r/conspiracy: Our Government is in breach of public

Our Government is in breach of public

11 2016-10-05 by 911bodysnatchers322

In order to describe how our government is in breach of public, first I have to tell you or remind you what our government is and what it is not, and then tell you what being in breach of public is.

Our government is of the people for the people and by the people. It's an administrative entity that governs, composed of people that we allegedly elect (we don't, corporations do). It's a public sector services provider-- an entity whose purpose is to serve us: the public. Not the other way around. People miss that.

How does our government get its power? It gets its power by way of social contract called popular sovereignty.. This is the basis upon which we consider the constitution legitimate.

However the COG plan went into place on 9/11 by "terrorists attacking the US government". This allowed for a legal exception for the CIA to disobey the directives outlined in piece of paper that outlines rules to which we all agreed to abide (The constitution). The limits of their disobeyance cannot be known,even to our representatives we (again, corporations) hired--specifically--to know these things.

Since congress--the legislative branch of government--can't know which rules are or aren't valid or applicable to a public sector service provider, then it can't say which are still applicable to other citizens. After all, public is a word that applies equally to CIA as well as any other agency--it's simply not logical to say something is blue except when it's orange. In this way, public is public--what is true for CIA must be true for FDA, DEA, NSA, USDA, Fishing and Wildlife, etc, unless there is something called "secret law" to which no one is privy except for the highmost military command, which is itself wholly illegitimate, because it violates popular sovereignty and the general principles of US's formative documents the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and people would never sign off on it in a democratic vote.

Furthermore, secret law is not defined in the constitution, and no one in their right minds would sign off on it. If I"m wrong, show it to me. I've read the constitution. Need I remind you, 'the very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society."--JFK

I propose that this 'secret group' cannot have their cake and eat it to. If they are operating on secret law, then they've created a new government inside of our government that is totalitarian. Therefore, they declared war on the US on 9/11. Otherwise, if they haven't privatized themselves, then they are legitimate. Which is it? Did the CIA/NSA declare war on the US by attacking its constitution, citizens and stage a silent coup d'etat or have they just been pretending that they have powers they never had?

Or is it a third option? That the presence of secret war can only be "legal" if the idea of laws are suspended? By george I think we have it. It turns out, if you suspend the constituton for one agency, you necessarily suspend the constitution for ALL agencies. And for all cititzens as well. It's just 'suspended'. This is why Comey can break the law and make the FBI look like a circus run by petulant, incompetent, rich people's children.

What this means is that any court cannot prove it has legitimacy because it either 1) cannot know the boundaries of the cogs undermining of the constitution because Congress is told to fuck off and not ask about it by the executive and military intelligence establishment, or 2) the constitution has completely been undermined, and therefore the since the court derives its authority from the constitution, the foundarional power has been swept out from underneath it. Meaning any person can file a motion in limine before their trial, and explain

that the burden of proof of the courts authority rests on a court that cannot prove its authority because it cannot prove the constitution has not been superceded by the COG!!

Now that you know this, you understand why these bastards don't have to answer Trey Gowdy or Jason Chaffetz's inquest inquiries, pleading the fifth. That's contempt of congress, but they don't care. They just aren't answering. Even Loretta Lynch is giving the same answer, "I decided to go with the team that included Mr. comey's decision"... or something like that. Not answering. I'd carry them off in shackles to the courthouse, but the problem is, they are just giving a standard answer because they know something we don't: there are no laws. They can plead protective laws, but that's just for the camera and 'to look as if they are politely asserting their rights'.

They are toying with congress. Toying with it. They know they are being protected by the military intelligence establishment itself, simply because the only laws in play now are "might makes right" and in the modern age this means "Obama" or "technology" and "vast databases and secret networks" makes right.

Nothing is going to happen to Hillary, or Obama, or Lynch, or Bill, or Combetta, or anyone. We've lost the ability to arrest and detain anyone publicly. Why? Because there are no laws.

