By Anna Von Reitz
Opinions of Supreme Court Justices are literally opinions, like anyone else's opinions --- they argue, they fuss, they fight, they try to reason their way through things --- and in the end, they express their opinions.
What a let down, eh?
It turns out that college is a boring waste of time, childbirth is survivable, most doctors can't cure toenail fungus, and all these mighty Supreme Black Robes have to offer is an opinion --- often sprinkled with a lot of "dissent" as in "dissenting opinion".
Nearly all their decisions sound like a semi-scholarly cat fight, with the Girls from Dorm B against the Boys from Dorm D.
You are left with the definite feeling that--- my God in Heaven, if this, a "majority opinion" rendered by nine people who can't think straight or find their moral compass with a flashlight, is all we have to offer as the decisive voice of sanity and justice in this country, we might as well strip naked, shoot up, and dance in the streets.
Oh, wait, that's what the Californians have been doing for years and years....
Please note that there are several "supreme courts" and my regular Readers will notice the difference between the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States for starters.
Once in a great while in a sordid, twisted, backdoor way, like people trying to disguise a fart, one of these Supreme Courts will render a decision that makes sense and might give service to humanity.
When that happens, I pinch myself, hard.
Here, against all odds, is one of those decisions worth remembering:
Beys AFROYIM, Petitioner, v Dean RUSK, Secretary of State, Supreme Court (of the United States), US Law, Lll, Legal Information Institute.
Please notice the crazy style convention, where the first name is Upper and Lower Case and the last name is in all capital letters. This is a split jurisdiction Federal case, and this is how they are coding that fact.
Bey and Dean are in International capacity and AFROYIM and RUSK are in US CITIZEN capacity as defined by the infamous "diversity clause" that allows corporations to be counted as Municipal citizenry.
This is another of the endless recordkeeping innovations that serve to confuse everyone outside the system and to overall "hide the cheese".
The positive aspect of this case is that these goobers really don't have the right to presume anything about us, don't have a contract, have no right to change our natural political status, and yes, they have to produce proof in the form of time cards, paychecks, job descriptions, etc., ---that is, actual proof of federal employment or dependency--- in order to claim that we are federal citizens of any kind, whether Territorial, Municipal, or US CORP.
You can consider this a Keystone Case when you do what I suggest and ask, politely, where's the contract?
When you ask that, you are referring to the citizenship contract? The proof that you are a Federal employee or dependent, operating as someone or something that is obligated to obey their rules, codes, and statutes?
If they can't demonstrate the basis for their claims and bring it into evidence, they lose. The burden of proof is on them, not you.
This case explains, in fairly straight forward language and reasoning, that no, the Federales can't just walk into your home or your business or arrest you on the street ---and proceed to presume that you are a Federal citizen subject to the whims of their corporate management.
They do it and get away with it all the time, but legally and lawfully, they aren't allowed to. This case summarizes this very nicely. I recommend it to your contemplation. And your arsenal.
Many of the Hired Jurists working as judges in this country don't have a clue what they are doing --- and wouldn't be doing it if they did know.
This case can help prove to them that you aren't crazy and your objections aren't frivolous --- at least not in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States.