Silent War, Overcoming Factions, Embargo as a Means to Victory

Although the Missouri billboard appears to threaten violence, we must come to realize that not only is violence not requisite for war, but that America is already embroiled in war. This is a fact to which we must awaken, a fact we must comprehend and embrace. The billboard strategy expresses retaliation. I stand and say bravo, it’s about time, and I applaud the engagement! It is when those entrusted with power fear the people that we live in freedom! 

America is already at war, a war unlike any war with which most are accustomed. Being oblivious to or in denial of this stealthful, quiet war, Americans have failed to comprehend the travesty of our enemy’s subtle, invisible weaponry. This failure is the reason America’s enemy, having deeply infiltrated within our borders via a virtual Trojan Horse, has yet to be revealed. Even those to whom it has been revealed have been more disposed to suffer as evils have been sufferable. 

We, the People, have been more prone to tolerate the assaults on our freedom than to right ourselves by abolishing all forms of religious, economic, and governmental constructs to which we have grown accustomed. The bottom line is: we have been had. We are being seduced. We have been made comfortable in a war while the noose has been lowered and tightened around our neck. 

We are suffering from “Stockholm syndrome,” unquestioningly accepting the intoxicating wine from a harlot in lieu of the truth, the oppression of the beast she rides circumventing our Republic, and the resultant company store masquerading as economic freedom. Because we have refused to love the truth, on every level, we have been blind, on every front, to our enemy's silent encroachment. Now that the sleeper is awakening, we have some serious choices to make. To avoid escalating the war to violence, we must begin with personal housecleaning. 

Using the recent Continental Congress as an example, clearly we have some mental work to do. We must enter boot camp for the mind. Mental preparations must begin by exercising control of our thoughts, by sifting the personal delusions we harbor from the true facts and circumstances happening around us. 

We must recognize and discard the perceptions we all nurture, the filters through which we misinterpret reality, the stories we contrive to define the world around us, the personal dramas which to one degree or another are entrapping us. 

We must learn to distinguish the Truth from our vain imaginations about the Truth. 

We must set aside our pride, acknowledge the deceit of our vain ego, and cease pretending. 

We must come to accept that there are things we, individually, simply don’t know; and further, things we don’t know that we don’t know. 

We must capture, as though it were an enemy infiltrator inside our head, every vain imagination we entertain about ourselves and others. 

Only by doing this mental work can we begin our escape from the silent weapon controlling our minds, the matrix within which our minds are trapped! Only then can we see through the deceitful conversation within ourselves that we unconsciously and reflexively project onto ourselves and others, and onto the circumstances dictating our lives. 

Our failure in our capacity as a power with which to be reckoned, our failure to exercise mental discipline, was more than evident at the recent Continental Congress. 

Ignoring the warning given by Washington in his Farewell Address, at least one faction was born of a misconstruction of the facts pertaining to the 14th Amendment committee and its reports. Rather than observing and assessing the facts in all their objective nakedness, stories were spun and added to the facts, and this most likely because of certain preconceived fears, notions, and judgments about the agenda adopted for the Continental Congress. 

No matter the instigating force, concerns were projected onto the facts, which ultimately caused the mental embellishment of a story—the foundation of all factions. Certain individuals agreed on and bought into the spin, and adopted as true the ensuing conversation about “what happened.” 

Usually at least three conversations are derived from any set of facts. Version one (mine), version two(yours), and the truth(what actually happened). Stories about the truth, as distinguished from the Truth, now orbit America’s cyber space and gather the support of those who ignorantly strengthen, justify and solidify their respective faction. As the orbit moves further away from it origin, the actual facts of the event, the stories penetrate and then permeate the minds of the weak and paranoid until the rift between the factions become as divisive to Americans as her Continental Divide is to her shores. 

It is through this faction that we who should be unified against a common enemy are being weakened and discouraged, strengthening the enemy and shoring up its resolve. Only united shall we stand. Divided we shall fall. Because this battle ultimately will be won by our conversation, we must engage the enemy through working to set our minds free. Only then have we any chance, indeed any right, to set others free. 

We must abandon sham emotional arguments and prideful, self-centered, I-am-right-you-are-wrong style arguing. 

We must stop embellishing the facts by sharing the straight facts, sharing the law, without story, and telling, straight up, what the enemy fears most: the Truth. 

To better communicate the Truth, let us begin by implementing the strategy of attacking the Beast by ignoring it, turning our backs on it, and starving it of our financial support. 

We already have said: No answers to our petitions, no taxes. Given its silence, the government has proved its long train of abuses and usurpations. The time for talk is over. We either stand together now united for America’s founding principles, or we stand alone later against our taskmasters. Mustering the courage to turn our backs on that which purports to be government, we then may encourage others to do the same. 

The allegiance of those who sustain the Beast satiate its appetite. We must stop cooperating with those who seek to enslave, and start freeing the minds of those captured by the delusional labyrinth of perceptions. More than keeping our money, we must withdraw our support, our mental and physical allegiance. We must refuse its benefits, privileges, and entitlements. This is our embargo. We need to muster the courage to do this embargo alone, together; and together, alone. Our embargo begins on a personal level, with an internal dialog with the Higher Power, the Creator, our Spiritual Mother and Father, our Counselor, Comforter, and King, through whom we must pledge our allegiance to the heavenly principalities and powers, the law of nature and of nature’s God, the de jure power to which all are subject, whether we like it or not. What fools we would be to initiate an embargo against that upon which we are dependent for our survival before first establishing a means of support to fortify our position. 

