Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Hope to generate some discussion with this post?

  1. #1
    Regular Member deniedmyrights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    johnson county
    Posts
    51

    Hope to generate some discussion with this post?

    You know one of the tried and true ways to get a nation united and moving in the same direction whenever you want them too. Is to either to discover or create an enemy. Now the longtime favorite enemy of the state and for the past 50 years, the darling of book, cinema and television has been Communism.

    No enemy in recent history has inspired the sort of knee jerk fear and hysteria as the commies have. Nor has anything since the Spanish inquisition culminated in the type of which hunt that played out in 1950’s America, with high jinx of the un-American activities committee. The blacklisting, the informing, the testifying. Phrases like better dead than red. Makes swapping French fries to freedom fries seem kind of lame.

    With a proclivity for memorable hair. Managing to over dress for all the wrong occasions. Surely astonishing accessories and the uncanny ability to stay in fashion for 40 years on posters and t-shirts worldwide. The commies certainly got staying power. Perhaps more than you think.
    Would it surprise you to hear that you have at last deer friends been conquered after all?

    The communist manifesto was published on February 21, 1848. It has become one of the world’s most influential political manuscripts. It was commissioned by the communist league and written by theorist Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The back bone of the document is known as the 10 planks, and for the average person, weather he likes it or not, if he holds a driver’s license or pays taxes, carries a passport, votes in an election, registers his marriage and the births of his children, he’s been practicing communism all his life. You don’t believe it? Well let’s take a look at the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.

    The first plank of the communist manifesto calls for:

    1. The abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

    You don’t own any land. You are renting it from the state in the form of a property tax. Aren’t you? Try not paying that tax and you will find out who the owner of that land is so fast it will make your head spin.

    The second plank to the communist manifesto is:

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    There was a time in this country when we did not pay an income tax. I suspect you already recognize the fact the you are practicing an aspect of communism here as long as your still paying any form of personal income, home or car tax.

    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

    One day Bill dies and his legally married wife Doreen says: “Oh good now I get all the toys”. However the state says: “Woe, hold your horses there Doreen; we’ve got a marriage agreement here and an inheritance tax which means we get our greedy hands on 28 to 35 percent of the toys before you get your hands on them”.

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

    This confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels was part of the I.R.S. Inland Revenue program of seizing and distaining people’s property and selling it if they don’t pay their income tax or social security’s taxes. And we have a host of government agencies with the power to seize our bank accounts, take our businesses, our homes, property and children. You think you’re not an emigrant? Well fair enough, but with the rate of new statutes appearing daily, I can guarantee you that everyone is a rebel. You just may not have been caught and prosecuted. YET!

    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    We have the bank of England, Federal Reserve Bank in America and Britain. We have fiat currencies in the form of Federal Reserve notes and British pound.

    6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the state.

    In the U.S. we have the F.C. C. (federal communications Commission) and in the U.K. they have OFFCOM. (Office of Communications). You can’t transmit your beliefs over the airwaves without a license from the government and they can regulate what you say.

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    Accept we’re talking about corporations here, artificial entities. How about government programs for the regulation and control of public lands? Can you say National Parks? Do we have any legislation dealing with improvement of the soil in accordance with a common plan such as soil conservation districts?

    8. Equal liability of all labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    The 8th plank calls for equal obligations for all to work and the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Do you have a social security number? Social security has established westerners into a gigantic industrial army. We’re all members of the same group. You can’t get employment without it. Tinker with the economy, raise the interest rates, and seduce people through advertisement into believing they need 2 incomes to support an aspirational lifestyle so that mom and dad both have to work. Then big brother can steal your children and mold their minds for the states use.

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

    The 9th plank calls for urban renewal, population control and regional planning programs. Over the past 100 hundred years the population of people living on the land has decreased significantly. The people born in rural areas have gravitated towards the cities to attend colleges in order to train as doctors, engineers and scientist. Then sought employment with corporations instead of returning to the land. The projection is that by 2015 small farms and businesses in the country will give way completely to huge corporate farms.

    10. Free education for all children in public schools, abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

    This one speaks for itself. Do we send our children to state run brain laundries or what?

    So there we have it. Beneath the thinnest veneer of capitalism, we’re all practicing communist. What is the missing link? What is the glue that holds these 2 opposite ideologies together? Why it is admiralty! If you hold a driver’s license, pay taxes, carry a passport, and vote in elections, register your marriage and the births of your children then you are subject to admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there are no rights. In fact there are no rights under any civil law jurisdiction only privileges granted by the captain of the maritime venture. The alleged U.S. president Barry Sotoro is the captain on the great ship United States practicing the 10 planks of the communist manifesto under admiralty jurisdiction. There is no such thing as a right to use your property on the motorway, but the captain can grant the privilege to do so. There’s no such thing as a right to operate a public business. It’s a privilege, allowed according to the captain’s rules and regulations.

    Admiralty maritime jurisdiction is predicated upon the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. You can call it communism, you can call it socialism, you can call it admiralty, you can call it the Roman civil law, but it is the exact opposite. The diametric opposite of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America. The creeping red menace has caught up with us at last.

    And so thanks to admiralty jurisdiction, communism may appear to come and go, but it has never really gone out of style,

    Thanks for reading Comrades
    Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    You'll do better to stick to one message.

    Pick one thing and hammer that. Say, the central bank system. Or, the faux enemy angle. But, just one at a time.

    You'll get further faster providing more information and depth than a quick brush across the top of a number of different things.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-11-2012 at 10:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by deniedmyrights View Post
    SNIP

    So there we have it. Beneath the thinnest veneer of capitalism, we’re all practicing communist. What is the missing link? What is the glue that holds these 2 opposite ideologies together? Why it is admiralty! If you hold a driver’s license, pay taxes, carry a passport, and vote in elections, register your marriage and the births of your children then you are subject to admiralty jurisdiction.

    SNIP
    Now you're gonna have to apologize again... for flinging handfuls of $h!t...

    This is "old news" PAYtriot mythology. People like you peddle this stuff at other's peril.

    Let me guess... there's some crap about "gold fringe" on the flag in a court room as well?? Geezzzz...


    EDIT - Hmmmmm... Are you the original author of this schtuff??

    http://www.rebeldelights.com/posts/post-4
    Last edited by georg jetson; 01-12-2012 at 10:22 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    I love the passion. But, where's the meat, man?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    You lost me on "Admiralty." What do laws of the sea have to do with the rest of your planks, aside from the obvious pun? And the first "plank" of the Manifesto is dictatorship of the prolitariat, not specific collectivism.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    +1 to georg.

    I just want to know if you are the original author. I can only recommend that you read through the rules again. It's not complicated.

    (11) RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 01-12-2012 at 01:25 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  7. #7
    Regular Member deniedmyrights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    johnson county
    Posts
    51

    Give me a little time

    I will put together a response with the best most credible information I can put together on admiralty law and why our government operates under admiralty and not constitutional law. This is why the government is so out of control when viewing it from the stand point of the constitution and bill of rights.

    As for the other 2, I apologize for offending you with my post. I never intended to offend. I just wanted to get people on this forums opinions and discuss the information.

    I have spent time studying this and find it credible information. I will do my best to present my case on this forum if allowed too.

    If this turns into a mud slinging contest, I am not interested.

