself
against attack from outside sources or illegitimate interior forces. By the same token, people
have the right to be secure. This right is a personal right. Secure; safe; sound; without worry so
that one might concentrate on other issues and matters which, if left unattended, may cause such
grave effects so as to overshadow the right of security.

2. in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures,

In what manner, or in what matters, do the people have the right to be secure? They are to be
rightfully secure in their persons. Here we have expressed the right of personal security and
safety. Wherein is this right limited in regard to being outside one's home? Wherein is this right
limited while living in one's residence? Wherein does any court legitimately deprive any citizen
of the right to protect himself, his loved ones or his guests whether “in public” or not? There are
no such restrictions to the right to be secure in one's person that are legitimate.

The nationalistic elitists argue that the citizens have no right to the assumption of either privacy
or security in public. Leaving for the moment the issue of privacy, let us focus on the issue of the
right to security in public. We have here a statement that the people have a right to be secure in
their persons. Let us, first, define our terms.

To be secure means to be safe, first and foremost. It means having the certainty that one is safe
from all the criminal elements roaming the countryside, skulking through the darkened streets,
hovering in the dark alleys of the city. To be secure also means to have no fear of being attacked,
robbed, murdered. But is the right to such security limited to the home? Is it true that to enjoy
this right one must do so only while ensconced in ones “castle?” Most assuredly not. For the
right of the person to go about one's business, to enjoy entertainment outside the home, to travel
to and fro as one deems appropriate – all of these are legitimate purposes of being outside the

45 of 88
home. And there is no limitation imposed, here, that one can only be secure in one's person in
one's home. The right of being secure in one's person extends to the location of the person. It is
not limited by any other false wall imposed by nationalistic elitists who seek to limit the rights
and freedom of citizens. If such were the case, then, what is the purpose of criminalizing the
actions of others, wherein, they accost, threaten, rob at the point of a weapon and flee the scene?
It can be no crime to act where no right exists.

3. in their . . . houses,

Here we have notice given to would be interlopers and trespassers that all are, by right, secure in
their own houses – force entry at your own risk. For it is here, more than any other place, that a
citizen has the right of resistance to those uninvited into the castle. It is here that invaders will be
challenged, to the death, if need be, without having to defend oneself in any court system for
having so defended one's self, loved ones, guests and property. Or so it was contemplated. And
so it has been diluted to assuage the feelings and personal guilt of those who think themselves
more fit to determine the rightful defense of others' homes and the loved ones, within. These are
the very people who are intent on enslaving the citizens of the union in their misguided efforts to
prevent others from suffering their own sufferings. These are, also, the people being used by the
nationalistic elite to enslave each and every one of us.

4. in their . . . papers,

How is it that one needs to be secure in ones papers? What kind of security is referenced here?
Consider one's financial transactions. Or possibly letters recording one's views on various
political matters. We are not subject to having our personal papers seized by governments with
which we disagree or for the purpose of such governments becoming involved in our business
just because they so choose. It is none of their business what we do so long as what we do does
not violate the law.

5. shall not be violated,

Again, we have here not a suggestion nor a plea. It is a mandatory negative. Shall not be
violated. The listing of rights set forth shall not be violated. No matter the justification. No
matter the personal views of the magistrate. These rights . . . shall not be violated. Any alleged
law, judicial determination, Presidential order or finding to the contrary – the rights shall not be
violated.

6. and no warrants shall issue,

This presumes that warrants are required. And they are, but limitations are imposed on such
warrants and absent abiding by those limitations no warrants shall issue. It is not a choice. No

46 of 88
magistrate shall issue any warrant that does not qualify. Wherein authorities seeking to obtain
warrants have failed to abide by the limitations in obtaining them, they have violated the
Constitution. Any judge who would excuse such failure and permit the warrant to issue,
regardless, is actively acting against the rights and freedom of the citizens of this Union. Such a
judge is in rebellion and, rightly and justly, ought, at least, to be immediately impeached and, if
found guilty, sentenced to serve the sentence which would have been imposed should a citizen
have been convicted of an offense upon the ill gotten warrant.

The qualifications for obtaining warrants follow.

7. but upon probable cause,

In order to obtain a warrant one must first have probable cause to obtain the same. What
constitutes probable cause? A hunch is not probable cause. A belief is not probable cause.
Probable cause is evidence that a crime has been committed and that the person(s) named in the
application for the warrant are reasonably identified, based on that evidence, to have committed
the crime(s) alleged. To permit otherwise is to permit the government to do as it pleases, when it
pleases and how it pleases. As it now does.

8. supported by oath or affirmation,

One may have all of the necessary evidence along with probable cause and may be able to justify
an allegation that the person(s) named in the application for the warrant are “reasonably
identified” to have committed the alleged offense(s). It is not enough. Whoever seeks the warrant
must give his pledge. He must swear an oath or he must affirm that the information provided is
true. It is not manufactured. It is not contrived. He is not making the allegation(s) for personal
reasons or personal gain, for himself or for another. He is attempting to legitimately enforce the
law.

Absent such an oath or affirmation no warrant shall issue. Where does any magistrate permit the
inclusion of evidence obtained by warrant wherein no such oath or affirmation was obtained? On
whose authority does that magistrate permit such a violation of the rights of a citizen? Any
magistrate or judge who permits such violations should be pilloried for their refusal to hold
government to the standards set forth in the Constitution. For such permissiveness breeds
contempt for the sovereign authority of the citizens and leads, ultimately, to the aggrandizement
of government over and above the citizens.

9. and particularly describing the place to be searched,

It is no protection from warrantless searches to permit the issuance of warrants without

specification of the location to be searched. To do otherwise would be to invite the government

47 of 88
to obtain warrants of a general nature and serve them on citizens wherever and whenever the
government chooses without regard to the rights and freedom of those citizens.

In requiring the person obtaining the warrant to “particularly describ[e]” the place to be searched
is it acceptable to permit generalizations, here? The wording is not ambiguous. It is precise for
the same reason all other aspects of the Constitution are precise. To fail to abide by the precise
wording is to invite government excess. Here, it is so stated using a word which invites no such
ambiguity. It is required that the location be particularly, i.e., precisely, describe. It is not
sufficient to state that one wishes to search a citizen's property. What property? Where is it? The
citizen has multiple properties. Does accepting a generalization permit the government to search
them all? Is such the meaning and intent of this portion of the amendment? I think not.

It is the oath or affirmation which must particularly describe the place to be searched. It must be
sworn to. It is intended that such oath or affirmation, the honor of the one obtaining the warrant,
will not be violated. No search of any other area will be conducted. No search of any other area
will be permitted. Only that sworn to under oath or affirmation will be done.

The warrant must be obtained only upon probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation
particularly describing the place to be searched. It must be an exact description. It must be so
precise of a description that no reasonable person could misinterpret the location to be searched.
If the object of the search is the house located at a particular address it must so state. To permit
otherwise is to excuse and justify government excess and no longer require the government to be
held accountable to the citizens for its actions. It is to permit the government to do as it will.

10. and the persons or things to be seized.

Part of the oath or affirmation is to particularly describe the persons or things to be seized. In a
warrant for the arrest of a citizen or person within the bounds of the Union, the warrant, through
the oath or affirmation, must particularly describe the persons to be seized, or arrested. It cannot
be accepted, and no warrant shall issue, absent such a particularizing description of the person(s)
to be arrested or the property to be seized. There is no exception provided, here. The failure to so
describe such person or property and, yet, still obtain the warrant is absolute rebellion against the
rights and freedom of citizens.

It must particularly describe the things to be seized, if such are to be seized. A warrant is no
general authorization to take whatever a government desires simply because the one doing the
seizing likes what he sees. Only those items of property particularly identified under oath or
affirmation may be seized. Only those items so described within that oath or affirmation. Taking
any other thing is theft. Taking of such things under arms is robbery. It matters not that the
person doing the taking is a government official.

48 of 88
It is immaterial that a magistrate approves any warrant which violates the requirements of this
amendment. It is immaterial whether that magistrate is a local, state or federal magistrate.
Regardless of his position or status the issuance of a warrant that does not comport itself to the
requirements of this amendment is an illegal warrant on its face. All such warrants are null, void
and of no effect and no citizen is required to obey such warrants. Citizens, individually and
corporately, have the right, the duty, to employ that resistance necessary to repel the execution of
such warrants up to and including the use of deadly force, if need be. Such resistance would
quickly cause the obtaining and execution of such warrants to cease.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,
or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.

1. No person

The fifth amendment does not restrict itself to application to citizens, only. It is applicable to all
persons within the bounds of this Union, except those in military service. No person. Not, no
citizen – no person. Regardless of one's status – legal citizen, legal immigrant, legal visitor,
illegal alien – no person.

2. shall be held

no person shall be held. That is, imprisoned, jailed or otherwise under the restrictions of travel
and movement, i.e., freedom, enjoyed by all other citizens, immigrants or other persons within
the Union. It is mandatory that such shall not be done. There is no option here. It is not up to the
prosecutor. It is not up to the magistrate. It is not up to the local law enforcement authority. It
shall not be done.

3. to answer for a capital,

No person is to be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime. There is a process
to be followed in order to obtain an answer, a response, a defense to an alleged criminal offense.
But no person is to be held to answer without compliance with this process.

49 of 88
One is not to be held to answer for a capital . . . crime, an offense for which conviction may
result in one's execution. An offense for which one may lose all that is most dear and precious.
An offense for which one's future is cut off. It is the ultimate sanction for a capital crime. It is the
most that man can impose on another man for such an offense. It is of such import that a process
is, hereby, established under which no person shall be held to answer for a capital . . . crime –
unless. . .

4. or otherwise infamous crime,

An infamous crime. A felony, in other words. Here to, the results of conviction are of such
severity that it is imperative that one's right to due process be followed. Upon conviction of an
infamous crime one is subject to a whole panoply of sanctions ranging from fines and
imprisonment of at least one year and a day to life, without the possibility of parole. Due
specifically to the fact that one, upon conviction for such an offense will lose his freedom, if only
for such a short period, it is imperative that all measures possible be taken to ensure that he is not
subject to the vagaries of emotion and social outrage at the alleged offense(s). There is a process.
It is a process due to all persons.

5. unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,

No person shall be held to answer . . . unless. There is an exception to the rule. Unless. It is not
an option to hold any person answerable for such crimes, unless. The exception is stated in such
a way so as to ensure that absent the exception it is well understood that no person shall be held
to answer.
There is no authority of the government to hold any person simply upon the accusation of having
committed a capital, or otherwise infamous crime. This would be to give the government the
ability to arrest without justification. It would nullify the requirement to obtain a warrant. It
would subject all persons within the bounds of the Union to the vagaries of all government
officials seeking to exercise their illegal authority and power.
In order to prevent exactly such illicit exercise of authority and power, no person shall be held to
answer unless on a presentment or indictment. These are the exceptions to the rule. It must be
either a presentment or an indictment. One or the other. No other shall suffice. No other will
work. No other will do. But, it cannot be a presentment or indictment by simply anyone or any
body of government.
Such presentment or indictment must be of a grand jury. A grand jury is composed of citizens. It
is composed of those who would, otherwise, be about their personal and commercial business. It
is composed of peers. Citizens. They do not determine guilt. They do not determine the
sufficiency of the evidence any further than that it provides sufficient grounds for the
determination that a capital, or otherwise infamous crime has been committed and committed by
the person(s) so accused. It prohibits the government, outside a grand jury, from issuing such
presentments or indictments. Should such issue without the use of a grand jury, they will be of no

50 of 88
effect and unenforceable and any citizen upon whom such an illegal instrument is attempted to
be served has the right and the duty to resist such service, up to and including the use of deadly
force, if necessary.

