Eric Williams: Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury
WATCH ON YOU TUBE
ARKANSAS, USA – In an ExopoliticsTV interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre, advocate Eric Williams discussed Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury as conceived under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution.
A partial transcript of Eric Williams remarks is as follows:
First, why does everyone insist on making the assertion of political Sovereignty so complicated when it is actually so very simple?
Back in 1970, I was prosecuted by the IRS in Federal Court in Los Angeles, for criminal willful failure to file or pay income tax. At the trial, at the very outset, I challenged the IRS prosecutor to present evidence that I was among those he claimed had various citizenship obligations.
When my case was called, there were only five people in the court room ....
After I say the prosecutor has no proof of BC in his file......
When neither the Court Judge nor the Prosecutor could establish that I had volunteered myself into being a U.S. citizen, no matter that to the best of my knowledge I was born in California. (Being born in the United States does NOT cause such individual to be designated a citizen due to such birth.) Because the IRS could not establish that I had voluntarily submitted myself to the jurisdiction of the IRS or Federal (or state) government , the Judge said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago, I am still waiting.
Some people assume that because my event was forty-four years ago that challenging the political jurisdiction would not now work. During the past year there have been several people who have presented letters to the IRS challenging the ability of the IRS to present evidence that they had volunteered themselves into subservience to the IRS or federal or state governments. I am not aware that any of such letters have failed to ward off the IRS or State tax collectors. Some of these individuals are still using their DL and SS# under the Law of necessity recognized by the Supreme Court in a case called Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892?)
, where the Supreme Court wrote that when the strict application of the letter of a law or Constitutional provision would result in an absurd outcome, the law of Constitutional provision must be applied in a manner to avoid the absurd outcome.
. My challenge was and is based on the 13th and 14th Amendments, which have not changed.
Because so much of what was prevalent back in the 1960s did not work, I went back to the beginning of this country, back to July 4, 1776, Prior to that date, everyone here in the Thirteen Colonies was under the dominion of King George III.
However, on that date, when King George was kicked out, at that moment there was absolutely no government here in what had a moment prior been under King George. At that moment on that day everyone present became politically equal. There were no more Aristocrats and there were no more commoners. Everyone became individually sovereign over their own person, with no authority to command the subservience of any other person.
It helps if we think of it mathematically. Think of each individual person's authority over others as being equal to ZERO. When each person's authority over others is equal to ZERO, how many ZEROs would be required to be added up to come up with a total greater than ZERO?
This establishes, with a mathematical certainty, that although the Founding Fathers could certainly get together and create any manner of organization that they agreed upon, but there was ZERO possibility that the Founders could have had any authority or ability to imbue their creation with any authority to command the subservience of any individual who did not individually volunteer to submit his or her self to the government created under their Constitution. ZERO plus ZERO would still equal ZERO, and in 1866, the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment instilled the acknowledgment of this mathematically certain fact into our Constitution.
This information is not at all complicated, it is very simple and does not require any significant study or research for anyone to be able to understand it! Neither does it require anyone to file any rescission documents with any government agency.
All we need to do is examine how our government manages our society to entice us individually, to volunteer ourselves into subservience to its rules.
It is very important for those who have been confused by all the conflicting information prevalent among the Freedom movement, to understand how vulnerable the human child is to indoctrination, and that this vulnerability does not significantly diminish as we grow older.
Thinking is very hard work and none of us like to do any more work than is necessary, so when others tell us what we want to hear. when they tell us they have a solution in regard to bow we got under control of the government, because our names are written in all capital letters, or because of gold fringe on the flag, and that the government has taken over ownership of us through its bundling and sale of our birth certificates, and that our republican form of government has been turned into a corporation, we presume that those who tell us these things have done their homework , but they have not, as I have revealed here in what I said earlier, about how ZERO plus ZERO will always equal ZERO!
When this mathematically certain fact is applied to all the information the effect of all these assertions just vanishes, because none of it overcomes ZERO plus ZERO equaling ZERO!
As this is irrefutably true, it is not possible for any of the reasons prevalent among the Freedom community to be true!
So how were we enticed to volunteer ourselves into political servitude?
1. The Constitution was written by Aristocratic men who were politicians who had been in charge of the commoners under the British Monarch for, literally, centuries. For all of them to willingly give up their Aristocratic positions, to agree to be politically equal to scrub women and stablemen, without a whimper, is just too much to believe. It is amazing to me that very few of the members of the Freedom movement have any qualms about the true intent of the Founders.
2. They were politicians. This means they were accomplished in manipulating others. This means that they knew very well how to write legislation so that there would be loop-holes for themselves and their friends to work around whatever they were imposing on the commoners. And, it also means they knew how to writs a Constitution where there would be no such loop holes, so why did they give us this sieve? For whose benefit were all those hole provided? Or, flip that, and consider, who was it that was intended to be enslaved under the Constitution?
