Author Topic: My Righteous Civil Disobedience. (Unformatted Text)  (Read 1405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
My Righteous Civil Disobedience. (Unformatted Text)
« on: May 10, 2021, 09:54:23 AM »
My Righteous Civil Disobedience:

May 9, 2021
Regarding the matters of:
Kenosha County Case Number 2020TR001615
Walworth County Case Number 2020TR000568

In the instance of this open letter, The “You” I am specifically addressing is the syndicate called government and all its constituent members. You, government, often, if not daily, violate your raison d'être. You, government, often, if not daily, violate your alleged reason for existing.

You, government, are merely a reified mental construct, a concept treated as if you have physical existence. You, government, are an “artificial person.” You, government, are a “legal fiction.” You, government, do not exist absent your constituent members, be they officers, employees, or elected officials.

Per your organic document titled the “Declaration of Independence” your purpose is to protect people's rights. The right to life is an individual right. The right to liberty is an individual right. The right to pursue happiness is an individual right. Thus, your purpose is to protect individual rights.

The Federal and Wisconsin rules on standing are quite clear. Unless there are rights being, or having been injured, the plaintiff has no standing to invoke the court's authority. Unless there are rights being, or having been injured, the plaintiff has no standing to invoke the court's raison d'être.

 “Wisconsin employs a two-step standing analysis. The analysis requires the court to determine (1) whether the plaintiff has suffered a threatened or actual injury, and (2) whether the interest asserted is recognized by law.” Schwittay v. Sheboygan Falls Mut. Ins. Co., 630 N.W.2d 772, 776

“Step one, the direct injury requirement, has two components. First, the injury must not be hypothetical or conjectural. Second, there must be a close causal relationship between the alleged injury and a change in the physical environment.”
“In addition to showing a direct injury, the Petitioner must show that the alleged injury is an injury to a legally protected interest.” Milwaukee Brewers v. The Wisconsin Department Of Health & Social Services, 387 N.W.2d 245

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751

“If a plaintiff's allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff must support them by competent proof, or the bill must be dismissed.” Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446

In both my trials for driving on an expired license, I was NOT allowed to query the plaintiff deputies regarding the specific harm that they did NOT allege in their court complaints. Nor was I allowed to query the plaintiff deputies as to the specific human or humans I allegedly harmed. Both judges in both Kangaroo courts ignored the Wisconsin and Federal rules on standing.
Simple logic: No injury; no injured party; no standing to invoke the court's alleged authority; no reason to invoke the court's raison d'être. Thus both court's judgments are void ab initio.

If your courts, government, were honest, they would have paid attention to your own rules on standing. If your courts, government, were honest, they would reverse their opinions immediately.

I was going about my everyday affairs of life, causing no harm to anyone, when I was singled out for a fine for violating a mala prohibita dictate. This dictate had nothing to do with protecting any other human from my causing them harm. A harm not even alleged by both plaintiff deputies.

I have FRE #602, personal first hand knowledge of the words of the Declaration of Independence. This organic document that purports to give you, government, authority over me.

The Declaration of Independence, states in part:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This organic document claims “just powers,” that is to say “authority,” over “the governed” by the “consent of the governed.”

You, government, can NOT prove I consented to your alleged authority. Assuming arguendo that any consent was given in the first place, if this alleged consent can not be withdrawn, then it was never consent.

In order for one to consent (give permission), one needs to be presented with a choice. I was never presented with a choice; I was never asked for my consent to be governed; Nor was I given a list of the terms I would be consenting to.

Per your own rules, FRE#602, any witness you could call to testify that I was given a choice; that I was given sufficient, pertinent, and specific information in order to make an informed choice; and that I actually consented. Such a witness would be committing perjury for the simple fact that I was not given a choice; I was not given sufficient information to make an informed choice; and I have NOT consented.

What I have just presented in the previous paragraph is the exact same problem you, government, would have proving a slave in the early 1800's gave specific and informed consent to being a slave and obeying his owner's every edict.

Absent my express consent, your powers over me are NOT just powers. In fact quite the opposite: they are “unjust” powers. Absent my express consent, your actions of using the powers, the force, of you, government, to control me is no more than “Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you” extortion.

Any consent, imagined, made up, implied, that you could claim, I hereby, publicly, for all to see, again refute and deny.

I, Dale Eastman, DO NOT CONSENT to your governance, nor to your alleged authority over my self.
I, Dale Eastman, DO NOT CONSENT to your extortion of threatening to harm me, be it fines, incarceration, or killing me for refusing to obey your tyrannical edicts. 

The simple logic that “All humans are created with the same lack of authority over any other humans” creates another problem for you, government. This includes any elected, appointed, or employed person working in, for, or as you, government.

I DO NOT CONSENT to being governed by other humans, created equal as I, lacking authority over any other.

Any human or other entity who lacks authority over me can NOT give or delegate the authority they do not have to any other entity. No human can consent for another human without express authority to act as an agent for the principal. I have not given express consent or express authority to any other human or entity to consent, in my stead, to being governed by you, government.

These are the words of a semi famous liberty advocate. The logic stands on its own.

There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction.

A critical examination of the alleged authority of you, government, will of necessity be an examination of where this authority is purported to originate. This examination thus begins at the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

This Preamble states in part:

We the People of the United States, [...] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

An internet search finds that “To ordain is to make an ordinance, to enact a law.” Both of which are orders to others to do, or not to do, some thing. To ordain or to enact a law requires non bogus authority, else they are non binding opinions.

Since “All humans are created with the same lack of authority over any other humans,” this includes “We the People” long dead as well as any of “We the People” presently alive.

Do you, government, have any documentation or evidence that any of the “rules” in the Constitution apply to me?

As the above examinations show, you, government, do not have any non bogus authority over me.

Quoting one of the High Priests of your religious cult of lawyers and attorneys, in
the 1886 case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins; 118 U.S. 356, 370; Mr. Justice Matthews proclaimed:

For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

Prior to the quoted words, on that same page, the High Priest of the cult admitted to who the Sovereign is.

What is a human to do when faced with an extortionist demanding “Give me your money or I will hurt you”? What is a human to do when faced with an extortionist demanding surrender of their liberty? What is a human to do when faced with an oppressive tyrannical government extorting compliance of  its dictates? What am I to do when I learn that the government that claims authority over me is tyrannical, criminal, extortionist, and tells lies because its actions do not align with its own propaganda and organic documents?

What I have chosen to do, is civil disobedience, and this open public letter as to why I have chosen to disobey my extortionists.

Anybody who thinks or opines that I should not resist has already swallowed the inculcated swill that is the government school indoctrination. That would be those who accept being slaves and those who errantly believe they are the Masters and Owners of other humans.

The best I can do, in not resisting violently, is make arrangement with the hired kidnappers / hired killers, a.k.a. the sheriff or his deputies, for my kidnapping at my convenience.

I will need to have all my medications with me so that the kidnappers know what medications they will need to procure for me during the time they have me locked in a rape cage.

A hunger strike is not out of the realm of possibilities at this time.

 “[Y]ou can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
- Robert A. Heinlein

 YDOM! You Don't Own Me.

The best, you, government can do is prove my claim: Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Freedom. I Won't!

Dale Eastman.
May 10, 2021

   Bruce E. Schroeder, Judge, Kenosha County Circuit Court
   David G. Beth, Sheriff, Kenosha County
   Kristine E. Drettwan, Judge, Walworth County Circuit Court
   Kurt Picknell, Sheriff, Walworth County

Link to Fecesbook location:
« Last Edit: December 30, 2022, 02:06:30 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters