Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

Laws, Rules, Regulations. You must know the
difference between Rules & Laws, or you will be the victim of the
bureaucrat's system!

If you don't discover the difference between VOLUNTARY RULES
and MANDATORY LAWS you could lose your home, custody of your children,
your right to drive or travel in your car, your right to earn a living and
engage in commerce, your guns, your freedom of speech and worship, and
even your liberty -- you could end up in prison!

INTRODUCTION

The courts, public servants, lawyers and lawmakers are
loading you down with rules.  They twist the meaning of words to make
you believe that the rules are laws you are required to obey.  They
use trickery and deceit in continued attempts to control and manipulate
every facet of your life.

Exposing the multitude of scams and half-truths used by the
bureaucrats and power masters is what this book is about.  If the
current system of ruling by deceit, threats and intimidation is not
halted, our Constitution will be changed in a controlled convention and we
will all become the controlled subjects of a totalitarian police state - A
New World Order!

This book will show you how to recognize the difference
between rules, laws and regulations.  You will learn how to stop
these usurpers of Liberty in the easiest way possible.  You will
learn how to BREAK THE RULES AND WIN!

People are being defeated by rich and powerful special
interests.  YOU could easily be the victor when you know their power
secret!

Copyright 1987 and
1999 by J.Jay Evenson
Reproduction of this material is authorized
only for individual use of the person making a single copy and said copy
is not authorized for further reproduction. All rights reserved. Except
for reviews and as stated, no part of this book may be reproduced or used
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system
without permission. Use of material contained herein must include
appropriate credit to this Web Site, book title and/or
author.

Copyright 1987 and
1999 by J.Jay Evenson

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

FOREWORD

As American citizens, most of us grew up being taught about fairness and
justice. We were told to obey the laws and the rules and we would get along just
fine. But we also heard things like "Rules were made to be broken" or "Rules are
for simpletons." In our youth we did not give too much thought to the
differences. We went on our way and tried to make a place for ourselves in this
land of the free and home of the brave.
Somewhere along the way between our
teen years and retirement we experience government and come face to face with
actions which do not strike us as fair or just. Some people go out and seriously
question the actions of government when they feel something is wrong. Others
reluctantly obey the dictates of the bureaucrats and hope they are never
subjected to some of the outrages so many others are having to endure.
"BREAK
the RULES & WIN - II" is intended for those who wish to stop standing on the
sidelines waiting for their turn in the "screw the people" barrel. The
information in this book is meant for people who know there is something amiss
and grossly unfair in the administration of our justice system and want a
reasonable way to protect themselves and, when possible, to fight back.
BREAK
THE RULES & WIN is for people who believe freedom is our most important
heritage and are willing to do whatever is necessary to restore and then
preserve it for themselves, their children and future generations.
If you
think something is wrong with the way the government or one of its agencies is
functioning -- chances are, you are right. If you find yourself the subject of
bureaucratic harassment by "nice people" and you feel there is something wrong
-- chances are you are right. If some government agency wants to force you out
of your home so it can be sold to another private party for the development of a
shopping center or apartment complex, and you feel it is not fair or just --
chances are, you are right!
If your child is being subjected to the control
of a child welfare agency or a juvenile court and you, as a parent, feel
helpless to protect your offspring from improper actions, then you know
something is wrong with the system.
When you know that you have never agreed
to surrender your Unalienable Rights to anyone else, yet find government
employees insisting that you did surrender your rights in exchange for some type
of license or another, then you know something is wrong.
When you hear the
media announce that the Supreme Court has ruled this way or that, or has refused
to consider a case, and you feel certain the results should have been different
-- chances are, you are right, again!
You are not going to get a lot of
boring case law in this book, although there are enough references to allow
competent lawyers to verify this material.
This book is written for people,
not the lawyers. If attorneys are already aware of this information, there is a
good possibility that they are part of the problem. If they are realizing this
for the first time, then they should immediately grasp the importance of this
information. Although this book has been written with guidance from lawyers,
judges and others who have license to practice in their chosen field, the author
is a legal researcher and writer, NOT a lawyer!
Since the first edition was
released in 1987, many regulations have changed. Urban renewal programs no
longer exist by that name, but the bureaucrats and controllers have coined new
phrases to accomplish the same ends.
"BREAK THE RULES & WIN - II," is
intended to give you a brief, concise explanation of the differences which make
for winners and slaves. You will find out how it is possible to legally "steal"
your neighbors property by using the system the same way the big corporations
use it. You will, most importantly, find out how simple it can be to protect all
of your rights -- especially those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution -- and it
should not cost you any more than the price you paid for this book.

CHAPTER ONE

RULES

You Can
Break 'Em or Use 'Em

Did you ever wonder how some people seem to be able to get away with almost
anything, but if you even think of trying to do the same thing you are
threatened with jail or some other legal problems?
To avoid being caught in a
trap and labeled an outlaw, you must know the difference between the rules and
law. Laws are written to PROTECT the people and their rights. Rules are written
to CONTROL the people and almost always limit their rights.
You are required
to obey the laws. You are not given options. Laws are written within the
limitations and restrictions imposed on government by our U.S. Constitution.
Rules cannot mandate obedience unless you have agreed to voluntarily abide by
them.

***

Someone has been fighting city hall and they've been winning! Pick up
almost any daily newspaper and you'll read an article or two about how some
corporation or developer is "exempt" from obeying a certain law, or the law has
been changed to accommodate a major industry. The media is responsible for much
of the misleading information. Editors and journalism professors could solve
part of the problem by teaching reporters to know the subtle differences between
rules and laws.
Major companies, as well as wealthy, influential citizens
seem to fight the bureaucracy and win. Occasionally we cheer silently when we
hear stories of a little guy taking on the gigantic bureaucracy and coming out a
winner. With a lump in our throat we again take pride in being free Americans,
and we wish that we could fight such battles and win, too.
Corporations have
vast teams of lawyers and accountants going to bat for them. They seem to have
virtually unlimited resources to use if some bureaucrat resists their wishes.
Railroads are given property tax breaks which make you wonder why their property
should be taxed less than your home. You hear of public officials being caught
with their hands in the cookie jar and they are merely fired from their job
instead of going to trial and maybe prison. The big guys take their lawyers and
drop-in on the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) or some other agency and
walk away with whatever exemption or exception they want.
How do these people
get away with such actions and get special considerations from the courts and
the legal system? How can such firms apparently break the law and pay relatively
small fines while the corporate officers go unpunished? You know what would
happen to you if you tried the same thing...JAIL! Right?
Those big firms are
not being exempted from abiding by the law. They are excused from obeying
certain rules. That's the way things are. Don't you remember hearing about how
"We must all obey the law" or "No man is above the law!"? How about "Rules are
made to be broken!" or "Rules are for simpletons!"? There is a difference in
these old adages.
Nobody is or should be above the law! The Constitution
clearly limits government authority and defines the authority that we, the
people, have given to it. There are no exceptions to the law. It is simple,
clear and for everyone.
The procedures government uses to carry out its
designated responsibilities are spelled out in the Rules. The rules
(regulations) become mandatory on the part of government employees and they must
obey them just as if the rules are law. If they don't like the rules, they can
try to get them changed or they can go to work somewhere else.
Most companies
adopt their own rules of conduct by which their business is operated. The rules
are enforced on the employees and penalties are exacted such as docking an
employee for being late or loss of certain privileges or position for failing to
abide by the company rules. It is the right of the company to adopt reasonable
rules and enforce them. If the employee does not want to abide by such rules, he
or she can go elsewhere to work. The rules can even be discriminatory as long as
they do not violate specific Federal laws against discrimination on the basis of
sex, age, race or religious preference.
Most of us have certain rules we
enforce in our own homes, which, if used as Laws outside the home, would be in
violation of the Constitution and Rights of the people. We can make a rule that
everyone who eats must do dishes. If you don't like the rule, do not sit down at
the table. Within reason, you have the right to make such rules for your house.
The government has the authority to legislate such rules for conducting its
business.
However, the government usually passes RULES for its own employees
to live and work by, then the bureaucrats try to make their jobs easier by
misconstruing the Rules as being enforceable against the general public, as if
they are actual laws.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amended
some of its rules because they could not force General Motors Corporation and a
few other major firms to comply with all the regulations. Unable to enforce
compliance with the rules and fearing that making exceptions would lead to
further violations by smaller firms, the SEC adjusted them to coincide with the
way GM and others were operating. Corporations break the rules and
win...especially the big ones.
When Citizen Band (CB) radios became popular
with truckers and motorists in the early 1970's, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) had rules which stated operators must have licenses and every
CB radio must have a separate station license. The fees were not very high for
station licenses (about $10) and operators could get a license just by signing
an application and agreeing to abide by the FCC RULES.
FCC has the right to
regulate the airways (within reason) for the public good. This is construed to
mean adopting rules so that radio and TV stations don't "step all over each
other" and you can tune in your TV set to one station per channel. To enforce
regulations of low-powered CB units (range about 3 to 5 miles) the FCC would
have to put a lot of men out on the roads with some sophisticated equipment. To
make public compliance easy, applications for station licenses were included
along with the CB unit when it was purchased. The people still refused to send
them in to the FCC.
At first the FCC sent out news releases threatening fines
if people were found to operate a CB without a license. When the people refused
to comply the government no longer "required" CBers to have an operator's
license. The FCC even dropped the radio license fee to just $1 and the
Application. People still refused. To make it even easier, FCC dropped the fee
completely and literally begged the people to send in the Application.
The
rules fell on deaf ears. Truckers ignored the FCC rules about licenses and so
did the general public. Eventually, just to save face in the communications
industry, FCC dropped the CB rules altogether. The little guys broke those rules
and they won.
Mahatma Gandhi led the people of India in civil disobedience to
the rules which were imposed on them by the British bureaucracy. The people of
India were determined to take over and rule themselves. They broke the rules and
won. Young college students tried civil disobedience to the rules in this
country in the 1960's and, although some even gave up their lives (Kent State),
they won. If you don"t think so, go to a public library and read an old issue of
the publications. You will find that there have been many changes made in our
society and government. Much of that change is the result of civil disobedience
to the rules, not violation of laws.
Rules can be given the force and effect
of law if you volunteer for them. Regulations are often foisted first on major,
highly regulated, businesses and industry which usually volunteer to allow the
rules and regulations to be imposed. Regulations and rules can only be enforced
as Law if the subjected parties agree or are tricked into complying with
them.
The exception, which may not always be applicable, would be if the U.S.
Senate ratified a treaty (as provided for in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI),
and the terms of that treaty then become the valid LAW OF THE LAND, the laws and
constitutions of the states not withstanding. Such is the case when Limitations
and Regulations were imposed on Arms and Ammunition manufacturers as the result
of a 1954 International Treaty. It was supposed to prevent private firms and
citizens from exporting weapons outside the U.S.. With such a Treaty becoming
the LAW, bureaucrats and Congress joined together to force arms and weapons
manufacturers to obey a new set of rules or they would not be permitted to
export arms or munitions to foreign countries or sell them to the Pentagon
(Chapter 13). To comply with the terms of the treaty, the Federal government
preempted the field of manufacturing such items in every state.
The
U.S./Canada Free Trade Agreement, and subsequently NAFTA, are examples of
treaties being manipulated so certain industries can be exempt from government
regulations and taxes.
When you read about certain companies beating out the
bureaucracy and being exempted from the law, remember the secret of their power
is that they (or their lawyers) know the difference between rules and laws...and
they only break the rules!

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER TWO

VOLUNTEERISM

Don't Volunteer for
Nothin'

If you were asked to voluntarily give up your unalienable or Constitutional
Rights, chances are you would reply with an emphatic “NO!” The truth is that you
are being asked to surrender certain of your rights every day and you are doing
it without even a murmur of complaint.
Did you take a driver's test before
being issued a driver's license? Did you give the IRS information on your tax
return which could be used against you in a court of law if you are found to be
stretching the truth?
Did you ever apply for a permit to add on to your
present house or a permit to buy a firearm? Did you ever apply to a government
agency for any permit to do something?
Each time, you VOLUNTARILY surrendered
some of your rights!

***

You have the right to travel about freely in America without undue
hindrance, harassment or restrictions by government. You have the right to
travel about via the most common method of transportation within your means.
Yet, you have allowed the government to usurp those rights with a prior
restraint rule. The rule is that you get a driver's license from a government
agency. To do this you must prove, in advance, that you are qualified to
exercise your rights as a citizen by taking certain tests. The test will,
supposedly, permit a civil servant to determine if you are an unsafe driver.
(See Chapter 11 - Licenses - “Get Out of Jail Free” Card)
A rule usually
demands action on your part. The Constitution specifically forbids prior
restraint and if the driver's license were a mandatory law, it would do just
that—prohibit you from driving until you proved yourself worthy. When you
VOLUNTEERED, by applying for a driver's license, you agreed to give the rule the
force of law.
Rules or regulations, to be enforced as law, must have your
agreement. Most rules are not passed by Congress or a state legislature. The
rules are made by bureaucrats. The Constitution does not make provisions for
anyone to pass laws except the Legislative Branch of government. The
Administrative Branch and the Judicial Branch can pass all the rules they want
regarding their own actions, but they have no authority to foist rules off as
laws and then compel the citizens to obey them. They can, however, attempt to
intimidate or bribe you to accept their rules as valid laws.
Sometimes the
bribe is subtle and loaded with tricks. Sometimes it is obvious and reeks of
Threats and Intimidation (T&I). You can go through ten kinds of hell
fighting with an agency of government which is trying to enforce voluntary
compliance with rules. Their purpose is that you must be Made to Volunteer or
their bureaucracy will be without power. If they cannot exercise a power over
you, then others may follow your lead and soon the bureaucrats will be out of a
job.
One of the prerequisites our government has for recognizing the validity
of a foreign government is that the government in power must display an ability
to control the citizens. That is the official position of our Department of
State. If that is how our government feels about recognizing dictators, why
should it hesitate to apply the same standards for our own bureaucracy?
If
the bureaucrats cannot keep you in line, they are out of work. Period. Now you
know what motivates the bureaucrats in their efforts to seduce and intimidate
you to voluntarily surrender your rights and abide by their regulations.
It
is not easy to fight against the rules and still avoid being caught in the web
of voluntary entrapment. It takes some thought and caution on your part.
If
you receive a letter from the city, the driver's license department, zoning
board or any other agency of the government do not take the implied threats
literally. Do not make the mistake of initiating court action or negotiations.
You may think the letter is threatening to violate your rights, but rest assured
that it has been carefully worded to make you BELIEVE, but unable to prove, such
a threat has been made.
If you receive a certified letter or an official
notice has been published notifying you that a “court” action has been
instituted, then you must do something:
Write a brief note stating: “I will
not VOLUNTARILY permit anyone to usurp or change my rights, nor am I designating
anyone to be a binding arbitrator in any disputes of rights or equity. If anyone
has a Constitutionally valid claim, they must follow the Law, according to the
Constitution, and I will remain an Involuntary Litigant in any such
action.”
Show this to your lawyer, pointing out to him that this is your
position regarding the matter and you want him to represent you, but he must be
certain that no action is taken which might be construed to grant authority to
the court. When retaining counsel, remember that lawyers are officers of the
court and subject to its rules of procedure. Following such procedures can
result in your being considered to have “volunteered for the rules” and
subsequent binding decisions by an arbitrator instead of a judge in a court of
law.
To avoid giving anyone the mistaken impression that you are submitting
to or granting the court authority in the matter, you or your attorney must
preface all responses, remarks and appearances with the qualification that this
is a “Special Appearance” or a “Special Response” to the action before the
court. Remember, if you ask permission for anything you imply authority to deny
permission. Some courts and even your own lawyer may attempt to panic you into
making a voluntary commitment or agreement. NEVER INITIATE COURT ACTION when
some official sounding agency appears to be threatening you. Look over any
implied threat and make sure that it is real. If the letter says “do this and
comply with such and such within 10 days or appropriate legal action will be
taken,” you may be the recipient of a meaningless threat. If you initiate an
action with the courts to stop them from taking “appropriate legal action” you
will lose. You cannot stop any government agency from doing its duty.
Appropriate legal action is the duty of every government agency. If the implied
threat is not “appropriate” (within the scope of governmental authority) then no
lawful action can be taken. By initiating a fight in the courts, you will give
it authority to rule and since you are in court VOLUNTARILY, the rules can be
enforced as LAW.
The legal maxim “VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA” can apply in all
such cases. If you volunteer, you cannot claim injury as a result of your
voluntary act. If you are not FORCED into court via a summons, you are
volunteering and the court gets the entire question or case to rule on.
When
you voluntarily enter into those stoic chambers known as the “Halls of Justice,”
you agree to abide by the rules of the court. Among those innumerable rules is
one which permits the judge to rule for PUBLIC GOOD just as if he was ruling for
PUBLIC USE. You have agreed to abide by the court's decision. Since you are in
court voluntarily, your interests will be considered secondary to those of
society.
If you can think of something that the law requires you to do, you
will find that it is a rule. If you are prohibited from doing something, most
likely it is a valid law!
If you were in the Armed Forces, you might remember
being advised early in boot camp “Don't Volunteer for Anything!” That was sage
advice from your drill sergeant. From that time on, you were often selected for
undesirable duties by a process which included a REQUEST for volunteers —- then
an authoritative finger pointed at you and indicated you were “volunteering for
duty.” Didn't your drill instructor warn you not to volunteer? When that finger
pointed your way and you obediently got up or stepped forward, you
volunteered!
You can volunteer by serving on a committee and supposedly
finding solutions to problems the community faces. Most of us feel honored when
the government asks us for our opinion. But such commissions, boards, committees
or panels are often nothing more than a subtle ruse to trick the public into
going along with some government program which might otherwise encounter
troublesome resistance. They also help shield the real culprits who are trying
to get us to voluntarily surrender our rights.
Phil Cogswell, as associate
editor for The Oregonian, put it very well when he wrote: “A lot of what's
called public participation in local decision-making is really an effort to
lower the stakes for the people who are supposed to do something. Public
involvement makes a decision seem like a shared responsibility, but often the
apparent community consensus is only an illusion. Blue-Ribbon panels shield the
decision-maker more than they protect the public.” Most government programs now
REQUIRE a “Citizen Advisory Committee” (or some similar sounding name) in order
to protect the bureaucrats behind the scenes.
When you take any action, no
matter how innocent it may appear, you are giving your consent and volunteering.
Despite protection for accused criminals via the famous Miranda Decision, those
rights do not apply to individuals when they have not been charged with a
crime.
Under the MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA ruling, a criminal suspect cannot make a
confession unless he has been forewarned of his rights and it is the
responsibility of government to ascertain that the person is making the
confession intelligently and VOLUNTARILY. On the civil side, if you are not
charged with a crime and the government is trying to violate your rights by
tricking you into volunteering, the courts will take the opposite tack and
permit the government to swindle you into volunteering without a warning or
advising you of your legal rights. If you owned property along a river bank and
the water was constantly eroding your shore and carrying away your property,
what would you do?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and
rules emphatically imply you can do nothing without first getting EPA approval.
The moment you apply for “permission” to put some rocks along your bank to stop
the erosion, you open a Pandora's Box which could result in complete loss of
your property.
Remember: When you ask for permission, you imply that the
agency has authority and you volunteer to go along with their rules. One of
their rules is that you must submit a plan, complete with an environmental
impact study. That study could cost you thousands of dollars in engineering and
research fees and take several months to complete. By the time EPA gives its
approval, half of your land could be down stream and the cost of the impact
reports greater than the value of the remaining property.
If, however, you
just DO IT without asking permission, what can the EPA do? Chances are they will
not do a thing except demand explanations or that forms be filled out. Filling
out such forms could again subject you to the jurisdiction of the EPA rules and
regulations.
The EPA, if it was so disposed, might conduct its own
environmental impact study on your little project, at their own expense. If they
felt they could actually prove you did some specific damage to the environment,
they could file a lawsuit (Due Process) and get a court order to have you
restore the area to its pre-project condition. The possibilities of this
happening are almost zilch and zero.
Don't ask for permission —- they may say
no! It is your property and you have a right to take any reasonable action to
protect it. Do not let any power seeker convince you otherwise.

DEFINITIONS
VOLUNTARILY—Done by design or intention, intentional,
proposed or not accidental. Intentionally and without coercion. Young v. Young,
148 Kan. 876, 84 P.2d 916, 917.

VOLUNTARY—Unimpelled by another's
influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself. Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20, 33 S.E.
2d 171, 174.

VOLUNTARY JURISDICTION—In old English law, a jurisdiction
exercised by certain courts in matters were there is no opposition. 3 Bl. Comm.
66.

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
THREE

TRAPS

Waiting To Ensnare
You

There are almost as many traps laid out to ensnare unsuspecting citizens as
there are government regulations for "our own good." The procedures are varied
but the end result is usually the same: You did something or failed to do
something which is then construed to be an acknowledgment that you
volunteered.
Government bureaucrats are not going to meet you head on. They
invariably try to have buffers in the game to take the brunt of your criticisms
and retaliations when you discover that they are trying to control you or take
your property.
Most government agents you encounter will eventually say "I
don't make the laws, I just carry out my orders." It is a little like a
good-guy, bad-guy team you see on the TV cop shows --- one is your courteous,
concerned friend and is trying to protect you from the other, violent, impatient
cop.
When the State of Arizona decided it wanted more control over every
aspect of life in that state, the bureaucrats formed a Water Management Control
Agency. Water, in any state and especially in the Southwest, is one item of
extreme importance. Range wars were fought in the old west to establish water
rights. Men have died fighting over simple water holes or creeks.
Since the
Arizona property owners have deeded rights to water included with their land
deeds, the state was hard pressed to try and control the water. The legal
experts quietly agreed and said that attempting to enforce such rules would
violate the property rights of the people.
The Water Management people were
about to be put out of a job unless they found a way to wrest control of the
water in Arizona. Bruce Babbitt, then governor of the Arizona, later appointed
as Secretary of the Interior by the Clinton Administration, took "credit" for
coming up with the solution. He urged the water controllers to file a lawsuit
claiming that they were responsible for protecting the water of the state. They
sued every property owner for title. To further their cause they sent out
notices (somewhat vague) to every property owner, via Certified Mail, that each
was named in the pending lawsuit. At the same time the various water companies
of the state notified their customers that the water company would protect their
rights and they would not have to answer the lawsuit.
If you haven't guessed,
the result was a quiet, voluntary default judgment against the water owners
(property owners) with title and control of water passing to the government
bureaucrats. When strictly enforced this program allows the watercrats to
dictate regarding who will do what and where. They have complete control over
most property unless the owner can find a way to "personally drill" a well or
use the land without water or waste. In this case the court will be used as the
buffer. Subsequent court decisions will use the legal maxim of STARE DECISIS to
continue with this abuse of private property and the legal system.
Simply
stated, the rule of STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE, means "let the decision
stand and do not disturb things which have been settled." It could also be
construed to mean "We've made up our collective minds and we do not want to be
confused with more facts."
Courts are gutless when they refuse to hear
arguments of law as well as variations of facts. They fall back on precedent to
avoid making a decision which will upset their own little world. Dispensing
justice is often ignored as a purpose of the courts if it means going against
the principle of "stare decisis." Such a legal maxim can be used to trick
otherwise honest and competent judges into going along with rules which are
contrary to the laws and the Constitution.
When you find yourself subjected
to adjudication by a commissioner or arbitrator (even those calling themselves
"judge"), rather than by a real judge in a real court of law, you are being
exposed to Principled Adjudication --a theory which the U.S. Supreme Court
approves of and follows, allowing a designated officer of the court to make
decisions based on the principle of Stare Decisis (Chapter 15). Usually such
kangaroo tribunals can be avoided if you are tenacious and demand a trial by a
qualified court of competent jurisdiction. It is the court's method of providing
buffers for the judges.
In Monroe County, Florida, which is made up of
hundreds of small and medium sized tropical islands or keys (Florida Keys), the
State bureaucrats technically ordered THE COUNTY to stop issuing building
permits to anyone until it complied with a Federal Housing & Urban
Development (HUD) program. The HUD plan is to trick every city and county in the
nation to submit Master Plans for their area. The Master Plans are then
construed to be a voluntary commitment on the part of local government. Local
officials are then told by State Officials (the buffers) that they must do
certain things to comply with the Master Plan.

When Monroe County officials heard that they were supposed to cease issuing
building permits, they sent a formal question to the State and HUD officials.
The letter asked "Is it true that we are ordered to stop issuing building
permits as of July lst?" That is the interpretation the local officials had
placed on the information they received. The State of Florida did not reply. HUD
officials did not answer the question. The County had asked the question wrong
--- or right --- depending on your point of view. If they had merely asked, "Is
it true that we are not supposed to issue any more building permits after July
1st?" the State and HUD would have promptly responded "Yes!"
The State and
HUD did not have authority to order Monroe County to violate the property rights
of its citizens by denying them permits to build on their property. Such a
procedure might collapse the theory that any government agency has any real
authority to dictate what a person may do with his own private property. As long
as the property is not utilized in direct violation of deed restrictions or
zoning rules which existed at the time of purchase, they can do anything they
want. If the government, at any level, or a neighbor believes the use is
detrimental to the property rights of others, then they have the burden of proof
to take the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction and prove it.
If
Monroe County refuses to issue building permits, which most people believe they
are required to have, the county officials are acting innocently. The county
believes it is under orders from higher up. County officials become the buffer
between the property owners and the state, while the state is the buffer between
the county and HUD to enforce the HUD rules.
Similar tactics are used to
enforce the "Wetlands Act" and to take private property rights via the creation
of so-called Marine Sanctuaries.
Big Brother bureaucrats appear to prefer
introducing their twisted programs in fast growing areas such as Florida,
Arizona, Nevada, Southern Texas and Southern California. One disgruntled
government employee who retired said it was because the people don't have old
roots and contacts in those states. They are less likely to have a close
relative in a position of authority within local government and less likely to
be inclined to organize a group to fight and resist efforts to reduce their
rights.
In 1990 the Florida Keys came under a scurrilous attack by Federal
and State government when they attempted to use the same type of tricks used in
HUD takeovers. Officially the entire area was declared a "Marine Sanctuary" and
a citizen's group was appointed to determine the methods which would be employed
to carry out the protection of the "sanctuary."
This will be used to help
major hotel firms take-over valuable lands to build more hotels; make lobster
fishing too expensive and thereby open the door to foreign interests to ship
"farmed lobster" into the U.S. without resistance.
When anti-smoking
crusaders in Congress wanted to pass rules which could not be challenged in
court, a rider was attached to an appropriations bill authorizing the
bureaucrats to adopt rules regarding smoking on flights within the U.S. The
rider, circumvented the requirement that hearings be held regarding planned
rule-making which would affect a large portion of the population. It authorized
the agency to adopt rules to prevent anyone from smoking on airlines.
The
rules were adopted quickly "to prohibit the pilot from turning off the No
Smoking light" on flights of less than 2 hours and then changed to include all
flights under 6 hours duration (that means all flights). Those who were inclined
to challenge such regulations (NOT LAWS) would need time to prepare a case. If
anyone did get to court within a year, it would be dismissed for some reason or
another. Eventually, the theory was that since AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL is limited
to a specific time frame it is dead after that time. That means the bureaucrats
no longer had the authority to impose rules which prohibited smoking on
airlines. If challenged in court, the judge would merely rule that since there
was no such valid rule which "prohibited smoking," the litigant was in court
VOLUNTARILY and would rule for what the judge perceived to be PUBLIC
GOOD.
Another example of usurping the Rights of the people is the Class
Action Lawsuit. When properly filed, the Court orders publication of a public
notice which will (they presume) preclude anyone else from ever filing a lawsuit
under these particular circumstances. The idea is to make your claim now or
forever be on the outside.
Such lawsuits are a favorite ploy of manufacturers
who are suddenly being exposed to numerous lawsuits for knowingly putting out an
unsafe product. It is far cheaper to defend one big lawsuit than a thousand
small ones. Invariably there is an out of court settlement and it is implied
that all litigants must accept the decision of the lawyers and the court in
final settlement. The ideal situation is for the company in question to get some
friendly lawyers to file a class action in Federal Court (one fight). If the
company is concerned about the outcome, they can get lawyers to file class
action lawsuits in every state (50 fights) and then appeal the unfavorable
decisions. It is certainly cheaper than having to go to court with every
litigant.

If you have a business and you want to protect yourself, come to an
agreement for penalties (civil sanctions) or settlement with some government
agency. Firestone did it and profited millions by admitting it had put out a
defective steel-belt radial tire. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) entered into an agreement with Firestone lawyers and "ordered" the tire
manufacturer to replace all the defective tires. Since it was not possible to do
them all at once, they were given time. The serial numbers of the tires effected
would not be made public until they were actually recalled for replacement. In
every case, the tires were not recalled until they had been on the road for over
4 years. Four years? How many cars have 4-year old tires with tread
left?
When actually called in, the tires were only adjusted for remaining
tread life. If someone did show up with good tires on the car, they had to take
an upgrade since that recalled tire was no longer manufactured. End
result--profits for Firestone! They broke the rules and they won!
The Miranda
decision orders that an accused must be informed of his rights. The Supreme
Court ruled "...a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of
the accused...." Can't we, the non-criminals, be given similar consideration by
the courts?
The Courts say we cannot! That is their ruling. If you give the
court jurisdiction, you will lose. Unless your lawyer is on his toes, he will
volunteer you to enter into the twisted system almost every time you consult
him. You must pay close attention to every word and phrase uttered by a
bureaucrat or court or you may find yourself volunteering to become a slave to
government.

****

POINT TO PONDER

The information about volunteering is not new. Ayn
Rand, a noted philosopher and author, used much of her famous novel, "Atlas
Shrugged", to make similar points when government tricks became obvious to her
in the l940's.
At one point in her book the scenario went like this as the
government tried to control the hero's special technique for making metal. The
scene is a courtroom where a three judge panel has summoned Hank Reardon. He has
just been advised that cases of this nature are not tried by a jury, but are
tried by a three judge panel appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and
National Resources. Reardon has just refused to enter a plea:

"Do you..."
the judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw
yourself on the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognize this court's right
to try me."
"What?"
Hank Reardon repeated his statement.
"But, Mr.
Reardon, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of
crime."
"I do not recognize my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted
that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your metal."
"I
do not recognize your right to control the sale of my metal."
"Do you mean
that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying
with the law --- to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my
property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose
of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of
defending myself where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the
illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
The dialogue in Ayn Rand's
novel continues between Reardon and the court for another page and then the
court questions if he is aware of the gravity of the charges against him and the
sentence he could receive.
Reardon challenges the panel to impose their
sentence.
"This is unprecedented," one of the judges said.
"It is
completely irregular," said the second judge. "The law requires you to submit a
plea in your own defense. Your only alternative is to state for the record that
you throw yourself on the mercy of the court."
"I do not."
"But you have
to."
"Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary
action?"
"Yes."
"I volunteer nothing."
"But the law demands that
defendant's side be represented on the record."
"Do you mean that you need my
help to make this procedure legal?"
"Well, no...yes...that is, to complete
the form."
"I will not help you."
The exchange continues until the oldest
judge smiles condoningly and says, "Mr. Reardon, it is regrettable that you
should have misunderstood us so completely. That's the trouble --- that
businessmen refuse to approach us in a spirit of trust and friendship. They seem
to imagine that we are their enemies. Why do you speak of human sacrifices? What
made you go to such an extreme? We have no intention of seizing your property or
destroying your life. We do not seek to harm your interests."

***

The insight Ayn Rand had in realizing what government was doing in the late
1940's and early 1950's is displayed in the books she wrote at that time. A
better understanding of the attitudes which prevail among bureaucrats today, can
be best developed by reading this great classic-- ATLAS SHRUGGED, New American
Library, Signet Books, Hardcover Edition from Random House.

Continue Reading
Chapter 4

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
FOUR

PROFITS

Using the
Rules

You do not always have to break the rules to win. Many big firms have found
that they can enhance their own businesses by promulgating additional rules
which can then be passed off as laws. Usually such laws are passed under the
guise of being of benefit to the majority of the population.
A perfect
example of how laws supposedly protect the people when they are actually for the
protection of business is the Workman's Compensation Law (WCL). Each state has
its own law, but all are basically the same.
The key provision is that the
employer is providing the workers with a form of insurance in case they are hurt
on the job. It sounds great. The truth is that when the worker voluntarily
accepts the coverage via the WCL the liability of the employer is substantially
reduced. Maximum money collectable if hurt on the job is limited to that
provided for in the state's Workman's Compensation Law. If the employer can be
proven to be negligent, the injured worker could collect additional damages. If
the injury is the result of an accident or a normal job hazard, the liability is
limited to the coverage.
Every employee is automatically covered after 10 or
30 days on the job, depending on the state. The only way to avoid such coverage
and limitation is if the worker files a formal statement refusing coverage. If
such a statement is filed during the normal probationary period on the job, the
worker will probably be dismissed. Filing such a statement makes the employer
liable for any and all losses and injury to the employee while on the
job.
The highly regulated liquor industry in many states have had
lobbyists pushing for rules which they can use. When the wholesalers in one
state did not want to sell to bars on credit, they asked to have a rule (law)
passed which prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages on credit. The public
and bar owners assumed this meant they could no longer run a long tab for their
customers. The saloon keepers did not complain since it would probably save them
a few bucks in the long run.
Eventually, the liquor control people pulled out
the sleeper and ordered the wholesalers to stop selling to the bars and liquor
stores on credit. When the delivery was made, the retailers had to pay. The
wholesaler innocently stated "It's the Law!"
Insurance firms are great at
getting rules passed for their own benefit (Chapter Nine). How about protecting
incompetent mechanics from being viewed by the car owner? Just get OSHA to pass
a rule which prohibits the public from entering the work area, and then blame it
on the insurance company, which requires the insured business to abide by
government regulations. If you have the clout, you can get a government
regulating agency to pass such a regulation and then blame it on the
"law."
The most powerful of all legislative lobbyist, The National Rifle
Association (NRA) has had to fight one of the subtle methods used to change
their own rules. To defeat the NRA, those who oppose firearm possession by
citizens are constantly in the process of trying to pack the NRA with their own
people. It takes some time since the NRA by-laws require membership for a period
of 5 years before one can be put on the Board of Directors.
To take over such
an organization, you use their own by-laws and start grooming people to be
elected to the Board. Let us use the NRA for an example: The individuals
selected must be in your hip pocket and they must be groomed to give a public
appearance which people will automatically accept as pro-NRA. Once the
membership accepts the candidate, he must continue to appear to be in favor of
NRA positions. Once a power base is established within the organization, it is
simple to start lobbying from a weak position. To avoid a recall, all efforts
must appear to be strong, but taking indefensible positions will make it
possible to lose battles and thereby weaken the base of the organization. The
membership may suspect they are being sold out by their new leaders, but they
will not know for sure until it is too late.
Another way to actually apply
rules to gain your position is used frequently by major organizations -- the
Judas Goat technique. Let us assume there seems to be public support for a
repeal of a law (rule). Your firm benefits from that law and you do not want it
repealed, but you don't want to take an unfavorable public relations position of
being in favor of it, either. What do you do?
From behind the scenes you can
financially support and start a committee with a stated purpose to "Repeal the
Law." Make lots of noise for the media about how the group is going to get
signatures on petitions to bring the law to a vote of the people. Hire a
voluntary chairman and three nice looking old ladies to set up tables at local
shopping centers so there will be sufficient exposure to make it appear that the
petition drive is underway. In most states it is illegal to get people to sign a
petition and then throw the petition away, so make sure you do not get too many
signatures. You only want to break the rules, not the law.
Move the three
ladies and their table around the city or state and send out occasional press
releases about how well the petition drive is proceeding. Then, about a week
before the filing deadline, plant a negative story about lack of support and
volunteers, but don't tell anyone where to go if they actually want to volunteer
to get petitions signed.
Finally, about three days before the filing deadline
to put the issue on the ballot, let the public know that the committee will
probably be short of the required number of signatures.
The deadline comes
and there are not enough signatures. If you feel really brave, submit the
petitions and have someone carefully verify the authenticity. Even though you
have just enough signatures, there are always many signers who are not
registered or otherwise not legally qualified to sign petitions. You could make
doubly sure by having one of your little old ladies be a "non-registered" voter
which could disqualify all the signatures she collects. The issue never gets on
the ballot and your company can continue to profit from the unpopular law.
My
first awareness of being able to profit from the passage of an unpopular law
came when I was only 10 years old. We lived in Kansas at the time and the state
was dry --- hard alcohol was illegal. My father operated a saloon and dance hall
several miles south of Wichita and I thought it was great fun when the Sheriff
would call to warn that his deputies would be conducting a raid in a few hours.
Dad bootlegged whiskey at the saloon and when the raid warning came, we hauled
the hard stuff out to the small lake in the back. We tied the bottles to little
slip-knot strings and those were tied to a heavy rope which was held down with a
cement block. The rope was then lowered into the lake to be recovered
later.
The sheriff and his deputies would show up and I would watch with a
straight face while they pretended to search for illegal booze. Of course, they
wouldn't find any. A few hours later the deputies would stop by and get a little
envelope from dad.
One day my father took me into town and told me to wait in
the car when he parked in front of the Baptist church. My father was never
religious and I was curious. We always attended Catholic church but he would not
go along. When he came out I asked why he went to a Baptist church.
"I gave a
contribution to the church fund to keep whiskey illegal in Kansas," he
explained, matter of factly. The money, he said, came from all the bootleggers
in the area.
I was confused, so he explained. "If the law is changed to make
the sale of whiskey legal, I'll be out of business. So, we want to keep the law
and so does the Baptist church."
Even at the tender age of 10 years, I
understood.
Whether you choose to abide by a rule, break a rule or have a
rule passed and enforced for your benefit, you must always remember that
volunteering will give it all the force and effect of a valid law. You can be
fined, subjected to exceptional legal harassment and even go to jail for
breaking such a regulation or rule.
You cannot always depend on your lawyer
to help you. Many of the rules which are being enforced as law today were put
into effect since 1954. Few, if any, lawyers practicing today were even in
school in the 50's. Attorneys who know the variables between rules and laws
usually discovered it on their own. The law schools did not teach them the
subtle differences.
If you pick up any copy of the numerous volumes entitled
the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR), the rules by which the Federal
bureaucracy is required to operate, you would believe you are reading Federal
"laws." Most lawyers are exposed to the CFR in law school and since the manuals
read like law books, you cannot blame them if they do not always recognize the
difference.
Usually your lawyer will try to keep you within the confines of
the rules as well as the laws. It is easier for him to advise you and he may not
even be aware of the dissimilarity. If you are lucky enough to have an attorney
who is still willing to learn (that means he keeps his ego in check), you will
be way ahead by giving him or her this book. If, as is often the case, your
lawyer tries to double talk you with the mysticisms of the legal system and lets
his ego get in the way of learning more about his profession, then you would be
well advised to seek other counsel.
Ask your lawyer to carefully read this
book. It should take about two hours. Pay for the time at regular office rates
and to make sure, sit in the office while he reads it. Even if he charges you
$200 an hour, the money spent will be well worth it to you over the years. The
lawyers who discover this information on their own usually do not share it with
others. They content themselves to sign on with major corporations or law firms
which represent the biggies. That is why the Winners are usually giant
conglomerates.
Since you cannot have contact with your lawyer every second
just to answer your question "Is it a law or a rule?" you will have to keep
certain things in mind, especially when you deal with government employees
(police or clerks). Most do not know the differences and will resist your
efforts to explain it to them.
LAWS are written in such a manner as to
prohibit an action which would violate the rights of another. You are prohibited
(by law) from stealing your neighbor's car. You are prohibited from hitting your
neighbor in the nose or taking such other violent actions as to disturb the
peace and tranquility of others. You are prohibited from trespassing on the
private property of others. You are prohibited from violating the Rights of
others. With this as the purpose, such are our laws. VALID LAWS ARE FOR EVERYONE
- THERE ARE NO LICENSES TO VIOLATE A LAW!
RULES are written in such a manner
as to regulate our activity and behavior. Usually, a rule will order you to do
something which, if mandatory, would exceed the limited Constitutional authority
of government and violate your Unalienable Rights in the process. These rules
are supposed to keep us peacefully happy and content to follow the orders of our
government superiors.
If dad wants to make some rules for his house, such as:
No discussions of religion at the dinner table. No TV on Sunday. He can do this
- within his own house. If you don't like it, you can go someplace else. Of
course, if you are a minor child, you don't really have a choice unless you want
to come under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court's rules. Dad's ideas are
probably much easier rules with which to live. SINCE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE
VOLUNTARY IN NATURE, THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY CAN MAKE AND LICENSE
EXCEPTIONS!

****

TO PROVE A POINT

A great book suggested to prove a point about how big
business can manipulate government at all levels to circumvent our Constitution
and the will of the people, even in life and death situations, is "Trading With
the Enemy" by Charles Higham, Delacorte Press, N.Y.
In it he reveals, via
documents secured from our government under the Freedom of Information Act, that
major banks, oil companies and other industries were exempted from the Trading
With the Enemy Act, passed by Congress at the start of World War II. You will
find that our own President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed a "General License"
allowing American businesses to trade with the enemy under Executive Order No.
8389, just one week AFTER the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
You will read
how U.S. oil companies shipped fuel to their Argentina branches and then to Nazi
submarines. You will learn that the Bank of England as well as many American
banks gleefully transferred funds to and from Nazi accounts while American,
Canadian and British soldiers and sailors were being killed by the
Germans.
Such firms as Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Chase Bank, the Texas
Company, ITT, and Ford Motor Company used the rules of war to trade with both
sides.

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER FIVE

LANGUAGE

The Abuse of
Words

One of the greatest distortions of words seems to be associated with the U.S.
Constitution. The first Ten Amendments are improperly called the "Bill Of
Rights." Although Thomas Jefferson often referred to such additions as a bill of
rights, it was not officially called that until Franklin D. Roosevelt, declared
December 15th, the anniversary of the adoption of those Amendments, Bill Of
Rights Day.
Although these Ten Amendments do further clarify some Rights of
the people, they are the same as all the sections of the Constitution --
Limitations on Government Authority. The First Ten Amendments are actually a
Bill of Limits on the government.
All rights which are not specifically
granted to Government, by the people, are retained by the people -- our
Unalienable Rights!

***

The best defense you can develop against the usurping of your rights
by bureaucrats is to stay informed of current news and activity. Most men always
manage to find a few minutes to read the sports pages and women seldom miss the
advise to the lovelorn. Don't stop! All reading is informative, but do not limit
what you read to a few favorite subjects. The scores in the paper, who will not
play in Sunday's game, and your favorite humorist will not save your home from a
greedy developer.
Bill Cosby, once one of TV's top entertainers and an expert
in education, suggested that people could absorb much more news and information
about current events if they would skim the newspapers and magazine articles.
The secret is to make a list of key words and when you are skimming, let those
words be like flashing red lights to stop your eyes from scanning. Those key
words will let you know which articles to read slowly and
carefully.
Bureaucrats play on words. It has been helping them to garner more
and more power and control over you and your family. They manipulate words and
have even slipped legislation past lawmakers by merely mis-naming the proposed
bill.
To make it easy for bureaucrats and controllers to circumvent the U.S.
Constitution and your Rights, without actually violating the Constitution, the
U.S. Supreme Court has come up with some changes in the definition of certain
words. The Justices did not do this to intentionally weaken the nation, even
though that is the result. Their motivations were to uphold the acts of
Congress. In some instances, Congress passes bills which directly conflict with
the intentions of the Constitution. To avoid this, such words as "required",
"must", "shall" and "may", have been given interchangeable definitions. In doing
this the Supreme Court has caused almost all laws or rules to be
unconstitutionally vague. Here are the definitions from Black's Law
Dictionary:

MAY--An auxiliary verb qualifying the meaning of another verb
by expressing ability, competency, liberty, permission, possibility, probability
or contingency.

SHALL--As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this
word is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of
excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to
impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor
of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public
interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to
be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intention appears. But it may be
construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry
out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit to anyone
depends on it being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or
private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other
sense.

MUST--This word, like the word "shall" is primarily of mandatory
effect and in that sense is used in antithesis to "may." But this meaning of the
word is not the only one, and it is often used in a merely directory sense, and
consequently is a synonym for the word "may" not only in the permissive sense of
that word but also in the mandatory sense which it sometimes
has.

REQUIRE--To direct, order, demand, instruct, command, claim, compel,
request, need, exact. To be in need of. To ask for authoritively or
imperatively.

***

Abuse of Words
If you cannot adjust each and every one of these
legal definitions to suit your desire, you should take a course in English
language. Every rule and law in existence uses one or more of these words and
the variable definitions leave it up to the reader to decide which meaning to
apply.
In effect, the Court is ruling that such words be given mandatory
construction unless such an application violates someone's rights. Then it is
given a "voluntary construction." That means if your rights would be violated by
the mandatory definition, you must be tricked into volunteering so the rule can
have the force of a mandatory law without violating your rights.

***

Whenever you hear a government agency try to convince you that you would be
better off with a certain program, watch out! The plans always sound ideal, but
if someone says it is Best for you and your family, you would be well advised to
scrutinize them as you would a suspected burglar.
Most of self-serving
politicians and bureaucrats are worried about being caught with their pants down
so they keep themselves covered with an abundance of press releases. Of course,
you might have to read five different news clips to get the entire story, but
they do advise you of what they are doing.
This play on words keeps numerous
people employed. It also chips away at your Unalienable Rights. Prior to the
passage of the Privacy Act of 1974, it was virtually impossible for anyone to
get information about your income tax return. The IRS jealously guarded that
information. But the Privacy Act (so-called) opened the door so that almost any
government agency could have access to your financial information. Even foreign
governments can get the data on your IRS tax return. Was that really a Privacy
Act? Or was it a Non-Privacy Act? Do our Congressmen know what they did? Have
they taken any action to correct this blight on the privacy of citizens?
The
IRS Directors are often quoted as they call our Income Tax System "Voluntary."
The payment of acknowledged taxes may be mandatory, but the reporting system is
definitely voluntary. They have a big problem trying to phrase every word and
form to make you think you are required to file without saying that you are
"required" to file a return. Keep in mind when any agency says they "require
this information" that the word require also means "need."
Those who utilize
this knowledge and refuse to file a 1040 form or any other kind of return are
referred to by the Internal Revenue Service agents as "Illegal Tax Protesters."
It is a neat play on words, but leaves a question: "Are they protesters of an
illegal tax, or are they illegal protesters of taxes?"
It creates an image in
the minds of the public. Nobody wants to be called "illegal," so the IRS uses
the word to confuse the issues. Actually the tax is not illegal, nor is any
protest of the tax. We have a right to protest anything and everything. But the
IRS bureaucrats, like all others, are trying to make their jobs as easy as
possible and non-conforming patriots do not help them.
If you want to be
informed about rules and regulations which will affect you, your family, your
bank account, your home, your car, your freedom to move about, your right to
keep and bear arms, your freedom of speech, and all the other Rights most
Americans say they value so highly, then you must read! You must listen
carefully. You cannot accept things because they sound nice or easy.
When you
know that some official is going to make a speech, ask for a copy. Rarely do
public officials speak "off the cuff." Invariably they have a prepared text and
they seldom deviate too far. It is the protection they have when someone tries
to say "We were not warned." Whether you get the text in advance or after the
speech, skim if for buzz words. Check any statement which seems to be
"qualified."
In early 1968 I was in Washington, D.C., trying to hire an
editor. The woman I was hoping to retain had a White House Press Pass and had to
interrupt our interview to attend a Press Conference President Lyndon Johnson
had called. After dropping her off, I took a copy of the prepared text and
studied it while waiting for her. Then, listening to the end of the speech on
the car radio as I drove to pick her up at the White House, I heard President
Johnson announce that he would not run for a second full term. That information
had not been in the prepared text of his speech.
By the time I reached the
front gate of the White House, demonstrators seemed to appear from out of
nowhere carrying banners and signs. "Thank God, The War Will Be Over" one
hastily painted sign shouted.
The demonstrators and the press corps had
picked up on a statement in Johnson's speech in which he stated that he had
ordered a halt to the bombing of all non-strategic, non-military targets in
North Vietnam, north of a certain parallel. To those who did not study the text
(that included the entire Press Corps and the Congress) it sounded like he said
he had stopped the bombing of North Vietnam.
The TV news media on all three
major networks, at that time, reported it that way. The people in the streets
celebrated as if that is what he said. It was 10 days later when an announcement
was made about bombing missions in North Vietnam. The press was irate. The
anti-war demonstrators were angry. Johnson had "lied" to them! He was still
bombing targets in North Vietnam!
Of course, he was. He said he was "stopping
the bombing of non-strategic, non-military targets north of" ... a certain line
(way north) in North Vietnam. I do not know if he intended to mislead anyone
with that statement, but I doubt it. The media did not listen. They did not
check the prepared text. It happens all the time. If trained news people can get
the story wrong when they have the facts typed out in front of them, how easy
must it be for the average citizen to misunderstand.
Any percentage figure
can and usually does mislead the intended audience. Treat all PERCENTAGES as
buzzwords to be scrutinized. For example: "Eighty percent of the majority
consider the new law to be in keeping with the goals of freedom."
Doesn't
that sound like 80% of the people are in favor of the new law? But that is not
what it says. A majority is 51%. If 80% of the 51% favor the law, that is only
40% of the whole. Apparently 60% were either opposed to the new law or rendered
no opinion. But that means the new law does not have popular consent. Twisting
words and percentages is a common game played by Tricky Dick lawyers, power
hungry politicians, bureaucrats and unscrupulous media people who want to
distort the truth without actually telling a lie.
You should make your own
list of "red light words" to catch your attention. Some key words you should
have on your list include:
RATE OF...
REDUCED RATE OF
GROWTH
VOLUNTARY
COMPLIANCE
NET
INCREASE AVERAGE
GROSS
EXCEPT
FOR
ADJUSTED FOR
DESPITE THE
NOTICE OF
COST-BENEFIT
RATIO
MANDATORY
REQUIRED
PROPOSED BAN ON
ALLOWED
REQUIREMENT
THAT
PERMITTED
LAWFUL (un-)
ADMINISTRATIVE
LICENSED

Anytime
there is more than one descriptive adjective used in a speech or press release,
read it carefully. Everyone is inclined to embellish a speech or press release
by using a choice word to exemplify their position more colorfully. President
Johnson's speech about halting the bombing of targets in North Vietnam should
have been more carefully scrutinized by the national press corps. The people
depend on this elite group of reporters for information and truth. When Johnson
qualified his statement with the term "non-strategic" the press should have
noticed. When he gave it a further qualification of "non-military," our elected
officials should have noticed. When he put in geographic qualifications,
everyone should have noticed and there should have been absolutely no confusion
about what he had ordered regarding the bombing of North Vietnam.
Using the
name of an innocent party in a story in conjunction with some known criminal is
an easy ploy. Try this half-truth for an example: You have just read most of an
article about how one man was convicted of land fraud. He is, according to the
story, one of the biggest land swindlers of the time. We will call him John
Smith. The story continues ---
"When Smith was checked into the State Prison,
he had accidentally brought a list of associates' addresses with him. It was
confiscated and turned over to the prosecuting attorney as potential evidence in
further investigations and prosecutions.
The media has learned from a
reliable source that the list included the name and address of a prominent real
estate developer, Bill Jones. The prosecutor refused to comment when asked if
Jones was under suspicion of land fraud.
`He hasn't been indicted yet,' an
assistant told the reporters."
This type of journalism is disgusting but it
goes on every day. It is well-known by the media and politicians that the public
is inclined to convict people by association. This tactic made Mr. Jones suspect
simply because of the way the story was presented. Someone in the media or the
prosecutor's office obviously wanted to damage Mr. Jones or the statement "He
hasn't been indicted yet," would not have been made or printed.
Of course,
you have not been indicted either. The question should not arise. If you know
someone who gets into trouble, you can easily be put into such a position and be
considered tainted with "guilt by association."
Sometimes you will see the
media used by publicity hungry detectives or politicians. Like us, they watch TV
shows such as the many cop shows or late night re-runs of "Miami Vice" or
"Starsky & Hutch." Some of our police officers are easily influenced by such
shows. They will occasionally go to great lengths just to get their name in the
newspapers or their pictures on TV.
One sheriff, up for reelection, wanted to
get some gangbuster publicity so he instructed under-cover police officers,
borrowed from out of town, to take automatic weapons, cocaine and marijuana,
along with thousands of dollars in stolen goods from the police property room
and haul it over to a building the undercover cops had established to be a house
of prostitution. To make sure the pimps (under-cover cops) would look really bad
and arouse the dander of the community, the Sheriff arranged for a juvenile
prostitute to apply for a job and be in the house when uniformed deputies
conducted a raid.
With TV crews on hand they kicked in the doors and ARRESTED
the two men, three newly hired prostitutes and the juvenile hooker. They "found"
a small arsenal of guns and automatic weapons, almost a half-million dollars
worth of drugs and over $50,000 in stolen merchandise.
It was all true! The
media ate it up and gave it top coverage. Child prostitution? Drug dealing?
Automatic weapons? Stolen property?
The public was aroused. They demanded the
Sheriff continue with his outstanding work. "Such people as these should not be
allowed in our community!" was the cry of the media and the people. They might
tolerate a few prostitutes and their pimps, but not child prostitution! Not an
arsenal of automatic weapons! Not drugs or stolen goods!
It was some time
before the general public learned that the two PIMPS who had been arrested were
really undercover cops and the weapons, drugs and stolen property, displayed for
the media, had actually been evidence in other cases and was planted in the
house after being removed from the police property room.
Such activities as
this are not always discredited. They are called "media events" and are very
misleading. The biggest problem is that the public can never be sure if what
they are reading or hearing is true or just a publicity seeking event.
The
spokesman for the Sheriff's office never did say that the men were running a
house of prostitution. He never said that they were selling drugs. He never said
that the juvenile was working for the two men. He merely pointed to the goods
and said "This is what was found in the house."
Eventually, the local media
realized they had been suckered on more than one occasion and the reporters
started asking the right questions.
Another Sheriff wanted some publicity
shortly after taking office and his men arranged to have a pilot fly in a load
of marijuana to a deserted airstrip. It was like making a TV movie. The officers
were dressed in camouflage fatigues and carrying assault rifles. The TV NEWS
crews were well hidden when the plane landed. The story went down and the next
day a suspicious newspaper reporter dug out the truth. The deputies had actually
blackmailed the pilot into making the flight. They had threatened to jail him
for some minor violation if he did not help them.
You, too, must ask the
right questions. Read, listen and don't hesitate to pin someone down who appears
to be skirting your direct question. If they can be devious, then you must be
tenacious. Hang in there and you'll hang them.

***

Bureaucrats can completely change the meaning of a word and you will wonder
what hit you if you do not pay attention. My friend and his wife were taking an
evening walk when they stopped to read an official notice posted at the corner.
It said something about changing their quiet, neighborhood street from a
secondary collector to a "primary collector." Did that mean they would be
getting more frequent trash collections?
Being aware of government treachery,
they called to find out what the term "primary collector" meant. After a brief,
buck-passing, run-around, they learned that "collector" means "traffic street"
in the bureaucratese language.
What the local bureaucrats hoped to pull off
was to turn a quiet neighborhood street into a main thoroughfare with thousands
of cars daily. When the people in the neighborhood learned about it (via
interpretation from my friends) they all showed up at the next council meeting
to stop the change. They had not known what a collector was and the change would
have been made if they had not protested. George Orwell's classic novel, "1984,"
forecasting the future, complete with big brotherism and doublespeak, may have
been off a few years but his foresight was accurate.
When you question a
bureaucrat, especially if your inquiry puts them against the wall, they will
often resort to subtle attempts at putting you down.
"I'm sorry you don't
understand. If you would like to go over this is detail, I'll arrange some time
for you. But now we must move ahead with new information," the bureaucrat says,
patronizingly. Such a put down must never be accepted. This person, usually with
some title, has attempted to discredit your mental prowess because he (or she)
is hiding something. Do not start a war, but do not accept this tactic. Insist
the speaker explain it to everyone, NOW!
"I'm very adept at understanding,
Mr. so and so. You obviously did not make yourself clear and I'm sure there are
other people here who would like you to make yourself clear by answering my
question, now," is a good stock comeback for you to memorize and use.
You not
only upset his attempt at questioning your mental ability, you can garner some
support from others who would be too intimidated to ask questions similar to
yours. They do not want that man up at the podium to make them appear ignorant.
You must insist that he has not made himself clear, otherwise the audience will
not support you. When you start asking questions or making statements contrary
to the official line, you are a trouble-maker.
When I first heard about a
Flood Control plan for a desert community where I edited a local, weekly
newspaper, I felt as most people did --- the streets would be flooded when it
rained and the Army Corps of Engineers obviously were experts about such
matters. As I listened to a Colonel with the Corps explain about their planned
project, I noticed he skirted some direct questions from a city
councilman.
Curious, I started looking into the project. Eventually I
discovered that the plan would not prevent the type of flooding to which the
community was exposed. It called for a Multi-Million Dollar Bond Issue to be
approved by the voters with several times that amount to be paid by the Federal
Government (also tax payer's money). The voters turned the project down by
voting against the bond issue.
At a meeting several months later, a General
with the Army Corps of Engineers tried to explain their newly revised project to
a group of interested citizens. When I asked how many times the people would
have to say "no" before they stopped pushing this project, the General asked one
of his Colonels to take me aside and explain the project to me (he did not want
me to interrupt his meeting). The Colonel attempted to answer some of my
objections to the project and when I pointed out the huge amount of money
involved, he said Congress requires them to show a 2 for 1 cost-benefit ratio on
all projects.
That sounded reasonable, so I asked, does that include factors
for inflation. "Oh, yes," he replied.
"Over what period of time?"
He
mumbled an unintelligible answer and I repeated my question. "Over what period
of time is the cost-benefit ratio figured?"
The Colonel mumbled again, but
this time I could hear him say, "A hundred years."
"One hundred years?" I
asked in disbelief.
With that bit of information, the next bond issue was also
killed. Very few projects are good for 100 years. Usually they are outdated and
a nuisance at the end of 50 years. If you don't think so, take a look around.
The government, developers and planners are tearing out numerous projects which
are less than 30 years old.
When the Army Corps of Engineers came back again,
with still another project revision, they pointed out that it would only add 5
cents per $100 of assessed valuation to the property owner's tax bill. Since the
flooding was only a problem for certain neighborhoods, I asked why everyone had
to pay since it was designed to protect homes which had been built in flood
prone areas. The financial aspects were the only legitimate concern since there
was no record of anyone drowning as a result of the city floods. Usually the
water only rose a few feet and ruined carpet and drywall.
Without a
satisfactory answer, I pointed out that if they would pass a law which required
everyone to pay me 5 cents per $100 of property value, I would gladly form an
insurance company and provide total coverage for all financial losses from the
flooding. That was in l966. In 1968 the Federal government made flood insurance
available to property owners and in many cases it is mandatory that you have it
if you want a mortgage. Another reason not to make flip suggestions to a
bureaucrat!
The point is, do not accept those words and plans at face value.
You must question them and what they mean. You must show the bureaucrats and the
public that there are other alternatives to their control plans. If you don't,
you lose!

POINT TO PONDER

Do your knees shake when you get up
to speak? Sit on the side and watch the knees of the so-called experts when they
stand up to talk. That podium is there to give them something to lean on and
hide their shaking knees. If you find you are reluctant to speak out or
challenge the so-called experts at public meetings, consider taking a Dale
Carnegie Course in public speaking or join your local Toastmasters
club.
Everyone is nervous when they first start to talk to a large number of
people. Even small groups can make someone nervous. You can learn how to
overcome such fears by taking a speaking course. Your local community college
offers such courses and you can learn a lot and get practical experience by
joining your local Toastmasters -- you will benefit greatly from meeting the
people as well as the experience you will get speaking in public.

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER SIX

BUREAUCRATS

Understanding Civil
Servants

Most individuals who work for the government do not consider themselves to be
bureaucrats. At the same time they no longer consider themselves to be public
servants. They are, like most of us, interested in doing their job the easiest
way possible, collect the paycheck, pay the bills, feed the kids and hopefully
have some money left over for a vacation, college for the kids and a peaceful
retirement.
The public servants are interested in doing what they must to
keep their jobs and if there is a possibility their positions will be classified
as non-essential, they will organize and fight for bigger budgets. They will say
almost anything to convince the taxpaying public and the legislators that
children will die and nations will fall if their agency is phased out.
Terrorists will take over if their budget is not increased. Organized crime will
take control of everything if more police officers are not hired. All useful
services such as trash collection and schools will cease to exist if there is a
tax cut. Sound familiar?
You can make your own list, but before you criticize
these people, remember: They are not much different than you and your family.
What would you do if there was a chance your job would be phased out and you
could do something to save it? It really does not make a bit of difference to
most individuals who signs the payroll checks. They put in the hours, do what
they are told and cash a check. The color of the currency is the same for
government employees, politicians, bureaucrats and the private sector.
The real
problem bureaucrats are the ambitious individuals who go to work for the
government and are anxious to climb the stairway to power and stature. They
intend to advance and improve their position, even if the nation suffers as a
result. They do not care about such vague things as freedom or heritage, unless
professing such beliefs will help them better their bureaucratic position of
power.
When you hear government employees complaining about being overworked,
don't laugh. It is often very true. They are over-worked trying to comply with
all of the nonsensical, multi-copy, bureaucratic requirements of their jobs.
Congress knows how foolishly government can spend money (they spend more than
anyone). They create buffer bureaus to write rules the government employees must
follow, so they do not waste money.
Did you ever wonder why the Pentagon gets
a bill for $350 for a simple ball-peen hammer? It is the system the bureaucratic
rule writers have imposed on such purchasing to make sure the taxpayers do not
pay too much! The rule writers received their authority from your Congressman
and in the case of the famous $12 hammer which costs $350, it is the rules which
drive the price up.
When the General says he wants a hammer so the mechanic
can fix the jeep -- someone better find that hammer.
There are about 20 pages
of typed information which outlines the standards such a hammer must meet. A
clerk must now find the correct sheet and type up the purchase order, make
several copies of bid sheets and publish the information (About three
hours).
Contractors' employees must now read all this information to decide
if they have hammers which qualify. Since they will miss out on more bids than
they will win, they have to add all the time they spend making bids and reading
bid sheets, and then amortize their time to recoup the costs on the bids they do
win. Cost of $20 per hour for the agent to read, times 15 agents equals $300.
Cost of the hammer is $12, plus $300 administrative costs, plus a 10% mark-up
(cost plus 10% contractor). Bill to Pentagon $343.20 plus freight. Since the
General was in a hurry it had to be shipped and handled separately --- another
$6.80 and you have a $350 ball-peen hammer!
What happens when
you complain to your Congressman about these ridiculous rules? He says there is
nothing he can do about it. Bull! He and his colleagues wrote the laws and
regulations which created the rule-writing bureaucracy and they can change it.
Of course, Congressmen will have to fight with the bureaucrats for the changes.
Civil clerks who push such legislation seldom leave Washington when a
Congressman retires or loses the election. They merely get assigned to another
legislator and continue to slant things the way their friends in the bureaucracy
would prefer.
Most bureaucrats and government employees are of the opinion
that in order to do their jobs effectively, and provide their service to the
public, "the people must surrender certain of their rights" (at least a little
bit of surrender). What they are actually saying is that they are not competent
to do the job they are being paid to do.
Government's purpose for existence
is to provide those services and protection to the people which they could not
reasonably be expected to provide individually (streets, courts, police,
prisons, etc.). When government bureaucrats say we must give up our rights in
order to have the service, then they are incompetent or are building a power
base. Either way they should be removed from their posts immediately. They, like
the politicians and judges, have taken an oath and swore to UPHOLD the
Constitution. If they attempt to circumvent it, then they are in violation of
that oath and should be treated accordingly.
What many government people seem
to forget is that history is filled with stories about governments which have
run amuck and attempted to take advantage of the people they were created to
serve. Even today there are activist organizations preparing for the downfall of
the American bureaucracy. They are making lists of civil servants, officials,
judges and politicians who have run roughshod over the rights of the people.
Eventually, they will follow in the course of history and be hung from the lamp
posts or strung up from the nearest tree.
To better understand the extremes
some government employees will go to in order to make their jobs easier, take a
look at our prison and parole system. Did you ever wonder why so many people who
are released from prison are back in jail within just months? The answer can be
found in the reports made by Prison guards and corrections officers.
Parole
Boards, in most states, consist of citizens appointed by the governor. They
visit the prisons and have regularly scheduled meetings to consider the parole
release of those prisoners who have displayed an ability to "get along" in
society. To make this determination these men and women interview the prisoners
at parole board hearings after reading their individual files and
records.
The record includes reports filed by the prison guards, warden,
various prison officials and employees. When the prison has to put up with a
real trouble-maker, a guard's job is made tougher. He would like to have
everyone behave themselves so he can get his paycheck and go home without a lot
of headaches. The guards are going to keep reasonable peace, but they are not
going to do anything to make their jobs tougher. Some of those prisoners are
borderline psychotics who would just as soon stick a knife in someone's ribs as
to cut into a T-Bone steak.
As a result, some "bad ass" prisoners are given
plenty of room by most prison officials. If they want to shake-down the other
prisoners or push dope, the guards will look the other way as long as it does
not get totally out of hand and someone is killed. When it comes time to make
out reports for the parole board, the guards are not going to give the
trouble-maker con a negative write-up. That would keep him behind bars and a
problem for the guard. It is to the prison guard's advantage to give bad marks
to the easy going prisoners who should be released -- they are easy to keep in
line and the job is easier. Give good marks to the trouble maker and get them an
early release -- out of the guard's hair and back on the streets to harass
society!
This is how the systems work. It is doubtful that you could find a
prison guard in the entire United States who considers himself to be a
bureaucrat, but that is how he functions. Until such a problem is recognized,
solutions for it cannot be found.

***

A DIFFERENT DRUMMER

In the late 1950's and early 1960's when HUD was
first involved with unpopular Urban Renewal Projects, there was a rule
prohibiting HUD from putting money into a project when a city did not have an
approved Housing Code.
Building Codes and Housing Codes are different. The
Building Code states the manner in which a house or structure will be erected,
size of electrical wiring, type of water lines, etc. It is the code professional
contractors agree to follow when they construct a house. It is usually applied
to anyone who makes application for a remodeling permit and they are then
required (as a condition of the unrequired permit) to bring the entire structure
up to the building code standards.
A Housing Code, on the other hand,
attempts to tell the home owner that he must make certain changes in his
structure, plumbing, wiring, etc., when he is not making any changes or even
applying for a permit. The housing codes are often used by city inspectors to
imply authority to come into a home and make sure it is up to the latest
standards of the building code.
Citizens in a major U.S. city objected to the
Housing Code and repealed it. The city council was upset since they could not
qualify for certain Federal funding. They offered the Housing Code back to the
people with some changes. The people refused. Eventually, HUD changed its rules
so that cities did not have to have a Housing Code to qualify for the Federal
funds.
Bureaucrats want everything to be uniform. It is a great power tool
which people, city and state governments can use to whip the Federal Bureaucrats
into submission. The federal bureaucrats will play their wily tricks on
everyone, if they can. One person, city, county or state, out of sync with the
Washington drum beat will cause the Feds to change their tempo. It never fails.
They must have four things to remain in power: (1)Information (2)Uniformity
(3)Paper Work (4)Twistable Rules. Deprive them of any of these necessities and
you will win!

***

"A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First
Amendment Right and participation in an otherwise available public program."
USCA Const. Amend, 1, Thomas v Review Board of Indiana, Employment Security
Div., 101 Sup Ct., 1425, 450, U.S. 707, 67 L.Ed2d on remand 421 N.E. 2d 642.
(1981)

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER SEVEN

COERCION

Threats &
Intimidation You Can't Prove

Most government tricks and fraud involve the use of certain words and
phrases. (See Chapter 5). Among these are the favorites, designed to get you to
initiate action in court or to acknowledge the agency's authority, rules and
regulations as actual law.
Almost every agency has some form of official
sounding court or tribunal which terrifies the public just as much as if they
went in front of a real judge in a real court. The IRS has its so-called "U.S.
TAX COURT" which seems to have been the forerunner of similar kangaroo
operations within other government departments. There are such things as
"Administrative Law Courts" complete with "Administrative Law Judges and
Clerks," -- just like the real Judicial Courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court
refers to the IRS's U.S. Tax Court as a "so-called court".
When the tax man
wants you to volunteer for his rules, he tells you that you can either pay the
amount the IRS says you owe, or you can appeal to the U.S. Tax Court, or you can
pay the money and then file a lawsuit in Federal Court to try and get it
back.
Similar options are given by most agencies. You can do what the
agency says, or you can appeal to some Zoning Board of Appeals or other
formidable sounding body, or you can file a lawsuit in a Court of Law. Most of
us are inclined to take the line of least formality. We usually take the
position that our government would not intentionally do us wrong and whatever
the problem, it is just a mistake or the fault of some yo-yo who should not be
working for our government. We opt for the Tax Court or the Zoning Court or the
Appeals Division of the MVD, or whatever. When we do, we volunteer to abide by
their rules and procedures. We enter into a Contractual Agreement with the
government agency making the terms. Then, if we fail to abide by the decision of
that COURT(?), the agency can legally take us into a Real Court of Law and have
that real court uphold the Administrative Tribunal's findings. If we did not
volunteer, the agency in question would use all manner of threats and
intimidation (T&I) to try and force "voluntary compliance" with their
rules.
Don't be cutesy and think you can beat these experts at their own
game. They are masters of word usage and abuse. You will have to listen and read
very carefully. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is
probably one of the biggest abusers of implied volunteerism. Their rules (CFR,
24) state that if you open negotiations with them regarding the sale price of
the property, "you have agreed to sell." The only question is the amount to be
paid. If you say "Everything is for sale. I'll take a million bucks for my
house," you have opened negotiations.
There is an old story about a man
asking a woman if she would have sex with him for $1 Million. She thought a
moment and said, "If I am to be totally honest, I guess I would have to admit
that I would have sex with you for a million dollars." The man then asked her if
she would have sex with him for $20. She asked pointedly, "What do you think I
am -- a prostitute?"
He smiled and replied, "We have already established
that. Now the only question remaining is the negotiated price you will
accept."
If you feel you must talk to a bureaucrat, keep a small pocket
recorder handy. The $50 invested will be well worth it to you somewhere down the
line. Some states prohibit secret recordings of conversations and some will not
allow the information to be used, even for reference purposes, if all the
parties were not aware of the recording device.
Stick the recorder out front
and advise the bureaucrat that this conversation is being recorded. You will be
amazed at how much less T&I you have to put up with. You will also be able
to substantiate what was said, even if only for your own attorney. In the heat
of what could be an angry discussion with a government agent, we are often
forgetful of embarrassing things we might have said and sometimes we tend to
glamorize our position in retrospect. The same is true of government agents. The
recording keeps everything candid.
If there is any question in your mind
about the purpose of a meeting or proposal of government, then preface your
questions and statements with "I'm curious. I do not intend that anything I say
or my appearance here should be construed as voluntarily agreeing to your plan
or proposal, but I would like some questions answered."
With that
qualification prefacing your letter, appearance or remarks it should be
reasonably established (especially if you tape it) that you are not volunteering
for anything.
One way you might turn the tables on some of these tricksters
is to make copies of the following Federal Law and hand it to them. Let them
know you are aware that their program or methods are only rules and these are
real criminal laws which can land someone in jail.
There are numerous Court
precedents regarding both of these particular laws most of which agree that the
statutes were, and are, intended to be used to protect ALL the rights of people
and to punish anyone who conspires or violates those rights. The Courts have
specifically pointed out that these LAWS uphold the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment provisions of the Constitution and are not confined thereto. It is not
meant to allow civil suits for such violations, although those may be brought
under Federal, and some state, RICO (racketeering) laws.

***

READ THESE LAWS CAREFULLY!
Keep a copy of these laws, preferably printed
on business size cards, and use them much like the police use the Miranda
Warnings. You can politely advise any government agent or even corporate
bureaucrats that they will be in violation of these FEDERAL LAWS (not rules) if
they attempt to enforce rules under color of law when you have not volunteered.
Such WARNING CARDS are distributed at a nominal cost by Survival Force of
America.

Title 18 U.S. Criminal Code -- Chapter 13
Section
241.
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
If two or more persons conspire
to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or
If two
or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another,
with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege so secured--
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and if death results, they shall be
subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Section
242.
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
Whoever, under color of any
law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any
inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on
account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,
than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than
$1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if death results shall
be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

***

A good citizen and grandfather lived in a rather high priced desert community
and his house faced on a side street, rather than the street on which it was
numbered. A local ordinance required that motorhomes be parked in back of the
houses -- not on the side. Legally, his motorhome was parked in "back" of his
house when he parked it on the side.
Bureaucrats didn't care. They wanted it
moved. They filed a suit against the man and his wife and the Constable served
them with a copy of the lawsuit AND "an order" from the Justice Court that they
both appear at the Sheriff's office for fingerprinting at least 24-hours before
they appear in court. The man was confused and his wife was visibly upset! How
could they order him to be fingerprinted for a civil matter?
He called me and
told me what was happening. I knew that such an order would violate all manner
of Constitutional protection and I couldn't see that community making such a
mistake. The answer was simple: A service of papers by the Constable DID NOT
EXIST until the Constable returned to the court and signed a "certificate of
service," under oath, stating he had served the correct persons in a lawful
manner. Until such a document was filed, the Subpoenas and order to be
fingerprinted did not officially exist.
If the couple went to a court to have
the order quashed, it would be denied since no such order exists. If they
complied and went to be fingerprinted before the certificate of service was
filed, they would be considered to have done so voluntarily. That is why they
were supposed to fingerprinted at least 24-hours before appearing in front of
the judge.
After explaining this to him, I suggested he go to the court
clerk's office and see if a certificate of service had been filed.
The clerk
immediately said there was a mistake in the service and he could ignore it. He
then passed out the WARNING CARDS mentioned earlier. Subsequently the Magistrate
and the clerks refused to have anything to do with such proceedings!
The
power of the bureaucrats is great and they aren't going to surrender it easily.
They will always find a new way to try and trick you. Remember: If you think it
is wrong, it probably is -- and you have to find out how the trick is being
played!

Example of cfr justice dept.rules 9.6

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER EIGHT

HUD

Little Tricks to Take
Your Property

Most of us know or have heard of someone who was forced to sell their home to
make way for an urban renewal or government planned, private developer project.
Horror stories abound about how an elderly couple was forced to sell and move
out of their life-long home so some private developer could build a hotel,
shopping center or apartment complex. There have been times when little old
ladies have held the Sheriff at bay with loaded shotguns while heavy bulldozers
parked on the sidelines with their diesel engines coughing and chattering
away.
Does this scenario sound familiar? The gray haired old lady and her
almost deaf husband have been refusing to move out of their home and defied
every "court order" issued. Now it is the day of reckoning. The Sheriff has been
called upon by the Court and ordered to remove the elderly couple from their
home of 40 years. A gigantic shopping center and 200 condominium apartments are
to be built on the site and everyone else has moved away.
This lone couple is
standing in the way of progress! They have had their "day in court" and a lawyer
to represent them. They are now defying a valid court order. The Sheriff would
have preferred to call in a S.W.A.T. team to face the armed resisters, but he is
an elected official -- the TV camera teams and newspaper reporters would make
political mince-meat of him if he called in a military style operation just to
remove one old couple from their home.
The couple's lawyer is standing nearby
pleading with them to put down the gun and give up the house. "You had your day
in court and you lost," he pleads for the hundredth time. "It is a legitimate
proceeding. You don't have the right to stay here anymore. It is no longer your
house."
Looking like typical grandparents, the couple is steadfast. They paid
for that house and did not owe anyone a dime. How could the Court say they had
to sell their home and move out just so some millionaire developer could build
apartments or a shopping center?
The neighbors had already surrendered and
sold their homes months ago. They did not want to move out either, but they were
told they did not have a choice. Some hired lawyers and tried to fight back but,
like this old couple, they lost in court and were ordered to move away from
their old neighborhood, friends and memories. The neighbors were all gone and
their houses razed. This couple was left alone to try and fight against a system
they did not understand -- a system which seemed contrary to the rights they
always felt they had as American citizens. This was a matter of principle! They
did not want to move out of their house. They had not taken any money for it.
This is America -- land of the free and home of the brave. They had some rights.
Sound familiar?
These people knew that something was wrong with a system
which could legally deny them the right to live in their own home. It was
foreign to the America they had known all their lives. Even their lawyer felt
there was something wrong. He didn't even charge them for his services except
for filing fees. He felt sorry for the old man and woman, but the court ruled
against them and it was upheld on appeal. He knew there was something wrong with
this system, but he couldn't put his finger on it.
READ THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS:
Will the courts force you to sell your property, involuntarily, to
a private entity or person for their own personal use or development?
Can the
courts legally order you to sell or transfer your property to another for their
private use or development?
The answer to the first question is "NO." The
answer to the second is "YES." Don't be confused. The questions are similar but
different. It is the manner in which a question is phrased which will allow you
to determine the differences between rules and laws.
The Courts cannot force
you to sell or transfer your property to another for private use unless it is
enforcing a contract between you and that party. If you failed to pay your
mortgage or a real lien was placed against the property, or if you had agreed to
sell the property and then tried to back out, the court could order you to
either pay the damages or surrender title to the property. That is enforcing an
existing or implied agreement which you had entered voluntarily.
When the
promoter-developer who "bought" this old couple's house started into his
project, he most likely sought the assistance of local government officials. The
local government applied the regulations and rules of the Federal Housing &
Urban Development (HUD) Department. Under that procedure a process of implied
threat and intimidation (T&I) was begun. When the couple went to a lawyer
for help, he responded in what seemed like a reasonable manner. He acted as if
he was dealing with an equity situation and immediately applied for a
Restraining Order to prevent the government from doing what the bureaucrats had
only "implied" they could do -- take the couple's house forcefully.
There are
7 volumes of CFR manuals (and more are being added) dedicated to HUD rules and
regulations. The CFR rules used by HUD are more extensive than those of any
other agency except for Department of Agriculture and the IRS. These regulations
outline procedures the promoters and government employees must follow. It guides
them every step of the way in "legally" taking a person's property from
them.
The promoter who wanted possession of the elderly couple's home may
have been approached by local government instead of the other way around.
Sometimes local officials want to enhance their tax base for property. They feel
it could be better utilized for something other than the old homes or business
which have occupied the land for years. If it is a major city, chances are the
local government already has a department and staff completely familiar with the
HUD programs and procedures. In a small town the promoter might have to take a
staff member or the mayor by the hand and lead them through the procedures
outlined by HUD for "legalized property confiscation."
Whether the city
announces it wants a Neighborhood Development project and seeks a developer or
the promoter-developer approaches the local government, the end result is
usually the same: A special government employee is appointed to work with the
local government in acquiring the land and financing needed for the
project.
Usually the area is researched and then designated a "Target Area."
This description can have devastating effects on a community and the people who
do business or live there. Such a designation causes mortgage lenders and banks
to shy away from any dealings with it. Property owners who are thinking of
developing or improving their own premises find they are prevented from doing so
by inability to find suitable financing, opposition from zoning and building
boards, and a reluctance on the part of all bureaucrats to get involved in any
disputes. Permission to do just about anything is denied and if the owner wants
to sell and get paid immediately, he finds the promoter isn't ready to buy yet
and other potential buyers are reluctant since they think they would not be able
to use the property the way they would like.
If ever a person felt like the
victim of an attacking enemy force, this would be it. The government, instead of
operating in a manner to protect your individual and property rights, is
actually preventing you from full enjoyment and use of your real estate. The
property owners begin to feel that being a Target Area means they are going to
be "bombed out" any day.
Because of all this, the property values in the area
are depressed and this is used as justification to re-designate it a "blighted
area" and appoint a committee of citizens to study and suggests ways to improve
the community. The citizens group becomes the buffer. Special government
employees enter the picture and along with local bureaucrats, they "guide" the
committee into accepting and adopting a project which would revitalize and
enhance the area. Some of the citizens display the typical human trait of greed.
They can see that if the project goes in, the property they own across the
street will quadruple in value. They are quick to agree to any such shopping
center or complex the city might suggest. They ignore the face that their
neighbor might be tricked to move out of their family home.
The CFR manuals
for HUD are insistent that no project can be instituted unless there is a
Citizens' Advisory board or committee. This is HUD's way of shifting the blame
if anyone says HUD is being dictatorial and abusive of its agency. They simply
blame the Official Citizen's Advisory Committee. All the Regulations, in all the
CFR manuals, hold that any action by a citizen either by making application or
appealing a decision supposedly gives credence to the authority and validity of
the previous actions taken by that agency.

