Definitions of "Public"

Public /ˈpəblik/

adjective 1. of or concerning the people as a whole. "public concern" 2. done, perceived, or existing in open view "public apology"

noun 1. ordinary people in general; the community "library is open to the public"

As a noun, the whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality. The community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people. *As an adjective, open to all; notorious. Open to common use. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.

n. the people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality, which the government serves. 2) adj. referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands, and public and private roads.

---

Intentional Ambiguity of "Public", along with intent, makes definitions Identically-Equivalent

The term "The Public" in the context of government, refers to government as a service provider for the people of the United States. This terminology establishes a meaningful intent to cognitively conflate the two definitions of "public" together into a logical equivalent. Otherwise a different word would be used, such as private, corporate or something else entirely.

In other words--given the choice of words--if public means both "the people" and "that which the government does on expressly on behalf of the people for the common good", then they are effectively the same. Especially since it's commonly said in Lincon's now-idiomatic quote,

"A Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.".

The word people is repeated 3 times in that sentence, making "people" the sine qua non of the import of that sentence.

Similarly, the Constitution begins

"We the People of the United States*,

Again, establishing that people are the government by the act of stating it so.

in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is a social contract. Between persons. Public persons. A public contract between public persons.

Thus, this willful and social-contractual intent to conflate the two concepts of people with government through the linguistic conduit of public, along with the obviously intentional ambiguity of the word public (by expressly avoiding other, more distinguishing words), makes the two definitions of public identically-equivalent.

Furthermore, the requirements for government employment is US citizenship; a H1B visa is a temporary staff and not part of the government. Contractors are similarly not parts of the government. They are private workers. They don't get benefits, they aren't included in political decision making. They aren't part of the US government, although they provide services where there are gaps in the US government's ability to provide the same for its citizens.

Since the Government is made up of Citizens, that is 'public persons', not private or foreign or military personnel but inclusive of both civilians and military, one can say that the government is made of public citizens...from the public.

(This is not a controversial claim, I'm just spelling it out. Possibly being super f_ing pedantic. But that's OK I'm attempting to make a logical proof in language.)

By way of Euclids 3rd law of logic, the law of transitive property of equality, that if the government means public and public means people, then likewise the government means people and people means government. Thus, what is true for the government is true for the people, and what is true for the people is true for the government.

---

Crime Pays

Furthermore if the government commits crimes, then so can the people. If the government imports drugs, so can people. If the government can hire people to assassinate people for political aims, so can the people. If the government can defraud the population's attempts to vote, then the people have every right to do the same and cheat the vote without recourse. If a trusted public staff can steal the public's political secrets and share them in an irresponsible way, then the people are well within their rights to do the same by hacking into public servers--after all, those belong to the public because they belong to the government.

Now you may say, of course that won't fly. Yes that is true. They'll never let that happen because at the end of the day, it's a bunch of shitty people telling other people what they can and cannot do. The difference is those bullies have money, power, numbers (of people), small armies (police), and this fiction called 'the law' the relies on people's religious beliefs of Justice in a world in which it's already dead and has been for decades.^[1]

But you see they made a mistake. They mind controlled people into using logic and words to make people wrong. And litigation became a way for assholes to communicate to each other.

And this mistake was made public.

So if the Government did not intend for its self-definition of 'the people', then it would have used different legal terms to define itself. For example it's extremely simple to make this distinction in language: instead of public persons they would say something like, "Government staff at the express exclusion of non-Government (public) civilians" or simply "private/proprietary company staff" or "corporate staff, not including non-staff (public) citizens"

Therefore "public sphere" definition includes you and me, public citizens AND the government, since public citizens make up the government.

Ok, there is a reason I'm haarping on this one issue and I'll get to that now.

---

State of Emergency :: COG Breaks the Law... in Half

On 9/11, the public was attacked. What's that mean? US citizens were attacked. The US Government offices, assets and staff (again 'public persons') were similarly attacked. First with the Pentagon, then with the WTC offices that housed many US Government agencies--strangely--destroying all the evidence on numerous international white collar crime investigations that were somehow not backed-up offsite, per infosec best practice.

The 9/11 attack subsequently caused Richard Cheney and Donald Rummsfeld to actually initiate the Continuity of Government Plan (further COG). Cheney and Rummsfeld are longtime George H. W. Bush loyalists who had both practiced taking over the government in a secret exercise under Reagan--who had himself initially created the Continuity of Government plan by secret order^[1][2]. The history of this surreptitious political maneuvering has been elaborated at length by Peter Dale Scott, who is the foremost expert on COG.^[1][2][3][4]

This state of emergency has been renewed every single year by GW Bush and Barack Obama since 2001^{[1][2][3][4]:} 15 yrs at the time of this writing. The cover story of this plan is to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. The hidden reason for this plan is to create a corporatist coup d'etat in america, placing the military-industrial-complex in charge of Americia, which certainly succeeded^{[1][2][3][4][5].} Bush's granddad tried this before in the failed business plot, but given enough time the Bushes would succeed decades later.^[3][4][6][7]

Fifteen Years of Corruption

Peter Dale Scott continued to discuss in an article in 2010 that the Constitution may be suspended due to the Continuity of Government. The article reads

Ostensibly these were emergency plans to suspend the American constitution in the event of a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution.

