Archive for the ‘Legal Fiction’ Category

Unalienable or Inalienable

April 19, 2017

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-A4

by Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 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 to 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.” 

The Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776, 2nd paragraph

 

Does it matter if your rights are unalienable, inalienable or alienable? Many have no idea what these words truly mean in context of what was written in the Declaration of Independence. Look at the article from the following link.

https://fee.org/articles/why-it-matters-that-some-rights-are-inalienable/

Although the link above is an interesting read (and I did read it word for word), it fails to use the word as written, in the familiar clause of the Declaration of Independence. That word is, “unalienable” and not “inalienable” as used in the title of the afore mentioned and linked article. It fails to define the word “unalienable” and like our rights, it cannot be separated from the source from which they are derived which is, “their [our] creator,’ God. And finally, the article fails in that it does not show original intent of our founders that authored it (WE the People are the authors), and written by, Thomas Jefferson, one among us, WE the People.

Our founders, many of which were from England and influenced by the work of John Locke, English jurisprudence (English Law) and were familiar with the words “inalienable” and “alienable” as they relate to property rights, to rights of property. But this was not, absolutely not, what their intentions were, in the Declaration of Independence or how the words were used, in the context of this document. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” are certainly not referring to mere property rights.

Very, very simply, the words “unalienable” or “inalienable,” which as defined in most any dictionary are, exactly the same. Both can be understood by the root word, “alien.” Basically, something or someone that is “alien” or is, an “alien” is, foreign or just not from here. What separates us from any other foreigner or alien? These “truths” were written down, put into and left, in our founding documents. It is a record. It was recorded. It is a recording and like a sound recording, is considered more permanent than having to rely on the fragility of memory which is prone to leave out, put in or change things over time. Let me say that again in another way. The only thing that makes us UN-aliens any different from any other alien outside of this country is that we put our rights into writing. They are the laws of our republic. We are all aliens, but our rights are unalienable and are given by “their [our] creator,” God. If they are given by people, they are not rights, but privileges and could be bought, sold, given away or forcibly taken. They would be then, alienable privileges, but they are not. One cannot separate another from their unalienable rights, any more than they can separate the source of Him, “their [our] creator,” God that gave them, gives them freely to all, for all are, “created equal!”

Having written those things, I will leave a link below, which digs into the depth of these two words, “unalienable” and “inalienable.” Even though they are defined the same in a dictionary today, were both understood as the same in the 18th century and there were even drafts of the Declaration of Independence that used the word “inalienable,” before the final document which used, “unalienable,” most courts, corporations, and even state constitutions, only recognize inalienable rights. According to their interpretation, those rights are separate from unalienable rights and can be transferred with your permission or without it if, the court, corporation, and/or state decides it so. This is a perversion, an interpretation, a corruption; a usurpation of our unalienable rights, given freely by “their [our] creator,” God, for those rights cannot be bought, sold, bartered, transferred or taken away, with or without our permission! Why not? Because we are all aliens or foreigners in a strange land. We are pilgrims. We are just passing through. We and our unalienable rights will all one day, return to the source that gave them, “their [our] creator,” God.

Understanding of these things is of paramount importance! In addition to separating the words “unalienable” and “inalienable,” though they are defined as the same, there are those which believe the Declaration of Independence, has no place in our government nor standing, in any court of Law. There are those which believe that the preamble to our Constitution, has no place or standing, in any court of law.

The We that hold “these truths” are, the same WE behind, “We the People.”

The “We” that hold “these truths” are, the same WE behind, “We the People.” The Declaration of Independence cannot be separated from, The Constitution of the United States of America. And the preamble to the same, cannot be separated from the document including, the ‘Bill of Rights.’

To separate unalienable from inalienable, seeks to separate rights from “their [our] creator,’ God, whom gave them, from  “their [our] creator,’ God, God, being just a figure of speech, a legal fiction when in fact, it is humans (governments) that give us those rights (privileges) and can therefore, take them away? As no one can separate the Preamble from the Constitution from or the Bill of Rights, no one can separate the Constitution (a more perfect union) from, the Bill of Rights, all which are given limited power by consent of the people, to protect the rights of the People. And no one can separate the Constitution (the protector of these rights) from the Declaration of Independence (the declarer of those rights and from whence those rights have come (“their [our] creator,” God.

There are those that believe we are a democracy (rule by majority) as opposed to a republic (rule by law, a representative government). There are those that believe the electoral college should be eliminated and presidential elections should be decided by popular vote. Popular vote is, democracy, rule by majority. This is not the same thing as a republic, the rule by law, a representative government.