6. except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,

The rule is not universal. Except. There are exigencies which, if the rule be always followed,
may lead to unintended consequences. Such are cases arising in the land or naval forces. It is not
the intention to deprive those serving in such forces of their rights or freedom. It is, however,
necessary that those serving be subject to a discipline not seen nor required of ordinary citizens
in their daily lives. It is a discipline that demands strict adherence or others may die. In order to
enforce that discipline those serving must know that they are subject to military rules and courts
throughout the time in which they serve.

7. or in the militia,

Even in the nation-state militia there is an exception to the rule. It is an exception that is
universal in military service.

8. when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

The exception to the rule is not applicable, however, during times of peace, but only “ when in
actual service in time of war or public danger.” Otherwise, those serving in the military forces of
the Union or of the several nation-states have available to them the same protections as any
citizen under the Constitution.

9. nor shall any person

Again, the restriction is universal. Not any person. No one. Not even military or militia
personnel during time of war or illegal aliens. No one.

10. be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

There is no permission to “shop” the courts by the prosecution, either state or federal. Once tried,
no person is to be subject for the same offense to be tried multiple times. If it cannot happen
twice, it certainly cannot happen more than that. The reason is plain, for such actions place one
in jeopardy of life or limb. It is undue torture and beyond the ideal that we strive for as a civilized
people to put others in such a position so as to fear, over extended periods of time, the unknown

51 of 88
– whether or not they will suffer the ultimate penalty for a crime of which they stand accused.

To permit the prosecution to “jury shop” or “judge shop” in order to gain the conviction, no
matter the number of trials, is to permit the psychological torture of the suspect. It is to permit
the government to stand forth and cry “foul!” on the jury system until their own, pre-determined
judgment is obtained by those who have “read between the lines” and condemned a possibly
innocent man.

It was not to be permitted. It is not now permitted. It will not be permitted. We do not need it. We
do not want it. The acceptance of such a process will do nothing, but produce slaves of a free
people.

11. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

Not only is the government not permitted to “jury shop” or “judge shop”, but they are not
permitted to compel one to testify against one self in a criminal case. They cannot torture, they
cannot threaten, they cannot coerce. To do any of those things is to compel and other actions on
the part of government may be viewed as compelling such testimony. Compulsion is not
acceptable. No matter the courts. No matter the legislature. No matter the executive.

Such proscription is specifically limited to criminal cases. It does not reach to civil matters. The
limitation is easily explained. He who would be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal
matter stands to lose much more than any mere property or wealth. He stands to lose his life,
perhaps, as the outcome of the criminal case. Not so in civil matters.

Civil matters restrict the loss to one's wealth or property. There is no potential loss of life, herein.
It is that distinction which draws the line regarding compelled testimony against oneself in
criminal matters and that distinction, alone.

12. nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

There shall be no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without some procedural protections –
due process of law. Not some procedures drawn by some bureaucrat inconsiderate of the rights of
citizens. Of law. It is a matter of law that such actions shall not take place without due process.

What constitutes due process? It is a procedure designed and intended to provide such
protections that there can be no question that the taking or deprivation has occurred in the light,
not in the dark of some back room of government. That there is a legitimate reason for the
taking. It is worthy of note that this portion of the amendment is contained in an amendment
which discusses the protections afforded those accused of crimes. It is, herein, asserted that the
purpose behind such inclusion is to prevent the taking of life, liberty, or property by government

52 of 88
through the mechanism of false accusation of criminal conduct. Therefore, to make such an
accusation requires certain procedures which protect the rights of the accused. They cannot be
violated. The procedures are so important that they are referenced as a collection of law – not a
singular law. But such protection against government taking is not limited to criminal accusation,
alone.

13. nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Private property. That property owned and controlled by individuals, not the government. It is
not for the taking for public use by mere whim. It is not for the taking without just compensation.
There can be no just compensation where there is no agreement to sell such property.

There is nothing here that provides government with the power to compel the taking of private
property. Not by executive fiat; not by legislative mandate; nor by judicial determination. Private
property shall not be taken for public use absent just compensation. It shall not be done. It shall
not be tolerated. It matters not the legal gymnastics which are performed by government lawyers
before government judges in government courtrooms to unconstitutionally compel citizens to
accept such taking.

How can there be just compensation without agreement between the parties? If one party to a
proposed agreement is not satisfied then there is no agreement. If there is no agreement then
there is no contract and, of course, without a contract, there can be no just compensation. Unless
one accepts that the courts may determine what constitutes just compensation and then force the
sale of such property to the government. If one accepts such as being legal then one accepts that
there is no freedom in this Union except that which the government grants on a whim.

The authority and power of eminent domain does not exist in this Union.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by
an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.

1. In all criminal prosecutions,

We, again, have an amendment directed toward criminal prosecutions. This amendment does not
apply to civil matters. It is restricted, but the restriction is universal in a sense – all criminal

53 of 88
matters. There is no limit within that realm. There can be no criminal prosecution wherein this
amendment does not apply.

2. the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,

The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. It is a joy to be assured that one's
right is so protected as to provide the light of day on the matter. It will not be conducted in the
back rooms of beer halls. It shall not be in the dark of night.

It is a right to a speedy and public trial which is enjoyed, here. It is sacrosanct. It is not to be
denied and no power or authority of the Union may do so, legitimately. Those trials wherein the
government desires that portions of them be closed to the public so as to provide the government
the means with which it may introduce evidence the government does not otherwise wish to be
publicly exposed, violate this section of this amendment. This amendment is all inclusive – In all
criminal prosecutions. If the government does not desire certain and specific information to be
made public then the government needs to refrain from the prosecution.

. . . a speedy and public trail. No interminably long delays of years combined with incarceration
while awaiting trial are permitted. The prosecution only has so long in which to commence trial.
No undue delay. This prohibition protects the accused from being incarcerated for extended
periods of time in order to coerce a confession or, otherwise, punish the alleged offender without
benefit of trial. Trial must commence in a speedy fashion. If the government, charged with
protecting the rights and freedom of citizens, is to be what it is intended to be, then it will protect
citizens from such heinous government action as that of unlimited incarceration or extended
delays while awaiting trial.

The trial must be public. It cannot, and will not, be held where the public cannot view it. This
forces the government to prosecute all criminal trials in the open, in the light. Public trials ensure
that the government is held to a standard that is measured by the record and by witnesses. The
witnesses being the public, at large. It is just for this reason that trials are to be public. Public
trials prevent the government from skirting the law and using trickery so as to enable them to
obtain what they otherwise could not. It prevents the government from abusing the system to the
detriment of the accused and to the rights and freedom of the citizens, generally. At the very
least, a massive demonstration should result from any such abuse. Such a demonstration that the
government will be unable to sustain or hide its actions or prevent that which would, otherwise,
result from abuse of the system.

3. by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed,

54 of 88
. . . an impartial jury . . . a jury of one's peers. A jury selected from those among whom the
accused resides or where the accused is alleged to have committed the offense. A jury composed
of people who know the area, know the people who live there and know the customs of the area.
People who can be trusted not to trust the government simply because it is the government.
People who are to, otherwise, side with the accused should the government attempt to obtain a
conviction through other than legal means.

These are people comprising a jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed. The importation of a jury from outside the area, wherein, an offense is alleged to
have been committed is not acceptable. They are to be from the same state and district.

In order to determine the composition of the jury it must be determined wherein the crime was
committed. It must be that the jury will be composed of citizens from that same state and district.
It is not sufficient to seat a jury from anywhere in the state. They must be from the same district.

4. which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,

The district in question shall have been previously ascertained by law. Determined through a
process which positively identifies the district. Not some arbitrary and capricious act by some
government bureaucrat, or even some judge, which claims the district by whim. It must be
determined as a fact, by law. It must have been previously determined. Previous to what? The
wording of the amendment is rather lopsided in this regard, but it is still discernible that the
determination of the district, wherein, the alleged crime is determined to have taken place must
be done prior to the suspect's arrest, charge and trial.

It is logical in the extreme that such must occur in the order it is required to occur. First, the
determination of a crime having been committed, then the determination of the location of the
crime, itself. Then, and only then, is the suspect charged with the alleged criminal offense by an
impartial jury, the jury being selected from that very same district.

5. and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

It is insufficient to simply make the accusation, even if one has lawfully obtained an indictment
or presentment against the accused. There is more required. There is more to being a citizen.
There is more to being the government of those citizens. It is a requirement to proceed to the
next level of protection directly due to the fact that this Union of citizens recognizes that freedom
is so very precious that to take it away, even should the eventuality develop that it be restored, no
matter how quickly, is to cause such an injury that is never repayable to the injured.

One step further. Tell the one indicted, the one arrested, the nature and cause of the accusation. It
is necessary to tell the accused the nature of the accusation. What is the specific charge? It will

55 of 88
not do to simply indict and imprison until trial. Be honest as a government. Be upstanding as a
government. Be straightforward as a government. Tell the accused the crime they are alleged to
have committed.

Go further. Tell the accused the cause of the accusation. Is it evidence collected at the scene? Tell
him. Is it witnesses who assert that they saw him fleeing? Tell him. Do not hold back. What has
the government to fear of an incarcerated man? Tell him. Let him know. If guilty, his conscience
will work on him. It will goad him to confess if his heart is open to the idea to begin with. If not,
no matter the effort, he will not admit, anyway, so what difference would it make in the
government's case to tell him?

But what if he truly is innocent? He will not only know the crime alleged, but will know why it
is him that is accused. With that information he may formulate a defense to prove his innocence.
He may be fairly armed to fight the accusation and to save his good name.

6. to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

In all criminal cases . . . the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses
against him. It is not some privilege granted by some lord or elitist snob. It is a right to confront
witnesses making accusations against one's character and good name. They cannot make the
accusation and then hide in the dark to be anonymous assassins or back shooters. They may
make the accusation, but they will face the light of day and must repeat the same in the public
view. They must be subjected to the fire of cross-examination where their accusation may wither
and die or it may grow and bloom. It is the choice of the accused, not of the government, as to
whether, and whom, to confront.

7. to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

In all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor. It is human nature. “I don't want to get involved.” It is human nature. “Not
my problem.” It is human nature. “I'm sorry, but . . . “ If there are witnesses with exculpatory
information in a criminal case the accused has the right to have them compelled to testify in his
behalf. As embarrassed as they may be; as adamant as they may be about not getting involved –
it is of no consequence when it comes to the freedom or life of a fellow human being on trial for
life or limb. It is a cost of citizenship to appear in a court of law when one has information
regarding a criminal act. Such appearance may be voluntary for those with the heart to face their
duty or it may be compelled, compulsory, for those who are less inclined to stand and be counted.

8. and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

In all criminal cases, the accused shall enjoy the right, to have the assistance of counsel for his

56 of 88
defense. It is a right to assistance. It is a right to professionally trained assistance. It is a right to
knowledgeable counsel. Knowledgeable in the law and court procedure. It is a right to assistance
from one who is willing, able and actively fights for his client. It is a right to effective assistance
of counsel.

It is no right in having an attorney present at the side of the accused where the attorney sleeps
through the trial; offers absolutely no objections to evidence proffered against his client; calls no
witnesses; etc. Such is mere pretense. Anyone can act like a potted plant and sit quietly beside
the accused doing nothing, but sucking up air, while the accused is pilloried by unchallenged
accusations and illegal acts by judge and prosecutor.