    Thanks
    Larry
    Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by deniedmyrights View Post
    I will put together a response with the best most credible information I can put together on admiralty law and why our government operates under admiralty and not constitutional law. This is why the government is so out of control when viewing it from the stand point of the constitution and bill of rights.
    Keep in mind that your "admiralty law" theory has been debunked for YEARS. It is even listed as a "frivolous argument" in the IRS codes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

    Quote Originally Posted by deniedmyrights View Post
    As for the other 2, I apologize for offending you with my post. I never intended to offend. I just wanted to get people on this forums opinions and discuss the information.

    I have spent time studying this and find it credible information. I will do my best to present my case on this forum if allowed too.

    If this turns into a mud slinging contest, I am not interested.

    Thanks
    Larry
    I don't get offended... but I will call BS when I see it... It's bad enough that most non-attorneys are hopelessly ignorant of the law, but to then pedal mythology like this just leads to confusion that is damaging to efforts worthwhile. People that have relied on this stuff in the past have gone to JAIL.

  9. #9
    Regular Member deniedmyrights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    johnson county
    Posts
    51

    My question to you georg jetson

    Are you a lawyer?

    If sow what kind of a lawyer? What is your degree in?

    Why is everyone supposed to take your word:

    "Keep in mind that your "admiralty law" theory has been debunked for YEARS. It is even listed as a "frivolous argument" in the IRS codes."

    You cite the IRS as an authority. I may not know a lot about most people in here but I would venture to say that they would not consider the criminal IRS as a reputable source of information.

    You are saying that "admiralty law" is a theory and yet it it is a part of our law.

    Many people who have been in positions of authority and "Respected" for thousands of years have made claims, for instance that the earth was flat.

    It takes people with an open mind to be able to discover new things.

    My point is just because you say the earth is flat does not prove it. Figuratively speaking.

    Thanks
    Larry
    Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

  10. #10
    Regular Member deniedmyrights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    johnson county
    Posts
    51

    The following is from the Illinois State Attourney Generals office

    This about us articles clearly states the job of the Attorney Generals Office in Illinois. It is to collect Revenue for the CROWN.

    http://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/history.html

    History of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General

    By: Shawn W. Denney, Former Senior Counsel to the Attorney General

    As the chief legal officer of the State, the Attorney General has the constitutional duty of acting as legal adviser to and legal representative of State agencies. He or she has the prerogative of conducting legal affairs for the State. The effect of this grant of power to the Attorney General is that Illinois is served by a centralized legal advisory system. EPA v. PCB (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 394.

    The Office of Attorney General first came into existence at the admission of the State of Illinois to the Union on December 3, 1818. Adapted constitutionally and legislatively over the years to meet the needs of a growing State, the office has increased in size and importance and its powers have been greatly expanded since the early days of Illinois State government. This history traces the constitutional and statutory development of the Office of Attorney General from an office filled at the option of and by the General Assembly to an independent office, responsible to the electorate, with broad powers not subject to diminishment or transfer.

    The Constitution of 1818, adopted on August 26, 1818, by a Constitutional Convention held in Kaskaskia, authorized the General Assembly to appoint an Attorney General and to regulate his duties by law. (Ill. Const. 1818, Schedule, ß10.) Illinois' first Attorney General was Daniel Pope Cook, who served for 11 days beginning on March 5, 1819. Attorney General Cook went on to represent Illinois in the U.S. Congress; and Cook County, created in 1831, was named in his honor. Though none served such a short term, most other holders of the office during its first three decades served for relatively short periods of time, generally one to two years. No fixed term was provided for the office until a two-year term was established by law in 1831. (Laws 1831, pp. 17-18.)

    The General Assembly defined the Attorney General's duties as well as provided for the appointment of circuit attorneys in "An Act for the appointment of Circuit Attorneys, and defining their duties, and the duties of the Attorney General," approved March 23, 1819. (Laws 1819, p. 204.) Section 8 of the Act established powers specific to the Attorney General, including the duty to "prosecute on behalf of the state, all suits which may be commenced by and on behalf of the said state, and all matters relating to the revenue thereof, and all impeachments * * *." In addition, section 8 required the Attorney General to give his opinion in writing on all questions of law "relating to the public concerns of this state" to the Governor, the Auditor of Public Accounts and the State Treasurer.

    The Attorney General also functioned as a circuit attorney in the circuit that he was to designate under section 7 of the 1819 Act. [In the event of a vacancy, a successor Attorney General was to reside and prosecute in the circuit of his predecessor to avoid interference with existing circuit attorney appointments.] Circuit attorneys in the remaining three circuits of the state were appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Unlike the Office of Attorney General, the office of circuit attorney was not specifically provided for in the 1818 Constitution, but was created in the 1819 Act. Circuit attorneys were charged in section 3 of the Act with prosecuting "all matters and things, pleas, actions, and suits, wherein the state is a party." Under section 3 of the Act, the circuit attorneys and the Attorney General were to be commissioned by the Governor "to continue in office during good behavior."

    In the provisions of "An Act supplemental to an Act entitled 'An Act for the appointment of Circuit Attorneys and defining their Duties, and the Duties of the Attorney General,' approved March 23, 1819," approved January 18, 1825 (Laws 1825, p. 178), the Attorney General was assigned the duties of a circuit attorney in the first judicial circuit, which included the counties of Peoria, Fulton, Schuyler, Adams, Pike, Calhoun, Greene, Morgan, and Sangamon. (Laws 1824, p. 119.) The remaining circuits, now numbering four, were to continue to be served by circuit attorneys appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.

    The provisions of the 1819 and 1825 Acts were repealed by "An Act relating to the Attorney General and State's Attorneys," approved February 17, 1827, and effective February 19, 1827. (Revised Code 1827, p. 79.) In addition to continuing the responsibilities of the Attorney General as set forth in the 1819 and 1825 Acts, including the responsibility to function as circuit attorney for the first circuit, the 1827 Act, in section 2, specifically directed the Attorney General to "attend each of the terms of the supreme court, and there commence, prosecute or defend every case that the people of this state, the auditor of public accounts, the state bank or any county of this state shall in any wise be a party to, or interested in the result." The Attorney General's duty to give opinions was expanded to encompass, in addition to the Governor, the Auditor of Public Accounts, and the State Treasurer, the county commissioners' courts and justices of the peace within his circuit, the Secretary of State, and the General Assembly, or either branch thereof. In section 6, the Attorney General was given the right to call upon the State's Attorneys to assist in "the prosecution, or in the defence of any suit in the supreme court, or the trial of any impeachment which it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to attend to." [Note: The terms "State's Attorney," "circuit attorney," and "prosecuting attorney" were used interchangeably in statutes enacted prior to the adoption of the 1870 Constitution to refer to attorneys appointed or elected on the circuit level to exercise prescribed representational responsibilities. Likewise, this history, in using any of these terms, refers to the same office.]

    In 1831, in section 5 of "An Act to provide for the election of auditor of public accounts, and further defining his duties," approved and effective February 14, 1831 (Laws 1831, pp. 17-18), the General Assembly spoke for the first time concerning the manner of election and term of office of the Attorney General. [This provision was reenacted in "An Act to consolidate the acts relative to the Auditor and Treasurer and election of the Attorney General," approved March 2, 1833, and effective July 3, 1833 (Revised Laws 1833, p. 103).] In that section, it was provided that the General Assembly, by joint vote of both branches, was to elect the Attorney General "whose duties shall be such as are or may be defined by law." Such election was to be made during the session of the General Assembly "commencing on the first Monday in December, 1834, and every two years thereafter."

