SIMPLE DRIVING OR TRANSPORTATION CODE OFFENSE ANSWER AND RESPONSE

By Neil Rowe P.A.G.; Professor of Law

No, I’m not going into to traffic court and arguing illegitimate corporate government, or any of the other varied long winded arguments people and persons propose. Just not interested in approaching it that way for reasons of my own. What follows is my standard template for transportation code or driving offense charges and I’m retiring from answering any more questions related to traffic tickets, until and unless you can quote this back to me verbatim and understand it and still have a problem, moving on to more important issues and frontiers in law. Yes, I could use dozens of additional citations, and you may add them and over complicate matters if you choose, I just don’t think it’s necessary to go into much more detail. Keep it simple stupid.

Submitted to the Public Domain without copyright. Copy and share.
________________________________

Notice of and Motion for Bill of Particulars and Discovery Request for Brady Material In Answer and Response to Inadequate Notice and Defective Service of Process by Complaint or Information that Fails to State the Requisite Jurisdictional Elements of a Valid Cause of Action and Controversy of Both Fact and Law Required to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Proposed Jury Instructions

COMES NOW the accused defendant herein named by special appearance in Pro Se, by liberal construction waiving professional rules of pleading practice, and for his preliminary Answer and Response, Discovery request for Brady Material and Motion as styled and en-captioned above, by his own hand and under oath affiant shows this honorable court and states as follows; To Wit:

Based Upon information and belief, affiant states:

1. THAT the undersigned writer is charged in the instant action and proceedings with a Transportation Code or Driving offense.

2. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law narrowly define “Driving” as the professional commercial activity of “transporting persons or property for profit.”

3. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law defining the elements of “Driving” omit “traveling for recreation or pleasure,” the writer contends, because ‘A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.’ (Shapiro v. Thomson, 394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 ( )); “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” (Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22). “As has been well said in the case of Ex parte Dickey (W.Va. 85 S.E. 781): The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” (Thielke v. Albee, 79 Or. 48, 153 P. 793); “It is to clear for the purpose of extended discussion that it was competent for the legislature under the police power to regulate the use of the streets and the public places by jitney operators, who, as common carriers, have no vested right to use the same without complying with a requirement as to obtaining a permit or license. The right to make such use is a franchise, to be withheld or granted as the legislature may see fit.” (Fifth Ave. Coach Co. V. New York, 194 N.Y. 19,86 N.E. 824, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 744, 16 Ann.Cas. 695; Dill. Mun. Corp. 1210, 1229); “[W]hile a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” (State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. (For further distinction between traveling and transportation, See : Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784).

4. WHEREFORE the writer contents and asserts, based on information and belief supported by points in authority provided, that transporting persons or property for profit in commerce is a condition precedent and form the requisite jurisdictional elements of any transportation code driving offense.

5. THAT the Plaintiff officer by state attorney has failed by sufficient complaint or information to state or inform the accused defendant of the “person(s)” or “property” the accused defendant is accused of transporting, or for what “profit.”

6. THAT the plaintiff prosecution is required to inform the accused defendant of the essential elements of, and material facts alleged substantiating the crime as charged and to prove these same elements and material facts beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, and for this reason the accused defendant contends jury instructions must reflect the requirement that the prosecution plaintiff establish and prove the person(s ) or property that were transported for what profit, and who those persons or what that property transported for what profit was, with particularity.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE all the good and proper reasons stated, the undersigned accused defendant prays this honorable court grant the motion for bill of particulars, or provide discovery of the essential material facts constituting the driving or transportation code offense charged, and compel the plaintiff prosecution to amend defective information or complaint to apprise the accused defendant of the same so that he might reasonably respond or prepare his defense having notice of both the nature of, and, cause for the instant charges and proceedings as required by rules of substantive and procedural due process, or in the alternative quash the information or complaint for inadequate notice and defective service of process and dismiss the instant action and proceedings for failure to prosecute, and grant any other relief this court deems equitable and fair in good faith and conscience.

__________________________
Foot Note: I am not arguing against statutory authority. Travel is mentioned, but Statutory authority to regulate Transportation is accepted and acknowledged.

I am asking for fair and proper notice. The elements of driving are clear.

If charged with assault, how, by punching, kicking or slapping?

If contempt of court for disrupting proceedings, how? By what noise, outburst or disruptive behavior, specifically?

If murder, who, and by what means?

The prosecution must demonstrate the case he intends to put on, so the defendant is informed of the case he must meet.

Driving drunk? Driving on suspended?

Forget drunk, forget suspended…

How driving?

It’s simple calculus.

And with that having been said, I’m charging for the next question.

Dedicated to my parents, who took a clever little six year old intent on being the worlds greatest liar and cheat, and changed the course of his life by paddling his behind, conditioning him to study instead and violently hate liars and cheats.

The Big Three – Articles IV, V, and VI of the Bill of Rights.

THIS WEEKS CLASS ASSIGNMENT

The Big Three – Memorize Articles IV, V, and VI of the Bill of Rights.

A) Memorize Article IV for police encounters

B) Memorize Article V to understand two distinct forms of process, Judicial (article III courts) and Administrative (article I, II and IV territorial and administrative tribunals).

C) Memorize Article VI to understand MMPPR – ‘mandatory minimum pleading practice requirements’ and the due process rights and protections you must be afforded at a probable cause hearing considered waived if not demanded at arraignment or initial appearance before pleading.
————————————————–

Article IV
“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants [for these] shall issue [by any court for any road side seizure] but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”

Officer – “License, insurance and registration please, I need to see them.”

Response – do you have a warrant for my personal papers and private documents, or is this a shake down?

NOTE: officers and agents of government, public and civil servants acting in a capacity representative of public office are required to display Identification on demand. Do you qualify for the requirement attributed to this class distinction?

————————————————–

Article V

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising [by ticket or citation] in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in times of actual service… [ tickets and citations for infractions and violations of statutory commercial duties and obligations apply only to public officers and civil servants ]”

Only public officers, civil servants and governmental service providers are subject to tickets and citations for dereliction of an official duty or obligation of public office against the dignity of the state, as distinguished from a crime against the people or a person in violation of the law of nature against doing harm, injury or damage to the life, liberty and property of another.

————————————————–

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Entering any plea admits jurisdiction and serves as a waiver of your right to a probable cause hearing, also referred to as an examination hearing, where you are entitled to everything here stated in article VI before being required to plead.

NOTE : Stating that you do not understand the NATURE of the proceedings is just cause in law for the Judge or Magistrate to order a Psychological evaluation or Psychiatric examination, unless your inability to understand is for good cause shown, such as the prosecutions notice being inadequate or service of process being incomplete or defective, failing to provide you with paper work that comports with MMPPR, such as would reasonably apprise you of BOTH the nature and cause for the accusations or charges against you.

Cause for the charges against you would include subject matter and personal jurisdiction, subject matter being sufficient alleged facts or evidence supporting the charge, personal jurisdiction being the capacity of the parties to sue and be sued.
———————————————–

CLARIFICATION AND POINTS IN AUTHORITY

Are you being prosecuted in an private individual or official public capacity, and do you qualify to be prosecuted in a official public capacity if lacking official title of public office?

Civilians are exempt and immune from dereliction of duty charges where the duty is legislated and proscribed by exclusively for public/civil servants.

Do you know which laws, common and civil, apply to which class of persons, natural and corperate?

“Two national [and state] governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution [for civilians], with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress [and the state legislatures] outside and Independently of that instrument [and the constitutions of the respective states, for civil servants] ” (Downes vs. Bidwell 182 US 244)

“It is clear that Congress, as a [or any state] legislative body, exercise[s] two specie of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects [ effecting civilians]: the other, an absolute, exclusive power [to restrict the liberty rights, restrain and regulate the official activities and compell performance of civil servants]… The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?” (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)). “… for with them [civilians] Congress does not assume to deal [has no delegated authority to legislate beyond the law of nature] and they are neither the subject nor the object of revenue laws ….”, as stated in the cases of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922), De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 176, 179, and Gerth v.United States, 132 F. Supp. 894 (1955).

