Using Common Law to Nullify Obamacare

There are ways to defeat Obamacare. The options are limited, but they are available. It takes a combined effort from everyone to refuse to comply, which is easy at the moment based on the inoperable website. The biggest issue is taking the risk so many others are taking and not purchasing insurance coverage, put 1% of your annual income in a safe location to pay the penalty. Once the I.R.S. levies your bank accounts, and possibly detains you as a result, we need to have Constitutionally inept jurors on the case. In other words, instead of a Maritime Law Trial, you need to request a Common Law Trial.

In a Common Law Trial, the JURY would determine ultimately whether or not the I.R.S. and the individual mandate is a Law of God. The grounds for determining such, is solely based on the TEN COMMANDMENTS which are God’s Law. A common law jury trial can effectively nullify Obamacare in a second, as long as the jury selected is impartial and Constitutionally inept.

Admiralty and Maritime Law, A field of law relating to, and arising from, the practice of the admiralty courts (tribunals that exercise jurisdiction over all contracts, torts, offenses, or injuries within maritime law) that regulates and settles special problems associated with sea navigation and commerce.

The difference is Maritime Law is a system of governance in which the primary focus is generating revenues from the person or persons who allegedly committed “crimes”, and Common Law is a system of governance that determines whether or not the law broken was a TRUE LAW of God, meaning, the sole purpose of Common Law is to ascertain that the person or persons whom have allegedly committed a crime have committed this crime against God’s Law and to determine that one or more individuals have been harmed not to exclude harming of the individual being charged themselves.

Our other options are to remain complicit and wait for the I.R.S. to take everything you have ever worked for in your life, leaving you with nothing but a massive burden and limited choice. Once we allow it to reach this point, the garnishing and siezure of everything everyone owns will not stop, and the only option an individual will be left with is to take the violent path. What I am suggesting is that we use the non violent methods of non compliance. Also what we must do, is regardless of slights in ideologies, we have to unite for a common cause. Stop discrediting those that do not know as much as the next person, and for crying out loud when dealing with Obama supporters we ought to know how to play Devils Advocate. How is it that Liberal Logic is illogical and lacking in common sense, and common sense folks would rather let them be led down this path of destruction so we can say I told you so later, when we may not have the time to reign in once it gets to the I told you so finger pointing. Aside from the arguement that to stand with your finger pointing saying ” I told you so, goes against the WILL of GOD. The arguement for this, is if you are aware of the consequences of being the “I told you so” the individual who was ill informed could be harmed as a result. If you are abiding by Common Law, it is your moral obligation to highlight all injustices, and unite one another regardless of ones relationship to certain political parties.

For instance yesterday I was working with local campaign committees to reelect a Conservative Cuyahoga County Courts Judge in Cleveland Ohio. There were other poll workers for other individual campaigns, yet we all managed to find a common ground to communicate on based on the perception that these individuals would be our co workers for the duration of election day. There was not one heated arguement or even a display of violence or opposition even though those poll workers represented a different candidate with different ideologies. The poll workers showed a display of Bipartisanship and even assisted each other out when the poll workers needed to take a simple bathroom break, or lunch break. This was not an action that was necessarily authorized by the candidates campaign committees, but we as humans took the initiative to help each other out, because we were in it together regardless of who you represented. We as individuals established that most politicians need to be ashamed of themselves as a result of how closely and cooperative we were in working side by side, yet the politicians campaign leaders were very disgruntled with our team work efforts. Most of us were snubbed by other candidates campaign leaders, and as a result most of the workers gave up advocating for their candidate, because we understood one simple ordeal. We had no choice but to be next to these individuals holding other candidates signs until it was time to go home. We had 13 hours to communicate and get to know each other.