    Under the provisions of "An Act to amend an Act relative to the duties of the office of Attorney General of this state," approved and effective February 5, 1833 (Revised Laws 1833, p. 99), the Attorney General was required to "reside at the seat of government," and to "prosecute in the circuit in which the seat of government may be situate." The seat of government at the time was Vandalia, located in Fayette County, which was in the second circuit. In addition to Fayette, the second circuit included the counties of Madison, St. Clair, Monroe, Randolph, Washington, Clinton, Bond, Montgomery, and Shelby. (Revised Statutes 1829, p. 48.)

    "An Act to amend an act, entitled 'An Act relating to the Attorney General and State's Attorneys'," effective February 7, 1835 (Laws 1835, p. 44), provided for the appointment of the State's Attorneys by the General Assembly rather than by the Governor. The manner of selection chosen paralleled that used for appointing the Attorney General. This Act was passed over the objections of the Council of Revision, consisting of the Governor and the judges of the supreme court, which had power under article III, section 19 of the 1818 Constitution to return a bill with objections to its house of origin for reconsideration.

    In "An Act further defining the duties of the Attorney General, and for other purposes," approved and effective February 26, 1841 (Laws 1841, p. 35), the Attorney General was given the duty to "enforce the penalties of the criminal code against all persons who have or may embezzle the public money, or who may be liable for prosecution for any delinquency or default pertaining to the public revenue in his district." Further, the Attorney General was given the duty "to give information, and directions, and instructions to the prosecuting attorneys of the State, of any such offenses * * * in other parts of this State out of his district, so that prosecutions may be instituted against such offenders." This statute is as close as the Attorney General has ever come to having supervisory responsibility over State's Attorneys.

    The provisions of the prior laws were codified in chapter 12 of the Revised Statutes of 1845, approved on March 3, 1845 (Revised Statutes 1845, p. 75). The General Assembly continued to appoint the Attorney General and the circuit attorneys for two year terms. The Attorney General, who was required to reside at the seat of government, continued to function ex officio as the circuit attorney for the circuit including the seat of government within its territory. The circuit attorneys appointed pursuant to this Act generally continued to be known as State's Attorneys, as they had previously been titled. (See, Revised Code 1827, p. 79; Laws 1835, p. 44.) Under the 1845 statute, the Attorney General retained the duties set forth in the 1827 statute.

    The 1848 Constitution, effective April 1, 1848, made no provision for the selection of an Attorney General. During the Constitutional Convention, which met in Springfield from June 7 until August 31, 1847, language which would have created an elected constitutional office of Attorney General had been suggested by the select committee on the Judiciary for inclusion in the Judicial Article. That language provided as follows:

    " * * *

    Sec. 20. There shall be elected, by the qualified electors of this state, one attorney general, who shall hold his office for the term of four years, and until his successor shall be commissioned and qualified. He shall perform such duties and receive such compensation as may be prescribed by law.

    * * * "

    (Cole, Arthur Charles, ed., The Constitutional Debates of 1847 (Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield (1919)), p. 793.)

    Charles H. Constable, an influential Whig leader, State senator and lawyer, moved to strike the section on the following grounds.

    " * * *

    * * * The office, said he, under the judicial system adopted by the Convention, was unnecessary. Under that system the circuit attorney for the state in that district where the seat of government may be, can be appointed the constitutional adviser of the Governor, and the state's prosecuting attorneys in the several circuits might be required, by the Legislature, to follow their cases up to the supreme court in their districts.

    * * * "

    (Cole, Arthur Charles, ed., The Constitutional Debates of 1847 (Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield (1919)), p. 793.)

    The motion prevailed and the proposed section was stricken. The office was mentioned only in section 29 of article III, which continued a prohibition contained in article III, section 25 of the 1818 Constitution against the "attorney general" or an "attorney for the state," inter alia, holding a seat in the General Assembly.

    Section 28 of article V of the 1848 Constitution provided for the election, "by the qualified electors thereof," of one State's Attorney [the prosecuting attorney alluded to by Mr. Constable] in each of the [initially nine] judicial circuits of this State, such State's Attorney to serve a four-year term and to perform such duties "as may be prescribed by law." Section 28 also authorized the establishment of a system of county attorneys to function in lieu of the State's Attorneys provided for in the section, but no legislation establishing such a system was ever enacted by the General Assembly.

    Under the 1845 statute, which incorporated prior laws, the circuit attorneys, of whom the Attorney General was one, ex officio, had exercised powers similar to those of the Attorney General, including the authority to "commence and prosecute [in the Circuit Courts] actions, suits, process, indictments and prosecutions, civil and criminal, in which the people of this State * * * may be concerned." (Revised Statutes 1845, p. 76 (Section 4).) Appearance before the supreme court was the prerogative of the Attorney General, who, as was previously noted, could call upon any of the circuit attorneys for assistance "in the prosecution, or in the defence of any suit in the Supreme Court." (Revised Statutes 1845, p. 77 (Section 7).)

    When the Office of Attorney General ceased to exist, his representational duties, as anticipated by Delegate Constable, were assumed by the State's Attorneys, and those duties continued to be exercised by them until the recreation of the Office of Attorney General by statute in 1867. Under the provisions of an "Act to enable the auditor of public accounts to prosecute claims in favor of the state," effective January 5, 1850 (Laws 1849 (2nd Sess.), p.6), authority to conduct the State's business in the supreme court was given to the prosecuting attorney for each circuit in which a supreme court grand division was held. [Article V, section 3 of the 1848 Constitution provided for the division of the State into three "grand divisions," with supreme court terms for the first being held at Mount Vernon, the second being held at Springfield, and the third being held at Ottawa. (Ill. Const. 1848, art. V, sec. 31.) Section 6 of the same article (Ill. Const. 1848, art. V, sec. 6) provided that the supreme court "shall hold one term annually in each of the aforesaid grand divisions."] In section 4 of the aforementioned Act, the appropriate "prosecuting attorney" was directed to "attend in that supreme court to all business therein in which the state * * * may be interested." For these services, he was paid an additional $100 per annum out of the State treasury. There was, however, no statutory enactment assigning the Attorney General's advisory functions to another officer.

    In 1867, the General Assembly recreated the Office of Attorney General by statute. Under the provisions of "An Act to create the office of the attorney general, and prescribing his duties," effective February 27, 1867 (Laws 1867, p. 46), the General Assembly provided for an interim appointment of the Attorney General by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, until the following election for Governor, at which time the Attorney General was to be elected by the qualified electors of the State to a four year term. (See, section 2 of the 1867 Act and Ill. Const. 1848, art. IV, sec. 2.) Robert G. Ingersoll, of Peoria, was appointed Attorney General by Governor Richard J. Oglesby on February 38, 1867. The first popularly elected Attorney General, Washington Bushnell, of LaSalle County, took office on January 11, 1869. Among the duties given to the Attorney General in the 1867 Act were the giving of opinions to the Governor, executive officers, State's Attorneys, the houses and committees of the General Assembly, the institution and prosecution of all actions, suits and complaints in favor of or for the use of the State, and representation before the supreme court in all cases of appeal.