The Congress is stonewalled then and now about the extent to which the COG affects the Constitution. That said, enough time--fifteen (15) years--and enough corruption during that time, have enabled the public to "feel out the boundaries of the COG plan"

Here's our findings:

• "The CIA gets what it wants" --Barack Obama^[1]
• Obama believes, “it was what the C.I.A. believe[s] that really count[s].”^[1]
• The NSA and CIA can get away with these 16pgs of transgressions against Public Persons's rights to privacy, instilling a sense of dread and oppression that is a mass psychological injury to our sense of freedom, life, liberty and happiness that would otherwise be Constitutionally-protected under the purview of non-irregular Constitutional governance^[3]
• No justice for the public regarding Hillary, Comey, Lynch, police abuses, FBI mockingbird provocateurship (outed false flags)
• No justice for corporate theft or poisoning people with food/water
• No justice for corporate ecoterrorism
• No justice for lying to the public, hacking their accounts and spreading disinfo on social media

The irregularity of the COG governance and the 'going against the will of the people' that the CIA/NSA and Intelligence Community generally has had a profound and injurious impact on a wide swath of the public. This injury is a psychological one; the CIA has effectively created a Panopticon, which then makes the public prisoners in their own homes. This panopticon is a form of psychological abuse and torture, which necessarily precludes such high-minded and guaranteed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the Declaration of Independence^[1], our other social contract.

The Constitution, however, guarantees tranquility, justice, defence, welfare, liberty and posterity. Let's take a look at how COG has violated each aspect of our Constitution's preamble and mission statement, one-by-one:

• Tranquility => is our world more tranquil or more filled with violence and mass shooting events?
• Justice => is our society more just or did the FBI just abort justice 3-5 times in the last month?
• Defence => is our society safer or have we just wasted our money and achieved nothing but more war and more terror?
• Liberty => does it feel as though you have more rights or fewer? I guess if you are gay or trans you have more, which is <3% of the population. Otherwise the other 97% have to give up more rights. Actually, if you're gay you have to give up your privacy also, so it's a wash at best for those 3%.
• Posterity => are our children going to be more successful, smarter, comfortable, safer, as affluent, as learned, as happy or less on all measures?

Looking at the end-results of these last 15 yrs, by all measures of the intent of the Constitution, we've completely undermined our constitution and society. Therefore we can conclude that boundaries of the COG plan is to completely nullify the constitution.

I can assure you, though, given that Obama has doubled the national debt by increasing it another 9T dollars, that 50% or more of that was spent on the security state. And it has utterly, almost completely failed.^[1][2][3]

The intelligence community continues to surveil American illegally by nearly every avenue they can think of short of embedding microphones in your pets or carrier pidgeon (yes they've tried both historically). The government therefore has lost all credibility, and we can conclude there are no boundaries to the COG plan in terms of undermining the constitution.

In terms of justice, we've seen that bad guys in our government get away with murder all the time. I could provide a litany but it's beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's just say there are pedos in our government^[1], even among the Intelligence Community; they break the law in order to stop terrorism that doesn't exist; they take our money and give us no justice in return.

Therefore, while the US remains under COG governance, the Constitution--the "highest law of the land"--is untenable. And all these Congressional meetings and all this political stuff is just bread and circuses. It's literally a soap opera with fake political theater that means nothing. None of the laws that have passed since COG was initiated are valid, and none of the laws themselves are valid.

The rule of law has been officially suspended, and the only person who seems not to know this is YOU.

---

Pretrial interventions

If the rule of law is suspended, then no laws apply to you. If the Constitution is no longer applicable, then it's no longer applicable to you.

If you've been put in jail since 2001, then you ought to talk to a lawyer and appeal because it was a mistrial. If you are arrested at this point, prior to your trial, you can have a pretrial intervention with two legal instruments discussed by Marc Stevens on youtube, who has successfully gotten his clients out of traffic tickets and minor offenses using these techniques.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Get legal advice from a real JD or contact Marc Stevens. I will summarize however the steps Marc took.

1) Demurrer-- a document, pleading in a lawsuit that objects to the pleading filed by the opposing party. It's submitted to the court prior to trial. The opposing party can respond in-kind with a demurrer.

In this context, your demurrer will say in a logical proof and verified evidence from mainstream sources (printed out) that

a) the COG plan is active

b) The opacity of the government, the violations by the FBI, CIA, Intelligence Community, Police, Contempts of Congress, Unpunished Pedo in the government, Unpunished Clinton, disproportionality of force used by police in subduing and their unpunishment, wholesale theft of the public by bailouts suggest that either the constitution is no more; or that the alphabet soup agencies have become privatized, meaning that their laws are no longer applicable to the public sphere but are internal; so either way the constitution--OR their internal laws are null and void.

2) You file a "Motion in Limine" before the trial, saying that you exclude the applicability of any evidence and claims against you on the basis that the laws that would be used to render a verdict against you are inapplicable to you, based on the fact that one of the following must be true, but they all arrive at the same conclusion of non-culpability:

a) The constitution has been suspended based on the evidence-based observations of the allowances of intelligence agencies

b) If it hasn't, the Judge certainly can't prove it hasn't, (COG is closed doors)

c) Likewise the Judge can't prove the constitution is still valid (COG is closed doors)

d) If they have some means we don't know to prove the constitution is still valid, then you argue that

i) The allowed unconstitutionality of the Intelligence Community's behavior over the last 15 yrs (cite my examples 16pgs of them), suggests that these agencies have been privatized, thus no longer part of the 'public' and therefore any evidence they've gathered is inadmissible in court because they've commmitted an act of terrorism and wire fraud to obtain it, as our privacy is still constitutionally-protected.

ii) That if the Intelligence Community is still considered "the public sphere", then the Government has created a legal paradox by way of logical contradiction, which then invalidates all laws. The Intelligence Community is afforded to break the law, and therefore laws either don't apply, or are not punishable and the same applies to you, the public.