It is the attorney who delves into the matter, sifts the facts, checks into all possible defenses,
knows the applicable laws, challenges the government's assertions and conclusions, and is
vehement in defense of his client. There is an effective advocate for the defense. There is
effective assistance of counsel.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right
of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in
any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

1. In suits at common law,

In suits. Civil actions, as opposed to criminal actions. Use of the plural suits is meant to denote
all. Again, there is no limitation – the rule is all. Yet, too, this rule has its exceptions. For, here,
the exception is suits at common law. There are other venues in which civil matters are heard –
maritime or equity, for instance. But here, it is suits at common law.

Common law. Old English law. The law of the commoner. The law of the people. Law that has
evolved to become the law of the land - the general law of the people. It is in accordance with
this law, the common law, that all suits, all civil actions shall be determined.

2. where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,

But there is a limit imposed within the exception to the rule. Twenty dollars. No less. Where the
amount is twenty dollars or less, this amendment does not apply. It is plain and easily
understood. Where the amount is in excess of that stated, then the following rights apply.

3. the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,

57 of 88
It is a right to have such matters tried by jury. No matter the reasoning or the excuse such right
shall be preserved.. It is immaterial what one may think as an individual or believe as one
religion over and against another. This right shall be preserved.

4. and no fact tried by a jury,

Facts. Reality. Not the proposed version of events emanating from one side or the other. The true
fact. What truly happened. What is really the truth behind the matter. Facts are to be tried, or
determined, by the jury. They are to be tried by the life experience of the jury. They are to be
tried by the education of each juror. They are to be tried by the jurors' determination of the
veracity of the witnesses, for and against.

It is the jury which determines the facts.

5. shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States,

Once determined, no fact, shall be otherwise reexamined. No one is permitted to second guess
the jury. It is the jury's purview, and theirs alone, to determine the facts, if any. Such
determinations are not to be revisited by those who were not present in the courtroom to hear the
witnesses first hand. The facts are not to be remodeled by those who were not present to see the
reaction of the parties, under oath, to various claims and assertions as well as the presentation of
various facts. It is the province of the jury, alone, to make such determinations and no
reexamination shall be had . . .

in any court of the United States. Note that it is not a proscription of courts within a nation-state
reexamining such nor is it a proscription against the federal courts. In any court of the United
States. No court has such jurisdiction so as to permit it to undermine the determination of the
facts as put forth by the jury. Not any court in the entirety of the United States. Such includes the
federal courts and most especially, the Supreme Court of the United States.

6. than according to the rules of the common law.

Unless such reexamination is set forth in the rules of the common law. Rules? What rules? The
rules of court, the rules of procedure. All courts within the United States have rules of general
procedures, rules of criminal procedures and rules of civil procedure. These rules were, initially,
predicated upon the common law rules of courts. Now, however, each and every court has its
own rules (local rules) in addition to the state or federal rules to which it must bow. These rules
are predicated on law. They cannot negate the law.

Under the common law there were rules for jurors. How they were to be selected; how they were
to be directed; how they were to be charged; and, how they were to discharge their duties. It is

58 of 88
these rules that are referenced, herein. If, under some violation of the rules of the common law,
and the associated remedies for such violations, there is an intervention into the findings of fact
by a jury, it is through the rules of the common law, and no other rule or law, by which such
reexamination is to take place.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.

1. Excessive bail

What constitutes excessive bail? That is the question raised here. Because this amendment does
not spell out a specific standard by which the word “excessive” may be measured, then it must be
measured on a case-by-case basis. Nothing else will do for no governmental authority has the
power under the Constitution to establish such a standard – not even the courts. Therefore, if
done on an individual basis, excessive bail would be that bail that would not be attainable by the
person seeking such bail. That is excessive bail.

There are those who argue that bail should be denied those of certain character or charged with
certain crimes. Wherein is there justification for such claims? There is none. ALL are covered by
this amendment or NONE are covered by it. It grants no leeway for Congress or any other body
to make any law which classifies people in any manner, whatsoever, as to whether they should be
permitted bail. The only issue here is that whatever the bail, it is not to be excessive.

2. shall not be required,

Excessive bail shall not be required. This is an imperative with no room given for maneuver or
misinterpretation. It shall not be required. It is not permissible.

3. nor excessive fines imposed,

Nor excessive fines imposed. Not only can a court not require excessive bail it cannot impose
excessive fines. Yet, what is excessive for one is nothing to another. This is why it is extremely
important to understand the meaning of the amendment. It is individualized. It is not
collectivized. Bail and fines are to be levied in regard to the individual's capacity to pay.

This portion of the amendment directs us back to the clause on excessive bail by use of the
identical word – excessive. Excessive shall not be permitted. Excessive is not legal. Excessive is
not what we, as citizens, want either from our government or for the world.

59 of 88
It is to be considered whether one is able to pay the fine or not. It is this individual capacity to
pay which determines the fine, not some blanket code or statute stupidly attempting to “equalize”
all men under the false claim that they are equally able to pay the same fines. Such is no more
than a chimera to disguise the effort to hold down those less fortunate than others by requiring
the less fortunate pay a stiffer penalty for any civil offense. Do you question the assertion?
Consider, then, when two men are faced with identical fines of five hundred dollars each for a
traffic offense of excessive speeding and one earns an income in the hundreds of thousands per
year and the other less than eight thousand per year, which one pays the heavier burden for the
offense? Is not the purpose of fines to impose a penalty that is no respecter of persons, yet,
ensures that each pays in a manner calculated to exact a punishment for the offense? The
punishment of the two is not equal and does not equate, for the one, to an equal punishment with
that of the other.

Individual circumstances dictate the extent of bail and fines. No statute or code delineating a
certain and specific amount can equalize the situation between citizens. After all, we are not
robots to be considered identical to each other in circumstance and abilities. Unless, of course,
there are those who consider us all to be, equally, slaves.

4. nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

No punishment, no matter its predicate, shall be cruel and unusual. Cruel in its infliction of pain
and suffering upon the condemned. Such lowers us to the level of those who have been
condemned for their deeds. We, as a society, have no desire to be counted with them. We
demonstrate our superior status to their heinous acts through the fact that we do not act like them
by requiring of them the same pain and suffering they have imposed on their victims.

The human imagination is strong. It is exceedingly creative, especially in its cruelty. Such shall
not be permitted to be done to the condemned.

Let those condemned of offenses which require imprisonment or execution be so sentenced in

such a manner as to demonstrate the superior intellect and morals of society over and above
those who wish to inflict their own twisted perversions upon their fellow human beings. Let there
be no excesses. Let there be no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.

1. The enumeration in the Constitution,

60 of 88
The enumeration. The list. There is such in the Constitution. The first ten amendments of which
are named the “Bill of Rights.” Whose rights? Those of the government? No. they are the rights
of citizens and legal visitors to this Union.

They are listed in the Constitution. They have been memorialized for all history. They are not
mere specters that vanish at the first spoken word. They are real. They exist. They are
enumerated in the Constitution.

2. of certain rights,

. . . of certain rights, not all rights, but of certain rights. There is no listing, anywhere, of all the
rights enjoyed by free men of this Union and the Constitution is no different. There is a listing of
certain rights, the most important rights. All others are derivatives or of such lesser category that
they do not need to be listed here. Or they are so easily known as they do not require such listing.

3. shall not be construed to deny

. . . shall not be construed to deny. The listed rights shall not be constructed, interpreted or
otherwise construed so as to deny. Construction, interpretation or the defining of these rights is
limited. Such is limited by the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. Any such
construction, interpretation or definition shall not . . . deny said rights. Therefore, any executive
order, legislation or judicial decision which does deny such rights is null, void and of no effect.

The rights of citizens are sacrosanct. They are not to be trifled with by any member of the
government - local, state or federal. Such rights cannot be modified, annulled, reduced or
otherwise amended. Any attempt to do so is, by right, justifiably resisted, by force, if necessary.

4. or disparage

Nor are government officials to speak contemptuously or belittle said rights. They are not to
disparage the rights of the citizens. It is not the role or right of government to disparage the
rights of citizens for any purpose, most especially for the purpose of political gain as many
members of Congress now do.

5. others

There are others not enumerated in the Constitution. These, too, although not listed, are under
the same protections. They are not to be denied nor disparaged. They are as much protected
rights as any listed in the Constitution and no interference with those rights is any more
acceptable than any interference of those which are listed.

61 of 88
 6. retained

These unnamed rights are rights retained by the citizens. They are no less simply because they
are not listed. They belong to the citizens of the Union, not to the Union to give or take away as
it pleases. Retention of these rights rests with the citizens as individuals. They cannot be
tampered with.

7. by the people.

These are rights kept by the people, the citizens. They need no listing in the Constitution for all
such rights not listed are primarily dealt with by those that are so listed. It is to be kept in mind
that where the Constitution is a limiting document on government that government may only
pass those laws and conduct its rightful business in such manner so as not to violate the
limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution. To do so takes away the rights of the people.

Amendment 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.

1. The powers not delegated

There are certain and specific powers . . . delegated by the Constitution. There are certain and
specific powers not delegated by the Constitution. The delegating authority is the nation-states
who operate at the behest of their citizens. It was purposefully done that the Constitution did not
grant all power to the federal government. It limits what power is delegated. And where any
power is not delegated this amendment speaks to that circumstance.

2. to the United States

Note, here, that the issue is not powers not delegated to the several nation-states, but to the
United States, as a whole. Powers not delegated to the common needs and good of those nation-
states combining to form the Union. The nation-states still retain certain powers not spoken of
within the Constitution, but, here, those not delegated are not delegated to the United States.

This declaratory statement sets the standard by which the federal government is to operate. It is
not to expand its powers of its own authority, for it has no such authority. It is not to expand what
powers it possesses into the arena, or sphere, of nation-state or individual government. It is to
operate only with those powers it has already been given and no more, unless the amending
procedure is followed and additional powers are, thus, delegated.

62 of 88
 3. by the Constitution,

It is by the Constitution that the federal government is to know its limitations. It is the
Constitution that sets forth the specific powers delegated to that government. The Constitution
sets, draws, the line which the federal government is not to cross without repercussions.

To expand its powers without the consent of the citizens is to not just violate the Constitution.
Such acts demolish the Constitution, forcibly placing the federal government over and above
those who created it. To permit such is to permit the federal government to determine its own
role and what, if any, rights the sovereign nation-states and citizens are permitted to exercise.

4. nor prohibited by it

Simply because a power is not mentioned does not mean that it does not exist. Certain powers,
both mentioned and unmentioned, are not prohibited by it (the Constitution). However, those
powers not mentioned are not granted to the federal government.

5. to the states,

Those powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the states are powers which the federal
government may not exercise. It is not within the purview of the federal government to do so.
State powers belong to the states, alone. Any move into the sphere of state government by the
federal government is a violation of the sovereignty of those nation-states and, thus, a trampling
of the rights and freedom of citizens.

6. are reserved

Those rights not prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the states are reserved. They are set apart
from those of the federal government. They are not for the federal government to engage in or to
be used by that government. They are held back.

7. to the states respectively,

Each state has the right, as a sovereign nation, to exercise those rights not prohibited by the
Constitution in the manner deemed by its citizens to be the most advantageous and the most
expedient for their own life, liberty and property. Such exercise of those rights is to be free from
any interference from the federal government, for it is not within that government's constitutional
power to exercise any authority over the states in such matters. Such power has been reserved to
the states and withheld from the federal government.

63 of 88
 8. or to the people.

If it is not to the states that such reserved powers appertain, then those powers are reserved to the
people, i.e., the citizens. To the citizens of the respective nation-states, as individuals. The federal
government is again restricted and prohibited from interfering with those rights, even though
they may not be set forth in the Constitution.