    The 1870 Constitution, effective August 8, 1870, reestablished the Office of Attorney General as a constitutional office. Article V, section 1 of that Constitution provided as follows:

    "The executive department shall consist of a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor of Public Accounts, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Attorney General, who shall each hold office for a term of four years from the second Monday of January next after his election and until his successor is elected and qualified.

    * * * "

    (Emphasis added.)

    Along with the other executive officers, the Attorney General was directed in section 1 to "perform such duties as may be prescribed by law." (Emphasis added.) The first Attorney General under the 1870 Constitution, James K. Edsall, of Lee County, was elected in November 1872, and took office on January 13, 1873.

    The statutory powers of the Attorney General were restated in "An Act in regard to Attorneys General and State's Attorneys," approved March 22, 1872, and effective July 1, 1872 (Laws 1871-2, p. 169). Section 2 of this Act expanded on the five paragraphs contained in the 1867 Act, setting forth 12 paragraphs defining the Attorney General's duties. Section 4 of the current Attorney General Act (15 ILCS 205/4) is, in substance, largely based upon this enactment. The duties set forth in the 1872 Act included:

    " * * *

    First - - To appear for and represent the people of the state before the supreme court, in each of the grand divisions, in all cases in which the state or the people of the state are interested.

    Second - - To institute and prosecute all actions and proceedings in favor of or for the use of the state, which may be necessary in the execution of the duties of any state officer.

    Third - - To defend all actions and proceedings against any state officer, in his official capacity, in any of the courts of this state or the United States.

    Fourth - - To consult with and advise the several state's attorneys in matters relating to the duties of their office; and when, in his judgment, the interest of the people of the state requires it, he shall attend the trial of any party accused of crime, and assist in the prosecution.

    Fifth - - To consult with and advise the governor and other state officers, and give, when requested, written opinions upon all legal or constitutional questions relating to the duties of such officers, respectively.

    Sixth - - To prepare, when necessary, proper drafts for contracts and other writings, relating to subjects in which the state is interested.

    Seventh - - To give written opinions, when requested by either branch of the general assembly, or any committee thereof, upon constitutional or legal questions.

    Eighth - - To enforce the proper application of funds appropriated to the public institutions of the state, prosecute breaches of trust in the administration of such funds, and, when necessary, prosecute corporations for failure or refusal to make the reports required by law.

    Ninth - - To keep, in proper books, a register of all cases prosecuted or defended by him, in behalf of the state or its officers, and of all proceedings had in relation thereto, and to deliver the same to his successor in office.

    Tenth - - To keep in his office a book, in which he shall record all the official opinions given by him during his term of office, which book shall be by him delivered to his successor in office.

    Eleventh - - To pay into the state treasury all moneys received by him for the use of the state.

    Twelfth - - To attend to and perform any other duty which may, from time to time, be required of him by law. " (Laws 1871-2, p. 170.)

    This Act was reenacted verbatim, effective July 1, 1874, as part of the comprehensive revision of Illinois statutory law that resulted in the Illinois Revised Statutes. (See, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1874, ch. 14, par. 4.)

    The effect of the establishment of the Office of Attorney General under the 1870 Constitution, not fully recognized for several decades, was the creation of an office with broad powers to represent and safeguard the interests of the People of this State. The Attorney General has been determined, in decisions of the supreme court, to have not just those duties and powers that might be specifically prescribed in statutory enactments, but to have all those duties that appertain to the Office of Attorney General as it was known at common law. The phrase "prescribed by law" was rejected as a limitation on the Attorney General's powers to those specified by statute. The supreme court stated in Fergus v. Russel (1915), 270 Ill. 304, discussed below, that "[t]he common law is as much a part of the law of this State as the statutes and is included in the meaning of this phrase." (See, 5 ILCS 50/1.)

    In considering the powers of the Attorney General, the supreme court, in Fergus v. Russel, noted:

    " * * *

    * * * Under our form of government all of the prerogatives which pertain to the crown in England under the common law are here vested in the people, and if the Attorney General is vested by the constitution with all the common law powers of that officer and it devolves upon him to perform all the common law duties which were imposed upon that officer, then he becomes the law officer of the people, as represented in the State government, and its only legal representative in the courts, unless by the constitution itself or by some constitutional statute he has been divested of some of these powers and duties.

    * * * "

    (Fergus, at 337.)

    The court went on to state:

    " * * *

    * * * By our Constitution we created this office by the common law designation of Attorney General and thus impressed it with all its common law powers and duties. As the Office of the Attorney General is the only office at common law [exercising legal functions] which is thus created by our Constitution, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State, and the only officer empowered to represent the people in any suit or proceeding in which the State is the real party in interest * * *.

    * * * "

    (Fergus, at 342.)

    The court noted that it is the Attorney General's duty "to conduct the law business of the State, both in and out of the courts." Fergus, at 342.

    With these pronouncements, the court in Fergus clearly established the Office of Attorney General as one with expansive powers which the General Assembly lacked the power to diminish. While it has frequently been argued that much of the language in Fergus broadly describing the Attorney General's role is obiter dicta, it is clear that Fergus stands for "the principle that the Attorney General is the sole officer who may conduct litigation in which the People of the State are the real party in interest." People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, 495. Under Fergus and its progeny, any attempt to authorize any other officer to conduct litigation in which the State is the real party in interest would be an impermissible interference with the Attorney General's constitutional powers and an appropriation to another agency to be used directly for such purposes would be unconstitutional and void.

    The powers generally understood to belong to the Attorney General at common law have been summarized as follows:

    " * * *

    * * * 1st. To prosecute all actions, necessary for the protection and defense of the property and revenues of the crown. 2d. By information, to bring certain classes of persons accused of crimes and misdemeanors to trial. [3rd.] By scire facias, to revoke and annul grants made by the crown improperly, or when forfeited by the grantee thereof. 4th. By information, to recover money or other chattels, or damages for wrongs committed on the land, or other possessions of the crown. 5th. By writ of quo warranto, to determine the right of him who claims or usurps any office, franchise or liberty, and to vacate the charter, or annul the existence of a corporation, for violations of its charter, or for omitting to exercise its corporate powers. 6th. By writ of mandamus, to compel the admission of an officer duly chosen to his office, and to compel his restoration when illegally ousted. 7th. By information in chancery, to enforce trusts, and to prevent public nuisances, and the abuse of trust powers. 8th. By proceedings in rem, to recover property to which the crown may be entitled, by forfeiture for treason, and property, for which there is no other legal owner, such as wrecks, treasure trove, &c. (3 Black. Com., 256-7, 260 to 266; id., 427 and 428; 4 id., 308, 312.) 9th. And in certain cases, by information in chancery, for the protection of the rights of lunatics, and others, who are under the protection of the crown. (Mitford's Pl., 24-30, Adams' Equity, 301-2.)

    * * * "

    1919-20 Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. 618, 629-30, quoting from People v. Miner, 3 Lansing (NY) 396 (1868).

    While many of these powers now have a statutory basis, the significance of the common law powers still must be understood from the perspective of the interests represented. Representation of the Crown is translated in our system to representation of the People thus, serving the public interest is established as the paramount obligation of the Attorney General. Further, these powers fix the core of the powers to be exercised by the Attorney General. While they may be expanded upon, nothing in this basic core can be transferred or exercised by any other officer.