“As of the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were two great systems of law in the world —the Civil Law… and the Common Law. — the basic concept of these two systems was as opposite as the poles—in the Civil Law the source of all law is the personal ruler [superior officer]; In the Common Law. . . the source of all law is the people; they, as a whole, are sovereign. During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotism; the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men of equal genius, but with the love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions. . . The Civil Law was developed by Rome. . . The people under this system have those rights, powers, and privileges, and those only which the sovereign [or superior of officer]considers are for their good or for his advantage. He adds or takes away as suits his royal pleasure. All the residuum of power is in the Emperor. Under this system, the people look into the law to see what they may do. They may only do what the Emperor has declared they may do. . . Under our common law system, we look into the law to see what we may not do, for we may do everything we are not forbidden to do. This civil law concept explains why, over the centuries, it has been possible for the head of a state, operating under this concept, to establish with comparative ease a dictatorship. We must always remember that despotism and tyranny, with all their attendant tragedies to the people, as in Russia today, come to nations because one man, or a small group of men, seize and exercise by themselves the three great divisions of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.. . When the [Civil Law] concept has been operative, [peoples] have suffered the resulting tragedies—[such as] loss of liberty, oppression, great poverty among the masses, insecurity, [and] wanton disregard of human life.” ¬ J. Reuben Clark, former US Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico.

“The Common Law is absolutely distinguishable from the Roman or Civil Law systems.”(People v. Ballard 155 NYS 2d 59).

“There are two systems of law at work in the world, the [common] law of the land, and the [ civil ] law of the sea.” ¬ Jordan Maxwell

By: Neil Rowe

ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS

we-the-people-session-vii-rights-of-the-accused-39-638The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,
 

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.” [Emphasis added.]

 

Notice the verdict’s confrontational language: “fighting”, “combat”, and most surprising, “belligerent”. Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being “passive” or “ignorant”? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be “belligerent” IN COURT…?
 
Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.
 
Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Sir Edmund Burke said,
 
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
But apathy (“doing nothing”) isn’t simply a function of cowardice or indifference; “apathy” is a synonym for “ignorance”.
 
What is it — apathy or ignorance? “I don’t know and I don’t care.”
 
Ignorance makes the public more “manageable” in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen’s Rights, government has a vested interest in the public’s ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.
 
If you are a product [victim] of the public school system then consider this, The Department of Education gets what it pays for. …and you need to ‘get yourself smart’ — the sooner the better! This is not a good time for ‘dumb-ass’.
 
‘Silence gives consent’, is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud – or – silence gives rise to agreement. What better way to acquiesce than to not object?

Acquiescence is acceptance!
“The right of a person under the 5th Amendment to refuse to incriminate himself is purely a personal privilege of the witness. It was never intended to permit him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he was the agent of such person.” — Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

Not only that, but if you allow anyone to “represent you”, instead of being “the belligerent claimant in person” (Hale v Henkel, i.s.c.), you become a “ward of the court”. Why? Because obviously, if someone else has to defend your rights for you, you must be incompetent! Clients are called “wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. See a copy of “Regarding Lawyer Discipline & Other Rules”, as well as Canons 1 through 9.

Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client:

“The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.” (emphasis mine)

Lord Yeshua the Christ said in Luke 11:52

“Woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

And also in Matt 23:13,33 (NIV)

“You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to … How will you escape being condemned to hell?”

“A lawyer cannot claim that you have rights.” U.S. v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538

Lawyers cannot defend your rights because they are franchisees of the English bar association, a corporation that licenses its franchisees and regulates their activities. All a lawyer can do is get the master of the ship to go easy on you if you confess to the fictional claim against you. A lawyer will not help you prove your sovereignty for fear of being disbarred. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the only person who can claim his rights is the belligerent claimant in person. To effectively accomplish this you must be able to establish the record with certifiable knowledge of the law.

 


“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant [Jesus style], nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person…once he testifies to part, he has waived his…he must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”~ US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).

The “Real-World” Example:

 

The Frederick, Maryland kidnapping of the baby: We can recall from the Lawrence case that this girl has cross examined cops before, and knows how to enter evidence to the record of the court. So she went into the FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with a script and a game-plan.

The judge asked four times consecutively, “Are you sure you don’t want a court appointed attorney???”

Her only reply was “That she was with TITLE 42 SEC. 1986 certifiable knowledge of the law and that she will be representing the name on the docket of the court.”

The Attorney for the state went blah, blah, blah, and when the young Mother cross-examined the cops she ripped the cop to shreds like a Momma eagle feeds little strips of bloody rabbit flesh to her baby eagles. She turned it into a trial of the State where the cop confessed that he committed at least two felonies. She asked him these questions:

1. State your name.
2. What’s your badge number?
3. What’s your rank?
4. Who do you work for?
5. How do you get paid?
6. Is that in the form of a bank check, direct deposit?
7. Would that be considered commerce?
8. When you were hired, did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America?

Right about there is where the State’s case started breaking down, because the cop said, “I took an oath but I don’t know if it was for America.” – busted!!! –The judge stepped in and said “every public servant has to take an oath! Did you get a warrant to enter the motor home?!?” and “This is a perfectly competent mother with more care and attention to detail than any other I’ve ever seen. I’m going to order that the State release the child back to the mother immediately.” Co-incidentally, the Attorney for the State approached me and said that he had spent quite a bit of time at my web site and he handed me a hardbound copy of “Constitutional Law” from his personal library.

The judge’s personal assistant found the Mom at a restaurant later that day and spent half an hour with her over lunch just to tell her that the judge was totally impressed, and that has never happened in the history of FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with the suspended rules where anything the judge says goes. She said that the STATE always holds a child for a minimum of 30 days and that this is the first time in the court’s history that any one has ever proven that the STATE has no claim, Especially a 22-year old single mom.

I guran-freakin-tee that a lawyer won’t do that for you!

So fire him and move on!


UNALIENABLE: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that ‘THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that ‘all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS’ UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

“Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as “the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;” and therefore it has been justly said, that “absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security–the right of personal liberty–and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Potter’s Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429. Continue reading “UNALIENABLE: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.”

Redefining Words to Steal Your Freedom

Allow me to reveal to you something that I find rather interesting about the “constitution”. Stay with me here for a bit… I promise it will be worth it.

websterHave you heard of Noah Webster? (Note: There is a lot of confusion between Noah and Daniel Webster, but there was no relationship between them. Daniel Webster is best known as a lawyer, a member of Congress, a secretary of state, and perhaps the greatest orator of the first half of the nineteenth century. Noah Webster’s fame is quite different: it rests on his pen.)

Do you know why Noah Webster spent more than 25 years writing and publishing his dictionary?

Noah realized that England and the new America had different forms of government, institutions, customs and laws. Because of this, he believed that they needed different vocabularies. He also knew that science and technology were developing rapidly, and new words were being introduced just as quickly. So, he spent over 25 years researching words and their origins and writing the first American dictionary. This dictionary helped Americans to feel pride in their new country, and enabled everyone across the new nation to have a standard vocabulary.

noah-websters-quotes-2Webster’s greatest achievement was the dictionary. In 1800 he published his intentions of writing a dictionary. He published a shortened, concise but comprehensive, version in 1806. The final version was finished in 1825 and published in 1828. It contained 70,000 words. It is no exaggeration to say that it was immediately accepted as the greatest dictionary of the English language on both sides of the Atlantic. Why would he dedicate SO MUCH time to this mundane sounding undertaking?

Contrary to popular opinion, he did NOT write it so that people could check their spelling. He wrote it in an attempt to prevent the government from changing the meanings of the words in the constitution. In fact, if you look in the very front of the 1828 Noah Websters Dictionary on page 11, you will find an elequant and delightful to read passage from Noah himself explaining why he wrote his dictionary which I will quote below (Take note of how many times “America” is used, and how many times “United States” is NOT used):

“This country must in some future time, be as distinguished by the superiority of her literary improvements, as she is already by the liberality of her civil and ecclesiastical constitutions. Europe is grown old in folly, corruption, and tyranny – in that country laws are perverted, manners are liscentious, literature is declining and human nature debased. For America in her infancy to adopt the present maxims of the old world, would be to stamp the wrinkles of decrepid age upon the bloom of youth and to plant the seeds of decay in a vigorous constitution. American glory begins to dawn at a favourable period, and under flattering circumstances. We have the experience of the whole world before our eyes; but to receive indiscriminately the maxims of government, the manners and the literary taste of Europe and make them the ground on which to build our systems in America, must soon convince us that a durable and stately edifice can never be erected upon the mouldering pillars of antiquity. It is the business of Americans to select the wisdom of all nations, as the basis of her constitutions, – to avoid their errours, – to prevent the introduction of foreign vices and corruptions and check the career of her own, – to promote virtue and patriotism, – to embellish and improve the sciences, – to diffuse an uniformity and purity of language, – to add superior dignity to this infant Empire and to human nature.” ~ Noah Webster 1828 dictionary (page 11).

So it seems that we have been transformed from an infant empire to an empire of infants who need a nanny. Essentially what Noah is beautifully expressing above, is that the “old world” that the colonists escaped from was full of corruption and tyranny… as our country currently is again today. He goes on to say that the laws in Europe are unacceptable because of how perverted they have become, and how long standing law and traditions are not being honored, people are being dumbed-down and not reading as much as they should, and human nature in general has been debased or destabilized… all by design. The worst thing to happen to the fledgling America would be to let the corruption and tyranny sprout and grow here at home. Everyone back then knew how bad the problems were. However, time has a way of making us forget.

So then what important message does this evidence? I believe the moral to the story here is that the meanings of words are vitally important. The meanings of words have been altered. Because of this we should always define the terms we use if needed and AS needed to clarify and rectify the deception that we have been subjected to.

I have a suspicion that the dejure government of “America” was extinguished when it began to be called the “United States”. You may be wondering why this is, and I will tell you why this is important. Think about this… the place I am at is commonly referred to as Oregon. When you add a “State of” to the beginning of “Oregon” it changes it from something that is real, into something that has an ALTERED STATE… it is not the same thing as Oregon… it is a different “state of” Oregon… a compromised state if you ask me!

When you begin noticing these things, you will start seeing them everywhere… for example the “State of the Union” address is not addressed to the “Union” but the altered “state of” it.

When the founders were inspired to write the constitution, Noah Webster was terrified that someday the courts would screw it up. He spent over 25 years writing an entire dictionary simply to keep those meanings true to what the founders envisioned for this country.

Another important thing to remember is that a lot of people make a mistake by referring to “constitutional rights” that they in reality do not have. The constitution does not give us rights. When we are born we inherit natural rights as living beings. We are not a fictional creation of government, we are living, breathing, unique, individual, intelligent men and women. The government did not create us. WE created government for the sole purpose of protecting us, of which it is failing miserably at. The constitution is the document that was written to restrain government and protect your rights. It was never intended to be used to grant them or take them away.

So the next time you hear some one refer to “their” constitutional rights, please set them straight and tell them that it is their “protected”, “guaranteed”, or “non-negotiable” right. Because we don’t have a fighting chance if the corruption has spread so far as to have changed the minds of men by deception through altered meanings of words. The only way they win is through deception, and they are not going to win because we are now wide awake.

Even though it is the 5th amendment and not the first, in my opinion it is the most important amendment to the bill of rights (and the most important element of our liberty). The fifth amendment reads as follows:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

“The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value.” – (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment)

Essentially what this amendment is supposed to do is prevent the government from stealing (they call it seizure) private property, prohibition of self-incrimination and double jeopardy, guarantee to a fair trial, and grand juries for criminal trials. The protection of life, liberty, and property includes everything rightfully under your control, including your body, papers, documents, car, land, bodily fluids, laptop, phone… everything. This also includes your rights as they are considered your property. But this is getting off topic so I am going to end this one and leave you with one last word of wisdom: Take the time to learn your rights. They are the most valuable things you will ever learn to be able to live your life they way you want.

Invest in yourself, you are worth it.

Peace.