I recommend and encourage that the subject matter of our dialog begin with being shown the proper means of severing our dependence on the corrupted systems of the world, and reestablishing our dependence on the infallible eternal principles of Virtue, Love, Honor, Respect, Integrity, Courage and Perseverance. Finally, for victory sake, I most highly recommend we each embody the Truth we most desire to see expressed in others. We must come to understand the nature of the Beast, which is but a reflection, an image of thecollective dark side of humanity, a projection, the culmination of several generations who have been duped into turning their back on the Principles of Freedom. An artificial entity, a legal fiction established by conversation and convention, the Beast is animated by those who choose to embody its soul. Those who facilitate the will of the Beast merely delay its inevitable collapse. Established by the force of guns and jails, the will of the Beast, which has no de jure power, manifests itself through its continued abuse and usurpation of power. This creature is not government, but rather an impostor, and as such unfit to serve a free people. 

The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held, as a self-evident truth, that we have a duty to throw such off. In so doing we who stand up and fight to oppose the beast must be animated by the Spirit of the One who leads us. E pluribus Unum. Were they alive today all 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence who held as a self evident truth that we have a duty to throw off a design evinced to reduce us under absolute despotism, would undoubtedly sanction our efforts. To this end I pray that we who oppose the beast not only embody, but together facilitate the Spirit of the One who leads us. As One! 

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." 2 Corinthians. 10:3- 10:6

I Have Seen the Enemy

May we not allow the enemy to define us. 

May we define ourselves. 

An enemy is at our gate, 

but they are mere vultures. 

They wait and circle patiently, 

anticipating that our destruction is near. 

The enemy is within our gate, within our own ranks, 

even within our own being. 

The enemy empowers those at the gate. 

Conquer the enemy and those at the gate will dissipate. 

So long as there is jealousy, envy, strife and quarreling 

among us, enemies will wait at our borders to take us down. 

No one can take from me, no one can take from us, 

what wasn’t given to them to take.

Stop Filing

The We the People Congress is an activist group specializing in, among other things, non-violent revolution.

The foundation has been laid, the revolution has already begun, the preliminary steps have been taken. The time for productive action is at hand. All we lack is numbers, and all that the People of the land of the free and home of the brave lack is knowledge, and the courage to act on that knowledge.

The petitions for redress of grievances do more than lay a foundation for revolution. They are the best possible defensive strategy anyone could have at their disposal should they be indicted by either the State or federal government for the charge of willful failure to file income tax returns.  It is also the best defense against a government charge of terrorism for merely exercising the duty to protest rogue government violations of the constitution. It is my experience that the threat of these two charges is the biggest hurdle between action and inaction; the debilitating fear incapacitating those who currently choose not to stand.

Anyone planning to withdraw their support from the federal government by not filing tax returns in protest of the current march toward totalitarian dictatorship will need to understand the power of this lawful defense, and how to access and implement this important strategy. Understanding this may facilitate courage not otherwise attainable.

I speak for all members of the We the People Congress when I say we would enjoy your participation on Tuesday!  Please join us.

No Answer, No Taxes???

No Answer, No Taxes???

Yeah right! Get real!

How many of us have the courage it takes to do something that audacious? To stand, right now, in a non-violent protest against the direction the United States is taking the American people, by withdrawing their consent, by withholding their support by not filing a tax return?  

My guess is, sadly, not very many.  Yet this is exactly what needs to happen, and this is the position of the We the People Congress.  To stand!  Not next year, but right now.  Not after the Continental Congress 2009 determines it is the right thing to do, but now, and always.

It is difficult to take a stand.  It is easier to stand when others stand. But no matter whether you stand now, or after Continental Congress, 2009, you will ultimately stand alone or not at all because it will come down to you standing, and no one can do that for you. What I hope is that your standing, your voice in the chorus, is not a matter of if, but of when.

If you take the time to peruse the many petitions for redress of grievances, properly executed and served on the appropriate federal government agents, you will come to understand, among many other things, that the IRS is very limited in the scope and jurisdiction of its power, and that most American's are simply not liable for the income tax.  Regardless whether liable or not, by filing the form 1040 tax return not only is a presumption raised that you are laible for the tax, also established is the presumption that you are ok with the direction the federal government is going; that you are ok with the federal government's refusal to be accountable to the Sovereign American People; that you are ok with the fact that federal politicians and bureaucrats ignore the constitution, choosing instead to do whatever they want regardless of a lack of constitutionally delegated authority; that you are ok with the United States being an Empire egaging in "wars" i.e. police actions around the globe without the constitutionally required authority, i.e. congressional declarations of war; that you are ok with the president's failure to faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States; that you are ok with the many other abuses and usurpations established by the government's dishonor of the People's legitimate petitions for redress of grievances.

Because the government has refused to answer our many petitions for redress of grievances, the government has failed to perform a very essential duty incumbent upon it as an agent of its principal, the People. Pursuant to the underlying principles inherent in the process concerning the petition for redress of grievances, particularly because the American People are Sovereign in the relationship, the government's refusal to be accountable has negated their right to act as an agent of the people, thereby releasing the American People from any otherwise presumed obligation of support through either allegiance or the payment of taxes.  Even more, because of the long train of abuses and usurpations demonstrated by the petitions and admitted to by the government through its silent dishonor, the People have duty to withdraw their consent to and support of the federal  government, as failure to withdraw such would constitute permission to the congressman, senators, judges and president of the United States to continue their treasonous betrayal of the American People. Think of it like disciplining a child.  You warn the child not to do a thing, or to do a thing, and the child flat out refuses.  Should you follow up the warning with inaction, the child's conduct is tacitly approved, and the child feel justified in continuing in his or her conduct with impunity. The parent is ultimately responsible for the rebellion of the child. How much more should the force of a rogue government be disapproved and even resisted!! The American People are ultimately responsible for the rebellion of their creature.

