This abridged letter was written in response to a government claim in traffic court. If fits this JPFO comment.
⚠⚠⚠
In the instance of this open letter, The “You” I am specifically addressing is the syndicate called government and all its constituent members. You, government, often, if not daily, violate your raison d'être. You, government, often, if not daily, violate your alleged reason for existing.
You, government, are merely a reified mental construct, a concept treated as if you have physical existence. You, government, are an “artificial person.” You, government, are a “legal fiction.” You, government, do not exist absent your constituent members, be they officers, employees, or elected officials.
Per your organic document titled the “Declaration of Independence” your purpose is to protect people's rights. The right to life is an individual right. The right to liberty is an individual right. The right to pursue happiness is an individual right. Thus, your purpose is to protect individual rights.
I have FRE #602, personal first hand knowledge of the words of the Declaration of Independence. This organic document that purports to give you, government, authority over me.
The Declaration of Independence, states in part:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable 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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
This organic document claims “just powers,” that is to say “authority,” over “the governed” by the “consent of the governed.”
You, government, can NOT prove I consented to your alleged authority. Assuming arguendo that any consent was given in the first place, if this alleged consent can not be withdrawn, then it was never consent.
In order for one to consent (give permission), one needs to be presented with a choice. I was never presented with a choice; I was never asked for my consent to be governed; Nor was I given a list of the terms I would be consenting to.
Per your own rules, FRE#602, any witness you could call to testify that I was given a choice; that I was given sufficient, pertinent, and specific information in order to make an informed choice; and that I actually consented. Such a witness would be committing perjury for the simple fact that I was not given a choice; I was not given sufficient information to make an informed choice; and I have NOT consented.
What I have just presented in the previous paragraph is the exact same problem you, government, would have proving a slave in the early 1800's gave specific and informed consent to being a slave and obeying his owner's every edict.
Absent my express consent, your powers over me are NOT just powers. In fact quite the opposite: they are “unjust” powers. Absent my express consent, your actions of using the powers, the force, of you, government, to control me is no more than “Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you” extortion.
Any consent, imagined, made up, implied, that you could claim, I hereby, publicly, for all to see, again refute and deny.
I, Dale Eastman, DO NOT CONSENT to your governance, nor to your alleged authority over my self.
I, Dale Eastman, DO NOT CONSENT to your extortion of threatening to harm me, be it fines, incarceration, or killing me for refusing to obey your tyrannical edicts.
The simple logic that “All humans are created with the same lack of authority over any other humans” creates another problem for you, government. This includes any elected, appointed, or employed person working in, for, or as you, government.
I DO NOT CONSENT to being governed by other humans, created equal as I, lacking authority over any other.
Any human or other entity who lacks authority over me can NOT give or delegate the authority they do not have to any other entity. No human can consent for another human without express authority to act as an agent for the principal. I have not given express consent or express authority to any other human or entity to consent, in my stead, to being governed by you, government.
These are the words of a semi famous liberty advocate. The logic stands on its own.
There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction.
A critical examination of the alleged authority of you, government, will of necessity be an examination of where this authority is purported to originate. This examination thus begins at the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
This Preamble states in part:
We the People of the United States, [...] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
An internet search finds that “To ordain is to make an ordinance, to enact a law.” Both of which are orders to others to do, or not to do, some thing. To ordain or to enact a law requires non bogus authority, else they are non binding opinions.
Since “All humans are created with the same lack of authority over any other humans,” this includes “We the People” long dead as well as any of “We the People” presently alive.
Do you, government, have any documentation or evidence that any of the “rules” in the Constitution apply to me?
As the above examinations show, you, government, do not have any non bogus authority over me.
Quoting one of the High Priests of your religious cult of lawyers and attorneys, in
the 1886 case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins; 118 U.S. 356, 370; Mr. Justice Matthews proclaimed:
For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
Prior to the quoted words, on that same page, the High Priest of the cult admitted to who the Sovereign is.