Nothing could be more clear in understanding the failures of democracy and the intent of the republic, than a map of the United States showing by county and by colors red or blue from the national election, November 8th, 2016. The popular vote (majority of votes) is in blue and the electoral college votes, in red.

The popular (majority) vote is in blue and the electoral college votes are in red

 

Votes from the areas in blue above show both where the majority of the votes were received and are where the majority of the people live in the USA. But it is obvious that not everyone lives in the blue areas. To control the government in this manner, all one needs to do is to receive the majority of the votes from where the majority of the people live. Now I ask you, which color (blue or red) truly is more representative of the United States? If you ca see red, then this is indicative of a republic, a representative government in action and our founders original intent. If you still desire the blue, a majority, a democracy, this was not our founders intent and you should seek to legally amend our Constitution.

There are those which believe as the times have changed, even our Constitution is subject to change. The Constitution may be amended, but it cannot be changed. We the people have the right to:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to 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.”

Excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776.

Separating unalienable and inalienable is to separate rights of all to the priviledges of the few. Separating the Bill of Rights from the Constitution, the Constitution from the Preamble, The Constitution from The Declaration of Independence, rights from “the [our] creator,” God, reduces all to a democracy instead of a republic and robs every man woman and child from their equal rights that among these are, “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These are all very dangerous ideas. It is only WE the People which consent to those powers which government may by only specified limits, execute on our behalf. We the People have those rights because, WE the People are all and each, equally endowed by “their [our] creator,” God, whom gave us these rights! These rights which cannot be bought, sold, bartered, transferred or taken by force, with or without our permission! Government is neither an individual or a person (corporation), it is just a servant, our servant, the servant of WE the People.  Government’s sole function is, to protect and defend our unalienable rights from all enemies, foreign (alien) or domestic (from within us).

I offer the following link to a PDF file for your consideration. It is an except from my book of 2012, ‘RESET “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”

 

I of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

“UN-alien” or “Inalienable”

 

 

Advertisements

In the Supreme Court We Trust?

July 1, 2015

short url to this post: https://goo.gl/32ZgER

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

 

To SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States)

I'm sorry, but I have never read this anywhere!

I’m sorry, but I have never read this anywhere!

Under ordinary occasions an image and a post such as this, would not have been necessary! But WE the people do NOT live under ordinary occasions, but under “EXTRAORDINARY ocassions! Your recent decisions involves much more than whether I disagree with them or not. It does not even matter if you rendered the correct judgment of each and every case. The two principle questions that anyone should ask are:

1. Do you have the authority to ‘interpret’ existing laws, rendering your verdicts as you deem appropriate?

2. Are these even Federal cases to begin with and should they ever have been brought before you?

But every one of you that has come to this court and has ever interpreted the law or has at least, never challenged the interpretation of your ‘lifelong’ appointments to this court, should ALL be removed from this court! The Constitution, a self-limiting document, neither gives you any authority to interpret any law nor gives you the right to hold your appointment for life! Words, directives and laws of the Constitution and the United States which are NOT in the language and wording of the document, does NOT mean that you can interpret them as you see fit, adding to the wording, directives and laws that are not contained therein. That responsibility lies with Congress and the people of the states. The processes of amending the Constitution are clearly stated with the Constitution!

You each swore an oath or affirmed upon your entering this sacred trust of the Peoples of the United States, as its servants, the following:

 

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.” 

The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453

or

Upon occasion, appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads:

 

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

 Combined Oath

 

You each are in violation of your oaths or affirmations and should be removed from the bench, according to The Constitution that you each have sworn or affirmed to uphold. You do not serve under, “good behavior!” You should all, every justice of the Supreme Court and ALL courts, be removed or impeached and then removed and replaced with those that will, uphold the Constitution of these United States of America!

 

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”

The Constitution, Article III, Section. 1.

Excuse me, were there any limits or a ‘lifetime job’ implied in the words—“good behaviour?” No, there were not! And to be fair, were there any words that suggest you could not keep your jobs, for life as long as you behaved good? No. But along these same lines, is there anything to suggest that a president could serve more than 1— four year term? No. But every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, served only 1-2 terms. The Constitution was amended after FDR served 12 years and 83 days and died while still in office. Had he lived, would he have completed 4 terms (of 4 years each or 16 years) or more?