Anyone who thinks we members of the We the People Congress have been wasting our time, who despises our petitions for redress, who thinks we have failed because the Supreme Court did not want to hear our appeal relative to the governments refusal to be accountable to the people, does not understand the principles underlying the petitions for redress of grievances.  You do not understand the foundation that is laid upon which is established the grounds for a peaceful revolution to occur in this country, and you certainly do not understand the underlying principle of and purpose of Continental Congress 2009. The time for talk has been over for some time.   Continental Congress 2009 is not about mere talk.  It is about initiating and executing an appropriate action!!  It is the answer to the question, "What should a free people do?"

And so what should a free people do with a rogue government??   First of all, will all of America's Peaceful Warriors, America's mighty men, and women, please stand up, move to the front and make yourselves known!!! We need you! Now would be a good time!

Though the recent tea parties were an excellent demonstration of a certain disgruntled cross-section of the American People, the rallies fell woefully short of accomplishing  anything of lasting significance. The hour is much later than most think! The biggest problem we face is the denial with which most are wrestling. So late is the hour, the American People should have been burning their tax returns!!

Putting it bluntly, if aggressive, non-violent, proactive measures are not taken immediately by a significant number of the American people, we will all find ourselves reminiscing a failed opportunity, rethinking the past, wondering why we did not act  affirmatively back when we had the opportunity.

What is the primary action that can be taken right now?

STOP FACILITATING THE ENSLAVEMENT OF YOUR CHILDREN, STOP PAYING FOR YOUR OWN DEMISE ! ! !  STOP CAPITULATING TO THE ARBITRARY WHIMS OF A ROGUE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS DISQUALIFIED ITSELF AS AN AGENT, WHO IS MISREPRESENTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND ADMITS IT BY IT'S CONTEMPTUOUS DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTION TO WHICH IT OWES ITS ALLEGIANCE, AND BY IT'S REFUSAL TO RESPOND TO THE PEOPLE'S PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES!

How many are willing to put it all on the line? Their life, fortune, and sacred honor? 

STAND AND BE RECOGNIZED!

Realistically, the question of commitment and courage can be answered relative to a formula which takes into consideration the gravity of the circumstance within which one finds one's self, coupled with the denial factor one harbors.  Everyone has a different tolerance level, a different breaking point.  An individual will ultimately feel compelled to act when the discomfort level to which one is subjected is more unbearable than inaction. This is what is meant by what is written in the Declaration of Independence that ". . . all experience has show that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the form of government to which they are accustomed. . . "  Once the boiling point is reached, the next element to overcome is the fear factor.  This is the point where courage must be mustered.

The We the People Congress is an activist group specializing in non-violent revolution.  The foundation has been laid, the revolution has already begun, the preliminary steps have been taken. The time for productive action is at hand. All we lack is numbers. All the land of the free and home of the brave lacks is courage.

The Petition for redress of grievances does more than lay a foundation for revolution. It is the best possible defensive strategy anyone could have at their disposal should they be indicted by either the State or federal government for the charge of willful failure to file income tax returns.  It is also the best defense against a government charge of terrorism for merely exercising the duty to protest rogue government violations of the constitution. It is my experience that the threat of these two charges is the biggest hurdle between action and inaction; the debilitating fear incapacitating those who currently choose not not stand.

Anyone planning to withdraw their support from the federal government by not filing tax returns in protest of the current march toward totalitarian dictatorship will need to understand the power of this lawful defense, and how to access and implement this important strategy. Understanding this may facilitate courage not otherwise attainable.
In the meantime study and become intimately familiar with this excerpt from the ancient Magna Carta:

"If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress.

"If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.

"Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us."  Section 61 Magna Carta

What is a Principal To Do?

What is a principal to do with a rogue agent?

I give you a power of attorney to represent me in a particular matter, and in my name you abuse or usurp that power! Should I not hold you accountable?

You represent yourself to the world to be acting in my behalf under my power of attorney.  In this capacity you claim to be exercising power I granted to you.  Using my resources and credit as collateral, you bind both my children and me to financial obligations not authorized by me; obligations beyond the scope of powers granted by the power of attorney. I become angry, remain silent and do nothing.  Would not my failure to hold you accountable, to bring charges against you for exercising power outside the scope of the power I granted you, be construed as my consent to the obligations?  Would not my failure to distinguish my power delegated, from your crime against me, appear to give presumptive validation to otherwise invalid obligations?

I write you and call you to account.  You remain silent.  I write you a second and a third time, demanding that you answer me relative to your transgression. You continue to remain silent.  I have you served with a grievance naming your long train of abuses and usurpations against me and demand you appear before me to give me an account, but you continue to refuse.  I bring a lawsuit against you.  Rather than hear my complaint, the court defends you, summarily dismissing the complaint, telling me you are not accountable to me. The merits of my claim are not even heard.  The appellate court upholds the judgment of the lower court.  The Supreme Court tells me they are uninterested in hearing such a trivial matter.

This is the exact circumstance the American People are confronted with relative to their government. The Constitution is in essence no different than any other power of attorney, giving government the right to exercise limited power to act in behalf of the American States, the Sovereign People. Not unlike a rogue agent performing in our behalf beyond the scope of power delegated under a power of attorney, it is our position that professional politicians and bureaucrats have exercised federal power not granted by the constitution, and that such exercise is what in law is deemed an "ultra vires" act and void.  Desiring to avoid the appearance of consent to these unconstitutional governmental acts, grievances were served upon the appropriate politicians and bureaucrats as petitions for redress, which to this day remain unanswered.  Adequate demands were made and opportunities to respond were provided.  Silence has been the only answer received. The federal judiciary, properly petitioned, chose not to hear the merits of the grievances, instead defending the governmental acts via the sophistry of judicial manipulation of words and concepts to contrive conclusions circumventing truth for the sake of political expediency.