At one point, the topic that arose was in regards to a doctors visit. The comment directed at me was the individual indicated providing health care services for myself in the event of an emergency. I have always been politically incorrect, and an activist against Obamacare since the date of its introduction in 2009, and before that when Hillary Clinton introduced it under the Clinton Administration. The response I offered was simple, and it was even “open minded” to this scam called Obamacare. I simply stated, you my friend are not the President, and only the President can access my health care. At this point three of Obamas liberal supporters offered me this explanation of their perception of Obamacare. 1. The new Healthcare Law is barely going to offer health care services when they are most necessary. 2. The President lied about the Healthcare Law, and I hate to admit that because I support Obama, but maybe Obamacare is a bad idea afterall. 3. I dont know if you are aware but Obamacare is not free like the President suggested in 2009. 4. The President lied I got a letter from my employer stating that in January 2014 I will no longer have my current coverage, and what I am being offered by Obamacare is worse health care, and higher costs for me and my family. Last but not least the 5th comment was Have you even tried to sign up for the new Healthcare Law? I don’t know if you realize this, but the Healthcare Website does not work. I am disappointed with the President, and now it seems to me if they can’t produce a functioning website, how does the Government and Obama intend to make sure our health care and doctors offices don’t start looking like the food stamp Office, and the unemployment line.

I offer this conversation, as I insisted on pretending I had no clue the healthcare.gov website was inoperable, and I also pretended I believed it was being offered free. This resulted in Obamas avowed supporters lashing out, and informing myself that this law is a disaster. They even suggested I use the internet more often instead of listening to main stream media. This conversation suggests that even amongst the biggest Obama supporters, they are losing faith in his promises and they are losing it faster than any one person expected. It also suggests that they are not at the moment nor in the future contemplating enrollment. It does shed a glimmer of light at the end of the Obamacare disaster. It also implies that Obamacare should collapse under the weight of itself.

Now understand this might require a sacrifice or two, such as one or more people to fully challenge, and use the Constitution to make null and void the Healthcare Scam, while keeping in mind that when our Founders fought they fought til the death if there was no other possible outcome. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death. If one is not willing to stand and fight for their liberty, the fight is already lost.

In Congress of these United States in 1776, they not only left the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence for reference points, but offered some explanations to apply to Obamacare, or any other Unconstitutional Law implemented that goes beyond the confines of the Constitution. 

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to DISSOLVE THE POLITICAL BANDS which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the EARTH, the SEPARATE and EQUAL station to which the LAWS OF NATURE and of NATURE’S GOD entitles them, a decent RESPECT to the OPINIONS of mankind REQUIRES that they should DECLARE the causes which impel them to the separation.”

This statement in and of itself represents the rights and moral obligations of every individual to put aside the ties of political affiliations in order to invoke the powers delegated by nature and those laws implied by God through nature, to remain seperate in ideas, but equal in substance and in essence be recognized as an individual person, or human being whom having respect for another individuals different opinions can and must unite for a common cause to seperate themselves from the Government, and their oppressors to reject and sever themselves from their oppressors, and implement a form of Government that is and can be in fact restrained and accountable to those it shall govern over.

The statement “We hold these truths to be self evident” should be a statement to all that it is basic common sense that a people should automatically understand that God the Creator made us all equal, and these rights endowed upon us cannot be taken. They are not PRIVELEDGES. It is ignorant to comprehend these rights described as certain and unalienable as PRIVELEDGES such as one recieves while incarcerated. PRIVELEDGES are permissions granted to an individual according to ones behavior. Mankind does not exist for the Government, the Government exists because MANKIND grants the Government permission to exist.

Prudence establishes, that a Government that has been long standing, should not be altered because of light and minute causes, but only when a Government continues a long train of abuses of its permissable authority to that of the Governed.  History suggests that mankind has been more disposed to suffering while certain evils are sufferable, than to make right the wrongs by way of abolishing the restraints of which they have become accustomed. When a Government continues these usurpations, it is no longer a matter of discussion, nor debate but it becomes the moral duty of all people to throw off such oppressors, and abolish these usurpers.

Indexing, or referencing the original documents in which we were founded:

I.)  Need to dissolve certain political relationships

II.) Need to assume those powers endowed upon man through God, that entitle man

III.) Declaring separation from an injust Government

IV.) Self Evident Truths elaborated

A. All men are created equal

B. God our creator grants to each certain and unalienable rights

1. life, liberty, happiness, property, safety, respect, privacy, etcetera…

C. The purpose of Government is to protect the weak from the strong

D. Right and duties to abolish bad Government

1. Fact: The Revolution was not merely a rebellion of those colonies, but in reality was a result of England circumventing Gods Law, by constant usurpations, and and outright tyranny. The newly established colonies had been put in a position of having no choice but  to either defend themselves against such tyranny, or continue suffering as serfs, or tenants of oppressing feudal lords.

a.) example Bad laws, bad courts, police state, taxation without consent of the governed, deprivation of the right to a trial by a jury of peers, deportation of individuals for trials, The English declared the colonies outside of their protection, and effectively plundered the rights of the individual person.

b.) The colonialists persistantly petitioned their Government for a redress of certain grievences, but to no avail and only experienced the same repetitious injuries.

c.) The colonialists issued words of warning periodically from time to time

d.) England only ignored the cries for justice

V.) The colonies appealed their concerns to God whom they revered as the Supreme Judge of all in the world.

VI.) The colonies right to be free and independent of such oppression and tyranny

VII.) To the laws of God and under the same protection, the colonialists pledged their lives their fortunes and their honor.

These general references are a means of determining the injustices suffered by the Governed, and their loyalty to their creator who endowed upon them the common knowledge of basic rights. The most common implies that as long as no one is being harmed, there is no injustice or crime committed. The King of England refused to recognize these common sense codes of conducting ones self, and persecuted those who seeked to be independent from these statutes implemented by force upon the colonies at the will of the King.

Also in accordance with the supreme law, as to which no other law can stand and be recognized as supreme unless in direct compliance with the first and only SUPREME law of the land, the Constitution. The Constitution in its original text had no title. The Constitution of the united States began with the simple declaration, “We The People of the United States.” That is a simple yet complex and specific indication that the Constitution was written by The People of the colonies now referred to as the united States, for those very same people that do inhabit those colonies within the boundaries now declared as the united States. The right to a trial by jury of ones peers is Common Law. Common Law is in accordance to the Ten Commandments. In other words, if a an individual must stand trial by jury, the jury shall use the Ten Commandments to determine whether or not a law of GOD has been violated. The only laws one should use in reference to whether or not a crime has been committed are those laws established through nature by and of God. These Laws that conclude that if no individual has been harmed individual also inclusive of the person being charged and standing trial, and harm includes not harming ones self, the individual standing trial by a jury of their peers shall be acquitted of said crime.

A Common Law trial only requires one individual of the jury to recognize that no Laws of God have been violated, therefore making the LEGAL STATUTE that has been “broken” not a Law, and it effectively makes such LEGAL STATUTE null and void.

Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.^[1] It can be found in a power to rule and make laws that rests on a political fact for which no pure legal definition can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of “sovereignty”, historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state.^[2]

Divine law is any law that comes directly from the will of God, in contrast to man-made law. Like natural law (which may be seen as a manifestation of divine law) it is independent of the will of man, who cannot change it. However it may be revealed or not, so it may change in human perception in time through new revelation. Divine law is commonly equated with eternal law, meaning that if God is infinite, then his law must also be infinite and eternal.

A Common law legal system is a system of law characterized by case law which is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals.^[1] Common law systems also include statutes enacted by legislative bodies, though those statutes typically either codify judicial decisions or fill in areas of the law not covered by case law. In contrast to common law systems, civil law (codified/continental law) systems are founded on a set of legal codes,^[2] which are organized laws that attempt to cover exhaustively the various legal domains, and is characterized by an absence of precedent in the judicial application of those codes.^[3] In the modern period, both systems tend to include administrative regulations which may also be codified.^[4]

A statute (STAT-choot) is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or country.^[1] Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.^[1] The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies.^[1] Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or “black letter law.” As a source of law, statutes are considered primary authority

Admiralty law (also referred to as maritime law) is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

Ens Legis L Lat. A creature of the law; an artificial being, as contrasted with a natural person. Applied to corporations, considered as deriving their existence entirely from the law.

Straw Man An individual who acts as a front for others who actually incur the expense and obtain the profit of a transaction.

“In the terminology employed by real estate dealers, a straw man is an individual who acts as a conduit for convenience in holding and transferring title to the property involved. For example, such a person might act as an agent for another in order to take title to real property and execute whatever documents and instruments the principal directs with respect to the transaction”.

The straw man makes possible the ability of the Government to legislate over those whom are Governed. The Government applied the ability to infringe on Common Law, or Supreme Law by making corporate the individual, for the purpose of commerce. More on this subject later, so as not to digress from Common Law vs. Maritime Law.

Understanding the contradiction of Man’s or of the Government’s ability to legislate, and God’s Law, also Divine Law. Divine is ANY law that comes directly through the WILL of GOD. It is in contrast to what man has determined as LAW because Law is natural, and Government has established LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS of the WILL of GOD through black and white documentation or legislative procedures. The ability of man to interpret and alter God’s Law is only that of the will of man to do so. It does not however alter the original intent of the Divine Law bestowed upon man through the WILL of God. The Will of God is Supreme and it works in conjunction with those of the Supreme Law of the Land. It fully indicates this factual finding in the Preamble of our Constitution.

“We the People, in order to establish a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It gives the people the authority to establish and promote for the common benefit of the colonies. It outlays the Blessings of Liberty not only being established for their selves, but for the posterity which is the same as generations of man which shall come here after this establishment of the Constitution. It fully clarifies the Constitution is to continue after those who were present do cease to exist on earth in the physical aspects.

This is the Preamble to the Constitution itself, not the Bill Of Rights. The Bill of Rights has its own separate Preamble, to which the Bill of Rights was to display a show of good faith to the occupants of the colonies now part of a Union called the united States, to promise these states the right to keep their government small and limited in scope and range of authority. It provides the individuals of these states with a course of action to initiate should their governing bodies usurp and circumvent their Constitutional confines. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights was to appeal public confidence in their government to abstain from misconstruction and abuses of the powers the people have granted of them to exist within definite boundaries of operation. The PREAMBLE to the Bill Of Rights:

“The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction and abuse of its powers, that further and declaratory restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficient ends of its institution.”

William Pitt “The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all forces of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his forces dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

The Common Law Jury, armed with the true knowledge of what Common Law truly is, and what those rights duties and authorities actually are, have more power than all of the states Senators, and House of Representatives in both Houses of Congress combined to reaffirm and re-establish the Supreme Law of the Land which can only be the Constitution, unless those laws to be implemented are in accordance with the Constitution, in order to fulfill your humane obligation to maintain and carry over our basic natural rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness onto the next generation in a moment of clarity do have the exclusive power to nullify any LEGAL STATUTE or INTERPRETATION thereof that does not comply with those Constitutional restraints that allow man to live under the WILL of GOD, and to reinforce the FACT that WE THE PEOPLE PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO EXIST.

The Government no longer represents the beneficial will of the People in which it Governs, so therefore there is no ability of the People to remain sovereign without abolishing Maritime Law, by applying Common Law to all Jury Trials. The People must in order to remain sovereign be able to sever themselves from their political relationships to obtain the common cause for the General Welfare not to be confused with the Federal Governments proclamation of Welfare. Welfare would in the Founders ideals indicate “The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.” This terminology of Welfare has been transformed into a social system. Social is common, but Social is a base term for Socialism. Socialism is spreading wealth around amongst serfs, as the Federal Governments ability to tax for the Wel Fare system is a method of taxing from the compensation of an individuals labours to give that compensation to an individual who does not perform any sort of labours. The Constitution does not imply that the Government is supposed to take anything from an individual to give to another individual, but regulates the ability to lay taxes and promote the general welfare of the union, not the individual states. The Tenth Amendment specifies that. The General Welfare Clause is broad, however the General Welfare Clause is to be in conjunction with all individuals well being and best interest.

If the Constitution grants that all persons shall be secure in their posessions, why is it that the Congress has the power to take away from those who labour, to give to those who don’t with no expectation of reimbursement, or indication of labouring for the individual or individuals the Congress collects taxes from? The General Welfare is to promote a safe and tranquil environment, and it allows Congress the ability to spend revenues on materials and other goods or services, but it does not provide Congress with the ability to force one to purchase anything. It does not grant Congress the power to take from one person to give to another, without reasonable compensation, and to lay taxes for a health care law that does not provide adequate health care services or accessibility to physicians. It does not grant the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal Welfare System, or a Social Welfare System, as it does place those individuals being forced to contribute to this system in a position of involuntary servitude, and to establish a Social Welfare System, it diminishes ones motivation to labour and to keep what you have laboured for. It promotes a societal malfesiance of being lazy and unproductive to the General Welfare of the union, and more importantly the individuals right to be free and independent of an over bearing Federal Government.

If an individual believes it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to take care of them at all times, they essentially relinquish their right to be free and to be an individual. Individual means one is free from feudalism or servitude, but by demanding the Federal Government be also a public watering trough for the meak and unmotivated, it allows the Federal Government to impose more regulations and infringements upon the very same Law that is to be Supreme in all Courts of our land. It denies one the Laws and Rights of the Will of God, and empowers the Government. The more a people empower the Government, the more the Government has control and the more they can take for the sake of the people and social upheaval or stopping such injustices.

If one truly seeks to bring to an end social injustices, force the Government to relinquish its power. The power in which it has unilaterally declared for itself. This is in contradiction with Common Law, and their ability to beseech the law is a result of a malicious legislative authority. This legislative authority is deceptive in nature, and is so because of Commerce. Commerce is revenue, and once We The People declare ourselves sovereign living vessels under God, not Commerce, or Maritime Law for Revenues we must maintain that state by abstaining from the watering trough. This trough has committed great injustices on our society.

This watering trough has propagated lies, and malice upon man of all races. It has divided a union of individuals, and has labeled us according to our financial stature. It separates us only in a fallacy. There was no colour divide at the signing of our Constitution, and the division amongst us that keeps us seperate never places us equal beside our brethren, but divides us among our right to be different in nature. The perception that we all must be the same in appearance wealth and substance is incorrect, because it is our ability to be different that makes us unique and unites us individually. It allows man to exchange different opinions and acknowledge at the same time the individual is still a member of the same race. That race that is the only true race. It is the human race.

We even though, different physically, are all the same because we are human. We are God’s greatest creation. We as  humans were created in the likeness of God, which means we as humans individually are capable of emitting the same love and compassion for one another and the same common goal of maintaining ones livelihood and working as a team with our neighbor.It entitles each person breathing to be different by design of D.N.A.. The only law that can effect this ability of an individual to walk in God’s likeness is if the individual them selves break the Common Law, and the Common Law, are those ten basic commands or characteristics that we as humans must abide by to live in God’s likeness. It is harmful to a man who is incapable of feeding themselves when you have food to offer that man but instead deny that person food. It is also harmful to lie or tell tall tales to someone when the lie can harm that person. It is harmful to hit or strike someone who has done nothing to provoke such actions, therefore placing these harms in the category of breaking Common Law. Love Thy Neighbor.

As members of the human race it is a moral obligation to unite under the Common Law, or God’s Law to thrive as a people. As members of the human race, it becomes the duty of those who understand the difference to stand alone, until others stand beside you as your brethren. We are the only hope each person has to salvage the human race or we as an entire species will see our own demise, and we will only continue to contribute to our demise if we as humans cannot place ideologies aside and resist oppression unanimously. It takes only one person to take a stand, and ideally the love and compassion God has bestowed upon man can be the one common cause that brings us together for the sake of our posterity.