A Travesty of American Justice

Judge and Prosecutor Conspire to Deny a Citizen his Rights in Clearwater’s Florida State Court.

By Bob Hurt, 30 March 2006. License granted hereby for broad distribution intact.

A few months ago I attended a meeting of a group of “Lawmen” for the purpose of associating with people who are fighting the IRS, to see whether I could find any practical recourse to being keelhauled with the unconstitutional collection of a direct and unapportioned tax by our nation’s tax authorities every time I turn around.

One of the members sent me an email inviting me to attend a hearing in Judge David Seth Walker’s 6^th circuit Florida court in Clearwater (the Pinellas county seat) about 20 minutes from my home. The hearing involved Jesse Toca, a native-born American descended from Tampa’s Cuban cigar factory owners. Yesterday I showed up to sit in the peanut gallery with about a dozen people from the “Lawmen” group. And there I witnessed what appeared to me to be an utter travesty of justice and stomping of constitutional rights.

Here’s a little background to the case. In 1997 the State of Florida charged Jesse with “practicing law without a license” under Florida statute 454. Judge Crocket Farnell, having earlier promised to Jesse “If you ever show up in my court, I’ll bury you!”, found him guilty, even though Florida’s government has no apparent licensing procedure for attorneys (no attorney can show you a “license” to practice law) and no effective law regarding Practicing Law without a License*. Jesse did two years of jail time, during which his attorney abandoned the appeal effort after trying to convince Jesse’s elderly parents to give him Jesse’s car. Later, Jesse discovered the reason: his attorney, an officer of the court, was then, and had all along been, a crack cocaine addict. A new judge granted Jesse probation to care for his ill and aging mother, on the condition that he report to the Salvation Army and give financial information to them so as to determine his ability to pay restitution.

Jesse took his probation, but refused to give any financial information. He said that would have constituted a yielding of his 5^th amendment constitutional right to be free of self-incrimination. He knew the ruthless prosecutor might dig into his financial data and use the trail to find other information to use in contriving a criminal charge against him. The prosecutor is a 6-foot-something pin-striped Assistant State Attorney (ASA) named Frank Migliore who seems to me to look and behave like a henchman of Tony Soprano. Because of Jesse’s refusal to divulge financial information, Migliore charged Jesse with 4 counts of probation violation, intending to throw Jesse in jail for one year per count.

Since Jesse had no money to hire an attorney, the State made available two Public Defenders. Jesse consulted them to determine their ability to counsel and defend him effectively. Jesse concluded that both were incompetent. One of them created a conflict of interest by divulging Jesse’s confidential information to Migliore, information that was supposed to have been protected by the attorney-client privilege. Knowing that his Public Defender was colluding with the Prosecutor, Jesse rejected that counsel as “ineffective”. Meanwhile, Jesse was scheduled for a hearing on the state’s motion to quash Jesse’s subpoenas for hostile witnesses to prove his attorney was incompetent to represent him. Apparently the ASA had encouraged the witnesses to try to quash their subpoenas because he wanted to railroad Jesse into 4 years of prison. Why was this apparent? Because half a dozen submitted motions to quash. It seemed obvious that they intended to bury him.

29 March 2006, Jesse showed up in court without a defense counselor. In the court room, Jesse sat alone on the defendant’s side, and a gaggle of attorneys, including Migliore and his associate ASA Marie King, sat on the prosecutor’s side. Migliore presented his motion to quash. Jesse rose, stepped to the counsel lectern and presented his opposing arguments masterfully.

1. He moved the court to permit a member of the news media to record the proceedings electronically. The judge denied the motion, in violation of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.170.
2. He pointed to the empty defense counsel’s chair, said he had no counsel, and submitted constitutional and case law proving he had the right to counsel. He demanded counsel. The judge denied the motion, violating Jesse’s 6^th Amendment constitutional right to effective counsel.
3. He moved to continue the proceedings so he could find suitable counsel. The judge denied the motion.
4. He went back and forth with the judge and State Attorney through dozens of arguments, accusing the judge of conspiring with the State to throw him under the bus and run him over, of violating his constitutional right to counsel. Jesse even accused the judge of violating the law by calling a sidebar conference, going off the record, and advising Jesse to cop a plea. The State accused the judge of mollycoddling the defendant through nearly 10 years of similar courtroom drama. Throughout this process the judge rolled his eyes, held his head in his hands, sighed repeatedly, and still talked in a reasoned and moderated voice.
5. During all this time, when Jesse was arguing his points, he often turned to the peanut gallery, and frequently referred to us as his supporters (all were taking copious notes).
6. Eventually the judge admitted that he had no intention of putting Jesse in jail, and the State went ballistic. The judge told Migliore to sit down.
7. Jesse told the judge he was willing to pay restitution through some kind of judgment, and the State vehemently protested, saying only probation had any chance of getting any money out of Jesse.
8. The judge sided with Jesse, who copped a plea of guilty on the condition that restitution be worked out in another court, that Jesse would not go to jail, and that Jesse would not have to give up his 5^th amendment rights.

Afterward, Jesse and four of us who been observing from the peanut gallery met Jesse at Wendy’s for a quick lunch. Jesse was in a hurry to get home to attend to his mother. I asked him what he thought might have happened had we not been there. Jesse admitted he would probably be in handcuffs. He believes the presence of a support group helped convince the judge to rule as he did.

The judge had admitted several times that he was mightily impressed with Jesse’s oratorical skills, which he claimed were better than 95% of the attorneys who had ever appeared before him during his 35 years on the bench. Nevertheless, without a peanut gallery of supporters who might make noise in the press or serve as witnesses to judicial malfeasance, the judge would have railroaded Jesse even more than he did, and Jesse would have had no opportunity to cop a plea with conditions in his favor. Sure, he’ll have to pay restitution, but at least he will be free.

Multiply Jesse’s situation by the thousands of times such things happen every week day in American courts. Imagine if you were in Jesse’s shoes but did not possess his knowledge of your legal rights or his skill in thinking on his feet and combating both a ravenous State Attorney and a corrupt judge, both of whom were deadly intent on stomping your rights and either throwing you in jail or forcing you to pay outrageous and unjustified restitution. Jesse is surely one of the luckiest men alive to have faced such a dynamic duo of American injustice without doing jail time.

America’s judiciaries at all levels are hopelessly corrupt, and routinely exceed their authority and stomps our constitutional rights in cases just like Jesse’s. Aside from pounding on our legislators, the only possible thing we can do about it is just what I did. If you see or hear of court cases that interest you, take a day off from work now and then and join the defendant’s peanut gallery. Your little bit of support might do a world of good in the life of an everyday American.

Practicing Law without a License

Most people think you must be an attorney licensed by the state, and you must be a member of the Bar association in order to practice law in the state. I could not understand why an obviously very intelligent like Jesse Toca would knowingly break such a rule. So I set out to discover the truth by talking to knowledgeable people and reading the law for myself. First I spoke with ASA King, non-BAR member David Bosset (http://bosset.com/), and St. Petersburg attorney and Florida Bar member Frank Papa.

• King directed me to Florida statute 454 under which Migliore charged Jesse. She admitted that the state does not license people to practice law. She harshly advocated the idea that a non-government, unregulated organization (the Florida Bar Association) rightly should permit and regulate the practice of law by people only it deems qualified, just as a state arm of the American Medical Association regulates the practice of medicine by medical doctors. She also told me that Judge Walker had given Jesse ample time to find counsel to represent him, but that Jesse had refused to do so.

• Bosset told me that he practices law all the time without a license and it drives the Florida BAR crazy. They filed suit against him in Florida court, and Bosset seems to be enjoying his ongoing battle against them. He said he provides “limited assistance of counsel” to his clients under contract, and that the state government cannot limit his fulfillment of his obligations under the provisions of that contract. He cited the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts….”

• Papa told me he does not have a license to practice law, but he showed me his Florida BAR Association membership card which declared him to be a member in good standing, and he claimed to have a Bar Membership certificate signed by the Florida Supreme Court.

I browsed the Florida statutes on line so that I could read and attempt to understand Statute 454. See my analysis below. After reading it and thinking about it, I understood why Jesse or anyone else would think it okay to sign a contract with someone, then under the terms of that agreement give the client legal advice or even act as counsel in a court of law. Florida law says people shall not practice law without a license or authorization, but it does not stipulate a means for being licensed. It indicates that the Supreme Court should be the proper entity to regulate that, but refers to no licensing or authorizing statutes or regulations, almost as though such rules should be taken for granted.

This leads me to believe that either the state legislature has ignored its responsibility to enact statutes any ordinary person can understand regarding authorization to practice law, or that it did enact understandable statutes in Title 454, and people may behave accordingly. I believe it is the latter. The Florida Bar Association is unregulated and could be manned by a pack of fools and charlatans with no accountability to the people or the government. Thus, it amounts to little more than a self-regulating “good old boys” network that the state legislature refuses to regulate or hold accountable for its harassment of citizens who lawfully give legal counsel under contract. And judging from the practices of Migliore and Walker that I witnessed, multiplied by thousands or millions in courtrooms across America, the Bar does a miserable job of regulating attorney behavior. Nothing in the family of Statute 454 entitles the Bar association to authorize the practice of law or to license attorneys. For all of these reasons, I have concluded that the judges and ASA Frank Migliore railroaded defendant Jesse Toca from the very beginning, over a period of nearly 10 years, colluding to have him thrown in jail and forced to pay restitution he did not owe.