This is why the need for Continental Congress 2009.

In order to fully grasp the need for Continental Congress 2009 we must, among other things, distinguish between it and a "constitutional convention." Simply put, the latter, a "Con-con," is where unaccountable, professional politicians could come together under the constitution to sanction the powers of government they have usurped and now control.  Were this to happen, politicians, under the guise of political expediency, could potentially re-write, even suspend the original intent and powers of the constitution in such a way as to altogether avoid accountability.  If not answerable to the American People now, how much less accountable might politicians be were they to negate responsibility altogether through the contrivance of a constitutional convention. In contrast, Continental Congress 2009 is an assembly of statesmen, delegates appointed from among the Sovereign People of the fifty American states coming together to hear and resolve specific constitutional grievances against rogue politicians and bureaucrats.

The intent behind Continental Congress 2009 is to bring together an assembly, not of professional politicians, but of learned statesmen who understand the principles of the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen united States of America, who understand the principles and intent underlying the Constitution for the United States of America, who understand that in America, sovereignty is vested in and derived from the People, and who understand that the original intent of the constitution is to grant limited powers to a government created to serve the American States and the American People.

Finally, the intent of Continental Congress 2009 is to invoke the principles of the Declaration of Independence as the interpretive foundation of American government, and in so doing to use the Constitution for the United States of America as originally intended, as the standard, the measuring rod of power delegated to the federal government.  What could be construed as analogous to a grand jury, the statesmen of the Continental Congress 2009 will hear facts and law and juxtapose them to the powers granted in the constitution to determine whether there has been abuse or usurpation of the constitutional delegation, thereafter rendering finding of facts and conclusions of law on the matters presented. Thereafter resolutions will be passed concerning the matters heard, including recommendations to the States and the American People as to appropriate action to be taken.

"We are fast approaching the stage of ultimate inversion:

the stage where government is free to do anything it pleases,

while the citizens may act only by permission;

which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history,

the stage of rule by brute force."

Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

I have spent my adult years studying and fighting for freedom.  I will not give up now in the waning seconds of the fourth quarter.

There are lot of groups in America purporting to be promoting freedom; but what is freedom?  Is freedom dissent, the mere opposition to the status quo? I say no, it must go much further.

Restraint of any kind is the antithesis of freedom. What restrains us? If one is physically bound, one is not free.  If one is in jail, one is not free.  Debt is bondage, a borrower is servant to a lender.  But what of my mind? If my body is bound, can I still be free? Who or what am I that I long for freedom? Am I bound by my mind? Does my mind hold the key to my freedom?  It is my experience than in order to free ourselves from bondage we must free our minds from delusion.

The first epoch of my activist years was in the nineties. I traveled to Waco Texas, responding to the attack on the Davidian church.  I knew nothing about the Davidians and David Koresh, but went there to subvert the travesty before it happened.  I was prompted to defend the church under the vow I had made to 152 other men at Estes Park following the government massacre of Randy Weaver's wife and son at Ruby Ridge-a vow only a hand full of us acted on. Few know about the Estes Park conference, likely because many who were there would be disgraced by it. After nearly a week long conference discussing strategy and tactics, we closed by pledging our lives, fortunes and sacred honor to each other, vowing to respond when the government threatened another American family. We stood in agreement that we would answer the call by inserting ourselves, nonviolently, between the government and the family being attacked, and suffer whatever consequences would follow. My faith in the patriot/militia movement died that April day in Waco when only a handful responded to the assault on an American church. I wept for America on April 19 that year, concluding that the time for talk was over. That was the day I became a revolutionary.

I pieced together a personal declaration if independence and gave notice to the world of my separation.  I slapped a white license plate on my car with the word "Heaven" scrolled in blue across the bottom.  The plate was issued by a church, as was the license and car registration in my wallet.  These tools were my physical witness to the world of my inward liberation, the renewing of my mind.  The subsequent years brought familiarity with courtroom procedure and the inside of a jail cell.  My paralegal skills were honed to a fine point.

To the jury I would argue that though I had once been a U.S. citizen, for cause I had "thrown off the government," having withdrawn my consent pursuant to my duty as an American as expressed by the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Colorado Constitution. But my argument did not stop there. I opined that I had expatriated, having pledged my allegiance to another King, the king of Heaven and Earth, and his kingdom, and was now sojourning on Earth representing the heavenly kingdom as an Ambassador to the Sovereign People of the United States of America. That it was a radical position is an understatement, particularly during a time of such perceived financial prosperity.

Yes I was a bit out there and so got my share of eye rolls.  Neither my dad nor my in-laws ever wrapped their mind around the insanity of my plight.  My list of friends dwindled, my marriage suffered to the brink of destruction. I barely knew my four boys.  Locals distanced themselves from me. I was a disgrace to the community and an embarrassment to the local churches. I was summarily dismissed as the lunatic on the hill north of Gunnison.

I chose citizenship in the kingdom of Heaven as I reasoned it unwise to abolish or overthrow a government before instituting a new one.  If you do, you will live in a state of anarchy in between; that is assuming you make it to the second one. History teaches that anarchy is that state of lawlessness seized by the power hungry elite to cause people to grovel and readily accept any new regime offered to them-even if that regime is absolute despotism.  I figured that since Christ established a kingdom, I would be relieved of the necessity to invent my own if I adopted his.  Problem solved. It was during this time I came to fully realize that this nation was founded on this principle, and that this understanding may well be the most critical element of freedom.

