“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free… it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

It is obvious from the title that one readily recognizes which of the above this man believes.

So, the question is – is this man right or wrong?  Let us turn to a bit of logic, a type of rational reasoning that officials today seem devoid of – - or intentionally with malice and forethought willfully disregard law for their own and their master’s gain.

Our forefathers were actually refugees from one of the most oppressive types of government that existed at the time, governments that at the decree of one man or woman could declare death to the offender.  Or, imprison people for life for a mere disagreement.  The powers that be could deprive him of the use of his property, or place such a horrendous tax on land use that the poor fiefs could not pay, with eviction following.

The monarch owned all property, and, for example, the people were just the “tenants” upon the land.

Hmm, just as a thought, read your abstract or deed.  The wording might surprise you.

One might even find out where Certificates of Birth ultimately end up, and why people are called “human resources.”

But, those are other stories.

The point is this.  Do you honestly believe that people escaping the tyranny of oft times “crazier than a loon inbred monarchies” would actually set up virtually the same feudal system in their new land?

Or would they rather do all that is humanly possible to assure that such tyranny never developed in their new land?

Did our founders declare officials above the Law that governs the rest of the people?  Was it their intent to give power to officials equal to the power of kings, queens, lords, and the like?  Were the people in the new land mere subjects of governing bodies?  Did one’s neighbor have power over one simply because the neighbor was elected to office?  Did they actually intend for mini-tyrants, such as majors and city councils, to have the authority to tell you how to manage your property?

Did the founders intend that standing armies of local de facto law enforcers live amongst the people?  Did they give these thugs the power to abuse, assault, misuse Law, order about, enslave, kidnap, torture, shackle like a crazed wild animal; in short, to control and prohibit the expression of human rights granted by the Creator of all peoples on Earth?

To answer these questions, we turn to, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” Note that the language is very easy to understand.   Also, know that it is the document that established our Law and our land.

“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 entitle them …”

Note that it is the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God that entitle our separate and equal station from other lands that might oppress us.  Like it or not, Atheists or whatever, it is Nature’s God’s rules we live under – or is it more apt to say, “that we should live under.”

Then, we come to the most important phrases ever written by Man from his free will.

“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…”

First, our founders held the statements they made for all posterity to be the truths that are self-evident, which means patently obvious.  As we will see, the premise is that people are independent beings, and not, in my terminology, genetically created as an extension of another’s will.

As many of us know, Mankind spent 6,000 years battling to live in freedom.  Oppression has been Man’s plight, a fact that has slowed down his self-actualizing development for who knows how many generations.  Finally, a few fed up and brave souls established America as the land of the free.  It was as if Nature’s God, his Laws, and prophecies guided our forefather’s minds and actions.

(Author’s Note:  You know, Folks, when one studies the founding of America, it is hard to ignore our forefathers’ search for religious freedom, as it was one of the prime reasons for running – or should I say “sailing” – from merry old tyrannical England.  They wished, in part, to escape the Church of England that held the power of life and death over their subjects, the British people.)

Next, the Declaration states, “all men are created equal.”  It does NOT say, as has been noted many times previously, that all men are created equal unless elected/appointed to public office.  It does NOT, in other words, say officials are by their mere election suddenly above the Law and supreme to the people that elected them.

Instead, the Declaration continues with, “…that they [all the people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.  Unalienable means “inalienable”, which in turn means (by my thesaurus) – unchallengeable, absolute, immutable, not able to be forfeited, unassailable, indisputable, and undeniable.

Note:  ‘Not able to be forfeited’ is important for future discussions of the chanceries called traffic court, municipal court, county court, and other quasi courts.”

Unalienable and inalienable, however, have another extremely important meaning, especially with governing bodies politic committing many high crimes against the people, from grand larceny theft and sale of stolen property to treason.  Read the below meanings given in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and then ask yourself about the sales of our public roads to foreign entities.  Just what the hell is going on?  Where does government get off selling our stuff?  If this not theft, sale of stolen property, racketeering, a whole bunch of other crimes, and, most of all, treason, an act punishable by death, then just what is it?

UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.  2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

INALIENABLE. This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.

We must also relate this to such actions as governments making deals with foreign companies to coerce our people into compliance with rules controlling transportation of goods, not our private, non-commercial travel by right.  I speak, of course, of red light and speed cameras used to generate revenues, and for no other reason, as we cannot commit true crimes against an artificial entity, such as a governing body politic.  Such acts are de facto governmental criminal coercion and theft, amongst many other violations of Law and statutes.

Anyway, back the point.  One might say that what has been granted by our Creator cannot be put asunder by the written rules of man.  Essentially this is to state that only an individual man or woman can allow the oppression of his/her rights.  An example of this is the case in which a business owner demands certain behaviors on the job that one must agree to abide with, or not be hired or lose their job.

Please note use of the term “oppression”.  Then, remember this statement of truth.  No one can take your rights from you.

The Declaration continues with, “…that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness –“

Life, of course, means to live, and we must also take it that we have the right to defend all lives against any and all that intends or appears to intend on removing it, or our other rights, from us.  Thus, the 2nd Amendment.

