One Part in Ten Thousand
Distinctions between American and Marxist Revolutions:
A Plan of Action based on Historical Examples
Natural-Law copyright by Anthony Hargis
(Copyright notice: to lawfully reproduce all or part of this article, the following attribution must be included: “Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis, redressone.wordpress.com)
It is the business of pioneers and philosophers to make mistakes or make damn fools of themselves; so that others may learn, or not learn, how to avoid such mistakes, or how to travel safely from A to B in four hours – instead of two years.
Of the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of men who have complained about the Federal Reserve, I was one of some half dozen who actually did something about it. And, of those alternatives, mine was the most practical and efficient.
Nevertheless, I made mistakes; one or two of them could be rated catastrophic: one of those was that I set out to establish my alternative before I had collected the power to protect it.
Some forty years ago, I came to the conclusion that cutthroats, thieves and pedophiles occupied this country; and that their main instrument of genocide and plunder was the Federal Reserve System, a disguise for what Bolsheviks call a central bank. Thru this mechanism, government debt is converted to paper money. Government debt is the process by which one generation cannibalizes future generations; thus, the paper money that Americans use for their daily transactions is evidence of the eventual necessity to cannibalize their children. This is a future consequence of their actions, whether or not they choose to acknowledge it.
I felt that this was wrong, that civilized men did not eat their children. I further reasoned that, as long as we used this paper money, and their banking system, we provided resources to this cannibalistic system.
Unfortunately, I didn’t have the patience to wait for someone else to provide an alternative. So, I established a private banking service based on gold; this gave people an alternative to a civilization-destroying practice.
It was unfortunate because, as I noted, I failed. The nature of my failure was that I did it backwards: I established an alternative to a cannibalistic social structure before I had collected the power needed to protect it.
But I plead an indulgence before you lay a penalty on me: knowledge of this power and the procedures by which to accumulate it had been erased from our law and history books. It remained to me to discover this lost knowledge in the late 1990’s. I only discovered a mere fragment of it; I then examined two or three scores of law and history books, many of them covered with dust… and found many stories we are not supposed to know. I organized and collected my work into a book, so I could share it with others, who did not like the American version of rule by thieves.
But it was too late. I eventually came to the attention of a few bandits in the Justice Department; they filed a lawsuit against me, threw me in jail for five months, destroyed my business and, in the process, violated every right and procedure that got in their way to obtain a summary judgment, which, in the eyes of demented men, justified everything they did; it was a classic inquisition.
There was no crime, no victims, no witnesses; I had no opportunity to examine my accuser; all my resources were taken from me so I was unable to defend myself; there was no discovery, no jury, no trial… nothing. As a result, all my customers lost everything they had deposited with me; some had their life savings with me, some lost small amounts they hardly missed, and the rest filled positions between these two extremes.
The government is trying to tell you something: my information is so powerful, they could not allow me near a jury – they could not allow me to speak in the public forum that some call a court. Consider: I was widely known in the so-called resistance movement… I had to be discredited in order to discredit my information; if I had committed a crime – or, if my information was groundless, they would have been delighted to carry my case to trial and make a three-ring circus of it and a damn fool of me. It didn’t happen; instead, while I was prosecuted for a crime that never happened; I was practically locked-out of the courthouse.
The events of my case are so unreal that it is difficult to determine whether I was a victim of an inquisition or trapped in the Queen’s garden.
What was it that provoked this inquisition? There are probably four or five reasons; and I’ll devote the rest of this talk to one of them… not necessarily the most powerful one.
Some two hundred and forty years ago, English colonists began an experiment that has come to be known as the American Revolution.
Thomas Paine characterized it, “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.”
The ideals and principles unleashed and established in America spread thru-out the world, as a beacon shines light into the darkness. Because of that light, oppressed people from all over Europe transported themselves to that experiment, depriving despotisms of their victims; as a result, one tyranny after another began to fall away, year by year, all over the globe; all because a few men, in a far away, insignificant land, demonstrated what men could do when they take matters into their own hands. The beacon was light only with hardly any substance; but still, the hope it gave caused human civilization to make more progress in a hundred years, in every conceivable activity, than in all of prior recorded history.