The rights of citizens are not subject to the dictates of the President. As such, the only way a
president may interfere with the rights of citizens is to invoke an authority he does not possess.
To do so makes him no longer the President, but a tyrant.
Question XXVIII.
What force the Constitution has over the federal government.
In, and of, itself the Constitution has no force, whatsoever, over the federal government. After
all, it is no more than a piece of parchment upon which has been written some rather lofty words
expressing some exceedingly grand ideas and standards. Yet, it is still no more than paper.
It is the willingness of the citizens to hold the federal government to those grand ideas and
standards which puts the force behind the Constitution. For it is the citizens, themselves, who
determine when, and if, the federal government is complying with the terms and conditions,
thereof. It is not up to the federal government, not even to nation-state or local governments, to
make such a determination. It is the citizens who do so and who, if they fail to do so, suffer the
consequences of ever expanding government and the loss, over time, of their rights and freedom.
But it is how the citizens hold the federal government to the ideas and standards expressed in the
Constitution that truly matters. Citizens have the right to vote, but that vote does not count if the
Electoral College determines otherwise. Citizens have the right to sue in the courts, but that right
has no meaning if the judges be against the citizens. Citizens have the right to let their minds be
known to the legislators, but that matters not when the legislators, themselves, operate against
the Constitution and rights and freedom of the very citizens they claim to represent.
Question XXIX.
Whether the federal government be above the law or not.
The law is the law. No one, not even the President of the United States is above the law. In the
legal profession, there are several sources used by attorneys and judges to make determinations
regarding the law. These sources are categorized according to their standing. Within federal law,
there are primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The primary source of law for the federal
government is the Constitution of the United States. There is no other primary source of federal
law, for it is recognized that this document lays the foundation for all that is federal authority and
power. Secondary sources include legislation, i.e., the United States Code. It is interesting to
note, here, that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are also considered to be
secondary sources. That is because the profession and federal government authorities consider
the decisions of that Court to be co-equal to the laws of the federal government. Does this not
constitute judicial legislation? Finally, the tertiary sources include such as departmental or

64 of 88
agency rules and regulations, which carry the force of law, according to the federal government
and its courts.
And, yet, the laws, decisions, rules and regulations by which the federal government operates do
not carry with them the requirement that the federal government comply with those very laws,
decisions, rules and regulations. It is no wonder that various personages within that government
are willing and, quite often, able, to ignore any court orders which may run contrary to their
stated desires or objectives. Yet, they suffer no penalty, as would you or I.
The supreme law of the Union is the Constitution. It is not the executive orders promulgated by
the President or members of his cabinet. It is not the laws enacted by the Congress. It is not the
decisions and laws of the federal courts. It is the Constitution and the Constitution, only.
If it be that the federal government is not required to comport itself with the Constitution then the
answer to the question must be that the federal government is above the law for it is a corollary
to that answer that the federal government determines the law, not the citizens.
If it be that the federal government is required to comply with the Constitution, but that nation-
state authorities or citizens fail to act to ensure, or force, if necessary, such compliance, then,
again, the federal government is not required to comport itself with the Constitution and is free to
exercise what powers it desires in any manner it deems fit.
If, however, it be that the federal government is, in fact, required to comport itself with the
Constitution, then the only issue remaining regarding the question is whether the citizens, in lieu
of the failure of the nation-state authorities, will stand and force such compliance.
Question XXX.
Whether or not the federal government is the sole, supreme and final interpreter of the law.
The power to delegate authority assumes the authority to control those to whom authority has
been delegated. It also presumes, perhaps incorrectly, that those to whom power has been
delegated will adhere to the restrictions imposed on that delegated power. It presumes that good
men will serve in the government.
If the citizens are the primary, sovereign power of this Union, it falls to them to delegate what
authority and powers they, as a group, wish to grant to whomever they wish to grant such
authority and powers and in whatever form they wish to grant the same. It was the citizens who
formed the colonies. It was the citizens who fought and obtained their freedom. It was the
citizens who formed the nation-states that arose from the First American Revolution. It is from
the citizens that the authority was delegated to form those nation-states.
The states, respectively, understood that absent a federal government there would be multiple
conflicts over repetitive actions on the parts of those nation-states to perform those duties which
were common to all, but would differ due to societal, geographical and customary differences
between the citizens of the respective nation-states. It was their intent, and their desire, to form a
federal government to perform those common duties and to leave all others to the nation-states
and their citizens.
In forming that federal government, the nation-states, in making use of the authority and powers
delegated to them by their citizens, determined to establish such a government with limitations

65 of 88
so that the new federal government would not encroach upon the sovereignty of the individual
nation-states or the rights and freedom of the citizens of those nation-states. The federal
government was to operate within those limits and was not to interfere with the nation-states or
their citizens on issues not covered by the Constitution or, in other words, where such
interference would be outside the scope of authority and powers delegated to the federal
government.
The federal government, having been established by the citizens, through the nation-states, does
not have the authority to determine its own powers. It may act only insofar as the Constitution
permits. It may not legislate outside the meaning and limitations imposed on it by the
Constitution. And, it may not use the courts for any purpose other than to make determinations
within the confines of the Constitution. Any other actions by the federal government are null,
void and of no effect.
In regard to law, the federal government is, in fact, the sole, supreme and final interpreter of law
insofar as such interpretations fall within the meaning and limitations of the Constitution and
such interpretations do not interfere with the sovereignty of the several nation-states or the rights
and freedom of the citizens of this Union.
Therefore, it follows, that the federal government has no unilateral authority to make any final
interpretations of law outside the Constitution, for that is the sole purview of the citizens in their
capacity as the ultimate, sovereign power of the Union. Should the federal government do so,
regardless of the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution, then the nation-states and the
individual citizens are duty bound to resist such acts, with force, if need be.
Question XXXI.
Whether or not wars raised by the citizens and nation-states, for their own just defense
against the federal government's intrusions are lawful.
If a father has no power to discipline his child, he has no authority over that child. If the owner of
a business enterprise has no power to fire a lazy employee, he has no authority over his own
business. If a nation-state has no power to enforce its laws, it is not a nation-state. If a free man
has no authority to act to protect his freedom, he is not free.
Likewise, where the federal government has acted unconstitutionally, if the nation-state has no
authority to stop the unconstitutional act, then the nation-state is not sovereign, it has no
authority and it is not a nation-state. If a free citizen has no authority to act to stop an
unconstitutional act, then the citizen is not free.
If it is agreed that all power of government comes from those governed, then it must also be
agreed that where the government exceeds the limitations on its authority, then the governed
have the right, the duty, the authority to force the government back into the bounds imposed
upon it by those who are governed and to discipline those who transgressed the limitations. That
right, that duty, that authority cannot be imposed on any citizen nor can it be withheld from any
citizen. It is a determination to be made by each individual citizen, one at a time.
All law stems from those who are governed by that law. If the law be, itself, lawful, then no
citizen governed by that law has any excuse for disobedience. However, if that law be, itself,
unlawful, then no citizen is bound to obedience to that law. Should the federal government enact

66 of 88
legislation, promulgate an executive order or publish a judicial decision contrary to the
Constitution, the sovereignty of the nation-states or the rights and freedom of the citizens, then it
is up to the citizens, themselves, to determine, for themselves, whether they shall resist or not.
Should any citizen, group of citizens or nation-state(s) determine to resist the unlawful actions of
the federal government, they have it, lawfully, within themselves to use that force necessary to
repel any effort by the federal government to require their obedience. For to do otherwise is to
cast away all authority with which the federal government is to be tamed and controlled and to
permit that government to become a tyrant over and above all the authority and power of the
citizens. It is to permit the federal government to enslave all free citizens.
Question XXXII.
Whether or not citizens have the duty, right and authority to engage in active resistance as
a means to reverse usurpations of the federal government.
Freedom is not free. It requires the constant diligence of all free men to keep watch on their
rights and liberty and, where necessary, to act to defend those rights and that freedom against
those who would steal any part of them.
It is a duty to actively resist usurpations of the federal government. It is required. It is not an
option. It is a pledge, from one citizen to another, that no usurpation of the federal government
shall go unchallenged or ignored in order to prevent any further usurpations.
It is a right to actively resist those same, or other, usurpations. It does not matter what others may
say or think. It is immaterial to the natural rights and freedom of free citizens in this Union what
others may believe or think. When the federal government encroaches upon, actively interferes
with, or attempts to, otherwise, destroy the rights and freedom of the citizens, it is the right of
each citizen to actively resist.
All federal government authority comes from those who are governed – the citizens. What
authority is not granted to the federal government or the nation-states is retained by the citizens.
Such includes the authority to pass on the constitutionality of the actions of those governments as
to whether they are legal or illegal. It is not the right of the federal government to determine
whether its own actions are permissible or not. That authority lies solely with the citizens.
Wherein, the federal government usurps any authority, or tyrannically attempts to enforce any
illegal act or law, each citizen has the right to actively resist that force. If need be, that resistance
may rise to the use of deadly force.
Where the federal government no longer represents the common needs of the several nation-
states it is the right of the citizens to take up arms against the federal government and to force it
to comply with the Constitution and to arrest, try and, upon conviction, sentence those who have
actively sought the destruction of this Union.

67 of 88
 Question XXXIII.
Whether or not self-defense against any unjust violence offered to the life of a citizen by the
federal government is warranted by law and the law of nature and nations.
This question may only be answered once “unjust violence” has been defined. If, in attempting to
carry out a lawful act, the federal government jeopardizes the life of a citizen against whom that
lawful act is directed, the citizen has no complaint. The citizen must submit or suffer the
potentially injurious or lethal consequences. If, on the other hand, in attempting to carry out an
unlawful act under the Constitution, the federal government jeopardizes the life of that same
citizen through the use of violence, such violence is “unjust violence.” No citizen is required to
submit to such unjust violence for the federal government has no legitimate authority on which
to base its actions in such cases.
All laws established under the authority of the Constitution which are intended and designed to
carry out the terms and conditions of that contract are lawful acts. It is when such acts are
intended, or even unintended, to violate the terms and conditions of the Constitution that the
citizen is lawfully entitled, within his rights, to act in self-defense. It matters not if the unlawful
act is carried out by any duly constituted law enforcement authority or other person of
government, including the courts. An unlawful act is an unlawful act. The duty, right and
authority of the citizen to resist does not disappear. There are numerous examples throughout
history of citizens resisting unlawful arrest where the citizen has been found to be fully within
his rights to do so.
It is natural for all free men, everywhere, to resist any attempt to act against them in an unjust
manner. Nature does not lend herself to the submission of free men to tyrannical authority. It
goes against every fiber of a free man's being to accept enslavement, no matter the asserted claim
to authority by the one attempting the enslavement.
All free nations understand and accept that free men have the right to resist enslavement or
encroachment on their rights and freedom. Numerous nations of the world have encoded the
right to resist such actions and even recognize the right of people to rise up against their potential
slave masters. It is no different, here.
Where the federal government attempts any action which is outside the Constitution or which
infringes on the rights and freedom of the citizens and, then, attempts to enforce that action
through the use of violence, such violence is unjust. It is the right and duty of all citizens to resist
that attempt by all means possible, including, if need be, the use of armed resistance.
Question XXXIV.
Whether or not the lawfulness of defensive wars has its warrant in history.
Consider the First American Revolution. If it be argued that the colonists had no authority, no
right, to engage in a war against the Crown, then it must be admitted by those who stand on that
argument that the United States of America is an illegal entity. If it be accepted that the colonists
were within their rights to resist the actions of the Crown, then at what point in our history have
we given away that right?