“Liberty” means in essence the freedom to exercise our rights, whether enumerated or not.  Because we have the God-given right to liberty, and because we are sovereign to government, the government cannot lawfully regulate a right, no matter what the right is.

The “pursuit of Happiness” is self-evident.  We may pursue any endeavor we wish, carry out any act we wish, say what we wish (whether right or wrong), write what we wish (whether right or wrong), worship, including openly, as we wish (whether others agree with one’s beliefs or not), research what we wish and write our conclusions (whether others agree or not), and so on through all behaviors that are conceivably acted out by people.

Lastly, the opening paragraphs state, “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

In other words, government is created and exists only at the will of the people, and is given the honored task of defending our rights, whether it is against an elected official, so-called “public policy” (not law by the way), or another man or woman intentionally damaging us by violating our rights.

Government does not, therefore, have authority to interfere UNLESS we intentionally violate the rights of others.  Even then, the Constitution demands that government strictly adhere to due process, assuring that government does not violate any rights of the people.

Thus, it is easy to understand that Government does NOT exist in order to rule over us, as if we are their personal property to regulate and use.  Government was created to defend and uphold freedom, NOT to coerce the people into compliance of rules a bunch of bureaucrats decided would make them revenue and increase their personal coffers and desire for power, or just because a majority of them thought it best.   In other words, the people did not give government the authority to apply its rules to any except themselves in their official capacities and to their artificially created “Persons in law”.  Simply put, their rules, lacking a bona fide contract to the contrary, do NOT apply to the people.

As for immunity of officials, it should be obvious that they are given none, nada, zilch, zero.  Title 18, Sections 241 and 242 along many other Title 18 statutes, and Title 42, Sections 1981 et seq, do NOT give any official exemptions, not even the president.  Our Law and statutes simply do NOT exempt officials acting under color of law.  Our people, therefore, have every right to seek redress for crimes committed against them.  In fact, it is our duty, just as it is the duty of any official to report wrongdoing by other officials (see Title 18, Sections 4 and 2382).  The process of our people filing against officials is the same as filing against another man or woman, such as a neighbor or whatever.

So, where did the gigantic fraud of “official immunity” come from?  Well, it came from corrupt judges, attorneys, law enforcers, legislators, and so-called “executives” protecting themselves and the system of tyranny set up to take our property from us, whether our rights and other forms of property (land, homes, earnings, etc.)

What is the basis?  As near as I can tell, officialdom misinterpreted, either inadvertently or intentionally, the 11th Amendment.  This reason for this conclusion is that judiciary officials most often use this amendment coupled with a lot of imaginary BS to defend corrupt officials (see example below).  The Amendment states:

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

Read this – over and over, if necessary – and pray tell me what part of it authorizes any form of immunity for any official, including the President of these united States of America.  In fact, if one reads carefully, and correlates with Article III constitutional provisions, one will find this is in direct contradiction to the Constitution, which states:

Section 2. [1] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; —to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; —to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; —to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; —to Controversies between two or more States, —between a State and Citizens of another State;— between Citizens of different States; —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

And, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, which states:

[2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

As one readily notes, neither Section 2 nor the 11th Amendment provide any immunity for elected officials of a state against suit or charged with crimes.  Furthermore, the Constitution, nor the 11th Amendment, declares any federal official immune to suit or alleged criminal activities.   In fact, the only officials exempt in any manner are congressmen via Article I, Section 6, which states in part:

“…They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;”

As you can see, any that commit Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, are as subject as you and I to arrest and prosecution, should the Grand Jury of the People determine probable cause.  And, I guarantee you that for the most part, officials do not mess with committing misdemeanors.  It is as if such are below their perceived stations in life.

Furthermore, Article I, Section 6 does not provide that members of congress are immune from suit.  In other words, any member of Congress that violates the people’s trust is subject to suit.  Illegal taxation comes immediately to mind, along with the application of their laws (federal U.S.C. statutes) within jurisdictions not given Congress by the Constitution.  And, there is the fact that the US Government is a corporation, and all corporations are treated as “persons” subject to suit.

As for the President, his cabinet, and the dozens of rogue alphabet agencies under the executive branch, there are NO immunities defined, and no exceptions noted.  The same is true of Article III officials and their staffs.

Therefore, for Pete’s sake and for the sake of our rights, read the material and act on it.  Officials are not immune to suit or prosecution for criminal acts.

The 11th Amendment merely took away the jurisdiction of what appears to be all the Article III courts from cases between other States and Citizens thereof, or between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different State.  There is, however, a rule of construct that says that if any law or whatever is not interpreted the same by every person (as in the common meaning) reading it, it is void for vagueness.  Perhaps this applies; perhaps not.  It is up to the people to decide.

It is my firm belief that “State” as used in the 11th Amendment refers only to foreign states, not to the many states of these united States of America, and, furthermore, that it is written to obfuscate the meaning.  After all, the meaning as stated by judges and other so-called “experts” takes away a major right, that of the right to seek redress for grievances when a State (government) official harms a man or woman that is a Citizen of another state.  If this were the intent of Congress, why would the people approve such a concept – - unless they were lied to?  But, guess what.  Lying, which entails fraud, vitiates everything.

