�1. a. The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one�s own choosing. c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. [See freedom.]

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: �the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.�

We in this nation of States establish government for one reason and one reason only - to secure our natural rights, to provide means of defending the unalienable, self-evident rights expressed by Mosaic/Judaic Law, the English Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution), the Declaration of Independence, and secured by the Constitution for the United States of America and the various state constitutions.

Now get this. The Constitution does not �give� any individual rights. Rights are not given by government and the Constitution is really nothing more than an agreement between the people securing rights people naturally have against the government. Government is established to protect those rights and the Constitution sets the limits on government authority. In other words, governments are instituted only to protect the rights of the individual, including from the government.

A central government, the US government, was established to secure the protection of the rights by defending those rights against any enemy, foreign or domestic. In order to finance this very limited operation, the government was given the means to do so through indirect taxation but never by relying on directly taxing the citizens. It has absolutely no power to tax citizens of the 50 States as is being done with federal (and state) income tax.

The government established could also control interstate commerce for financing but not commerce within a State. Clause 3 of Section 8, Article I, of the Constitution states: �...among the several States�, not 'within the several States'. Because of misapplication of commercial codes (Title 49) to citizens not engaged in commerce, though, it is likely the State you live in has duped the population into believing through misapplication of Title 49 to privately owned and used vehicles that they are required liability insurance. Totally false as it is unconstitutional for any level of government to demand any citizen buy any product.

If a private citizen traveling in a private automobile is in an accident, then he has the responsibility of proof of financial responsibility. The key, though, is whether or not he is in an accident. (More on this below)

Of course, legislators saw the boon for their insurance buddies and worded everything so that if a person not accustomed to government doing its usual of attempting to con by confounding the actual requirement, the person would read that the citizen is required to carry liability insurance. The truth, however, is that it �MAY� be used following an accident to provide bond or security for the amount of the accident. In other words, it is a substitute.

In order to assure natural rights secured (again, not granted) by the Constitution are upheld by every state, each state had to agree to the principles and mandates of the Constitution, including all self-evident laws as expressed by the 9th Amendment, in order to gain statehood. No State has the power to do anything that the Constitution doesn�t permit in regards to Rights. Jurisdiction, which must be given by the people, over the person, his property, and his rights was NOT given to the State just as it wasn�t given to the federal government.

Thus, the people remain sovereign to government. As such, state and city governments are also tools of the people and subservient to the people. If not, the State and/or city government would be a dictatorship.

Laws may be made concerning one who violates the rights of others with this mandate that must not be neglected - the law may not interfere with the rights of even one citizen who is not violating the rights of another. We are a Republic, not a democracy.

Furthermore, any law based on a victimless situation is repugnant to the Constitution and done under color of law. What this means is without a victim, there was no crime or any civil action that can be constitutionally taken against a citizen. I.e., one citizen must interfere with the rights of another in order for any violation, defined as infringing on another�s rights, to occur.

Unless and until this happens, a person has merely expressed his constitutional rights. A simple way to look at the establishment of courts and is that they were created just to determine IF a right was interfered with and, if so, how much redress was due the injured party, which could include imprisonment.

Let�s use liability insurance and what �proof of financial responsibility� to explain this. Say you are driving your private vehicle and you do have a accident which is your fault.

Assuming the damage is $1500 (slight fender bender in town), then you would be required to file bond or some form of security equal to, or greater than, $1500 with the Director of Revenue in order to assure the person you did damage to will not suffer the loss. The security you �may� file is your liability insurance policy IF you carry one. But, it doesn�t have to be - security may be filed through your own assets.

Also, it is not actually the government�s job to see to it that you do. It is the person whose rights you violated that is responsible to see to it that it is done by reporting that he had an accident with an uninsured motorist. In other words, the government has no reason to enter into the situation unless the person whose car or person you damaged informs it of the need for redress. Settle it between yourselves and it is none of the government�s business, just as was done in the old days by people responding with respect for one another.

Consider. If you drive accident free, why should you pay the government and the insurance companies for the right of traveling the roads bought and paid for by you and your fellow citizens?

The truth is this applies as well to speeding and all other forms of government control. If you are out on a drive and want to drive a hundred miles an hour, what crime is there?

But, if you should hit another person, then their rights have been violated and action could be taken against you by that person.

See, the truth is we were meant to become socialized on our own. What I mean is it is up to each of us to develop responsibility for our actions. And, those who don�t will pay the price. For example, only a fool would get out on a holiday weekend and drive a hundred miles an hour or so pie-faced he couldn�t see straight. If he doesn�t hit another or damage the properties of others, though, what harm was there? No damage or no injury - no crime.