These people know that. Because they are lawyers. I'd like to see Trey Gowdy specifically talk about this COG thing. I mean seriously, I'd pay a grand to see what he and Jason Chaffetz have to say about my series of unpopular posts about the law.

Yes I'm not a lawyer, but I can read. I've read the constitution like at least 5 times in my life. I've read and listened to the COG and its implications by 2 people, one of whom is a constitutional lawyer the other a poet and researcher (Danny Sheehan and Peter Dale Scott respectively); I think also historian Webster Tarpley. They're all saying the same thing. The constitution has been superceded and therefore we have no idea where things stand.

Our government is in breach of the public. The republic is on fire. Criminals roam the streets and I'm not talking about black people and druggies but the mass murderers who order drone strikes on people. At some point, if they don't do something about people who break the law so publicly, then people will start to realize there really is no law. We're already starting to see it, it manifests in traffic: people cutting each other off, not signalling, driving over curbs, running lights, etc. That's stage 1. Wait till you see stage 2.

27 comments

6 hfrm11 2016-10-05

We'll quiet them. Sometimes I just pray: Lord grant me the serenity. . Why don't you mail this stuff you write to colleges/organizations/etc? It's pretty spot on.

1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

I could be very wrong. I'd like someone who understands this better than myself to tell me this or verify I'm right.

I mean the law could be whatever they say it is because they have nuclear codes. In other words, might makes right. We were supposed to be ruled by laws, however ... why is a public institution (for/of/by the 'people') allowed to do stuff we can't do. This is like allowing a government employee to murder other people. I thought that couldn't happen. On the flipside, if the executive and scotus can just give immunity or pardon anyone's crimes and they abuse it by pardoning large groups of people en masse that work on varous project, then effectively there is no need for laws because they will have created a tyranny in doing that.

I haven't written to colleges but maybe I should. I figured what I'm arguing is really just going a step beyond Peter Dale Scott in flushing out the ramifications of a constitution that has been superceded. I think the next step is maybe to talk to Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz and ask them how to proceed on getting an answer as to the extent to which the constitution has been superceded and if they don't know, or allowed to know, or refuse to answer, then that should be an indicator that there are no laws because the subversion of the constitution has become 'secret law' and therefore is immediately by definition in breach of contract, in breach of public contract that the constittuion is...they would be in breach of constitution.

4 Shlokusmadockus 2016-10-05

You post intriguing thought provoking posts, thank you

2 rkk2 2016-10-05

Can you explain what you think a motion in limine is and what they are used for?

1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

I'm not an expert on this or a lawyer so I can't give legal advice, but the cochran firm says this about motion in limine:

motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case. Generally, this motion is filed in advance of the trial, but a motion may be entertained by the court during a trial, before the evidence in question is offered. The purpose of this motion is to prevent the interjection of matters which are irrelevant, inadmissible or prejudicial.

In the context in which it was used in the essay above, I would say that one might successfully (with a judge that actually respects logic and the law) present a motion in limine to the court presenting the evidence of COG being made active (via printouts on whitehouse.gov), several documents explaining the cog, explaining who crafted the cog plan (dick cheney, donald rummsfeld), explaining how it's been continuously employed since 911 and continued this year by obama and this is currently active, and news stories about how congress people are inhibited from asking questions about COG.

And in the motion in limine I would say that the the court itself cannot view any evidence in any manner of lawsuit, or even hear any crimnal case, or even ask the defendant for a plea on the basis that the court has no authority to hear the case, and if the court has no authority to hear the case, then it must be dimissed since any plea would be irrelevant--especially in the case that laws themselves are irrelevant.

The key thing is to present these materials and then ask the judge, "why do you believe your court has the authority if the constitution has been superceded? The burden of proof that your court has authority MUST HAPPEN before you are allowed to hear my case. But you cannot prove that, and I know this because the Congress cannot even do that and they are higher up your chain of authority. Therefore I respectfully ask the court to immediately dismiss this case, or seek proof of your authority before you hear the case. (At which point, I will challenge that proof as well by investigating the validity of the claimant--chances are it's not valid just because General Colon Powers said it was)"

You see the constitution defines both the state constitutions and court systems as well as the ability to make and uphold laws, if you overturn the constitution, you make our whole system irrelevant. Motion in limine in this case simply is a document that makes the case that the court has no power, the laws are no longer applicable because the COG is in place.