68 of 88
Consider the French Revolution. If it be argued that the citizens of France had no lawful right to
revolt against their own king, then the monarchy must be reinstated and the rights and freedom
of the French people must be at the leave of that king. If it be accepted that the French people
were within their rights to overthrow a monarchical government which no longer responded to
either the will or needs of the people, then the people were just and within their rights to
overthrow that government.
Consider the Polish situation of the 1980's. If it be argued that the citizens of Poland were
required, by law or duty, to submit to the communist government then in place, then it is required
that the government of Poland resign and a communist government replace the current one. If it
be argued that the people, by right, had determined to no longer live under the tyranny of
communism, then the people of that nation were within their rights to use what force was
expedient and necessary to effect the change.
Consider the citizens of South Africa. If it be argued that they were required by law and by
nature to accept apartheid and submit themselves to a government which did not respond or
concern itself with their needs, then it is required that the nations of the world collectively force
the existing government to step down and permit the former government to resume its place. If it
be argued that the people were within their rights to take up arms against the former government,
then they rightfully resisted that government to the point of forcing its replacement.
All of these existing governments, if it be argued that the people who formed them had no right
to do so by force, must, if one is to be intellectually honest, step down and permit their
replacement with the former governments. What fool would suggest such?
Question XXXV.
Whether or not the federal government's laws prove that in no case is it lawful to resist the
federal government with force.
There are laws contained within the United States Code which make it unlawful to even discus
the possibility of resisting the federal government through the use of force. It is a federal felony
to even discuss the matter. To actually engage in such activity is to invite imprisonment, at the
least, for life.
Yet, a plain reading of the Declaration of Independence demonstrates that it is not just the right,
but it is the duty, of every citizen of this Union to actively engage in armed resistance against any
federal government which becomes despotic or tyrannical. Wherein, does the federal government
receive the authority to grant itself such immunity from its unlawful and unconstitutional
actions?
Acknowledging the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms for personal purposes as well as
for the purpose of resisting the federal government, if it steps outside the limits of the
Constitution, any “law” which makes it “unlawful” for the citizens of the Union to take up arms
against the federal government when necessary, is itself, an act of rebellion against the citizens.
No citizen is required to comply with such “laws.”
The federal government has no authority to insulate itself from the consequences of its
unconstitutional acts. Such “laws” are no laws since such power is not expressly granted to the
federal government within the Constitution. It is the citizens who are charged with defending the

69 of 88
government when it acts as it should. It is the citizens who are responsible for defending the
federal government when it operates constitutionally. It is the citizens who are, by right,
permitted to force that government into compliance with the Constitution when that government
steps outside its lawful limits and refuses to step back.
Question XXXX.
Whether the nationalistic elitists, by cogent reasons, prove the unlawfulness of active
resistance.
What does it mean to be a nationalistic elitist over and opposed to a federalist? Let us delve into
this question, first, before answering the previous one.
A nationalistic elitist claims that the government established by the Constitution created a nation.
They argue, without merit, that the citizens granted the federal government the authority to do as
it wills and as it determines in the “best interests” of the “nation.” Nowhere in the Constitution is
the federal government granted such authority and no manner of legal or mental gymnastics can
or does justify the usurpations authority and power by that government. They argue that in
forming the national government, the citizens abdicated their rights and freedom to the needs of
that government in maintaining itself and its position over and above the sovereign nation-states.
The logical consequence of their argument is that the citizens no longer have the right to control
that government.
Additionally, it must be accepted by the arguments and actions of the nationalistic elitists, and
accepted by all others, that the representatives and senators of the Congress do not represent the
citizens, but are representatives and senators of the federal government, itself. No longer do these
individuals bring the views of their constituents to Washington, D.C., they bring the dictates of
the federal government to their constituents. One has merely to look into the actions of those
elected “officials” to see that they have sold their souls to the proposition that the federal
government and the Constitution no longer apply and that a national government has taken the
place of the federal.
A federalist, on the other hand, demonstrates through the use of the Constitution, itself, that the
form of government established by that document was, is, and will remain, a federation. This
form of government retains the delegating authority to the citizens and does not permit of the
usurpation of authority and powers not so delegated. Federalists recognize each of the nation-
states as being sovereign, in and of themselves, and that the federal government is a co-
sovereign, or limited sovereign, only in so far as that government remains within the limitations
imposed by the Constitution and does nothing that exceeds its authority to operate within those
limits.
There we have the two, primary parties and their basic concepts of government: the one opposed
to individual rights and freedom and the sovereignty of the nation-states in favor of a single,
national entity and the other upholding those very rights and freedom as well as the sovereignty
of the nation-states and opposed to a strong, centralized government.
No nationalistic elitist can legitimately argue against the right, or duty, of citizens to active
resistance against the federal government when, and if, it attempts to operate outside the bounds
and limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution. To so argue would require that such an

70 of 88
argument be predicated upon an intellectually dishonest presumption – that the citizens, in
forming the government of the United States, ceded any and all authority to their natural rights
and freedom and that, in so doing, they abdicated the sovereignty of the nation-states in
subordination to that of a national government. They can cite no documents, they can cite no
oaths, they can cite no actions with which they might justify such an argument.
Having made up their argument from whole cloth they must, of necessity, resort to the twisting
of the meaning of the Constitution and employ such trickery, lies and distortions of construction
so as to justify their assertions by blurring the true question and diverting the inquiry to irrelevant
issues. A single example is sufficient to demonstrate the point. In passing the Judiciary Act of
1798 the legislature granted the right of review of nation-state court determinations by the
federal courts of the United States. This single provision had, as a result, the effect of placing the
nation-state courts, courts of sovereign nation-states, under the authority of a federal court
system which was created solely for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of federal
questions in regard to the operation of the federal government. By so doing, the nationalistic
elitists, hiding their true intent, subverted the Constitution and the authority of the nation-states
and their citizens to oversee and judge the actions of the federal government in regard to its
compliance with the limitations imposed on it by that document. For, if any decision of the
federal courts were to run counter to a decision by a nation-state court, the federal government
would employ, and has so employed, its military and law enforcement capacities to enforce the
decision of the federal court against the rights and freedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of
the affected nation-state. No individual nation-state, standing alone, has the ability to withstand
the might of the federal government.
A second example is like unto the first. For the federal government has determined, on its own
and under its own authority, that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution empowers that
government to control all aspects of commerce within the states. This, the nationalistic elitists
argue, includes transportation systems, vehicles and even taxes imposed by the nation-states on
goods.
There is absolutely no constitutional authority for such control by the federal government over
such issues. Yet, the nationalistic elitists have temporarily won the day in both endeavors
resulting in the subjection of the nation-states and the citizens to the will of those wielding power
in the federal government.
Slowly, over time, the nationalistic elitists have worked to erode the sovereignty of the nation-
states and the rights and freedom of the citizens to create a “national” government which is the
antithesis of the Constitution. They have done so through the use of unconstitutional usurpations
of authority and power they were never meant to have or to wield. They continue to attack, a
little at a time over extended years, all that makes the Constitution a document creating a federal
government in order to impose their determination on the citizens without the consent of those
citizens. Included in this effort is the right to keep and bear arms. Part of the assault on that
amendment is their determination that no citizen has the right to actively resist the federal
government with force, if need be. To allow such a right would be to permit the right of
resistance against the nationalistic elitists' march toward totalitarianism. No such limitation is
imposed on any citizen by the Constitution.

71 of 88
 Question XXXXI.
Whether or not the sufferings of the colonists prior to the First American Revolution
militate against the lawfulness of active resistance.
It cannot be argued that the colonists were quick to cast off their connections to England. For
decades those hearty people suffered the consequences of the breach of their contract with the
Crown to their rights under English law as citizens. Repeated pleas to be heard and to be
represented in Parliament were ignored. Repeated efforts to be fairly treated, as citizens of
England, were ignored and indignity after indignity was heaped upon their shoulders. It became
too much to bear.
If we accept that the nationalistic elitists made their first attempt to strip the nation-states and
citizens of their sovereign authority at the Constitutional Convention and that they have, ever
since, continued to attack that sovereignty and those rights and freedom throughout the history of
this Union, then it must also be accepted that such continues to this day. The evidence supporting
that statement is all around and is ample enough for those who wish to investigate the claim.
The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. It took another seven years for the war to
come to its conclusion and the independence of the colonies as individual nation-states to be
established. The Constitution was ratified in 1788, several years after the conclusion of the First
American Revolution. In 1789, one year later, the nationalistic elitists obtained passage of the
Judiciary Act, subverting the nation-state courts to the federal court system and the federal
government. Approximately seventy years later, the Second American Revolution was fought
over the issue of “(nation-)states' rights.”
From 1776 to the end of the First American Revolution was seven years. From the end of that
war to the ratification of the Constitution was four more years. The Judiciary Act was passed one
year later and the Second American Revolution was fought seventy years after that.
For nearly one hundred fifty years the nation-states and their citizens have continued to suffer at
the hands of the nationalistic elitists. Repeated assaults on the sovereignty of the nation-states
and the rights and freedom of citizens have been borne with patience and sufferings. There have
been no real attempts at actively resist the encroachments of the federal government on these two
other spheres of government. But the pace of the usurpations and the dictatorial actions of the
federal government have quickened over time and continue to gain speed. The time is near at
hand when active resistance will not be possible.
Question XXXXII.
Whether the power of active resistance is only in the federal government or the nation-state
government.
Prior to answering the question it must be determined as to what purpose each of the two levels
of government is intended. It has already been demonstrated that nation-state governments exist
to deal with issues contained within their borders consisting of geographical, societal and
customary matters which differ from nation-state to nation-state. It has also been demonstrated
that the federal government exists for the purpose of dealing with all issues common to the
nation-states which, otherwise, would require each nation-state to contend with those same issues
on a nation by nation basis.