Today, this “cause of all mankind” is no more; the experiment is over: the beacon has been shattered into a thousand pieces, and now America evokes disgust and shame – where it once transmitted the hope that gave men courage for their dreams.
The deterioration has quickened since the events of 9/11. This catastrophe was perpetrated, we are told, by terrorists who live in caves, and have to struggle to construct an intelligible sentence. We are also told, that they executed this catastrophe because they hate us because we are free. Congress, then, promptly passed legislation that took away our freedoms. By their alleged reason and the response of Congress, we can draw the conclusion that Congress has been captured by terrorists – or, at least by people who hate our freedoms.
Congress then sent American male children into strange lands, they told us, to establish constitutional republics. The stated reason was a lie: these strange lands are now ruled by death squads and corruption; in Afghanistan, American troops stand guard over poppy fields; in Iraq, they captured oil fields and guard them for the benefit of Israel. This should give you notice for what Congress intends for America.
This destruction of ideals did not happen overnight; it was the result of decades of policies that have corrupted the American spirit.
Something is wrong; and there are probably a hundred, or a thousand examples of wrong.
In law, each of these wrongs is called a grievance.
No matter what your grievance – whether it be the environment or 9/11, gun rights or the attack on the USS Liberty, vaccination or immigration – they all, without fail, generate one question: “What can we do to correct such grievances?”
According to current knowledge, we have two options: you may seek redress thru a legislative forum, or a judicial forum.
What happens, however, when each of these forums is complicit in the grievances that you complain about?
What happens when each of these forums will not hesitate to violate every right and procedure that gets in the way of its aim at plunder?
One example here, and then I’ll move on.
As I’ve indicated earlier, governmental debt is the process by which an existing generation of Americans cannibalizes future generations; this process is facilitated by the Federal Reserve. Both governmental debt and the Federal Reserve are mandated by acts of Congress. In other words, cannibalization of future generations is mandated by laws enacted by Congress. If you attempt to provide an alternative to this policy… well, look what happened to my customers and me.
Everything dissidents suggest has never worked before. No matter how many millions of letters you write to Congress; no matter how many millions of men you persuade to march on Washington, you will not persuade them to hang or drown themselves.
Where, then, do we go for redress? After all, as John Locke observed, it is generally accepted that a man who will knowingly injure his brother can scarcely be expected to condemn himself for it. The same is true regarding a group of men and women who conspire to destroy a society.
It is long past time to take matters into our own hands, to duplicate what American Founders did – minus their mistakes.
Others have come to this conclusion; but their suggestions rely on those corrupted forums I have discussed; if they propose another revolution, their proposed actions are based on a soup of contradictions they learned from books on Marxist political theory.
While many people try to design a correction from their very limited experience or common sense, or from Marxist books, it seems to have occurred to no one to learn the lessons of those men who have been most successful in turning back the criminal class, and establishing at least moderate levels of freedom.
The clue that will bring solution lies in the First Amendment; and is known as the right of petition. Some people refer to it as the right of revolution; and here lies the first possibility for confusion. There are two kinds of revolution: the first produces a more widespread liberty; the second produces greater tyranny. In all of history, there have been only three examples of the first kind, while there have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples of the second kind. We could name the first an American revolution; while the second has come to be known as a Bolshevik revolution.
As I’ve noted, many people are beginning to realize the futility of seeking redress thru ordinary means, and are suggesting that it is time for another revolution in this country; but the problem is that these people have no knowledge of the distinction between American and Bolshevik revolutions – and, accordingly, they all propose a Bolshevik revolution… oh, not by name, but by the principles and actions they propose.
In fact, there is hardly an American who even begins to understand the nature of the so-called ‘right of petition’; which, by the way, this right is neither singular nor a right: it is, more properly, a complex of powers. You can read all the law reviews and Supreme Court cases that pertain to this so-called right and you, at best, will find only a very timid picture of its full powers. To draw a reasonably full picture, I had to study two or three scores of old law and history books.