    At the same time that the Constitution created the Office of Attorney General in what has remained its form to this day, it changed the Office of State's Attorney from the form in which it had been previously known to its present form. The Constitution provided that at the 1872 election there would "be elected a state's attorney in and for each county in lieu of the [circuit] state's attorneys now provided by law." (Ill. Const. 1870, art. VI, sec. 22.) The incorporation of prior statutory language in legislation pertaining to the new offices as known under the 1870 Constitution left the responsibilities somewhat blurred, or at least closely interrelated. One can find to this day provisions for the commencement of actions in which the people of the State may be concerned (55 ILCS 5/9005(a)(1)) and for representation of State officers by State's Attorneys within their counties. (55 ILCS 5/3-9005(a)(4).) As in the 1827 and 1845 Acts, the current law allows the Attorney General to call on State's Attorneys for assistance in matters before the supreme court. (55 ILCS 5/3-9005(a)(8).) There is also a sharing of responsibilities in the area of criminal prosecution. (See, 15 ILCS 205/4.)

    The Illinois Constitution of 1970, generally effective on July 1, 1971, continued the Office of Attorney General as it had been established under the 1870 Constitution. The Office of Attorney General is created in article V, section 1, and is described specifically in section 15 of article V, which provides as follows: "The Attorney General shall be the legal officer of the State and shall have the duties and powers that may be prescribed by law." While there was some discussion in the course of the Constitutional Convention concerning a possible limitation on the powers of the Attorney General, given the clear understanding from Fergus v. Russel that the prescription of powers by law was inclusive of the broad powers enjoyed by the Attorney General under the common law, the Convention included language that did not differ in import or effect from that in the 1870 Constitution. [Note: In their book The Illinois Constitution: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis (Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, Urbana (1969)), prepared for the Illinois Constitution Study Commission, George D. Braden and Rubin G. Cohn suggested, at p. 360, that reversion to the language of the 1818 Constitution ["regulated" versus "prescribed" by law] would "introduce adequate flexibility in allocating legal work within the Executive Department." The Convention did not opt for this suggested alteration.]

    In People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, it was the view of the Illinois Supreme Court that Fergus had been "incorporated into article V, section 15, of the present Constitution." The court went on to reaffirm that "the Attorney General is the sole officer authorized to represent the people of this State in any litigation in which the People of this State are the real party in interest * * *." In a subsequent case, EPA v. PCB (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 394, the court reaffirmed the Attorney General's "prerogative of conducting legal affairs for the State" and noted that the "Attorney General's responsibility is not limited to serving or representing the particular interests of State agencies, including opposing State agencies, but embraces serving or representing the broader interests of the State."

    Because of the peculiar role carved out for the Attorney General, he or she stands, as a lawyer, in a position different from most other lawyers. His or her client is ultimately the People, and while he or she may represent officers and agencies that are parties to litigation within his purview, his or her relationship to those "clients" differs from a customary attorney/client relationship. (See EPA v. PCB, at 401-2.) When the Attorney General undertakes representation in his or her constitutional role, it is the Attorney General and not the officer or agency who controls the course of the representation. (See Newberg, Inc. v. The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 58.) The Attorney General is fully empowered to control the State's litigation in the public interest. Under the applicable case law, one must come to the conclusion that the Attorney General has the power to make all decisions on the State's behalf in litigation he is handling, including those on strategy, the course of the litigation, and to make determinations on settlement and appeal.

    Serving and representing the broader interests of the State takes the Attorney General into a wide range of areas, some of which were unknown at the time the common law powers were developed but which nevertheless can be addressed through the use of those powers. The State's day to day legal business has been joined by functions relating to the protection of the environment (developing from the common law power to prevent public nuisance), the combating of consumer fraud, the protection of the citizens' interests in public utility rate and service matters, and, most recently, in the obtainment of health care.

    While the Attorney General has prosecutorial powers under the common law, he generally lacks the power to take exclusive charge of the prosecution of cases over which a State's Attorney shares authority, unless exclusive or independent authority is given by statute. (See, People v. Massarella (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 531, and People v. Buffalo Confectionery Co. (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 447.) The powers of the Attorney General provide that he is to assist State's Attorneys in prosecutions "when, in his judgment, the interest of the people of the State requires it." (15 ILCS 205/ 4.) Prosecution assistance has been a major function, particularly necessary when serious cases have arisen in smaller counties with limited resources. Criminal activity on a multicounty basis has led to statutory power to convene a statewide grand jury with powers crossing jurisdictional lines for investigation of specified drug and streetgang related offenses. (725 ILCS 215/1 et seq.) In specialized areas, and particularly in areas pertaining to environmental protection, the General Assembly has given the Attorney General independent power to prosecute. As was provided in the office's earliest days, the Attorney General retains the prerogative to "appear for and represent the people of the state before the supreme court in all cases [civil or criminal] in which the state or the people of the state are interested." (15 ILCS 205/4.) Thus, most serious criminal matters, and particularly capital cases, eventually fall within the Attorney General's purview.

    In the 180 year history of this State, the Office of the Attorney General has developed and has become an indispensable participant in this State's governance. The fact that the common law places the Attorney General in a position of being an advocate for the broader interests of the State, as attorney for the People as a whole, postures him or her to look beyond what can sometimes be the parochial interests of State agencies and governmental units to what is the greater good and the more significant interest.

    © 2010 Illinois Attorney General
    Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Did you really need to post that whole thing, which only contained 2 references to the "Crown?" Both of which, by the way, basically say that what were formerly powers of the English royal are now vested in the American people, and that officers of government who used to act as agents of the king now are representatives of the people. We could argue about whether or not that is true in modern America. However, while there is a lot of sinister stuff out there, this just isn't part of it.

    Most of the government is engaged in revenue collection in one form or another, by the way. This isn't exactly an earth-shaking revelation.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by deniedmyrights View Post
    This about us articles clearly states the job of the Attorney Generals Office in Illinois. It is to collect Revenue for the CROWN.

    http://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/history.html

    SUPER NINJA SNIP
    This is a perfect example of taking something out of context and then extrapolating some huge secret conspiracy. It is indicative of the PAYtriot movement.

  13. #13
    Regular Member deniedmyrights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    johnson county
    Posts
    51

    Still no answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    This is a perfect example of taking something out of context and then extrapolating some huge secret conspiracy. It is indicative of the PAYtriot movement.
    Just attack never answering!

    Thanks
    Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by deniedmyrights View Post
    Just attack never answering!

    Thanks
    If you think this was an attack then you are far too sensitive for a site which promotes the open carrying of a firearm.

    What you posted is an obvious example of taking something out of context leading to your horrendous assumption that "It is to collect Revenue for the CROWN."

  15. #15
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

  16. #16
    Regular Member deniedmyrights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    johnson county
    Posts
    51

    Yet to have answered

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    If you think this was an attack then you are far too sensitive for a site which promotes the open carrying of a firearm.

    What you posted is an obvious example of taking something out of context leading to your horrendous assumption that "It is to collect Revenue for the CROWN."
    Yo have yet to answer one question I have asked you.

    You just keep up the attack trying to get me on the defensive. It is not going to happen. Please just answer the questions.
    Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by deniedmyrights View Post
    Yo have yet to answer one question I have asked you.

    You just keep up the attack trying to get me on the defensive. It is not going to happen. Please just answer the questions.
    I don't have to answer your dang questions. You're the one spouting this crap... Prove it up.

