Thursday, October 23, 2014

Modern-Day Business and Self-Determination

Last week yours truly read Richdad's The Business of the 21st Century by Robert Kiyosaki and in that book a recurring theme popped out. Kiyosaki repeatedly cites "self-determination" all throughout the text. Now, if there is one thing detailed in previous articles here at Upfront and Unfiltered, it is about the Right of Self-Determination in the sense of self-government and political freedom via internationally-adopted protocol. The same principles apply to our financial status.

For some reason, we find it easy to point the blame of our political and economic standing on "our leaders" in Washington, D.C. What we fail to realize is that we have our own plates to step up to. That is right. We do NOT "mind our own business" and, instead, we look to suits on Capitol Hill to determine both our political and economic futures. There is a better way, but it requires taking inventory of our lives, taking responsibility, self-development, discipline, and self-control.

Kiyosaki explains in his book that owning a business will be vital for survival in the future as the greatest economic calamity to ever hit this planet is arriving within a couple of years. He goes onto explain that network marketing is perhaps the most misunderstood business industry in the United States today. Only in network marketing do we have the lowest barriers to entry, the lowest overhead costs, and the best systems for leadership development in the business world where those who stick to a network marketing plan for 5 years are known to become very, very rich. Where we fall short, as Americans, is in performing simple due diligence when an opportunity comes along. We are quick to dismiss opportunity because we fail to understand what makes an opportunity good and others, negative. We are more concerned about what our friends think of us, the lives of celebrities and the evening news than actually taking charge of our financial destinies.

(The Network, 1976)

Friday, September 19, 2014

Disabled Mother's Home Seized Over Unpaid $2,000 Property Tax Bill

People may never really "get it" and it is okay because many of us get a rush out of learning things the hard way rather than the "smart" way. American citizens do not "own" anything even if they maintain possession of it. This is stated in House Joint Resolution (HJR 192), Senate Document #43, Senate Resolution # 62, dated 17 April 1933.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

A disabled Kalamazoo County, Michigan mother, who believed to have paid for her home in cash in 2010, missed a single property tax bill amounting to less than $2,000. This resulted in a swift government seizure in which the county assessor's office sent the note to the auction block for sale and it was sold for over $80,000 in profit for the county. Deborah and her children have now been forced to relocate. She was not notified of the actions to be taken by the county before they occurred. The county is now saying there is nothing they can do from a legal standpoint to reverse the process, so that Deborah can get her life back on track.

In 2010, Deborah purchased her home in Michigan "free and clear" meaning she has had no more mortgage to pay, however; we are still obligated to pay property taxes as a part of our debt to the British Crown since the days of the French-Indian Conflict. On the bright side, at least a bunch of redcoats didn't burn her house down with her, her family, and her possessions still inside as they did to tenants in the 18th century.



Thursday, September 18, 2014

U.S. Attorney General: "International Law Trumps Constitution"

To know that there is a higher form of law beyond that of the U.S. constitution might beg some half-cocked eyebrows and it ought to. We tend to glorify ignorance and even stupidity at times. Patriots are driven by the prospect that they have a constitution and that constitution is something to protect with every fiber of their being. Now, when someone comes along and says "International Law supersedes the constitution," it just might throw a wrench into their gears upstairs.

Sure enough, our education system is not the most fine-tuned this side of the Milky Way, yet we seem to have this established notion that, albeit we do not have the best education system in place, we have the most advanced nation on the face of this planet when we are most advanced in defense spending and most incarcerated per-capita. Most of us are not well-versed enough in history or law to understand what Eric Holder is saying when it is in the U.S. constitution itself.

International Law, in its public interface, is partly comprised in black and white print via the Law of Nations. This book was used by the Founding Fathers themselves when they constructed founding documents for the United States in the 18th century. So, if they used the Law of Nations and the Law of Nations is mentioned in the U.S. constitution as a part of the "law of the land," why doesn't anybody know about it? That is because hardly anyone reads the constitution comprehensively anymore.

Holder is now going to argue at the Supreme Court level that International Law trumps the U.S. constitution. According to Article VI, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contract notwithstanding." This means that of what consists of the law of the land, treaties will be honored in spite of the Constitution or laws of any State, thus national and state "sovereignty" are waived at the behest of international law - treaties.

Below, we see Judge Andrew Napolitano making a couple of arguments on FOX News. The first is that although Secretary of State John Kerry might have signed onto an international treaty, it is only "symbolic," yet Napolitano admits that it might effect importers. As he appears to speak out of both corners of his mouth here, if the treaty effects importers it is considered a live document. Not exactly purely symbolic now, is it? The other argument made is that "treaties supersede federal law" and then he goes onto state that "treaties do not supersede the constitution, itself." Obviously, nobody there is educated enough to point out that the constitution IS federal law and is included in the "law of the land" of Article VI. Please note that this not an article bashing the conservative right. This is simply to demonstrate where ignorance is at play regardless of political affiliation on this topic alone.

(Judge Napolitano on Int'l Treaties & Constitution)

Constitution Day: Not Our Constitution


There is a HUGE misconception these days. This misconception is that somehow or other, the Constitution for the People of the United States belongs to the public-at-large when it does not. The compact we know as the U.S. Constitution is a debt instrument signed by 39 men to pioneer what we know today to be the United States. If we know anything about contract law, we know that only those who sign a document are those whom are a party to the compact…and nobody else.

The U.S. constitution ought to be understood as a demonstration of what can be. Most of us do not understand contracts, thus we do not understand law. This is a pity. We would be much better served as a society if we better understood the fundamentals of a contract as this would lay to rest many grievances before claims are filed and alleviate back log in the Courts.

There is a constitution for every Statehood and there are signatory members for every State as every constitution must have signature parties to form and empower it. The goal for everyone with an interest in political freedom and independence is to become a signature member of a State because, without it, we remain chattel on the pastures we tread on.

So, to recap, "We the People" refers to those who signed the document and their posterity being that all nouns are capitalized into pronouns. Everyone else, a citizen, merely play a role as a utility for "the system" as they neglect to self-govern. In order to advance one's political status, we are required to form or expand a State and this is what the Right of Self-Determination is all about. Think of it as a co-operative, like a credit union, where all members are shareholders, some are managing partners, and all members are obligated to participate.

Business Model of a Cooperative

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Statism, Anarchism & Self-Government


It is that time of year when tempers are flaring like fireworks on the 4th of July. The combination of high temperatures, lower tempers, and an increase in social interaction has folks embroiled in some very intimately-held topics, namely politics. As of recent, topics dividing folks include, and are not limited to; Ferguson, Israel, and the threat of ISIS on a global scale. This is on top of the resurfacing of positions as they relate to the upcoming anniversary of 9/11. What will be addressed at this time is the seemingly strange war "anarchists" have been waging against "statists."

Now, what is an anarchist and what is a statist? An anarchist believes firmly in the ability to self-govern without a higher authority above themselves whereas a statist believes that both social and economic climates necessitate centralized control. By face value, these are two seemingly opposite political ideologies. That, however; is not the case. Although these two seem theoretically opposite, there are more similarities than differences.

(Symbol for Anarchy)
Anarchism advocates the ability to "self-govern" while statism advocates the control of both economic and social structures. Anarchism, at its core, just as statism, are both "misdirected" and these ideologies would be best served if they, quite frankly, listened to and adopted significant elements from the other. Take the priority of self-government, for example. If self-government is combined with self-control over economic and social determinations, the combination of these, as a collective effort, is that of the Right of Self-Determination - a universal Right all persons on this planet are entitled to, but few will ever achieve. Why will few ever achieve self-government? Few will ever achieve self-government because most are either simply "not interest in politics" when it absolutely affects everyone, "law is complicated," or that even the most astute of scholars are discouraged from pursuing such a quest as they do not understand the substantive nature of perfect freedom and independence. Most everybody only understands a semblance of liberty, which must be granted to be enjoyed. This is far different from perfect freedom and independence.

"Men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others." -- Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, 1907, Jamestown Exposition

In essence, the core of anarchism, by itself, collapses. The same is true for statism. One ideology needs elements of the other in order to pursue a universal right entitled to all persons on this planet. If we take one ingredient out of the mix, the effort is destined to fail. To reinforce this point of the power of unity, the Native American tribes have had tribal council's for as long as they have been around and they work in multi-tribal efforts to achieve larger objectives than a single Native or even an entire tribe can achieve by themselves.

(Satire against Statism)
By universal principle, one man cannot live unto himself. He is required, by nature, to intercourse with others of like mind just as trees cannot live unto themselves. They need carbon dioxide (CO2) to survive. Similarly, a contract requires more than one party of competency to enforce universal obligation and cooperation. When one party fails to satisfy their obligations, the other is fully within their rights to pursue claims. This is why reading contracts is so important even if it appears trivial at the time. Understand the half-dozen or so fundamentals of contracts and the world of business and self-government is yours.

Friday, August 15, 2014

The Ferguson Incident

(Ferguson Riots)
This has gone completely out-of-hand and nobody had the entire story until today. We have had many black communities around the United States protesting the "murder" of Michael Brown as an innocent, unarmed teenage boy who was destined to make himself a success by starting College this previous Monday. By all accounts of the media, nothing at all was what it seemed and speculation only caused riots and violence in Ferguson, and protests throughout the country.

It took an entire week for all sides to come forth. First, the public received Brown's family and friend's side. Next, the security footage was made public. Third, the police department is still investigating the matter, but have stated the unofficial version of events. The bottom-line here is that it is not looking favorable for Brown and this might provoke further instability from the black communities both in the City of Ferguson, Missouri and around the States.

(Michael Brown Photos)
Michael Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, were both stopped by police as Michael Brown was suspected of stealing cigars from a local store. The story Johnson told the public is that Brown and him were walking the street when the police pulled up out of the nowhere, harassed the pair, and shot several rounds into Brown while Johnson fled the scene in fear for his life. According to the surveillance footage of the convenience store where Brown was suspected of committing his crime, Johnson's story to the public is already compromised.

According to the incident captured in the surveillance footage, Brown can be seen being stopped by a store employee where Brown stiff arms him and Johnson walks right passed the situation as if nothing is happening. After Brown bullies the employee away from him, he walks out behind Johnson with a package in his hand. This indicates that Johnson was not telling the truth, that he is actually an accessory to the commission of Brown's crime and quite possibly guilty of inciting public unrest. Does this mean that the police should have shot and killed Brown? Lethal force can only be used when the officer's life is considered to be endangered, so the only story that justifies these means is Brown reaching for and failing to retrieve the officer's gun before attempting to outrun the officer's line-of-sight. The only two remaining first-hand eyewitnesses are Johnson and the officer whereas Johnson's word is no longer reliable.

(Reverend Al Sharpton in Ferguson, MO)
Mainstream media has likewise been perhaps the largest culprit of the situation out in Ferguson. They published that Reverend Al Sharpton made an appearance on behalf of Brown's family and that the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is raising money as a reward for the officer shooting a "thug." President Obama made a comment about ensuring "justice is done" for Michael Brown and the group, Anonymous, made an egregious error. They hacked the police department's database and published the identity of an officer having nothing to do with the incident, which put someone else' life in danger. Not exactly the type of environment conducive to cultivating a peaceful atmosphere. This incident has sparked yet another discussion between leaders of the "race-baiting movement" when race is not the problem. The real problem here is crime and whether the conditions of the situation justifies the means.


Thursday, August 14, 2014

ICC Rejects Palestine's Claim Against Israel Once Again

(United Nations HQ in New York)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs for the State of Palestine filed charges against the State of Israel with the International Criminal Courts (ICC) at the Hague in July 2014 to be heard by the Court's prosecutor. The prosecutor rejected Palestine's filing for prosecution based on the assumption that Palestine's 2009 Declaration of Competency is no longer valid and thus no signatory membership by the State of Palestine with respect to the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute of the ICC.

There are two pertinent questions-at-hand to identify Palestine's legitimacy in this action and the jurisdiction of the ICC. One of them is if Palestine is recognized, by the family of nations, as a State. According to a vote by the U.N. General Assembly on 29 November 2012, they were indeed recognized as a "non-member observer State." Satisfies that condition. The second question is whether they were a signatory member to the Rome Statute of the ICC. There appears to be two pieces of supporting evidence here. The first is that on 21 January 2009, the Palestinian National Authority formally accepted (authorized) the jurisdiction of the Courts. The second is that their status ("state-us") was upgraded in which we we will get to that in a moment. If Palestine was both recognized as a State and they formally accepted the Court's jurisdiction, wherein lies the problem?

(U.N. General Assembly)
In September 2012, the State of Palestine applied for an upgrade in their status from "observer entity" to "non-member observer State" in which Palestine would now be eligible to join treaties and participate in many international programs to include the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and what else? The ICC! What this means is that while the State of Palestine is an actual member of the family of nations, the 2009 Declaration of Competency was recognized when the U.N. voted in favor of recognizing Palestine as a Statehood in November 2012. This would seem to fully render the ICC's justification for rejecting Palestine's claims both unfounded and without merit.

It now appears that while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pleading with U.S. lawmakers to defend his actions against the likes of Gaza, Palestine the ICC is now pulling at straws with prejudice against the State of Palestine, which is still in the process of applying for full membership with the U.N.  If the State of Israel is to finally come under trial for international crimes, members of their government could face prison time and the State could face reparations to Palestine, which would be another diplomatic setback for the United States and Israel after Palestine was formally recognized as a State in November 2012 against their best wishes. Israel has refused and continues to refuse signing onto the ICC program.

This Court's rejection appears to be a violation of the honors and privileges that come with being an observer State of the U.N., a violation of the Law of Nations, and ultimately a violation of the Right of Self-Determination as an independent agency. A violation against the Rights of one State is a violation against the entire family of nations and this is why lawyers from around the world are assisting the Ministries of the State of Palestine in pleading with the ICC and filing against the State of Israel at this time.