Now, back to the scenario of the developer vs. one old couple:
When the
elderly couple's young lawyer did what seemed appropriate and filed for a
Restraining Order in a Court of Law, he gave credibility to the claim of the HUD
project that it was for the Public Good or that there was "compelling government
interests." The Court, finding that the government had no authority and had
taken no illegal action to do that which the lawyer was claiming, assumed the
litigants were in court VOLUNTARILY. Since they were Volunteers, the Court could
now decide by using the Rule for "Public Good" in the matter rather than
according to the Constitution and Law.
The Rules of HUD, the LAWS of Congress
and the U.S. Constitution prohibit the forceful taking of property for Public
Good, so there could be no "implied threat." When the lawyer filed to restrain
the government from doing something it was already prohibited from doing, the
lawyer sprang the trap, ensnared his clients in the system and made the court a
BINDING ARBITRATOR. When the couple allowed the lawyer (an officer of the court)
to file such an action, they agreed to abide by the findings of the Court. Under
those rules, when a party is in court Voluntarily, the Court can rule for Public
Good, rather than individual rights, just the same as Public Use.
If the city
had been planning to build a public park or a highway or street, they could
rightfully use Eminent Domain and have the property condemned. This would be a
legal action. The only matter which could properly be argued would be the price
to be paid. The property would be for PUBLIC USE --- not PUBLIC GOOD! There are
even limitations on the eminent domain procedure, such as the government having
to prove a real need for the project with no viable alternatives.
But this
couple did not want to volunteer for Public Good. They were rightfully concerned
with their own well-being and they wanted to live out the remainder of their
lives in the house they owned, paid for and where they had lived for 40 years.
How could the court rule for Public Good? Because they (via the lawyer)
VOLUNTEERED!
When the action was filed in the Court the couple had most
likely lost the battle. The lower court might refuse to be tricked into applying
the rules to take the couples home and decide in their favor, but the Rule of
Stare Decisis (Chapter 15) is at work and the developer and city could easily
appeal the matter. Eventually the HUD position would be upheld by a higher court
and the couple would be forced to sell their home for the public good because
they had volunteered.
It is the legal maxim; Volenti Non Fit Injuria -- If
someone volunteers, they cannot claim injury. The Courts have many rules which
are designed to confound not only the average citizen, but causes many lawyers
to walk out of the court room scratching their heads in amazement. They do not
understand what really happened or why they lost the battle!
The couple and
all of their neighbors could have remained in their homes if they had done
NOTHING! The words and phrases, so carefully coined by the manipulators, are
designed to stampede the people to file an action. The voluntary action gives
the HUD people some legitimacy; that means the HUD rules have the force and
effect of law and eventually the property owner will lose. The SECRET OF POWER
over your property is to "do nothing" -- the hardest thing of all. Let the
developer or city actually file a legal action in the Courts (they have no
grounds) and then challenge the basis for the suit and the jurisdiction of the
court. Make no motions which will grant any validity to the claim. Preface all
responses and appearances with that all important qualifier word, "SPECIAL"
(Chapter Two) and make sure that it includes the statement that you are not
volunteering for public good or acknowledging jurisdiction or compelling
government interests. Make sure that any papers served are actual "Court Orders"
signed by a Real Judge!
Don't get cute in dealing with these people and think
you can hold out for the top dollar while all those around you are being tricked
into selling. Plans for a commercial development can be altered to include a
little public park FOR PUBLIC USE, where your property is located. That would be
a different fight. Get the picture? Your best protection is in being united with
your neighbors. Let everyone know how to resist the land grabbers.
When a
Target Area development was being planned for one community, and after several
years and millions of dollars was spent by HUD, I gave the following letter to
property owners who attended a meeting called by a Citizens Advisory Committee.
It was enough to make the City and HUD officials reconsider their position. Here
is the letter:

***

"The U.S. Constitution secures your right to private ownership of your
property. Any time two or more persons conspire to threaten or intimidate any
citizen in the exercise or enjoyment of that right, those people are in
violation of U.S. Criminal Code (Chapt.13) Sect. 241, and subject to a fine of
not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or
both.
Section 242 of the U.S. Criminal Code provides for similar penalties
when using the color of law to fraudulently deprive people of their rights and
property.
Any city employee or elected official or developer who conspires,
plots and schemes with others to attempt to convince citizens that the law will
allow the city to involuntarily condemn their property for public good and hand
it over to another private citizen for development, may be violating Section 241
and 242 of the U.S. Criminal Code.
Citizens beware! You are being sucked into
Voluntarily going along with such proceedings. If you do anything which makes it
appear that you are volunteering for "public good," then the city may condemn
your property via the courts. You are NOT REQUIRED to volunteer for public good
in a Free Nation.
Courts do not have jurisdiction over you and your property
except as provided for in the Constitution, or if you voluntarily grant
jurisdiction. Eminent domain can only be used for PUBLIC USE (parks, streets,
highways, etc.). If you or your lawyer instigate an action in the courts, you
are voluntarily giving the court authority to act as a binding arbitrator and
you are agreeing to abide by the rules of the Court. The rules of the court
(which lawyers, as officers of the court are required to abide by) are that when
Constitutional Rights are not violated, the court will rule for PUBLIC GOOD. If
you volunteer to go into court or you do not challenge the court authority, you
are considered to have volunteered and therefore your rights cannot be violated
by a ruling for PUBLIC GOOD!
If you feel you must attend meetings which are
being used to circumvent the Constitution, then preface your appearance and any
statement with the fact that it is "not to be construed as participation or
consent to legitimacy of purpose of the meeting."
Remember--If you think
something is not fair, there is a good possibility that you are Right! If you
challenge the people who want to take your property or that of your neighbors,
you will be told that "you don't understand the situation." Don't believe it!
The Constitution has not been changed regarding Eminent Domain -- it still
reads; in part, in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be...deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
Obviously, if it cannot be
taken for public use without "just" compensation and due process, it certainly
cannot be taken for private use or public good under any such
circumstances.
Due process means following the laws -- not rules of the
court. Unless the land is being taken for public use, it cannot be taken unless
you consent to abide by the rules of the courts.
Anyone who conspires with
another to violate your rights, by trickery, or fraud, may be subject to
criminal and civil liability under existing Federal and State Racketeering Laws
(RICO).

***

After restating the information verbally at the meeting, a spokesman for the
HUD project immediately challenged the advise I had given the audience. He
suggested that since I was not a lawyer, the people should go to an attorney and
then "have their day in court" or "request condemnation proceedings."
You
already know about the "day in court trick." Condemnation is something else. You
can "request" that condemnation proceedings be initiated by the city. You cannot
be forced into it, for such a purpose, but you can REQUEST (volunteer) for it.
Of course, there are some tax advantages in having your property condemned. The
technical name is INVERSE CONDEMNATION -- your lawyer should be able to tell you
what it means and how it works, but you still have to volunteer for it.
A few
weeks after the confrontation and notice, the daily newspapers printed several
articles about how the developer was dropping out "because no contract was
offered" and he could not raise needed financing. With all the tax free bond
issues and government secured loans available (very low interest rates) this was
really a pitiful excuse used for public consumption to avoid having everyone
realize why the project was being killed. A few more weeks passed and the city
announced the project was put on hold (after five years and $5 Million was
spent). A month later a few businessmen were encouraged to petition the city to
abandon the plans and permit them to get on with their individual development of
their own properties. The city and HUD happily complied! They saved face and
could continue with their legal theft programs in other areas where the people
were not so well informed.
If someone approaches you to see if you are
willing to sell and you suspect it may be a ploy of a HUD endorsed project, you
must qualify any discussion with "I am not opening negotiations with you at this
time. If you or your client wants to submit an offer to buy my property, I might
take it into consideration. But this shall not be construed as a solicitation of
an offer or an opening of any form of negotiations."
It may sound cumbersome,
but without it, even a discussion could be construed as "opening negotiations."
According to HUD's CFR rules, if you open negotiations, after six months they
can claim to have a legal cause of action to take you to court and get a valid
court order to force you to sell your property.
Always remember, bureaucrats
seldom speak "off the cuff." Their words are carefully chosen and phrased, (See
Chapter 5). The biggest users of these rules and regulations are hospitals,
insurance companies, banks and major hotel developers.
Anyone who wants to
use such rules can pick up a copy of the CFR manuals for HUD and find a way to
secure all kinds of funding and methods to legally steal their neighbor's house.
Within those pages you will find all the rules you need to carry out your
project. If, on the other hand, you do not want some developer taking your
house, DO NOTHING (unless an actual lawsuit is filed)! That is the secret of
power over HUD rules. They cannot use their rules to force you out of your
property unless you volunteer.
(See "More Tricks" - Chapter 19)

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER NINE

INSURANCE/BANKERS/LAWYERS

The World's Oldest
Organized Professions

Insurance Companies are great at playing the power game in the
U.S. and around the world. They convinced everyone to be insurance conscious and
have caused "laws" to be passed which supposedly require us to carry certain
types of insurance. Even the age-old tradition of showering the bride and groom
with rice has fallen victim to the demands and restrictions of the insurance
company. Insurance coverage now dictates how, and even if, some of our
traditional events will be conducted. Fireworks use and public displays,
reunions in the public parks or even where and how you park your car are all
subject to insurance guidelines.
The insurance firms, financial institutions
and government are virtual partners in their many dealings. Bank loan customers
are often obligated to purchase insurance through the bank's facilities.
Insurance firms have done such a job building power bases that they have
convinced city governments to pay millions of dollars in premiums when the city
could easily be self-insured. Often the insurance carrier is smaller than the
city government it insures, but it continues to collect excessive
premiums.
When small harassment claims are made, instead of fighting them to
set an example that unfounded claims will not be paid, they settle it for a few
thousand dollars claiming it is cheaper than fighting (keeps incompetent lawyers
in business). This opens the door to more nuisance claims for small amounts. The
payoffs do not actually cost the insurance company since they use such payoffs
as ammunition to justify higher premiums to their insured customers.
Then, to
top it all off, these Power Masters take a big portion of the premiums collected
and buy reinsurance from privately owned insurance companies located in tax
haven nations such as Bermuda, the Bahamas and other Caribbean islands. The
offshore insurance firms are usually nothing more than a desk, phone and a
secretary. The identity of the owners and directors is confidential, so the CEO
of a U.S. insurance firm can actually buy the reinsurance from his own offshore
company. It is a justifiable cost of doing business and is then added to the
premiums you pay for your car, house, the costs of your medical insurance and
all the other things you want to protect against financial loss. Even your
doctor must pass along his higher premiums for malpractice insurance by
increasing his charges for office calls and operations. You can be certain the
insurance carrier will "lay off" a big chunk of those excessive and abusive
premiums (profits) with one of the off-shore reinsurance firms.
Of course,
the foreign insurance companies seldom have to pay a claim. The base of the
coverage they provide is so excessive as to be non-existent. If the real U.S.
insurance company does have to fall back on the reinsurance firm for settlement
of an outstanding claim, owners merely bankrupt the off-shore firm and start a
new one. Same desk, different phone number and name. Since they are not covered
by the multitude of insurance regulations requiring reserves, they have all
their assets hidden so a filing of bankruptcy can be accomplished quickly and
easily.
With all this power and money (tax free), the Power Masters go out
and organize the people who pay the premiums and trick them into demanding that
the state legislators put limits on the amount of damages a person can collect
from an insurance claim. This is to offset some jury awards for millions of
dollars as compensation for hurt feelings.
You can bet the insurance
executives are not going to lose any sleep thinking about whether or not to pass
along the savings to their customers in the form of lower premiums. They have
created one of the most powerful financial bases imaginable. Their legislative
lobby has caused the creation of regulations and rules which supposedly require
you to buy insurance; laws which limit the amount of damages they can be ordered
to pay by a jury; a means of sending money out of the country (beyond the tax
collector's reach) and then loan it back to select firms and financial
organizations with the stipulation that they help to sell even more
insurance.
In 1988 Congress passed an enabling act to implement the
U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (and subsequently NAFTA) which clearly exempts
insurance companies from "(B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of
insurance."
If you have decided to take advantage of the current rule system
and create an economic and political power base for yourself, then you must
study the means used by the insurance industry.

A REAL UN-INSURANCE SCHEME

There is a provision in an
International Treaty which is now the law of our land (Title 46, Section 183 of
the U.S. Code). This limits the amount of liability which can be charged to the
owners and operators of a "sea going vessel" in the event of an accident.
Subsequent Federal law extends the term "sea going vessel" to include all boats,
even on inland lakes. What it does is to limit the amount of damages payable to
an amount equal to the value of the vessel. The exceptions would be for
intentional damage or knowingly failing to provide assistance after a collision
and thereby causing the death of someone.
Despite this specific limitation of
liability, many boat owners run out and pay exorbitant annual insurance premiums
for coverage which is supposed to amount to millions of dollars. The insurance
firms love to see boat owners coming in the door. They only make a few
stipulations: Your boat must be surveyed (appraised by an expert to establish a
value); you pay the premium with the policy stipulation that despite the face
value amount of coverage, all such insurance will be subject to international
agreements.
Simply stated, the policy says the Million Dollar coverage listed
on the face is reduced to the value of the vessel. The value of your boat should
have nothing to do with the premium you pay for LIABILITY insurance. But it
does, because of the Treaty which, according to our own Constitution becomes the
law of the land.
Then, to compound matters, the insurance firms start loaning
out money to marina operators with the stipulation that they "require" everyone
using the marina or renting a slip for their boat or canoe, to carry a minimum
$1 Million liability policy. Those premiums for virtually non-existent liability
insurance really do add up to a profitable bundle.
Ripoff? Not really! Boat
owners are adults and probably have better than average educations. They should
be able to think and read. If they would stop memorizing baseball or football
statistics and pay attention to the daily political and economic events, they
would be way ahead. Who cares which red-headed short stop hit the most base hits
in a single season? If people spent more time finding out what is going on in
their own state legislature or town hall or even at the school board meetings,
this nation would be in much better shape. Enjoy the football and baseball
games. Watch them all, but don't clutter your mind with useless statistics.
Unless you are going on a quiz show, those figures will not make or save you a
single dollar.
For those who think they can get all the information they need
from the newspaper and TV, remember this: Most reporters would rather be
covering sports. Usually they are sports washouts who are assigned to cover such
incidental news as political campaigns, the Nation's Capital, city hall and tax
bills.
What you should do is to spend at least an hour or two a day
scrutinizing some of the legislation that is being proposed, but that is
virtually impossible for most of us. What you can do is to read everything which
relates directly to you, your property, your taxes and your freedoms. You cannot
blindly accept someone's version or "that's the way it is" philosophy of the
news and expect to come out a winner in the power struggle. You can fight city
hall -- you can beat city hall -- you can become city hall! Or, you can
acquiesce to all the rules and become a slave.

MANDATORY INSURANCE--IT IS
NOT!

Mandatory insurance? Don't you believe it! There is nothing
mandatory about the so-called Mandatory Insurance laws your state may have on
its books. It's another of the double-speak word games designed to trick people
into surrendering their rights. The words and meanings have been so twisted
around in our laws and courts that you can't even be certain that a person whose
record indicates a "sex offender" ever did anything wrong.
You have a right
to travel about freely by the most accepted means of transportation at your
disposal. Obviously, if your car is unsafe you can be restrained from using it.
If you cannot stop the car because of bad brakes, you are seriously endangering
the health and safety of everyone on the streets and sidewalks.
To require
you to show financial responsibility AFTER an accident is a perfectly valid law!
You cannot do harm to others and not expect to have restrictions placed on your
subsequent actions. If you have an accident, the court can order you to refrain
from operating a motor vehicle until you have made satisfactory arrangements to
correct the financial harm you have caused, or until a certain period of time
has elapsed.
But, to require you to have insurance BEFORE you have been
declared financially irresponsible --- BEFORE you can license your car (pay the
taxes on it) --- BEFORE you can operate your car --- that is PRIOR RESTRAINT and
violates the Constitutional Limits placed on government which requires Due
Process of Law and mandates that everyone shall be considered innocent until
proven guilty. You may never be involved in an accident for which you would be
liable for damages. To enforce such a rule violates the basic precept of the
Constitution. California courts struck down such efforts as being "in conflict
with the Constitution" almost as fast as law enforcement officers tried to
demand that drivers show proof of insurance.
Other states have the same law
on their books, but are reluctant to try enforcing it except AFTER an accident.
They want to keep this intimidating rule and hope it forces people to buy
insurance. They are passing a rule off as a law and by doing so, weakening all
real laws, the Constitution and the foundations of the entire nation.
The
word MANDATORY in the title of the law (rule) does not mean a thing. Remember
the old adage, "You can't judge a book by its cover?" That is especially true of
laws --- you cannot judge a law's purpose or legality by its title. This rule
was given a title the media could use to erroneously promulgate a myth of
mandatory insurance. Then it was given a sub-title to further mislead the
public. The sub-title usually reads "All vehicles required to have liability
insurance." Following the Title and sub-title comes the body copy of the rule.
That is what really counts. Titles do not mean a thing.
If you want to
entitle a law "ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW" and then draft body copy to make it illegal
to chew gum on Sunday, you can do it. If people do not challenge the basic
authority of such a law, they can be arrested and jailed for chewing gum on
Sunday. The court can agree to fine them only $1 and suspend sentence if they
will plead guilty. The person who accepts such an offer and pleads guilty will
then have a record of violating the CHILD ABUSE law.
If you think that is
ridiculous you haven't been paying attention to some of the weird rules and
harmful laws being foisted off on our unsuspecting legislators, the media and
the ever harassed public. Some states have included urinating in public as a
"Sex Offense." If a man pulls his car to the side of a road and relieves that
extra cup of coffee or beer in the bushes, in the dark of night, and is seen by
a police officer, he can be arrested. If he is intimidated enough to plead
guilty to such a charge he will have a police record as a SEX OFFENDER. The
court record will not elaborate on or describe the actual offense. Try
explaining such a record to a cop who wants to know why you are parked so close
to the school. Explain it to your boss when you are being checked out for a
sensitive position within your firm.
Why doesn't your lawyer tell you all
these things? You probably do not hire an attorney every time you get a ticket.
Many people wait until they are obviously in serious trouble before they are
willing to lay out money for legal advise. But, sometimes you can hire a lawyer
and he still does not tell you --- either because he is not aware of some of the
tricks being played with the law or he just wants the fee and you are not a big
enough fish to cause him to do a lot of research for your defense. Most lawyers
are not aware of what is happening to the rules and laws. Their stock in trade
is knowing where to look it up and how to follow the procedure (rules) of the
court. They cannot possibly KNOW all the laws and rules. If you really expect
that of your attorney, you should go to your local law library and take a look
at what lawyers must contend with everyday.
Even the judges don't always tell
lawyers everything when they make a ruling or deny a petition. Attorneys have
been preconditioned in law school and beyond to admit to the superior wisdom of
the high court justices. Young lawyers are awestruck and will often try to
defend an untenable position taken by a judge, simply because he does not know
what else to do. The judges are lawyers and the recent law school graduates know
that lawyers must stick together to maintain the mystique and dignity of their
hard earned licenses to practice the law.
It would be nice if you could be
handed an entire brief of case law to verify the information you are getting in
this book, but that would make it too simple. There are a number of court
rulings at various levels which will substantiate the differences between rules
and laws. You will find them if you read very carefully, but the rulings are not
obvious. If they were, this book would not have been published.
If all the
lawyers knew about all the differences, the government bureaucrats and power
brokers would not be able to use rules to circumvent the Constitutional
restrictions and Unalienable Rights of the people. The Supreme Court of the
United States is very adept at keeping the double-speak game going. If an appeal
is taken to our highest court and the question is not phrased in a manner which
would allow them to give a double-speak answer, the Court will refuse to hear
the case and let the lower Court's decision stand. This is almost always
interpreted to mean that the particular law or rule in question is
Constitutionally valid. All it really means is that the question was not phrased
in such a manner as to pin-down the Supreme Court Justices. (See Stare Decisis,
Chapter 15).
Lawyers are constantly in a quandary trying to understand why a
higher court refused to hear an appeal which they were certain was valid. The
thousands of lawyers dropping out of the legal system each year is evidence that
something is wrong. Young men and women do not usually spend years going to
school to study such a venerable profession only to "drop out" just when they
should be enjoying the rewards of hard work. They are dropping out because they
feel the system sucks -- and that is because they do not understand the
differences between rules and law.
The Supreme Court does not have to hear
every case presented to it. There are a number of legal clerks working for the
court and they make recommendations as to which cases the judges should
consider. Because of this procedure, these clerks are in highly influential
positions. If they see a case which would obviously warrant a ruling with which
the Court's clerk does not agree because of some personal moral or political
quirk, then the clerk will try to dissuade the jurists from considering it. If a
case is brought to the Supreme Court with the wrong question (one which would
most likely result in a decision contrary to the Control Rules) the clerk might
urge the Jurists to REFUSE to hear it and thereby allow a lower court decision
stand.
The most recent procedure is for the government to trick a person into
filing an action (usually a TRO) when there is no immediate threat to their
Rights. The government then takes the position that there are "compelling
government interests" -- the keywords which say the other party "volunteered" --
and since the it is voluntary, the person cannot claim their Rights have been
violated. Subsequently, when the question is tendered to the U.S. Supreme Court,
the high court will refuse to hear the case. The unstated reason,
"Constitutional Rights were not involved!"

AN ALTERNATIVE TO LIABILITY
INSURANCE

Many states are pushing the so-called "Mandatory Insurance"
rule in an effort to curtail the numerous uninsured motorists on the streets.
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to be protected from financial loss
if they are struck by some idiot driver, or even if they are the idiot drivers
themselves.
Any thinking person will acknowledge that there is an ELEMENT OF
RISK involved every time they get behind the wheel of a car and move it out onto
the streets. The risk is clear and constant. Since we are obviously willing to
take that risk, why shouldn't we buy insurance just to protect ourselves against
financial loss and forget about trying to force everyone to buy a liability
policy? If you want to protect yourself in amounts that you set, you pay the
premium and let the rest of the world drive uninsured if that's what they want
to do. A number of states do have this type of insurance law; NO-FAULT
INSURANCE. Liability would only be considered when intentional damage is
inflicted, similar to the Federal liability limitations on vessels and on
industry via the Workman's Compensation Law.
The only problem with NO-FAULT
is that people who are uninsured will often require medical treatment and that
could be costly. While Florida and other states do not require liability
insurance, they do require a person to insure themselves for medical coverage in
the event of an accident and injury. The SOLUTION is to do an actuarial study of
the medical costs and property damage claims (other than the damage to
vehicles). Divide that figure by the number of gallons of gasoline and motor
vehicle diesel fuel sold in the state, then add that amount (about 7 cents per
gallon) to the price of the fuel at the pump.
A person who drives a big car
will do more damage if involved in an accident than a person driving a small
car. At the same time the big car will need more fuel and therefore pay more for
the basic insurance coverage via the pump price.
Someone who drives 25,000
miles a year will be buying more gas and be more "at risk" than the person who
just drives to church on Sunday --- and they pay the minimum insurance according
to the amount of gasoline they use, when they buy it. A man who collects old
cars will pay for insurance based on how much driving each car does (fuel
used).
So the government does not get into the insurance business, the
premiums paid at the pump could be divided up among the various insurance
companies according to the percentage of supplemental coverage they are selling
to the public. They would pay claims to hospitals and damaged (non-vehicle)
property owners accordingly.
Today, when a person has four cars, he has to
buy liability coverage on all four vehicles, even though he can only drive one
at a time. Some of his vehicles might only be driven once a month. With this new
method, he can buy insurance to protect his vehicles against a loss and insure
himself with extended coverage for personal injury and medical costs. But the
basic costs of accidental medical coverage would come from the money he paid for
gasoline --- the pump insurance premium!
People will be free to travel
without the bureaucrats trying to convince them that they cannot drive without
insurance (prior restraint). They will no longer be gouged by insurance
companies who charge for every vehicle. People who drive more would pay more.
People who drive less would pay less.
Major opponents of such a plan are
ambulance chasing lawyers who want the deep pocket insurance companies involved
in every accident, and the insurance companies who, despite their protests that
they only want to insure safe drivers, love to collect those excessive
premiums.

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER TEN

DRAFT

Of Course You Can
Register

Young men turning 18 face a rule with which others do not have to contend.
The Military Selective Service Act, along with Selective Service Regulations and
an official Presidential Proclamation, REQUIRES (requests) they provide
information. The supposed purpose of the Selective Service Act and the
subsequent misleading material designed to "compel voluntary compliance" is
indicative of this Rule vs Law controversy.
The Privacy Act Statement
(required by law to be sent to anyone from whom a government agency is
soliciting information) which accompanies the notification sent to young men
regarding the registration for the draft, states that they are REQUIRED to
provide their Social Security Account Number. Since there is no law which
REQUIRES everyone to even have a Social Security Number, the registration is
obviously another ruse created to cause the public to believe that the
government has a right to the lives and services of young men, despite the
Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting involuntary servitude -- slavery.
Why would
our government create this system if it is only a rule? So, it can "legally"
draft volunteers into the military if someone should decide to embroil the
nation in a war. Since Draft REGISTRATION is not really a law, the young men are
tricked into "voluntarily registering," and since they have volunteered to
register, they can be considered to have volunteered to be drafted when the
government chooses.
If there is any doubt in your mind, and the Social Security
Account Number REQUIREMENT does not convince you that it is a rule and not a
law, look at the other warnings on the Privacy Act Statement: The information
can be USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW for criminal prosecution -- that would
violate your Constitutionally enumerated safeguards, under the Fifth Amendment,
against self-incrimination; You have NO RIGHT to Privacy, according to the
warning, since the information can be given to the General Public. Then you are
told that failure to provide REQUIRED information MAY violate the Military
Selective Service Act and MAY result in imprisonment and/or a fine. If it were a
valid law, the word "may" would not be used. Obviously there is some
discrimination in the application of the Act, so it must be a rule -- not a
law!
Some young men, in the past, have tried to fight this registration and
have been convicted. Without looking into the individual cases, it is reasonable
to assume that they "entered a plea of Not Guilty" when charged, and thereby
gave the Courts jurisdiction to decide their fate. Instead, they should have
just challenged the mandatory application of the ACT and refused to enter or
allow any plea to be entered.
There seems to be reluctance on the part of the
bureaucracy to try enforcing this Act except to let the future cannon-fodder
know that they will not be able to qualify for government loans, government jobs
or contracts. Student loans and other perks will not be available for them if
they do not "voluntarily" register before they are 25 years old.
The REWARD
procedure is the most acceptable one. The rule should and could be applied to
everyone, male and female. Since involuntary conscription (the draft) violates
the Constitutional provisions against slavery, paying or rewarding the people to
register is an excellent and legal alternative. Citizens do not have a RIGHT to
have the government guarantee their loans so they can go to school. Citizens do
not have a RIGHT to have the government guarantee their mortgages when they buy
a house. If they want these perks, then they should do something for
them.
Even women could register for the draft as long as it was clear that a
CALL-UP could include other services than military. We might find that we could
eliminate some full-time Civil Service jobs if we were able to draft volunteers
for a limited time to do that work.
This is not intended to counsel young men
to refuse to register for the draft since that could be considered unlawful. The
intent of this chapter is to give our young men and their parents the
opportunity to determine the difference between a valid law which does not
violate the Constitution and a rule which can be applied as law if you volunteer
for it.
Voluntary registration with the Selective Service Board includes your
agreement to abide by all of their rules and regulations. It is the same as
joining the Army. That Master Sergeant has absolutely no authority over you
until you "join up." At that point you become the voluntary property of the U.S.
Army and most of your Unalienable Rights are temporarily set aside (you
volunteered) in favor of the Military Rules and Regulations. To be legal, you
only volunteer for a pre-determined period of time -- the term of your
enlistment. If it was "forever," your agreement to surrender your Rights would
be null and void. Since your Rights are UNALIENABLE, they cannot be surrendered
or taken without end. You cannot sign contracts for such a vague period of time
as "forever." Some might argue that the civil marriage license and subsequent
vows, "til death," would also be too vague. Maybe those vows could be changed to
be for 50 years. After that time they could be renewed.

***

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER ELEVEN

LICENSES

Drivers &
Pilots/The Seat Belt Myth

Pushing aside all the double-speak in the bureaucrat's rule
books, in search of the elusive truth, we become aware of many previously
accepted ideas such as a person needing a driver's license before they can
legally operate a car on the streets or highways. That, too, is a rule -- not a
law. We might even call it a myth. The same is true of the popular misconception
that one must have a pilot's license before legally flying an airplane. Still
another myth is the argument used to promote "mandatory seat belt use" in autos
-- those advocates often refer to aircraft passengers being "required by law to
use seat belts."
The truth is that you do not have to have a pilot's license
to fly an airplane except at certain major, designated airports, such as Los
Angeles International, Chicago O'Hare, New York's Kennedy Airport and several
others. To fly the plane you must know the rules and you have a responsibility
to abide by them for the sake of public safety. Contrary to popular opinion,
Pilots do not need to be licensed by the government, unless they are flying
passengers for hire.

MANDATORY SET BELT
MYTH
The seat belt story is equally untrue. According to the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR's):
No. 91.14 FASTENING OF SEAT BELTS
(a) Unless
authorized by the Administrator--
(1) No pilot may take off or land a U.S.
Registered civil aircraft (except free balloons that incorporate baskets or
gondolas and airships) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that
each person on board has been NOTIFIED to fasten his safety belt.
The term
"pilot in command" is part of the double-talk the bureaucrats have developed to
further their controls over the public. A "pilot" and a "pilot in command" is
not the same thing. The pilot in command is one who is flying an aircraft with
passengers, usually for hire, and to do that you are required to have a Pilot's
Certificate, a Medical Certificate and certain aircraft ratings and experience.
Even then, the aircraft crew is not required to ensure that you buckle up. All
the FAR's require is that you be "notified" to buckle up. Of course, your
friendly airline insurance underwriter certainly has some policy provisions
which limit their liability if the crew does not require you to fasten your seat
belt.
Don't misunderstand! This is not to say that seat belts are not a great
idea -- especially in airplanes. It is unlikely that you could find a pilot
anywhere who does not understand the necessity of seat belts in his aircraft.
However, the public is being conned into believing that government can make seat
belt use mandatory in autos when they cannot even make their use mandatory in
aircraft (except for pilot and crew).
Again, recall that a regulation is not
a law. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to a valid law. In the case of seat belt use
there are numerous exceptions; Taxi cabs, school buses, delivery trucks, public
buses -- the list goes on.
Lee Iacoca, former CEO of Chrysler Motors and once
considered a serious contender for the office of President of the U.S.A.,
advocated seat belt legislation which would REQUIRE everyone to wear seat belts
while in a passenger car -- driver and passengers. In his best selling
autobiography, "Iacoca," he pointed out that his enthusiasm for seat belt
legislation dated back to 1956. Much of his emphasis was placed on the lives he
claimed would be saved when people are FORCED to wear seat belts. But a few
pages later in his book he admits that as the head of a major auto manufacturing
firm, such legislation could save his company many millions of dollars in
lawsuit judgements paid each year because of accidents and subsequent deaths due
to defective equipment.
Iacoca opposed the Federal mandate ordering
manufacturers to install automatic airbags in vehicles. He argued that a certain
number are bound to fail and then the manufacturer would be sued. But, seat
belts are unlikely to fail and if people are injured who are not wearing them,
no matter how unsafe the vehicle might be, the unbuckled person will be
considered to have contributed to their own injury by not using the safety belt.
The auto makers' product liability would be substantially reduced. Many
advocates of mandatory seat belt use are not just concerned with safety. They
want to violate the rights of the people by mandating an action. The purpose is
somewhat self-serving -- Iacoca's own admission. Insurance companies have found
that passage of so-called "mandatory seat belt laws" allows them a defense of
"contributory negligence" if someone is injured because they did not
comply.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced that
"people riding in the back seat of a car might be safer if they did not wear a
seat belt." The statistics show that people wearing lap belts in the back seat
are often injured more seriously than the back seat passengers who are not
buckled up. Who should they sue? The NTSB and others previously insisted that
all passengers would be safer if they wore a seat belt. Laws (rules) have been
passed in some states which supposedly require every-one to buckle up. Now the
experts admit they were wrong about back seat passengers. Could they also be
wrong about the front seat passengers? Isn't this really a matter for each
individual to decide?
My own mother was killed when she was thrown from a
vehicle in an accident and died when her head struck the curb. The investigating
officer said she died because she wasn't wearing a seat belt. However, he also
stated that my ex-wife, who was driving, and another passenger, would have
probably have been killed or seriously maimed if they had been buckled up.
A
young girl who had the distinction of rolling-over two cars before she turned 18
(rotten driver) lived because was thrown clear of the car and would have been
crushed if she had her seat belt on. But in the second roll-over she had her
seat belt on and it did save her life. The decision to buckle-up really is a
personal one.
When you see a sign that says "Buckle Up, Its Our Law" there is
a good chance that there is a law which requires state employees to wear their
seat belts. That's legal! To order a private citizen to buckle up is not a valid
law! Remember, if there is an exception to the "law" it is a rule unless you
volunteer. People in taxis, on buses, in motorhomes, driving delivery trucks and
numerous others (including children on school buses) are seldom "required" to
wear seat belts. But, such so-called laws are favorites for insurance companies
who want to claim "contributory negligence" because they know that half the
people will not buckle up!

YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE
Does possession
of a driver's license make a person a better driver? Does lack of a driver's
license make one less qualified to drive?
There was a young woman in St.
Paul, Minn., who tried to learn how to drive when her husband went into the Navy
at the start of World War II. She paid 25-cents and got a license (no testing
back then). She did manage to get the car moving in a forward direction on
occasion. She was intimidated by the family car and refused to get behind the
wheel except in an emergency. She estimates she drove less than 100 miles before
her husband returned home in 1945 and resumed all the driving chores. She never
got behind the wheel of a car again.
Forty years later she still had in her
possession, a valid Minnesota Driver's License. Since she never received a
ticket for a traffic violation, the state automatically renewed her license just
by having her mail in a few bucks every four years, and having her eyes
checked.
Another man refuses to submit to any prior restraints by the
government and, as a result he has been driving for the past ten years without a
driver's license. He estimates he puts on over 15,000 miles a year and has never
received a ticket during that time.
Which driver would you rather encounter
on the streets? The lady who cannot drive but has a license -- or the man who is
a good driver but refuses to apply for a license?
When you apply for a
driver's license you are agreeing, in advance, to comply with all the rules and
regulations the legislature and the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) may make
regarding that license and your operation of a motor vehicle. You are not
REQUIRED to have a driver's license. You apply for it VOLUNTARILY -- therefore
your rights are not violated if the Motor Vehicle Department suspends your
license for any non-discriminatory reason they choose. You agreed when you
applied for the license.
Keep in mind that prior to 1954 some states didn't
even issue driver's licenses and most did not recognize the licenses of other
states. When a person was stopped for a traffic violation, if the officer did
not know that they were local, he would arrest them and take them before a
magistrate who set their bond or fined them on the spot. The acceptance of a
driver's licenses issued by a State has made the license a virtual "get out of
jail free" card. If you have one, the cop will let you sign the ticket. If you
don't have one, he will arrest you for the violation and take you to the
judge.
The problem is that most law enforcement people and judges do not
realize that you are not a criminal if you refuse to carry around that driver's
license. The Driver's License has become a virtual National Identity Card.
Possession of the license usually tells the officer that your license has not
been revoked by the Courts.
If, via due process in a Court of proper
jurisdiction, you are found guilty of reckless and unsafe operation of a motor
vehicle, the court can order you to stop driving for a period of time and
further order that you will not drive until you have passed reasonable tests of
your ability and competency (MVD driver's tests). If you drive contrary to such
a valid court order, you can be jailed for contempt of court. While you are
under the court's jurisdiction (probation is usually involved) the court can
even order you to refrain from driving without a valid, state issued driver's
license in your physical possession.
The burden of proof
is on the government. You do not have to prove in advance that you are a safe
driver before you drive. The law has the burden of proof to show that your
operation of a motor vehicle endangers the public safety.
The lower courts
are continuing the double-speak game and have most lawyers and the public
convinced that "driving is a privilege" and not an inherent right. Privileges
can be revoked. What the courts actually say is that your "Driver's License is a
Privilege" which may be suspended or revoked. It is a privilege offered to you
by your State government which permits you to volunteer to accept the burden of
proof and let them test you in advance. What the State giveth the State may
taketh away! You cannot be required (except by court order) to have a driver's
license in order to exercise your freedom to travel about in this nation by the
most popular means of transportation available to you (your car) free of
unreasonable restraint or harassment by government agents.
If you have a
driver's license, your rights cannot be violated if MVD suspends or revokes it
(unless you can show actual discrimination). With or without a driver's license,
you are required to abide by the traffic safety regulations. The state passes
most of those regs to protect the safety of the public. It has that authority
and can enforce REASONABLE traffic laws under its police powers. The purpose of
traffic control regs is to expedite the safe and orderly flow of traffic -- such
laws are reasonable.
In fact, all those traffic regulations (stop signs,
speed limits, turns, etc.) are based on one principle law: "No person shall
operate a vehicle on the streets and highways without exercising due regard for
the safety and occupancy of said streets and highways." The violation of traffic
regulations are prima-facia evidence that you are in violation of the principle
law.
If you own an airplane and don't know how to fly it, you would be a dead
fool if you were to get behind the controls and try to take off without
instruction. Any unsafe action on your part can result in a charge being made
against you in a court of law and the court can convict you of endangering the
public safety -- if that is what you did. But if you do know how to fly an
airplane and you know the rules and do not fly in a manner which endangers the
public safety, you cannot be required to have a pilot's certificate. The burden
of proof remains on the government, as it should be.
If you think it is
okay to leave things as they are regarding the application for licenses and
permits, keep in mind that such programs will be expanded. Bureaucrats are
seldom content with just so much power. They usually want to control everything.
Among the areas you can look forward to find efforts at "licensing" will be
small boat operators, journalists, preachers and the kid who cuts your lawn.
Everything must be controlled according to bureaucratic procedure. The enabling
act passed by Congress to enforce the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (and
subsequently NAFTA), provides that professionals working in a foreign country
must have authorization from their respective Attorneys General or Secretary of
Labor. Doesn't that sound like the start for licensing of journalists?
It
should only be a matter of time before insurance companies refuse to write
liable and slander insurance for the media unless they meet the approval of the
Free Trade Agreements (treaties). The government is prohibited from licensing
journalist under the First Amendment, but those insurance firms can make any
rule they want. Not too many CEOs of multi-million dollar TV, radio and news
organizations will want to operate with un-insured journalists.
In fact, the
day when you will have to have a National Identity Card (similar to a state
issued driver's license or ID card) complete with your Social Security number,
may not be too far off. Legislation to supposedly help the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) control illegal aliens will subsequently
necessitate each of us to have such a card if we want to work, cash a check or
prove identity for any purpose (Chapters 12 & 15).
In the 1990's, after
several terrorist threats to airlines, the U.S. Government required all airlines
to demand that all passengers produce photo ID. Nobody complained during such a
crisis, so in 1996, the airlines started applying the edict on their own,
demanded government issued ID, and blamed the government. The airlines like the
idea of making sure that nobody transfers the return portion of their airline
ticket to another person. Now you must conform to carrying government issued ID
or you can't travel on airlines.

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER TWELVE

IDENTITY

Your Social Security
Number

When the Social Security System was created back in the 1930's,
people objected to being issued a government number. They did not want a system
like the Communists in the Soviet Union or Fascists in Hitler's Germany. They
objected and the government bureaucrats assured the public the Social Security
Number "would never be permitted to evolve into a national identity number." To
prove it, they printed on the front of the cards: "For Social Security Purposes
- Not For Identification."
Today, you cannot open a savings or checking
account, buy stocks or even check into a hospital without a demand that you
provide the bank or hospital with an SS number. Even your mortgage company wants
that number. It is your Military ID number and it appears on your pilot's
license. Most states try to double-talk you into giving it to them so they can
put it on your driver's license for the whole world to see. Often you can give
your SS number to a computer operator and they can bring up your data file
faster than if you give them your name and ten other methods of
identification.
When Congress passed the Privacy Act in 1974, it did have
some good provisions in it. One was a prohibition against any government agency,
which was not already using the SS number, from REQUIRING it in the
future.
Only a few states were using the SS number on driver's licenses at
the time, but that changed quickly. Nevada even passed a "must" law which clerks
were told to show to any DL applicant who refused to let them know his Social
Security number. To further intimidate the people the Driver's License office
has a big sign which stated that no license will be issued to anyone without a
verifiable Social Security number. Eventually, Nevada and numerous other states
realized their error and they stopped demanding that the SS number appear on the
driver's license. Now they give everyone the option -- but they still put the SS
number in their file and if you know the numeric code you can determine what the
SS number is just by applying the code to the DL number.
Some states merely
indicate a place for you to write in your SS number on the driver's license
application. If you do not fill it in, a clerk will ask you for it. If you
refuse, he or she will innocently tell you that "you have to provide it." You do
not! But to avoid arguments with the clerk you will have to request that the
department supervisor be called. If the supervisor insists that it is
"mandatory," suggest they call their attorney and ask about the 1974 Privacy
Act. Plan to spend the better part of a day to get the license without your
Social Security Account number appearing on it.
When you are stopped by a
police officer and your SS number does not appear on your license, the officer
will often ask you for it. He usually has a special place on the ticket (even
warning tickets) so he does not forget to write it in. You do not have to give
it to him. He may attempt to talk down to you in an intimidating manner like
he's about to arrest you or something, but don't worry about it. It would be a
violation of the 1974 Privacy Act for a government (police officer) to require
your Social Security number when writing up a ticket or for any other
purpose.
Fighting this might be a losing battle, however. Since government
agencies are not permitted to keep your number on file, a private firm is doing
it for them. That is legal! Again, the intent of a protective law, passed by our
elected representatives, is being circumvented by bureaucrats who want to
control the people. Known as the National Drivers License Clearing Center (NDLC)
it has a direct line patched into its computers to and from every one of the 50
states and the District of Columbia. Whenever a drivers license number is
available along with a Social Security number, both are entered into the
computer. As far as the computer is concerned, your DL number, Social Security
number and name are one and the same. Since the FAA can't legally require the
use of the number, they have the doctors get if for them when they give pilots
their bi-annual medical.
If you apply for a U.S.Passport, you'll find a place
for your SS number and an ominous "warning" that the IRS wants you to provide
that number and failure to do so "may" subject you to a fine of $500. The
Passport office doesn't care if you use it or not, and it is unlikely that they
would ever deny a passport to someone who refused to give out the SS number. You
are always "subject to a fine" and if it was a valid requirement, they wouldn't
use the word "may!" If you apply for a passport and you do not want to give your
SSN, do not mark or write anything in that space. Anything in that space will be
considered a form of defacement and you will have the IRS on your back.
When
a banker wanted to write my SS number on the back of a check I was cashing, I
objected. I did not want the party who had written the check to have my SS
number. He said he had to write it on the check. The dispute resulted in my
pulling out my Social Security card and pointing out the printed words on the
card "Not to be used for identification." That always worked in the past, but
apparently the bureaucrats had been searching for a way around that
argument.
The banker smiled condoningly and said, "That just means we can't
accept your Social Security CARD as identification."
When the question of
Social Security numbers came before the U.S. Supreme Court, the jurists again
played the word game. They ruled that people do not have to provide their Social
Security number to anyone except the Social Security Administration and the
Internal Revenue Service.
The Court continued with the ruling and said that
nobody has to provide you with the services you want if you refuse to give them
your Social Security Account number! Of course, they are correct. You are not
required to have a bank account. You are not required to have a driver's
license. You are not required to carry medical insurance. You are not required
to check into a hospital.
Big insurance companies are pushing for Social
Security numbers to be issued at birth. To help them, the IRS passed a
regulation that if you want to claim someone as a "deduction" on your tax
return, they must have a Social Security number. When you apply for health
insurance for a newborn infant, some insurance firms will only issue the policy
and coverage with the provision that you secure a Social Security number for the
child within 10 days of birth. Of course, you are NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY
DEDUCTIONS or buy insurance for your child, so such a requirement does not
violate your rights.
Actually, you are not even required to have a Social
Security number. Prior to 1955 there were numerous occupations which were not
included in the SS program. Today, you might find it difficult to function
without that number. Tomorrow, your children will find it impossible. Thanks to
Congress, the bureaucrats have given us each a number to replace our name. Next
you will find it on the birth certificate: A girl, 327-54-9873 was born on
03-06-99 to the very proud parents, 278-32-6789 and 438-30-6544. Place of birth
(Zip Code) 55823. Attendant doctor was 432-98-6754. Sure makes it easier for the
fascist bureaucrats!
Some people are seriously suggesting that the children
should be issued a Social Security number at birth and then have it tattooed on
the bottoms of their feet or inside their lower lip. Just like Nazi Germany,
only a little more discrete!
Those who argue in favor of such liberty
violations can be somewhat convincing. Nobody wants to have the babies mixed-up
or stolen at the hospital. Tatoos immediately at birth will prevent that. When
the kids go to school, they will have to remove their socks and show their SS
number or pull their bottom lip down to reveal the number.
Those familiar
statements "Open Wide" and "Bend Over and Spread 'em' and "Turn your head and
cough," will eventually include "Show your feet," or "Pull down your lower lip!"