I know that Jesse wants to put this whole episode behind him and get on with his life. And that is at the heart of this problem of a corrupt judiciary and corrupt government attorneys. Although some are really decent and competent professionals, many if not most seem insufferably arrogant and condescending elitists who consider the courtroom their domain and everyone else, even the jury, as their subjects, whom they can and do collude to deceive, manipulate, and strip of constitutional rights at their whim. Jesse is one of their victims, and judge-prosecutor conspiracies destroy the lives of millions of others like him across America. The conspirators do their best to imprison, fine, extort, and oppress their victims to death, while often letting violent criminals and rapists loose to have their way with innocent citizens. Afterward, defendants like Jesse wind up humiliated and shunned as felons, depressed, unable to feed their families, and too miserable and defeated to fight further. Were it not for that, perhaps more would file civil lawsuits and seek to have criminal charges filed against prosecutors and judges who conspire illegally to ruin their lives. As far as I am concerned, such conspirators deserve the worst of punishments they hand out to their innocent, hapless victims. But as it is, few people have the gumption to hold prosecutors and judges accountable for their inexcusable behavior.

The 5^th and 14^th amendments mandate due process for all judicial proceedings, and I witnessed that process being ignored in Judge Walker’s court room by both the judge and the prosecutor. All judges and prosecutors take an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has additionally held that government employees who violate any law in the performance of duties do not represent the government.

Therefore, we can rightly conclude that adjudication not within constitutional requirements nullifies any claim to jurisdiction. Only this guarantees that a court of admiralty, a star chamber proceeding, a kangaroo court, or an arbitrary proceeding by whatever name does not occur. The Supreme Court forcefully established that court proceedings must be within constitutional provisions (Muskrat v. United States (1911) 219 US 346; Smith v. U.S, (1959) 360 US.)

But apparently, Supreme Court rulings don’t make a dent in the armor of conspiratorial prosecutors and judges. Americans need a new branch of government charged with the responsibility of bringing corrupt politicians, judges, government attorneys, and other public servants to justice. That new branch would enforce rulings like the following:

• “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability for they are deemed to know the law." Owen v. Independence, 100 S. Ct. 1398.
• "Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate [abolish] them" Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3rd 974 and 59 other ALR treatises.
• "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S. 262
• "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional Rights." Sherar v. Cullen 481 F. 945.
• "The court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty." Boyd v. U.S. (1886) 116 U.S. 616.
• "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection' it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, Quoting from Marbury v Madison (1803)
• "The exercise of a constitutional right cannot be the basis of a crime." Marchetti v. U.S., 390 US 39,57; See v Seattle, 387 US 541.

But we have no such fourth branch of government, and so it is up to you, the reader of this article, to attack the corruption in our courts when and as you can, and to support defendants who are being hammered into oblivion by corrupt and collusive judges and prosecutors.

Note: You can reach Jesse Toca for comments or an interview at:

Jesse Toca
7937 Woodglen Circle
Tampa, FL 33615
206-350 6441

# # #

************************

Bob Hurt’s Layman’s Analysis of Florida Statute 454

Fuzzy Law seems not to prohibit citizens from giving legal advice or acting as counsel in courts of law.

The Florida Constitution gives the state Supreme court full authority over the judicial branch of government and the regulation of attorneys. It lets the governor appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and it guarantees the people's right to determine (through the election process) who gets to serve as judges in the lower courts. It gives the legislature only one power over the judicial branch: the power to impeach judges. Otherwise, the judicial branch is "self-regulating."

The Supreme Court established an array of regulations describing procedures that must be followed in judicial proceedings and the qualifications and conduct of judicial officers, including both judges and attorneys. It authorized the Florida Bar to manage the qualification and selection of attorneys, and based on those qualifications, the Supreme Court "licenses" people to serve in state courts as attorneys and counselors at law. That big certificate on a lawyer's wall is a license to practice law, and it is signed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

The Bar regulations require a prospective attorney to graduate from an accredited college of law, pass a bar examination, be of good moral character, be a member of good standing of the state bar association, and swear to the following oath (required of all judicial officers by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution):

"I do solemnly swear: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval; I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone’s cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."

Once these qualifications are in place, the bar examiner certifies to the Clerk of the Supreme Court that the prospect is qualified, and the Clerk issues the license.

That is all well and good, but serious flaws exist in the system. To begin with, Amendment IV to the U.S. constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to assistance of effective counsel of choice. That does not confer upon the government at any level the power to determine who that counsel may be nor what qualifications that counsel must have. And, Amendments IX and X specifically preclude the government from assuming any powers not specifically granted to it by the constitutions.

Thus, if defendant in a criminal proceeding has the constitutional right to enlist a topless dancer as counsel, and the government has no say whatsoever in the matter...

We wish. Unfortunately, the government very clearly tries to strongarm defendants into selecting only bar members as their counsel, and through the bar association, it works assiduously to prohibit the "practice of law" to anybody but bar members.

The below web site shows Florida Statute 454, the only one I can find that seems related to Attorneys.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0454/ch0454.htm

I have indented all the Title 454 statutes below, and presented my comments regarding them below the relevant statutes. I have not found anything that requires a person to be a member of the Bar in order to practice law, and I have found nothing that says only the Supreme Court may decide who practices law. The language is obscure in the most relevant paragraphs that might be used to determine who may practice law, how one is licensed to practice law, or what the licensing requirements are.

454.021 Attorneys; admission to practice law; Supreme Court to govern and regulate.--

(1) Admissions of attorneys and counselors to practice law in the state is hereby declared to be a judicial function.

(2) The Supreme Court of Florida, being the highest court of said state, is the proper court to govern and regulate admissions of attorneys and counselors to practice law in said state.

This clearly says the Supreme Court of Florida is the proper court determine who practices law and regulate the practice. But it does not show requirements for the practice of law, it does not say the Supreme Court shall be responsible for those things, and it does not point to any corresponding statute that delineates and enumerates such requirements.

454.026 Authority of Department of Law Enforcement to accept fingerprints of, and exchange criminal history records with respect to, bar applicants.--The Department of Law Enforcement is authorized to accept fingerprints of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar and, to the extent provided for by federal law, to exchange state, multistate, and federal criminal history records with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners for licensing purposes.

Although the above paragraph mentions the Florida Bar, applicants for admission to the Bar, and the exchange of records, and it mentions licensing, it does not authorize or entitle the Bar to authorize or license people to practice law.

454.11 Powers of attorneys.--Every attorney duly admitted or authorized to practice in this state shall have the right to appear before any court of the state, or any public board, committee, or officer in the interest of any client, and may appear as amicus curiae when so permitted. All attorneys shall be deemed officers of the court for the administration of justice, and amenable to the rules and discipline of the court in all matters of order or procedure not in conflict with the constitution or laws of this state.

The above paragraph says what attorneys might do if they are duly admitted or authorized, but it does not stipulate the requirements for admission or authorization, nor does it prohibit anyone who is not an attorney from practicing law.

454.18 Officers not allowed to practice.--No sheriff or clerk of any court, or deputy thereof, shall practice in this state, nor shall any person not of good moral character, or who has been convicted of an infamous crime be entitled to practice. But no person shall be denied the right to practice on account of sex, race, or color. And any person, whether an attorney or not, or whether within the exceptions mentioned above or not, may conduct his or her own cause in any court of this state, or before any public board, committee, or officer, subject to the lawful rules and discipline of such court, board, committee, or officer. The provisions of this section restricting the practice of law by a sheriff or clerk, or deputy thereof, shall not apply in a case where such person is representing the office or agency in the course of duties as an attorney.

Interestingly, the above does not prevent you from practicing law UNLES you are a non-attorney court officer or a bad person.

454.19 Certain partnerships prohibited.--No judge of a court of this state who is permitted by the constitution and laws to practice law shall form any partnership with the prosecuting attorney of such court or become a partner in any firm in which he or she is a partner. No attorney who may be a law partner with any judge of any court who is permitted by law to practice law shall be allowed to practice before the court of which his or her partner is judge.

What about collusion between judges and prosecutors, which happens all the time? They frequently function as partners to railroad defendants accused of a crime. For example, prosecutors and judges routinely collude to prevent juries from knowing they are entitled to decide matters of law as well as matters of fact, and to nullify judicial rulings they believe are unjust. In so doing, they hamstring juries and prevent them from implementing just findings.

454.20 Attorneys not to be sureties.--No attorney shall become surety on the official bond of any state, county, or municipal officer of this state, nor surety on any bond of a client in judicial proceedings.

This does not limit any person from practicing law other than attorneys.