The founders held it to be a self-evident truth that the people have a right to abolish the government, 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.  Nature abhors a vacuum.  It is one thing to tear down, another to build up.  The former must not happen without the latter.  Mere dissent is not enough.  Amidst the dissent against what is being done to the American people, what is being presented as the solution? The alternative?

Many will protest recent government crimes at "Tea Parties" tomorrow, April 15, 2009, the expression of which is dissent. After the protest most will deposit their tax return in the mail and return to the relative normalcy of their lives. Not knowing what to do next and having no alternative plan outside the status quo, most will put a movie in the DVD player and continue as to live their lives vicariously through their actors and movies.  It is easy to dissent as it costs nothing.  Should not the same zeal inherent in being disgruntled be channeled into productive consideration of something new, something to supplant the problem? Is it wise to merely dissent without considering he possibility of something better?

America is being torn asunder because her people are thinking within the confines of the box.  Those who are subverting freedom for personal security and private gain are depending on this confinement while playing us for fools.  Elitist social engineers are using our negative dissent as a tool against us. The time to discuss new government is being brought to a head by those who control, the same traitors who oppose the principles of a free republic. The American people are not even in the conversation as they have excluded themselves, inebriated by the opiate of their religion, and leaving it to the politicians to decide America's  fate.

We the People Congress of Colorado is aware of the problem and need not rehash the issues.  We have long since concluded that the American government has become destructive to the end it was established to secure.  We have proven through the petitioning process that a long train of abuses and usurpations has evinced a design to reduce the people under absolute despotism.  Discussion about the United States government's allegiance to treasonous foreign interests is old, their failure to represent the American People, common knowledge.  We need not be persuaded of this.

This weekend, Sunday April 19, 2009, from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm the People's Congress will not be on the bandwagon regurgitating the songs of defeat, but explaining the notes of freedom.  The mass movement we are interested in is not about playing into the hands of the enemy, but rather into the hands of our posterity.

The first hour will be led by David Justice who will initiate the unfolding of the day's events by opening the conference with a worship service in the genre of the Christ.  Thereafter a battery of speakers discussing topics pertaining to good government will ensue.

To alleviate any concern that the day may be filled with religious innuendo, it will not.  Past experiences are not my present icons. Rather, truth will be spoken here. Only those interested in truth need join us.

To the degree a nation divided against itself will fall, America has fallen.  To prevent falling beyond recognition, It is the position of the We the People Congress of Colorado that the people of the many communities of Colorado must take immediate action to come together as one.  We the People are the Sovereign, the E Pluribus Unum.  The buck stops with us. We are the source of strength of our unification, the remedy to our ailment.

Mr. Obama promised change.  Will this promise be the only one he is able to fulfill?  Not if we have a say in it.  What exactly is Obama's idea of change?  What has changed? What is changing?  Is his notion of change something we can believe in?

So far, the only definitive change is in the conversation about the role of the federal government as it pertains to the economy and the lives of the American people.  It is by and through this discussion, foisted upon the American People by juxtaposing our greed against the deceitful trickery of the world banking cartel, that a political philosophy, repugnant to American jurisprudence, has infiltrated the minds of many unsuspecting Americans.  We need only look as far as the doctrine of "necessity," used by politicians enlisted to betray the American People, to discover the means to this end.   We need only look into a mirror to discover our remedy.

As always, public opinion is following suit.  It is being coerced to accept by faith a stabilizing belief in this foreign political philosophy, the natural consequence of which is a rudimentary shift in what is considered "acceptable" governmental policy.  The dogmatic culmination of which are governmental actions masquerading as legitimate, not adopted as such by men and women representing the People's interests, but by sold out politicians acting as minions of global bankers.  This change is not one we can believe in, as tacit acceptance would be tantamount to the consent to treason against the Sovereign American people.

What we are not being told and what may not be fully understood is that our acceptance of this NeoAmerican (National Fascism) philosophy is wholly dependent on our choice whether to consent to it or not. Though many may believe we haven't a choice, I assure you, there is always a choice.  No matter our choice, it will cost us.  The question is, what price are we willing to pay?

The reality in which we each live is the circumstance of the sum total of all our choices resulting in the conversations within which we engage. If Obama is successful in distracting us from the simple American conversation about the fundamental principles of freedom, Obama and his insurgency movement will win.  But if we successfully distract those seduced by Obama's democratic socialist conversation, Americans win. If Americans engage Obama in his conversation, America will lose.  If Obama engages Americans in our conversation he loses. This calls for great subtle wisdom in our approach.

To be successful, we need only engage in one simple conversation:  The Truth!!!

The Supreme Court has spoken to the concern of unconstitutional acts passed into law. Essentially what has been held is that an "unconstitutional law," like "hot ice," is an impossible oxymoron. An unconstitutional act is void "ab initio" i.e. the moment it is signed into "law." The "void ab initio" doctrine received its classic formulation in the case of Norton v. Shelby Co.118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1125, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886) wherein it was held that:  "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights;  it imposes no duties;  it affords no protection, it creates no office;  it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." See also Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376-77, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) ("An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.  An offense created by it is not a crime.  A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.").

Bottom line?  The American people have a duty not to consent to an unconstitutional act masquerading as law.  If Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president, all his decisions under the guise of that capacity are void.

As members of the sovereignty, to remain consistent with the principles of the declaration of independence, the American people have a duty not to dignify a statute passed that is repugnant to the constitution.  Though failure to comply could be perceived as an act of civil disobedience by the ignorant, in truth, if the agent has transgressed the principal's delegation of power, the principal has a duty to call the agent on it to avoid giving the appearance of consent.

The United States of America, as well as the governments of the 50 States are created and established by constitutions.  A constitution is analogous to a power of attorney.  For the purpose of the relationship, the people are sovereign; and the government their agent.  The constitution both grants power and limits power granted.