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
THIRTEEN

GUNS

The Back Door
Approach to Controls

Gun controls are being adopted at an ever increasing rate. The
foothold was established using the popular back door approach. Most firearms
manufacturers do business with the government and sell arms and munitions to
foreign countries. Since the Constitution limits the government with "...the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) must control and regulate via intimidation
and by controlling industry. The source and authority for most of their rules
comes from Section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 -- the result of an
Arms and Munitions Import and Export Limitation Agreement. It is a treaty
entered into with other countries by the U.S. Government and ratified by the
U.S. Senate.
Those who make the weapons want to sell overseas and to our own
government, so they must agree to abide by the rules the BATF adopts to
supposedly cause compliance with the 1954 Treaty and any subsequent arms
limitations agreements. The manufacturer agrees to refuse to sell weapons to
anyone who does not have a Federal Firearms License. The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), a division of the Treasury Department, will issue
the Firearms Licenses to anyone who meets their criteria and voluntarily agrees
to comply with the BATF Regulations. Either you will abide by BATF rules or the
firearms manufacturers will not sell you weapons. If you want to be in the gun
business, you must get the license and abide by their restrictive regulations,
designed to circumvent the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
You, as a private
citizen, are not required to give any information to the gun dealer. That would
violate your right to keep and bear arms. But the gun store dealer has a license
and he has agreed to abide by the BATF rules and regulations. The dealer is
required (under the rules) to get the information or refuse to sell you a
weapon. The regulations are subject to change at anytime. Application of a law
requiring immediate computer checks of customers, by a seller with a Firearms
License, circumvents the intent of the Second Amendment.
This back door
approach to changing our system of law is actually causing our legal system to
get bogged down. Little dictators want to force their particular likes and
desires or standards on the entire population. The courts, sworn to uphold the
Constitution, are permitting their very authority to be diminished in the eyes
of the people by permitting this back-door approach to circumventing the
Constitution.
The door for eventually banning firearms is now wide open and
the rules include refusing to wholesale weapons to anyone who is not licensed by
the BATF. In order for a local businessman to buy new guns, he must apply for a
Federal Firearms License (FFL). That application includes the agreement to keep
a list of gun purchasers. Other requirements are added every year, such as
waiting periods for delivery and reports to the police department when you want
a gun.
If you want to sell your guns for a profit, you can do it. You do not
need a license. Of course, BATF will try to convince you that you do. At a major
west-coast gun show I noticed that a man had over 50 brand new handguns for sale
and he was not taking down the names of the people who bought them. I asked how
he could do this without violating the BATF rules.
"I don't have an FFL
(Federal Firearms License) so I don't have to follow their rules. I buy the guns
from a person who has an FFL and I fill out a form for each one I buy. What I do
with it after that is none of the government's business," he explained. The guns
were all a part of his Private Collection. He collected new, unfired, automatic
pistols -- no two were alike. When he decided to sell his collection at a
profit, he didn't even violate the rules. Free enterprise in action! However,
don't count on it! Those who want to disarm America are actively looking for
ways to require private citizens to run checks on buyers or be held financially
responsible for anything the buyer does with the gun.
The BATF License
Application (CFR 55.45 - Pg 563) is submitted "under penalty of perjury and the
penalties imposed by 18 USC 844(a)." Such a phrase and threat would not be
necessary if it were really a valid requirement that dealers have a BATF
license. A valid law can speak for itself. Rules need a tangled web of red tape
and back-up rules to keep from falling apart under close scrutiny or
challenge.
It is also interesting to note when reading the CFR manuals, that
there is continued references to laws, treaties and other rules. This is usually
a successful method of discouraging the public and even lawyers from searching
too far. You can only crack so many books in attempts to find the answer.
Eventually the cross references can get one to the point where they forget the
original question.
Many fascist controls are being put into place all the
time. Now, it is a violation of state rules for a licensed garage to even work
on a car when the emissions equipment has been disconnected or removed. The Feds
coerced the states to pass such regulations or "lose highway
funds."
Successful application of such controls will eventually lead to more
controls. In a Supreme Court decision regarding search warrants for CLOSELY
REGULATED businesses, the Court actually held that because the industry is so
closely controlled, they have no right to expect any privacy and therefore
search warrants are not required: "...when an entrepreneur embarks upon such a
business (firearms, liquor, etc.), he has voluntarily chosen to subject himself
to a full arsenal of government regulation." (Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., supra,
98 Supreme Court at 1820-21).
How long will it be before the Supreme Court
decides that since "We the people..." have been so closely regulated in the
past, that we can no longer have an expectation of a right to
privacy?
***
The government can control some of the people all of the time
or all of the people some of the time -- but they can't control all of the
people all of the time! (To paraphrase Abe Lincoln).

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
FOURTEEN

CUSTODY

Your Child and the
Courts

To some degree your children are your property. Not in the sense
that you can do anything you please with them. They, too, have certain
Unalienable Rights by virtue of their existence. But you, as a parent, have not
only the responsibility for their well-being, but a right to take reasonable
action to provide for their care, training and the direction of their life while
they are minor children.
You can lose your rights over the care and custody
of your children. If you abuse them physically, refuse to educate them or fail
to provide them with reasonable supervision or necessities of life, you can be
charged with child neglect or abuse. If proven via due process of law, the Court
may declare the child a "Ward of the Court" and take over supervisorial duties
and assign them to a child welfare agency or foster home.
There is another
way you can lose custody of your children: Voluntary surrender! To voluntarily
give up your custodial rights over your children, you will have to enter into a
domestic dispute (divorce action) in which the Court is then given authority to
determine which of the parents should have custody. There have been instances
when the dispute was so bitter between the divorcing couple that the Court
refused to grant custody to either of the parents. Their Rights were not
violated since they were in court voluntarily to have the terms of their
marriage contract set aside. The only way to avoid this is to make certain you
and the other parent come to a realistic agreement regarding child custody,
support and visitation rights BEFORE your lawyers go in front of the judge. If
you do not ask a direct question and give the judge a choice regarding custody,
it is doubtful that the judge would try to assume such authority.
Children
have been subjected to all manner of physical and sexual abuse in detention
centers and even in Court approved foster homes. The people who run such
facilities are usually good people, but there are enough bad ones to fill a book
with horror stories. Some children have even died in such facilities while
concerned parents fought with Juvenile Court Judges and Child Welfare Workers to
take their child out of court's custody and return them to their home and
family.
You must be proven UNFIT or VOLUNTEER your child for such a facility.
If you are having problems with the child and seek counseling from some agency,
they may suggest that such an incorrigible child might be better off if they
were put into the "juvee" home (Juvenile Detention Home) for a while. To do
this, you will usually have to sign papers granting the agency or a Court
authority to take custody. You cannot rescind that permission or authority as
easily as you can grant it. Once you grant jurisdiction over your child to that
agency, you have serious problems. Do not let anyone trap or trick you into
voluntarily surrendering authority over or custody of your child. Just because
they have an official sounding title does not mean they know what is best. The
fact that they work for the government might be reasonable cause for you to
treat whatever advice they give you as suspect. Government believes it has a
"compelling interest" in protecting minors from just about everything. Before
"compelling government interests" can hold water, you have to agree.
Do not
sign any such authority or papers without your lawyer looking them over first.
Do not be stampeded into doing anything just to "get your child out" of the
detention center.
Sometimes a child is taken to a youth detention center by
the police if they are caught doing something illegal. That something "illegal"
today might have been a "dumb thing" to do when you were a kid and nothing more
than a "prank" in grandpa's day. But today it is considered a "criminal act" and
the child is declared a "juvenile delinquent" just for pushing over an outhouse
on Halloween.
Usually parents will be called by a child welfare officer to
advise them that their child is in custody. Anxious parents usually make a
beeline for the center to take the kid home. It is at this time you must be
careful what you sign. You will always be asked to sign some document to get
your child back. That document will usually be an agreement to "acknowledge
authority of the state over your child" and you are merely being granted
temporary custodial rights until the matter is resolved in court.
DO NOT SIGN
SUCH AN AGREEMENT!
Call your lawyer and, unless your child has actually been
charged with a felony crime (murder, armed robbery, etc.), the juvenile
authorities have no right to detain him or her. To hold a child who has not been
charged with a crime, THEY must go to a Court of competent jurisdiction and ask
for temporary custody until such time that a hearing is scheduled where they can
try to prove you are an unfit parent. If you think you should be able to get a
Public Defender under such circumstances, you can forget it in most states.
Since a child custody action is not a criminal complaint, you will have to hire
your own lawyer.
If you ever feel compelled to sign such a document without
first getting informed advice of an attorney, do so only after you clearly print
"Signed Under Duress" in the space just above where you will affix your
signature. That will at least give a lawyer something to work with if you do
hire one.
Do not let them turn the tables by tricking you into signing away
your Rights. They know how to apply the rules of procedure and when you are
being intimidated regarding your child, chances are you will do whatever it
takes!

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
FIFTEEN

CHECKPOINT

Is That Really a
Search Warrant?

The Constitution Limits the actions of Government. All authority
and Rights not specifically granted to the Federal government belong to the
people, or to the states to which the people have delegated limited authority.
Those individual Rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution are not the
only rights of the people. However, those are specific areas in which our
founding fathers wanted to make sure there was no possibility of
misunderstanding regarding the Rights of the people versus the Authority of the
government.
Those Rights include being free from unreasonable search and
seizure -- to be secure in one's person and papers. This puts a limit on when
and how the government can search us or our property. Search warrants are
required in most instances and can only be issued by a magistrate (judge) of
competent jurisdiction and only when it involves a felony and specifies those
things to be searched and the items expected to be found and seized during the
search. Such warrants are only issued in criminal cases and someone, under
penalty of perjury, must swear they have reasonable cause to believe that the
items may be found at the premises to be searched. Officers may also conduct
reasonable searches of a person when making an arrest to ascertain the arrestee
is not armed or carrying other contraband.
If anyone tries to tell you that
there is no guarantee of privacy in the Constitution, remind them of the Fourth
Amendment's provision of the right to be secure in one's person and papers. You
cannot be "secure" if you don't have a right to be private, secret or unexposed.
Security of any type automatically means private!
With this in mind,
one must ask how a state agricultural agent can get a search warrant to look for
the gypsy moth in a car or camper traveling into California from Oregon? How can
the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) get a warrant to stop you on
an Interstate Highway, 40 miles from the U.S./Mexico border and look your car
over to decide if you might be hauling illegal aliens? How can a Game Warden
search your vehicle looking for fish? Unless a State of Emergency is declared or
they have probable cause -- or you volunteer to be searched, they cannot! The
key word is VOLUNTEER!
You have a right to travel about freely in this
country, from state to state, without harassment and interference by the
government. Bureaucrats want to do their jobs as easily as possible and some do
not care how many individual rights have to be twisted and circumvented to
accomplish their tasks. For these purposes they have created, with consent of
the U.S. Supreme Court, a thing called Administrative Search Warrants. Like the
Administrative Courts the bureaucrats established to assist in controlling and
intimidating the public, the Administrative Search Warrants require your
Voluntary Cooperation or they would be in violation of the Constitution. Again,
the rule is that you have to appear to volunteer for any such searches.
In
the case of the Game Warden, when you purchased your hunting and fishing license
you agreed to comply with the game warden's request to inspect your private
property to make sure you are in compliance with the rules of the fish and game
department.
To cause you to volunteer without actually violating the law, the
INS has followed Court guidelines and established FIXED CHECKPOINTS on the
Interstate system. The Court has ruled that the check points cannot be open all
the time and there must be alternate routes for the public to take. In this way,
the motoring public can be concluded to have "voluntarily driven the route where
the INS checkpoint is established." Since you are there, you volunteered to let
them "look you over." If the INS officers have any reasonable cause, they can
ask you questions and check you out at a SECONDARY inspection, just as if you
had just crossed the border into the United States from Tijuana or Juarez,
Mexico.
They can legally tell you that they have a search warrant and suggest
that it is better if you volunteer to open your trunk. What they do not say is
that the "search warrant" is ADMINISTRATIVE and it requires your voluntary
cooperation to make it effective.
Do not misunderstand -- the INS, Customs
and Agriculture people have every right to inspect and search when someone is
entering the United States from another country. It is only AFTER one is here
that there is limited authority which is being abused. Customs, INS and similar
agencies must have "reasonable cause" to stop anyone driving down an Interstate
Freeway, even when they have not been out of the country -- unless they
volunteer.
Along the Mexican border the INS is putting on more and more
manpower to supposedly try and stem the flood of illegal aliens entering the
country to "take away our jobs." If anyone is really concerned that illegal
aliens might be taking American jobs, take a close look at where your car was
manufactured. Where did your shirt come from? Who made your watch? Your TV set?
Camera? We export far more jobs by buying foreign made products than those
illegal wet-backs could ever take away.
To try and reduce the numbers who
successfully make it up north where they can find work, the INS has established
several permanent check points along some of the Interstate Freeways. Thousands
of U.S. citizens are subjected to warning signs and "STOP" signs at these
locations, as they drive in their own country.
Little orange pylons are
placed across the highway, but not by the State Highway Department or the
police. The pylons are placed, like the signs, by INS agents. In most cases, the
motorist is only required to drive very slow and is waved on before they even
bring their vehicle to a complete halt. The INS agent merely looks at your face
and is supposed to determine from this if you are an illegal alien or a "coyote"
(alien smuggler). This process is supposed to assist the INS in apprehending
illegal aliens and most Americans accept this restriction of their freedoms as
"a small violation" to suffer so the alien problem can be resolved.
But the
problem is not being resolved! People are merely being conditioned to accept
more and more government controls over their lives. They are being programmed to
accept more "small violations" of the their Rights.
One INS Agent at a
Checkpoint along Interstate 10 in New Mexico (part of the U.S.) displayed the
typical bureaucrat attitude with the comment, "It may not be the original Bill
of Rights, but what is anymore?"
What is truly amazing is the way the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in "allowing" these road blocks. The Jurists acknowledged
that the stops DO constitute "seizure" according to the Fourth Amendment, but
they would "allow" them with certain restrictions! Allow? Who gave the Supreme
Court authority to "Allow" a violation of the Constitution? But, the High Court
Judges seemed to feel that the violations of citizen rights with checkpoints was
a lesser evil than having Border Patrol officers stopping suspicious vehicles at
random -- which the Judges had previously declared illegal.
The Governors of
each state where these checkpoints are established could order them removed from
the state controlled highways and rights of way. The INS is abusing the police
powers of the states by putting up traffic pylons and STOP signs on the
highways. State government is responsible for establishing traffic control on
all of it's roads and highways. The Federal government has no such
authority.
I objected to such a procedure at one check point on Interstate
10, about 30 miles from the U.S.-Mexican border. The three INS officers tried to
justify such stops with double-talk figures of 100,000 illegal aliens, and then
30,000 illegal aliens being apprehended. Eventually, they admitted that their
particular checkpoint only affected the arrests of 10 to 12 illegal aliens a
week. It takes 20 full-time Border Patrol/INS agents to man that station. The
arrest rate of illegals at the Las Cruces, N.M., checkpoint amounted to less
than one per agent per week. They could do better on horseback riding along the
border instead of violating the rights of U.S. motorists as they drive down the
freeways the paid for with gasoline taxes.
Then the officers acknowledged
that some of the illegals were OTM's (Other Than Mexican) the INS had detained
at the checkpoint. Most of those 10 or 12 illegal aliens were British, French,
Italian, German, or some other visitors or students who had "overstayed their
visas." The visiting privileges could have been renewed very easily if the
visitors had noticed. Since the Visas were not renewed, the INS "caught some
real illegal aliens" in their Checkpoint.
When the Supreme Court ruled that
the check points must not be operated continuously and there must be an
alternate route to avoid the checkpoint, those Jurists rationalized that we
could then be considered to have "voluntarily driven into these Checkpoints"
(See Court Ruling U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte). I decided to try driving the
alternate route around the busiest of these INS roadblocks (Interstate 5 between
San Diego and Los Angeles). The alternate route took almost three hours driving
over back roads. After 79 miles of driving, I ended up on Interstate 15, just
north of another INS Checkpoint. True, I had managed to retain my right to
travel without being harassed by the INS, but I do not consider driving 79 miles
out of the way and then another 80 miles back to Interstate 5 as a Valid
Alternative to the roadblocks.
In the arguments before the Supreme Court to
substantiate the need for such road blocks, the INS said (and the Court
believed) that if everyone had to drive slow, as they do on the back highways
and roads, the INS Patrols could look the vehicles and occupants over without
having to stop them. During the 79-mile jaunt on some very scenic back roads,
not one INS Patrol car was found. The big van I was driving could have been
loaded with illegal Mexican Aliens and not one INS agent was to be found --
except at the Checkpoints VOLUNTARILY entered by U.S. citizens and a few really
uninformed Mexican aliens who do not know the back road is free of INS
agents.
It is doubtful that there is one Supreme Court jurist who can
honestly say that such a circuitous route, 150 miles out of the way, does not
VIOLATE the rights of the people to travel, free of government interference.
Illegal Mexican Aliens may be a serious problem, but the Big Brother checkpoints
do not solve the problem. The numbers migrating into the U.S. have increased
dramatically over the many years those CONTROL STATIONS have been hassling
American citizens.
The solution to the problem is to restart the Bracero
Program again and issue Green Cards to permit the Mexican Nationals to enter the
country legally to work at jobs our own people will not take. The problems we
have today started when the Bracero program was halted. When someone is issued a
Green Card, they must agree to refuse to work alongside of, or socialize with,
anyone they know to be in the country illegally. That will stop most of the
illegal aliens from Mexico.
The Green Card holders will not want to lose
their status and they will do the INS's work for them. Also, most illegal aliens
who come to the U.S. from Mexico have someone who is already in this country who
will help them find a place to live and a job. Green Card holders would not help
them, and many would rather wait in Mexico for a Green Card than to take a
chance of entering illegally and never being able to get legal permission. The
INS will argue that they are issuing the coveted Green Cards, but applicants
have to wait more than 6 months to get one. During that time they have to live
in cardboard boxes in the crowded border towns where jobs are
non-existent.
Solutions are simple to many of the problems we face. Only the
incompetent person will demand that the people surrender their rights to solve
the problem. The 1986 Immigration Act was another example of disregard for the
future effects of a law. That Act of Congress rewarded thousands of illegal
aliens by granting them amnesty and allowing them to qualify for citizenship. It
also made it a felony for any employer to knowingly hire an illegal alien. That
now means that employers are subject to arrest and civil sanctions (arbitrated
fines) if they have not secured satisfactory identification from each of their
employees. The only SATISFACTORY ID will have to be some form of National
Identity Card. In the Communist and totalitarian countries they called it a
Worker's Permit Card. In Nazi Germany it was a National Identity
Card.
Solutions can also be found to curb illegal drug smuggling and abuse.
The problem can be solved by legalizing and controlling the use of the drugs at
affordable prices. When the huge profits are removed, few will be inclined to
"push" the drugs to school kids. People who are addicted will not have to rob
and steal to get their daily fix -- they can work and buy it at the drug store
or get their injections from a physician.
Another solution is to turn all the
old military bases into paradise for addicts. Let them come on the base and have
all the drugs they want with just a few stipulations: They make out their WILL;
they watch a short movie showing them what can happen if they get all the drugs
they want; they acknowledge an alternative service which is offered to help them
get clean; they acknowledge that they will have a smorgasbord of drugs and if
they over-dose, there will be no care given -- they will be allowed to die; the
only way they leave is dead or take the cure and be clean!
The solution is to
take the profits out of drugs. Thousands of men and women have fought wars and
died to preserve our Rights and liberty. Now we are expected to surrender those
Rights because some pusher wants a profit and some jerk wants to take the drugs
-- let some drug addicts die to preserve our Rights!
With all the billions of
dollars spent since 1954 (the year the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was
formed) and all the man power wasted, the problem has not been solved. It is
actually worse today. Big Brother controls on the movements and actions of
citizens is not the answer. Not only has the drug problem grown, many of the
Drug Enforcement Agents (working undercover) have helped it to grow and have
reaped huge profits from it. You cannot have all that money floating around
without corrupting cops, judges and politicians.
Everyone is anxious to stop
criminal activity, but when the illegal drug industry is responsible for more
than 50% of all property crimes and murders, it becomes obvious that we need a
different approach or continue to surrender our Rights!