To understand the distinction between American and Bolshevik revolutions, it is necessary to understand the principles and power incorporated within the right of petition. Its first public declaration occurred in section sixty-one of the Magna Charta.
This document was imposed upon king John by the barons of England. It listed several conditions and rights, privileges and procedures these barons wanted John and his justices to observe.
Section sixty-one was the enforcement section. It provided that these barons select twenty-five from among their number. Thereafter, if any man in England had a grievance against the king or his justices, he could take his complaint, or petition, to these twenty-five barons. If any four of these barons thought the petition well-grounded, it would be presented to the king or his justices for redress. If the king or his justices failed to give redress within forty days, the entire nation of England had a right of violence against the king or his justices until redress was made.
Here, you see, is the genesis for English parliaments.
To declare is one thing; to implement, however, is quiet another.
The purpose of the Magna Charta was to define and secure rights of Englishmen. It took them more than four hundred years, and oceans of blood, to reasonably define their rights, and to develop a reasonably effective set of procedures to secure their rights.
A century and a half later, Americans would improve these definitions and procedures, and produce the American Revolution.
In other words, had it not been for section sixty-one of the Magna Charta, and those oceans of blood spilled by Englishmen, the American Revolution would not have been possible.
And it was all for naught – as the next few years will demonstrate. The American Revolution has failed because Americans have forgotten the power wrapped up in the right of petition, and they have deluded themselves into thinking that thieves with power do not need perpetual supervision.
To understand the American experiment, it is necessary to study the law and rights Englishmen brought with them when they traveled from England to America. I did this, and found a history you, and I, are not supposed to know. Here are three examples, which are discussed more fully in my book, The Lost Right.
In 1628, the English parliament had just enacted the Petition of Rights; in that Petition, they struggled to define rights that now appear in the American Bill of Rights: the right to be secure in one’s papers, houses and effects; the right of speech; the right to bear arms; the right of due process of law; the prohibition against quartering soldiers in private homes; the right of self-government; the declaration against martial law; the requirement that every tax receive the assent of parliament; the right of habeas corpus; the right of equal protection or application of laws; among others.
After minor differences were resolved, both Houses passed the Petition; it wanted the king’s assent to make it law. Accordingly, he came, 1628 June 2, to the House of Lords; the commons were sent for; and the Petition was read to him. The response that would make it law was, “Let it be law as is desired.” These words were not spoken; instead, the king … gave an ambiguous and irregular response. [Owing to] his reputation for lying, members of the House of Commons became confused and silent… The commoners removed themselves to their chamber.
When, at last, members of the House of Commons aroused themselves from the paralysis caused by the non-answer of Charles regarding the Petition of Rights, a most uncommon scene occurred in this assembly of men. These men had been long oppressed; they must have felt that an easing of their chains was just barely in reach.
One man after another – Phillips and Pym among them – stood to speak in defense of the Petition of Rights and sat down with a body wracked with passion, and a face washed with tears. The elderly and stately Coke stood to speak, but words choked in his throat; he had to sit in order to compose himself; when he rose again, he denounced Buckingham and pleaded the rights of man. Apparently his words were not recorded; but a witness said that Coke delivered his words “with solemnity… and an abundance of tears.”
[Williams, Historians’ History of the World, xix, 552; quoted in The Lost Right, edition 3.5, 15-6]
The scene, the men, and the result… all were uncommon; and all are incorporated in the right of petition. It was uncommon also that such men would arise in such an unkind age… but then, aren’t they all. It was prelude to transactions that would follow.
The next example occurred a year later. Transactions in the House of Commons began to alarm Charles, and he sent a messenger to order it to disband. The speaker of the House ordered the session to close. “By long custom and practice, the king could make, adjourn and unmake Parliament by his will alone; but, here, men were beginning to rise from their knees.” Members were determined to finish their work. The speaker rose to leave, which would effectively adjourn the House; he was shoved back into his chair and held there by two members; he was told, “By God, you shall sit… till we please to close the debate!”
