About the feds pushing back on Sheriffs, etc., pushing back against "federal" overreach

Here’s a link to one version of this story.

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/government-gone-wild/federal-framework-being-set-up-to-arrest-sheriffs/

The concept of which to be aware is this. The “feds” are right, and
the Sheriffs are wrong.

Why is that?

Because “federal” means “federal”.

If we had a “constitution”, hence, a governmental system at the
national level created by, thus also limited by, such
accumulation of thoughts on how an independent people govern themselves, then
the vast majority of matters and issues that vex us these days wouldn’t exist.
Since we do not now have, and have never had a “constitution”, it
follows that throwing the “constitution” at that which vexes us is a
generic waste of time, “money”, and energy.

What type of system do we have?

The proper label is “democracy”, and since the democratic law-making
process has yet to be activated on the national level, since (before) this
nation’s founding, that which passes as “government” functions
“federally”.

“Federal” has two generic applications. If we’re talking about bodies
politic, generically, a “commonwealth”, “federal” describes
the interactions by and between those “commonwealths”. Fundamentally,
those are “agreements” made by and between “commonwealths”.
If we’re talking about people within a “commonwealth”,
“federal” still applies. It’s the exact same generic concept, i.e.,
“agreement”. This “federal” system operates
“federally”, and, for all practical purposes for the appearance of complete
obliteration of individual rights, “federal” still means “by
agreement”.

When it comes to the gun-grab insanity, IF there’s a basis for such a pogrom,
programme, scam, prelim to dictatorship, THEN it’ll be 100% commercial in
nature. Why is that? Because “federal” means “federal”.

Therefore, since that on which the national system depends for its
“authority”, for anything (including a significant part of its
“book of discipline” (it’s penal code)), is this or that
“agreement”, it follows that a Sheriff’s intent to interfere with
UNITED STATES’s enforcement of those “agreements” is 100% beyond the
scope of the authority of any Sheriff, or any STATE official, generally.

In other words, any overreach (via the appearance of rights-violating gun-grab
activities) isn’t really overreach, at all, given that (1) each individual (who
is competent, of age of majority, etc.) has a “right (not) to
contract”, and (2) as a by-product of the clandestine
“agreements” on which this present “federal” system
operates, those subjected to a gun-grab have (long since) already agreed to be
disarmed.

Since the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the right of self-defense
includes the ability to defend one’s home with firearms, and everyone and
everything in that home, no gun-grab programme is going to leave anyone unable
to defend one’s home.

It’s our exercise of our “right (not) to contract”, generically, our
“right (not) to agree”, that creates that which vexes us, these days.
Since, as a people, as a nation, we’re not yet thinking in terms of our present
reality (which started circa 1965, when the last vestiges of silver were
removed from general circulation), we’re showing up to a howitzer fight with
nothing but a broken butter knife.

Once we, as a people, stop “worshiping” the “constitution”,
a great idea that was never “admissible evidence of law”, and start
thinking in terms of our present legal reality, we’ll be a lot more efficient
with our time, “money”, and energy. One of the things that will stop
happening, then, for example, is using the “constitution” as a rallying
point, concept, platform. Instead, we’ll ask ourselves, for example,
“Where’s the agreement?” To get to the point of asking that question,
we’ve got to go through a rather wicked paradigm shift, involving coming to
terms with the reality that we do not now have and have never had a
“constitution”.

Once we have that perspective in mind, we’ll stop thinking that there’s
anything, at all, in the world that’s relevant about any
“constitution”. To get to that stage of development in our thinking
about matters legal, we’ll see that all this “circle the wagons around the
constitution” activity is laughable, in the eyes of those who, for
example, realize that it’s perfectly Ok to run the obama-nation as a
presidential candidate, for there is no Art. II, hence, no procedural limit or
substantive limit on how that particular office is filled.

Since the “bad guys” have long since figured out that we do not now
have and have never had a “constitution”, it’s the first (and only)
place to start for the “good guys”, as well. To understand that we’re
dealing with “agreements” is to understand that the problem doesn’t
really start in Washington, anyway. It starts with the person we find in the
mirror.

How do we curb the abuses coming out of Washington? We stop exercising our
“right to agree” and start exercising our “right not to
agree”. This is not a political statement. Taking ‘Speaker’s Corner’ and
declaring before God [YAHUWAH] and all witnesses assembled is 100% irrelevant.
What we’re talking about is commercial behavior.

Where’s the gun-grab gotcha agreement? There may be several. One may be in the
context of war veterans obtaining medical treatment/benefits from the VA. One
may be in the content of the “licensing” agreement(s) with the ATF.
If there’s one that’s broader in scope, surely it’ll be found in some
“income tax” legislation or other.

Key to the solution, then, is starting with a correct identification of the
problem. Down that path, “federal” means “federal”.

For this reason, the (“constitutional”) Sheriffs are staring in the
face of “obstruction” charges by interfering with
“anything” regarding that the “feds” have an
“agreement”.

THEREFORE, instead of saying, “The ‘constitution’ doesn’t
allow you (feds) to do that”, far, far better is learning the
“law” well enough to know what, if any, basis for agreement may
exist, and then for those Sheriffs to say, to their constituents, “Here
are the ‘agreements’ that the ATF intends to enforce”. Do what you can to
complete them and terminate them. Then, there can’t be a (legitimate) gun grab.

Once there’s not a legitimate gun grab, there’s nothing
but war, and for that, the Sheriffs will be on the front line, of course.
However, for so long as there’s a legitimate “agreement” for
the feds to enforce, the thing that the target of such enforcement will want to
do is surrender the offending weapons.

Those who are sick and tired of this present “federal” system, will
do well to find ways to stop using the “federal” “funny
money”.

Thus, if the Sheriffs really want to do something constructive, what they’ll do
is teach the reality of the “choice of law” problems that accompany
the use of “funny money”. Then, they’ll set up “funny money free
zones”. Where there genuinely and truly is no commercial activity, of any
type (including “taxes”, including “income taxes”), using
“funny money” within the scope of that Sheriff’s jurisdiction, THEN
the Sheriffs have the best reason under the heavens to stop the feds at the
county line!

However, for so long as “funny money” runs rampantly throughout that
Sheriff’s jurisdiction (including the medium of exchange by which that
particular public servant gets paid), the feds are going to have all the
authority they need to enforce whatever it is that they’re enforcing (presuming
there’s also an enforceable “gotcha agreement” formed with the
“choice of law” that the “funny money” always brings with
it).

The reality is a difficult concept to the hard-core
“constitution-ists”, as this author was prior to The Terre Haute
Litigation. If we really have choices, then we can learn our present reality,
so as to learn how to defend ourselves (which involves changing the commercial
FACTS (which FACTS are 100% within our control) on which the tyrannical system
depends) or we can continue to do the same thing, the same way, while expecting
different results. One of these is competent and prudent (and sane); the other,
a total waste of time, “money”, and energy (and clinically insane).
One of these provides solutions; the other, a (much) wider and deeper hole out
of which to try to climb.

Since the feds are throwing “agreements”, not power, not authority,
not tyranny, but “agreements”, at us, the way to “push
back” is to stop agreeing to being regulated by them.

“Federal” means “federal”. This “federal” system
operates “federally”, i.e., “by agreement”. That’s how all
levels work, not just the national level but also the STATEs, and the counties,
and the municipalities. This nation stands a chance of surviving, if those
interested in doing something, start thinking in terms of commerce, in terms of
Monte Hall’s “Let’s Make A Deal!” It’s not about “law”, in
the traditional sense. It’s about commerce. Is there a “gotcha
agreement” to be enforced? If so, those who don’t appreciate the (rest of
the) consequences of such “agreements” need to stop agreeing to being
regulated by them.

In the exact same way that the obama-nation, or any other office holder, STATE
or national, cannot compel anyone into any “gotcha agreement”, no
Sheriff, by being Sheriff, can get anyone out of such agreement, once it’s
entered into.

Those Sheriffs that find a way to get all “funny money” out of their
counties, are the Sheriffs that are serious about putting an end to the
insanity of “gun grab”, in particular, and to the insanity of what
comes out of Washington, generally. Those who continue to allow “funny
money” to flourish in their counties, are the last ones on the face of the
planet in a position to tell the feds what the feds can or can’t do.

To “push back”, then, we’ve got to “walk away”, which is
100% commercial activity.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe : [email protected]