Going to the Top of it ALL
Outside of arguments made by crazy men and women in a totally convoluted and confusing legal system, is there any law anywhere in the world, that says we must allow someone to make us their victim? If there is, where can we find it so we can read it for ourselves, instead of just taking the word of another that it exists? If there is such a law, then what is the logic behind it? Who wrote it? Who enforces it?
When we do not get an absolute guarantee that we will actually have a fair and speedy trial, doesn’t that then make it a gamble with no certain outcome? How, then, is a courthouse any different than a gambling house? What is the basic premise, the lowest level that we can find, that says we must abide by the decisions of men and women who operate the legal system and are of no better or higher moral character than any OTHER man or woman out on the streets, who pick up trash for a living? What is it that makes them better, more honest, more virtuous, more ethical than anybody else? Is it their educational level? The church they go to? Their political leanings? Their opinion leaders, or is it something else that no one can talk about?
Should it be true that the argument of the all capital letter spelling of a name is not valid at all, then how does one explain away Randy Lee Oxxxxxxxr prevailing by that very thing, with even the so-called judge on the case saying that it was a case of mistaken identity? Is anybody making the claim that Randy Lee Oxxxxxxr V. IRS is totally fabricated? Or do the Actors, Operators, Agents and Officers of the legal system get to change and ignore certain definitions of the words they use when it suits them? If they can do it, then why can’t we? Is the legal system inherently biased against certain men and women, the ones who are forced into participating in it against their will, or get tricked into participating in it? If that is indeed the situation, then that is our exit point from it, once we expose the fraud going on.
Is it the case that if we have volunteered into something, that makes us subservient to it? Can’t we then revoke our volunteering at any time we may feel like it? Is it the case that once we have volunteered into something, only death lets us out of it, and maybe not even that? What is the basis for saying that once we have volunteered into something, that we can’t ever go back again? Does that apply for everyone and everything at all times? Since the burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the one making the claim, if the men and women who are operating the legal system are making the claim that everybody is under its jurisdiction, then those men and women must prove their claim to be true beyond any doubt at all, not just an ambiguous and shifting “reasonable” doubt or a preponderance of evidence. It must be iron clad and 100% applicable across the boards.
If it cannot be proven to be true, then it must be false!!
Why do we have to do battle with the minions of the world, the flunkies and lackeys of the criminal elites? Why can’t we just go straight to the top and settle our differences there? Is it because they are unable to settle honorably and with integrity because of the criminal nature of their actions? With that being the case, we are then set free from their evil doings and have no valid obligation to be made a victim of their crimes against Humanity.
In the case of US v. Robert C Braun, all that Mr. Braun did, was to ask the very simple question of whether the land that he and his five fellow abortion protesters had been arrested on for allegedly violating the F.A.C.E. Act was ever bought by or ceded to the federal government. It had not, therefore, the decision from the case of Foley Bros. v. Filardo fully applied there, and all six men had to be set free. Here was absolute proof that the legal system, at least at that time, had to abide by its own rules and regulations and not contradict itself at any time, even though it does so all of the time! Those men still had a right to the protection of their First Amendment Rights, and if anything has changed since then, what is it and why?
How is it, that the private (meaning not a part of the federal government) organization called the BAR, is able to put men and women behind bars? If these lawyers were actually government employees, and not beholden to any hidden oaths or undisclosed loyalties, then it could be reasonably considered to be OK to do that, IF federal laws that applied to only federal citizens were being enforced against men and women who broke those laws they were actually subject to. But, the case of RCB proves to us that something nefarious is going on.
