Comments on: Grand Jury Faults DA Office, Gallegos Responds – October 2, 2010

By: Robert Benson

Robert Benson — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:10:56 +0000

It shall suffice to say, under God and American Common Law, I am a king. I will not expound upon such delicate religious matters, any further. My campaign is political. Enjoy!

By: kevpod

kevpod — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 02:04:06 +0000

Robert,

Once and for all, what does “King of Thelema” mean? In standard English.

By: Happy Pills

Happy Pills — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:03:01 +0000

King of Thelema?

By: Robert Benson

Robert Benson — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:21:56 +0000

Please, take notice that the “kingship” discussion was advanced by an anonymous third party above. I do not advise others to, nor do others, call me king of chief. I employ the term, when necessary, to remind my public servants whom is boss. If you look up “dominion”, you will see that the definition is applicable in the context that it was employed; though it is not language that I typically use. I would typically consider myself a Sovereign American Citizen, an American Citizen, an American Chief, or Chief. I am a king -as a King is defined by English Common Law- and a Chief -as Chief is defined by American Common Law; they are synonymous. In order to explain the contrasts between sovereign and subject, and People and government, I provide the following:
“The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people … The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution …” –supreme Court, 4 Wheat 402
“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.” –supreme Court, Lansing v. Smith, 1829.
“Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people” –Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court, 1794.
“The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.” –Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943
“A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends.”
–Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907)
Civil process, under common law, is the law of the sovereign. Statutory law, unless the sovereign is explicitly mention therein, is the law of government and commerce. We have been tricked into accepting commercial contracts, “voluntarily”, in a pledge system; and the statutory liability that goes with it. This is how the “voluntary” income tax gets enforced. When one accepts the contract, even though they are unwitting participants, it is binding; until one claims fraud and challenges the validity of said contract, or gets his life threatened for trying. Enjoy!

By: kevpod

kevpod — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 20:21:25 +0000

OK. What does this mean?

“I am a king, or Chief, if you will, of the American dominion.”

That’s not something one hears a lot.

By: Robert Benson

Robert Benson — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 20:03:58 +0000

I am a king, or Chief, if you will, of the American dominion; it is real, not imaginary. The government are my subjects, or public servants. I do not think I am a Mayor, in any respect. The People are sovereign, perhaps you may behoove yourself to do some research into the matter. I am here for you, if you have any more questions. Enjoy!

By: kevpod

kevpod — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:51:31 +0000

You know, that makes more sense than I would have anticipated. Now for the next challenge.

I have been told that you imagine yourself to be some sort of ruling entity – a king or mayor or something – of some imaginary dominion. Perhaps you can clarify and demythologize this, or shed some light on any seed of truth it may contain.

By: Robert Benson

Robert Benson — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:47:36 +0000

kevpod,
Greeting and health. I thank you, for your inquiries. You are quite correct in that I benefit in innumerable ways by being a citizen of this country, that I enjoy all manner of public property, that I am unwilling to forfeit any of these benefits and that I am willing to lay down my crown of Citizenship to serve the People. However, your misconceptions of the architecture of America government are apparent. The government is not the ruling class (see People v Herkimer, supra), the People are. The “sovereign citizen” rhetoric amounts to informed People exercising the First Amendment in order to protect their rights and warn their fellows Citizens of gross encroachments by supernational banksters (Fed) on the Rights of the People. I am continually amazed at the media’s deliberate indifference in reporting government fraud and ridiculing those who do (see War is a Racket, by the Great Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marines). I concur that it all sounds noble and majestic, explainable by the fact that God has given Us these inalienable rights. Yet, I fail to perceive the irrelevance of government by the People. The alternative is for us to be subjects of government, and not it’s masters; history proves this to be intolerable. Traditional British flummeries like porridge; a sustaining substance, you may be on to something. Enjoy!

By: kevpod

kevpod — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:59:05 +0000

Robert, you benefit in innumerable ways by being a citizen in this country. You enjoy public parks, streets, sidewalks, public safety, to name just a few. It doesn’t appear that you’re willing to forfeit any of these benefits. In fact, you are asking to be made a part of the government decisionmaking process – the ruling class, as it were. What, really, does this “sovereign citizen” rhetoric really amount to? It all sounds noble and majestic, but is it anything more than irrelevant, high-flown flummery?

By: Robert Benson

Robert Benson — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:53:26 +0000

Would any of the above slanderers care to cease hiding behind their anonymity? Are all the readers of this publication this ignorant? Really, The Arcata Eye may behoove themselves by identifying those who post here. Perhaps, sabotage and propaganda is the house special.