454.23 Penalties.--Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state who practices law in this state or holds himself or herself out to the public as qualified to practice law in this state, or who willfully pretends to be, or willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified, or recognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

What does this mean? Obviously, the state does not issue licenses to practice law, and neither does the BAR association. Therefore, nobody, including attorneys hold a valid authorization (license) to practice law in Florida. So far, I have not seen any law that stipulates the requirements for qualification to practice law. So how can anybody other than those guilty of violation of one of the other paragraphs be charged with a felony?

454.31 Practice while disbarred or suspended prohibited.--Any person who has been knowingly disbarred and who has not been lawfully reinstated or is knowingly under suspension from the practice of law by any circuit court of the state or by the Supreme Court of the state who practices law in this state or holds himself or herself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

454.32 Aiding or assisting disbarred or suspended attorney prohibited.--A person who knowingly aids or assists any person in carrying on the unauthorized practice of law, knowing that such person has been disbarred and has not been lawfully reinstated or is under suspension from the practice of law by any circuit court of the state or by the Supreme Court of the state, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and shall also be subject to disbarment.

The above two provision do not require an attorney to be a member in good standing of the Bar. They clearly say that a person who has been disbarred cannot practice law, or even say that he is entitled to practice law. However, they do not say that an ordinary human being cannot practice law.

Nothing in the above statutes properly defines “practice of law,” particularly not in terms of giving legal advice, or operating as limited counsel to a defendant or party to a lawsuit in a court of law.

Our Amendment I right to freedom of speech prevents the government from prohibiting our free discussion of all things, including legal matters. However, the bar association seems willing vigorously to prosecute anybody who presumes to give legal advice to a friend.

# # #

How to Teach the Gospel to Christians

Gemma Vigna wrote:

> My gosh, my mild mannered, kind, Christian technican at work was ready to take my head off when I expressed the atunement truth a few years ago.
> I had just finished my first read of UB [The Urantia Book] and was all dewey eyed about the whole thing. Well, still am but matured after being bashed several times when expressing this new concept.
> It all goes back to believing that God punishes us. I said to my co-worker, what father would have his son killed for someone's sins ? Greg and I to this day still discuss God a lot. Greg is a very kind, community giving person. So no matter, he knows Brotherhood of Man and Doing God's Will. He is a star to me none the less !
>

Gemma:

It is good to find common points in belief between you and Christians you want to enlighten, and to focus on those. Nevertheless, it is also right to spread the gospel, just as both the Bible and the UB say Jesus commanded his followers to do. Even though many Christians might not know it, they do already believe the real gospel Jesus taught. Unfortunately, they just don't believe that is also a plan of salvation.

If you want to maintain peaceful and happy relations with Christians, the real gospel is what to focus on, both in your speaking and your living. And when it comes to tenuous issues like the atonement doctrine, it's best merely to ask questions with a big smile on your face, questions that will make the other person question his own sanity in embracing the atonement doctrine. You can simply state a truth about Bible scripture (something from Jesus), then ask a question about it. Wherever possible, quote Jesus' teachings right from the Bible.

My daddy, who was a faith-healer before he died of cancer, always told me it's important to deny the lie and affirm the truth. When you make a frontal attack on the lies that others believe, they "ridge" up, dig in their heels, and become determined to win, even if they are wrong by doing so.

It's important to know precisely what the lie is, and what Christian motives are. Most Christians feel some obligation to help you save your soul by accepting Jesus as your lord and savior. They believe in the saving power of the atonement doctrine - the idea that he died on the cross as a sacrifice for your sins so that you can demolish your separation from God that resulted from Adam and Eve's original sin, and have relationship with God, thereby allowing you entry into heaven. They feel somewhat secure and smug because since they've walked down the aisle and told the preacher that on faith they accept Jesus as Lord and his death as a sacrifice for their sins. Now that they are secure and not heading for hell when they die, they want to save you from hell fire.

Now, when you focus their attention on the truth, and do not directly attack the lies they have embraced as the word of God, the truth is so obvious, refreshing, and appealing to the spirit that they cannot help loving it. And they will begin to see their religion in light of the truth. Thereby, the atonement doctrine lie will merely fade away from their thinking and become a relic, just like many of the Jewish laws to which they still give some lip service. Yes, the law exists, but Christians ignore it for the most part (if they even know what it is). For example, they don't follow Jewish rules for kosher food, and they feel no guilt whatsoever for this. That's how they will someday feel about the atonement doctrine.

Here are some Q&A examples. Actually, they're A&Q because you give them the answer first, from scripture, then you ask the questions.

Examples:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Doesn't this mean that if I do the Father's will, I will go to heaven, no matter what else I believe?

Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Luke 9:34-35 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Don't these scriptures mean Jesus is the single most important authority for truth on this world, and that we should heed his words over all others? Isn't it God's will, then, that we believe all of Jesus' direct and unequivocal teachings? Who could possibly teach the gospel better than Jesus did? Did the spirit of the Father ever make such pronouncements about any other person? What does it mean that God "gave" his only begotten Son? Doesn't it mean he sent Jesus to this world to teach the gospel?

Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Doesn't this mean that someone who teaches a so-called "gospel" other than the gospel Jesus taught, that person is a "false prophet" whose teachings should be avoided to the extent they conflict with or fail to support the gospel of Jesus? Didn't Jesus also suggest that a bad fate is in store for people to deny little children the opportunity to hear his gospel and be with him? Isn't a so-called gospel that misleads children from the true gospel Jesus taught the same thing as a false gospel from a false prophet that "offends" those little ones who believe in Jesus?

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Doesn't this mean that God's spirit indwells my mind, and he does have a relationship with me, and I with him, no matter what else I believe? I'm not really separated from God, am I?

Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Isn't forgiveness necessary for entering heaven? Isn't the whole idea of the plan of salvation to receive forgiveness for sins? If you're forgiven, don't you already have a good relationship with God, and if so, how can you be separate from God? If you receive forgiveness by forgiving others, how can there be another requirement for forgiveness? If there were one, wouldn't Jesus have said so?

Matthew 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Does this mean that no matter what I believe about salvation, the divinity of Jesus, or even his death being sacrificial, that if I don't forgive others, I won't be forgiven, and therefore I won't go to heaven when I die?

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Isn't the above "Great Commission" a direct order from Jesus to teach his gospel and his commandments to all people? What were those commandments?

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Luke 4:43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
Matthew 16:20-23 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Since the "gospel" was being taught by Jesus very early in his public ministry, and since Jesus did not even mention his torture, death, resurrection, or divinity till years later (note Peter's astonishment), how could his death or the significance of it have been part of the gospel? And wasn't the teaching of the gospel the specific reason the Father sent Jesus to this world? So, please tell me: What was the real gospel if it contained nothing about Jesus' death, resurrection, or divinity?

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Doesn't this mean we have to believe in God the Father in order to be saved?

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22:35-40 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Luke 10:25-28 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matthew 23:11-12 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Wouldn't you say the above scriptures pretty much sum up the gospel? Isn't it important to know that believing "in" Jesus means first to accept his authority to teach, and second to believe what he says? Isn't this the gospel Jesus taught throughout his public ministry:

1) We should accept the reality that Our Heavenly Father loves us;
2) We should believe the fact that we, being his children, are each others' brothers and sisters, and we should love each other unselfishly and lovingly;
3) We should have faith in the effectiveness of the supreme desire to do the will of God - to be like him?

----------------

I believe it also important to point out the difference between gospel and gospel. The two words look the same, but, depending on context, they don't mean the same. The first four books of the New Testament are referred to as "the gospels", and Paul referred to his preachments as "the gospel." But neither of these are the same thing as the gospel teachings of Jesus. Jesus' teachings actually were and are the real gospel. The teachings of Peter or Paul might have been the gospel, and then, they might not. The stories in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts include much more than the actual teachings of Jesus, and while the stories of Jesus' life or the other events of his time might be interesting, inspiring, or uplifting, they are not the gospel he taught.

We can see from this use of the word gospel that the whole New Testament is couched as "gospel," and that fact gives rise to much confusion as to who is the real authority on the gospel. First of all, the real gospel is not necessarily a plan of salvation (how to escape death), but rather it is a plan for living life. Salvation is merely a consequence of living the gospel. Most of what Jesus taught had to do with changing people's view of reality so that they would be happier and live a more spiritually productive life. Instead of focusing on that, Christianity has focused on the highly selfish concerns of salvation, actually something of an escape from life and the physical death that is its natural consequence. That is precisely the opposite from what Jesus showed in his living. He embraced the death that was the consequence of his living, and he did not change his manner of living in order to escape it.

Most Christians are quite confused about the word gospel. They actually believe (or want to believe) that Jesus, Peter, and Paul all espoused the same gospel. But if you study closely the teachings of Jesus, you find that every single element of his comments that seems to support the atonement doctrine is not a direct, unequivocal teaching, but rather an obliquereference, an aside, or something of an afterthought tacked on to the ends of his alleged statements. Christians like to focus on these as a way of proving the truth of Paul's ideas about salvation. It is important to note that the gospels were not written till 30 or more years after Jesus' death, during which period Paul wielded considerable influence over the thinking of Peter and other teachers. As a result, the later compilers and editors of the four gospels did exert editorial influence over those records of Jesus' life and teachings.

