[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Eric Williams (WHORU) I'm not a "PERSON" (and neither are you morons) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARION COUNTY, ARKANSAS STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF VS. Case Numbers: S2005-1110; S2006-625, 626, S2009-997,998 Eric Williams DEFENDANT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CHARGES AS I AM NOT A "PERSON" AS DEFINED IN TITLE 27-16-204(C) Please note that a document filed with and annexed to my previously filed documents as Exhibit "A" thereto, addressing the proper designation of artificial entities mentioned or referred to herein; and also setting forth my persona and Political Status, as such may pertain to these matters, is likewise annexed and incorporated herein and hereat, in full, by reference. Introduction 1. I come now purportedly as "Defendant" Eric Williams (incorrectly captioned as "ERIC WILLIAMS" in this Honorable Courtfs various pleadings and documents filed by others in regard to this matter), acting on my own behalf, to present my Brief in Support of my Motion to Dismiss All Charges lodged against me as I am not a "person" subject to the codes of Arkansas, as is indicated by the Legislaturefs intentions in its definition of the word "person" in Title 27-16-204(c). and I further state as follows: 2. I do not invoke the various statutes and Constitutional provisions of Arkansas as a "citizen" "person" purportedly politically entitled to seek protection in such references as some sort of political right. My invocation of such references is from the perspective of a man born free on the land calling upon those charged with the enforcement of such Statutes and Constitutional provisions to obey their own rules and to conform to their sworn oaths in that regard. I am entitled to such consideration because of my political heritage which has been recognized and respected by the various Legislatures of the Fifty Sovereign States all of whom have enacted legislation virtually identical to the codes relevant hereto enacted by the legislature of Arkansas. 3. Additionally, the inclusion of the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution where such inclusion was not required in order to prohibit slavery; and the inclusion of the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Arkansas Constitution deserves more than a cursory dismissal as a mere off shoot of Lincolnfs unconstitutional and unconscionable war of aggression upon the South, especially when an honest evaluation of the actual purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to indoctrinate every individual, whether they be "red and yellow black and white" to believe they were all precious in the sight of the government, while the truth was, that ensnaring all commoners into citizenship status was the one sure way the "former" Aristocrat class could maintain its political dominance. Its all hidden right out there in plain sight in the limiting and exclusionary wording of the Preamble to the Federal Constitution, "We the People...for OURselves and OUR Posterity..."! 4. The constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude clauses constitute an acknowledgment, or rather, a proclamation, that there will be a class of People living here on this land who will NOT be subjected to involuntary servitude, and I am among that class! There in nothing in the prohibition of involuntary servitude clauses that in any way suggests that those of us who "crack the code" may be deemed to have "volunteered" merely because we use Federal Reserve Notes or derive any other manner of incidental "benefit" from our association with those "persons" who have "voluntarily" submitted themselves to the political dominion of Arkansas. 5. As an explanation, my use of Federal Reserve Notes results only because of my individual contribution to this community. I receive FRNs because I provide services to those who are willing to pay me. When I spend FRNs I enable those to whom I pay them to sustain themselves at a higher level than they would be able to without my support. Al in all it is a quid quo pro situation, so donft try to tell me I have volunteered myself into a condition of servitude because I engage in whatever I do in order to enjoy the life style natural to my species. The constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude clauses constitute a constitutional acknowledgment that I have a natural born right to live among and enter into any manner of interaction with my neighbors in which they are freely willing to interact with me. 6. Additionally, I claim to be and I am of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776. I claim my free born position on this land (both physical and political) as a matter (1) of inherited right based on the fact that my antecedents lent their individual physical strength and individually risked Their Lives, Their Fortunes, and Their Sacred Honor in the cause of driving from this continent, the army of King George III in the Rebellion improperly characterized as "The Revolutionary War"; and (2), as a natural right derived from Nature, and, quite frankly, I declare the latter to be superior to the former! 7. My purpose in referencing the statutes and Constitution of Arkansas is not as an inherent right as a citizen of Arkansas because, (1) I am not such a citizen and, (2) not for my individual protection as such a citizen but rather, (3) for the purpose of pointing out how the wording and phraseology of the relevant statutes and Constitutional provisions clearly indicate that it was the intention of the Legislature of Arkansas to provide a statutorily discernable means whereby those politically situated such as I, could enjoy the fruit of the success of our ancestors in their struggle to obtain freedom for their Posterity, of which I am among. 8. My endeavors here in this matter are for the purpose of pointing out to the enforcement officers of Arkansas that the Legislature of Arkansas has, through the manner and style of the wording of the relevant Legislation it has created, intentionally written me out of the political jurisdiction of Arkansas. 9. It is Axiomatic, that being an artificial entity, Arkansas cannot possibly be imbued by the men who created Arkansas with any authority in excess of the authority naturally held by any one single individual man among those men who created Arkansas. 10. It is Axiomatic: (1), that no individual man has any more political authority than any other individual man; and (2), that two or more of such men may not unite together in order to combine their limited individual political authority in order to cause such authority to increase to a level greater than the authority naturally held by any one single individual man; and (3), that any men who purport to construct such a combination are commonly known as and are, TYRANTS! 11. The propensity for politicians to make such claims is the reason why the Declaration of Independence includes the proclamation asserting that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of their unalienable Naturally endowed rights. 12. Not to be in any way contradictory to the foregoing is the fact that men do indeed have unlimited authority to combine their individual physical strength for the purpose of lifting a load heavier than any one of them could lift by himself but unless at least one of the men lifting the load had ownership rights to the item lifted, all of the men lifting the load would be guilty of theft. If none of the men had ownership rights they could not acquire such rights by agreement among themselves through a process they might call "voting"! This would be true no matter how many of them were involved in the voting process. How could it reasonably be otherwise construed, among honorable men? 13. My pointing out herein below, of the statutory omission of certain words and the statutory inclusion of other words in certain sub-sections of the Arkansas codes, is not to in any way suggest that I contend that the Legislature erred in the phraseology it employed in creating such statutes but, rather, to the contrary, to point out that the phraseology utilized was intended by the legislators to specifically exclude those individuals who the Legislators knew they had no authority to include and to include only those individuals that the Legislature could properly legally claim owed political fealty to Arkansas, such politically obligated individuals being referred to throughout the Arkansas Code as "persons". 