Is There an Undercut Here?
The perennial question that should be on everyone’s mind, is whether or not there is an undercut of some sort that is being overlooked. If there is, then we have the right to know what it is and we should be able to use it to our advantage. It doesn’t matter what situation you may find yourself in, the very first question about it should be “Is there an undercut here of which I am not aware?” and if there is, then a second question of course should be “How do I use that undercut?”.
So just what is this undercut thing of which I speak? It is basically some point of logic or a fact that is being ignored by someone for some reason or other. Usually it is being ignored by the educated in order to keep the UN-educated at a distinct and severe disadvantage. Like the assumption that everyone who was born in America is a so-called14th Amendment citizen. But are they really? The answer is a resounding NO! for several reasons. And here are some undercuts that prove it. First off, that Amendment is not designated by the proper number, as there is an earlier 13th Amendment to the one we normally think of, which has never been repealed, so right there fraud is being committed and fraud vitiates ALL that it comes into contact with. Then we move on to the “void for vagueness doctrine” which states that any law, statute or regulation which is too complicated or confusing for the average man or woman to understand, MUST be void on its face for vagueness. With so much confusion going on, how could anybody know if they were really guilty of violating it or not? With the great number of lawsuits filed over the years regarding that alleged Amendment, with each one arguing one point over another one, that Amendment has gained the distinction and notoriety of being called the worst piece of legislation in American history, and quite possibly the world! And then another undercut to the alleged legitimacy of that piece of legislation is that it was put into place under threat of force of arms, and so again, it fails the test of legitimacy there as well. It flies straight into the teeth of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 1789. To have a law that clearly violates both of those documents is an abomination to say the least. Maybe it comports with the de facto Constitution of 1871, which was put into place during The Reconstruction Acts, but certainly not the de jure Constitution of 1789.
Undercuts ABOUND all around us, but unless we think to look for them or at least ask for them, they remain completely hidden from view. And that’s the way that the ones who run the system to their own advantage like it to be. Some of them may like to spout off on occasion about “fairness” and such things, but they’re being less than honest in the use of that term. Fairness only goes so far as what’s fair to THEM, and no further. Being “fair” amongst themselves is one thing, but being fair with the rest of the world is completely out of the question.
Another false assumption is that everyone living in America, except for foreign visitors with legitimate permission and illegal aliens, is a citizen of the District of Criminals and is residing in a portion of the federal zone denoted by the Zone Improvement Program Code with the two capital letter designation, and therefore is subject to the legislation of the Congress. This is where the difference in the meaning of the two words DOMICILE and RESIDENCE come into sharp contrast.
The false assumption that all of the land from coast to coast and northern border to southern border and other outlying areas is a legitimate venue for implementation of federal statutes, is one of the biggest lies ever concocted and spread about. All that one has to do to put that lie under the spotlight is to look to the case of U.S. v. Robert C. Braun. He and five others were arrested for an alleged violation of the F.A.C.E. Act at an abortion clinic, wherein five of the defendants plead not guilty, and hired lieyers to represent them. Of course the judge found all five of them guilty and sentenced them accordingly for violation of federal law. But not Mr. Braun… for he had defended himself alone, after the fact of the convictions of his fellows by merely asking if the property upon which he and his fellows were arrested was ever ceded to or bought by the federal government. Of course the answer was “no”, so therefore no federal jurisdiction existed, that portion of the F.A.C.E. Act was found to be unconstitutional, and he and his friends had to be set free. There was no “contrary intent” appearing in the F.A.C.E. Act stating that it would apply outside of the District of Criminals, so therefore it couldn’t. Now isn’t it interesting, how just by asking one very simple question, Mr. Braun changed what was deemed to be a perfectly constitutional and enforceable law one minute, into something that was UN-constitutional and UN-enforceable in the next minute? How does that happen exactly, except by exposure of a lie, fraud, or artifice of some kind? Are there two separate and distinct jurisdictions in operation right along side of each other, and which one you are in depends solely upon how much knowledge you may have of them? It certainly is that simple, as I have just shown to you.
As stated before, undercuts abound all around us, if we just know to look for them or whom to ask. Some may not want to admit that there are any undercuts and may even lie to you about it, alright, that’s fine for now, but will they be willing to sign an affidavit under the penalties of perjury that they are being 100% honest and truthful? That affidavit can land them in some pretty hot water if they knowingly lie in it, for lying in an affidavit of truth is the same thing as lying while under oath. Except for during a trial that is, where witnesses for the government are allowed to perjure themselves with full immunity. It’s true! If you are a witness for the government, you are allowed to lie as much as you want to in the “furtherance of justice”. Terry Reed, a man whom I met several years ago, found out about this much to his dismay. Fortunately for him, the jury saw right through the charade and found him innocent of all charges. The evidence of the weather conditions straight from the records at the airport where his airplane was in a hangar that day, along with testimony from a professional locksmith that the lock on the hangar door was sound, showed that the government agent was telling a huge whopper of a lie, that there was no way that the “high winds” quoted blew the door open allowing the agents free access to plant false evidence there, and the judge refused to charge him with perjury!! So now this leads us straight to a second level question; if the “witnesses” for the prosecution are allowed to lie with immunity, then how could anybody ever get a fair trial? One cancels out the other, doesn’t it? You can’t have it both ways, unless you’re living in some kind of Twilight Zone world that is. Police officers have been shown to have lied while under oath in various criminal trials (and that’s EXACTLY what they are, criminal!), with no punishment forthcoming in most cases. There were MANY, MANY clues and facts like this which lead to the discovery of the at present Three Magic Questions, this sordid tale of woe from Terry Reed being just one of them. After more than 23 solid years of exposure to lies, scams and frauds from many levels, something HAD to spring out of it all eventually. So now, do you feel any obligation at all to allow yourself to be defrauded to any degree by anyone at any time? I certainly do hope not, for if you do feel such an obligation, then your reading of this was just a complete waste of your time. And I do not like to waste other people’s time any more than to have my own time wasted.
Your humble logician servant,
Randy Gaumond, Sui Juris, Patriot par excellence