If he does cause an accident and, let�s say kills someone else, then he has committed murder whether intentional or not and should be punished. Punish enough appropriately (perhaps an eye for an eye) and others will cease to speed or drive while drunk when other people around.

A very real case of speeding resulting in injuries is high-speed chases. First, according to a special on TV, 65 percent of high speed chases are only for minor traffic infractions.

Next, Law enforcement has no more right to speed and harm a citizen than any other citizen. They aren�t supreme over people or above the law (the Constitution). They are just people who have the authority to arrest traffic violators and little else (check for yourself - duties do not include investigating crimes and the like, the basis as to why they cannot be sued for not responding to calls).

If they speed to try to capture some guy that made an illegal turn and was frightened by the fact he had had three or four drinks, and the cops end up killing someone, it is just as murderous as it would be by a civilian citizen. They do NOT have the right to take the life of the person they were chasing (even if a known felon), let alone the right to kill innocents and get off with a wrist slap or less. To coin a phrase used oft by the government, �if it saves even one life�, stopping high speed chases would be worth it because I guarantee you, the punishment given the person they chase is not worth the property damage and innocent life or lives taken to catch them.

How about guns? We have the right to keep and bear arms. If we wanted, we could mount a 105 Howitzer and a couple of 50 caliber machine guns on a car trailer and tow it around while we did our shopping. We could travel in a tank for increased safety. It is our right.

We can lawfully carry as many full loaded weapons as we wish. In the States where concealed carry is permitted, there hasn�t been an accidental shooting that I know of by any concealed carrier when out shopping. There have been some intentional ones, though, to stop criminals. Actually, more crimes, as you all know, are stopped by civilians carrying concealed weapons than by police officers since officers arrive normally after the fact.

But, let�s say a carrier did accidentally fire his weapon and shot someone. Then, the �someone� or his family has lawful recourse. Actually, if the firearm did accidentally discharge, who is most likely to get shot - a passerby? - or the carrier himself? Logic, of which legislators are in extremely short supply of, dictates it would be the carrier since most holsters automatically point the weapon�s barrel down. There is the possibility of a ricochet but, to date, I haven�t read of this happening. Without harm to another, where is the crime in carrying since all crimes or lesser violations must have a victim?

Most hunting accidents I have read about are those in which the hunter shot himself, not someone else. There are those, though, in which some really stupid hunter takes a �sound� shot. Lord, how dumb are they? Even calling them a �hunter� is rather a dubious term. Dumb or stupid mentally deficient SLOB would be more like it and, if enough had been punished appropriately by the people, very few would even consider a sound shot.

Anyway, in becoming socialized (civilized), we each begin to recognize the rights of others and try to not interfere with theirs just as we do not want ours interfered with. In becoming an advanced nation in regards to this, governments in this nation have interfered, not furthered it. If you are forced to do something, you haven�t necessarily internalized the proper behavior; you are simply responding in a controlled situation. Thus, when catastrophes occur in cities, those who have been controlled by external forces rather than by internal controls, begin looting and destroying property.

But, let�s say government had never interfered with its illogic in the natural evolution of Man�s behaviors. And, once again, during a calamity, people began looting. But this time the looters were shot, hanged, guillotined, or whatever right on the spot by other citizens protecting their property. No attorneys distorting laws or judges to let them off because they �were misunderstood� or some other political correct claptrap.

Potential looters would then think, �Hey, maybe I better not or the same might happen to me.� Then, pass this awareness on to their children, and those people on to their children until, generations later, each person would grow up with it internalized that it is wrong to loot others and take their property and, then, pass it on to offspring so that all, eventually, would protect the rights and properties of others. No coercion necessary - just behaviors controlled by a civilized attitude.

You see, this is the process that was happening. People were getting together and living in towns where once upon a time, over 90 percent did not. As they increasingly lived together in towns, the necessity to have to protect became less and less and most quit wearing arms without being told. It didn�t take crazy mad killers such as Wyatt Earp - it took the fact that each began respecting the rights of others. Killers like Earp, Judge Roy Bean, and many others only slowed the process of societal self-actualization. And, they still do.

Lord, the English Bill of Rights was laid down in 1688, or the possibly less known Magna Charta, way back in 1215. People then recognized the rights of others and behaved for the most part (except for the Elite, of course) with great respect for others and their property. To say it another way, the people in villages and the like lived together in harmony which was interrupted only by government coming around and making demands.

If there was a disturbance by a citizen against another, the citizens of the town handled it. After enough of these �handlings�, the idea of respecting the rights of others became more ingrained. And, less and less disturbances (other that occasional fights which, even in the 50�s and 60�s here, were just fist fights, not shoot-outs) occurred. And, I dare say that most people never even knew of the fights.

It is still the elite (I hate that word but that is what legislators and government officials inaccurately believe themselves to be), that has little, if any, respect for the property of citizens or any of their rights.

I, for example, would not consider interfering with the rights of others. I want my rights observed and how better to assure this than by respecting the rights of others and doing what I can to pass this on to others by example. I sure don�t need some dumb butt government official who got elected simply because of his family�s money and other financial backers of these people telling me how to act, especially since most of them commit act after act against citizens and the liberties we are all supposed to have.

My �license� to behave as I do are my unalienable, self-evident rights given me by my Creator, not the 14th Amendment nor any level of government. My control to behave in a civilized manner is my own internalization of right and wrong, not those arbitrarily unlawful legislative laws made up and applied by people who do not behave as properly as I do.

But, then, I am a civilized man. Perhaps they aren�t. Is it they, meaning those in all levels of government, fear all citizens will commit the same acts against society they themselves or their hired lackeys commit? Is that what they fear, that maybe we will hire hitmen to take out government officials who oppose freedom? Or that we will take their property? Isn�t that what they do to those who oppose and/or expose government actions?

I have been battling the government of the city I live in now for over a year. Private property in inviolate. It is private with the very meaning of private being �not under government control.�

A State statute does exist in Missouri that says cities may make ordinances concerning private property presenting a harmful condition. Even that is unconstitutional. Until a person trespasses on private property and is harmed, there isn�t an infringement on the rights of others and, even then, because the person trespassed, lawful recourse is probably non-existent. After all, when one trespasses, he assumes responsibility for his actions and the risk of injury. And, personally, any court that has ruled in favor of the trespasser committed treason against the rights of the property owner and should be forever removed from any public office.

Anyway, there is an ordinance called the �junk vehicle� law. I keep two autos on my property that I do not drive but occasionally start and work on. In two years of keeping them on my property, neither has even once harmed anybody, including myself. They are even titled which by State law removes them from the �junk vehicle� category, not counting the fact they do not look like junk.

To make a long story a bit shorter, most people probably believe I should either cover them or put them in my large shed since it would be the easiest - just do whatever the government says since it is such a minor thing.

But, you see, I cannot do that. I cannot do it because it isn�t minor! It is the very essence of what the pursuit of life, liberty, and domestic tranquility is all about. It involves the very essence of why this nation was founded and the reasons thousands of people died while securing our rights and liberty.

This, my home, and the lot it is on, is my property! It is private and not public. As such, it is not subject to the whims of a few people just because they are government officials!

And, so the battle goes on. I will not surrender my rights to these people. I harm no one and I will not be told what to do by these people concerning property over which they have absolutely no authority.

If I lose the initial stages of the battle because of corrupt courts (judges), then all those brave people fighting to the death for the liberties we are supposed to enjoy, died in vain and I am no longer going to allow that if I can do my part to prevent it.

Furthermore, if I do lose because of corrupted courts, then I will carry on the battle in another fashion, such as taking action based on civil rights violations which should be ironclad but, as you know, seldom is since government is judging government. Perhaps, though, I will eventually find an honest court with a judge who understands the Constitution and who is not afraid to rule in the favor of justice rather than injustice.

Whether I do or not, though, I will not stop fighting against under the color of law ordinances and statutes until government recognizes the importance of individual liberty. I cannot because I now know the truths concerning all the facts I was not taught by public education, including over 200 hours of advanced education.

Man, have we all been misled. And, for what - Power and money going to corrupted people who do not have the slightest interest in what they are elected or hired to do, who, on the federal level, are slaves and subservient to those financial foreign giants (all 8 or so of them) with trillions of dollars (over $60,000,000,000,000.00 FRNs in surplus alone according to CAFRman) of the American people and power gained through corrupt, fraudulent means?

Well, I now know. And when I eventually win against the city, which I will with the backing of every citizen I convince to do the same, then I am moving on to the county and state levels simultaneously. I can�t live forever and will have to hurry after the win so that at least a few more know the truth.

In closing, let me ask this question: What is the difference between a country such as China that essentially uses tyrannical control instilled through fear over its people, or another nation invading and conquering one with the intent of a dictatorial government, than this one in which rights are unconstitutionally and fraudulently removed by governments making and enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws using fear and other coercive techniques?

After all, whether a right is removed by force, or by subterfuge and/or coercive force, the right is still forever taken.