The commons were working on a proposal by John Eliot; it was read to the House, and passed by the majority. It was, in substance, “That all who should seek to extend or to [introduce any law which promoted the absolutism of the crown], who should advise the levying of [taxes] without consent of Parliament, or who should collect or voluntarily pay these taxes, should be considered as an enemy to his country and a betrayer of the liberties of England.” And all who subverted such prohibitions were subject to capital punishment. (Durant, History of Civilization, vii, 203-4; quoted in The Lost Right.)
We should fix in our memory this provision for capital punishment. Actions which were subject to this provision were: a) to advocate the divine right of kings, also known as so-called sovereign immunity; b) to advise levying taxes without the consent of parliament; and c) to collect or voluntarily pay such illegal taxes. All these were made capital offenses by Eliot’s proposal, which the House of Commons passed.
Was this capital punishment too harsh? These men daily witnessed consequences of money taken from men without just compensation; they saw too often that a tax taken from men often converted to a sentence of death or starvation for him or his children. And these men designed to put an end to it.
Let us pause here to dwell on the connection between taxes and child abuse. There is a rule among men that taxes are always paid by the weakest and most ignorant members of society. Children fit this category perfectly. But, children, as a general rule, have no property and no earnings. How do they pay such taxes?
Edward Gibbon reports, in his Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, that taxes were so oppressive under the Emperor Constantine that the incidence of exposure was so alarming he felt something ought to be done about it. It has been the custom among our ancestors that, when they were unable to support a newborn child, they would take this child into an open field and expose it to the elements, thereby saving it the troubles of an unbearable life. It would take the cold and rain, the sun and wind several days to silence its screams; sometimes dogs or wolves would mercifully shorten its sufferings. Constantine set up a bureaucracy to deal with this problem; but you know the voracious appetite of bureaucrats for booty; they only worsened a problem they had been tasked to alleviate.
Gibbon also reported that in his day, about the year 1770, that upwards of three thousand infants were exposed on the streets of Peking every year.
Will Durant reported that, about the same time period, from fifteen hundred to two thousand infants were exposed yearly on the streets of Paris; and a similar number for London.
You may think that exposure is a thing of the past; you would not be correct. It happens every day, all over the planet – especially in America. But, in America, it is more refined, more complete and more concealed than in other parts of the world. In America, it is done thru the mechanism of governmental debt, the process by which one generation cannibalizes future generations. There is enough governmental debt on the books to cannibalize American generations to the end of time.
In this contest between tax taker and child, who compete for the last coin in a man’s pocket, it will always be bad news for the child… until a few men – who would rather support their children than be-ribboned bandits – come forward to put an end to it.
If these bandits openly conspired to murder your children or to force them into slavery, what penalty would you propose for such bandits?
These are precisely the consequences when men levy, collect or voluntarily pay taxes. What penalty should we propose for such men who conspire to sacrifice children thru the disguise of tax laws?
Tax takers do not moderate their appetite for booty; if anything, it grows more insatiable from the success and enormity of their crimes.
There is greatest safety in crimes that are most complicated, or most horrid; for, there are no words to describe them. [L] See Cato’s Letters, #126; quoted in Maxims of American Law.
I earlier explained the rate of exposure in Paris and London, two hundred and forty years ago… when the world’s population was two hundred and fifty million. These were only two cities; when we consider all of Europe… how many… fifty thousand, two hundred thousand infants yearly exposed in the cities and countryside of Europe? This process repeated itself every year for… what… two thousand, five thousand years?
Today the world’s population is approaching six billions. How many millions of children… nay, how many thousands of generations are scheduled to be cannibalized by constantly expanding government debt?
No, I think Elliot’s proposal was appropriate.
One thing is certain, his proposal alarmed Charles and his ministers. Ten days later Charles dissolved parliament and then published a declaration intended to prove that several members of the House of Commons had “manifested ill-will, had excited unfounded suspicion, raised useless disputes, proposed injurious innovations” among other acts of insolence. Eliot, author of the proposal, and [nine] other members were ordered to be arrested, and their effects put under seal.