People will try to bring the declaration of independence into this mess, and it has no legal bearing^[1], btw. The bill of rights are the first amendments of the constitution.

2 rkk2 2016-10-05

I know what the Constitution does, and I also know what motion in limines do. They are generally used for excluding evidence (like the Cochran firm said).

Unless there was a question of civil procedure/criminal procedure you wouldn't be able to use it in a jurisdictional sense. It would have to go to the underlying claim. A lot of times they are filed pursuant to federal rule of evidence 403 (at least in federal cases) where you want something excluded because of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Your underlying theory raises questions as well. For example you say:

Or is it a third option? That the presence of secret war can only be "legal" if the idea of laws are suspended? By george I think we have it. It turns out, if you suspend the constituton for one agency, you necessarily suspend the constitution for ALL agencies. And for all cititzens as well.

You haven't made a legal argument. Why are all laws suspended? Why wouldn't judicial review suffice? I know you said you aren't a lawyer but you are making a pretty bold legal claim so sorry if I don't take it at face value when the only thing you have sourced is a wikipedia entry on popular sovereignty and an Atlantic article.

4 nedsliver 2016-10-05

September 14th 2001, Bush declared that the country is in a state of "national emergency" and this "state of national emergency" is open ended and has been extended each passing year by Bush and Obama. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2014/01/30/how-president-obama-could-be-swept-away-with-his-executive-orders-that-defy-congress-and-the-courts/#6fe6e0b9857f

Under this national emergency the COG (Continuity of Government) rules(secret rules/laws, rules/laws that Congress CANNOT SEE) are in effect. So by the power of COG the president and his COG staff actually run the government as they please with suspending any portion or all portions of the Constitution. So as many people sit and wonder why the government is or isn't doing particular things, things we think are unconstitutional, well this is probably the reason.

1 rkk2 2016-10-05

I'm still confused as to how this means the Constitution is void. There have been plenty of executive orders that have been put to the Supreme Court and I don't see why this one is any different.

It's shitty that sometimes our government operates outside the Constitution, but that is the entire point of judicial review.

2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

Your confusion is the basis by which the courts have no power. I'm not saying the constitution is suspended with certainty...i"m saying no one knows.

I'm saying secret law makes the intelligence community a private sector which means they have declared war on the US by their 'illegal activities' and if they havent declared war and are still public sector, then secret law doesn't exist and the constitution is null. They can't have it both ways. In the latter case, what is true for CIA must be true for all citizens and institutions; thus if they can break the law we can too simply because by definition of cog there is no 'law' since constitution has been suspended under the state of emergency.

recap: either CIA was privatized and then they are a rogue state that has attacked the US and somehow any of these guilty people have become protected foreign diplomats working on our soil with some kind of transnational immunity --- OR --- there are no laws.

Choose! you can't have both.

Since you cannot prove or disprove that the constitution has authority because even congress itself cannot know (trust me, many have asked and are told to STFU by the military/CIA), then the lesser courts cannot prove they have authority. With this doubt, you can call any trial a mistrial and walk the fuck on away. Because if they hold you anyway, then you refuse to answer any plea and reserve your right to say nothing. They hold you in contempt and declare you guilty and lock you up. Hopefully by this point you've made a spectacle of this in the news. Oh btw, if you are accused you should go to the news first thinking that the judge is going to be an ignorant asshole mason who wants to throw you in jail for whatever anyway. I suggest you dress well, be respectful and retain your rights and make an argument that if Hillary, Comey, Lynch are running free, that if Bill clinton knowingly allowed his friend to give 60,000 hemo children AIDS and HEP C and these people aren't in jail, then it must mean there are no laws. Give him a dossier on the COG printed from whitehouse.gov. Make your case. It helps not to break the law anyway. I mean most of them are made so that you don't do dickish things to other people.