14. During a hearing held in this Honorable Court on October 16, 2009, Deputy Prosecutor Kenford Carter alluded several times to evidence he claimed to have in his possession that he intended to introduce during trial that would establish that there was a birth certificate that I could use in order for me to be issued an Arkansas driver license and Mr. Carter further contended that the reason I do not is simply because I chose not to use such birth certificate for such purpose. 15. Mr. Carter would be well advised to decide his personal reasons for himself and allow others to decide theirs for themselves. Whether Mr. Carter is correct in his contention that there is a birth certificate I could use to be issued a driver license is not the issue to be addressed and resolved by these Preliminary Evidentiary hearings. As a matter of fact, I am quite confident that I could come up with a hundred or a thousand of such birth certificates that I could use to be issued a driver license if my only concern was being issued a driver license. However the reason I do not has nothing to do with me being issued a driver license, it has to do with the insidious undisclosed ramifications inherent in an applicantfs "voluntary" claiming of the use of the "name" entered on a birth certificate, in order to be issued a driver license! The indoctrination of small children by the government of Arkansas, and the government of the united States, in order to seduce such children to "volunteer" themselves into a condition of lifetime servitude through the issuance of a driver license is not an honorable use of such procedure, and for Arkansas to be persecuting me because I have exposed its fraud is nothing more than a continuation of the dishonorable activity of the government of Arkansas. 16. My reasons for proceeding in the manner that I do have nothing to do with obstinance or contrariness as implied by Mr. Carter, but, rather, are founded on Fundamental, Basic, Natural Principles of Freedom and Liberty and honesty in government that this country is purported to have been founded upon, that Mr. Carter does not seem to want to acknowledge to be in any way binding on the artificial entity, Arkansas, or admit that such principles are in any slight manner relevant to the relationship between myself and Arkansas. 17. The subsection provisions of the Arkansas Code, of Title 27, pertaining to whom the provisions set forth therein are intended to apply to, are generally elusive and obfuscatory, clearly written to confuse and obfuscate their actual insidious purpose and intent. 18. In order to discern the intended application of the relevant subsections certain axiomatic postulates must be brought to mind, such as: (1) it cannot be reasonably denied that Arkansas is an artificial entity that does not exist in nature; and (2) that Arkansas exists only as the intellectual creation of certain men; and (3), that these men intended to imbue their creation with certain limitations in order to prevent abuse, by the code enforcement officers, of those individuals who were recognized by the creators of Arkansas, as not being under the political dominion of the artificial government they created. With the foregoing intention in mind, a careful study of the grammatical composition of certain subsections of the Arkansas Code reveals a clearly intentional obfuscation, hidden right out there in plain sight, readily discernable by those who take the time to read the codes to decode the grammatically hidden and grammatically revealed intent. 19. It is Axiomatic that the creation can not be greater than the creator. As Arkansas is the intellectual product of men, it is not possible for Arkansas to be imbued with more authority than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single individual man. How could it reasonably be determined otherwise by honorable men? /// /// /// Discussion 1. The issues in this hearing, or in this case for that matter, actually have nothing to do with driving without a license or presenting a birth certificate in order to be issued such a license. The issue here is, "What, exactly, is it that transpires in the application and issuance of a driver license? Or, put in the context of this hearing, how does a man or woman born free and sovereign over their own individual entity, become a "person" obligated to apply to an agency of a totally artificial entity in order to be issued a driver license? Or, is there actually any actual obligation for a man or woman born free and sovereign over their own individual entity, to apply to an agency of a totally artificial entity in order, to be issued a driver license? What is the true and actual purpose behind the surreptitious procedure preceding the issuance of a driver license? Is the issuance of a driver licence the true and actual reason for the presentation of the "applicantfs" birth certificate? Or is there another more devious purpose for such a specious requirement? 2. The issues here are much more fundamentally important, having to do with honesty, integrity and an acknowledgment by those "persons" administering the government, that the purpose for the creation of government in the first place was not to create a monster to micro manage the lives of the common people, but, rather, to provide an orderly way for societal interactive needs to be provided for, such as water supply, sewage disposal, and the warding off of foreign tyrants, and was not for the purpose of establishing a home grown tyranny with the authority to require everyone to get permission from the government in order to use an additional square or two of toilet paper. 3. Where is the honesty in government when the wording of Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution clearly and unambiguously prohibits involuntary servitude and then Deputy Prosecutor Kenford Carter tells me that such prohibition does not extend to driver licenses? If Mr. Carter is correct, then what, exactly, is the nature of the protection from involuntary servitude intended under this Constitutional prohibition? 4. If the prohibition of involuntary servitude does not include a prohibition of mandatory driver licensing then what else is there that the government of Arkansas may require the people of Arkansas to do against their will? A better question is, "What, exactly, are the limitations in regard to the governmentfs ability to micro-manage the lives of everyone in Arkansas?" And an even more relevant question is, "Where, under the natural limitations on government examined herein above, wherein it was established that government may not reasonably or properly be imbued with any more authority than the authority imbued by Nature into any one single individual man, where, then, does the government get the authority to require any "person" to be issued a driver license prior to operating a motor vehicle on the highways of Arkansas?" Please note that I am not stating that the government does not have such authority, I am asking the question, "Where does this authority properly and reasonably come from?" (Well, the word "reasonably" may be a stretch, but there is no doubt that such authority has been legally acquired, at least as such authority applies to "persons", as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c)). 5. I will answer that question herein below, however, first, I contend that Mr. Carter is wrong on this issue in regard to any purported requirement for every man and woman to procure a "driver license" prior to operating their own individually owned self propelled transportation unit. I further contend that in my answer to the above question I will establish that the Legislature of Arkansas agrees with me on the issue of driver license requirements, not with Mr. Carter. Again, as I have reiterated several times herein, the issue we are examining is much more fundamental than the matter of a driver license. How do I arrive at my understanding of the intention of the Legislature? By actually reading the words they used and adhering to them, paying attention to the grammatical manner in which the statutes are written; giving the Legislature full credit for creating the definitions to be grammatically correct as they are set forth in Title 27, so that the Codes of Arkansas, written as they are, may be readily decoded by the astute reader, and, so that the definitions included therein are in full compliance with Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitutionfs prohibition of Involuntary Servitude. 