State constitutions, unlike the federal constitution, grant to lawmakers the plenary power to make law.  In other words, the state constitutions grant absolute power to lawmakers to determine what is and isn't reality, while the Federal constitution grants limited power to the United States, and further restricts that power by the first ten articles in amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. The Tenth article in Amendment reserves all power not granted by the federal constitution or prohibited by it to the states, to the People.

In the States, the restraining factors on the power of government are: 1) the power must be inherent in the people to begin with (no agent may do what the principal himself could not do); and 2) the people have retained to themselves certain rights, the boundaries of which the government may not transgress.  When the government makes a law it does not possess power to enforce, the exercise is void.  But  the exercise of power must be challenged as void.  The burden of proof is on the challenger.

All American governments are established consistent with the principles of the Public Policy declared in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, the presumption exists in favor of the American People with respect to all acts of their government that the purpose of government is to secure the certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, and that should laws be passed destructive to this end, the people have a right to alter or abolish the government. Regardless whether the people abolish government or not, any unconstitutional act of government is illegitimate and the people have a duty to withdraw their consent to that act, as provided by the maxim of law providing that the lesser power is included in the greater.

Contemporary political philosophies have and are being reshaped by the perceived needs and wants of policy makers.  But should political philosophy be shaped by perceived need, or should law be shaped by political philosophy?  In America today, laws are passed under the guise of necessity, that the end justifies the means, and these laws are reshaping our conversation, and overthrowing America's fundamental philosophy. For example, bank bailouts and economic stimulus laws though wholly unconstitutional in their scope, are deemed "necessary" notwithstanding fundamental union policy to the contrary.  Necessity has always been the tool of choice used by tyrants to forge the shackles of despotism.

This is America, and union policy cannot lawfully be overridden by a series of despotic acts under the guise of necessity.  To secure the sanctity of this right, those who laid the cornerstone of union policy specifically stated that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce the People under absolute despotism, the people have a right, a duty to throw off the government and to provide new guards for the future security. "

There can be only one dominate political philosophy in America, one true conversation, one dominant reality, because every government act inconsistent with the fundamental union policy of freedom is subject to righteous overthrow. The choice is ours.

Obama promised change.  This may be the only campaign promise he is able to fulfill.  But change to what? What has changed or is changing?

The conversation is what has changed and is being changed, and through the new conversation, a change in political philosophy is occurring. Through this new philosophy, a change in opinion and policy is occurring, and through opinion and policy, a change in law, and through this change in law, a change in the reality in which we live.

What we are not being told is that our acceptance of this reality is dependent on a choice we make to consent to it or not.   Many believe there is no choice, but there is always a choice.

The reality in which we each live is a choice determined by the conversation in which we engage. If Obama distracts us from our conversation about fundamental American principles, he wins.  If we distract those seduced by Obama's conversation, we win. If we engage Obama in his conversation, we lose.  If Obama engages us in our conversation he loses.

But who is "we?"  Who am I? It is possible that I am just like you.

I am nobody particularly special.  I am a common Joe, a blue collar enterprenuer, but more importantly one of the American People who, like you, loves my Freedom.

To be successful, here is the conversation to which I suggest we consent, the reality in which we must choose to agree to trump Obama's conversation: Truth. 

"And what is the truth," you ask?  "My truth, your truth, who's truth?"  Why not rather ask, "my perception, your perception, who's perception?"  If we reduce truth to being a mere perspective, these questions are germain; but if we distinguish the truth as being an absolute, like 1 + 1 = 2, we take Truth out of the realm of the arbitrary relative obscure, and into the state of reality where it belongs.

What is truth?  Let's simplify it by saying, something happens. I witness it.  What happened is what happened. What I perceived about what happened is merely my impression about the facts I saw.  My impression about what I saw is merely my point of view, my "story" about what happened. Although one could say that what one saw was true, the truth is that everything one sees is prejudiced by the perceptions one believes about one's self, and the world within which they live.

Reducing our respective realities to this simple framework, we can find agreement in that all of us live our lives within the framework of the respective stories coloring the truths about our life and the lives of those around us. Our reality, the world in which we live, is therefore merely a construct of the sum total of our perspectives, a complex labyrinth of our own making, a matrix of our mind controlled by the perspectives we hold about truth.

"You've been living in a dream world Neo."

Mix and stir this concept with the truth that each of us live in a world with others, each of whom lives in a labyrinth they consider reality.  Is it any wonder we aren't getting along? Particularly if each of us holds that the perspective we each believe in is true, that our belief system is the right one, and for the world to be a better place, everyone simply needs to agree with us!

Having laid this foundation, let's now look through the Supreme Court's perspective about law.

An "unconstitutional law," like "hot ice," is an impossibiity, an oxymoron. Such an act is void "ab initio" i.e. the moment it is signed into "law."

The void ab initio doctrine received its classic formulation in  Norton v. Shelby Co.:  "An unconstitutional act is not a law;  it confers no rights;  it imposes no duties;  it affords no protection, it creates no office;  it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."  118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1125, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886).  See also Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376-77, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) ("An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.  An offense created by it is not a crime.  A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.").

Truth or perspective?  The United States of America, as well as the governments of the 50 States are created and established by a constitution.  A constitution is analogous to a power of attorney or agency.  For the purpose of the relationship, the people are sovereign, the government their agent.  The constitution both grants power and limits power granted.  

Truth or Perspective? State constitutions, unlike the constitution for the United States of America, grant to lawmakers the plenary power to make law.  In other words, the state constitutions grant absolute power to lawmakers to determine what is and isn't reality, while the Federal constitution grants limited power to the United States, and further restricts that power by the first ten articles in amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. The tenth amendment provides that all power not granted by the constitution or prohibited by it to the states, is retained by the States or the People.

