February 2, 2005
need J.A.I.L. to give it SUBSTANCE
An Essay by Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L.
What Constitution, you ask? So that there
is no doubt, I am referring to the organic Constitution of 1787
that is based on the Declaration of Independence (hereinafter "DOI"),
the only Constitution that can legitimately be considered as the
fulfillment of America's founding document. There is only one such
Constitution and it was designed as the precise architecture of our
national government, built and established by the People in accordance
with the DOI.
The states ratified the Constitution in
convention on September 17, "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and eighty-seven" on behalf of the sovereign People of the
United States, the only ones having the natural authority to create and
benefit from the new constitutional government of the United
No, I am NOT talking about a "corporate" United
States or anything relating to such unconstitutional, unauthorized, and
nor would I suggest that any such treasonous acts, such as the Act of
1871, be given any credence or respect whatsoever. These issues can be
argued before the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury after it is
The authority for creating the "new
Describing "government" the DOI states "That to
secure these [unalienable (or natural)] rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed." It also states that the People have the right to protect
themselves from "any form of government [that] becomes destructive of
these ends" of securing their unalienable rights, by "alter[ing] or
abolish[ing] it" and by "institut[ing] new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them [emph.added]
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Only the
Constitution of 1787 carries these principles.
In this regard, the DOI cautions the People
against being quick to judgment of their government, stating "Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed."
However, that grace period by the People is not
to last indefinitely, but only "while evils are sufferable." According
to the DOI, there comes a point in time when the People must finally
interfere in the ongoing violation and destruction of their rights by a
tyrannical government, stating "But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, [emph.added] to throw
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
That point was reached by the colonists and it
was time to build a new government "to provide new guards for their
future security," the DOI describing it as: "Such has been the patient
sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which
constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The
history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
of an absolute tyranny over these states."
The People's intentions
Determining that the time had come to establish a
new government, the DOI concludes by stating the intentions of the
People by and through their representatives: "We, therefore, the
representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress,
assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of
the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that
these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and
independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the
state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that
as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war,
conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all
other acts and things which independent states may of right do."
Recall (above) that the DOI states that these principles must benefit
the People, to wit: "...laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [emph.added] shall seem most likely to effect
their safety and happiness" --NOT the government.
In dedication of those declared intentions, the
final sentence of the DOI states: "And for the support of this
declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes
and our sacred honor." One could say that J.A.I.L. deserves such
The means of carrying out these
The only way the People had for carrying out
their intentions was to write a constitution officially establishing
their "new government" in fulfillment of protecting their newly founded
independence and freedom from tyranny as they declared in the DOI. Over
the next eleven years, the Framers officially memorialized in writing
specific terms to limit the new government, restricting its power to
that of a protective and serving role, in compliance with the DOI:
"...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed..."
Everything is fine up to that point in building
the new government intended by the People in the DOI. The People were
sovereign, as they are by nature and declared to be so in the DOI; and
the new government was the servant of the People and protector of their
natural rights as it was designed and intended to be according to the
DOI. The Constitution, as written, was established, and still exists
today, as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Where things went
If you don't remember anything else, know
this: The Constitution of 1787 is the
Supreme Law of the Land, and anything repugnant thereto is null and
void; an unconstitutional act confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
(Although the USSC made these rulings, we rely on this conclusion as
self-evident truth --plain old common sense).
The problem is, there is no enforcement provision in the Constitution,
and so we have a Constitution in FORM only.
Does the fact that the Constitution exists in
FORM only, reduce the rights of the People described in the DOI? Of
course not-- the Constitution neither creates nor diminishes rights.
It's supposed to enforce them. The Law of the Constitution is
still there, officially established in writing and expected
by the People to be obeyed by government. That
expectation was there when the Constitution was written, and remains so
independent of the Constitution in accordance with the Laws of
Nature. Length of time does not reduce fraud and deception nor
take away from the voidness of any unconstitutional acts by government;
they are forever void. Government continues to operate on a counterfeit
basis under color of law and will do so until the People take
appropriate and meaningful action to put a stop to it, discussed below.
Revolution and/or secession will not solve the
problem-- neither of those acts provide for the enforcement of the
Constitution by the People. If you ask "Is the Constitution
Dead?" The answer is NO. Unenforceable?
YES, until the People correct that
While the Framers wrote into the Constitution
those restrictive terms within which the new government was to
function, they omitted the provision that would make it all possible,
i.e., an enforcement provision whereby the People would be able to
exercise their right to protect themselves from a subsequent "absolute
tyranny" similar to that from which they had already historically
extricated themselves as stated in the DOI.
Where the People went wrong was in failing to
exercise their dominion as sovereigns (keeping vigilant) over the
Framers, thereby allowing that careless omission to get by final
scrutiny of the People prior to ratification.
The People have dominion and sovereignty by
nature, but unless they exercise and maintain it, it will be
usurped by the tyrants from which they were to protect themselves. That
is where we find ourselves today! "The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance." The People failed to pay that price and as a result,
have lost the exercise of their liberty by the usurpation of absolute
tyranny from which they have been unable to protect themselves.
Can the People recover what is
The natural properties of the People, to wit,
Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, among others, with which
they were endowed at birth, were stolen and kept from them due to the
People's negligence at the time the Constitution was written. Along
with the loss of their properties, they have lost their ability to
exercise their sovereignty and dominion over a serving and protecting
government as the natural order of things. The theft of natural rights
by the usurpation of an unnatural force does not change the ownership
of those rights. The People still hold title to their natural
properties whether in their possession or not. Can possession be
regained by the People?
To answer that question, it must be determined
how and why the properties were lost. We know that they have been
usurped by a tyrannical government not entitled to them. And why?
Because the People "looked the other way" and allowed the Constitution
to be ratified without an enforcement clause, leaving the door wide
open for the tyrants to take over. Consequently, the People are left
with a Constitution in form only, absent a provision to enforce its
We know that we are entitled, by nature, to those
stolen properties, but how can we reclaim possession of them?
Despite the absolute tyranny that has usurped the rights of the People,
after their patient sufferance for more than 100 years now, the People
are still left with the right-- in fact the DUTY-- to provide new
guards for their future security by doing what should have been done by
the Framers, to wit, establishing a constitutional means of enforcing
the Supreme Law of the Land. How can that be done?
J.A.I.L. is the answer! (Come to
The method is already written up and waiting to
be passed in its first state. Please visit our website at
and read the Constitution & By-Laws which contains the initiative.
As a national effort, we are campaigning for South
Dakota passage of J.A.I.L. in 2006.
We invite as many as possible to come to the
National J.A.I.L. Western Rally, sponsored by Peymon Mottahedeh of
Freedom Law School. The JAILers-In-Chief of South Dakota, of Oregon,
and of Washington state are planning to be there so far. Mark your
calendars for Monday, March 14th, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the day following
Peymon's Freedom Rally at the same location: The Radisson
Hotel, 4545 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach CA. (949) 833-0570.
Peymon is graciously providing the meeting room for J.A.I.L. and so
there is no admission charge. But we will be passing the hat for your
generous donations to this national effort.
Take a look at the recent "Intelligence Reform
Act" for instance, to realize how important J.A.I.L. is as a guard for
our future security-- Real
security, not what our tyrannical government is peddling. It doesn't
depend on "terrorism." The People's right to security from absolute
despotism brought on by a tyrannical government is a natural and
unalienable right which the People have the DUTY to enforce!
Let's DO IT with J.A.I.L.
Thanks to Peymon, and to everyone supporting