72 of 88
The nation-states also exist as bulwarks between the citizens living in each of those nation-states
and the federal government. They exist to stand up to the federal government and protect their
citizens from any excess of the federal government or any attempt by that government to usurp
authority which it does not constitutionally possess.
Should a nation-state so act against the federal government, it is well within the constitutional
authority and power of that nation-state so to do. To the contrary, it is not within the authority
and power of the federal government to actively resist any effort by any nation-state to protect its
citizens against the excesses of the federal government. The only recourse the federal
government possesses in claiming authority and powers not granted in the Constitution is the
amendment process provided for in that document.
The writers of the Constitution were well aware that their efforts would not be all encompassing
and all sufficient for the needs of the federal government, over time. They knew from the
beginning that the needs of the governed and of government would change, but that the actual
changing process was one that required extended consideration and, therefore, time in which to
deliberate of the proposed change. The amendment process contains all that is necessary to
protect the interests of the nation-states and the citizens in any issue which might be raised for
consideration as an amendment.
However, the use of force by the federal government against nation-states refusing to acquiesce
in unconstitutional federal authority and power expansion is not acceptable and permitting such
simply nullifies the Constitution in its entirety.
Question XXXXIII.
Whether or not it is lawful for citizens, not engaged in active resistance against the federal
government, to support, through the donation of wealth those who are so engaged.
Citizens are free to dispose of their property, money, goods and services as they so please so long
as such disposal is not either unconstitutional or against any constitutional law. No government
either local, nation-state or federal has the authority to prevent citizens from so acting in the
support of those who are engaged in active resistance against any tyranny, regardless of it being
against the federal government.
To so allow that citizens are not permitted to dispose of their wealth in such a manner is to
enslave those citizens. For it is the very basis of freedom to be able to choose as one wills in
regard to the use of one's wealth. There is no constitutional proscription against such use and,
therefore, no citizen who elects to make use of his wealth in such a manner is committing any act
against which the local, nation-state or federal governments have any claim.
Question XXXXIV.
Whether the current government is the best of governments.
There is no better form of government than that set forth in the Constitution. It is a travesty of
history that the nationalistic elitists have been permitted to subvert that document to the
detriment of the nation-states forming this Union and the citizens living within those very
nations. It is an even worse travesty that the current government refuses to abide by the very
document which gave rise to its existence. They flaunt their authority and power over and above

73 of 88
the nation-states and the citizens and engage in treason without remorse or concern. They openly
flaunt their continuing violations of the limitations imposed upon them by the Constitution. And
they declare their goals of enslaving the citizens of the nation-states and eliminating the nation-
states' sovereignty in order to form a single “nation” from the remnants.
If the citizens of this Union will force the federal government to return to its constitutional
mandate and strictures and to operate within those limits, foregoing any further efforts at
subversion, we will once again live in a Union which shines forth to the nations of the world.
Question XXXXV.
Whether or not the federal government is subject to the Constitution and the laws which it
has passed.
The federal government has consistently passed laws under which it declares itself to be exempt.
Consider the dichotomy.
Congress passes proposed legislation which is signed into law by the President which is upheld
by the federal courts. The law applies to the nation-states, to the citizens, individually, and to any
business enterprises within the Union. It does not apply to the federal government.
The question then arises as to whether the members of the federal government are citizens of
their respective nation-states. For if they are, then the law applies to them as well as any other
citizen for one of the most important precepts of this Union is that no man is above the law.
If they are not to be considered citizens of their respective nation-states then it must be
determined what citizenship they declare. If they declare themselves citizens of the United States
of America, then they are declaring themselves to be nationalistic elitists. If so, they are openly
declaring themselves to be usurpers for there is no authority granted to any persons not citizens
of the party nation-states to the Constitution to hold any office within the Union. Additionally,
there is no separate national entity called the United States of America. It does not exist.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that all laws passed by the federal government,
including their own rules, regulations, policies and procedures, apply equally to that government
as they do to all citizens of this Union. To accept otherwise is to promote the nationalistic elitists
over and above all other citizens.
Question XXXXVI.
Whether or not the people have any power over the federal government, either by oath,
constitution, or any other way.
The citizens established the nation-states. Subsequent to the First American Revolution, the
citizens declared their respective colonies to be nation-states. No form of federal government
existed until the Articles of Confederation. Those Articles were insufficient and the result was a
call, by the citizens of the states to consider a better form of government more responsive to the
desires and needs of the citizens and the nation-states, respectively.
There is no question that the citizens established the Constitution through their respective nation-
states. Once the Constitutional Convention was completed the process of ratification began. That
process called for the various nation-states of the Confederacy to determine, each for themselves,

74 of 88
whether they accepted the Constitution or not. Only nine of the states of the Confederacy were
needed to establish the United States of America under the Constitution. However, it was the
process of debate in which the citizens, themselves, were the determinants of accepting or
rejecting the Constitution. For the process permitted the citizens of each nation-state to make
known to their respective representatives within the nation-state legislatures their feelings on the
matter. And their feelings were heard. With slight modification, the Constitution was ratified.
The Constitution established the federal government. It was not made up of citizens who decided
to take matters into their own hands. It was not made up of people who had no regard for the will
of the citizens. It was constituted by the citizens – the people. The federal government came into
being through a document established, discussed and voted upon by the citizens of the nation-
states. The nation-states did not act autonomously. They acted in response to the input of their
citizens. The citizens chose a federal government over a national government.
The citizens control the federal government. They have never ceded their authority to control the
federal government. Those who argue that the establishment of the federal government was
exactly that, the ceding of such authority by the citizens, argue from the fool's position. They can
point to no document, no law, no legitimate court decision where the citizens of this Union have
either voiced their agreement to such cession or where they have voted to so act. Therefore, they
retain their authority over that government.
It is interesting to note that all members of the federal government who are elected to any high
office take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and not the federal government.
Question XXXXVII.
Whether the federal government justly ascribes to us the sobriquet of rebels in these
questions of lawful active resistance.
Consider the following:
The Constitution is a contract between the citizens of this Union and the federal government. It
need not be argued, here, again, that the Constitution is a contract between those who will govern
and those who will be governed. It is sufficient to the question to simply make the point.
The federal government no longer comports itself as is required by the Constitution and
continually usurps authority and powers not delegated to it by that document. If the federal
government were in compliance with the limitations imposed by the Constitution, we would not
be dealing with the matters before us. It is plain as can possibly be that they are not in
compliance with those limits.
Any citizen actively resisting the usurpations of the federal government does so by right, by duty
and by law. It is already determined that to resist unlawful and unconstitutional usurpations by
the federal government is no offense, either to nature or the law of nations.
It is the federal government which is in rebellion. The citizens have acted patiently over the
years, expressing themselves in their votes and in their media regarding the illegal acts of the
federal government. They have voiced their dissent with their so-called representatives. They
have attempted to prevent such illegal acts in the federal courts. Only to be rebuffed at every turn
by the nationalistic elitist traitors in that government.

75 of 88
In the matters before us it is the federal government which owns the sobriquet of rebel.
Question XXXXVIII.
Whether or not the federal legislature represents the citizens of the Union.
The federal legislature consists of two houses: 1) the House of Representatives (commonly
referred to simply as “the House”); and, 2) the Senate. In each case, the legislators of both bodies
are elected by the citizens of their respective nation-states. Members of the House are elected
based on population and members of the Senate are elected two by two from each nation-state of
the Union.
No member of either the House or the Senate may be elected to either chamber from any nation-
state wherein they are not a citizen. It is a basic requirement of membership that each member be
a citizen of the nation-state from which he is elected. This raises the question as to whether
members of the House and the Senate owe their allegiance to their nation-state or to the federal
government.
If it is argued that the members of the House and Senate owe their allegiance to the federal
government, because they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States, any person making such an argument is naive, at best. For to argue that their first
responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution is to argue that their first responsibility is
to protect and defend the sovereignty of their respective nation-states and the rights and freedom
of their constituent citizens.
If it is argued that they owe their allegiance to their respective nation-states and their respective
constituency, then the argument is against a national government and for a federal government,
wherein, the Constitution limits their authority and power to that necessary to perform the
responsibilities delegated to that government, and no more. For it is in maintaining the operation
of the federal government within those limits that they protect and defend the sovereignty of
their respective nation-states and the rights and freedom of their constituents.
Sadly, it is demonstrable through history that those same members of the House and the Senate
have wholly failed in their responsibilities to both their nation-states and their constituents. A few
examples will suffice.
They have voted themselves raises without the consent of the citizens. They have increased taxes
without the consent of the citizens. They have stolen money from the citizens in order to enrich
themselves and to rescue their friends and allies. They have acted in every way to subvert the
Constitution and, in so doing, traitorously acted against the interests of the citizens and the
Union. They have failed to act to protect the nation-states and the citizens against foreign
invasion; unjustly taxed citizens to support their personal agendas; passed legislation intended to
subject the Union to foreign laws; and, approved treaties compelling the redistribution of the
wealth of the citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution are they permitted such authority and power.
If this be not treason, then treason does not exist.

76 of 88
 Question XXXXIX.
Whether or not the federal courts are to act to protect the sovereignty of the several states
and the rights and freedom of their citizens.
The federal courts were established for the sole purpose of ensuring that the acts of the federal
government comported with the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution of the United
States. So long as those acts were, and are, within those limits the federal courts are duty bound,
and rightfully so, to find for the federal government.
However, when the federal government moves to act beyond its authority and power as expressly
set forth in the Constitution, or in direct violation of the same, the federal courts are to issue their
pronouncements and determinations against such usurpations and impose themselves between
the federal government and the nation-states and citizens. They have miserably failed in their
duty.
The federal courts have consistently upheld the illegal march to nationalism by the federal
government. They have repeatedly failed to uphold the laws of the Union in the face of foreign
law; they have ruled against the rights and freedom of citizens plainly set forth in the
Constitution; they have failed to protect the sovereignty of the nation-states; they have
unconstitutionally legislated from the bench; they have unconstitutionally expanded the authority
and powers of the federal government; and, they have forced their own, personal desires upon
the citizens without regard to the constitutionality of such actions.
The federal courts have betrayed the trust of the citizens of the nation-states of this Union and
are actively aiding and abetting the rebellion of the federal government against the citizens.
Question L.
Whether or not there is any recourse, other than active resistance, to the usurpations and
abuses heaped upon the citizens by the federal government.
Let us now consider, in light of all of the foregoing, whether there is any other alternative to
active resistance against the federal government.
As citizens, members of this Union have the right to petition the government for redress of
grievances. To petition the government means those who have been wronged seek the righting of
those wrongs committed by the perpetrators. What more can be asked than that citizens voice
their grievances to their elected officials in that government? Such has been done, repeatedly, to
no avail. For the elected “representatives” no longer heed the voice of the electorate. The
members of the legislature of the federal government conduct themselves, and continue to
conduct themselves, in their own interests ignoring the pleas of the citizens.
Supposedly, if ignored by the legislature, the citizens have recourse to the federal courts in an
attempt to prevent unconstitutional acts from becoming law and being enforced. However,
experience has shown that such is to no purpose. For the federal courts are in league with the
traitors in the House and the Senate.
What then, is left to the citizens other than active resistance? No other alternative exists.

77 of 88
 Question LI.
What process must be followed to maintain the moral high ground in actively resisting the
federal government.
Notice is required for any lawful and just resistance to take place against a tyrannical
government. Such notice is required to set forth the grievances claimed, the relief sought and a
time frame in which to provide the demanded relief. Absent such, there is no legitimate right to
actively resist the federal government.
All grievances must be stated in sufficient detail and predicated upon constitutional claims which
cannot be denied. These grievances form the basis of any resistance and, therefore, must not only
be properly stated, but they must carry with them the legal justification for their classification as
grievances.
The relief sought must be stated in such a fashion that it is unequivocal and supports no counter
claim to being too vague. There can be only one solution. In submitting the notice it must be
determined exactly what the relief sought will be.
Finally, there must be a stated time by which the relief sought shall be provided. Successful
provision of the demanded relief will result in certain and specific actions which, also, must be
set forth. Any failure to provide the demanded relief must also have the stated repercussions set
forth.
Ultimately, whatever demands are made, whatever relief is sought, should the federal
government fail to provide that relief, then the citizen(s) making the demands must act in
accordance with the negative sanctions provided for in the notice.
Question LII.
Whether or not those who either work to impose, or espouse, a national government
construction of the Constitution of the United States are, in fact, patriots and ought to
retain their rights in this Union once constitutional government is restored.
Before answering the question one must define the terms on which the question is based.
Therefore, we shall proceed with the acceptance of the following definitions:
patriot – one who loves his country and zealously guards its welfare; esp., a defender of popular
liberty.
patriotism – Devotion to one's country.
Treason – 1. Betrayal or breach of allegiance or of obedience toward one's sovereign or
government. 2. A breach of faith; treachery.
Traitor – One who betrays a trust; esp. one who commits treason.
Many so-called representatives of the citizens of this Union espouse their patriotism. Many
bristle at any challenge which they may turn by declaring the challenge to be an affront to them
as patriots, most especially politicians. They are liars.
True patriots love their nation-states. For there is no nation called the United States. This Union
is comprised of fifty nation-states - separate, co-equal, co-sovereign nations. True patriots love