------------

Here are some of the scriptures Christians use to "prove" Jesus taught the atonement doctrine (even though the above A&Q has thoroughly debunked that notion).

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

The above scripture seems to express that Jesus gave his life (died) as a ransom (human sacrifice), but it does not come out and say he died. Give his life means "live on this world." Ransom for many means his life here is a substitute for some more horrible fate. Most Christians do not know that Abraham practice human sacrifice, and that that pagan ritual was customary in his day. They do not know that 1500 years before Jesus arrived, Moses essentially out lawed human sacrifice with the ransom payment system whereby fathers would pay a ransom fee to the priesthood in lieu of murdering their first-born sons or giving those sons over to be servants of the priests. The ransom payment is a substitute for sacrifice. Further evidence that Jesus abhorred sacrifice is in his actions of driving the moneychangers and sacrificial creatures out of the temple, of refusing sacrificial meat at his last passover feast, and his instituting the bread and wine sacrament as a substitute for the practice of sacrifice, so as to forever wean his followers from sacrificial rituals. He also agreed with the man who said love was greater than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices (Mark 12:33-34). So, while Christians try to use the above scriptures as proof that Jesus' death was sacrificial in nature, it actually proves precisely the opposite. Note the obvious collusion of editors who put exactly the same text into two books of the bible. The likelihood that Matthew and Mark would both remember those exact words is slim. Note also the fact that the phrase to give his life as a ransom for many appears to be an out-of-context editorial appendage.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

These scriptures that describe the sacrament seem to imply Jesus' death was sacrificial (the shedding of innocent blood). In reality, Jesus is providing his followers with a sacrament that will forever be a substitute for the practice of sacrifice of any kind. And, he does this before he dies, rather than afterward, so it does not really refer to his actual death, but only an idea of his death. The sacrament of bread and wine is a symbolic substitute for the ritual of sacrifice, and its purpose was to dislodge the idea in the minds of his Jewish followers that sacrifice of any kind is efficacious. The bread and wine were just that: bread and wine. They were not Jesus' body or blood, and they did not (and do not) become Jesus' body or blood just because a priest blesses them. Note in the scriptures the obvious collusion of editors who put identical text into three books of the Bible. As far as we know, Luke never even met Jesus, and neither Luke nor John Mark were in the upper soom at the time of the last supper. So they had no first-hand knowledge of the bread and wine sacrament. Such evidence of editorial collusion indicates an almost conspiratorial desire to impose the atonement doctrine on readers of the bible. And, as you can see, the comment shed for many for the remission of sins looks like an out-of-context editorial addition. Even if Jesus did utter those words, they are still in the context of a sacrament that is a substitute for sacrifice, and therefore they cannot refer to Jesus' actual death as a sacrificial death.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The words gave and believeth in cause a lot of confusion for Christians. First of all they think the word gave means Jesus' death was sacrificial, but it clearly does not either say or allude to that idea. The word gave simply means Jesus was sent to this world by the Father to live and teach his gospel truths. Second, they think believeth in has some kind of mystical connotation, such as believing Jesus is a divine being, and that such a belief is necessary to salvation. It means no such thing. The word in could easily be omitted without changing the context of the sentence. It simply means that one must believe Jesus had the authority to teach, and that Jesus' teachings should be believed. After all, Jesus said in Luke 4:23 that he was sent to teach the (gospel of the) kingdom of God, and in John 7:16 that the doctrine he taught was from God.


I won't go into the many scriptures Christians like to quote from the apostle Paul's letters and from the book of Hebrews that support the Atonement doctrine. It is enough to say that if the gospel Jesus taught is true, then the atonement doctrine cannot be true, and that means Paul and Peter both were false prophets to the extent they portrayed the gospel as anything different from what Jesus taught. Since Jesus did not teach the atonement doctrine, but instead taught the gospel of love, forgiveness, service, and devotion to God's will, the atonement doctrine is merely an invention by his misguided followers.

There are some scriptures that clearly indicate how misguided they were.

In Acts 2:14-41 Peter launches his fiery Pentecost-day sermon in which he pronounces Jesus is the risen Christ. While that is true, it very clearly is not the gospel that the resurrected Jesus had, earlier that very day, ordered him to teach to all nations. Jesus' death and resurrection were, as I have pointed out in scripture, not part of his gospel message.

1 Corinthians 9:20-24 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.


In the above comment, Paul admits he is a prevaricator, and that he will say anything to convince others to go along with his teachings.

Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

In the above comment, Paul admits he is a moral weakling who does things he knows he should not do.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

In the above comment, Paul admits he is a usurper of the gospel, stealing authority from John Zebedee (a real apostle who was still alive and preaching at the time), and even from Jesus (who taught the real gospel of love, service, forgiveness, and devotion to God's will).

Galatians 1:15-20 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

It's just like a lawyer to lie and claim he's not lying. It is reasonable to conjecture that Paul went to Philadelphia, Arabia (now Amman, Jordan) and met the apostle Andrew, Peter's brother and the head of Jesus' apostles, as well as the head apostle of John the Baptist, and Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary. This was the town that was friendly to Jesus' teachings, and the last place Jesus taught on his teaching missions. Paul admitted he was blinded and told to go to Damascus to get further orders. Then suddenly he's off to Arabia. But he refuses to say what he learned there. What would he learn there and whom would he meet? He met the one apostle most loyal to Jesus' gospel teachings, Andrew, and Andrew's other associates, all of whom were intimately familiar with Jesus' teachings, first-hand. Why didn't Paul explain in his letter to the Galatians what he learned there? Why did he essentially lie about the experience? Because he did not agree with what Andrew and the others told him. And, what they told him was the real gospel.

Revelation 3:7-12 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

In case anyone doubts whether the church Andrew and his associates founded at Philadelphia was actually doing well, one need only review the first part of the book of Revelation. In the above quote, Jesus is allegedly saying (in John Zebedee's vision) that he favored the church at Philadelphia because it was loyal to his teachings. In the other text at the beginning of Revelation, Jesus denounces the other 6 churches for one reason or another. All of those churches were founded by Paul or Paul's followers. So, in effect, Jesus is denouncing Paul.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If you ever get a Christian to admit that Jesus' gospel and Paul's gospel were different and opposed in some respects, the Christian will then toss around for some other way to prove to you that Paul should be believed, and the above scripture is one of the favorites I've heard offered as such proof. To begin with, Paul is not exactly the most credible witness, as I have shown. But more than that, this scripture seems to imply that some parts of scripture apply to some people, and other parts to other people. Fundamentalist Christians like to claim that the application of the above scripture is to the teachings of Jesus versus those of Paul. They say that Jesus taught to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles, and that Jesus' gospel does not apply to Gentiles. In this, they are deluded. The Great Commission (Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19-20) prove that Jesus' gospel is for the entire world, not just the Jews. And his comments about false prophets in Matthew 17:15 and 24:24 are an appropriate warning against such sophistries as "rightly dividing the word of truth."

I don't recommend that you start denouncing Paul or Peter. That will only alienate Christians because they believe the whole New Testament is the holy word of God. However, you should know that the scriptures they love to quote to you come from men who were not loyal to Jesus' Great Commission.


-------------

Well, the above should give anyone a pretty good start in exposing the lie of the atonement doctrine without directly attacking it, and of revealing the gospel. Most Christians have an agenda - to proselytize lost sinners. By showing them scripture from the very Bible they believe is the inerrant, infallible holy word of God, then asking them questions to which the answers are obvious from scripture, you switch the agenda from theirs to yours, and you get them scrambling to answer the questions without looking like an utter fool. They cannot possibly adhere to the atonement doctrine if they embrace the above direct and unequivocal teachings of Jesus.

Bob Hurt

Citizenship and Jurisdiction: Why Americans Get Screwed in Court

If you want to see some case law that will make you want to rush out and lynch some federal judges, go to http://supremelaw.org and download and read the book The Federal Zone. In it author and attorney Paul Mitchel shows how the constitution provides for three basic meanings for the phrase "United States" and at least two meanings for "citizen." He demonstrates how the resulting confusion puts Americans in dire legal jeopardy, and how it makes judges and prosecutors complicit in stripping Americans of their rights, liberty, and property.

The impact of this confusion upon Americans is enormous. Let's analyze the issue a bit. First, let's address the meaning of United States.
1. Union - United States can mean the collection of states united by and under the Constitution. A better term would be the "Union of States". I shall refer to it herein as "Union" or "Union US"
2. Corporate - United States can also mean the corporate United states that includes federal enclaves, Washington D.C., territories and possessions (like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands). I shall refer to it herein as "Corporate" or "Corporate US".
3. USA - the collection of 1 and 2 above, including geography and jurisdiction, a nation in the collection of nations throughout the world.

Why is this confusing? You cannot be sure from context in any discussion or legal dispute what "United States" means. If its meaning is not specifically declared by the communicants, one can be referring to Union US, and the other can be referring to the Corporate US.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem because supreme law over the Corporate US is different from that over the Union US. The constitution is the supreme law of the land over the Union US, but it allows Congressional acts and resolutions to be the supreme law over the Corporate US. Note here that Congress is not a republic. It is a majority-rule democracy, and that means people under the jurisdiction of congressional resolutions are protected only by those resolution, and not by the Constitution.