2 rkk2 2016-10-05

The Sheehan video helped me understand what you were getting at. I'm not sure the case you are trying to make is what he was talking about at the end of the video when he says it is a give and take (two steps forward, one step back I think were his words) but at least now I know what you are trying to say. That's the last thing I'm going to say about it.

1 nedsliver 2016-10-05

During a "State Of National Emergency" the Constitution gets suspended, they say for the protection of the citizens, but you can clearly see the implications of a suspended constitution right? So, say an event like 9-11 happens, President Bush calls for a State of National Emergency(SoNE). We(the public) can clearly see what has happened to the country and we understand the call for SoNE. However, as time passes and the "clean-up" so to speak is done and the country is resembling somewhat what it was before the disaster/event/emergency, the public would assume the SoNE is over and everything is back to "normal". Well, the government never makes an official declaration to the public that the SoNE is over and we continue our lives as normal.

With the SoNE actually still in place(for a year at a time) the constitution is still suspended but the public is not aware of that. The government doesn't want you aware that Continuity of Government plans are still in effect as long as the SoNE is in effect, therefore allowing the president and his other chiefs of staff or COG department leaders to run the government as they wish.

Public assumes all is well and SoNE is over. Government, behind the public's back, continues to run on the COG plan (remember, congress cannot even see this plan) which usurps the constitution "during a national emergency". So every year since 2001 the standing president(s) has reinstated the SoNE before it expires at it's year end. Thus allowing them certain to determine anything they want without congressional approval. They do allow many things to happen as normal, but it's when they want to do something the constitution would not have let them do, then they have the power to do it.

0 rkk2 2016-10-05

During a "State Of National Emergency" the Constitution gets suspended

Are you sure you aren't confusing this with The Suspension Clause, which deals strictly with habeas corpus? I'd like to see your legal authority on this claim.

3 nedsliver 2016-10-05

I'm leaving work in a few, when I get home i will look for the document.

2 nedsliver 2016-10-05

What I do remember reading was that it was during Reagan's administration with Cheney and Rumsfeld being the lead authors of the plan. Stems from Operation Garden Plot and REX-84(exercise 1984)

2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

The point is that you will not find anything on COG. The only way you know it's subversion of constitution is because prominent criminals are not hauled off in cuffs, even by US Marshalls under RICO, which the clinton foundation can be proven to have been suceptible to many many many times over!

The DOJ does nothing and even covers for them. This is the litmus test that there are no laws. So if you go to jail at this point, or have gone to jail, you've done so willingly by being ignorant of the reality of your surroundings, which is that these people can't prove they have legal authority beyond, say, maritime law--which would still be in effect given that it's international law.

Congress is not allowed to talk about COG. It's operations are held in private, executive order meetings. We aren't allowed to know anything about it.

That is my point. If the Congress can't know about it, then basically it means that the executive has gone rogue and become a dictator---OR there is secret law and the CIA has become a rogue state OR the constitution is superceded

2 nedsliver 2016-10-05

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=mtweathergovt#mtweathergovt

This is interesting:

