www.CitizensoftheAmericanConstitution.net
Attached hereto are some of our introductory methods, as well as some explanations and observations contained in the body of this email.
Since you expressed interest in learning our methods, you should be aware that Margy and I presented about 50 seminars between 2006 and 2009, did many hundreds of radio broadcasts and some television, as well. Many of our seminars are on DVD. The most popular is the Sacramento seminar which many people use as a learning tool. That DVD has about 14 hours of material on it. We also have a CD, Metris v. Edwards, which contains all of the case filings Margy made in a lawsuit she won against a major bank. Both are available for donations, and ordering information can be found on our website.
1. A brief summary of our Constitutional methods;
2. An explanation of our presumptive letter;
3. An explanation of our affidavit;
4. The first and last presumptive paragraphs.
5. Our Constitutional Court Challenges
The attached summary of our methods provides details of how we have used the authority of the Constitutions, national and state, as both the foundation and authority for all of our methods and arguments. When one bases his positions in the authority of the Supreme Law, it is extremely difficult for his opponent to disavow, deny, contradict and oppose the document to which he has sworn or affirmed his oath and the Citizen’s constitutionally based arguments.
As the description of the presumptive letter states, it is an honorable way to attempt to resolve a situation before it becomes necessary to go court to resolve it. The presumptive paragraphs are crucial, because they provide lawful warning to public servants regarding their unconstitutional actions, committed pursuant to their oaths, and require these public servants to rebut all charges and claims made in the presumptive letter. If they fail to do so, then, they admit to everything stated in the letter, fully binding upon them in any court, without their protest, objection or that of those who represent them. Everything stated in the letter must be true, correct, based only in fact, valid law and evidence, and one must be able to support everything he states. No fabrications or exaggerations are permitted in a valid presumptive letter.
In our presumptive letters, all of our charges, claims and statements are based upon the specific unconstitutional actions committed against us by public officers, pursuant to their oaths. The oath also requires public officers to uphold valid state laws, so these violations can also be cited. When we point out our charges, we also point out that the unconstitutional actions were committed without lawful authority, therefore, are null and void. We spell out the fact that the public officers are required to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties and execute their duties only within the lawful scope of their limited, delegated authority, as discussed above. Obedience to the oath is not optional; it is mandated by Law.
In our experience, it is best to write down, in notes or draft form, all of the infractions committed by public officers and/or agencies/agents, cite all of their improper behavior/actions, and fine tune each charge, claim or statement we wish to put in the letter, so that the charges stated are comprehensive, direct, clear, simple and to the point. We avoid vagueness, redundancy and ambiguities. Clean, clear, direct charges and language are needed in order for the letter to be effective and taken seriously. It is best to try to keep emotionalism and personal attacks out of presumptive letters, and instead compose them with professionalism and clearly demonstrate factually provable charges.
The attached summary of our methods and the description of the affidavit are self-explanatory. Our Constitutional Court Challenges are extremely important to use during court procedures, if the Citizen wants to protect his Constitutionally secured rights, have due process of law afforded to him, and intends to hold the presiding judge and opposing attorney(s) to the Constitutional mandates contained within their oaths. There are a series of numbered challenges which could be used, with explanations accompanying each challenge. The most important of these challenges are 1A, 1B and 2, which we and our students successfully use in each court appearance, or even within administrative proceedings. Once you read them, and the accompanying explanations, you should have a firm understanding as to why we use these three positions.
Every public officer is required to take an oath to the federal and state Constitutions and those who do not have this requirement work under agent-principal oath, meaning they work under their superior(s)’ oath(s). Each oath taker is required to abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties. This means he or she must act only within the LIMITED delegated scope of his/her duties and authority. When s/he acts outside the specifically delegated limited authority, then, s/he essentially acts on his/her own, as a renegade. The Constitutions, federal and state, are very specific regarding authority. What is not authorized in the Constitutions is prohibited by the Constitutions. There is no authority, in any form, whatsoever, that permits an oath taker to engage in actions which contradict, defy and oppose the very documents to which he or she swore or affirmed his or her oath. It all comes down to these very simple principles and lawful mandates. The oath taker either abides by the Constitutional mandates imposed upon him or her, by and through his or her oath, or he or she does not. The Constitutions are the “textbooks” for how government, federal and state, can lawfully operate. Any actions conducted in violation of the Constitutions are unlawful. We reduce everything to these very simple, specific, but lawfully powerful points.
Be aware of the difference between the words “lawful” and “legal”. For an act to be lawful, it must fully comply with all requirements of the Constitutions, specific to the Bill(s) of Rights. Unfortunately, most of the “laws” on the books are administrative in nature and rarely, if ever, comply with Constitutional mandates. These so-called “laws” are considered “legal”, but unless they fully comply with the Constitutions’ mandates, they are not valid law. Sadly, these “legal” administrative statutes, codes, regulations, policies, etc. operate unchecked under what is called “the color of law” until they are challenged Constitutionally. However, since so few people know the difference between lawful and legal, these administrative “laws” are seldom challenged in a manner which would show them inferior to the superior Law of the federal and state Constitutions. Agencies operate on administrative “laws”, procedures and policies, which typically violate the rights secured to the people in the Constitutions. There is no Constitutional authority for the creation of administrative agencies, thus, the agencies, themselves, are unconstitutional, therefore, unlawful. Accordingly, actions conducted by such agencies are perpetrated under the “color of law”, but are not, in fact, lawful acts.
If we were in your place, we would become extremely familiar with the federal Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and Article I, Section 8, as well as the parallel sections of your state Constitution. If one is going to speak about his rights, he first must know what those rights are and, secondly, he must know the limitations imposed upon government. Article I, Section 8 covers this regarding the federal government. We would also scrupulously research the powers and authority delegated by the People, through their state Constitution, to the state Legislature. In a Constitutional Republic, such as America, every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4. This means that the government operates under the Rule of Law and not the rule of man. In this country and in every state, the Rule of Law is the Constitution, since it is the Supreme Law of the Land, as declared in Article VI. Therefore, since legislative powers are vested in Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of the federal Constitution, and in similar authorized delegations of power to your state legislature, in your state Constitution, then, valid law can only arise by and through the duly enacted legislation of Congress and/or the state legislature. Further, all legislative laws must be Constitutionally compliant specific to the Bill(s) of Rights or they are null and void, without lawful force or effect.
Best regards,
Jack and Margy