6. The issue as to who is required to conform under the Arkansas Codes is based on whether the individual is a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c) thereof; and whether or not the individual has been successfully and legally induced or "seduced", to "volunteer" to claim to be such "person", a status to which I have not agreed! (As a side comment, every individual present in Arkansas does, of course, have a political relationship with Arkansas; mine being that I have not volunteered myself to submit to the dominion of Arkansas by becoming a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c)). Therefore, I am an alien to Arkansas. 7. As afore stated, the issue of this hearing is limited to examining and determining whether or not I am a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c), wherein I would then be required to apply for a driver license under the codes of Arkansas prior to operating a motor vehicle on the highways of Arkansas. This takes more than a cursory examination because there is more to it than may be found in just one subsection of Title 27. It is like playing the computer card game, Freecell, where you often must move single cards in the wrong way in order to be able to later move them in the right way. 8. What I will demonstrate is that all men and women born on the land area claimed by Arkansas to be under its dominion, are, at the time of their birth, born free and politically independent; that when born every human baby is devoid of even the most minuscule amount of ability to evaluate whether the information presented to it is good for it or good for "someone else", the "someone else" being an indoctrination officer whose intention (knowingly or unknowingly) is to program the individual child to accept a condition of virtually total servitude, without the individual ever being informed of the existence of any optional independent political status, or being prompted to question the validity of the freedom negating information the "someone else" is indoctrinating the individual with. 9. I will demonstrate a sequence of events starting with (1) the creation and recording of the individualfs birth on a birth certificate; (2) programing instilled in the individual during (3) mandatory attendance in government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools"; then, (4) how the individual, having been appropriately subjected to mind controlling indoctrination, (5) "voluntarily" presents himself to a local Department of Revenue Office, where (6) the individual "voluntarily" and eagerly, and proudly, (7) presents "his" birth certificate in order to (8) be issued the much coveted Arkansas driver license. (The birth certificate the individual presents to the Revenue Office is as much "his" as is "your" bus or "your" taxicab, or "your" airplane, "yours"!). 10. The relevant Arkansas Code provides: Title 27-16-204.Persons. (a)"Driver" means every person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle. (b)"Owner" means a person who holds the legal title of a vehicle or, in the event a vehicle is the subject of an agreement for the conditional sale or lease thereof with the right of purchase upon performance of the conditions stated in the agreement and with an immediate right of possession vested in the conditional vendee or lessee or in the event a mortgagor of a vehicle is entitled to possession, then the conditional vendee or lessee or mortgagor shall be deemed the owner for the purpose of this chapter. (c)"Person" means every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. 11. It seems a little strange that the title of the section is "Persons", and that subsections (a) and (b) both quite clearly apply to "persons" but, however, the word "person" is not defined until after (a) and (b). Be that as it may, Subsection (c) includes five items in the definition of the word person: 1)natural person, 2)firm, 3)copartnership, 4)association, 5)corporation. 12. To the casual reader it will seem clear that items (2) through (5) are artificial entities and it is will likewise seem clear to the casual reader, that number (1) is intended to refer to real live flesh and blood men and women, but number (1) does not clearly indicate such to be the case. To the casual reader it would seem the intention of the statutory definition of "person" is to legally establish that real live flesh and blood men and women are not any different from corporations like Walmart. However, the more astute reader will recall that we were all taught in grammar school that the definition of a word will never ever include the word being defined in its own definition. That is, a word cannot be used to define itself, so, when the word "person" is included in the definition of the word "person" such inclusion is either an unacceptable grammatical error or, more likely, the word "natural", coupled with the word "person", somehow modifies the word "person" so that the inclusion of the word "person" in the definition of itself does not constitute a grammatical error. 13. There can be no doubt that the legislators who created this statute were well aware of the words "men" and "women" which might seem to have been more appropriately used in the definition of "person", that is, if it was the actual intent of the Legislature to legally equate real live flesh and blood men and women with Walmart., So, Reason will indicate that the legislaturefs use instead, of the term "natural person", was clearly intentional; that is, the legislators intentionally avoided the use of the words "men" and "women" because to use those words would have actually created a grammatical error, and would have been otherwise undesirable because the term "natural person" is also a reference to an artificial entity, as I shall explain as I go along. I contend that everything ever written by any legislature is, if nothing else, always grammatically correct. So then, how does the word "natural" modify the word "person" in order to avoid a grammatical error? 14. Another question here is "What could have been the reason for the Legislaturefs inclusion of four clearly artificial entities in the definition of the word "person" if the purpose of the definition of the word "person" was to indicate that such word was intended to refer to or include real live flesh and blood men and women? Clearly such was not the purpose! So, in order to discern the purpose we must examine the similarities of these four artificial items as they relate to each other and then examine and determine how these similarities apply or relate to the term "natural person", the first item in the definition of "person", in order to avoid grammatical incorrectness? 15. The first discernment will be to conclude, in order for the definition to be grammatically correct, that the term (1)"natural person", as included in the definition of the word "person" in Arkansas Code 27-16-204(c), is intended to be and is also an artificial entity, similar in every significant aspect to its definition mates, such mates being; (2)"firms", (3)"copartnerships", (4)"associations," and (5)"corporations". That is, all five of these artificial entities numbered herein are (a) created by voluntary human intellectual activity; (b) all five have official government approved creating documents; (c) all five are registered with the government; (d) all five have, through their human creating agents, voluntarily obligated themselves to obey and conform to the commands of the Arkansas Legislature; (e) all five have a name conjured up by their private sector creators and, last but not least, (f) all five are required by the government to have a government issued license. 16. The foregoing explains how the five items in Title 27-16-204(c) are all rive, artificial entities, so there is no grammatical error in the inclusion of "natural person" therein, but the means by which real live flesh and blood men and women are enticed, induced or seduced into "volunteering" themselves into servitude, as statutorily defined "persons" equal to Walmart, takes more examination and analysis, as I shall explain: 17. As no individual man or woman has natural authority to command non-volunteers to obey, the human creators of Arkansas can not possibly imbue Arkansas with authority to do so either, therefore, in order for Arkansas to be able to command subservience of real live flesh and blood men and women Arkansas must, somehow, entice, induce or seduce real live flesh and blood men and women to voluntarily submit themselves to the political authority of the artificial entity, Arkansas. So how does Arkansas do that? 18. Engaging in subterfuge and deceit, how else do politicians "get things done"? This was not done overnight, many generations have passed thereby enabling the ploy to be gradually implanted in succeeding generations without hardly anyone ever questioning how it all came about. 19. There is a combination here of (1) the birth certificate and its registration with and abandonment to the government; (2) the indoctrination of the populace through public education when they are children; (3) the Legislature enacting enabling legislation; and (4) the young adultfs burning desire to be issued their peer driven status symbol, a driver license. ` 20. It is important to understand that when born we humans have no knowledge of any kind. It is important to be cognitively aware that everything that we learned and absorbed as children we learned from someone else or from our innocent observations. Our first teachers were, most likely, our own parents, then, at about age five, it was the public school governmental indoctrination system and this is the beginning of our intentional downhill slide into being a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c). 21. Although not realized by parents, the initial setup for "personhood" is when a newborn babyfs parents conjure up a name for their child and then enter that name on a birth certificate and record the name and the other information entered on the birth certificate with the appropriate government recording office. When recording the document the parents do not reserve any ownership rights to the name they conjured up for their child. By failing to reserve any ownership rights to the name the parents effectively record the name and then, abandon it, so the "owner" of the name, by default, becomes the state of Arkansas. It is important here to understand that it is the "name" that the state becomes the owner of, not the child. 22. At the age of five years the child is enrolled in government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools" where the child is indoctrinated for the next thirteen years to believe he or she was born into United States citizenship and is likewise indoctrinated to believe that through such birth he or she was automatically, by such birth, also born into being a citizen of Arkansas. This court will please take Mandatory Judicial Notice that it is physically impossible for a real live flesh and blood human baby to be born in an artificial entity or to be born automatically into citizenship of such an artificial entity. 23. At the age of sixteen years the child, at that time having attained the age where he or she is recognized to be a somewhat responsible adult, is old enough to volunteer him or her self into a condition of servitude known as "citizenship", for which the child has been indoctrinated to believe and accept without question that he or she was automatically born into. Among honest people Mr. Carter, this is known as "fraudulent inducement". 24. During the first sixteen years of his or her life, and especially after entering "High School", these young adults have been programmed to believe that he or she must present his or her birth certificate to the local Department of Revenue Office in order to be issued an Arkansas driver license. 25. Thereupon, the young adult presents his or her self to the said Revenue Office where the young adult proudly presents "his" or "her" birth certificate, whereupon, after some testing and skill examination, the young adult is issued an Arkansas driver license, thereupon the young adult has unknowingly and unwittingly relinquished the individual political sovereignty and independence he or she was born with and volunteered his or her self into a condition of voluntary servitude with the political status of a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c) of the Arkansas Code. 26. That is, the birth certificate created by the childfs parents upon the birth of the child constituted the creation of an artificial persona, such persona being the "name" entered on the birth certificate. 27. When the childfs parents record that document with the government recording office the parents failed to reserve any ownership rights or interest in the said persona created and recorded therein. Such failure on the part of the parents constitutes the abandonment of any ownership interest the parents may have had in the persona they created and such abandonment causes the ownership interest to devolve upon the State of Arkansas. 28. When the child whose birth was recorded on the birth certificate presented the birth certificate as a driver license applicant, the actual transaction had very little to do with the licensing of the applicants operation of a self propelled conveyance on the public way of Arkansas, the presentation of the birth certificate had considerable to do with establishing that the applicant was thereupon and thereafter, a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c) of the Arkansas Code. 29. The application for the driver license would be more properly described as an application for a license to enable the applicant to legally use government owned property, such property being the "name" entered on the "applicantfs" birth certificate. Through the application for and issuance of the driver license, the applicant unknowingly and unwittingly agreed to function as a "person" under the persona, under the artificial guise of an artificial entity, designated as a "natural person", as the term "natural person" is included among four other artificial persons in the definition of the word "person" in Title 27-16-204(c). 30. How can a "person" be construed to be an artificial entity? Only by a skillfully contrived statutory enactment: 31. As involuntary servitude is prohibited by both the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Section 27 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution, the Legislators had to devise a clever scheme whereby it could be legally claimed that all real live flesh and blood men and women were subject to the statutes of Arkansas, without the scheme devised being an overt violation of the Constitutional prohibitions of involuntary servitude. Additionally, the scheme they devised would need to make it possible for it to be legally claimed that real live flesh and blood men and women were subject to the jurisdiction of Arkansas, an artificial entity. By cleverly defining the common word "person" to include several artificial entities and include among them the term "natural person" the legislators would be able to befuddle all but the most astute linguists. 32. At the time the definition of the word "person" was "discovered" the attention was cunningly focused on the Legislatures defining of firms, copartnerships, associations, and corporations, all to be persons with many of the Constitutionally protected rights of "natural persons", which protections are in many ways very reasonable as corporate owners of property had legal interests to protect and legal obligation to be met. The fact that the term "natural person" included in the definition of "person" would be surreptitiously used to cause real live flesh and blood men and women to "voluntarily" submit themselves to the political authority of an artificial entity through their "voluntary" application to use the artificial persona "name" created by the filing of their birth certificate at the time of their birth, during their application for a driver license, was totally missed by everyone, except those who intentionally implemented the scheme. 