3. Just take a look around! Try your mirror! The one that magnifies!
4. An argument can be made to establish that everything that has been and is being done is supported by the CONstitution! Everyone reads the comments and admonishments of the Founders written or presented by them outside of the CONstitution, as to how important it is to keep a watchful eye on the government, to keep it on track with the CONstitution, but why did they not write the CONstitution to more securely prevent the problems they perceived as arising if the populace was not unrealistically vigilant.
Is it reasonable that we should have to continually watch everything that politicians do in order to keep them in conformance to the Constitution? And when the rules set down in the CONstitution are written in a way that the politicians can reasonably support everything that they do as being Constitutional, how do we prevent them from instituting the micro-management of us that they have?
5. The commoners of that time wanted and expected a society where there would only be one political class. A republic is NOT such an organization! No where in the history of man is there one single society that has been "governed" by the commoners or where there was only one political class.
6. Why were those present back then and why are the Freedom advocates of today so adamant in their concerns and demands in regard to having and restoring a republican form of government back then and here in our time? Or, was there any such advocacy or demand on the part of the commoners back then? I don't recall ever hearing about any such issue by those commoners, so why did the Aristocratic Framers of the CONstitution include that provision, guaranteeing a republican form of government to the new states? And why do the filings of the New York Grand Jury put such adamant insistence that this CONsitutional provision which they seem to believe and claim has been in some way eradicated, be restored?
7. Where in the Federal Constitution is there any overt evidence declaring that this document created a republic? What is a republic? According to the content of there filings and the foot notes included therein, a republic is a form of society where the People are in charge. In charge of what or who? One of the foot notes included, taken from the New York State Codes, provides that the People are over the citizens. Does that foot note not indicate that there are two political classes? The People being the ruling class and the citizens being those ruled?
8. In regard to the words "citizen" and "People", some words have an inherent political meaning and some do not, but those words which do not can be imbued with a political meaning if the context in which they are set is political. And while we are considering this it is also advisable to be aware of the propensity of politicians to use certain words as "terms of art", which means with devious unrevealed intent.
9. It is self evident that the word "citizen" is a political word which constitutes an acknowledgment of subservience to a political superior no matter the context, such as, "All the citizens in the swimming pool or all the citizens watching the football game". Is there any doubt that both references to citizens indicate a subservience to a political superior?
10. If the word "people" were substituted would there be any such political subservience implication? "All the people in the swimming pool or all the people watching the football game"?
11. If we carefully read the Preamble to the Constitution, paying attention to this political context in which the word "People" is set, we have, in relevant part: "We the People of the United States, in order to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
12. Is it not self evident that in this political context the word "People" is automatically imbued with a political meaning, that it is now a political "Term of Art", that devious politicians can use to subjugate innocent common people?
As they did in their condensing and rewording of the fifty amendments to the Constitution proposed by the commoners, where they used the word "people" in the five most critical of those amendments, and totally avoided using the word "citizen", because if they had used both of those political status establishing words, the commoners would have objected.
13. The purpose of the Preamble is very important but is usually overlooked. The Preamble establishes the purpose of the Constitution and declares the source of its authority, which is clearly stated to be The People of the United States, "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to THEM, and THEIR Posterity".
14. In order to have the authority to declare such purpose those doing so must be politically Sovereign! Those doing so must be subservient to no politically superior man or entity.
15. At that time was there anyone or any entity present in North America who had more political authority than the People of the United States? Clearly there was no such superior authority.
16. In the Preamble the Founding Fathers established that the People of the United States were Sovereign. This meant that neither They nor Their Posterity would be subject to comply with what they established in the Constitution. This indicates the purpose of the Constitution was to govern the government, to prevent it from treating the commoners as a politically subservient class.
However, a careful study of the Constitution, with a suspicious eye, will reveal that the Founding Fathers had a different intention.
17. The establishment in the Preamble of the Sovereign status of The People was open and notoriously done. Everyone then present knew that they were of the People of the United States so no problem was perceived, except by Patrick Henry, when Patrick Henry read the CONstitution he said he smelled a rat and he would have no more to do with it.
18. Now is where the Founding politicians get tricky and devious. These politicians creating this political document are going to unambiguously and surreptitiously create a subservient political class, citizen of the United States.
19. This is in Section Two of Article One, where it is made clear that U.S. citizenship is not acquired by birth because it provides that to serve in the House, the citizen must be twenty-five years old and seven years a citizen; and to serve in the Senate, Thirty years old and nine years a citizen.
20. Please take note here that there are no limiting eligibility requirements established for those of the ruling People class to serve in any of the offices of the Federal Government.
21. So there now, the Founders created heir subservient commoner class, causing the political entity, the United States of America to be a Republic.