Truth or Perspective?  In the States, the restraining factors on the power of government are: 1) the power must be inherent in the people to begin with (no agent may do what the principal himself could not do; and 2) the people have retained to themselves certain rights, the boundaries of which the government may not transgress.  When the government makes and enforces a law it does not possess power to make and enforce, the exercise is void.  But  the exercise of power must be challenged as void.  The burden of proof is on the challenger.

Truth or Perspective?  All American governments are established consistent with the principles of the Public Policy declared in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, the presumption exists in favor of the American People with respect to all acts of their government  that the purpose of government is to secure the certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, and that should laws be passed destructive to this end, the people have a right to alter or abolish the government. Regardless whether the people abolish government or not, any unconstitutional act of government is illegitimate and the people have a duty to withdraw their consent to that act, as provided by the maxim of law providing that the lesser power is included in the greater.

Truth or Perspective?  Contemporary political philosophies are shaped by the perceived needs and wants of the policy makers.  But should political philosophy be shaped by law, or law by political philosophy? In America today, laws are passed by necessity, that the end justifies the means, and these laws are  shaping our conversation, our philosophy. For example, the Patriot act, though unconstitutional in its scope, is "necessary" notwithstanding fundamental Union Policy to the contrary.  Necessity has always been the tool of tyrants to forge the shackles of despotism.

Truth or Perspective? This is America, and Union Policy cannot lawfully be overridden by despotism in the name of necessity, for in America government is established for one purpose: To secure the unalienable rights endowed in all by the Creator.  Should government become destructive to this end, the government ceases to be government and the people have a right to abolish it and begin again.  To secure the sanctity of this right, those who laid the cornerstone of Union Policy specifically stated that "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the form of government to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce the People under absolute despotism, the people have a right, a duty to throw off the government and to provide new guards for the future security. "

Truth or Perspective?  There can be only one dominate political philosophy in America, one true conversation, one dominant reality, because every government act inconsistent with the fundamental Union Policy is subject to righteous overthrow.  That one policy is this:  The Creator endowed each man and woman with certain unalienable rights.  Government is established to secure those rights.  Chief among those rights are Liberty and use of property.  Is my exercise of Liberty dangerous?  Absolutely! I might hurt someone if I am free to exercise my Liberty.  I might damage someone if I use my property.  Such is the risk of Freedom! And if America were truly Free, America would be a very dangerous place to live, as there would be very little security! But do security and freedom ever dwell simultaneously in the same place?

The time for talk being over, the time for ending our personal independence is now.

The eye cannot say to the hand, because you are not an eye, I don't need you.  Everyone is important, and that is the essence of freedom. As a natural consequence of living in a society, we each contribute either directly or indirectly to each other's experience,  ideally not by dominating, but by enhancing.

We are not all socialists now, capitulating solely to the needs of the machinery. Rather, we are spirit beings having a human experience.

No individual is an island to themselves. We live in a society sharing a certain heritage.  That heritage is the very freedom being threatened by those who are not of our heritage, but desire to establish a heritage of their own.  A heritage where they are the taskmaster, and we, the slaves.

We can resist and thwart their effort now or liberate ourselves by rebelling later.

"[I]f you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only with a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill.

Hang Together

Knowing that a house divided against itself will not stand, were Benjamin Franklin here today he would encourage us to set aside that which divides us, i.e. our egos, personal agendas, and our differences, as well as the strife causing the envy and quarreling among us, and to come together as one people, "One nation under God, indivisible."  So together with Ben Franklin, I too say, 

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin, speaking in the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

In a letter from Paris in 1784 to Charles Thomson, just after signing the Paris Peace Treaty acknowledging American independence, Benjamin Franklin warned, "A few years of peace will improve, will restore and increase our strength; but our future will depend on our union and our virtue***. Let us, therefore, beware of being lulled into a dangerous security; and of being both enervated and impoverished by luxury; of being weakened by internal contentions and divisions***."

Security is indeed the selfish mantra of those who assuage their primal fear by putting their faith, hope and trust in institutions, rather than our Heavenly Father, to protect their position and their wealth--a selfish impetus ultimately splintering and dividing those infected by it. This is why Franklin would say to them, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We should have little interest in persuading those who choose security over liberty, who have sold or are willing to sell their "birthright for a mess of pottage," as such are either unable or unwilling to consider that there is a problem, let alone the possibility that they are part of that problem. Rather, we who are blessed with eyes that see must gather with those of like mind, with those who are unwilling to sell out by contributing to America's demise.  We must stand together courageously with those willing to stand.  We must uncompromisingly sacrifice with those willing to sacrifice, and we must set aside our differences with those willing to discuss viable means of enforcing our grievances and reclaiming our lost heritage of Freedom.

We the People Congress of Colorado has some momentum going, and we will keep it going! Those who are in denial must move through their anger! Those procrastinating must do so no longer, putting off to an unknown future what can be accomplished today.  Those waiting for someone else to something must do it themselves! The time is at hand for We the true American People to set aside our selfish agendas and stand united as E Pluribus Unum. Failure is not an option, as it may doom us to the humiliation of being brought to our knees while we beg for relief from the very globalists who orchestrated economic chaos while we chose to ignore the truth.

NEVER!!!!

The whole world is watching Americans with great interest.  In a 1777 letter to Samuel Cooper, Franklin expressed that the cause of liberty is not merely an arbitrarily relativistic perspective limited to the American People, noting that, "It is a common observation here (Paris) that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own."  As goes freedom in America, so goes freedom in the world.