    Speaking of NOT answering questions... are you or are you NOT the original author of your first post?

  18. #18
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by deniedmyrights View Post
    Just attack never answering! Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by deniedmyrights View Post
    Yo have yet to answer one question I have asked you.... Please just answer the questions.
    I scanned your hundreds of lines for a question mark, fruitlessly. Maybe I missed it, but, you know, Clear, Concise & Correct V copyright.

  19. #19
    Regular Member deniedmyrights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    johnson county
    Posts
    51

    Speculation????? and why I do speculate.

    The following article was written in a blog by Alfred Adask. Although I did not write it, it says a lot of what I think.

    http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/08/3...ion/#more-9333


    I delight in speculation.

    Speculation tests my powers of perception, and (hopefully) heightens those powers.

    For me, speculation is a process akin to peering into the distance and trying to discern whether a cloud of dust on the horizon is being caused by a bunch of kids playing football, an oxcart or a tank. It’s a process of “connecting dots” when most people don’t even see the dots. Speculation is the process of trying to reach correct conclusions based on the least amount of evidence.

    Speculation is risky since it’s a kind of intellectual or perceptual gambling. That gambling excites me—especially when I publicly expose my speculations. By publicly declaring my speculations, I stick my neck out and risk being ridiculed whenever my speculations turn out to be false. I enjoy the risk because that risk forces me to be much more astute in my speculations.

    I don’t like being ridiculed any more than the next guy, so, I generally warn people “not to believe something because you hear it from me”. I routinely sprinkle my texts and statements with words like “appears,” “what if,” or “hypothesis” to warn readers and listeners that the ideas I’m expressing are unproven, speculative and, while plausible, possibly mistaken.

    I’ve been speculating in print or on radio for over 20 years. If I say so myself, while some of my speculation has been mistaken, most of my speculation has turned out to be roughly correct.

    This blog (adask.wordpress.com) is primarily dedicated to speculation.

    • Speculation is common to all people’s lives. Whenever we deal with a future event, we are absolutely speculating because we cannot know the future in advance.

    For example, if you’re driving and you come to a traffic light that’s green, you typically speculate (you predict, you presume) that you can safely cross that intersection without being hit by cross traffic. Usually, you’re right. You can safely go on green.

    But once in a while someone else will speculate that he can safely run a red light and not cause a wreck. And, truth is, most of the time, these red-light runners’ speculation is also correct: they can (usually) run the red light without causing a wreck.

    But once in while the man who speculates that he can safely go on green and the guy who speculates that he can safely run on red collide. Cars are damaged. Injuries sustained. Lives are sometimes lost.

    Speculation can be dangerous. And yet, we’re compelled to speculate every day. If we stopped speculating every time we approached a traffic light, we’d each have to stop at each intersection, get out of the car, peer up and down the cross street to verify that there was no cross traffic likely cause a wreck, and then proceed. The flow of traffic would creep to a near halt, commerce would collapse, we’d never get to work on time, and we might starve to death as a result.

    If speculation is dangerous, it is also essential. Without the presumptions and predictions that are central to speculation, we’d probably all be dead or living in caves.

    We speculate every time we board a jetliner that that airplane will land safely at our destination. We speculate every time we buy groceries, that food will be safe to eat and won’t poison us with pesticides, disease, or radiation. Contractors speculate that their customers will pay them. Banks speculate that their borrowers will repay their loans. We speculate every time we leave home to go to work that our stay-at-home spouse won’t be fornicating with one of the neighbors.

    Speculation (proceeding without absolute evidence) is the essence of thought. Insofar as thought is an essential attribute of man, it’s arguable that speculation is at least one of the fundamental attributes of mankind and is one of the essentials of life, itself.

    Here’s one definition of “speculation” found on the internet:

    spec·u·la·tion

    noun

    1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity’s ultimate destiny.

    2. a single instance or process of consideration.

    3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.

    4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.

    5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, especially trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.

    Can you imagine any life without “contemplation or consideration”? (In fact, isn’t all “imagination” an act of speculation?)

    That sort intellectual processing is not unique to people. I’ve seen house cats sit on a floor, look at a high bookcase and “contemplate or consider” whether they can leap high enough to jump up onto its top. I’ve watched dogs “contemplate or consider” whether they should risk fighting with another dog, or tuck tail and run like hell.

    Every carnivore in the world is constantly “contemplating or considering” whether they can catch and eat a particular potential prey. If they “consider” the potential prey to be too big to too strong, they let it go. If they consider the potential prey to be small and weak, they attack.

    But sometimes, much like people’s speculation concerning passing through intersections on red or green lights, a predator’s speculation is wrong and “wreck” results. Sometimes the potential prey that seemed small and weak is actually so fast that the predator wastes a lot of energy in an unsuccessful chase. Sometimes, the predator catches a seemingly small, weak prey that turns out be a ferocious “buzz-saw” that causes the predator great harm or even death.

    Speculation is essential to life because virtually every creature is constantly planning its next move; every creature is trying to what will happen in the future. But, because the future cannot be known with absolute certainly, so we speculate. Dogs, cats, wolves, rabbits and people are in a constant struggle to anticipate and triumph over the next moments, days or years of our future. We are all constantly speculating.

    While many believe, how many people actually know for a fact that there is a God, a Heaven and a Hell? Not many. The idea of another life after this one is, for most people, speculation. Religion is primarily a form of speculation.

    • If speculation is ubiquitous in life, many people nevertheless find it disconcerting or even scary.

    Speculation is based on uncertainty. Most people fear uncertainty and therefore seek to avoid conscious speculation.

    Yes, we all freely speculate when we go through a traffic light, buy groceries, or trust our spouse to be faithful. But we don’t think about that speculation. We speculate in a way that’s unconscious, habitual and automatic.

    But whenever people are called on to consciously speculate, to actually think . . . and then act based on their own personal conclusions . . . and assume personal liability for those thoughts and conclusions . . . most people refuse to speculate or do so only with great trepidation.

    Most people fear speculation because they have consciously speculated unsuccessfully in the past—especially as children. Many of their speculations have turned out to wrong—sometimes catastrophically. There’s an old saying about children and fire: “once burned, twice shy”. The same is true for most who speculate. How many of us have stood up in class in 3rd grade to speculate on the answer of 21 x 7—only to have the class burst out laughing when we said the answer was “3”? You don’t need to unsuccessfully think/speculate too many times in public and in grade school (and suffer the attendant ridicule) before you conclude that thinking (considering, contemplating, speculation) is not for you.

    Instances of dramatically unsuccessful speculation can teach both children and adults to distrust their own ability to think and perceive. You show me a man who won’t speculate, and I’ll show you a man who doesn’t trust his power to perceive and think.

    • Once you learn (rightly or wrongly) that you can’t trust your own ability to perceive, think and speculate, the world becomes a very scary and incomprehensible place. Every time something new comes up, you’ll need a “leader” to tell you what to do.

    If you can’t speculate, you’re like a child trying to make up his mind as to whether he can or cannot safely cross the street to get his ball. As a child, you need an adult to take you by the hand and walk you across the street. As an adult who can’t speculate, you’ll need a “leader” to tell you what to do.

    So long as that “leader” speaks with great confidence, those afraid to speculate will follow him as faithfully as lemmings—right over a cliff.