78 of 88
their nation-states, not the federal government or the nationalistic version of the federal
government. They desire the best for their nation-state and they will defend, to the death if need
be, the freedom of that nation-state.
It is not patriotism to be devoted to the United States over and above one's own nation-state. It is
not patriotism to be devoted to the subjection of the citizens of one's own nation-state and those
of the other nation-states to the aggrandizement of the federal government. It is not patriotism to
be devoted to subverting the Constitution. Each and every act, or failure to act, by those in the
federal government asserting their patriotism yet supporting the nationalistic elitists is a blatant
lie and constitutes treason.
From the beginning of this Union the nationalistic elitists and their ilk have striven to deprive the
free men of this Union of their God-given rights and freedom and to impose a national
government over the sovereignty of the several nation-states which created that same Union.
They have have passed laws without the consent of the citizens, wherein, those laws subjected
the citizens and the nation-states to the false supremacy of the federal government, in complete
contradiction to the Constitution. And they have done so slowly so as not to expose themselves
to recrimination and loss of their position, status, wealth, authority and power and in order to
deny and dissimulate against those who have attempted to reveal the truth.
We have previously dealt with the issue of the comparison of the federal form of government
versus the national form of government. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is there
any grant to the federal government which constructs a nation from the several states comprising
this Union. There is no nation which is named The United States. The entity so named is one of a
federation of nation-states come together through a federal government established for the
purpose of performing those tasks common to all members of the federation, subject to the
citizens of the nation-states comprising the federation. A national government, and the
nationalistic elitists, would have it otherwise in that they would see the government of the United
States supreme in all things, over and above the rights and freedom of the citizens and the
sovereignty of the several nation-states.
No one is a patriot who votes for legislation that they have not read, much less legislation which
has not yet even been set down in print. No one is a patriot that votes for legislation which steals
the wealth of individual citizens for redistribution among those the legislators deem their friends
and compatriots. No one is a patriot who exposes the security of the nation-states and their
citizens to attack from without and from within, even after repeated calls to secure the borders
and ports of the Union. No one is a patriot who votes to use the military might of the federal
government against the citizens of this Union, no matter the rights of the citizens. No one is a
patriot who votes to compel free men to support the destruction of their freedoms. No one is a
patriot who votes for any legislation which is contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
Those who so vote do so with the full knowledge and understanding of the consequences. They
do so knowing the purpose and intent of the proposed legislation. They do so knowing the
legislation violates the precepts of the Constitution. They have no excuse.
Those who so vote to nationalize the government of the United States, over and against its federal
design, do so with the full knowledge and understanding of their role in usurping authority and
power they do not posses under the Constitution. They do so knowing full well that the exercise

79 of 88
of such votes run counter to the rights and freedom of citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-
states. They have no excuse.
Those who so vote, vote for the enslavement of the citizens of this Union. They do so with the
intent and design to minutely control all aspects of every citizens life, moment by moment. They
do so with the intent and design to enrich themselves at the expense of the general populace.
They do so knowingly and, although they so plead, cannot legitimately claim ignorance. They
have no excuse.
Those who so vote have committed treason against the citizens and nation-states of this Union.
They have been elected on their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
They have been elected on their duty to protect the rights and freedom of the citizens who have
elected them. They have been elected on their oath to protect the sovereignty of the nation-states
they allegedly serve. They have been elected on the basis of promises espoused by them; duties
they have asserted that they would perform; and, by responsibilities imputed to them which they
have ignored. They were sent to Washington to perform those duties and to do so in a manner
which demonstrated, repeatedly, their allegiance to their nation-states and their constituents.
They have betrayed both and have miserably failed in their duties. They have no excuse.
Those who so vote are not patriots, but traitors to the citizens, the nation-states and the Union. As
traitors, they have forfeited all rights to citizenship as well as all wealth and property they have
attained or accumulated. They knew their own minds before they ran for the offices to which
they were elected. They have no excuse.
Those who so vote have betrayed this Union, their own nation-states and all citizens of this
Union.
Having repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for this Union and actively worked to sabotage the
rights and freedom of its citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states, no person who so
voted against the Constitution, regardless of age, party affiliation or their proffered excuses,
should retain the right to citizenship in the nation-state which elected them or continue to retain
the property or wealth accumulated during such evil service to the Union. All such persons, after
having been duly tried, if found guilty, should be stripped of all wealth, property and their
citizenship and then forced into exile, for life, to any country which shall have them.
Question LIII.
Whether or not those members of the legislature who vote for the passage of legislation
which they have neither read nor provided to the general public are guilty of treason.
It is exceedingly disappointing to have any elected official who is empowered to vote on
proposed legislation confess to having never read the instrument for which he has voted. Such is
the case with the current federal government and its Republicrat minions throughout the
legislature.
I say “Republicrat” for there is no difference between the two when members of both fail to
inform their respective nation-states or their constituents of the contents of proposed legislation;
fail to vote to uphold the sovereignty of their respective nation-states; fail to vote to uphold the
rights and freedom of the citizens of those nation-states; and, fail to vote to uphold the
Constitution of the United States. Much more on this in response to another question.

80 of 88
Proposed legislation, to be understood, to be put through its constitutional paces, so to speak,
requires that it be reduced to writing so that the ambassadors of the citizens, and the nation-states
from which they received their position, may be fully informed and unconstitutional actions may
be defeated openly and honestly. None of these responsibilities can be accomplished when such
legislation is neither reduced to writing before any vote or when such votes are taken even before
the legislation is written.
To accept unwritten legislation as being the equivalent of that which is written is to open the
door to despotism and tyranny. It is to claim that the citizens of this Union are incapable of
determining what legislation is right for them and admonishing their ambassadors to vote in the
manner which is most appropriate for them. It is to remove the right of government from the
citizens and to install a dictatorship.
Further, it opens the door to enacting legislation which is a type of “fill in the blank” and which,
when completed, can impose any violations of the Constitution which the writer(s) may desire. It
is a blank check to usurp that authority and power which, otherwise, would not be permitted.
To vote for such legislation is a betrayal of the trust granted to ambassadors who were elected to
ensure that the rights and freedom of citizens and the sovereignty of their nation-states would
remain inviolate. It is treason.
Question LIV.
Whether or not the forced implementation by the federal government of fascist, socialist,
communist or nationalist ideals is counter to the rights and freedom of citizens and the
sovereignty of the nation-states of this Union and constitutes treason.
Fascism – A one-party system of government in which the individual is subordinated to the state
and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship, and governmental
regimentation of industry and finance.
Socialism – 1. Public collective ownership or control of the basic means of production,
distribution, and exchange, with the avowed aim of operating for use rather than for profit, and
of assuring to each member of society an equitable share of goods, services, etc. 2. The doctrines
of those advocating this system.
Communism – 1. A social system characterized by the communal sharing of goods and services.
2. A theory of social change advocating a classless society, public ownership of almost all
productive property, and the sharing of the products of labor. 3. The system in force in any state
based on this theory.
Nationalism – 1. Devotion, often chauvinistic, to one's own nation. 2. The belief or doctrine that
among nations the common welfare is best served by independent rather than collective or
cooperative action. 3. A desire or movement for national independence.
It cannot be argued that the federal government, no matter how far it has strayed from that title,
has not imposed fascist rule on this Union. Through unconstitutional actions of the President,
unconstitutional legislation by the Congress and unconstitutional rulings by the federal courts,
the federal government has essentially welded the two major political parties into one and
imposed that government's “regimentation of industry and finance.” They do so with the threat of

81 of 88
military force, the plans of which have been repeatedly exposed; the use of local, state and
federal law enforcement agencies in secret and unconstitutional operations against the populace;
impose a general censorship wherein those elected to represent the citizens deem it proper and
appropriate to refuse to answer questions from the citizens regarding their actions, as do the
various departments within that government; and, are now contemplating a process whereby they
may engineer a system of censorship on the public, at large. They do not stop there.
Additionally, in the attempt to garner support for their unconstitutional actions, they tout the
“public ownership” of various industry and financial concerns which they have “acquired”
through the use of illegal taxation and borrowing against the future of the citizens of this Union.
They now are floating the concept of eliminating production within the Union of goods for sale
abroad and are, by their very acts of legislation, forcing commercial enterprises into foreign
lands by excessive taxation and government controls and legislating private operations, such as
farms, out of existence through overly burdensome legislation empowering the government to
interfere in those private concerns. They do not stop there.
They now pursue a system of health care in which the delivery of such care is controlled and
determined by the government for distribution to the citizens as the government deems fit and
appropriate. They have passed legislation intended to further tax the citizenry through a hoax
referred to as “global warming” and through a sham entitled the “Cap and Trade Bill.” The result
of the passage of either, or both, of these legislative atrocities will be the further loss of rights
and freedom by citizens and the total destruction of the sovereignty of the nation-states. They do
not stop there.
Nationalism can be a good thing when appropriately directed. It is not appropriately directed
when it is focused on the federal government for the federal government is not, nor was it
intended to be, a national government. In order to have a national government one must have a
nation to govern. The federal government represents no nation. It represents fifty separate, co-
equal nations. To espouse, or to act so as to place, the federal government over and above those
nations is to espouse nationalistic elitism and to act to establish a nation which is no longer
governed by the Constitution and which does not even exist. Such a nation cannot be governed
by that document for that document places all ultimate authority and power in the hands of the
citizens. Therefore, all acts done that further the destruction of the Constitution, that erode the
rights and freedom of citizens and impinge on the sovereignty of the nation-states for the purpose
of establishing a national government to rule over them are acts of treason.
Question LV.
Whether or not the failure of the federal government to protect the citizens and the nation-
states of this Union from foreign invasion through our own borders constitutes treason on
the part of elected officials.
To fail to act on the knowledge of an impending attack is criminal. All such persons found to
have had any prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks on the United States and having failed to act to
stop such attacks by declaring that knowledge should be fairly tried and, if found guilty, executed
for aiding and abetting the murder of nearly three thousand innocent people.