Plus, there is this.  Although I have not researched it thoroughly, it seems as if there is a little-known Article III created court that does have judicial power over controversies such as those delineated in the 11th Amendment.  It is the Court of International Trade (CIT).  It may be this court does have jurisdiction, since logically there must be a system that can hold court in controversies between – say you or your state, and a foreign state or one of its people.

Contractually, it would be a case in equity or the Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private Citizen against the State, in the jurisdiction of Common Law.  However, I have been unable to get answers from this court system.

To make the matter simple, however, answer this question.  Did the 11th Amendment state that you cannot sue or file criminal charges against any official elected to serve the people of your state or its political subdivisions?  The answer to that is a loud and resounding NO!!!

Did it state that you cannot sue a federal official or any official of any of the many states of these united States of America in the one supreme Court established by Article III?  The answer is again NO!!!

You see, you have the right to sue or file charges against anyone that has intentionally damaged you or your property in a criminal fashion or – in the case of a suit – accidentally damaged you or your property.  This Law is irrefutable.  No American has immunity to such acts.

There are literally hundreds of cases that support my conclusions and strong beliefs.  The bottom line is that officials are not above the Law.  In fact, they are under literally millions of laws in their official capacities that we people are not subject to.  Remember, our rights cannot be legislated or voted away, as we cannot be alienated from them.

Also, do not forget that the Declaration also declared the people as the sovereignty.  See the 1793 ruling that has not and cannot be overturned, which stated in part:

“Their [feudal monarchies] Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.” CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

The people did not give any judge the authority to say your suit or charge is frivolous, or to throw it out because he/she does not agree with you (they are third party to the issue) or that any official is immune to the law and the right of you to sue or file charges against any official.  In fact, it is possible that Title 42, Section 1987 demands executive and judicial officials to carry out the suit or arrest of the accused upon warrant of probable cause by a Grand Jury.  Never forget that we are their bosses, not vice versa.

Law demands that judges show up at court (actually available 24/7), with court being you, your adversary (not his attorney, as attorneys are always third parties to the controversy), a jury of peers, and a judge that may not dictate law (other than saying exactly what a law says).  The latter prevents him from making law from the bench.

If it is a criminal action properly carried out with you filing a verifiable criminal complaint to the people’s Grand Jury and the Grand Jury issues an indictment based on probable cause, then the case must proceed to court, no matter what some judge tries to dictate.  Only a jury in our “real” system of justice has the power and authority to decide the law in fact and substance.  Judges cannot replace a lawful impartial jury of our peers, un-tampered with by corrupt judges or other court officials.  Well, I guess you can let them, but by doing so you oppress your rights to a fair and impartial hearing, which is to say you deprive yourself of “due process.”

Of course, the proper use of writs or, in the case of a criminal complaint, a confession by the accused can result in the lack of necessity of physical appearances in a courtroom.  The case was settled “out of court”, as the saying goes.

Finally, just a few brief comments on officials trying to defend the false proposition that they have immunity from suit and prosecution for committing crimes.  The most often heard comment is along the lines of, “I can’t do my job if I have to worry about being sued or charged” or some equally dumb statement along those lines.

I say, to heck with them – if they did their jobs properly, with the primary duty of protecting our rights, there would not be a problem, would there?  Their problems arise from “under color of authority” actions.  Such always, without fail, violates the rights of the people and usually entails criminal actions, such as racketeering, dozens of other criminal acts, and always treason.  This is the case whether it violates the rights of only one man or woman or millions.  Every under color of law act is not only criminal but also aids and abets the enemies of America.

Olmstead v. United States, a 1928 Supreme Court case, states the facts admirably:

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously… Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

Then, we must ask.  How have officials – and those that are controlling government from behind closed doors – gotten away with such bull hockey as official immunity?

Well, although I do not like to be blunt, the answer to this question warrants bluntness.  Officials carry out under color of law actions, and get so-called immunity against suit and criminal charges filed against them, because officials believe the people are too ignorant and/or too lazy to learn the truth.  This is combined with the fact that they believe nearly all our people, including those that learn the truth, are too afraid to confront government entities, even on the city and county level.

Sadly, to date, and with great despondency on my part, it seems the evildoers are right.

December 8, 2009

Submitted to the Federal Observer by the author.

~ The Author ~
Ed Lewis has been widely published on the Internet for several years prior to the last two, when he took a sort of sabbatical to somewhat helplessly watch America being manipulated onto the road to ruin. He holds BS degrees in Biology and Psychology, National Honor Society in both fields, and MS coursework and research in Psychology completed.

Lewis is a 64-year old Vietnam Era veteran that believes every official should be held accountable for treason and other crimes when Law, statutes, and their Oaths of Office are violated.

He believes that every American has the duty to stand against any government or chartered quasi-government that violates the rights of the people, and that no man, or group of men, especially foreign lobbyists and dual citizen people, have the authority and/or the right to interfere in our land and tell us what we might think, say, write, and do. Fear to do so will ultimately destroy America.

Contact Mr. Lewis at with@cvalley.net