    For example, I speculate that after the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the German people were so traumatized that they would no longer dare to speculate as to what sort of government or social values they should embrace. They knew that they had believed in the Weimar Republic and that their belief had been a catastrophic mistake. No longer able to trust their own thinking and speculation, they were predisposed to quickly followed the first “leader” who spoke with great conviction and confidence.

    Adolph Hitler spoke with great confidence. He spared the people the need to think/speculate, and they loved him for it. They followed Hitler blindly (without speculation) right over a cliff (just like lemmings). By “just following orders,” (acting without personal speculation), the German people destroyed their own nation.

    • Most people feel incompetent to speculate on anything. Such people are usually prone to be followers. They will follow anyone who can speak with great confidence on any subject. If you can speak with great confidence and assure everyone that you absolutely, positively know everything necessary to predict what will happen tomorrow or next year, you can get rich.

    Here, in the “patriot” community, I’ve watched the guru’s come and go for most of 20 years. They take the stage, speak with great confidence, and promise the audience a “silver bullet” that’s absolutely, positively going to stop the governmental werewolf that’s chasing them. The audience loves the gurus and will pay almost any price for the talisman’s and magic charms (paperwork) that he sells.

    The guru’s paperwork is sometimes bullcrap—but that’s often not apparent for a year or two. And from the audience’s perspective, the quality of the guru’s paperwork is unimportant. What the guru is really selling, and what the audience is really buying, is confidence. What the guru is really selling, and the audience is really buying is the illusion of certainty.

    In a psychological sense, the guru takes us back to the time when we were sitting in our father’s or mother’s lap, and our world was safe, secure and certain. Mommy and daddy would always be here to protect us, to feed and clothe us, to tell us what to do. All we had to do was go out and play while mommy and daddy were left to cope with the real world. The “patriot” gurus will likewise handle all of our legal problems, the world will again become certain, we will not be forced to think or speculate, and we’ll be able to go play without fear of uncertainty.

    And if the paperwork from our guru du jour turns out to be ineffective, it won’t matter, because another guru will soon appear with more paperwork (magic charms) to sell—and if that also turns out to be hogwash, we won’t care ‘cuz all we’re really buying is confidence, the illusion of certainty, and a personal escape from the fear of the unknown and the need to speculate.

    The strategy of selling certainty, confidence and an escape from the fear of your own speculation, is not confined to the various patriot gurus. We haven’t elected a president, congressman, senator or politician that didn’t first impress us with his confidence, his illusion of certainty, and the implied promise that he would spare us from the fearful need to think, speculate and take personal responsibility for our own thoughts and choices.

    Lookit Clinton, Bush and Obama—all selling confidence and an escape from uncertainty. They are fundamentally identical to the patriot gurus selling various strategies and services to help us escape the traffic courts, divorce courts or the IRS.

    This is not to say that all of the gurus’ (or presidents’) strategies are worthless. Many of those strategies work—at least for a while—and at least sometimes. But none of those strategies worked first time, every time. There were always defeats. Some of these defeats were attributable to a flaw in the strategy. Some of the defeats were attributable to a weakness in the individual trying to apply the strategy.

    My point is that sale of the gurus’ paperwork and the presidential strategies is incidental to what’s really being sold: confidence and the illusion of certainty. The world will buy those commodities, every single time.

    • I’ve never made much money in the “patriot” community. I’ve done OK for some of the time I’ve been a political activist. But I’ve also often lived in poverty.

    I’ve known for a decade or more that I my problem in making money is that I don’t sell confidence and the illusion of certainty. I’ve sold subscriptions to my magazine. I’ve sold advertising in my magazine. I’ve sold a few books. But I’ve never sold confidence or the illusion of certainty because those concepts have always seemed to me to be lies.

    I don’t like to lie and I don’t like to lead. I’m somewhat asocial, so I’m not looking for “followers” and therefore, I intentionally don’t sell the “followers’ holy grail”—false confidence. What I’m looking for (and trying to foster) are people who can do their own thinking, speculate without fear, reach conclusions based on independent thought and accept personal responsibility for their own thoughts and conclusions.

    Rather than sell false confidence, I am instead compelled to embrace the uncertainty and speculation. That compulsion flows from a fundamental observation that’s seemed true for most of 20 years: there’s no such thing as a legal strategy that’s guaranteed to work all the time.

    Litigation is always a crapshoot. You might win. You might lose.

    The most you can ever hope to gain from studying and/or applying any legal strategy is to increase the probability that you might win in court.

    Nothing—including brown, paper bags stuffed with $100 bills and handed to the judge—always wins in court. Any guru who says or implies that his strategy is foolproof is a liar or a fool.

    Why? Because there’s always a human element in litigation. That human element varies from case to case and is always unpredictable. If the judge and/or jury are too ignorant to understand your presentation, even a perfect legal strategy will fall to defeat. If the judge and/or jury are too malicious to care, even a perfect legal strategy will fail.

    On the other hand, if the judge or jury is dumb enough, your idiotic legal strategy may prevail. If they simply like, you may prevail.

    47 years ago I was delivering pizzas in Chicago. A cop stopped me and gave me tickets for: 1) speeding; 2) running a stop sign; 3) driving the wrong way up a one-way street; and 4) driving too fast for condition (it was raining buckets). I was guilty of all four charges.

    Nevertheless, I went to court to contest the case. I didn’t have a lawyer, but I knew even then that sometimes you could go to court and get lucky.

    The judge asked what had happened, the police officer explained. The judge asked me why I’d been driving so irresponsibly. I explained I was delivering pizza for Frank’s Pizzeria. The judge said, “Frank’s Pizzeria?! Hell, I order from Frank’s all the time!” He slammed his gavel down and said “Case dismissed! The pizza must go through!”

    There is a human element in every case. That human element is unpredictable and will sometimes set you free and make you laugh, and it will sometimes ruin your life. There is no legal strategy that can adequately compensate for these human elements. As a result, court cases are always unpredictable.

    No matter what you do, study or say, every time you go to court, you might lose. That’s why no one (including lawyers) likes to go to court. We almost always prefer the certainty of an out-of-court settlement or plea bargain to the fearful uncertainty of the court room.

    Few people are willing to assume the risk of speculating on what might happen in the future “fog” of courtroom war. So, about 97% of all criminal cases are settled by plea bargains rather than trials, and perhaps 90% of all civil suits are similarly resolved by out-of-court settlements.

    Most people hate to consciously speculate because they fear the uncertainty and don’t trust their own ability to perceive, think and speculate concerning future events.

    • I embrace the uncertainty. I celebrate the uncertainty. And so I speculate, speculate, speculate—and I do it with a certain amount of glee.

    I like it.

    I think my propensity to speculate may be my most important strength.

    In the end, my speculations are based less on any particular strategy than on my trust in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym and my willingness to trust the perceptual and intellectual skills He gave me. To a great degree, my speculation is an act of faith.

    • Conscious speculation may not be for everyone but, for me, speculation works.

    There’ve been a number of instances where I’ve been threatened with litigation and defeated those threats with speculation. The classic example is when I was sued by the Texas Attorney General for $25,000/day ($9 million per year) in a case that involved the manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance (colloidal silver). The case started in A.D. 2001. I was added as the 7th defendant in A.D. 2006.

