What Do We Do?
I have been asked what the best approach is to dealing with this unjust system and although, many people are attacking it from many angles, if you look at it more like weeding your garden, we can see better what needs to be done. You see, when we cut off a branch of the weed, it keeps growing. You can even cut it all the way down to the base and you will still face it again in the future. The weed will always continue to grow until you take it by its roots and extract the whole thing from soil. That is the problem that we have today. We keep responding to individual issues and individual cases and yes, there are wins and some people find benefit, but we are only placing temporary patches to the problem and never actually fix the issue. Over time, the problem manifests again, only from a different angle. Eventually we must realize that it will cost far less in the long run to simply deal with the root of the issue. I'm not saying that we should stop any of our efforts, but if we know what the origin of the issue is, then the most logical thing to do would be to deal with that and then all of the other problems will work themselves out. This may seem like a huge, monumental thing, but wrong will always be wrong, it doesn't matter how many patches you place on it, if you do not fix the foundation, every patch will still equate to wrong. Therefore, the only right thing to do would be to put all of our efforts into targeting the origin of the issue and removing it permanently from American jurisprudence, even if that means nullifying every case that is progeny to it. We can all individually fight for our Justice in which case, some people will win, but the work will be exhausting and the cost will be great and such an approach will only lengthen the time in which those effected will have to continue to suffer. Or alternatively, we can come together, United and focused on a single objective and through a single victory, all will realize victory. We must be quick and decisive in our actions.
So we need to take a slightly different approach in my opinion. I'm not at all saying that anyone is wrong, because theoretically the Constitution was meant to be the Supreme Law of the Land and the Bill of Rights was meant to elevate certain privileges and immunities above political contemplation and make them guarantees for all persons. This would be the case in a government of Laws system, such as the one that we were originally intending to be. And we see its design from the Supremecy clause through the various amendments. But the problem is that isn't actually how it stands today.
Like I have said, the Court has managed to keep the American public ignorant to the true workings of the system and their intentions through misinformation and non disclosure. They have all been working together in this highly efficient criminal enterprise that they call "good", but let me tell you what actually happened. Back starting, I believe in 1833 (it could be earlier, but I believe this is where it all began, the Court began making rulings intended to advance business interests. This would be consistent with the Gildan Age with extremely brutal and corrupt businessmen like Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Ford and Rockefeller, who were known for buying Senators and other politicians to advance their own personal financial interests. Everyone was up for sale during this time, including Supreme Court Justices. From around 1820-1930 there wasn't hardly a single Justice besides John Marshall Harlan who showed any sympathy at all toward minorities and criminal defendants and nearly every ruling that the Court made was skewed toward business interests in some way or another. The American people were the big losers during this time. So the court made some horrible rulings and 2 of them really stand out. The first is Barren v. Baltimore from 1833. In this case, the Court decided that the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution and ratified by the People on December 15, 1791, was only a restriction on Congress and not the States. It was therefore, up to the states constitutions to determine whether or not those individual rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights were conveyed to the People. Or in otherwords, unless the state's constitution said that the citizens residing within the state had the freedom of speech, the People did not actually have the freedom of speech. Now this is a completely dubious and unconstitutional decision, none the less, the Court made the ruling and the people went along with it. This is when our nation switched from a Government of Laws system with the Constitution being the foundation into a Legal Realism system with judge made rulings being the foundation. From this point forward, the concept of Stare Decisis was advanced, which is a common law system where judge made rulings or precedents determine what the law is and not actually the law itself. So, if you were to raise a constitutional argument citing a provision of the constitution, the judges would then go to the large body of past rulings to make a determination and not actually to the Constitution. This too is NOT consistent with our system of government. The judges take an Oath with and to the Constitution, so when they use precedents as their basis for making a decision, they are not relying upon the object to which their fidelity is owed and instead upon the flawed decision of the judge who came before them and the flawed decision of the judge who came before him. Judges oaths are supposed to be with and to the Constitution directly. They are to be independent and therefore, this system model was completely wrong, but none the less, that is what happened. Today, if you were to bring up a Constitutional argument, such as I did, and I included within that argument 7 direct clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and then I used easily twice that many direct USC statutes to support the argument, but the court and the state used nothing but judge made rulings to argue the civil action. My case went all the way to the US Supreme Court and there were thousands of other cases that I was bringing along with me and not one time did either the Court or the state ever once cite a single statute or Constitutional provision. What that means is that to the Judicial Branch, the lowest form of Law (Not even law), judge made rulings is in legal contemplation higher than the highest form of law, the United States Constitution and it also means that judges have the ability to alter, amend or destroy the Constitution at their will. If we were still a Government of Laws system then the Constitution would be what the judges would look to when trying to determine the outcome of a legal dispute. The Supreme Law of the Land would be the ultimate source in determining a legal dispute. So when the Constitution says that I cannot be held over for an infamous crime without an indictment by a Grand Jury, the Court says, no, you dont get what the Constitution guarantees because of this judge made ruling from 1887. So, our system has been built upside down, which is what I am going to be explaining over the next few weeks with the FreeMe Thomas Show. So there is the primary foundational issue. But just like scripture says, unless you build your house (courthouse) on the Rock (bedrock of our nation), the house will fall when the storm comes. The storm is coming and I'm going to tear it down brick by brick.
