Sam Davis | Status is Freedom | Agree with your adversary ...



Letter to World Net Daily

in response to the Glenn Beck Tour

and an article by Chelsea Schilling

Guess who joins Glenn Beck on mission to restore America

Ms. Schilling:  

My name is Sam Davis and I am for a long time now, a big advocate and reader of WND.  It is my home page in fact.  I read with interest your story about Mr. Farah joining Glenn Beck on his tour and that is a great idea.  This correspondence is one that I hope you will pass on to Mr. Farah.  I emailed him several years ago when Hillary Clinton sued him in an effort to assist him, however he was not very interested.  I hope this email will get to him as he begins to “speak” out around the country.  What catches my eye in your story is that Mr. Farah is going to speak on the 1st “Amendment” “right of free speech and free press”.  This is great except for 1 VERY IMPORTANT MATTER. THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS A 1ST AMENDMENT!   Our founding fathers were brilliant and they were very well versed in law and contracts, including trusts.  Contract and Trust #1 was:  The Articles of Confederation; #2:  The Declaration of Independence; #3:  The Constitution FOR the United States of America; and last but NOT the least, #4:  The Bill of Rights.  Now if you will go back and look at the original Bill of Rights you will find that said “bills” were in fact ARTICLES, just as in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.  An Article, according to the LAW Dictionary is defined thusly:  A separate and distinct part of an instrument or writing; one of several things presented as connected to or forming a whole.  A particular object . . . . . .  Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition.  Articles:  a connected series of propositions; a system of rules.  Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, Page 111.  My point is this:  in a contract, one has terms, conditions, sections, etc., “articles.”   Amendments to that contract are contained within and made appurtenant to that contract document.  My postulation and question for you and Mr. Farah, with all due respect is this:  in what Constitution of or for the United States have you ever seen amendments attached, within, or appurtenant to the CONSTITUTION?  In my life and experience, NEVER.   The amendments, supposedly Constitutional Amendments are found over in an entirely separate document, that contract known as the Bill of Rights.  The 2 documents are as separate as a framing contract is to a plumbing contract, though both are found under the general contract.  The actual first amendment is what is known as the 13th amendment and that one is even a fraud.  If you study history at all and look deeply into the record, you will find what is know if you do a search engine review as “The Missing Thirteenth Amendment:”  Again, a misnomer.  

    Why is this important?  That is the real question.  It is important because we have been taught that a simple word: amendment, is equivalent to article.  Why?  Black’s Law, 6th edition defines amendment:  to change or modify for the better.  To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.  If one looks at the history of court rulings pertaining to our “Constitutional Rights”, you will find something very interesting, every ruling looks through the 14th amendment for its authority or decision.  The reason, because the “case”, as brought in the beginning, was brought in the wrong jurisdiction.  The jurisdiction of something that does not exist, i.e., constitutional rights.  Several years ago in a district court in Idaho, a District Court Judge told me this in open court, “Mr. Davis, if you mention your constitutional rights one more time in my courtroom, I will put you in jail for contempt.”  Ms. Schilling, needless to say I have been on a mission ever since to find out why that judge would say that and I believe this is the reason.  She was trying to tell me something.  When Bob Schultz of We the People brought his suit in federal court for his “Petition for Redress of Grievance” under the 1st Amendment, the courts ruled:  Every American has the “right” to petition the government for redress of grievances just as the 1st “amendment” says, however, nowhere is it found that the government has to respond.”  Is the court really that intellectually dishonest?  Do they mean to imply or state that the founding fathers were stupid?  Do they mean to imply that because there is no EXPLICIT statement that the government has to reply or respond that they don’t actually have to?  That Ms. Schilling is preposterous.  However, under the “jurisdiction” that Mr. Schultz brought his lawsuit, the 1st Amendment, the court ruled correctly because they viewed it, in my opinion and belief, through the “lens” of the 14th amendment, whereby we all are “born or naturalized in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Therefore, we, as subjects, cannot question the KING, the federal government or its subsidiary corporations, the STATES.  These are all fine points of law and one can argue that words do or do not mean things, however, such is not the case as we saw in the grand jury testimony of President Bill Clinton who stated:  “well sir, until you define the word is, I cannot answer the question.”  We all laughed and got a big hoot out of that, not realizing that Mr. Clinton was absolutely correct.  Not only is Mr. Clinton an attorney, he is a brilliant man.  He is practiced in the art of genocide of our language as all attorneys and judges are.  When one looks up the definition in Black’s Law, 6th edition, Page 830, on finds the word: “Is:  this word, although normally referring to the present, often has a future meaning, but is not synonymous with “shall have been.”  it may have, however, a past signification, as in the sense of “has been.”   We find that for once, Mr. Clinton was NOT lying.  He could not answer the question until the U.S. Attorney defined the word.  

    I write this to simply attempt to point out to our “leaders” this, if you are going to lead, please, please, learn the English language and stop the madness of playing into this game.  Stop taking for granted that what you and I have been taught is correct.  We all stand back and watch in amazement as Barack Obama takes over corporations, bails out banks and other private entities, will not answer the most simplest of questions regarding his “constitutional” authority and capability to hold office, etc., and we all ask this question:  how is this possible under the “constitution?”  Well, frankly I know the answer: it is called public policy.  Public policy sets aside the constitution.  I know we don’t want to acknowledge or hear that, but that is the fact.  Roosevelt did the deed in 1933 and the Supreme Court upheld his acts in the first 100 days in office.  He set aside the constitutional provisions regarding the “obligations of contract” and lawful money, instituting what we learned in school as the “New Deal” of the Roosevelt era.  If we were taught like this, “Hey everyone, there is a new deal now, here is what the new deal is, we would all be differently informed and educated.  When the ‘New Deal” is presented and taught in the way that it is, it becomes just another “program”.  When in fact, it really is “the new deal.”  

    If Mr. Farah were to talk about the “Article the First” in his speeches, he would be totally correct and we, as a people, would be totally empowered once again.  As long as we rely on something that does not exist, we will continue to see our “rights” vanish before our eyes.  It is a very simple proposition: learn the language and then act upon it.  If you are going to assert your rights, do it under the right contract with the right language.  The law is exact, it is us who are lazy, and our current political mess is a great case in point.  

All my best,

Sam Davis

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download