    Spurred on by the threat of being slapped with fines of up to $20 million, I read the relevant drug laws with a certain amount of intensity and realized that they only applied to animals. This realization was pure speculation because there was no book or authority to support my conclusion. In fact, given that the “war on drugs” had been ongoing for 35 years without anyone else concluding that the relevant laws applied only to animals, the odds were that I was wrong.

    Nevertheless, convinced that my speculation was correct, I further speculated that a Freedom Of Religion defense could prevail.

    Imagine the audacity. I risked fines of $25,000 per day on my personal speculation that the Attorney General of Texas could be stopped with an unprecedented, untested, and theretofore unimagined defense based on Freedom of Religion.

    I advanced my defense and the Attorney General’s office (who’d been sending me fresh paperwork by certified mail every 2 to 6 weeks for over a year) went dead silent for five months. When they came back, they spent another five months trying to negotiate an out-of-court settlement which I and another defendant refused.

    Then they dropped the case. After investing 6 years and nearly $500,000 in investigating and prosecuting their case, they simply disappeared. We haven’t heard from them since November of A.D. 2007.

    Why? First, because the Good LORD sometimes lets me “see”. Second, because I speculated based on what I’d seen. And third, because most people—including attorneys in the Attorney General’s office—hate to speculate.

    Based on speculation, I’d advanced a line of defense that the Texas Attorney General’s office had never before seen. They didn’t know what to do. They were forced to speculate as the possible consequences if the case went to trial. They needed a “guru” to tell them what to do, but there was none to comfort them by selling them some false confidence.

    So they dropped the case.

    Good thing for them that they did. I speculated all along that if I could get in front of jury with my speculative defense, I’d kill the prosecution.

    • Speculation can win when your resulting conclusions are correct. Speculation can even sometimes win if you conclusions are wrong, but so novel that your adversary is also forced to speculate about the uncertainty of the outcome.

    Q: What do attorneys always say about asking questions of witnesses on the witness stand?

    A: Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.

    What’s that mean? It means that attorneys are trained to never speculate. Some of ‘em do, of course. But, in general, attorneys don’t like to speculate. Their profession fear of the unknown makes them weak.

    Insofar as you can force them to speculate, you increase the probability that they may simply drop the case or at least settle on terms that are more favorable to you.

    • I don’t contend that everyone can speculate effectively. I recognize that my ability to speculate is a peculiar talent that’s not easily learned or emulated.

    But it can be learned and sharpened if people have sufficient courage to try.

    I am constantly speculating to test and refine my ability to discern at great distance and reach probable conclusions with minimal supporting evidence. For me, speculation is like a sport. You gotta practice, practice, practice to get good—and to stay good.

    So I use this blog and my radio shows to practice my speculation. Day after day. Night after night. Here I am “shootin’ hoops” at the speculation gymnasium.

    In the end, speculation is the sin qua non of “thinking outside the box”. Speculation is the heart of creative thought and creativity. There is no original thought, no original insight, no real intellectual progress . . . without speculation.

    Those who can’t or won’t speculate, will never have a creative moment or escape the status of dependent and follower.
    Share this:
    Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

  20. #20
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    rural religious usa
    Posts
    670

    hummmm

    you do not get out much huh?

    wabbit

    ps: could you just provide the links instead of the tomes...

  21. #21
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238
    GOODNESS! I don't bother reading posts that are a tenth as long as some of those.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Marx was right about the 'evolution of social systems'. Do I agree that any of the systems ever present in their 'pure' form, NO!

    Back to Communism: I have stated previously that ownership by the citizen of Property is not actually Ownership, it is more of a holding; that the Federal Government owns all Property. There is a tinge of Communism in my assertion. Not that I agree it ought to be the case, just that it is.

    The closest thing to Ownership of Property that an individual has is the reasonable monetary worth of the Property, and even that is contingent on the Governments allowing for compensation.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-12-2012 at 08:26 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Marx was right about the 'evolution of social systems'. Do I agree that any of the systems ever present in their 'pure' form, NO!

    Back to Communism: I have stated previously that ownership by the citizen of Property is not actually Ownership, it is more of a holding; that the Federal Government owns all Property. There is a tinge of Communism in my assertion. Not that I agree it ought to be the case, just that it is.
    You may be correct on the state of affairs as they are today. Considering that if property taxes are not paid, some enforcement body of a state will usually take possession of said property in an attempt to collect its tax and transfer the property to a new owner that WILL continue to pay taxes. I would say that currently all property belongs to the states. However, this is a good example of what needs to be corrected. There should be NO property tax in a free republic... but that is an issue that requires resolution at the state level.

    I believe there are states that have no constitutional authority to levy a property tax. Those states would defy your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The closest thing to Ownership of Property that an individual has is the reasonable monetary worth of the Property, and even that is contingent on the Governments allowing for compensation.
    Again, I'm assuming that you are commenting on the state of affairs as they are today and not how our republic is supposed to operate. You are unfortunately correct in the states where property tax is constitutionally granted...
    Last edited by georg jetson; 01-12-2012 at 08:45 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    You may be correct on the state of affairs as they are today. Considering that if property taxes are not paid, some enforcement body of a state will usually take possession of said property in an attempt to collect its tax and transfer the property to a new owner that WILL continue to pay taxes. I would say that currently all property belongs to the states. However, this is a good example of what needs to be corrected. There should be NO property tax in a free republic... but that is an issue that requires resolution at the state level.

    (1)I believe there are states that have no constitutional authority to levy a property tax. Those states would defy your argument.



    (2)Again, I'm assuming that you are commenting on the state of affairs as they are today and not how our republic is supposed to operate. You are unfortunately correct...
    (1) The States might have the authority to levy a tax but, the Federal Government also can levy tax that would meet the same ends, which is to removed you from your so-called 'ownership of the property'.

    (2) I get that the premise of a Republic is that individuals can own property. The introduction of a body that backs the premise that individuals can own property, well, the body is asserting its Authority. The body is stating in effect that what is going on here is that individuals are allowed to own property.

    I know, this is where we break off. I agree with the premise, I think it is a beneficial premise, that is, if the system actually works from the premise. Two questions arise: Can it?; and Will it?

    Really, I think this boils down to Will to Power. The questions are: Does the Will to Power of the individual exceed that of the whole, and can it effect change alone?; Does the Will to Power of the whole exceed the Will to Power of the Government? Will the Government submit to the Will to Power of either the individual, or the whole?
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-12-2012 at 08:55 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    (1) The States might have the authority to levy a tax but, the Federal Government also can levy tax that would meet the same ends, which is to removed you from your so-called 'ownership of the property'.
    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    (2) I get that the premise of a Republic is that individuals can own property. The introduction of a body that backs the premise that individuals can own property, well, the body is asserting its Authority. The body is stating in effect that what is going on here is that individuals are allowed to own property.
    No. The "body" is not introduced with a "premise that individuals can own property". It is introduced BECAUSE the property ownership already exists and the protection of ownership is necessary. The "body" is allowed to exist to the ends that it performs said task.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I know, this is where we break off. I agree with the premise, I think it is a beneficial premise, that is, if the system actually works from the premise. Two questions arise: Can it?; and Will it?

    Really, I think this boils down to Will to Power. The questions are: Does the Will to Power of the individual exceed that of the whole, and can it effect change alone?; Does the Will to Power of the whole exceed the Will to Power of the Government? Will the Government submit to the Will to Power of either the individual, or the whole?
    That is the battle... and our Republic has been given the rules...

    “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •