NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM NOV 4 2011
November 4, 2011 / /
Joseph Cites a recent Supreme Court decision reaffirming the sovereign right of an individual, in Bond v United States:
Posted in News & Views
16 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
I forgot to mention that my husband is and attorney and is doing some research on Bond v US. Will post what he thinks and finds out.
Naomi
Joseph,
Be careful of your health. Are you filtering your water? Get lots of rest, eat organic food and drink non flouridated water.
“just because you are paranoid dosen’t mean they aren’t after you”…..
Your work is very, very important. So, I would be very, very careful.
By the way did you know that Enrick Palmgren from Red Ice Creations is now in the US in Oregon? Listened to his interview last night and that information came out during the interview. Also, you might want to listen to Hogland’s radio interview regarding Elenin, which is a recent post on Red Ice in the news section. It’s not a regular 2 hour interview with Hogland. It’s really exciting to say the least!
Take care and God Bless,
Naomi
Yes, Naomi. I agree, but we’re over 50 years too late.
All is poisoned now. Labels not necessary.
AND
for anyone curious, you quoted Kissinger;
AND
he ought to know ! !
He is wanted at The Hague for crimes against humanity.
hhmmm…..
gute Genesung, Dr. Farrell!
I just think you’ve probably been pushing yourself too much-
anyway, I just don’t know how you do it, i.e., research so much, subsequently write, keep up with your website on a daily basis and then schedule yourself for conferences!-
maybe you need a well-deserved vacation- none of us would complain if you finally took a bit of rest and relaxation-
but I realize it’s difficult for people as highly intelligent as you to turn off their brains…
many warmest regards,
Larry in Germany 🙂
My comments are not going to be on topic as I spent the day at my mother’s funeral, but I did want to mention that a friend of mine brought to my attention that whatever else the OWS is worth–and I have been one of the its most cynical critics–it has forced a conversation about some of the inequities of the system.
A grandchild’s eulogy
Without ambivalence
Expresses the faith, hope, and charity
Of all who sing sad psalms
For those whom the eye hath seen
And ears have heard in
Reverent sorrow and
The glory of our grief
God bless….
My Sympathies Greg —
I lost my 93yr. old mother in September of last year. I can still hear her pleasant voice sometimes. As if she is in the room with me. ( about a month ago I seen a very old Mexican lady sitting on the bus and I could swear her eyes looked just like my mother’s. It STARTLED me! Then I realized how very, very old people sometimes resemble each other just like newborns sometimes do).
Not to be a know it all but we never lose our loved ones completely.
I bet a 100 dollars that one night soon if it hasn’t already happened when you go to sleep and begin to dream you will meet someone who looks just like your Mother but wont be -she is somewhere else – but looks aren’t important!
I hope this short mention brings some consultation to you? (I am risking it.)
On a lighter note ( you say lighter ??? but I like gallows humor) I used to so often see a fact-simily in my dreams of my EX at times when I really would liked to have FORGOTTEN her. I use to feel she was HAUNTING me once in a while. I know better.
DREAMS sometimes Comp-PEN-sate for any extremes we may be experiencing. Kind of like a balancing act? DREAMS are always speaking to us in its mystical way but do we listen — not most of the time? (I speak for just about everybody here — if not then I would like to meet you.)
Oh yes I am going to?
Here’s a poginant poem from Baudelaire and it’s called “THE OLD WOMAN’S DESPAIR. I bring this into the forum because we always are ASSUMING old people don’t know when it’s time to go (I don’t know your mother’s circumstances).
This fellow who wrote this prose poetry is COMPASSIONATE! I LOVE HIM! (One more thing. I read this poem to my mother and got little reaction which threw me off. Why —because she knew all about it. I was the one who didn’t know —wrinkled faces and all?)
THE OLD WOMAN’S DESPAIR
A wizened little old woman felt gladdened and gay at the sight
of the pretty baby that every one was making such a fuss over,
and that every one wanted to please; such a pretty creature,
as frail as the old woman herself, and toothless and hairless
like her.
She went up to him all nods and smiles.
But the infant, terrified, struggled to get away from her
caresses, filling the house with his howls.
Then the old woman went back into her eternal solitude and
wept alone, saying: “Ah, for us miserable old females the age
of pleasing is past. Even innocent babes cannot endure us, and
we are scarecrows to little children whom we long to love.”
P.S.
It’s not a cheerful or uplifting poem but it wasn’t meant to be. It is a DEEP FEELING.
Sorry you are feeling bad these days JPF.
I will pray for you.
You are a fine gentleman and compassionate soul.
As many here would echo I’m sure, your thoughts and efforts are much appreciated.
May you soon rise again in strength and slay many more dragons of deception in the days to come.
Let’s look at this a little more closely.
“The framers concluded that allocation of powers between the national government and the states enhances freedom first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people from whom all governmental powers are derived.”
In a democracy, which is what this is referring to, “the people” are sovereign ONLY as a collective whole, as a singular unit composed of many individuals, as a singular plural; individuals are NOT sovereign as individuals in a democracy. In a democracy, an individual’s sovereignty exists only when the individual is merged into the collective, the herd, the borg-hive itself, which itself is sovereign over individuals and the government.
In a republic, on the other hand, which this is NOT referring to, an individual is sovereign as an individual, qua individual, over and to the exclusion of the collective.
“Federalism has more than one dynamic. It is true that the federal structure serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of the state and national government vis-à-vis one another.”
In other words, “to prevent the various offices of the structure from physically killing and maiming each other,” this court will be a mediator of last resort. OK. But keep in mind that there is “more than one dynamic.”
“The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the states.”
In other words, the states of the Republic still exist as vacancies unfilled, as empty houses and empty stadiums, and the federal democracy acknowledges that they still exist and that any man so aware may opt out of the UNITED STATES and become a Citizen of the United States of America.
“The federal balance is in part an end in itself to insure that states function as political entities in their own right.”
Ditto. Mega-dittoes. Giga-dittoes. NOTE TO SELF: See previous paragraph.
“True, of course, these objects cannot be vindicated by the judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy.”
This is true ONLY inasmuch as no judicial action can be taken unless and until a person, or corporation, initiates it. It remains to be seen whether a federal judiciary, while passing “judgment” on “a proper case or controversy,” will or could actually “vindicate” anything.
“But the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of states.”
States, as collectives, have no rights. Only individual men have rights. So this is true. But this is NOT what this statement goes to. What this statement goes to is that temporary privilege is given to citizens (note the small ‘c’) alleviating them of admiralty law or the Law of the Water as opposed to the Law of the Land. [“Liberty” = permission granted to a sailor, especially in the navy, to go ashore.] This is quickly coming to an end.
“Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a state by insuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their action.”
What this is referring to is that the federal democracy releases anyone from its borg-hive who wants to go back to the Republic. Those who remain in the democracy have no rights, but they continue to voluntarily be its members and pretend that they do.
“By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”
Each of us at any second of our lives can leave this (corporate) democracy known as UNITED STATES and, by serving notice at an embassy, become Citizens (note the capital ‘C’) of the Republic again and the democracy will have zero authority over us. There is nothing “arbitrary’ about this; it is specific. So this is true.
“When a government acts in excess of its lawful powers that liberty is at stake.”
Yes. But since we have all VOLUNTEERED to join this corporation, and its democracy by our own knowledge and our own free will, we have granted it lawful powers in all matters of our lives.
“The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism.”
Here, a twist is added. As bearers of Social Security cards, we are trust beneficiaries of that trust (Social Security Trust) and federalism protects those attendant benefits. [Footnote: See “The Switch In Time” by Franklin Roosevelt.]
“An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the national government and the state when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressible.”
The national government, often referred to as “THIS STATE” in a court of law (Visualize all 50 states as a giant crossword puzzle that has been glued together and hovers 20 or 30 feet above your head.) will allow you to leave its jurisdiction merely by informing it, properly, of your intention; “concrete, particular, and redressible.”
“The dynamic between and among the branches of government is not the only object of the Constitution’s concern. The structural principle secured by the separation of powers protects the individual as well.”
But ONLY if men pull their heads out of their arses and demand to be set free of this entity….and there’s that reference to a “dynamic” again.
“In the precedence of this court the claims of individuals, not of government departments, have been the principle source of judicial decisions concerning the separation of power and, checks and balances.”
This sentence says nothing, absolutely nothing, about whether or not individual rights are to be protected.
Now, having said all that, I am glad that you posted a legal topic, Dr. Farrell. Because I almost posted a BREAKING announcement in your daily written blog today but I held off to give you a chance to address it and in the hope that you would address it yourself. Since you have instead chosen to heap accolades on a questionable-at-best court ruling that is over one hundred thirty-two days old and from the backwoods of Oklahoma (call that one what you may), let me bounce THIS court case off of you.
Today, Jesse Ventura held a press conference in which Ventura commented on his lawsuit against the TSA being thrown out of Federal Court without a ruling. After the press conference, Jesse Ventura called into ‘The Alex Jones Show,’ during Alex Jones’ annual 24-hour marathon broadcast, with firsthand details. (Interestingly, Ventura called in while Alex Jones was interviewing Jim Marrs. Now THERE’s a combination for you: Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones, and Jim Marrs.)
Ventura said that he filed his case, making him the plaintiff, against the TSA for violating Ventura’s Fourth Amendment rights. (Consult that Constitution you keep within arm’s reach.) Ventura wanted this case to be ruled on by a petit jury in a Federal District Court.
However, the sitting Judge said that the Ventura’s case must be heard in Federal Appellate Court and NOT in Federal District Court. This means two things at least:
1. Ventura, who filed the case as Plaintiff, will be reclassified as the Defendant; the only way to get to Federal Appellate Court. (Been there. Done that.)
2. Rather than Ventura having his case heard by a voir dired petit jury of his peers, in Federal Appellate Court his case would/will be heard by three Federal judges on the Federal payroll.
Further, the federal District Judge sealed and secreted Ventura’s case (for national security reasons?) so that no one can read what the Federal District Judge’s “reasoning” was.
In wrapping up, Ventura noted how he was denied access to a court of law to have a jury of his peers rule on the Bill of Rights. Ventura, citing his honorable service as a U.S. Navy S.E.A.L. as well as his tenure as a former (independent) Governor of Minnesota, further said that he has NO patriotism for this government anymore.
BTW: Your head does sound a little stopped up and you look kind of sleepy. I hope you get well and feel better soon. Thank you for the NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM.
CORRECTION: Quite a mouthful here. This:
“Visualize all 50 states as a giant crossword puzzle that has been glued together and hovers 20 or 30 feet above your head.”
Should read:
“…a giant JIGSAW puzzle…”
“I’m sorry, Mr. Garrison. I got confused.”
—Joe Pesci, as David Ferrie in ‘JFK.’
I do indeed have a copy of the Constituiton within reach of
either arm and others at my feet, sort of.
I answered questions on it when askme.com was around for that.
This decision, in June you say(?), is rather strange as it seems
to be a bone for the ‘dogs’ who still think that the (psuedo) government
still abides by it.
And yet I did detect some ‘circular’ reasoning.
I suppose that some of you think that ‘legalese’ is a necessary language.
It is NOT.
During the time of the American Revolution, many of the Founders
actually spoke that way (when they weren’t swearing,) Elites All.
It is no longer necessary and its aim in continuing to now
and getting worse (harder to understand) as a little understood ‘language,’
has a very important purpose at this time; which is to keep that circular reasoning
and ‘big’ words to confuse US into thinking things are going our way. [NOT]
BUT
When the Supremes blatantly allow MONEY and PORN as Free Speech
and disallow dissenting opinions or REAL free SPEECH,
making it grounds for arrest; it is NOT Denmark that is rotting.
The REAL court case of this day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o16GOAstA7o#!
I assure you that the cases I sighted
(granted I forgot who brought it to the Supremes)
are quite real and a few years old.
Two seperate cases when porn and $$$$$$$$$$
won out [as] FREE Speech.
Dissenting ‘opinions’ and any speech [no threats necessary]
and anything so said in front of the ‘wrong’ person can put you
in jail. It has already happened.
Remember when Fleischer warned us at a press converance
some time ago, “…Be careful what you say, be carefull what you do…”?
Since then it was made into law, slipped into a bill where it didn’t belong.
Nevertheless, the whole thing passed !
As far as ‘Obama Care’, I prefer to frame it as an ‘Insurance Care Bill/Law; nor is it, by any stretch of the imagination a ‘Health Care’Bill/Law.
The put up or shup up in Staes’ Rights today is the marijuana health care laws of the state/ i.e., California. This, and the 2nd amendment that the Federal Government has lined up in its crosshairs.
The Supreme Court aka Supreme Denial is bought & paid for. This Bond case, Dr. Farrell spoke of, speaks well to the States’ Rights. But, for the most part, Supreme Denial’s decision to call a corporation a person is the pure fantasy we are expecting from a Roberts Court.
As many are fond of saying today, “I’ll believe a corporation is a person, when they hang one in Texas.
Unforiunately you can die in this country if you can’t afford health care but the federal government can force to take medical treatment that can kill you but deny treatment that can save your life if not aprove by the medical priesthood and the federal and state governments what to deny you the right to abortion.same sex marriage and medical marajunia and to support over price drugs you figure this.
If your vidarticle is in support of the effort to “prove” ObamaCare unconstitutional you need to review Wickard v. Filburn first. WSJ (??) ran an article where two constitutional lawyers-turned-judges ruling on ObamaCare, yea and nay, Wickard as the centerpiece for the debate.
On a higher note, Wickard underpins the authority for Federal cannabis prohibition. Don’t inhale waiting for SCOTUS to exhale on that one. 😉
No, not an effort to prove anything one way or the other, but merely an attempt to highlight a decision that I thought was very significant and interesting. As I am not a lawyer, I don’t know if it’s relevant to the case or not, but I suspect it is.