33. In examining Act 241 of the 1989 Regular Session of the Legislature we find: SECTION 3. Definitions. As used in this act, unless the context otherwise requires: (12) "Driver" means any person who drives, operates, or is in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle on any public street or highway in the state or in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic. 34. In examining Title 27-16-204 we find additional definitions of terms having to do with drivers: Title 27: 27-16-201.Definitions generally. As used in this act, the words and phrases defined in this sub-chapter shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them, unless the context otherwise requires. 27-16-203: (a)"Nonresident" means every person who is not a resident of this state; )"Resident" means any person who: (C)(b )(2)The term "resident" shall not include any person who is in this state as a student. 27-16-204.Persons. (a)"Driver" means every person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle. (b)"Owner" means a person who holds the legal title of a vehicle or, in the event a vehicle is the subject of an agreement for the conditional sale or lease thereof with the right of purchase upon performance of the conditions stated in the agreement and with an immediate right of possession vested in the conditional vendee or lessee or in the event a mortgagor of a vehicle is entitled to possession, then the conditional vendee or lessee or mortgagor shall be deemed the owner for the purpose of this chapter. (c)"Person" means every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. 27-16-602.Driver's license required. (a)No person, except those expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person has a valid driver's license under the provisions of this act. (b)(1)No person shall receive a driver's license unless and until he or she surrenders to the Office of Driver Services all valid driver's licenses in his or her possession issued to him or her by any other jurisdiction. (2)All surrendered licenses shall be returned by the office to the issuing department together with information that the licensee is now licensed in the new jurisdiction. (3)No person shall be permitted to have more than one (1) valid driver's license at any time. (c)(1)No person shall drive a commercial motor vehicle as a commercial driver unless he or she holds a valid commercial driver's license. (2)No person shall receive a commercial driver's license unless and until he or she surrenders to the office any noncommercial driver's license issued to him or her or an affidavit that he or she does not possess a noncommercial driver's license. (3)Any person holding a valid commercial driver's license under this chapter need not procure a noncommercial driver's license. (d)Any person licensed under this act may exercise the privilege granted upon all streets and highways in this state and shall not be required to obtain any other license to exercise the privilege by any county, municipal, or local board or body having authority to adopt local police regulations. 27-16-603.Persons exempted from licensing. The following persons are exempt from licensing under this act: (1)Any person while operating a motor vehicle in the service of the Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps of the United States; (2)Any person while operating or driving any road machine, farm tractor, or implement of husbandry temporarily operated or moved on a highway; (3)A nonresident [27-16-203: "person"] who is at least sixteen (16) years of age and who has in his or her immediate possession a valid noncommercial driver's license issued to him or her in his or her home state or country may operate a motor vehicle in this state only as a noncommercial driver; (4)A nonresident [27-16-203: "person"] who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and who has in his or her immediate possession a valid commercial driver's license issued to him or her by his or her home state or country may operate a motor vehicle in this state as a noncommercial driver or may operate a commercial motor vehicle as provided by ˜ 27-23-123; and(5)Any nonresident [27-16-203: "person"] who is at least eighteen (18) years of age whose home state or country does not require the licensing of noncommercial drivers may operate a motor vehicle as a noncommercial driver only, for a period of not more than ninety (90) days in any calendar year, if the motor vehicle so operated is duly registered in the home state or country of the nonresident [27-16-203: "person"] . 35. Throughout the Codes of Arkansas we find a universal use of the word "person", even in the subsections setting forth who shall be exempted from driver licensing there is no mention of any driver who would not be a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c). This repetitious emphatic use of the word "person" is clearly intended to be interpreted by the casual reader as a reference to real live flesh and blood men and women without overtly including the words "men" and "women" in any way that would cause a grammatical error to exist in the definition of the word "person", and there are innumerable definitions of the word "person" throughout the Codes of Arkansas. None of these many definitions include the words "men" or "women". In every instance every definition of the word "person" includes several categories of various artificial entities. In every one of these many definitions the very first item included in every definition of the word "person" is the term "natural person". In every instance the additional items included in such definitions are, without exception, several items all clearly being some manner of artificial entity, such as "firm", "copartnership", "association", "corporation", etc. In not one single instance could I find a definition of the word "person" in the Codes of Arkansas which included the words "men" or "women". 36. In the definition of "driver" in Title 27-16-204(a) we find: "eDriverf means every person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle." 37. It is clear that this sectionfs intention is to convey, by implication, that the "driver" mentioned therein, who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle, to be a real live flesh and blood man or woman. It is additionally quite clear that this definition of "driver" is intended to very clearly exclude "firm", "copartnership", "association", and "corporation"from the definition of "driver", even though section 27-16-204(a)fs primary candidate to be designated as a driver is expressed as being "every person"; yes, "every person" except in this instance, the plural term "every person" is not intended to include every artificial person included in the definition of the word "person", because "firms", "copartnerships", "associations", and "corporations" have no ability to climb behind the steering wheel and be "in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway or ... exercise... control over or steer... a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle."! How duplicitous can a legislature get in its endeavors to avoid revealing its true intent? 38. The clear intention here, in the definition of the word "driver", is to include only one specific "person" among the five artificial persons included in the definition of the word "person" in Title 27-16-204(c) and that "artificial person" is the "person" who presented a birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license and thereby "volunteer" to be included in the class designated as a "natural person" in Title 27-16-204(c). The reason the Legislature could not and did not use the words "man" or "woman" in any of its many definitions of the word "person" in the Codes of Arkansas is because "man" and "woman" are not words that in any way lend themselves well in references to such artificial persons as "firms", "copartnerships", "associations", or "corporations" OR "NATURAL PERSONS", when the term "natural person" is intended by the Legislature to designate an artificial persona ! 