for documents on
rulings

Checkpoint: Search Warrants

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
SIXTEEN

BLACKMAIL

Threats to Withhold
Funds

If some individual or corporation offered money to state
lawmakers in exchange for passing a law utilizing the Police Powers of the
government, they would probably be charged with criminal bribery or extortion.
Our federal bureaucrats are doing this very thing every day, and they are using
a Trust Fund of taxpayers' money to do it.
Fraud and trickery is just as
despicable when played by a government for "our own good" as it is when
committed by a con-man or bunco artist. In fact, when a con-man clips you for a
few thousand, you can charge him with a crime and hopefully get some revenge or
restitution. When a government agency tricks you into volunteering to give up
one or more of your rights, they have deprived you of the very Liberty for which
our nation is supposed to stand. When the courts become a willing participant in
such chicanery, they are weakening the very foundations on which this nation was
founded. It should not be necessary for the general public to spend their waking
hours trying to decide the differences between the rules and the laws.
Our
government gets its authority to govern from the people. We, the people, cannot
grant a power or authority we do not have. Common law says we may not take the
property of another without payment and consent. That would be stealing. Our
laws against theft do not exempt anyone. If a Congressman steals, he should go
to jail. If a cop intentionally murders his wife, he should go to prison. The
only time we can justify violating the Rights of another is in preservation of
our own rights. We can kill someone in self-defense or in defense of another.
There are no exceptions to valid laws, but when we talk about rules there are
exceptions all over the place. Our legislators are responsible for creating the
system of regulations and rules which bureaucrats then try to pawn off as actual
law. Most of the rules exempt the lawmakers.
Traffic laws are designed to
expedite the safe and orderly flow of traffic along the streets and highways. If
you came to an intersection with a malfunctioning traffic control light and it
was Red (stop) for all directions, what would you do? Would you sit there and
wait for a few hours until someone fixed it or would you exercise caution and
proceed, in an orderly manner, through the intersection?
When the regulations
based on laws no longer serve their intended purpose, they become rules and each
of us must accept the responsibility to use prudence and selectively ignore the
rules.
There are regulations involving speed, stop signs, signal lights,
signs, intersecting vehicles and pedestrians, when the public safety comes into
play. Again, prudence is the absolute rule. If you see a huge semi-trailer truck
out of control barreling down behind you and you have to violate the speed limit
to get out of its way, do you obey the speed limit or justifiably exceed it? You
violate that speed regulation, unless you want to find out what it is like to be
crushed under the wheels of a large semi-trailer truck.
Some people obey
regulations even when they are obviously ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with
obeying most rules, but you must be ready to cautiously disregard them when they
are foolish, overly restrictive or require you to surrender any of your
Rights.
The Congress' so-called national speed limit and the Federal
Department of Transportation's (DOT) dictum that every state would have to pass
55 mph maximum speed laws or face penalties in the form of reduced highway funds
took place in 1974 and was enforced for over 20 years. DOT took the position
that the only purpose of the regulation was to conserve energy. At the time, the
nation and the world was besieged with price manipulations by various oil
producing nations. This was a perfect time for the DOT to cover-up the
inadequate construction methods used on most of the Interstate Highway System.
The program had been a "pork barrel" for the local political supporters to dip
into. Most were actually awarded to political supporters with contractor
licenses. They skimped on quality, overcharged and built inferior roads which
did not stand up under constant pounding of high-speed traffic.
As a result
of this boondoggle, much of our national highway system still looks like a
patchwork quilt with chuck-holes, patches, repairs and washboards all along the
way. Even reducing the top speed of the vehicles to 55 mph did not help. The
highways continue to deteriorate. If you do not drive on the Interstate, ask a
truck driver about the general conditions of the highways.
The Freeway System
was designed to permit a reasonably good car to travel safely at 125 mph. Such
speeds were not anticipated, but that was the standard. Europe has its own
Interstate (or International) Highway System. In most respects it is built much
the same as the U.S. system, with one obvious difference: The European Highways
have withstood the pounding of high speed traffic and heavy trucks without
falling apart or needing constant patches and repair. Cars in much of Europe do
not have speed limits on the freeways and the average speed is in excess of 80
mph. Many drive the 120 mph for which the roads were designed. There may be
corruption in Europe, but it did not show up in the highway system. In many
areas the highway is obviously old, but it is flat and smooth. There are very
few patches. In a 3,000 mile survey of the European System including Germany,
Italy, France, Luxembourg and The Netherlands, only three major repair areas
were under way. We certainly could not say that in the U.S..
The 1974 oil
crisis, contrived or not, came at an ideal time for the DOT bureaucrats to cover
their backsides. They blackmailed every state lawmaker into surrendering the
police powers of their States and adopting 55 mph limits. It was either that or
lose millions of dollars in highway funds --- or so they thought.
In
fact, not one dollar of the money in the Trust Fund has been permanently
withheld from any state. Sometimes there is a DELAY in sending the money to a
state which is not considered to be complying with the various federal dictums,
but eventually the money is paid. It would be illegal to alter the terms of the
Trust without the consent of the beneficiaries of the Trust (the states and the
motorists who paid the taxes). Lawmakers should read the Trust Fund terms. It
provides for funding to be paid to the states at the end of the year. If the
state wants the money in advance the governor or agent must apply for the funds
and in doing so, agrees to comply with all the "extra terms" in exchange for
getting the money in advance. At the end of the fiscal year, the funds must be
paid to the state.
Again, if a state has not been damaged (actually had funds
withheld in accordance with the terms of the Trust Fund) all the threats of DOT
mean nothing. If a state goes to court "voluntarily" to challenge the implied
threats, the courts can rule for what it considers "public good" regarding that
particular state. Or, as would most likely happen, the court would deny the
petition of the state and say that DOT had not done anything illegal. Such a
ruling is then erroneously construed to mean that DOT can "permanently" withhold
funds for failing to comply with certain rules; drinking age to 21, speed
limits, emissions testing, seat belt regulations.
The problem with such broad
interpretations being put on the rules of procedure and law, is that even when a
lower court rules properly, that ruling can be appealed until some court finally
rules for "public good" on the basis of "Volenti Non Fit Injuria."
When the
machinery for the Highway Trust Fund was put into place it was a binding trust
agreement between the states and the Federal government. The states would
collect a Federal gas tax at the pumps and send the money to the Trust Fund. The
Department of Transportation (DOT) administers the fund and appropriates the
money back to the states on the basis of need. It is a binding agreement and the
Federal bureaucrats have no authority to withhold funds on the basis of rules
they make today. Any threats to withhold funds are idle. The Administrators took
the position that "if the states do not do as we dictate, then they obviously do
not need the funds."
Some state lawmakers protested, but were quickly shot
down by the friends of the highway contractors and union leaders whose incomes
depend on a constant flow of Highway Trust Fund dollars. Legislative lawyers,
well-versed in the subtle differences between Constitutionally valid law and
Voluntary rules, discourage the local legislators when they tried to fight
back.
The same threats and tactics are being used to force all the states to
have a "mandatory" seat belt rule or lose Highway Trust funds. States must check
emissions of vehicles or lose Highway Trust funds.
That trick, "withholding
highway funds," continued for over 25 years and is still used in varying forms.
It slipped by the scrutiny of some 200 State Governors, 200 Attorneys General
and all the legislators who held office during that 25 years. It is not always
easy to see that the tricks are being used.
Of course, these are all
regulations, but you can see some of the problems you can encounter when you try
to buck them. All of the rules are not bad. It is not the object of this book to
make such a decision. You must do that for yourself -- but only after you have
been properly informed. You cannot be considered to have made a voluntary
decision unless you have the facts.

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
SEVENTEEN

RESIST

Pick and Choose Your
Battles

If you want to be effective in fighting against government
bureaucrats who try to usurp your Rights via intimidation and trickery, you must
carefully pick and choose your own battle and the battleground. If you try to
fight every rule, you will eventually be worn to a frazzle and defeated. To
avoid such a defeat, you must opt to be a winner and that means you cannot play
a sucker's game.
Obviously there are numerous injustices and battles to be
fought. What is your area of expertise? Are you on solid ground to carry out the
battle? Can you afford the fight --- to win?
If you are never stopped by a
traffic cop, you might do well to fight the idea that driver's licenses are
compulsory. Since you are seldom stopped, you must be a cautious driver who
stays within the scope of the traffic laws. If you are stopped, you are on solid
ground to oppose the rule. However, if you get tickets every week or month, you
would do better to challenge some other rule. With all those tickets to your
discredit, any judge would order you to refrain from driving without a driver's
license in your possession -- and it would be a valid court order.
You must
be aware of exactly what you are doing if you decide to challenge the rules in
any area. Do not react in a knee-jerk fashion because you were unaware of the
situation. Plan your attack deliberately and carefully. You must know all the
laws and rules relating to the arena of your battle. You cannot be expert on all
the tactics and rules, so limit your fight to something you know. Learn all
about the subject and your opponents. Then, declare war!
You must recognize
that you are not alone in wanting to fight injustice. Others will also be
fighting back. Give them your support whenever you can and resist whenever you
can. Sometimes you can resist easily without creating a major battle for
yourself. When someone asks you for personal information, especially your Social
Security number, and it really is none of their business -- you can do two
things: Either tell them it is none of their business or give them false
information. The information seekers are almost immune to your insults, so you
can really screw them up with incorrect information. Make sure that you DO NOT
give the name of another person who you know exists. That could be construed as
impersonation and have further complications. Also, if the purchase you are
making involves a warranty of some type, keep in mind that you might need to
prove your identity to get the item fixed or replaced. Usually a warranty is
useless. If you read it, you will find that you must send the product back to
some distant city, in the original packing box, at your expense and include a
few bucks for a handling charge. If you figure out the costs of renting storage
space for all those boxes, the cost of shipping it and the few bucks, it is
cheaper to toss it in the waste basket and buy a new item. NEVER give false
information to a police officer -- you can politely refuse to give him certain
information, but it is illegal to give him false information.
Your Right to
Privacy almost always exceeds the rights of anyone to have information about
you.
Naturally, there are times when you will not be sure about giving out
false information --- such as when a police officer asks you questions. You have
a Right to know the purpose for his questions, so ask. If there is no official
purpose, then tell him whatever you like. If his reasons are official, you could
be cited for giving false information to an officer in the performance of his
duty --- so, refuse to give him your Social Security number. It is not required
and he has no authority to demand it. If the person asking is the clerk at a
store where you just made a purchase, give them all the false information you
like. It will screw up their computers and might discourage such information
gathering in the future. A few states have laws that make it fraud to attempt to
get a refund for products using false information.
The system of rules the
bureaucrats have created are entangling. They have been at it a long time and
many people have accepted it as a way of life. Suppose you decide that the rule
requiring vehicle emissions tests is invalid because it is discriminatory and
exempts some vehicles. You refuse to have your car tested until the exceptions
are removed. Now you try to pay your license tax and get the little tab for the
current year. The bureaucrats might not let you have the license plate or tab
until you comply with their unrelated rules, as mandated by DOT
money.
Frustrating, isn't it?
Go back another step. Why are you licensing
your car? No, it is not a law! It is a rule. You must pay the tax on the vehicle
--- that is a law! The fact that you post your license on the car is just
outward proof that the tax has been paid. The use of the license number for
identification purposes is incidental to the tax being paid. You cannot be
forced to surrender your right to move about in a safe manner in your own
vehicle in exchange for proof of payment of a license fee and then have
additional discriminatory rules (emissions testing) made as a condition of using
your vehicle. To force you to submit to such rules would violate your right to
be treated equally.
If the public health and safety necessitates emissions
testing, then no vehicles can be exempted. If any potential offenders are
exempt, then it is a discriminatory rule --- not a law.
The bureaucrats can
establish rules for the issuance of the privilege licenses. But your license
plate is actually just a receipt to show you paid the tax on the vehicle. You
can seal the receipt in plastic and paste it inside your rear window to make
sure the entire world knows you paid the tax, but the local cop might still pull
you over to find out why you do not have a current license tab or plate. In this
case, the cop becomes the buffer.
Resisting such an established system is not
going to be easy. You are better off fighting back now, while some of our Rights
are still recognizable than to wait until our nation is completely converted to
a totalitarian Police State. Then the only way to fight back will be to put your
life on the line.
Getting information out to others is a very effective way
of fighting back. When you hear someone say anything to the effect that "we
should have the right to...," point out to them that they already have that
Right and government only has the limited authority that WE, THE PEOPLE, have
granted to it. You can write letters to the editor of the daily and weekly
newspapers in your community. Contrary to what many people think, newspapers are
seldom over-loaded with letters to publish. The editors love to get them and
survey figures indicate that 25 percent of the subscribers read the letters to
the editor almost every day. That is a great forum for expressing your views and
making people aware of how they must protect freedom by breaking some of the
control rules.
The Internet is a great tool for informing the world! If you
are on the internet, get this information out. Let everyone know that this book
is free for the download just by typing in www.breaktherulesandwin.com, or the
author's name www.jayevenson.com.

***

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
EIGHTEEN

THE END
RESULT

A Constitutional
Convention

Why do we have all these rules? What will the end result be?
Most likely we will see a concerted push for a Constitutional Convention. People
will be designated to change our Constitution so that it will conform to the
procedures and rules being used by government. When one of the delegates to the
Convention argues against taking private property for Public Good and turning it
over to a private developer, he or she will be soundly admonished and told,
"We've been doing it for years!"
When calls for an amendment to the
Constitution originates with an elected official (unless such a change further
restricts government) the official is in violation of his or her oath to
"protect and defend" the Constitution. When a Constitutional Convention is
called for, those delegates from each state can change it in any manner they
choose.

***

Like most control rules, the Congress authorizes the
establishment of certain agencies and bureaus. The law gives the agency license
to pass rules and regulations which its employees are required to obey. The
public does not have to obey those rules -- only the bureaucrats and those who
wish to do business with the government or get something from that agency. Since
the government employees voluntarily apply for their jobs, their rights cannot
be violated by rules (as long as they are not discriminatory). If they don't
like the rules, they can seek employment in the private sector. If a businessman
doesn't like the rules, don't do business with the government.
The
really big Con exists because government employees (and most lawyers) are
brainwashed into believing that the CFR (regulations) are the law and must be
obeyed by everyone. They will innocently tell you so! Since they are acting out
of ignorance, they cannot be considered to be acting fraudulently or with
malice. When they mislead you into surrendering your rights in exchange for some
non-requisite privilege or license, they think they are obeying the laws.
Industry and the economy is constantly manipulated by bureaucrats who think they
know what is best for all of us. As a result, our jobs and economy are being
shipped overseas. Our automobile industry has surrendered a giant share to other
countries; the copper industry in the U.S. has all but disappeared; the steel
industry is in shambles; our technology in electronics is being shipped out
daily; our competitive edge is non-existent and in most instances it is because
of over-regulation by a growing, power hungry bureaucracy.
Back door
legislation has been going on at an excessive rate since 1954. For over 30 years
Legislative Counsel for the U.S. Congress, Ward Hussey, headed a staff of
lawyers who translate the will of our elected 435 Representatives in the House.
They "translated" the desires of Congressmen into the legal language of the U.S.
Code. He and his staff did a great job of finding ways to circumvent the
restrictions of the Constitution. His successors are carrying on the fascist
procedures. Most legislators seem to feel that as soon as they take the oath to
"protect and defend the Constitution," they have sworn an obligation to find
ways to circumvent it!
Local legislatures have similar law writers or scribes
who try to write proposed law in such a manner that it will not conflict with
the U.S. Constitution. They are obviously good at it. They have written,
legislators have passed, and the Courts have upheld so much double-speak and
gobbledygook that they have made it virtually impossible for most people to
separate the voluntary rules from the real laws under the Constitution.
The
lawyers and judges who know the distinct differences between these rules and
laws are doing a disservice to the people, the nation and liberty by concealing
the information from the public. By permitting the people to be duped into
believing that they are required to obey a rule or regulation as if it were a
valid law, the door is open for the fascist controllers who would like to call a
Constitutional Convention. They will attempt to amend or totally change that
document so that it conforms to the rules being enforced. Then the rules will
actually be laws.
When the Supreme Court permits such vagueness in the law
and application of the rules as to give alternative choices for the meaning of
words, they discredit all laws and make a mockery of justice. Our perception of
the Constitution and our Laws are constantly being manipulated. Young college
graduates have totally different views of their relationship and responsibility
toward society and themselves than their parents and grandparents did.
Some
time back a woman of means, and well educated, asked if I could give her
daughter some pointers for a paper she was doing for a school assignment. Her
subject:"How we get our rights from the government."
I pointed out to
the woman that we DON'T GET OUR RIGHTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT. We are the ones who
created the government and gave certain restricted rights to it, and all other
rights are ours by nature of our relationship to our creator and the universe.
She seemed slightly shocked, but then replied, "That's certainly a novel
concept!"
Novel Concept? It is the basis for our nation's existence, but
people seem to forget. Which came first, man or government?
Obviously man
created government. Government did not create man! Then government can only have
those powers we consent to give it. In this nation, under our Constitution, we
are supposed to be governed by consent of the governed. We are supposed to be a
nation of LAWS, not of men. We have certain Unalienable Rights which cannot be
taken away except by due process of law (not rules) and no laws shall
discriminate against anyone or be biased in favor of anyone.
If our leaders
and lawmakers do not realize what is happening, then each day we will become
more like the failed Communist nations of the world, or worse -- a socialist
nation with compliance enforced by Nazi SS (without armbands); A land where a
few people rule according to their own whims and the masses are workers or
slaves. Whether the government usurps power and control via trickery and fraud
to get the people to VOLUNTEER or they use guns, threats and even death to force
their way to power and control, the end results will be the same.
What
happens will be up to you -- YOU! Not George or your kids or your parents or
your teacher or your government. It is up to YOU!
When you BREAK THE RULES
you weaken the rules and that will strengthen the real laws.

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

CHAPTER
NINETEEN

NEW
CHAPTER

Chapter
Title

Text coming soon!

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

The
Afterword

THE
AFTERWORD

There are some valid arguments against positions taken in this book. One is
the adage that we need some rules to live by -- "Rules are the price we pay for
living in a civilized society."
To some extent that is correct. But will
society allow someone to move out to a farm in the hinterlands and not harass
them? Those rule makers cannot stand the idea of anyone being beyond their
control. If you have a small farm, there is a government agency which will seek
you out and try to coerce you into obeying their rules, pay taxes for their
schools, build your cabin according to their county building code.
The
planners for communities have serious problems. How would you go about planning
for a city which is expected to double in size from half-million to over 1
million people in just 10 years? Just the basic essentials of sewage and water,
police and fire protection, traffic flow and minimal medical facilities -- you
cannot plan for such things, on that scale, without information and some type of
controls.
The rules of civilization must not be foisted on all segments of
society. There must be a place in this nation where people can live, unharassed
by bureaucracy, when they have had enough of society's rules, regulations and
controls. If those who want to live as FREEMEN can find a place in this country
to which they can escape and still remain free American citizens, then the
bureaucrats in the cities, counties, states and in Washington, D.C., can pass
and enforce all the regulations the residents will tolerate -- provided they do
not use threats, intimidation, fraud and trickery to get the people to
unknowingly volunteer away their Rights!
If you choose to live in a city, you
must abide by certain rules. But those who make and enforce those rules must
amend their ways to make sure it is clearly understood that they are RULES ---
NOT LAWS! They must, if they are to be given authority, respect the people and
their Constitution. If they do not, they may find themselves walking up the
steps to a guillotine or facing a mob's rope at the lamp post. History does
repeat itself!

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

Copyright
1987 and 1999 by J.Jay Evenson
Reproduction of this material is
authorized only for individual use of the person making a single copy and said
copy is not authorized for further reproduction. All rights reserved. Except for
reviews and as stated, no part of this book may be reproduced or used in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission.
Use of material contained herein must include appropriate credit to this Web
Site, book title and/or author.

constitution, rights, drivers license, roadblocks,
eminent domain, laws, rules, regulations, bureaucrats, government controls,
taxes, income tax, voluntary, city ordinance, law, rules, lawyers, scams,
half-truths