“At their trials, Eliot and another denied the authority of Charles to question their words as members of Parliament. The sentence, by the king’s “judges,” imposed, on each of the ten, fines from five hundred to two thousand pounds [3600 to 14,400 grams of gold], imprisonment at the king’s pleasure, and that they should not be liberated till they gave security for their good behavior; and, by “good,” all understood that “servile” was meant.
“Eliot became seriously ill in consequence of the unhealthfulness of his cell. He wrote a petition to the king, that he might enjoy fresh air. Charles responded, “Not humble enough.” Eliot remained in prison three and a half years, and there died 1632 November 27. “It was for him to suffer as those suffer who see that which their fellows cannot see. Like the Swiss warrior, he had gathered into his own bosom the spear-points of the adverse host. His countrymen would follow by-and-by thru the breach which he had made at the cost of his life.” (The Lost Right)
And so, Charles put an end to an assembly of “senseless zealots and presumptuous fools.” The court party pointed to the divine right of Charles: “it knows nothing of Parliament, upper and lower houses, elections, and speakers, but simply orders the people to obey magistrates.” Clergy and judges would spend the next eleven years in an orgy of mutilations and burnings, drownings and consfiscations, among other outrages, in an attempt to crush the spirit that had been gathering momentum in the minds of men over the last twenty-five years – after ages of troubled sleep.
“John Eliot’s proposals fell to the ground; there, to germinate for eleven years.”
The third example began in 1640.
After tormenting a nation for eleven years, Charles was forced to call another parliament. He did not sense the fury that he had summoned. “The oppressions and mutilations ordained by the Church and Charles his ministers; the gabble of the divine right of kings (and bishops); penalties against speech; illegal taxes – all these oppressions, and more, pervaded the memories of Englishmen, they were as seeds in soil. The season for harvest was come.”
The parliament that met in 1640 continued the work of the former parliament without interruption, and with more resolution.
This parliament, and the previous one,
- prosecuted judges for intimidating juries, for taking bribes, and rendering judgments contrary to due process of law;
- they prosecuted tax collectors and officers of the custom for levying and collecting taxes without the consent of parliament;
- they prosecuted ministers of the king for advocating the doctrine of sovereign immunity and for imposing taxes without the consent of parliament;
- they prosecuted preachers for promoting the doctrine of divine right of kings, and blind submission to tyranny.
Penalties included, fines, imprisonment, loss of office and banishment.
Three prosecutions were notable.
A minister, who was governor of Scotland; and then governor of Ireland, was tried and convicted on charges of 1) promoting the divine right of kings and 2) imposing and collecting taxes without the consent of parliament.
He lost his head.
Archbishop Laud was tried and convicted by parliament on the same charges, and suffered the same fate.
Charles was tried and convicted on the same charges, and also suffered the same fate.
John Eliot had struck from the grave.
The most significant fact of all these transactions is that they all were done by a body of private men. What does this mean? When parliaments declared that no law or tax could be lawful unless it received the assent of parliament, it meant that every law or tax had to be approved by a body of private men. This is the origin of the right of consent so frequently declared by American Founders, and they actually meant that every law and tax had to receive the assent of private men to be lawful. But this carries me into too much detail, which I explain more completely in my book, The Lost Right.
All these transactions of English parliaments, all of these rights, and all of these powers – among many others – are incorporated in the right of petition.
However, for these rights and powers to serve mankind, men must be knowledgeable of the procedures by which to exercise such powers and rights; and such men must act according to these procedures.
History has several purposes: one is to demonstrate to men of today what men of yesteryear did to correct grievances that troubled them. Another purpose is to show men that grievances of today are identical to grievances of yesteryear with a more-clever disguise. We can read one or two pages of history and learn in fifteen minutes what most men will never learn in a lifetime. With these lessons, we can more quickly identify grievances, and we do not have to re-invent procedures to correct them. Until we learn these lessons, men have no other choices but to spill oceans of blood. I give you the current condition of the world as evidence.