March 1976: Emergency Government Ready to Take Over from Mount WeatherEdit event
The existence of Mount Weather, a secret underground government installation located about 50 miles west of Washington, DC (see 1950-1962), which houses a parallel executive branch that is prepared to take control of the country in the event of a national emergency, is revealed in an article published by The Progressive. According to the article, the secret government-in-waiting is part of the highly classified Continuity of Government (COG) program, which is meant to keep the government functioning in times of disaster. The backup executive branch at Mount Weather attempts to duplicate the functions of the federal government on a day-to-day basis. Should a catastrophe kill or incapacitate the nation’s leaders, the parallel branch will be ready to assume power and re-establish order. The secret government-in-waiting at Mount Weather includes the departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, Health, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. High-level government officials tell journalist Richard P. Pollock of The Progressive that each federal department at Mount Weather is headed by a single person. These officials form a parallel cabinet and are even referred to by subordinates as “Mr. Secretary.” These alternate cabinet members are appointed by the White House and serve indefinite terms. Many of the officials have held their positions through several administrations. There is also an Office of the Presidency at Mount Weather. According to The Progressive, the Federal Preparedness Agency (FPA) “apparently appoints a special staff to the presidential section, which regularly receives top-secret national security estimates and raw data from each of the federal departments and agencies.” The Progressive adds: “According to a source within the FPA, Mount Weather publishes its own independent reports and drafts its own evaluation of the policies and programs of the federal government. The underground installation also prints in-house reports on hundreds of national and regional topics, including the state of the nation’s economy, health, education, military preparedness, and political trends, the source said.” Pollock comments, “How can a parallel—even if dormant—government be constitutionally acceptable, if Congress has played no significant role in its formation and exercises no control over its day-to-day operations?” [PROGRESSIVE, 3/1976] Entity Tags: Federal Preparedness Agency, Mount Weather Category Tags: Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, Expansion of Presidential Power, Continuity of Government, Government Acting in Secret

1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

You don't get it man. You just don't. You're actually trying hard not to. I will refer you to Peter Dale Scott's guns and butter broadcast and constititouonal lawyer daniel sheehans talk on the subject. If you don't listen to this after I've dug up the link for you, then you're really not trying in earnest to understand this sittuion at all and your'e just being a pseudoskeptic about it.

from Rex 84 article:

[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?

[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?

(SECRET LAW ? or Const. suspension?)

Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.

Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.

3 rkk2 2016-10-05

Well if I understood I wouldn't be asking questions. I don't think I'm playing pseudoskeptic but thank you for the links. Sorry for being cautious at taking your claim at face value.

2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

I'm glad you asked actually. I think you saying this means I owe you an apology. Thanks for looking at the evidence.

1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

By george I think I totally agree with you.

1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

The thing is you don't have to make a legal argument. You are pointing out that the court has no power to EVEN HEAR a legal argument. So whether that's through motion in limine or some other mechanism I don't know. I would consult a lawyer and have them talk to the judge prior to the judge saying "how do you plead?" Because they only give you 2 options. I am suggesting a pretrial interventionary document that says, "Plea is irrelevant. You have no authority here" So that's why I suggested this mechanism. Perhaps there's a more suitable mechanism. I'm not a lawyer, so if you want to try this please consult a real lawyer first.

2 Ihopeitsround 2016-10-05

Time to purge yet?

1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

It's time for US Marshalls to do their job and RICO the following people : Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Combetta, Wasserman Schultz, every black democrat senator who are all obviously bought by clinton, and many others with whom these people interface.

1 [deleted] 2016-10-05

just gotta remember that "the government" isn't the problem, government is just a tool that can be used for good or evil, it's amoral individuals and political subversives/outright criminals and mafiosos (and likely foreign intelligence agents from countries all over the world) infiltrating it and using it to their personal advantage who are the problem.

2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

The government is just a document that we all agree to go by, and it's also a network of the most incompetent and lowest skilled of people who work less than most to get better benefits than most for doing half of what they do. It's not like an appliance, or a building or a thing. It's a network of incompetent people and systems that have a very high tolerance for mediocrty, bureaucracy, corruption, stonewalling, officiousness and elitism

2 nedsliver 2016-10-05

This is an interesting read.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?civilliberties_secrecy=civilliberties_continuity_of_government&timeline=civilliberties

1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-10-05

Thank you, that is interesting.

There is a movie coming out about like DC being nuked and some kind of advisor is the highest available guy to become president and he's just like this strategy guy in dockers or something---'who me?' deer in headlights as secret service swears him in.

Now Hollywood would make a LOT more money if they chose Rowan Atkins and made it a Mr. Bean movie,but they never asked me to help them so this one is what we get.