So the first case was Barron v. Baltimore and the next was Dred Scott v. Sandford from 1857. In this case, Chief Justice Taney came up with this bullshit idea that there were actually 2 citizenships that existed. The federal citizenship, which afforded you federal rights and whatever the US Constitution guaranteed in Article IV. Section 2. as well as those rights enumerated within the first 10 Amendments and a state citizenship, which afforded you whatever rights the state constitution gave you. Then, if you were being prosecuted by the state, that criminal prosecution only provided the protections that the state offered. Now this is absolutely untrue, but I cannot explain all the reasons why because this is the heart of my case with SCOTUS right now. This Dred Scott case was especially disgusting and was actually the precursor to the Civil War. So then what happened was after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments were presented to Congress and ultimately ratified by the People starting with the 13th Amendment, then 14th and then 15th. Now, we don't need to go over how exactly the 13th amendment failed, but if you want to know what happened, here is a link to the history behind the 13th Amendment and how it failed: https://www.facebook.com/100047512355426/posts/268404734753270/ I also suggest this posting for some legal arguments pertaining to the legality if the institution: https://www.facebook.com/100047512355426/posts/391928369067572/ You can also read the Time Magazine article from this link for additional historical context: https://www.facebook.com/100047512355426/posts/300706874856389/
So after the 13th Amendment was ratified, Congress went to work on the 14th Amendment. Now it is VERY well known that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to technically overrule the Barron and Dred Scott cases and both Senator Howard who introduced the Bill to Congress and Representative Bingham who introduced the Bill to the House, both specifically stated that the intended purpose was to eliminate the argument regarding dual citizenship and declare anyone either born or naturalized in the US as a US Citizen. Your citizenship doesn't change based upon what state you choose to reside within the jurisdictional United States. The other purpose was to end the debate that United States Citizens rights are dependent upon where they choose to reside. They both spoke of some specific rights protected by Article IV. Section 2. And then they specifically stated each of the enumerated rights within the Bill of Rights. This information can actually be accessed through the Congressional archives, there is no denying that Bingham and Howard intended for the 14th Amendment to preserve those rights as privileges and immunities of US Citizens and they were no longer subject to where they reside. As such, the 14th Amendment overruled the Dred Scott and Barron rulings... You would think. Well, that wasn't the case because Chief Justice Waite and his fellow criminals at the Supreme Court didn't want the slave industry to end, so they put into place rulings that all but neutralized the Reconstruction Amendments. Starting with the United States v. Cruikshank case of 1875. In this case, Waite reached around the 14th Amendment and completely disregarded the argument presented on the floor of Congress as to the Bills intent and brought back the Barron v. Baltimore Case by ruling that the federally created rights did not include the fundamental rights that were enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In this case, the Court decided that the states were still not bound by the first 10 Amendments. This remains the case to this day. The Barron v. Baltimore case is still considered a valid Supreme Court precedent. Even today, the rights that you are given are limited only to those expressly contained within the State constitutions. Now, this is what I am fighting and will absolutely win. Barron is unconstitutional and always was and since that Court makes a decision that all lower courts must follow, the moment that the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional ruling all rulings, from all courts (every court is below it), are from that point forward rendered unconstitutional because they are tainted by the illegality of the way in which they were obtained. If the high Court provides an unconstitutional directive that all of the lower courts must follow, then from that moment the decision is made until the directive is stricken from the record and the courts return to lawfully abiding decisions, every single decision made is unconstitutional.... Period. You see, the general rule when dealing with an unconstitutional statute is that it isn't unconstitutional only from the point that it is deemed such, rather it is unconstitutional from the moment that it was enacted, as though it was never enacted at all. Judge made rulings are the same way, if the ruling is