"Peace Be With You"

Home Forum Free Book Downloads Contact Behold! Essays Court Cases Behold! Materials

Home

Information is Free,
But ...

Behold! Literature available

Why I write this

To whom it is written

The spoken word
v. the written word

What is winning?

Really Simple Stories

Faith
v. Knowlege,
Understanding
and Wisdom
v. Blasphemy

Quotations

Have it all, Loose it all

The body heals itself ...
sometimes!

The Patriot ... Not!
Cartoon

The Greatest Entertainers

The struggle in my State

World War starts
on your doorstep

Conclusions v. Facts
v. Relevant Facts

Evolution

If you tried to send a message lately and received no response, try sending another message.  The contact form has recently been upgraded.

Do you have any criticism for the material on this website?  Any words of encouragement?  Send them through this form.  Comments may be posted here, state if you want them posted anonomously, and replies might be tacked on.

Before submiting an inquiry, please read this.  Since spam is now pervading forums, guestbooks and contact forms, a more strict use of these features is now applied.  Do not send html, links, advertising nor any offer of any kind whatsoever.  Your message is automatically tested for these abuses and, if found, your message will be sent UNREAD into a black hole and you will be permanently banned from use of this contact page as well as forums and guestbooks.

If you want to send information about a particular website, service or product, then send a description of it in your own words.  Careful!  See the restrictions above because they still apply.  If your message is not related to law, then it will be deleted and you will be permanently banned from use of this contact page as well as forums and guestbooks.

Your name and email address is not required if you just want to post a question or message.

Check back to this page to see if your message has been posted or answered.

Subject:

Contact Name:

Email Address:

Message or Inquiry:


February 26, 2011

Subject: An article by Randy Geisler

"I read an article by Randy in an old Behold issue that explained the issue of "venue" as it relates to where and who federal statutes apply.  Is that article available?  This had to do with the "Nature and Cause" of an action."

Editor's comment: A search is being made for the original article.  One article being processed concerns determining which kind of court a person is before, whether judicial in nature or a statutory tribunal.  Another article addresses the First Judicial Act of Congress in the late 1700s and the revisions it has undergone over the years as Congress removes the judicial power from all of the federal Courts inferior to the supreme Court.  One must also wonder about the legal qualifications of most of the supreme Court justices when they derive the authority to hold any public office from amendments merely proposed and ratified by the legislatures of the US and the States after the Civil War, all of which violate the letter and spirit of the system ordained and established by my Forefathers.

Meanwhile, venue is usually described as where some incident took place and if it occurred within the same venue or legal whereabouts of a specific court which will hear such a case.

It can also refer to the jurisdiction which will hear a case, whether it is State or Federal; in a specific case, are you accused within the venue of a State or within the venue of the United States?  If the process appears to be originating from the State, is it merely process which originates in the Federal venue and is being enforced by what appears to be a State court?  It's the same land mass but what venue?

Furthermore, what kind of process is involved, whether statutory or military or judicial?  Does not each of these forms of process extend over the same land mass?

These descriptions might be visualized as a map of some geographical area over which clear pages can be placed, describing what kind of process is taking place within the same underlying location.  To admit venue merely because someone is standing on some piece of land is rather assuming.

Do you live in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa or Missouri?  Or do you live in Region 7?  It is the same plot of ground on which you stand but in what venue are you?

Many of the States have removed their boundaries from their amended or totally new constitutions; in other States, amendments enable the State Legislatures to alter the State boundary.  In either case, there is no State Constitutionally mandated State boundary.  How do you prove you live within the venue of a State?  If you cannot prove this in a legal sense, in what other venue do you live?  In what venue was a supposed crime committed?

Is a letter addressed to you living in your State? Or is it addressed to you living in the region described by the zip code? Same place, but which venue?

Another case involved a prisoner who petitioned some court in the venue (location) in which he was being held.  'Turns out that his legal venue was actually located in another State, not the one in which he was physically held.

I personally attended the pre-trial omnibus hearings of a local group of people accused of violating a federal statute.  There were four sessions which took about four hours each for a total of 16 hours.  Then in the last closing seconds of the fourth session, the judge rattled off this sentence, the subject of which was never brought up, defined, debated or contested during the previous sixteen hours: "Thecourtfindingithasvenuewillproceedtotrial."  Gavel comes down and judge runs out of the room.  Did you catch that?  "The court, finding it has venue, will proceed to trial."  If you did not know that the topic was supposed to come up sometime during the hearings, then you would probably have missed it.

When it is found, this brief explanation will be updated and refer to the original article.  Please check back.


December 2, 2010

Subject: Natural Born Citizen

"The Birthers create lots of noise and are a distraction from the truth.

It is self evident that Barrac Obamas citizenship emanates from a construction.  A 14th amendment citizenship is a constructed citizenship.  It is not the natural born status as required by the qualifications to hold the high office.

Why hasn't John G. Roberts, Jr. been sued for swearing in one who is not qualified to hold the office?"

Editor's comment: Woo Hoo!  Here's someone with understanding!

The Constitution has no severability clause; severability refers to a provision in a contract which states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the contract should still apply.  Instead, the Constitution must be interpreted as a whole, no part of it can be rendered invalid as a consequence of other provisions and every interpretation must square with the four corners of the document (case cites needed).  Except now, there are five corners to the Constitution so the meaning of the original Constitution must be twisted to include such new provisions as the Legislatures have added through the supposed Reconstruction amendments.

The term natural born must be read as the entire phrase natural born citizen.  The public has no comprehension of the nefarius perversion of the term citizen which the legislatures have used via the 14th amendment to completely subvert the original system of law set forth in the original US Constitution and the several State Constitutions.  Prima facie evidence literally exists that Barack Obama is not a Citizen in the sense of the original US and State Constitutions.  If this fact is overlooked, then any discussion of what is considered natural born is meaningless, not worthy of debate, much less worthy of an investigation or challenge in the Courts.  Of greater concern than where he was born is what kind of citizen he is.  The Legislatures were shrewd in changing the concept of what a citizen is because it dissolves the protections the Citizens had via the original governments established by our Forefathers without the public's knowledge or consent.  Countless faults will be found with today's political system but no solution is possible until the fundamental changes made by the Legislatures during the Reconstruction Period are reviewed and repudiated. 

As to why no one has successfully sued out any of these issues, three causes are to blame.  First, under the power clauses of the 13th and later amendments which reserves to Congress exclusively what those amendments mean and how they are to operate, Congress and the State Legislatures have removed the judicial power from all courts inferior to the supreme Court of the US and the supreme Courts of the several States.  Through the relaxed standards of who can be a citizen/person/subject under the 14th amendment and supposedly hold office under those terms, it is unlikely there is anyone in the supreme Courts who can exercise whatever judicial power may remain in the united States.  Second, Congress beguiled and induced the free white Citizens of their respective States to subscribe to a Congressional Act (Social Security) which repudiates their status as Citizens of their respective States and makes them wards of Congress.  Third, the fire of liberty has all but gone out in We the People.  The People are morally bankrupt, a God-less and soul-less people who no longer look for solutions but try only to secure a part of the New World pie.  People do not understand Christian doctrine so they accept false doctrine from supposedly Christian churches which are only symbiotic participants with the false government.

According to Congress, the standard for citizenship is found in the 14th amendment, which Congress wrote, and those subject persons cannot challenge what constitutes natural born anything.  During the debates to prepare the 14th amendment, the words natural born were removed from the initial wording of that proposed amendment.  The words natural born refer to the rights of the Posterity inherited from their Forefathers; this is not the kind of Citizenship which Congress could convey, nor did they want to.  Congress had been at odds against the People since the early 1800s and characters such as Alexander Hamilton were at odds even before ratification of the US Constitution.  If it were at all possible for Congress to create its own citizens/subjects/persons, it would not create anything like the Citizens of the several States who, by being natural born descendents of their race are the Posterity refered to in the Preamble of the US Constitution, the same natural born citizens protected by its provisions.  By supposedly creating its own citizens, outside the scope of the original US and State Constitutions, Congress has absolute power over them.  It is sad that people of all races accept Congress' notion of citizenship, merely defined as place of birth.

Barack Hussein Obama is exactly the kind of person to head the government created by Congress via Reconstruction after the Civil War.


November 2, 2010

Q:  I'm wondering if you have any writings that speak on the Masonic connections of the Forefathers?  When I defend them in argument their high Masonic ties are brought up and shoved in my face.

A:  I don't have any specific writings about the subject of Masonry and the Forefathers.  I have heard that Masonry or Freemasonry had some kind of internal argument in the 17th or 18th century and was split over the purpose of the organization, abandoning its original guild purpose and becoming a more secret organization for world domination.  Of which version of Masonry were the Forefathers members?  And in some ways, Masons glom onto public figures to boost their self-importance.

'Also heard that the Forefathers only used the lodges for quiet meetings but also that the Forefathers had bad intent in their Masonic membership and that the original Constitution for the united States was perpetrated as a veiled hoax on The People.  If that were true, why were the original Constitution and the several State Constitutions changed after the Civil War through the post-Civil War Amendments?  What, in the original Constitutions, was so threatening to the liberty of The People compared to the unlimited despotic power the Legislatures supposedly granted themselves in the 13th and later amendments?  The change wasn't to end slavery but to make its application universal.

Perhaps you could research the extent of the Forefathers' participation in Masonry, what Masonic principles (if any) are imbedded in the original Constitutions for the united States and the several States, what Masonic principles can be found in the 13th and later amendments (many), whether or not George Washington quit the Masons (I've heard but not found anything on this), etc.

My opinion is the original system set up by the Forefathers should be studied and preserved as opposed to the legislative tyranny set up after the Civil War.  If any problem is found with a Forefather, the principle in question should be studied well enough to understand it even better than that Forefather; furthermore. one should live an even more Holy Life, if there is some personal fault in a Forefather, to further that principle.

Beware of arguments which just attempt to derail the discussion of important matters.  Secret societies are difficult to examine but the treason of the 39th Congress appears in print at your local law library for all to see.  CORRUPTION OF BLOOD: Part One

Thanks for writing!  Do some research!  Report what you find!

Home

Save the Planet,
Save the Environment

Unified Theory of Physics

Dungeons and Dragons

Condemnation v. Consequences

Original Sin

The Repairman

TBA

Movie Reviews

Book Reviews

Video Reviews

Problem Accomodation
v. Problem Solving

My association with Behold!

Conclusions v. Facts
v. Relevant Facts

What's different
about Behold!

Adultery

Get on Email List

History Books which
are not re-written

Social Security,
Mark of the Beast

Forum

Forum

Contact Method