I don�t know where this is going to go exactly but I do know it is going somewhere. Having just suffered a second court for the same alleged offenses based on an non-jurisdictional, unconstitutional ordinance made and enforced by officials in my small city, I am now scheduled for a third, and likely, fourth date, as the next is a �motions� hearing.

Although this might seem a small deal by most people, the ordinance being used against this writer essentially prohibits one keeping his own property on his property. It seems most municipalities and their so-called �governments� do not understand the concept �private.�

For those millions who don�t understand �private property� since millions comply with city ordinances affecting private property, here is the definition: �Private� means not under government control.�

Property under government control is �public property� and only includes streets, alleys, public parks and related public-owned land, and public buildings. To those, city officials can legislate to their hearts content and make nearly any law, stupid or otherwise, they wish.

But, when it comes to private property, other than an hazard being created to others, there is not any authority to legislate it. It is out of a municipality�s jurisdiction, just as it is not in the jurisdiction of a state or that of the federal government.

But, municipalities routinely violate the Constitution for the United States of America and respective state constitutions. In doing so, they usually violate several state statutes and do so with immunity - or so it seems.

It doesn�t have to be this way. After all, just who the devil are those elected to a city government? Do they have legislative ability just because they are breathing and likely from the more well-to-do class of citizens? Are they trained to legislate?

Or are they simply voted into office by citizens who do not have an understanding of liberty and the qualifications officials making laws should have, that be first and foremost an in-depth understanding of the Constitution and the proper procedure for making a law?

City officials are voted in - but to do what? To make ordinances that violate the unalienable, self-evident rights of citizens? Or to assure these rights are NOT violated? The fact is that any person in a city government, whether elected, hired, or appointed is supposed to subscribe to an oath of office, that he will first and foremost uphold the Constitution. It is the document that no state may legislate against and, for certain, that no meathead put in a city office can legislate against.

But, do they obey their oath? Not if they enforce unconstitutional laws. Or make unconstitutional ordinances. Do either and they are as guilty of treason (breach of trust) as any treasonous traitor to this nation has ever been.

In my case, there are multiple constitutional violations made by the city and most of its numerous officials. Violations of the state constitution also abound. At least three state statutes have been violated by the city and its �leaders� and it is likely more will be.

Due process has been butchered to an unrecognizable mass of inconsistencies, infringements of rights, and ignoring (or possibly ignorance) of what is lawful and legal. Put simply, due process has been ignored to this date. In fact, it is clear that neither the city�s officials or its attorney who also acts (illegally) as prosecutor in municipal ordinance cases has the lightest inkling of �due process� and the rights of American citizens, nor of the statutes regulating their actions and manipulations of law.

Law enforcement, in existence only to protect the rights of citizens, has completely ignored the rights of its citizens and use the excuse - �they told us to� or some form of this to justify their unconstitutional acts. But, then, maybe they like the idea of being a tyrannical, essentially out of control, force helping to develop or perpetuate a police state.

The irony is I left this community (Brookfield, Missouri) at age 17 voluntarily in order to defend (or so I thought at the time) the Constitution for the United States and our liberties secured by it. I returned 36 years later as I wanted to live quietly, except for my efforts attempting to educate people concerning federal income tax, property rights, social security, the government behind the government, corruptness in government, and so on. Little did I know the city had become a Gestapo-like community right in the middle of the nation, a nation founded solely to protect the rights of the individual.

Thus, the battle I have been forced into by my belief in the rights of the individual must continue and will continue until I take my last dying breath. I will not ever allow a bunch of incompetents to run my life even though I now face 108 additional charges against me. All are, of course, based on the same unconstitutional ordinance enforced by this bunch of meatheads who apparently believe the constitutions and citizen�s unalienable rights stop at the city limits of Brookfield. (The writer since writing this did get the 114 charges dismissed but "with prejudice" which he at the time did not know how to counteract in court.)

How does one know they are incompetent? Simple. The number one rule in making any law, ordinance, whatever, is to ask this simple question - �Does the proposed law violate the rights of even one person?� If it does, then any officials voting for, or defending, such a bill or ordinance are not only incompetent, but are traitors to the founding principles of this nation.

This puts them in direct violation to the Constitution and the rights of people which have been recognized and fought for during the last 6000 years of recognition of human rights. Thus, they are incompetent as defenders of liberty and should, if not horse-whipped and/or tarred and feathered, at least be forced out of office with their tyrannical tails between their legs.

Instead of complaining or griping, it is the duty of each of us to take people who are systematically robbing citizens of liberty to task, regardless of how minor the infringement on rights may seem. Do not allow even the slightest infringement to occur. If one took a dollar, and then another, and then another from you - guess what. Sooner or later, they would have all of your money.

The same holds true with freedom except freedom cannot be replenished as can your dollars. Just think - right now you have to work twice as long to earn what you would earn without your dollars being taken by unconstitutional laws and government fraud and theft. You see, those same rules of private property - that is �not under government control� refers not only to real property in the form of land, residence, and so on but, also to your labor, your earnings, your talents, and all things, tangible or intangible, which you acquire through the same.

Bow under to what may seem slight at the time and end up giving all your property to government along with your liberty. The choice may now still be ours - but it isn�t going to last unless greater and greater numbers hold officials to our rights by forcing them to act within the constitutionally imposed limitations of government.

After recognizing this great need to establish what is or is not constitutional, we must begin with the lowest level at which we can control the outcome. That is, of course, at the municipal level.

Two primary organizations control the acceptance and enforcement of under the color of law, victimless, laws which are known as �city ordinances.� These organizations are the city council and the municipal court system.

City ordinances dealing with any other than traffic and public properties are seldom constitutional since cities only have the power to enact laws concerning public places, including streets, alleys, and so on. All others infringe upon the rights of not just one citizen, but many citizens. (Only hazardous conditions may be legislated against but, first, it must be proved a hazardous condition exists.)

The courts then support the unconstitutionality of the ordinances by convicting citizens of violations of the ordinances not in the jurisdiction of the city government. And, sad to report, judges do not necessarily know the laws nor the documents securing our rights. For example, the judge I am currently dealing with did not know that any citizen can demand a trial by jury for an infraction, such as the violation of a city ordinance, and that it has to be at the municipality�s cost.

A jury is the last line of defense we citizens have against the tyranny of government. We who serve on juries have complete power over the administration of justice. It matters not what a legal law, a judge, or a prosecutor may state - a jury may rule as it determines best to serve justice. It is the power of jury nullification which the citizenry holds, a power the courts and corrupt governments fear greatly.

Therefore, one can begin the battle by confronting city officials concerning the unconstitutionality of any city ordinance affecting private property.

Next, insist on a trial by jury if alleged to have violated any ordinance concerned adversely with the private property rights of citizens.

Third, serve on a jury when called in order to educate all members to the power of jury nullification, the right of a jury to rule according to justice, not the written laws of Man, particularly those that violate unalienable rights of Man.

Last, write your state and national elected officials demanding that all juries be instructed as to jury nullification and that all references to what a judge or prosecutor believes be prohibited in instructions to juries.

If nothing more, this is at least a start. If pursued diligently, people would not as readily be placed in the position of defending basic rights against ignorant city officials who believe they have plenary control over citizens living within the limits of the city.

And, Ladies and Gentlemen, these provide the foundation of a goal our forefathers would be proud of.