Will any future scenario provide a better opportunity than the present for championing Freedom? The Continental Congress is a good cause around which we can circle our wagons. It provides the rare opportunity for us to unite our voices and coordinate our efforts.  It is an idea whose time has come, a truly American conversation about Freedom through Unity and Accountability.

The American Conversation

It was Henry David Thoreau who said, "There are a thousand hacking away at the branches for every one striking at the root."  What does this look like?  Millions of "Americans" running around like headless chickens, ever perceiving but never seeing the problem, let alone the solution.  Who can solve a problem by treating a symptom?  Does not pruning a bush simply cause it to grow back fuller and stronger?  How will throwing money at a symptom not exacerbate the problem?

Although America may appear to some to be spiraling out of control, it is not. Rather, the American People are lost and need only revisit their roots. To do this we must understand that America is an idea expressed through conversation-a contrivance existing by agreement in our minds.  Is mere dissent to a conversation enough to trump it?  If so, the idea prompting the conversation was not persuasive to begin with, or those engaged were either not convinced of its merits or failed to understand them. 

America is a conversation about an ideal, the latest rendition of the principle of freedom, an ideal as far away as it is believed to be. Thoughts of freedom  precede the conversation of freedom.  The battlefield for freedom is not on earth, but ultimately in our minds. America is championed relative to our conversation about freedom.

Freedom is not the conversation of the present "Administration."   If freedom is lost, it is because Americans have a propensity of being seduced into abandoning the conversation about the ideal for a more enticing conversation, the most current of which is security via democratic socialism.

Some argue that the term "America" means "Heavenly Dominion."  This is consistent with the certain self-evident principles upon which America is established--those expressed by the First Continental Congress in the instrument known as the Declaration of Independence. I question whether the American conversation has taken place since the ink dried on this foundational document.

"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 rights 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 a government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and provide new guards for their future security * * *"

Lest we forget, this is the American conversation.

In the early 1800s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet.

"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one weeks pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:

Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. 

When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again.

Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, "You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.

 

"The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People."

"I could not answer him," said Crockett. "I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, 'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.'"

After finishing the story, Crockett said, 

"Now sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Person

"The word person, in its primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads.  These pieces were played in public places, and afterward in such vast amphitheaters, that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard by all the spectators.  Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the part he was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission of his voice, made the sounds clearer, and more resounding, vox personabat: whence the name persona was given to the instrument or mask which facilitated the resounding of his voice.  The name persona was afterward applied to the part itself, which the actor had undertaken to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age, and to the character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was his own portrait. In this last sense of personage, or of the part which an individual plays, that the word person is employed in jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a person, we only consider the state of a man, the part he plays in society, abstractly, without considering the individual." Toull. Dr. Civ. Francais, Liv. 1 n. 168; 1 Institutes of America Law, 57, John Bouvier.

Presumptions

Presumptions


(1)  An inference in favor of a particular fact.


(2)  A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted.  Wart v. Cook, Okl.App., 557 P.2d 1161, 1163.


(3) A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence.
Port Terminal & Warehousing Co. v. John S. James Co., D.C.Ga ., 92 F.R.D. 100, 106.


(4) A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.


(5)  A presumption is not evidence.


(6)  A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable.


(7) Every rebuttable presumption is either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b) a presumption affecting the burden of proof.  Calif.Evid.Code, §600.


(8) In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by the Federal Rules of Evidence. a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. Federal Evidence Rule 301.


(9) See also Disputable presumption; inference; Juris et de jure; Presumptive evidence; Prima facie; Raise a presumption.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Page. 1185 American Jurisprudence Legal Encyclopedia 2d defines "presumption" as follows: American Jurisprudence 2d Evidence. §181


(10) A presumption is neither evidence nor a substitute for evidence. ' Properly used, the term "presumption" is a
 rule of law directing that if a party proves certain facts (the "basic facts") at a trial or hearing, the factfinder must also accept an additional fact (the "presumed fact") as proven unless sufficient evidence is introduced tending to rebut the presumed fact. 2 In a sense, therefore, a presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted. 3 The underlying purpose and impact of a presumption is to affect the burden of going forward.


(11) Depending  upon a variety of factors, a presumption may shift the burden of production as to the presumed fact. or may shift both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion.


(12)  1 Levasseur v Field (Me) 332 A2d 765; Hinds v John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 155 Me 349, 155 A2d 721, 85 ALR2d 703 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Poitras v R. E. Glidden Body Shop, Inc. (Me) 430 A2d 1113); Connizzo v General American Life Ins. Co (Mo App) 520 SW2d 661.


(a)  Inferences and presumptions are a staple of our adversary system of factfinding, since it is often necessary for the trier of fact to determine the existence of an element of a crime-that is an ultimate or elemental fact-from the existence of one or more evidentiary or basic facts. County Court of Ulster County v Allen, 442 US 140, 60 L Ed 2d 777, 99 S Ct 2213. 3 Legille v Dann, 178 US App DC 78, 544 F2d 1, 191 USPQ 529; Murray v Montgomery Ward Life Ins. Co., 196 Colo 225, 584 P2d 78; Re Estate of Borom (Ind App) 562 NE2d 772; Manchester v Dugan (Me) 247 A2d 827; Ferdinand v Agricultural Ins. Co., 22 NJ 482, 126 A2d 323. 62 ALR2d 1179, Smith v Bohlen, 95 NC App 347, 382 SE2d 812, affd 328 NC 564, 402 SE2d 380; Larmay v Van Etten, 129 Vt 368, 278 A2d 736; Martin v Phillips, 235 Va 523, 369 SE2d 397.4 FRE. Rule 301 5  *198.

Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction  7 of 68