Civil Disobedience ?
Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 7 months ago to Politics
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IMPOSSIBLE
=\=\=\=\=
Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power.
Civil disobedience is also a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole.
And civil disobedience is often defined as nonviolent resistance.
However, in a republican form of government, governments instituted to secure endowed rights cannot govern those who did not consent. The servant government cannot make demands, impose obedience, nor punish those who did not consent to be governed. Ergo, there can be no civil disobedience in the republican form.
Only those who consent to be governed, and transfer to the (indirect) democratic form of government can be disobedient. And since consent is a prerequisite, disobedience is contrary to reason as a remedy. Simply withdraw consent, and leave the democratic form.
Of course, the (m)asses who are unaware of how and when they gave consent, may be misled to presume that their only viable option is anarchy, civil disobedience, or worse - a slave rebellion. But that is another issue, entirely.
=:=:=:=:=:=
The following link is to a science fiction story that highlights some aspects of the benefits of the republican form and liberty money, but erroneously links it to civil disobedience.
“And Then There Were None”
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
=\=\=\=\=
Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power.
Civil disobedience is also a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole.
And civil disobedience is often defined as nonviolent resistance.
However, in a republican form of government, governments instituted to secure endowed rights cannot govern those who did not consent. The servant government cannot make demands, impose obedience, nor punish those who did not consent to be governed. Ergo, there can be no civil disobedience in the republican form.
Only those who consent to be governed, and transfer to the (indirect) democratic form of government can be disobedient. And since consent is a prerequisite, disobedience is contrary to reason as a remedy. Simply withdraw consent, and leave the democratic form.
Of course, the (m)asses who are unaware of how and when they gave consent, may be misled to presume that their only viable option is anarchy, civil disobedience, or worse - a slave rebellion. But that is another issue, entirely.
=:=:=:=:=:=
The following link is to a science fiction story that highlights some aspects of the benefits of the republican form and liberty money, but erroneously links it to civil disobedience.
“And Then There Were None”
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
If you were a victim of fraud, constructive fraud, misrepresentation or withholding of material fact, you have a ONE TIME "get out of Dodge" ticket and REVOKE your CONSENT (signature).
VITIATE. To impair; to make void or voidable; to cause to fail of force or effect. To destroy or annul, either entirely or in part, the legal efficacy and binding force of an act or instrument; as when it is said that FRAUD VITIATES A CONTRACT.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1572
WAIVE, v. To abandon, throw away, renounce, repudiate, or surrender a claim, a privilege, a right, or the opportunity to take advantage of some defect, irregularity, or wrong. To give up right or claim voluntarily.
A person is said to waive a benefit when he renounces or disclaims it, and he is said to waive a tort or injury when he abandons the remedy which the law gives him for it.
In order for one to "waive" a right, he must do it knowingly and be possessed of the facts. Barnhill v. Rubin, D.C.Tex., 46 F.Supp. 963, 966.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., P. 1580
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”
- - - United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878)
If you can SHOW fraud was used to get your consent, you can RENOUNCE the fraud and VOID all those pesky entanglements.
But you also have to surrender all claims to BENEFITS related to that FRAUD, or you void your denunciation, by your subsequent CONSENT.
FRAUD. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture. Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 464 A.2d 1243, 1251. A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald, 170 Okl. 117, 39 P.2d 150. "Bad faith" and "fraud" are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 660
One is social security number from birth. Another is being used as a tax deduction. A third is straight up propaganda.
The republican form of government states that governments are instituted among men to secure endowed rights and govern only those who consent. Since an infant cannot consent, it cannot be "born a citizen" under American law. And no law compels participation in social security (FICA).
But since 1933, the government has operated under "emergency rules" that bypass the USCON, so it is not a simple matter of arguing about what the government can or cannot do. But it does require our consent. Americans have to read the law for themselves, and withdraw consent, knowingly, willingly and intentionally.
Freedom ultimately means the power to say: "I won't."
The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law
Professor John Eidsmoe writes:
"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_...
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
Most Americans do not know how and when they consented to be governed. Here's one hint:
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
Militia duty only applies to citizens.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/N...