unconstitutional, it doesn't suddenly become that way, no, it was ALWAYS that way. So, you see, what I am doing is very, very big. Now, the next major decision that Waite made that was BS was the Hans v. Louisiana case. In this case, he was fixing where the Dred Scott case almost succeeded. With Dred Scott, he was a slave who was brought into a free state and sued in the Supreme Court for his freedom. But the question asked of SCOTUS was, "Can a slave sue in federal court for his freedom"? In this case, from 1857, the Court in order to avoid having to free the slave, which they would have had to if they actually ruled on the case, they said that blacks arent people and slaves are private property, which means that 1. If your not a person, you don't have standing to bring a case and 2. As property, the government cannot interfere with it. What Waite did in the Hans case then was... Slaves had already been shifted to a state run institution now under the 13th Amendments "exception" loophole, which made the state now the slave owner, so in the Hans case, by giving States sovereignty, despite not actually having sovereignty and the Chisholm case specifically stating such and despite the fact that the 11th Amendment does not actually say what they said that it does, it made it so that the slave (criminal) cannot sue for his freedom in federal court (because the slave owner was now immune and sovereign). This was the reason why Waite decided to make that decision, so that never again would a slave come as close as Dred Scott did to winning his freedom.
So, going back to what I said in the beginning, we need to have a slightly different approach. We need to first bring attention to the criminal acts of the Court. Then we need to give the Court the opportunity to correct their behavior. Then we need to bring the issue to the people and get them informed. Then once we have sufficient people knowledgeable in the situation, then we bring the case directly to SCOTUS. They aren't going to correct their crimes against the People until they have to. These are a bunch of liars and have very little actual honor, they won't admit any mistakes because they believe themselves to be perfect and that all the people are below them. They act as though they are untouchable and can do whatever they please. They believe that their intelligence far exceeds that if the general public and they behave in the same way that a King would, demanding that you "Honor" them and do not confront them, their decision is final and they are in a privileged position far and above everyone else. That is why our Lord Jesus Christ called them hypocrites and said, "You are so proud of how well you know the law and yet you dishonor God by breaking it." They protect each other from prosecution for their criminal behavior, they constantly lie to the people. Most every single one of them do many of the same crimes as the people that they lock up, which is a hypocrisy beyond even discussion, its so absurd. These are a group of criminals who have fooled the people into thinking that they are actually good for hundreds of years. It is a body of men that make up the biggest bully and most powerful narcissist that has ever existed. They will not change anything until they are forced to. So, ultimately the decision will come from the Court, but the Battle is fought in the opinion of the Public. Now I am not saying that individual petitions won't work, what I am saying is that despite being accurate with regard to the Theory of our system, it isn't actually true anymore and what many of us want to argue can be denied under existing Supreme Court precedent. So, that's what we have to attack first, then once the root is removed, every single case that comes from it (derives from it), must be removed as well. That is the Jubilee, the release of all slaves and the forgiveness of all debt. That is the new life that every single Citizen will be given and the restart of our country without having a lower class of people, that is how all people will be equal, because government and laws will FIRST treat them equal. Where our founding Fathers erred and created a criminal enslavement System because they refused to give up their property, we now have opportunity to do the impossible and restart our nation closing a very dark chapter in our nations history. This can actually happen under this existing condition because every single criminal conviction since 1833 is built upon the flawed and unconstitutional ruling of the United States Supreme Court, rendering each of them also, unconstitutional. Every single criminal defendant ever since 1833, both charged and/or convicted had their Constitutional rights contained within the Bill of Rights violated by the State operating under the direction of legal decisions made by the United States Supreme Court and every single judge in every single state had a DUTY to disregard that order and do as the Constitution explicitly states.