22. Do these provisions give us cause to have some concerns about the actual parental intentions of the "Founding Fathers"?
23. Am I the only one who perceives a concern in regard to the word "republic" being used here in the Constitution and in the filings of the New York Grand Jury, because I see the word "republic" in the official names of about a hundred totalitarian dictatorships on this planet? Such as "The People's Republic of China", and "The Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea".
24. I have written about this in other comments on Jean's Blog, as to why the Founders included this Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government in all the states, being so that all of those of the "former" aristocratic class could move to an outlaying territory and create a Dukedom for themselves where they could have control over their own subjects, except here we would call them states, and Governors rather than Dukedoms and Dukes, and citizens rather than subjects. What is the significant difference?
25. In regard to the filings of the New York Common Law Grand Jury, rejected by the New York State Courts, who was it that included in those rejected filings all of the exceedingly strong emphasis in regard to the demand therein that the CONstitutional guarantee that every state have a republican form of government be honored?
26. What has that got to do with the re-establishment of the Peoples Control over the Common Law Grand Juries? And why would the advocates of the Common Law Grand Juries want the provision establishing two political classes be honored by the Federal Government?
27. Wouldn't it be expected that whomever had the intellectual skills to create those beautifully crafted very emotionally stimulating documents, would have had the intellectual ability to see the need for a further examination of the propriety of the use of the word "republic" here, in a society purported to be Free, where all us commoners are led to believe there is only one political class, and where the Supreme Court wrote in the Dred Scott case in 1864, that the terms citizen of the United States and People of the United States, both had the same meaning. And when we observe the word "republic" so flagrantly obvious in the names of so many totalitarian dictatorships?
28. All of this ranting to restore the republic has caused great confusion here among the common people, especially in their very divergent opinions and beliefs as to what is Constitutional and what is Unconstitutional. We all agree that we want lower taxes and less government, but when "everyone" has a different opinion as to what constitutes "lower"and "less", how can we ever attain either?
29. Does not this dilemma indicate that we all need to back up and take an unbiased view of what would actually be a proper form of society? If we start at the beginning - well what then is the beginning?
30. Well, I contend that everyone who is reasonable will have to agree that when we humans are born that we then have no knowledge of human society or of anything and, of the utmost importance, we have no frame of reference against which we can compare what we are taught, to enable us to properly determine if such information is good for us or good for whomever was teaching it to us. Can there be any reasonable reason anyone could refuse to acknowledge this self evident fact?
31. While we are considering our birth condition, surly we can all acknowledge that when we are born we have no Naturally imbued authority to command anyone to obey us. Can there be any reasonable reason anyone could refuse to acknowledge this self evident fact? That when we are born our political authority over others is mathematically equal to ZERO?
32. Do not these two self evident facts clearly establish that as none of us are born with any individual authority to command others that it would then be totally ridiculous and impossible for any number of us to purport to have an ability to combine our non existing individual authority in order for a "majority" to create an authority to command the "minority" to obey them. That no matter how many ZEROs are added together, the total will always be ZERO.
33. From where could authority for a majority to command the minority to obey, reasonably arise?
34. As it is self evident that no one has any Natural authority to lay a tax on anyone then is it not then equally self evident that it would be impossible for such impotent individuals to combine their non-existing ZERO authority in order to create an authority to lay a tax on anyone?
35. Does not this reasoning clearly establish that the level of lower taxation that is proper is no taxation at all and likewise establish that what properly constitutes less government is no government at all?
36. If anyone listening does not agree with this logic, would you please point out its defective reasoning?
37. Well, many listeners will argue, "We must have some rules!" Yes, that sure does sound reasonable, but who will decide what those rules will be and who they will apply to? "Well we must at least outlaw abortion and child molestation, and we certainly can't allow people to gather rain water from the roofs of their houses!"
38, If we allow our emotions to control us we will soon wind up right back where we are. The one and only way is to acknowledge that zero plus zero always equals zero, and that this basic Principle is true no matter how emotionally large we make the zeros!
39. The way criminal behavior is controlled in a Truly Free society is through the Common Lay Jury.
40. In a Truly Free society, when a person contends they have been criminally victimized, the victim files a report with the Sheriff; the Sheriff presents the complaint to the Grand Jury, if the GJ agrees that it appears that a crime has been committed, the GJ will empanel a petit jury to hold a trial. After a full and proper examination, as determined by the jury and the defendant and victim, each of the jury members will consider the facts and determine that if the juror had been in the same situation as the accused, and had acted as had the accused, would the juror feel that he or she had acted properly or criminally? If the jurors reach a unanimous decision of guilt,, that same jury would decide the penalty and the community would enforce it.
So how do we individually become subservient to the government?
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
Eric Williams - Commentary
Eric Williams - Discussion Group
Eric Williams: Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury