CONSPIRACY OF WORDS
An Open Reply to Clint Richardson
Intro: Clint Richardson and I first encountered each other as guests on a 3rd pary’s radio program. Over a few subsequent months we discussed disagreements over this country’s problems via Skype text messages, and these discussions became heated. More recently I posted a brief comment to an article on Clint’s “Reality Blog”, and Clint responded at length. What follows is my response to Clint’s comments there.
Clint, thank you for your charitable welcome. However I’m afraid that we have a profound disagreement on our condition, and approach to evaluating that condition..
My overall disagreement with your thesis, in which you dissect words by their syllables to award them inappropriate meanings, a process that has no valid basis, is that it amounts to a “conspiracy of words” which, even if it had any merit, offers no benefit whatsoever, and no solution to the current corruption and our problems, short of reducing mankind to a primordial communication of guttural grunts and gesticulations, devoid of any complex concepts, and any significant social structure.
The method of disassembling words to their syllables and then applying generic connotation to those syllables in order to make a series of connections between words, is not actually a valid approach, and does not constitute any sort of recognized Etymology, all while dissembling the foundational principles of this country.
The history of the English language unmistakably shows it is not constructed like bunch of Lego blocks pieced together to form words, but rather is the result of Greek and Roman influences, with its basis being Anglo-Friesian dialects brought to Great Britain in the 5th Century. The English language was then expanded by inclusion of German, French, Italian and Spanish words, as well as prefixes and suffixes. The result is that the English language has no developmental control resting in the hands of any singular sinister group, has no consistent methodology of word structure, and is even recognized as having the most troublesome syntax of any language — essentially a language that does not lend itself to being represented as a “conspiracy of words”.
The actual Truth to our condition is not some grand conspiracy of words, but rather the gradual and progressive corruption over time, not originally involving any sort of Machiavellian plot of extraordinary proportions, at least not involving the words themselves. This is borne out by not only the historical facts, but English etymology. The problem invariably has been one of corrupt men seeking to usurp more power than they legitimately held. Fortunately, the words themselves are fine, and only some person’s understanding of those words is lacking.
My original post on your blog made a brief comment addressing the inappropriate authority you award to law dictionaries. It is a gross distortion to represent those definitions in law dictionaries as being “legal definitions” – they are not anything of the sort. Those definitions have no particular authority under the law, but rather only involve the more narrow or specified definitions which are more likely to be used in communications in the legal profession. However, this does not exclude the use of what you describe as the ‘common” definitions from use in those same legal communications as well. It should be obvious that communications within the law profession do, and must necessarily use those common definitions. Contrary to some rumors, the legal profession does not use its own separate language.
The proponents of the Sovereign Citizen theory typically reference Bouvier’s and Black’s law dictionaries as if these were some sort of overriding authority on, not only the meaning of words, but also the fact of our existence. However, the reality is that “context is king”, with the actual connotation of the words being used being contingent upon the context of the discussion, and this recognition is crucial to proper understanding. Context is the critical consideration to all communication.
For example, in a 2011 interview discussing Obama’s gross overreach in the office of the President, Representative Allen West stated that, “The President is the chief executive officer in this corporation called the United States of America”. Many misunderstood West’s comment to be a startling admission that the United States is some sort of clandestine Legal Corporation, when it was nothing of the sort. In context of the discussion, West was indicating that the federal government’s very existence is from the corporation (or formation into one body) of the sovereign States, and as such the federal government can only legitimately operate under limited authorities provided it. Recognition of “corporation” as the formation of a singular body, or corpus (Latin), is important to understanding the context of West’s remark.
Contrary to your representation, these definitions from law dictionaries are not in some sort of opposition to the “common” usage and meanings, but rather invariably owe their origin to that common language, with the definitions having ties to that common understanding in some regard.
While some words in law dictionaries are “terms of art”, they are not by any means a majority of the words, and none of them are “proprietary”. Terms of art are merely a concise way of referencing complex concepts by a more manageable single word, or phrase, thereby avoiding the cumbersome summation of those complex concepts every time the concept is referenced.
Terms of art are not in any way “artsy”, particularly if that reference is intending to imply some sort of falsehood, or dishonesty. Such a representation would be irresponsible and inaccurate.