It is also a problem because of the nature of your citizenship. If you claim to be a United States Citizen or a citizen of the United States, to which United States are you referring? And how do your rights as a citizen of the corporate or union US differ? Some provisions of law apply to Corporate US citizens without the requirement of conformance Constitution's powers and restrictions, some apply to to Union US citizens, some apply to both, and some apply to to people who are neither. It should be obvious, but often it is not clear who or what is the subject of the law.

This confusion is over citizenship and associated rights is compounded by other facts about law, jurisdiction, juries, judges, and courts. I shall go into them in a little detail here so as to enable you to build a mental picture of elements and relationships.
1. The Constitution empowers the various branches of government, and it is a social contract between people, the states of which they are citizens, and the federal government. It specifically restricts the federal government to hold only the powers specifically defined within it, and it reserves to the states or the people, respectively all other powers.
2. The Statutes-at-Large (SAL) are the actual annotated statutes passed by Congress through acts and resolutions They are maintained by the National Archives after Congress passes them.
3. The United States Code (USC) is a body of 50 titles of the codified statutes in which Congressional attorneys actually implement the intent of the Statutes at Large. Since these are not actually the statutes, in order for them to have full force and effect, they must be passed into positive law by Congress. In reality about 12 of the 50 have not been passed into positive law (including Title 26, the Internal Revenue code, and Title 31, the Banking Code). In spite of this, all federal judges consider USC to be prima facie evidence that corresponding law exists in the SAL.
4. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a body of law that should mirror the United States Code, but often does not. These are the regulations under which the Executive Branch governs America. A regulation is placed into the CFR by way of entry in the Federal Register. The CFR is in numerous places more restrictive or empowering than USC, but the courts have ruled that in order for a law to be binding, it must be in both the USC and the CFR.
5. The Uniform Commercial Code, adopted by all states, is a codification of equity law relating to contractual relationships. Even in criminal cases, this law can apply, particularly if you have, by your signature, agreed to perform to some contractual obligation. Any time you sign a government form, you are entering into a contract, and woe unto you if you do not properly reserve your common law rights to personal sovereignty in the process. For instance, when you sign a W-4 form to signify you are entitled to income tax exemptions, you are by implication attesting that you are a taxpayer for revenue purposes, and that subjects you to all the associated laws - it is an abrogation of your rights.
6. The "Common Law" of America is based on English Common Law and includes "case law" which makes it profoundly arduous and difficult to know what the law says in any given instance. Judges hate to overturn ruling of previous judges, even in cases two hundred years old when our society was completely different. So those old rulings become "precedents". In other words, regardless of what the words of the constitution, SAL, USC, or CFR say, an interpretation of one or more of those by a federal judge in an unrelated case many years ago actually becomes binding on all Americans today, even if the judge were drunk and derelict. This is one of the things that frightens so many citizens and legislators about Bush's nomination of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court. Nobody know her judicial tendencies because she has never been a judge. She might be one who will scoff at precedents, throwing massive confusion into our courts by opening the door to have every previous ruling challenged and overruled. Or she might be mindlessly subservient to precedent, no matter how illogical or inapplicable. She might see the constitution as supreme law, or some precedential ruling about it as supreme law. Nobody knows. It's scary. Worse than that, it's dangerous. In my opinion, precedent is highly over-rated, and too many judges use it as a convenient escape from freshly evaluating the constitution, statutes, and evidence to determine and render justice fairly.
7. In trials by juries, to which all Americans are entitled, the juries are supposed to be "peers" of similar background and social standing as the accused, and who know or are somewhat familiar with the accused personally. Otherwise, the juror is not a peer. Furthermore, juries are the last bastion of defense against high-handed usurpation of power and iniquitous rulings by judges, or collusions between prosecutors and judges who are paid by the same employer. They are entitled to evaluate and decide on matters of fact (whether various evidences are factual) and on matters of law (whether the law is understandable, the law is in accord with the constitution, the law is applicable in the case at hand, the judge and prosecutor are in collusion, or the defendant is innocent). The jury can overrule the judge. Unfortunately, most jurors are ignorant of this fact, and all prosecutors normally ask the judge to command the jury to consider only matters of fact (the judge tells the jurors what the law is and what it means, as though he is the only authority, an egregious usurpation of power). When defense counselors attempt to inform jurors that they have the right to throw the whole case out because it is unfair, the court is biased, the law does not apply, or the law is confusing, bad, or unconstitutional, judges clear out the jury and cite the defense counselor for contempt of court. Judges thereby effectively prevent justice from being done, and many innocent Americans are fined or sent to jail as a result.
8. The jurisdiction of a federal court can change based on the type of law over which it has the authority to rule, and that can change the entire nature of a case. In America there are courts of law, courts of equity, and admiralty courts. Courts of law and equity have been merged, to add to the confusion. The rules for these jurisdictions are different. Admiralty courts are supposed to govern maritime issues because they deal with interactions with foreign powers at sea, but they have jurisdiction only over international contracts. If you are "foreign" in citizenship status to the corporate United States, then jurisdiction switches from the rules of equity and law to the rules of admiralty. Quite often, you can be put into a situation of not knowing what kind of court you are in or which rules apply, and attorneys are often unaware of the issues too.
9. One's citizenship and residency status is unclear to most Americans. To the United States federal government, a State of the Union is "foreign." If you reside in the Corporate US (federal enclave, territory, or possession), you are a "resident." If you reside outside the Corporate US (in Texas, for example), you are a "non-resident." If you were born in the geographical area of a federal enclave, territory, or possession, such as Puerto Rico, you are a Corporate US citizen, but not a Union US citizen, and you are considered by the federal government of the United States of America to be a non-alien. If you were born in Germany and are a naturalized citizen, you are a federal non-alien because you are a Corporate US citizen. If you are a Union US citizen (by virtue of having been born in one of the states united under and by the Constitution), but you are not a Corporate US citizen, then you are an "alien" to the corporate United States. Note that a "state" is not necessarily one of the states of the union of states. 26 USC (and case law) indicates that a "state" can be one of the territories or possessions of the corporate US; the rules for them are different from the rules for states of the Union US. If you are both a natural-born citizen of a state of the Union US (Texas, for example), and you reside in a state of the Union US (Florida, for example), you are a Union US citizen, but not of the Corporate US, and from the Corporate US perspective, you are thereby a "non-resident alien." Most Americans are astonished by this revelation, about the same as they would be if they suddenly learned that they were adopted as infants. All of us Union US citizens tend to feel protected by the enormous and fatherly government of the USA, when in reality, that government of the USA is to us an "evil foreign empire," particularly when it comes to efforts to steal money from us through iniquitous tax laws like 26 USC.

What a nightmare this is if you get hauled into court and have to defend yourself, particularly if you are being prosecuted by a US Attorney on behalf of the IRS or some other agent of some department of the Executive Branch. Here's why:
1. You cannot trust the federal government, run by sometimes corrupt, bought-and-paid-for political officials elected by an increasingly ignorant and irresponsible constituency, to enact statutes that are in accord with the Constitution, nor can you trust attorneys working for non-elected officials appointed by a political president to encode the provisions of the acts into the CFR properly.
2. You cannot trust federal judges appointed by the president to explain the above realities to the defendant, nor to yield his authority to the jury.
3. You cannot trust a prosecutor to be more interested in justice than in seeing you in jail.
4. You cannot trust judges and prosecutors who are employees of the same corporate entity not to collude by secret or institutionalized unwritten agreement to deprive you of your rights.
5. You cannot expect a defense counselor, who is an officer of and by necessity to some degree in collusion with the court to give you a proper defense, or even to understand the subtle nuances of the above issues. A good defense counselor in federal court needs to study the Constitution, the statutes at large (a daunting task), the USC, the CFR, common law (including Uniform Commercial Code), case law, and the previous rulings of the judge before he is going to argue your case. I do not believe most attorneys are up to the task.
Clearly, the deck is intentionally stacked against your receiving justice in America's federal courts.

Let me give you just one example of the creeping injustice that is gradually enslaving all Americans. The Patriot Act imposes the requirement that banks get proper identification from patrons before allowing them to open accounts, and it requires that all foreigners show some kind of number similar to a social security number. However, it does not require that American citizens provide any such number to identify themselves. Attorneys for the various departments of the executive branch tore into the CFR to modify it so as to implement the Patriot Act. Many titles were changed. One was the title related to banking regulations. The CFR now requires Americans to have social security numbers to open accounts. Even though the SAL does not require the SSN, every bank will demand it or risk prosecution by US Attorneys at the behest of the Treasury Department of the Executive Branch of the United States government.

Maybe this doesn't bother you. It should. No law requires you to have a social security number. However, your life is made pure hell by such creeping encroachment on your rights if you don't have one. Your signature on a social security card application can be used as prima facie evidence that you are a Corporate US citizen, and therefore not protected by the Constitution as you otherwise would be if you were a Union US citizen.