What is a human to do when faced with an extortionist demanding “Give me your money or I will hurt you”? What is a human to do when faced with an extortionist demanding surrender of their liberty? What is a human to do when faced with an oppressive tyrannical government extorting compliance of its dictates? What am I to do when I learn that the government that claims authority over me is tyrannical, criminal, extortionist, and tells lies because its actions do not align with its own propaganda and organic documents?
“[Y]ou can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
- Robert A. Heinlein
YDOM! You Don't Own Me.
The best, you, government can do is prove my claim: Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
Freedom. I Won't!
Dale Eastman.
May 10, 2021
⚠⚠⚠
Dale Eastman TLDR. Bottom line: Hell no, Joe! You say you're taking them. I say I'm keeping them. Your move!
At least we agree on "Hell no."
You have no idea how much TLDR annoys me. That's a claim of I don't want to learn what has been presented.
Carry on.
Dale Eastman That's not "a claim of I don't want to learn what has been presented," it is a rejection of reading what is obviously copy-paste boilerplate, in all likelihood authored by legend-in-their-own-mind "sovereign" groups, secure in their assumption that they know enough about constitutional law to craft a cogent anti-government manifesto. You think I haven't seen this kind of thing?
So go ahead and be annoyed, it is not merely too long but vastly too specious, to say nothing of what I already said about it being the product of another hand. So be it.
Oh, and hell no Joe.
Whatever... Statist.
That is FUCKING HILARIOUS!!! I have been fighting Communism and Socialism all my life, you rude little punk. And I have forgotten more than you'll ever know about the Constitution, far beyond your pathetic ability to copy and paste, so I really do not give 1/2 a shit about your opinion. You are dismissed.
Mr. , Thank you for your invitation to continue our discussion. A discussion YOU initiated by replying to my post... Just to say, "To long, didn't read."
You could have used the scroll bar without pausing to reply. You didn't.
Now as a Boomer, I've been interacting with humans for some time now. In doing so I have learned to think about other people's motivations. You claim you didn't read what I wrote, but still had the emotional need to comment on about what I wrote. So I ask myself, what emotion would trigger somebody to comment on something they claimed they didn't read?
Calling a Boomer a punk... Now "That is FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!"
➽ And I have forgotten more than you'll ever know about the Constitution,
Like I said: "Statist".
⚠In political science, statism is the doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree. This may include economic and social policy, especially in regard to taxation and the means of production. Wikipedia⚠
I'm guessing you have zero knowledge of Lysander Spooner and his treatise titled NO TREASON - THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY. It's longer than ten words so it might be above your attention span. Now "That [comment] is FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!"
➽ far beyond your pathetic ability to copy and paste,
There's a difference between nescient and ignorant. IMO, ignorant is a choice to not know. Nescient simply means does not know. What you do NOT know about me is that my website has existed since 2005. What you found To Long because of your deficit attention span are the words I wrote.
➽ I have been fighting Communism and Socialism all my life
Good for you.
I am PRESENTLY fighting tyranny with my words. Words you are too lazy, or dare I say, too AFRAID, to read. Words designed to get statists to critically think about their brainwashed beliefs.
➽ in all likelihood authored by legend-in-their-own-mind "sovereign" groups, secure in their assumption that they know enough about constitutional law to craft a cogent anti-government manifesto.
I... Am NOT a group. And your implication that I did NOT craft "a cogent anti-government manifesto" allows me to specifically challenge you to go through what I wrote, point by point, to find any error that negates that which follows.
My experience with statists is that they start and never finish discussions. And that's only when I find a statist with the hutzpah to even begin the discussion. If you're a goy like me, you might have to look up hutzpah.
➽ You are dismissed.
I dismissed you when I posted: Whatever... Statist.
Yet here you are interacting with me... About a post that was too long for you to read.
A touch less than 1,300 words. I've read sentences in fed tax law that are longer.