While understanding legal communications may be difficult for the average individual, this is not from any sort of conspiracy involving use of a separate secretive language, but rather from the inadequate vocabularies of these individuals.. Our task in communication is to understand these words in the context they were used, and not to create a new language and history from imposing our prejudices upon others words.
ETA, Question: Clint, there is one question I hope you can answer, particularly as a host of a program called “The Corporation Nation”. What evidence do you have that the United States federal government is legally incorporated? Some time ago a caller probed John Stadtmiller with that very question on his program, and Stadtmiller then passed on the question to co-host Ronald McDonald. McDonald’s answer as to proof the federal government was incorporated was, … to cite a dictionary. (A dictionary! Are you kidding me?) . It should be obvious that dictionaries do not dictate reality, and no incorporation under the law has ever occurred by any dictionary. Clint, I’m hoping you can provide a much more valid explanation as to how this alleged incorporation occurred, and what might be the possible gain, given that incorporation would provide the federal government with no new authority or immunity. .
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….”
Some theorists have viewed the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, and interpreted certain words (highlighted in blue), to have resulted in the deliberate corruption of that Amendment, specifically the words “persons”, “born”, “subject” and the phrase “citizens of the United States.” However the context and actual application of these words does not involve any sort of subjugation or enslavement. These theorists interpret “person” to be some sort of enslaved lesser being, “born” or birth to be the point at which that enslavement began, the adverb “subject” relating to jurisdiction to be a noun describing servitude, when it only is a reference to the terms active upon persons who are citizens, and they view “citizens of the United States” to be a newly created federal citizenship, when this federal citizenship has existed since the Articles of Confederation and is established by Article IV, both there and in the Constitution, by the Full Faith and Credit clauses in both documents. None of these interpretations have any reasonable basis, nor are these beliefs at all recognized and referenced by any authorities acting upon us. There is actually no evidence to support or validate these interpretations in anything that is occurring.
While it is recognized that the 14th Amendment was illegitimately ratified by compulsion under the corrupt terms of Civil War martial law, the 14th Amendment is not itself intentionally any great corruption, and even as recognized at the time by its authors in Congress, only sought to make citizens of those who for generations had been slaves and not recognized as members of any society.
The actual corruption of the 14th Amendment came about 30 years after the 14th Amendment’s ratification, by the methodical corruption of the Gray court in United States vs Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Horace Gray changed the application of “jurisdiction” from being the complete political jurisdiction, which has bearing on citizenship and effects the children of Ambassadors, Indians “not taxed” and aliens equally, to now being legal jurisdiction, which has no relevance to citizenship whatsoever. In so doing, Justice Gray contradicted his own preceding decision from Elk vs Wilkins which recognized that political jurisdiction, and fabricated anchor babies, which is blatantly legislating from the bench, and being done in contradiction to the explicit intent of Congress.
This is all supported by examination of the legislation from the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868 on to the 1898 corrupt in Wong Kim Ark, which I detail in my blog article, Ending Birthright Citizenship.
Instead of taking on the personal responsibility and drudgery of actually educating themselves in this history and our language, some few individuals have chosen a series of entirely unfounded beliefs involving their victimization by a “conspiracy of words” which tragically even necessitates the belief that the U.S. Constitution was never intended to apply to the common man, when it is actually our only salvation. No, the Preamble’s reference to “posterity” does not indicate it applies only those founder’s direct “progeny”. I can state unequivocally that those Americans who believe the Constitution does not apply to them and benefit their liberties, are ignorant of that Constitution.
Supporters of these views believe such absurd things as: a “person” being some sort of enslaved corporate asset, when person is only singular of people; that the United States is a legal corporation subjecting us to super-secret corporate bylaws, when no such incorporation has ever occurred, there would be no gain in authority or immunity by such incorporation, and bylaws only apply to corporate officers; that Citizenship is some sort of enslavement, when it is only the legal membership in a society; that the decor of a courtroom (i.e. fringe on a flag) determines the jurisdiction (i.e. Maritime), when it is entirely irrelevant; that birth involves the pulling up of waters onto land, subjecting us to Maritime Law, when very few Americans have ever had any aspect of Maritime Law actually applied to their consideration before the court; that witness to a birth amounts to the surrender of that child as a property if the state, when that witness only serves as testament to that birth’s occurrence
These beliefs, and many others, are so devoid of any shred of evidentiary support, so utterly failing to provide any actual understanding and remedy, and so deep into the realm of “galactically stupid”, that every adult having any distance from pubescence should be ashamed at having any association whatsoever with these superstitious beliefs.
The result of adherence to these and similar beliefs is that the few followers engage a whole series ridiculous incantations and posturing, all intending to extricate themselves from odious, oppressive authority, and even exempt them from the repercussions of their own actions. They refuse to identify themselves by the combination of their Christian and surnames, particularly when capitalized – as if this were some sort of trap, instead choosing to identify themselves by such convoluted terms as “Christian name of the family Surname”. They attempt to remove themselves from an imagined 14th Amendment federal citizenship, representing themselves as only citizens of a given State, when that federal citizenship has always existed commensurate with State citizenship, from the moment the colonies became States under the Articles of Confederation; and they refuse to answer simple questions in the positive, such as, “Do you understand?”, foolishly believing the positive response somehow constitutes their consent to some obscure legal jurisdiction, when that’s not how the various jurisdictions of law are applied.
Invariably when faced with the utter failure and painful outcome of these misguided rituals and incantations, the True Believer ascribes that outcome to the corruption of the Court involving the discard of some sacred principle, such as common law. Yet that common law is the Court itself decreeing from the bench what the law shall be, and is deliberately not any principle of this country, much less the equivalent of our natural law roots.
When forced to react to the failure of these incantations, rather than recognizing their own foolishness, the True Believer instead imagines the Court only refused to recognized the necessary presentments and declarations sent at the appropriate times, because, if recognized, the irresistible force of these mystical incantations would invalidate and dismantle the entire process. Therefore the only conceivable recourse to the True Believer is to double-down on their approach, with minor variation, in hope of fine-tuning the incantation, or in bitter desperation, to resort to extreme action for entirely invalid reasons.
As indicated, this is long past excusable ignorance, and it is a destructive Cancer offering no positive benefit, at the worst possible time in this country’s history.
The beliefs of these few are recognized to be so absurd that those beliefs are used to stigmatize and dismiss the valid movement to restore real Liberty and constitutional governance. For instance, despite Cliven Bundy being conversant in the Constitution’s prohibition of the federal government from owning lands or writing laws within the sovereign States, despite Bundy referencing Article and Section of the Constitution, despite Bundy knowing the precedent of the Equal Footing Doctrine, Cliven Bundy was still condemned in all branches of the media as being an ignorant Sovereign Citizen, when this is nowhere the basis of his case!
Similarly more than 40 persons are now being held as political prisoners in this Land of the Free for their involvement in the Malheur Refuge occupation. Also Terry Trussell is sitting in prison facing multiple felony charges of simulating a legal process, and the response of these person’s supporters is to try to compel county commissioners to form their own independent citizen’s Common Law Grand Jury, which is still simulating a legal process and in no way legitimate.
These tragic outcomes for essentially good people, doing exceedingly ignorant things, are the result of having subscribed to thoroughly improper beliefs popularized by people who have no real clue about the “gospel” they’re spreading.
We desperately need do be doing things differently, and that is why I object so strongly to your approach. Furthermore, from an overall perspective, it is extremely ironic that you propose the existence of a “conspiracy of words”, while you yourself engage in serial word abuse.
Clint, when beliefs are contradicted by fact, and nowhere supported, then those beliefs are commonly recognized as having been disproven. When a whole series of unfounded and disproven beliefs are maintained, then those beliefs are recognized to be myth and superstition, which do not possibly provide any positive benefit.
In fact, it can be argued that adherence to such false beliefs regarding the corruption of this country only serves as an obstacle to true understanding, and barrier to remedying the corruption that plagues this country, disabling us in the restoration of our liberties.
Clint, I truly believe that you sincerely want the restoration of that Liberty, and the limitation of government to only the specified, enumerated terms recognized by this nation’s founders, and therefore hope you might reconsider the theories you now promote, and join forces with other Americans to reach a positive outcome.
I welcome any response here from Clint Richardson, as well as cogent responses from others relative to this discussion.