Now, here's another example. When you sign a W-4 form to get income tax exemptions from your employee, you never indicate you are a non-resident alien and check the box that says "exempt." That is because you believe you are a resident non-alien, and you are an American citizen. Of course, the IRS officials advertise like crazy, sending tax forms to all Americans as though they owe direct income taxes in violation of the constitution's requirement that direct taxes must be apportioned among states. IRS officials and Treasury Department attorneys who advised congressional attorneys who drafted US code know that most people will think they ought to pay direct income taxes. So, no forms every clearly state that you aren't even subject or liable for to income tax as a non-resident alien of the Corporate US. But once you sign the binding W-4 contract without indicating you are a non-resident alien and therefore exempt from the income tax according to law, you have just confessed that you are a Corporate US citizen, and the IRS will take you at your word. Your employer, being utterly ignorant of these realities will happily take money from your check and hand it to the IRS.

When you go to court to dispute this, or for failing to file a 1040, or for failure to pay any tax owed, the US Attorney for the IRS will show the W-4 you signed, and the judge will accept it as evidence that are a Corporate US citizen, and therefore not protected by the Constitution's requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among states rather than taken directly from your pocket or paycheck. When your defense counselor ignorantly raises the issue about the apparent unconstitutionality of the law, the judge will tell him to shut up and threaten to cite him for contempt if he mentions the Constitution one more time. Why? Because the Constitution does not apply to or protect Corporate US citizens.

By this example you can see the reason 26USC has never been passed into positive law. It is a nightmare for hell for the typically ignorant Union US citizen and his ignorant attorney who barely studied these issues in law school.


I encourage all Union US citizens to clarify the nature of their citizenship on all government forms, and properly to reserve rights by signing "All rights reserved. Without prejudice. UCC 1-308" (note: it used to be UCC 1-207 but the text is the same). And if you get hauled into federal court you should say "no" when you are asked if you understand the charges against you, and never answer "yes." If you want more information on this, review Howard Freeman's comments at The Two United States and the Law, Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny, and The Zip Code Issue . And by all means, read The Federal Zone and its appendices (particularly Appendix A), the case law, and Paul Mitchell's and others' legal briefs and court filings at http://supremelaw.org. You are in for a revelation almost on a par with The Urantia Book.

# # #

Robert M Hurt III, Dead at 36

The photo shows my son Robert M Hurt III and Linda McIntire when they came from Virginia Beach to visit me and Maria in Clearwater Florida in June 2002. I'm writing to talk a little about Robby . He died at 10:45PM on 13 October 2005.

Robby was born 30 April 1969. He was 36 years old. He and Linda lived with her daughter Kayla (13) in their condo in Virginia Beach. Robby had two daughters - Jenny (13) who lives with her grandmother, my ex-wife, Cheryl in Blackwater, a rural southern suburb of Virginia Beach, and Kristen (8) who lives with her mother Rachel in Virginia Beach. Robby and Linda had been together for the past four or five years.

For the past several years, Robby had been an excellent foreign car salesman. He did his best to be a good and loving father to Kayla, Jenny, and Kristen. He is the type of man people like to love. He was outgoing, cheerful, gentle, and affable. He had a great sense of humor, was a good cook, and a sentient romanticist.

Late in 2004, Robby contracted pneumonia and just couldn't seem to shake it off for 5 months or more. Eventually, he was hospitalized and given antibiotics and rest, after which he returned home to recuperate. His problems began to mount, so he went back into the hospital for testing. The doctors concluded he had liver problems, and he was looking jaundiced. The medication they gave him didn't seem to work. Then they discovered he had a staphylococcus infection in his blood. They treated it with antibiotics, and he went back home to recuperate. His condition worsened, so he returned to the hospital for more diagnostics. The doctor found that he had a hole in his heart, but decided not to operate. Then, Robby suffered a stroke. A few days ago he began to bleed uncontrollably from the nose. On Tuesday, he suffered a violent epileptic seizure, even though he has no history of such seizures. The doctor performed a procedure to restrict blood flow to his nose so the bleeding would stop. Then the doctor informed Cheryl that Robby's liver was failing badly.

Cheryl did not believe Robby would live long. On his last day, he was sedated, on a respirator, and unable to answer phone calls. The only thing that could be done for him was to pray for a quick end to his suffering. He had requested not to have his life prolonged artificially, and Cheryl so ordered the doctor. Cheryl called to talk with me about it, and I agreed with her.

Cheryl and I shall not be alone in missing Robby. Nearly everybody who ever met him loves him, and he will be sorely missed. Robert M. Hurt III is survived by brothers and sisters Norman, Keith, Wendy, and Lorrie. As for me and Maria, we are facing our grief over the loss, knowing we do not feel it nearly as acutely as those who have witnessed his waning vitality. I am consoled in the knowledge that Robby's suffering has ended, and that he is passing through a period of rest to awaken in a new spiritual life where he is loved and able to love, and can enjoy the eternal adventure of coming to know, love, and be like God. He would wish that everyone could celebrate his entering the next phase of his spiritual existence.

# # #

My Complaints Against President GW Bush

Recently, a female friend of mine wrote:

" I, at least, have a basis in my opinions. Bush is an idiot, a zealot, a war monger, a spoiled little rich boy with real tanks and soldiers to play with, an imbecile who can't make change for $1.00 but can't live on a 300 billion dollar allowance. He is a thief, a lazy SOB, a coward, a liar and a fratboy who throws a mean BBQ. He is a college graduate who can't complete a sentence or compose a cohesive thought without the help of script writers. My opinion, of course. I believe at least 60% of the rest of the country agrees in all or in part with me."

This is my answer:

I mean no offense by calling you a YDD (Yellow Dog Democrat), meaning you'd rather vote for a yellow dog Democrat than a human Republican. That doesn't mean I'm calling you a dog, and it isn't like I'm calling you a slut. I'm sure if only you could find a Republican you thought were honest, loyal, etc, you wouldn't be voting for any dogs. I'm just saying you have no integrity when it comes to politics. You seek only to denigrate Republicans, regardless of who they are, what they stand for, or what they do. In other words, you're against them to the point of being irrational, disingenuous, and disagreeable.

Now, you CLAIM to have "basis in my opinions," but where's your proof? Your comments seem to come more from bias than basis. You have attacked Bush's character, not his actions or presidential philosophy, and you haven't proposed ANYTHING better than what he has done. Let's look at a few facts. Bush holds degrees from Yale and Harvard, so he is hardly an ignoramus, and he is a natural leader, having been president of his graduating class at Yale, run his own entrepreneurship, and made his own money from his own work. Plus, I am certain you cannot fault his choice for a wife, nor his moral character or religious devotion. He is true blue, does not screw around, and is loyal to family and friends. And, he has proven himself to be highly efficient and effective manager. In many ways, he is a model husband, father, and leader. So when you say all those bad things about him, I'm wondering where you get the data to support your beliefs.

Maybe you don't have the time or interest to discuss these issues honestly. That's okay. I have a lot more time on my hands than you do. And I study all the time, so I keep myself reasonably well informed. And when I discuss these issues, I nearly always do so with the intent to propose better solutions.

In point of fact, I believe Bush did the right thing in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, regardless of the reasons he forwarded. Iraq planned and financed the destruction of the Murrah building 10 years ago in Oklahoma city (see http://judicialwatch.org for the lawsuit against Iraq on behalf of the victims - it documents the evidence), there were WMD in Iraq that were spirited out on the eve of the invasion via truck convoy to Syria (see http://debka.com for details), and militant Muslims have been trying to take over non-Islamic lands through insurrection, wars, and terrorism for 14 centuries. They've been quite successful, if you look at the map. Over 20% of the world's land mass is dominated by criminal Islamic governments that condon crimes against humanity like slavery, clitoral amputation (wouldn't you love that) to keep women chaste, and other heinous inhumanities. Don't you think it's about time some American president jumped in and started calling a screeching halt to it? How much more of America do you want to see destroyed before the problem is corrected?

In social issues, Bush's policies have resulted in record high home ownership by minorities, reduced taxes to rich and poor alike, reduced deficit as a percentage of GNP, increased GNP, prescription drug benefits for the old, assistance in Africa to combat AIDs (which I believe is what killed my son), amnesty overtures to the poor Mexicans who have come here illegally to escape the economic horrors of their homeland (hey, there are 20,000+ Mexicans from the state of Hidalgo living in the area of Clearwater Florida), record-breaking disaster relief money for the areas and victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and major results with North Korea and Gaza. These are all noble ambitions of any liberal. Frankly, I don't think any Democrat president could have done any better.

And maybe that is part of my problem with him. Just so you know I see both sides of his issues clearly, note these complaints:

1. Our monetary system is a sham, and a strong and resolute presidency can lead in its repair, but George won't do it. Nothing of intrinsic value backs our dollars, and when Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez began selling oil for Euros in 1999, the foreign demand for dollars began a nosedive, necessitating both a CIA-sponsored oil strike in Venezuela and the invasion of Iraq. The dollar plummeted in value from 87 cents per Euro to $1.35 per Euro in 4 years. Now that Iraq is selling oil for dollars again, the dollar is beginning to normalize, and its value is $1.20 per Euro. If the invasion had not happened, the Euro would cost $2 by now, so we are lucky. On the other hand, had Bush outlawed Federal Reserve Notes, nationalized all gold and silver mines and bullion reserves (even foreign-owned reserves), and made all currency redeemable in gold or silver coin, the value of the dollar would be both stable and high because it would actually be worth more than the cost of printing it (which is its only intrinsic value now).

2. The president should push for outlawing deficit spending. Every deficit reduces the value of the currency in circulation and that causes so-called inflation. While he reduced front-end taxes a little, the inflation that results from deficits is the same as a back-end tax, only it is worse. No only is your paycheck worth less in buying power, but your savings are worth less too. It would be far better to pay our taxes on the front end so our savings would keep their value. Throughout your entire life, you've never known anything but deficit spending from our nation's leaders, and therefore nothing but inflation ranging from 6% to 16% per year. Strong presidential leadership will be required to fix this problem, and George won't give it. Part of the problem is the social security payout, and it can only be fixed by investing social security taxes in indexed stocks while increasing the retirement age to the average lifespan (now 78). The enormous welfare, hospitalization (medicaid), housing, and other entitlements for the poor are bankrupting the nation because they represent not only the loss to taxpayers of their hard-earned income, but also the loss of the income welfare recipients would get if they were forced to get their butts to work. And most of the welfare abuse is a result of the existence of over 75 million stupid people in our society, many of whom resort to crime and welfare abuse to get by because they cannot compete for the better jobs. The only solution to that is to eliminate the stupid, and the only humane method to sterilize stupid parents so they can't procreate more stupid children. Of course, Bush will not discuss this, and he certainly will not do anything about it.

3. The president should completely halt illegal immigration (that is one of his main jobs - to prevent a foreign invasion), forcibly return illegal immigrants to their homelands (billing foreign governments for the expense), and set a minimum IQ limit of 90 for all legal immigrants. America simply does not need more stupid people to clog the criminal justice system and welfare roles, and subsist through theft, drug dealing, racketeering, and other crimes. Bush wants to leave the borders porous and give amnesty to illegals. I consider that to be humane to them, inhumane to the citizenry who must foot the bill, and economically insane.

4. The president should push for a Manhattan-style project to eliminate America's dependence on fossil fuels for energy. The enormous energy bill is languishing in Congress. I know of numerous inventors who have been suppressed or murdered to prevent their energy-efficient devices from reaching the marketplace, and energy companies and automobile manufacturers are complicit in buying up patents and sitting on them forever to protect their profits. I consider this to be evil to the point of criminality, and the president should push Congress to outlaw it. Any company that buys or develops a patent should be given a maximum of 5 years to produce a product based on the technology, and after that to be forced to hand over the technology into the public domain. The rule should be "Use it or Lose it." Of course, Bush's family and cronies earn a lot of money from the oil business, so he'll never promote such a sensible thing, nor work aggressively to squash anyone found guilty of suppressing technology for profit to the detriment of society. Possibly one of the major reasons is that state and federal governments earn windfall revenues from taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. If water is fractured electrically to produce hydrogen and oxygen gas for fuel, there will be no further need for petroleum-based fuels, and that will kill the associated tax revenues, a hard pill for Congress to swallow.

5. The president should call a screeching halt to abuses by the IRS and Treasury Department against citizens. In fact it is a violation of the constitution for the government to tax people directly, but that is precisely what the IRS does every day. The grief and hardship to American families is enormous and outrageous. The president has a commission working on Tax reform proposals right now, but I know the IRS will be left in control of ruining Americans' lives.


These are my main complaints against Bush. Guess what? They are also my main complaints against Clinton, and all the other presidents since I was born. In my opinion, they are all derelict.


Now, the above are actual fact-based issues, really good reasons to be down on the president. All the name calling you did was disingenuous and only makes you look like a crackpot sourpuss YDD. Why not switch to fact-based issues that really are relevant? I'm sure the Republican party could use a few more people like you.

# # #

The Solution to Black Poverty and Oppression

The Solution to Black Poverty and Oppression

Jim Bernard wants to know:
 

As a fervent republican , how would you respond to this speech - if you were President Bush ?
NBA’s Etan Thomas, the Washington Wizards' Power Forward, delivered a blistering poetical speech as part of the weekend’s anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC.  While you peruse it, note the areas of bold typeface I added.
 
“ Giving all honor, thanks and praises to God for courage and wisdom, this is a very important rally. I'd like to thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts, feelings and concerns regarding a tremendous problem that we are currently facing. This problem is universal, transcending race, economic background, religion, and culture, and this problem is none other than the current administration which has set up shop in the White House.
 
In fact, I'd like to take some of these cats on a field trip. I want to get big yellow buses with no air conditioner and no seatbelts and round up Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Bush Jr. and Bush Sr., John Ashcroft, Giuliani, Ed Gillespie, Katherine Harris, that little bow-tied Tucker Carlson and any other right-wing conservative Republicans I can think of, and take them all on a trip to the average poor black neighborhood. Not to do no 30-minute documentary. I mean, I want to drop them off and leave them there, let them become one with the other side of the tracks, get them four mouths to feed and no welfare, have scare tactics run through them like a laxative, criticizing them for needing assistance.
 
I’d show them working families that make too much to receive welfare but not enough to make ends meet. I’d employ them with jobs with little security, let them know how it feels to be an employee at will, able to be fired at the drop of a hat. I’d take away their opportunities, then try their children as adults, sending their 13-year-old babies to life in prison. I’d sell them dreams of hopelessness while spoon-feeding their young with a daily dose of inferior education. I’d tell them no child shall be left behind, then take more money out of their schools, tell them to show and prove themselves on standardized exams testing their knowledge on things that they haven’t been taught, and then I’d call them inferior.
 
I’d soak into their interior notions of endless possibilities. I’d paint pictures of assisted productivity if they only agreed to be all they can be, dress them up with fatigues and boots with promises of pots of gold at the end of rainbows, free education to waste terrain on those who finish their bid. Then I’d close the lid on that barrel of fool’s gold by starting a war, sending their children into the midst of a hostile situation, and while they're worried about their babies being murdered and slain in foreign lands, I’d grace them with the pain of being sick and unable to get medicine.
 
Give them health benefits that barely cover the common cold. John Q. would become their reality as HMOs introduce them to the world of inferior care, filling their lungs with inadequate air, penny pinching at the expense of patients, doctors practicing medicine in an intricate web of rationing and regulations. Patients wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, costs rise and quality quickly deteriorates, but they say that managed care is cheaper. They’ll say that free choice in medicine will defeat the overall productivity, and as co-payments are steadily rising, I'll make their grandparents have to choose between buying their medicine and paying their rent.
 
Then I'd feed them hypocritical lines of being pro-life as the only Christian way to be. Then very contradictingly, I’d fight for the spread of the death penalty, as if thou shall not kill applies to babies but not to criminals.
 
Then I’d introduce them to those sworn to protect and serve, creating a curb in their trust in the law. I’d show them the nightsticks and plungers, the pepper spray and stun guns, the mace and magnums that they’d soon become acquainted with, the shakedowns and illegal search and seizures, the planted evidence, being stopped for no reason. Harassment ain’t even the half of it. Forty-one shots to two raised hands, cell phones and wallets that are confused with illegal contrabands. I’d introduce them to pigs who love making their guns click like wine glasses. Everlasting targets surrounded by bullets, making them a walking bull's eye, a living piñata, held at the mercy of police brutality, and then we’ll see if they finally weren’t aware of the truth, if their eyes weren’t finally open like a box of Pandora.
 
I’d show them how the other side of the tracks carries the weight of the world on our shoulders and how society seems to be holding us down with the force of a boulder. The bird of democracy flew the coop back in Florida. See, for some, and justice comes in packs like wolves in sheep's clothing. T.K.O.d by the right hooks of life, many are left staggering under the weight of the day, leaning against the ropes of hope. When your dreams have fallen on barren ground, it becomes difficult to keep pushing yourself forward like a train, administering pain like a doctor with a needle, their sequels continue more lethal than injections.
 
They keep telling us all is equal. I’d tell them that instead of giving tax breaks to the rich, financing corporate mergers and leading us into unnecessary wars and under-table dealings with Enron and Halliburton, maybe they can work on making society more peaceful. Instead, they take more and more money out of inner city schools, give up on the idea of rehabilitation and build more prisons for poor people. With unemployment continuing to rise like a deficit, it's no wonder why so many think that crime pays.
 
Maybe this trip will make them see the error of their ways. Or maybe next time, we'll just all get out and vote. And as far as their stay in the Whitehouse is concerned maybe it will end soon. "
 
Bob Hurt responds:
 
Etan is driven to complain, as shown in the bold-faced areas of his speech, that blacks don't get enough free benefits from government, and that they cannot compete effectively for well-paying jobs. 
 

1. He tries to blame it on flaws in the education system and on police brutality, but he neglects to mention that half the black children do not graduate from high school, and the reason is this:  many of them are unable to learn because they have low IQ because they were procreated by low-IQ parents who do not provide good role models, a proper diet, a sane environment, or a decent culture. 


2. He fails to mention that 70% of those children have no father at home because black men are irresponsible, due in part to the enormous public assistance their mates and children receive from their rich uncle, Sam. 


3. He ignores the reality that 20% of those children are born to children because parents do not rear their children to be moral and sexually responsible, and do not give them adequate supervision. 


4. He sidesteps the fact most black mothers have four or more children, even though they cannot adequately feed and clothe them, because the mothers are sexually irresponsible.


5. He acts as though all inner city blacks have an inalienable right to public assistance at the expense of others.  I do not see an inherent entitlement to welfare, nor a related government power to rob from the rich and give to the poor, enumerated in the constitution. 


6. No where did Etan complain that the hundreds thousands of public charities (including local churches) in America are too selfish to give impoverished blacks a helping hand.  Of course, he has no complaint because few poor blacks avail themselves of such charities.  First of all, few of them attend church, and second, they don't bother asking because they see the federal government as a big fat udder laden with warm milk for them to suck whenever they like. 

Most people with any sense think it is both stupid and unethical to rely on government assistance for support.  The problem is:  people like Etan, and folks from communities like the one from which he hails, don't have very much sense.
 
The bottom line is this:  Most of the racial problems in America stem from gene-based low IQ, the general unwillingness to face that fact frankly, and the refusal to set up systems to accomodate the stupid of today while gradually eliminating the stupid from future generations.  In other words, the problem is not racial differences, but rather it is low IQ and the fact that people like Etan Thomas don't use their bully pulpit to get their listeners to face the facts about low IQ. 
 
Blacks aren't alone in their suffering.  Their IQ averages 85, but Mexican IQ averages 87, and there are about 30 million Caucasians with IQ below 85.  I consider all people with IQ 85 and below to be relatively "stupid".  The nation does not properly employ them because we have allowed manufacturing to run offshore where labor is cheaper.  And our nation's schools do not properly channel low-IQ children into apprenticeships and life-long vocational training after they finish the 8th grade, the highest level a stupid child can tolerate.
 
The low IQ of blacks, non-white Hispanics, and Caucasians doesn't just affect them.  It also adversely affects our nation and our civilization.  Gross National Product is directly proportional to IQ, limited only by the nature of government.  For details, read about the Smart Fraction Theory at La Griffe du Lion's web site.  Thus, an over-sized population of stupid people is a direct cause of low productivity (GNP).  Right now, there are about 90 million Blacks and non-white Hispanics (many of whom have black ancestry) in America, and about 40 million of them are in the stupid category.  Of the 200 million Caucasians, about 33 million are stupid. 
 
Since America's wage base has forced so many labor jobs offshore, America doesn't need as many stupid laborers as it once did. Since the stupid are the largest users of the criminal justice system and welfare, and therefore a terrible productivity burden on the nation, we should get eliminate them from future generations, humanely, of course.  The way to do that is simple:  don't let them procreate.  Within 3 generations, there will be virtually no stupid people in America.
 
By preventing America's 73 million stupid people from procreating, the average IQ of the USA (compared to the 100 norm of the UK) will gradually rise to 110 or 115 , making the USA the smartest country on earth.  With an average IQ of 98 (same as China and Australia), the USA already has the world's highest per-capita GNP (over $29,000).  If my recommended program (see below) were implemented today, within 75 years the USA's GNP would jump to 35,000 or $40,000 in today's dollars.  In the process, we'd see dramatic reduction in money money wasted on criminal justice, welfare, education, and lost productivity, and in loss of life and property to stupid criminals who cannot compete for the better jobs.  As a consequence, the actual spendable reserves of the GNP would become enormous, enough to retire our national debt within a generation.
 
I'm not a Republican.  However, if I were a second-term president like George Bush, I'd start pushing Congress to amend the constitution as necessary to pass  laws that require this: 

1. Permanently sterilize all residents with an IQ below 90, all felons upon entering prison, and all insane people.


2. Temporarily sterilize all fecund minors (until they reach the age of 21), and all indigents and welfare recipients (till self-sufficient for 5 years).


3. Prohibit from voting all who are welfare recipients, felons, indigents, insane, under 25, or have an IQ less than 90.


4. Incentivize parents with IQ above 100 to have 4 children per family, and those with IQ above 120 to have at least 6 children per family.


5. Incentivize Northeastern Orientals, Ashkenazi Jews, and Europeans with IQ above 120 to emigrate to America.


6. Prohibit all persons with IQ below 100 from entering the country for any reason, including asylum.


7. Round up and eject all illegal aliens.


8. Require all welfare recipients to work at community service projects under careful supervision in exchange for their welfare checks, food stamps, and subsidized housing.


9. Incentivize state governments to set up separate vocational schools for students of IQ less than 90, and not educate such students acadamically beyond the 7th grade.


10. Ban teachers unions and incentivize state governments to require all students to attend school 11 hours per day, 6 days per week, 11 months per year.


11. Implement a crash program to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for energy.


12. Re-establish the precious metals standard for currency, nationalize all precious metal resources, and return currency production to the US Treasury.


13. Repudiate all indebtedness to the Federal Reserve and international banks.

I know what you're thinking:  "If there aren't any more stupid people left, who will do all the boring, labor-intensive jobs that will drive smart people crazy?"
 
Such a question ignores the reality that when the nation on the whole is smarter, it finds better ways to solve its labor problems than brute force.  A smarter population will handle most of its labor problems with technology.  Just one example is robotics.  Robotic vacuum cleaners are already available to clean floors in homes.
 
The question also ignores the fact that there will be sufficient people with IQs between 90 and 100 to handle the menial jobs with which technology has not already dispensed.  A college diploma is out of the question for nearly everyone of IQ below 110, and if primary education were properly rigorous, an IQ of 100 would be required to graduate from high school.  Because the population will be smarter, the standards of education will naturally rise, and that will still leave quite a few people in the lower IQ levels to fill available labor jobs.
 
In addition, the available labor jobs will also offer higher compensation because the society will be much more affluent.  As a result, laborers will not be inclined to resort to crime and welfare abuse to get by.
 
Oh, yes, I know some of the elements of are shocking, but so what?  For circumstances to improve, there must be changes. 
 
Here's the easiest intermediate step of reducing the ranks of the stupid in future generations:  A Cash-for-Gonads program.
 
The government could simply offer hard cash to low-IQ residents, welfare recipients, the indigent, and the insane in exchange for being permanently sterilized.  Most of them will be delighted.  I'd start with $10,000 per person.  A similar program could offer average and high-IQ fecund children $1000 for agreement to be sterilized temporarily via reversible vascectomy or tubal ligation.  Both programs should be promoted heavily on TV, Radio, newspapers, and so on.
 
A related program could offer large tax incentives to average and high-IQ parents to have more children.  Most such families have only 1 or 2 children, not enough to sustain the gene group.  They should be encouraged to produce 4 to 8 children, and as many as 20 if the family is wealthy.
 
The way to solve Etan Thomas' s complaints is to procreate fewer stupid and more smart Americans, not to give dwellers of black ghettos even more largess with which to breed ever larger families and commit ever greater abuses of our welfare, education, and criminal justice systems.
 
# # #

Why Hydrogen Power Won't Work

Why Hydrogen Power Won’t Work

I see a lot of discussion on hydrogen energy newsgroups about the benefits, reasons, etc, for hybrid (hydrogen from water and fossil fuels powering the automobile engine).  Frankly I think all of you are missing the point.  Numerous patents exist for cost-effective water electrolysis systems to produce hydrogen and oxygen.  Here are the reasons we don't have non-hybrid, water-only hydrogen power right now.

1.  Oil interests will murder, harass, or pay government to suppress anybody who invents a salient technology.  It is far cheaper to do that than to lose all their profits within the few years it takes to get the technology into wide spread use.

2.  State and federal governments raise enormous revenues from taxes on petroleum products, particularly gasoline and diesel fuel.  A water-only technology will destroy that tax base virtually overnight.  Government leaders are too short-sighted to plan for the tax-base shift, and too greedy to give up the money.


There you have it.  The two most powerful economic forces in the world, one with National Guard and military to enforce its inner sanctum dictums, and the other with its own private army of hooligans, will destroy anyone who threatens their revenues.



This reminds me of the story of Jesus.  His message was simple and easy.  God exists and is our heavenly father.  All humans are each others brothers and sisters, and we should love and serve them unselfishly and lovingly.  We should have faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the Father's will - to work to become like God.

Of course, his story was immediately warped by his followers, for most Christians (his followers today) do not believe embracing the above gospel will give them eternal life.

But the message was so innocuous and compatible with all world religions that one must wonder why the Jewish Temple rulers conspired to have him arrested, convicted on false testimony of false charges, and executed.

The answer is simple.  Jesus' gospel was a dire threat to the Temple Treasury and to the wealthy Temple rulers and their minions.  Had people embraced the gospel, they would have seen no need to pay for sacrificial creatures or subscribe to a plethora of Temple services that made the Temple so prosperous.  Their treasury is estimated to have been worth a hundred million dollars in today's money.

They killed him to preserve their cushy cash flow.

We can expect any revelators of the gospel of water-only hydrogen fuel cells to meet a similar fate.