39. The previous careful analysis of the definitions of "person" and "driver" as such are incorporated in the Arkansas Code enables us to construct the intent of the legislature by use of reasonable interpretation and thereby avoid totally absurd applications of such statutes, as was ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in excerpts from rulings thereof as set forth herein below in the following cases, all of which were referenced by SCOTUS in HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226, Feb. 29, 1892 "In Pier Co. v. Hannam, 3 Barn. & Ald. 266, ABBOTT, C. J., quotes from Lord Coke as follows: 'Acts of parliament are to be so construed as no man that is innocent or free from [causing] injury or wrong [doing] be, by a literal construction [of the statute], punished or endangered. " "In the case of State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 96, 99, [I]n what sense is the term 'willful' used? In common parlance, 'willful' is used in the sense of 'intentional,' as distinguished from 'accidental' or 'involuntary.' Whatever one does intentionally, he does willfully. Is it used in that sense in this act? Did the legislature intend to make the intentional opening of a fence for the purpose of going upon the land of another indictable, if done by permission or for a lawful purpose? * * * We cannot suppose such to have been the actual intent. To adopt such a construction would put a stop to the ordinary business of life. The language of the act, if construed literally, evidently leads to an absurd result. If a literal construction of the words of a statute be absurd, the act must be so construed as to avoid the absurdity. The court must restrain the words. The object designed to be reached by the act must limit and control the literal import of the terms and phrases employed." 40. In the above opinion there can be no reasonable doubt that SCOTUS intended its explanation of the common meaning of "wilful" to only apply where the intentionally done act was done by an individual who was fully and properly informed of all of the ramifications of his "wilful" act prior thereto; that an act done as a result of intentionally misleading indoctrination of the individual as a child, by the entity that was thereafter purporting to hold the individual to acts done as a result of the intentional misleading indoctrination, would be prohibited on the basis of the principle of Estoppel. As SCOTUS stated, "To adopt such a construction would put a stop to the ordinary business of life." 41. However, there is another consideration as to what may or may not be "wilful" that the Supreme Court did not mention in the foregoing: Bouvierfs Law Encyclopedia 3rd Rev. 8th Edition, 1914 provides the meaning of "Involuntary" is as follows: "Involuntary, An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An act is involuntary when it is done under duress." 42. It is clear that Bouvierfs meaning conveys that an act, even though intentionally done, is not "wilfully" done when done under duress. 43. Additionally, in the foregoing SCOTUS opined that where a literal application of the wording of a statute would result in an absurd result, the wording must "restrain the words". Back to SCOTUS in Holy Trinity: " In U. S. v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486 "The question as to the sufficiency of this plea was certified to this court, and it was held that the arrest of Farris [a mail carrier] upon the warrant from the state court [for murder] was not an obstruction of the mail, or the retarding of the passage of a carrier of the mail, within the meaning of the act. In its opinion the court says: 'All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter. " " The following cases may also be cited: Henry v. Tilson, 17 Vt. 479; Ryegate v. Wardsboro, 30 Vt. 743; Ex parte Ellis, 11 Cal. 220; Ingraham v. Speed, 30 Miss. 410; Jackson v. Collins, 3 Cow. 89; People v. Insurance Co., 15 Johns. 358; Burch v. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374; People v. [143 U.S. 457, 462] Commissioners, 95 N. Y. 554, 558; People v. Lacombe, 99 N. Y. 43, 49, 1 N. E. Rep. 599; Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 152; Osgood v. Breed, 12 Mass. 525, 530; Wilbur v. Crane, 13 Pick. 284; Oates v. Bank, 100 U. S. 239. " "Among other things which may be considered in determining the intent of the legislature is the title of the act. We do not mean that it may be used to add to or take from the body of the statute, (Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. 107,) but it may help to interpret its meaning. In the case of U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 386, Chief Justice MARSHALL said: 'On the influence which the title ought to have in construing the enacting clauses, much has been said, and yet it is not easy to discern the point of difference between the opposing counsel in this respect. Neither party contends that the title of an act can control plain words in the body of the statute; and neither denies that, taken with other parts, it may assist in removing ambiguities. Where the intent is plain, nothing is left to construction. Where the mind labors to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes everything from which aid can be derived; and in such case the title claims a degree of notice, and will have its due share of consideration.' And in the case of U. S. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 631, the same judge applied the doctrine in this way: 'The words of the section are in terms of unlimited extent. The words 'any person or persons' are broad enough to comprehend every human being. But general words must not only be limited to cases within the jurisdiction of the state, but also to those objects to which the legislature intended to apply them. Did the legislature intend to apply these words to the subjects of a foreign power, who in a foreign ship may commit murder or robbery on the high seas? The title of an act cannot control its words, but may furnish some aid in showing what was in the mind of the legislature. The title of this act is, 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.' It would seem that offenses against the United States, not offenses against the human race, were the crimes which the legislature intended by this law to punish. " 44. In this instant case, the general application of the common word "person" has been supplanted by the mere fact that the Legislature of Arkansas has created a statutory definition of this word and the statutory meaning contrived by the Legislature must be applied in accordance with the clear intent of such Legislature. However true that may be, there are still imitations as to the application thereof. As stated in the above HOLY TRINITY excerpt, SCOTUS therein opined that a state may not, through the general application of common words or phraseology, expand the Statefs authority beyond its reasonable boundaries. 45. By the Legislaturefs failure to include the words "men" and "women" in the statutory definition of the word "person", the Legislaturefs clearly demonstrated that their intent to supplant the commonly understood meaning of the word "person" to specifically exclude real live flesh and blood men and women, if this were not true the Legislators would have included the words "men" and "women" in its definition of the word "person"; and would have included the words "men" and "women" in its statutory definition of the common word "driver". 46. When taken together the definitions of the words "person" and the word "driver" are complementary, the statutory definition of each supports the statutory definition of the other. It is clearly the intention of the Legislature to exclude real live flesh and blood men and women from both! 47. As the Constitution of both the United States and Arkansas prohibit involuntary servitude the Legislature cannot and did not use phraseology such as (or similar to) "all persons", in order to extend the authority of Arkansas beyond its Constitutionally established boundaries. The inclusion of such phraseology in the statutes of Arkansas may not be construed by this court to in any way unconstitutionally expand such limited authority in order to unconstitutionally extend such authority over individuals who have not willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit themself to the authority of the government of the artificial entity, Arkansas. 48. The issue here is not whether or not I could use some birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license, that issue is of no immediate significance! However, on that issue, why should I? Can it be reasonably denied that I have the natural born and naturally acquired right to determine for myself whether or not I will "volunteer"? Until I willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agree to submit myself to the authority of the government of the artificial entity, Arkansas, the issue of whether there might be or is a birth certificate I could use in order for me to be issued an Arkansas driver license is a totally moot issue! Bouvierfs Law Encyclopedia 3rd Rev. 8th Edition, 1914 provides the meaning of "Involuntary" as follows: "Involuntary, An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An act is involuntary when it is done under duress." 49. Bouvierfs meaning of "wilful" applies equally to an individual who was intentionally indoctrinated with lies in order to seduce him into "voluntarily" complying with Arkansas codes, "An act is involuntary when it is done as a result of having been intentionally and wrongfully indoctrinated by the lying government of Arkansas." 50. And when Arkansas was not the actual perpetrator of the criminal indoctrination of the individual when the individual was a child, but then, later, Arkansas intentionally attempts to reap benefits from the wrongful indoctrination of its criminal contemporaries, the governments or the other Forty-nine states of the Federation known as the United States, in this particular instance such criminal contemporary being the government of the artificial entity, California, Arkansas thereby compounds its unforgivable insidious criminal activities! A key word and principle here, Mr. Carter, is ESTOPPEL! 51. The issue here, as I wrote herein above, is honesty and integrity of government in its relations with the general populace. It matters not one whit Mr. Carter whether you have some papers you got from the FBI in regard to me, if I did not want the FBI to have that information I would not have allowed the Sherifffs Deputies of Baxter county to take my finger-prints. Go ask Sargent Ken Hopman how many times he and his deputies tried unsuccessfully to take my prints. Ask him how, after the judge there had already ordered my release, how I allowed him to take my prints and how I allowed him to take additional extra sets for him to provide to the FBI. Ken Hopman is an honorable man, he will tell you the truth. 52. The point here is the information you purportedly have from the FBI was elicited from me as a result of mind controlling indoctrination I was subjected to when I was a child, using duplicity and deceit, intentional fraudulent inducement. That which is fraudulently obtained you are Estopped from using, according to your own rules. 53. I have no objection to some form of registration of those who operate self propelled conveyances due to the hazzard involved, but that purpose is not the true purpose of the use of a birth certificate nor a driver license and if you do not understand that then you are derelict in your duties. The true purpose of the birth certificate / driver license is to seduce the common people into a general condition of subservience to an artificial entity , and you, Kenford Carter, are a part of it! I once considered you to be an honorable man but the manner in which you have conducted yourself in this travesty has outed you. 54. I have no idea where those two warrants I was arrested under were hidden during the past five years, but I do know they were not on the police computer otherwise they would have been exercised against me several times during the past five years. Where was the 2005 warrant when I was issued the citation in 2006? Both of those documents reveal their fraudulent nature on their face. Neither of them were issued on the date indicated on their face and I can prove it any time I choose. And where were both of those warrants when I was arrested and held in the Baxter County jail for six days in March, 2007? And where were they when I was stopped by a State Trooper on April 18, 2008, who issued me a warning for speeding, wherein the trooper wrote "none" on the driver license number line? 55. I made myself available in as honorable a way as I possibly could back in 2005, waiting out there in the parking lot of the courthouse after I had paid a court reporter $125.00 to inform the court that I was challenging the jurisdiction thereof over me based on my political status. If Judith Bearden had authority to issue a warrant for my arrest after you informed her of the conversation you and I had out there in the parking lot where she had sent you with two police officers who were present and listening, then she certainly had authority to have me arrested at that time as I had, in good faith, as you are personally aware, made myself available for that purpose, as the court reported had informed her. When Judge Bearden sent you out of the court room to talk to me and you asked me questions "for the record", which I answered "for the record", such procedures constituted her extension of the courtroom to the parking lot, how else could such proceedings be properly and honorably construed? And then you two charge me with failure to appear? This should make an interesting RICO case. If Judge Bearden had authority to issue a warrant for my arrest at that time then she had a duty to have me arrested at that time! Her failure to do so constituted her waiver of any jurisdiction she might have had or indicated she had none. In either event her actions in issuing a warrant for my arrest are properly deemed to be "BAD FAITH!" and constitute malevolent malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, all three rolled up into one! Why did Judge Bearden not have me arrested and brought in to court at that time? Was her failure due to the fact I had hired a court reporter to be there to record her bad faith antics? And for her to state she was going to make it a no bail warrant? What on Godfs green earth had I done to deserve that? And for you to claim during the October 16, 2009 farce, that when I come into court I thereby acknowledge jurisdiction? So if I stay outside you all issue a no bail warrant for my arrest and if I come in then I acknowledge your jurisdiction? You have got to have more honor than that? As you are certainly aware, I was arrested and released on my coerced bonded agreement to attend these farce full proceedings, so how can you honestly claim that I am "voluntarily participating"? Every pleading I have filed has a TDC disclaimer note at my signature. There are many court cases that teach that the presence of an individual in court to challenge the jurisdiction thereof may not be construed as a voluntary acknowledgment of jurisdiction by such individual, and you know it! 56. I know many would claim that for me to add these words is just asking for more trouble, but I am not concerned, you can do no more than kill me and I will soon die anyway so at least I have the pleasure and knowledge that you know that I know what you really are. 57. There is no way that you can prove me wrong by application of reason! For Judith Bearden to suggest I should move to Mexico is an insult not worthy of an honorable manfs response. It is she who should move if she cannot stand the sweet smell of the sweat exuded by those of us who have dedicated Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor to the cause of Freedom and Liberty. But I expect that to "persons" such as you two, the smell is more a stench that must be eradicated. I am 75 years of age, I have enjoyed a very successful life, I have nothing to be ashamed of. If I stand as a single man, by myself, with all of you against me, I still win, because truth will always win, sooner or later. You scoffers will be held accountable, the Truth of the Creator is in your own very soul and you dare to flaunt your arrogance as though you will never be held to account for your evil lying ways. Woe be unto you for your Creator shall hold you to answer for your crimes against Freedom and Liberty! 58. Truth is like the tides of the ocean; lies are like sand castles on the beach. You may have the immediate power to destroy me but I am not the Truth, I am but its messenger. Ultimately the Truth will wash away you and your sand castle lies and although I may not be here to see the victory, I will none the less be the victor! 59. 5-13. (These items presented herein below, with these index numbers, are excerpts from the Mandatory Judicial Notice document filed concurrently herewith). This Honorable Court will please take Mandatory Judicial Notice that as new born infants we humans have no naturally provided frame of reference to enable us to determine whether what we are first taught as young children is good for us or only good for the government. 60. 25-57. This Honorable Court will please take Mandatory Judicial Notice that the term (1)"natural person" as included in the definition of the word "person" in Arkansas Code 27-16-204(c), is intended to be and is an artificial entity similar in every significant aspect to its definition mates, such mates being; (2)"firms", (3)"copartnerships", (4)"associations," and (5)"corporations". That is, all five of these artificial entities numbered herein are created by voluntary human intellectual activity; all five have official government approved creating documents; all five are registered with the government; all five have, through their human agents, voluntarily obligated themselves to obey and conform to the commands of the Arkansas Legislature; all five have a name conjured up by their private sector creators and, last but not least, all five are required by the government to have a government issued license. 61. I contend that any such "evidence" that Mr. Carter may have in his possession was created only because I was subjected to fraudulent inducement constituting intentional mind control, and therefore should be and is Estopped from being used for any purpose what-so-ever, other than to demonstrate the insidious means the men who created and operate the government of Arkansas (and the governments of the other 49 co-operating states) will resort to, in order to achieve their nefarious purposes. 62. Procedures that originate through fraud gain no honorable application or acceptance even though such procedures have previously been and are currently widely adhered to and universally believed and accepted as common ordinary custom and practice by the ignorant government indoctrinated general population! 63. The Constitutional chains, purported by the Founding Fathers to bind the government within Reason, have been diced and spliced into mince meat by the insidious tyrannical legislation enacted by the Legislature of Arkansas (and likewise by the 49 other legislatures in their own purported domains) for the purpose of subverting and denying the free born choice of everyone born or migrating into the land area known as Arkansas (and the United States). THEREFORE: As it is clear that I, Eric Williams, have never ever willingly, knowingly, and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to relinquish the individual sovereignty I was born with, in order to submit myself to the artificial government of Arkansas; and as I have clearly established that I am not a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c); I, Eric Williams, respectfully demand that the charges lodged against me be dismissed due to the fact that Arkansas has no legitimate claim of political jurisdiction over me, and that I be accorded any and all additional relief to which I might be entitled. Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion @ @ Eric Williams, November 10, 2009 C:WpdocsxDismiss All Charges I am Not a Person Brief in Support of Motion to x 1.wpd
Poster Comment: This brief is a little long winded and repetitive in spots ... but Eric Williams is brilliant, courageous, stubborn and my kind of guy. He's the kind of manhood that built this country from the ground up. He makes several points in this brief that dissect Transportation Code references to "natural persons" (among others that are brilliantly analyzed.)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: noone222 (#0)
A FRIEND OF MINE WENT OUT TO SEE ERIC AND SPEND A MONTH WITH HIM.
I think you mentioned him to me in the past and I let you know that I read his stuff often and respected it. I received this brief today and there are several brilliant points of analysis in it. He is clear minded. I appreciate his work and his efforts.
Doing what's right isn't always easy but it's always right.
I received this brief today and there are several brilliant points of analysis in it. He is clear minded. I appreciate his work and his efforts. i am saving this to read later, but just wanted to say that I also like Eric and think he is a very cool guy. he once told the story of a govt jackboot that came to his door and tried to threaten him for not having a dog license when he lived in so. Calif, and he shouted through the door to get off my property, and if anyone comes through my door they will get filled full of lead. LMAO!! that guy used to crack me up, i used to listen to his show every night on wtprn.com . i believe they still have an MP3 audio archive of all their shows. he is a must hear for anyone wanting to introduce people to the sovereign person ideology.
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. Eric is Waaaaaay beyond 99.999% of those on this forum
What is the outcome of this pleading? Thank you.
Thank you. It was just filed, but the intent is a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because a "person" (even a natural person or every person or all persons) are all artificial entities.
Doing what's right isn't always easy but it's always right.
PLEASE keep us posted on the proceedings. Thanks, much.
I enjoyed every minute! This is one for the history books just as soon as the government indoctrination centers are shut down. Thank you so much for posting it! 56. I know many would claim that for me to add these words is just asking for more trouble, but I am not concerned, you can do no more than kill me and I will soon die anyway so at least I have the pleasure and knowledge that you know that I know what you really are. 57. There is no way that you can prove me wrong by application of reason! For Judith Bearden to suggest I should move to Mexico is an insult not worthy of an honorable man33;fs response. It is she who should move if she cannot stand the sweet smell of the sweat exuded by those of us who have dedicated Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor to the cause of Freedom and Liberty. But I expect that to "persons" such as you two, the smell is more a stench that must be eradicated. I am 75 years of age, I have enjoyed a very successful life, I have nothing to be ashamed of. If I stand as a single man, by myself, with all of you against me, I still win, because truth will always win, sooner or later. You scoffers will be held accountable, the Truth of the Creator is in your own very soul and you dare to flaunt your arrogance as though you will never be held to account for your evil lying ways. Woe be unto you for your Creator shall hold you to answer for your crimes against Freedom and Liberty! 58. Truth is like the tides of the ocean; lies are like sand castles on the beach. You may have the immediate power to destroy me but I am not the Truth, I am but its messenger. Ultimately the Truth will wash away you and your sand castle lies and although I may not be here to see the victory, I will none the less be the victor! Amen.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Thanks for the link!
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Making a note...Thanks!
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
The portion that you quoted touched me too. The stubborn refusal of a 75 year old man to forfeit his humanity or dignity (creativity-superiority-sovereignty) to a machine or artificial entity is an uplifting example of the "right stuff." Which it will require much more of (the right stuff) in order to re-claim real liberty.
Doing what's right isn't always easy but it's always right.
Touch'e! I wish him success. I'd be curious to hear the outcome.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||