82 of 88
Wherein the federal government knows that there are those outside this Union who have
expressed the desire and the willingness to attack and kill Americans in their own lands, and that
government fails to act responsibly and reasonably, that government's failures constitute treason
against the citizens and the nation-states.
For years, the vast majority of citizens and the border nation-states of this Union have repeatedly
attempted to have the borders closed so as to force anyone attempting to cross into these lands to
do so legitimately through specified border crossing points. To accomplish this, legislation was
passed empowering the federal government to construct sufficient barriers to prevent illegal
crossings into the nation-states. The federal government has failed to do so for its political and
nationalistic reasons.
We are aware of the reports of citizens murdered in their homes by those from foreign lands
having gained entry through illegal border crossings. We are aware of foreign military forces
engaging our duly empowered law enforcement agencies within the borders of our own nation-
states. We are aware of the tunnels that have been dug underground to cross those borders for the
purpose of carrying on illegal activity. And still, the federal government refuses to secure the
borders.
There are literally tens of millions of illegal aliens residing within our borders. They bring with
them a refusal to assimilate into society within the nation-states. They bring with them a history
of crime. They steal the wealth of the citizens through failure to pay lawful taxes; through
identity theft; through taking of jobs at inferior wages and, thereby, reducing the economy in the
areas in which they reside; and, they steal health care from the hospitals and clinics throughout
the United States paid for by lawful citizens.
Nearly ten thousand American citizens are killed every year by illegal aliens residing in the
United States. Drug gangs are terrorizing local communities. Criminal enterprises are importing
their operations from around the world. And the federal government, mandated to secure the
borders ------- does nothing.
The federal government, knowing all of this activity is taking place, is aiding and abetting
murder, identity theft, drug dealing, extortion, weapons running and who knows what other
crimes. All in the name of creating chaos in order to establish a national government on the
bodies of those legal citizens who wish no more than to live peaceable lives free from
interference from the government or any others.
The failure to act by the federal government is treason against the legal citizens of this Union.
Any federal employee, from the President down to the lowliest custodian, who fails to act to
enforce legitimate law against illegal aliens is guilty of treason against the United States.
Question LVI.
Whether or not the provision of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens constitutes abetting
criminal activity and criminal enterprises sufficiently to sustain the charge of treason
against elected federal officials.
There is another push being mounted by the single party system of the federal government, the
Republicrats, to grant amnesty to the tens of millions of illegal aliens residing within the borders
of the nation-states of this Union. Not only is there no constitutional authority for such an act,

83 of 88
but such an act, in and of itself, would constitute aiding and abetting criminal activity and
furthering a criminal enterprise. Such is sufficient for the charge of treasonous acts by the federal
government against the lawful citizens of the nation-states and the sovereignty of those nation-
states.
Wherein the federal government is aware of, and fails to act against, illegal aliens residing within
the borders of the nation-states, the federal government is condoning illegal activity. It is a
criminal offense to cross into the United States without first obtaining the proper authorizations
to do so. It is a criminal offense to use the name and social security number of another person,
living or dead, for the purpose of obtaining employment. It is a criminal offense to use the stolen
identity of another person to obtain medical care. It is a criminal offense to steal another person's
identity. It is a criminal offense to continually use such information as if it were one's own true
identity. All elected officials are fully aware of each and every one of these criminal offenses
being committed on a continuing, daily basis by the millions of illegal aliens residing within the
United States. And yet they do nothing to stop it.
But they do do something. They rail against those who wish to preserve the wealth and status of
this Union through the individual rights and freedom of its citizens, accusing them with the false
charge of bigotry or racism. They engage in character assassination against those who support
legal immigration. They lie to the American citizens about their intentions and their goals. They
continually act against the interests and security of the nation-states and the very citizens by
whom they are employed.
In so doing, the Congress of the United States, in connivance and collusion with the President of
the United States, the entirety of the Executive Branch and the federal judiciary, are guilty of
treason.
Question LVII.
Whether or not the failure of the nation-state governments to intervene against the federal
government and arrest the perpetrators of these outrages constitutes, in itself, treason.
The governments of the nation-states were formed and elected for the purpose of serving the
citizens of their respective nations. These governments, in providing such service, were
recognized as the initial bulwark against intrusion into the rights and freedom of the citizens by
the federal government. It was, is and always shall be, the first duty of the nation-state
governments to interpose themselves between their citizens and any unconstitutional act by the
federal government. The cowardice of the nation-state governments, embodied in the governors
of the several nation-states, has led us to be in the situation we are faced with today.
Why is it that the nation-state governments have failed to act against the federal government in
the interests of their citizens? What is it that has made the governors unwilling to interpose the
power of their nation-states to protect the rights and freedom of their citizens from the
nationalistic elitists within the federal government? A little history will answer the questions.
It will be recalled that the Constitutional Convention saw attempts by those advocating a national
government opposed by those who would have nothing to do with such a government on the
grounds that such a government was nothing less than a retrenchment of monarchy in a land
where a war had been recently fought to divest the citizens of exactly that form of government.

84 of 88
There was to be no turning back. But the nationalistic elitists of the day were not stymied in their
efforts to defeat any form of freedom which might interfere with their agenda.
Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, these same forces were successful in having
enacted legislation which subordinated the courts of the nation-states to those of the federal
government. That Act, the Judiciary Act, of 25Sep1789, granted the federal courts the authority
to review any decisions by nation-state courts wherein the federal government was found to be
wanting in constitutional authority in any matter which had been heard by the nation-state courts.
Not in effect, but in actuality, the Constitution had been subverted right there, right then.
They did not cease their efforts to further diminish the rights and freedom of citizens and the
sovereignty of the nation-states. They continued to engage in unconstitutional legislation. Why
through legislation? Because through legislation, the federal government obtains its authority to
carry out its duties under the Constitution. It was a false flag operation intended to deceive the
citizens and it did so very effectively. For the nationalistic elitists nibbled away at the rights and
freedom of citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states. Little by little, over time, they
continued to erode the Constitution and the limitations of delegated authority and power imposed
on the federal government by that document. The nation-state governors did nothing.
The height of the insults heaped upon the citizens and the several nation-states comprising the
Union came during the years prior to the Second American Revolution, what some call the Civil
War. It was during this time that those intending on developing a national government, over and
above the sovereign nation-states and their citizens, were in a position to impose, through
unconstitutional legislation, restrictive ordinances intended to prop up the superiority of the
federal government over the nation-states. The mechanism employed for this process was that of
the anti-slavery movement. It is not the purpose of this discourse to discuss the pros or cons of
institutionalized slavery, suffice it to say, that the issue of slavery was a chimera employed to
force a division among the nation-states justifying the use of federal military forces to enforce
the decisions and determinations of some nation-states, through the federal government, on
those nation-states which refused to comply with any such decisions and determinations
emanating from the federal government.
Up to the Second American Revolution it can be demonstrated that the various presidents and the
political parties were of such diversity so as to avert most attempts at establishing a national
government. There were times and occasions where such did not happen, as in the
aforementioned Judiciary Act of 1789. The progress of the nationalistic elitists was slow. They
were impatient to attain their goal and so they strove to force an issue which so divided the
nation-states of the Union as to cause a war between them.
In the time between the First and Second American Revolutions, the various governmental
administrations, legislatures and courts can be shown to have acted, independently in some
circumstances, jointly in others, so as to inflict continued injury upon the Constitution to the
detriment of the rights and freedom of citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states. Such
actions gained momentum just prior to the Second American Revolution.
It was, and has been, through the presidency that the nationalistic elitists have striven to attain
their goal. The President is the most visible of the members of the federal government. He is the
Commander in Chief. In not wanting to act in such a manner so as to be accused directly of

85 of 88
staging a coup against the citizens of the Union, the nationalistic elitists have, throughout history,
employed the office of the President for their purposes. A close examination of the
administrations of the various presidents will clearly demonstrate the assertion. Each of those
presidents subsequent to General Washington, who has attempted to enlarge the authority and
power of the federal government has, in some manner, way, shape or form, damaged the
Constitution. It truly began with Hamilton and continues to this day.
The years subsequent to the Second American Revolution were years of rebuilding. They were
years employed to strengthen the grip of a nationalistic cabal on the federal government. They
were also years employed to pass legislation intended to continue the subversion of the
Constitution.
Little by little, but at ever increasing speed, the nationalistic elitists have acted to secure for
themselves the wealth, power, authority and control of the wealth of the citizens that they require
to sustain their movement and to achieve their goals. Their most prominent success, until
recently, was that of the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was President
Roosevelt who obtained passage of several acts which permitted the cause of the nationalistic
elitists to leap forward and to secure for them the use of the wealth and property of the citizens
for their own nefarious purposes. Through the Social Security Act, the federal government forced
upon the citizens a tax which was falsely promised to provide basic sustenance for all citizens at
their retirement. The history of the money stolen by the Republicrats under that lie is replete with
abuses and theft. He also saw fit to obtain the passage of unconstitutional legislation employed
by that government which enlarged and extended what is known as the Great Depression through
government interference in private business, most especially the banking industry. It is well
known by intellectually honest people that had the government not become involved, the so-
called Great Depression would have ended years earlier than it did. He obtained a federal tax to,
he falsely asserted, pay for our participation in World War II. That tax was claimed to end once
the debt was paid. We now see the claim exposed for the lie that it was then and still is today.
The legacy of the Office of the President continued after President Roosevelt's death. Most of the
Presidents since then have continued to insist on powers and authority for the federal
government, and for themselves, that they do not possess under the Constitution and which has
never been granted. Legislators continue to enact laws which their constituents decry and who
those legislators wholly ignore. The legislators act as if, once elected, they have the right to do as
they please without a by-your-leave from their respective nation-states or their constituency. The
judiciary continues to falsely expand and justify the usurpation of power by the federal
government through decisions employing foreign law and denying the controlling and limiting
language of the Constitution.
And now we have an administration, which when running for election, decried the “excesses” of
the prior administration, but which continues those same policies and furthers them in the
interests of the now, global elite to the detriment of the citizens and nation-states of this Union.
During all of this, where were, and are, the governors of the nation-states? Since the culmination
of the Second American Revolution they have bowed and scraped for the scraps tossed to them
from the table of the nationalistic/global elites. They have done all in their power to
accommodate those in the federal government who have continued to abuse their authority and

86 of 88
power to steal the wealth of the citizens, to rob them of their rights and freedom and to destroy
the sovereignty of the nation-states. They have failed to reign in their ambassadors to the federal
government, the state's representatives and senators, or to require that those persons perform
their duties as demanded by the citizens. They have failed to interpose themselves between the
elitists and the citizens.
Why? What is it that the governors have to fear? Everything and everyone. In exchange for their
cooperation, or, at the very least, for their non-interference, these governors, yesterday and today,
have received emoluments of untold wealth in obtaining federal grants for their states. Such is
the nature of the beast that those grants tend to ever tighten the chains of slavery about the necks
of the citizens, but that is of no apparent concern to the governors. For they, too, have personally
gained from their dog-like obedience to the elitists. They have attained to heights within the
Republicrat party that they, otherwise, would not have reached had they objected to, or acted to
prevent, the abuses of the federal government. To their eternal shame, they have sold their souls
to the devil in the form of the nationalistic/global elitists.
Any governor of any nation-state who has failed to act to stop the destruction of the Constitution
by the nationalistic/global elitists through the employment of unconstitutional usurpations of
authority and power, or has failed to require, and enforce the requirement, that the
representatives and senators of their respective nation-states comport themselves, in the interests
of the rights and freedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states, as the
ambassadors that they truly are to the federal government, not in league with that government,
has committed treason against the citizens of their respective nation-states.
Question LVIII.
What, then, can be done to halt the progression of the nationalistic elitists and preserve the
rights and freedom of citizens and the sovereignty of the states.
There is no further alternative. We must fight. For the nationalistic/global elitists will not
surrender. They will not go quietly into the night. They will not stop until they are stopped by
force of arms.
It is time to organize in such a manner so as to provide an army of such dimensions that the
federal government is unable to resist. It is time to train all able bodied men for the purpose of
forcibly retaking the federal government and remaking it into one that is wholly and fully
constrained by the Constitution through the rewriting of that document to ensure that no further
usurpations will occur in the future. It is time for the citizens of this Union to fully exercise their
rights, in concert. Individual resistance may shine a dim light of truth on the abuses heaped upon
us, for a time. They will not result in change. For over a very short time, the citizens of this
Union will forget the individual effort. They will become more and more concerned over their
own troubles, created and intensified by the federal government and their propaganda machine,
the “national” media.
A new Constitution must be written. One which specifically restricts the authority and power of
the federal government. One which specifically sets forth a process by which the federal
government is permitted to act in any capacity with which it has been empowered to act, and no
further. One which will be enforced by the nation-states which comprise the new Union. One

87 of 88
which will set forth the rights of the citizens in such terms that no elite power will dare to ever
again attempt to infringe upon those rights.
It will be costly. It will require blood. It will require sacrifice. It will require will power. It will
succeed. For if it fails your children and your children's, children's, children will be slaves.

88 of 88