Apparently, until 1933, every president understood as did the founders of our Constitution that as all branches of government were intended to be limited, so too were the terms of ‘service’ of those that served. Note the word “service,” it was never intended to be a career or a lifelong job. Apparently, the view of every founder and every president, for over 100 years before FDR and the Constitution was first ratified, just figured that a government of limits would include term limits!

It is interesting to note that in 1789, life expectancy was around 40 years of age. Today, the average is around 77. But in 1789, justices on average only served around 8 years. Today, the average is 20+ years with their appointments beginning around age 51. Congress too, should be limited in how long they are allowed to hold their positions.

True, there were no such term requirements for Supreme Court justices in the Constitution. There also, was no requirements to be a justice (law degree etc.), just an appointment by the president and a confirmation by the Senate. The founders having limited government to three branches as “checks and balances,” loosely wrote the Constitution for changes to be made in the future, for future needs. But the framework of limits and limitations is firmly established in the Constitution. I don’t know, maybe they believed people would just understand this and apply ‘common sense?’

What follows is what several of the founders had to say about limits and limitations.

“The powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

James Madison

 

“A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.”

John Adams

 

“Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Alexander Hamilton

 

Ordinary occasions was then, but ever since 1861, the “extraordinary occasions” clause of the U.S. Constitution, having been, for the first time, invoked and never since cancelled, rescinded or overturned, WE the People remain under, “extraordinary occasions.”  The pure law (government – de jure), having been replaced by legal fiction (government – de facto), I suppose the supreme court (judiciary branch), congress (the legislative branch) and the executive branches of government, are pretty much free to do whatever they want, even at the expense of enslaving the very people it purports to serve and is supposed to serve. A majority of nine cannot be allowed the power to make decisions for the entire country! That responsibility lies with the individual states and the people respectively. And this remains equally true, for the executive and legislative branches.

But your power grab, your lifelong appointments, your deciding on what cases just four of you will hear, your ‘judicial reviews,’ your interpretations, your legislation from the bench, and your public policies were NEVER authorized by the Constitution and were no more intended in the Constitution than it would make any sense to, put a fox in charge of guarding the hen house!

If sufficient numbers of WE the People ever become knowledgeable of your intentional or unintended usurpation of Our Constitution, our Republic will be RESET, and you will be on notice to change or vacate your robes immediately or be impeached and forcibly removed from the Halls of Justice, you so unjustly, presently occupy.

Lady Justice is not so for her neutrality in dispense equal justice, but because the Judicial Branch has blinded her so that she cannot clearly see, what is going on

Lady Justice is not blind, for her neutrality in the dispense of equal justice,
but because the Judicial Branch has blinded her so that she cannot clearly see, what is going on

 

1 of We the People,

Dahni

Legal Fiction (an Introduction)

March 2, 2015

Short url link to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-mF

By Dahni
Copyright © 2015, all rights reserved

LegalFiction2First, what is legal fiction and why is it or should it be important to you?

Each word in the phrase separately is easy enough to understand by almost anyone. “Legal” because, it is just that, legal. “Fiction” because, it is just that, it is fiction. Fiction as in contrast to non-fiction, does not exist; it’s not real; it’s imaginary; it’s made up. When combined, these two words together, don’t appear to make sense, make no sense at all or they are, just, nonsense. But to lawyers, judges, law and courts, there is a different point of view.

In ancient Greece, rhetoric was used to convict someone of a crime when, everyone knew they were guilty of the crime, but there was NO circumstantial evidence to convict. Let’s suppose the crime was, for stealing a neighbor’s chicken. No one saw it being stolen, but the chicken just happened to appear on the suspect’s property. There was insufficient evidence, but again, everyone knew the suspect stole the chicken. But they did not want the suspect to get away with the crime. So, since the chicken was found on their property, it was ‘as if,’ they were guilty of theft, even though technically, the crime would have been possesion of stolen property. This is an example of, “Legal Fiction.’

Another example from ancient times that still applies today is, adoption. An adopted child or person is not a biological heir, but adoption makes it possible ‘as if,’ they were and affords them all the rights and privileges bestowed upon them by, those that adopt them. It is a legal proceeding that is awarded and protected by the law.

What if you were to discover that the very United States of America you live in is, ‘as if,’ it were real, but is really just, ‘Legal Fiction?’ Would this be important for you to understand? What if, your rights have been infringed upon and your money has been confiscated ‘as if,’ this is was ‘purely’ legal. Would this be important to you? OK, maybe you think NOT, but what if you and every citizen of this country is owed a lot of money and you are, do you want it back?

As this introduction continues, please remember the two keys words in understanding ‘Legal Fiction’ and they are, ‘as if.’ Legal Fiction is, ‘as if,’  it was real. Let me share now. some terms and definitions from my book, RESET “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic.”

'Legal Fiction' - Just because, it's legal, does NOT make it real and just because, it seems real, does NOT make it legal!

‘Legal Fiction’ – Just because, it’s legal, does NOT make it real and just because, it seems real, does NOT make it legal!

Legal Fiction 

“In the common law tradition, Legal Fictions are suppositions of fact taken to be true by the courts of law, but which are not necessarily true. They typically are used to evade archaic rules of procedure or to extend the jurisdiction (authority) of the courts in ways that were considered useful, but not strictly authorized by the old rule.”

“Legal Fictions were used by courts prior to the existence of handling offences. In a situation where one person sells stolen property to another person, they can then be accused of handling stolen property. Legal Fiction has been used to declare that: as the first person did not have the power to sell the property to the second person, the second person in possession of stolen property was considered to have also, stolen the property, and was therefore guilty of theft.”

“According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 804 (5th ed. 1979), “The term “Legal Fiction” is not usually used in a pejorative way in spite of the negative connotation of the phrase, and has been characterized as scaffolding around a building under construction.”

“A maxim or a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct as it compares to “Legal Fiction” is:

“Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.”

Unknown origin

FICTION OF LAW (Legal Fiction). The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing, a quality which is not natural to it, and establishes, consequently, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribe; or authorizes it differs from presumption, because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true. Dalloz, Dict. h. t. See 1 Toull. 171, n. 203; 2 Toull. 217, n. 203; 11 Toull. 11, n. 10, note 2; Ferguson, Moral Philosophy, part 5, c. 10, s. 3 Burgess on Insolvency, 139, 140; Report of the Revisers of the Civil Code of Pennsylvania, March 1, 1832, p. 8

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

John Bouvier published three editions of his Law Dictionary in twelve years, the first in 1839. He was preparing a fourth at the time of his death in 1851. The fourth revision was published in 1856. Other well known legal scholars contributed to its several revisions. By the year 1886, there had been fifteen editions. We are approaching the discovery of the “cause” and the specific time when Our Republic was changed. It is important to note that Bouvier’s Law Dictionary would have been in use at this specific “time.” Legal Fictions have been used for centuries whether they were called this or not. Bloodlines were valued as being important, especially in royal or noble households. In ancient Rome if there were no physical heirs to assume the parental status, adoption was used. This was a Legal Fiction in that the adopted individual was assumed or presumed to be the legal heir as if they were the legal heir by birthright. “Legal Fiction,” as far as this book is concerned, is compared with government “de facto.” A true child or true law (government de jure) is to each other as “Legal Fiction” would be to an adopted child or government (de facto). See: de facto/de jure

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”  Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms pages 141-143 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

de facto/de jure 

“dē jūrē  or de jure is a Latin noun and pronounced [di joor-ee, dey joor-ey]. Its origin is believed to have first been used sometime around 1610. Its literal meaning is “pure law” or “of law”, thus “legitimate, lawful, by right of law, required by law.”

dē factō or de facto is a Latin noun and pronounced [dee fak-toh]. Its origin is believed to have first been used sometime from 1595-1605. Its meaning is, “in fact; in reality.” It carries the idea of something actually existing, especially when without lawful authority. It may also be understood as something existing for such a time that it is as if, it was the law.

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic” Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms page 140 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

Legal Fiction” is to government “de facto” as both are related to the word interpretation in this book. See: Private Interpretation.

Perhaps this sounds very complicated and this is the point. What began as simple and clear, became complicated, unclear, a haze.

Like a purple haze and essentially hidden, it continues by ignorance of it and from a “mindset” to it. It is a corrupt “system.” WE need to RESET Our Republic.

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”  Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms page 143 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

The United States operates today, NOT as, government de jure, but as, government de facto‘as if,’ it was, the pure law. It is NOT! It is, ‘Legal Fiction!’ In a future post, I will share the entire chapter from ‘RESET’ “An UN-Alien’s Guide on Resetting Our Republic. The title of the chapter is, ‘Legal Fiction’ and it provides more detail and how it impacts, every single one of our lives. Until then, here is a link to a visual picture of what  ‘Legal Fiction’ looks like, in our government today.

What Legal Fiction Looks Like

or

http://www.i-imagine.biz/Day10.htm

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr