Friday, July 10, 2009

Fraus omnia vitiate

It's an old maxim that fraud vitiates anything it touches, and in the nature of such laws, even laws are subject to its hold. This posting today is about the Common Law, the law common to all, and its nature and substance. I pray you will be patient with me, as the archaic language has infected my poor, idiotic brain, and thus, I also hope, you can understand that which I wish to convey.

Fraus omnia vitiate. Fraud vitiates everything it touches. When fraud is involved in civil contract or in the establishment of a law, all such laws or contracts are unraveled, made into nothing at all. If fraud can be proven, such laws by their natures could not exist, for they were created under both a false pretense, as well as created with understanding and assent on false pretenses.

There is also an old maxim of the republican form of government (quite distinct from the pretended 'republican' party.) Potestas stricte intepreteur: A power is strictly interpreted. No grey areas, no penumbras, powers themselves must be strictly limited, not vague in any way, shape, or fashion, and wrought in powers granted specifically and explicitly to any organization via the contractual agreements of its incorporation.

Our government, by its nature, is an incorporation. It was given specific powers as a person, so the government could last far longer than the death of any or all of its original founders. It, by itself, was given no rights, but only powers to be wielded and blocked from the assumption of certain powers, acts, and writs.

This brings us to a second common law statement: In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is never in favor of a power.

These give rise to specific remedies under the law, where the federal government was Incorporated via the contract of the Constitution, and those remedies were placed within.

In the first part, there is another old aspect of the common law. "qui tam pro domino rege quam pro sic ipso in hoc parte sequitur" He who sues for the king as for himself. We have the authorization under the common law to sue for any specific actions outside the contract. Legal immunity and sovereign immunity does not apply outside the specific powers of the contract, and the states constitutions themselves are legal contracts that instituted and Incorporated the states.

These actions are called a 'Quo warrantio' action: 'By what warrant does the entity place these burdens?' coupled with the closely related common law writ of ultra vires. 'such action is outside of the power granted to the entity'.

In the United states, these writs have been specifically moved to civil law actions, however, they are still applicable to any entity, public or private, including the government itself.

In such case it would be possible to bring an ex relatione suit, or a suit brought by a private party in a qui tam action, against those projectors of ultra vires powers, where quo warrantio has failed.

If these powers were not specifically granted, explicitly granted, and the explanatory documents did not grant them, then such powers are an act of fraud. If they were specifically prohibited, they are something quite more, an act of a highwayman, a thug, and a thief. They are acts of war against our persons, and our property, and our rights, and we are no more bound to them than we are bound to declaim that the sun is made of porridge or the moon is made of apple puree.

Our nation is based upon this old, forgotten, and what they wish us to believe as 'obsolete' common law. This common law, indeed, is the only authorized law within the nation, with all of its idiosyncrasies, and all of its faults. It is part and parcel of the 'republican form of government' that the states were required to guarantee.

This republican form of government acts not only upon the federal government, but the states and the people. There is a separation of powers and specific limitations placed therein, explained within the writings of the federalist papers, and the discussions of the Continental Congress. The powers of the people themselves are limited, to prevent them from establishing tyrannies over minorities. Targeted legislation was prohibited, through the 'attainder clause' of the contract, and reaching back in time to punish someone was limited under the 'ex post facto' clause.

No legislation, according to the founders, could be written that benefited one class at the expense of another, nor that targeted classes of persons in exception to others. All legislation had to be laid down equally, or not at all. As part and parcel of a republican form of government, this was a necessary check and balance against both the government, the people, and enterprising speculators that knew if there was a benefit, or a penalty to any person, then such an imbalance would continue to infinity, ultimately devolving the whole into tyranny or anarchy, both of which the strong prevail and the weak die.

As well, checks and balances are placed against corporations, to prevent monopoly, which is assuredly its own form of tyranny.

The nature of the Constitution of these united states is nothing less than a contract establishing a new entity, incorporating it, and then placing in its hands certain, limited powers, and then very strong Prohibitions and limitations. In that Establishment, the states and people also took upon themselves specific limitations, duties, and powers, in order to prevent tyranny in all of its forms.

All of our rights in the bill of rights were ensured for that end, not established, but ensured. Any attempt at removal of those rights, regulation of those rights, or mutilating the meaning of the words until they bear as little resemblance to the original as spam bears to real meat is an act of war and subjugation, high treason, and fraud.

They do not exist because of the Establishment of the Constitution, they exist in spite of that Establishment, and moreover to resist the powers of that very Establishment and defend that entity at the same time.

Those rights, from the right to free assembly, to freedom of speech, religion, the right to keep and bear, are not created by the government for they pre-existed it. They are created to give you indications when the government is going too far... for those things must fall before full tyranny exists.

And ask yourselves, are you free to speak, or do they attempt to regulate your speech if it offends others? Are you free to assemble, to petition, to have religion, or do they create laws for, and against such? Are you free to believe, to marry, to work as you wish, or do they create benefits for or against such statuses? Are you free to carry a weapon at your side, regardless of its nature, without interference if you are using it peaceably?

Can you stand up and sue the police should they fail to protect you? No...t hey are not there to protect, but to arrest lawbreakers and preserve the public peace.

Your right to keep and bear is the right that keeps all other rights intact. If you have no right to keep and bear, they have taken away the means of protecting your property, from the 'real property' to the immeasurably more valuable 'property in rights' that Madison and Paine spoke of. When you lack the ability to enforce that property right, your property falls, and moreover, so does your liberty and your life.

Those guards are for all, even felons, even those who are unpopular, for it is the government that determines what a felony is, is it not? Perhaps this idiot has had one too many lobotomies, imbibed a few too many insecticides, however, it would seem to me that the governments, state, federal, and local, would be the most likely sources of tyranny. However, they claim the power to establish laws that then remove those rights to resist tyranny, which is its own form of tyranny.

The rule of law must prevail. The law is either limited, or it is unlimited. The Constitution limits it, and to go outside of those limits is to negate both the purpose and function of the Constitution. The law is limited in such that the president cannot assign his powers, or those of the congress, to external persons beyond the control of the very people that gave it to him. Neither can the congress assign legislative powers to the president, nor can the congress assign judiciary powers to the executive branch.

It is our duty, or sovereign duty, our right, our privilege to resist tyranny in all of its forms. Even if we die in such resistance, it is better than the misery granted to all posterity were we not to act.

We are the arbiters, the check and balance against the government, and they seek to disarm us with cunning wiles and making the Constitution vague, in spite of the clarity of language with which it was writ.

There is only one purpose for such: The purpose of tyranny. It's well-founded in the documentation that these very actions, actions taken outside of the powers granted, are acts of war, subjugation, fraud, and slavery.

And this total idiot must ask... what it means if we stand idle.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Do we gain any security by giving up our powers to those we cannot control? Do we gain any safety, any peace, if our will, our power, and our government all are turned against us?

It's time to bring things back to the Constitution, the intent and purpose thereof, ending tyranny in all of its myriad forms.

Even this total idiot can see that.


  1. Thanks for a thoughtful essay and a good piece of writing.

    But, as you know, powers have not be strictly interpreted, acts of the legislature are presumed constitutional, administrators have immunity or quasi-immunity, and individuals who cannot show harm have no standing to challenge government laws and regulations in court.

  2. Immunity by definition vitiates the "rule of law"

    Immunity and the "rule of law" can not co-exist in a government of free and equal persons.