These powers of redress are only available thru the mechanism of an assembly.
An assembly is a body of private men who have combined their efforts to make their rights secure and to make their government accountable.
To make rights secure is a problem for most of mankind; for a very small percentage of mankind, this is no problem; these are the power holders, the tyrants, the criminal class. For all others there are no rights, no liberty, and no property – only illusions.
In other words, if we examine the history of man – in all lands and all ages, we find that civilized men have been ruled by barbarians; except for one part in ten thousand.
Thus, if we are to secure our rights, we must learn the lessons of those who comprise the one part in ten thousand.
The first lesson is to learn that wherever there is a government, in every age and in every nation, there are one or more groups of private men who established that government, or that control the actions of that government.
In some countries, that group of men is known as a priesthood, an army, landholders, merchants, a senate, the Council on Foreign Relations, skull and bones, the communist party, bankers – the list goes on. These groups, either singly or collectively, guide and control every action of the government they created or control. Such governments are scrupulously diligent in protecting the rights, liberty and property of members of the group – as they define rights, liberty and property; never mind that they have stolen everything they possess, their governments still protect their possession of what they have stolen; and prevent any prosecution against them. At the same time, such governments regard all other people as little more than cattle to be fatted and slaughtered at the pleasure of members of the controlling groups.
In law, these groups are known by the term ‘assemblies.’
An assembly is nothing more than a body of private men who deliberate about their problems and resolve on methods to correct such problems. An assembly is the mechanism by which men exercise sovereign power – there is no other way to exercise sovereign power: given sufficient time, an assembly has all power that is possible in human affairs. In domestic matters, it has the power of investigation, the power of prosecution, the power of judgment and the power to enforce such judgments. In foreign matters, it has the power to make treaties with foreign nations and the power to raise armies. Sometimes these powers are exercised openly by an assembly; sometimes indirectly thru the government it controls.
It is thru the mechanism of assemblies that men abolish, reform and establish governments; American Founders demonstrated this.
An assembly is like any other tool or fact of nature: it may be used properly or improperly. As I’ve indicated, for most of human history, assemblies have been used improperly – if liberty is our measure, that is.
A properly established assembly distributes power into as many hands as are qualified to use it; an improperly established assembly concentrates power into as few hands as possible. In the affairs of men, power and rights come into existence at the same instant. A right without the power to make it secure is no right at all: it is only an example of wishful thinking. Thus, when power is widely distributed, rights are widely made secure; when power is restricted, totalitarianism arises – and men suffer for their wishful thinking.
Only three times in human history has this power been extended beyond the barbarian class: Athens during the Golden Age of Greece; England from 1620 to 1645; and America from 1630 to 1790. In Athens, these assemblies were known as ‘assemblies of the people’; in England, as parliaments; in America, as town meetings, county meetings, colonial assemblies or conventions and Continental Congresses. In every one of these examples, these assemblies exercised all powers of sovereignty. Such assemblies were continuing constitutional conventions, they were supreme courts, they directed actions of armies and navies. Since these assemblies were dominated by men of reason and justice, they established secure rights for ordinary men – and ultimately failed for any of several reasons.
The major failure of the American Revolution was that, while American Founders recognized that it is a perpetual problem to keep governments accountable, they failed to recognize that the only historically-proven mechanism that has ever done so was an assembly.
We prove it everyday. Many people look at the criminal activity of government and say it is out of control. It depends on your perspective. From our perspective it is out of control; but, from the perspective of the criminal class, they have it under almost perfect control.
Remember, governments are always under the control of one or more groups of private men.
If men of reason and justice choose to be helpless… that is, if they choose to function as lone individuals and if they choose to act without knowledge of the power of petition, they will never have any influence over the direction of their society. In fact, since intelligence and integrity are mortal enemies of the criminal class, men who possess such virtues will be lucky to survive past the age of twenty-five.
What shall we do?
What could be more simple? From the perspective of society as a whole, we must duplicate what American Founders did… and correct as many of their errors as we can identify.
From the perspective of each individual, there are two things that must be done in order to get started: one, you must learn the history, law and technology given to us by those very few men who have done more for the cause of liberty than any others; and, two, you must put this knowledge in action: that is, you must establish assemblies. You may undertake these actions one at a time, or concurrently; you would make faster progress if you would do them concurrently since, by working with other people, you would have more perspectives, more talents and more resources to work with.
As to the first, some of the history, law and technology pertaining to the right of redress are contained in my book, The Lost Right. Study it; and you will learn that stories of the revolutions of Athens, England, and America are histories we must re-live.
Don’t hesitate to give this to a lawyer for review; if he doesn’t give it a passing grade, request him to tell you where he disagrees with me… and then tell me.
All my other books contain information on particular topics that will be needed to negotiate the obstacles that confront you.
Along with the information in my books, I have thirty years of experience relative to the business of redress. When I started on the path that has led me here, this knowledge of redress was almost totally lost to Americans; despite this, I was applying fairly primitive versions of procedures of redress. As a consequence, neither my customers nor I knew the enormous power that we were nibbling at; then, during the mid-1990’s, I discovered a history and law that you and I are not supposed to know. Some of this knowledge is collected in my books; the rest of it is packed into the category of experience – which is incapable of reduction to written form; you’ll have to come to me personally for that.
As to the second step to get started, you have three choices here: start a new assembly, re-organize an existing one, or join the Southern California Assembly.
To start an assembly in your area, locate four or five people who want to do something more than complain about the sorry state of the world; arrange meetings with them; and use my book, The Lost Right, as a study guide. This is all that you do for a few weeks, or months; examples in my book – and events of the world – will give you plenty of ideas as to what next to do.
To re-organize an existing assembly. There are probably fifty million people in this country who have grievances against American governments; they have organized from twenty thousand to fifty thousand groups to seek some kind of redress. All these groups are, in fact and law, assemblies. But they don’t know they are assemblies; and, consequently, they don’t know the enormous power available to them thru the right of redress. If you are a member of one of these groups, see suggestions regarding starting a new assembly.
To become a member of the Southern California Assembly (SCA) requires the purchase of one of its shares, which is priced at ten grams of gold (as of July of 2012, about five hundred dollars – you should verify the amount before purchase, tho). The purpose of SCA is to prepare members for organizing assemblies in their own territories: thus, when enough people from San Diego become members and learn enough, they will organize an assembly for San Diego county (or a particular territory within it); such assembly will be completely independent of SCA.
Again, the information in my book, The Lost Right, will prepare you for any one of these options; and, don’t hesitate to let your lawyer review it.
Here are many of the same grievances that we must redress; here are procedures that we must re-establish; and here is a history that we must re-live.
These revolutions in Athens, England and America were three of the most momentous eras in human history. Another such era approaches; we must erect another beacon; one that will transmit hope to the rest of mankind… for the rest of time.
So, where do we go from here?
Timely, and related, pages,
Turn Back the Clock. I’m a year shy of 70 (as of 2012 December) but I have the health, vitality and body of a near-professional athlete, aged 25 to 35. I routinely have former pro and college baseball players tell me I would “do well” (a modest remark) if I played “men’s senior league”, a level of play equal to a major college. In other words, I’m living proof that people do not have to grow old; they can retain or recover the health and vitality of youth; they don’t have to suffer from arthritis, diabetes, kidney failure or any of hundreds of other ailments. Look what you’ll gain: more strength and a longer life to enjoy the adventures we all know are coming. You might even want to take part in them.
Power of Petition, criminal and useful-idiot classes use the sovereign power to perpetrate genocides and unlimited plunder and to destroy witnesses, victims and critics of their crimes. This sovereign power is nothing less than the right of petition; the same procedures employed by American Founders to power their revolution. Why can’t we use it in service of justice… why do men of reason not even have knowledge of it? It is a right (actually, a power) available to every man on the planet… save for his ignorance.