Part 2: "Unauthorized Deprivations" of Life, Liberty and Property
FORWARD: "Mark and Adrian are expressing that in a very short period of time we have experienced a major devolution in US law and the inexcusable abridging of individual rights and the American way of life that was intended by the founders of the US."

US Supreme Court Permits "Unauthorized Deprivations" and thereby Declares War Against God And Against The People of the United States.

While China boasts that it is now in the process of transition from the rule of men to the "rule of law" ("Human Rights Achievements in China" ) here in the United States, American Judges have commenced a process of transition from the "rule of law" to the rule of men as illustrated THIS CASE about a conspiracy by Policemen in America to Steal a house and a US Federal Court's categorical refusal to restrain, redress or punish that lawless unauthorized deprivation:

"In a Republic, Law Is 'The Consent of the Governed.'" Mark Ferran, Part1: "Law, a Revolutionary Idea For Peace" at: or

Young Abraham Lincoln, warning against the destruction of American Civilization, advised "Let [Law] be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice."

But, "We now have U.S. Supreme Court headed by a[n] extremist, William Rehnquist, who got his start in the Richard Nixon/John Mitchell Department of Justice. [W]e have entered a new era ... some call it the new rehnquisition."

In 1803 Chief Justice Marshall noted, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, that "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." But he warned that "It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if … Law is incapable of securing obedience to its mandate."

Archibald Cox, reflecting upon the Nixon administration's intent to establish a lawless form of government, said: ``Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people [to decide].''

As predicted by George Orwell, the Constitutional rights of the People were disposed of in the year 1984.

In 1984, the Supreme Court made it clear in Oliver v United States, 466 US 170, and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, that landowners in the several states no longer have any Property rights that Executive Agents of the Federal Government are bound to respect, (see e.g., ) and that the "intentional" commission of "Unauthorized Deprivations" of ___, Liberty and Property by Federal and State Executive Agents will not be restrained nor punished.

One scholar describing President Richard M. Nixon's legacy, including his assault upon the Rule of Law, narrowly focuses upon the erosion by the Supreme Court of the debatable rights of persons accused or convicted of crimes:

"The term 'Rehnquisition' first appeared in a Harvard Law School publication in the early 1970's." ... The term originally referred to then-Associate Justice Rehnquist's vision of criminal procedure as indicated in his judicial opinions--a bizarre, quasifascist world in which the basic rights and judicial remedies of criminal defendants are steadfastly belittled and denigrated, and the powers of police and prosecutors are steadily exalted and expanded. ... These frightening, alien principles may be summarized as follows. First, lawlessness in law enforcement [i.e., lawlessness in government] is permissible.... In the world of William Hubbs Rehnquist, as in the world of Nazism
, leniency is weakness, adherence to the rule of law is sentimental claptrap, and the role of the judiciary is not to be the guardian of rights but to assure that ... lawlessness in [government] go[es] unpunished. When future generations look back at the Rehnquist Court, they ... will conclude [that] the highest court in the world ... favored not liberty, not rights, but death."

But Take Notice, the Supreme Court's destruction of the Basic Rights of the People is no longer limited to coercing and depriving those who are accused of violating Penal statutes written by the People. In 1994, in Albright v. Oliver, 510 US 266, the US Supreme Court, lead by Nixon-appointee Chief-Justice Rehnquist, extended the treasonous "Doctrine" of "Unauthorized Deprivation" to empower Federal or State Executive agents to make-up pretended offenses not prescribed by the People's statutes- empowering them to charge and to subject citizens to coercive "unauthorized deprivations" of Liberty and/or Property. This Doctrine defies the express guarantee(s) "Of Law" written in the US Constitution, and effectively vests in Executive and Judicial agents the (formerly Legislative) Power to coercively dictate what property a citizen may hold, and what particular activities (Liberty) a free citizen will be required or forbidden to engage in under penalty of prosecution. The Doctrine gives the Executive and the Courts the Power to coercively Rule the People independently of the Statutes and Laws adopted by their Legislatures through republican representative processes.

The Due Process of Law clause of the Fifth Amendment, explicitly guarantees that Executive agents of the Federal Government shall not commit Unauthorized Deprivations of Life, Liberty or Property.
This essential guarantee has been Revoked by the Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation, and Life, Liberty and Property are no longer secured by the mere Words of the Constitution.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), Judges opined that the "powers of the Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself" and that that by the Constitution "the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law." Dred Scott.

"Due process of law requires, first, the legislative act authorizing the [depriv]ation, pointing out how it may be made....; and, second that the parties or officers proceeding to make the [depriv]ation shall keep within the authority conferred, and observe every regulation which the act makes for the protection or in the interest of the [citizen], except as he may see fit voluntarily to waive them."

Chicago, Burlington &c. R'd v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 241 (1896) (quoting 2 Story Const. § 1956).

"The absence of proper prior statutory authority for the [deprivation] constitutes a denial of the substantive [Law] element of due process." Nichols, On Eminent Domain, § 4.9.

"ARBITRARY Government is where a people have men set over them...who have power to govern them, and judge their causes without a rule. God only hath this prerogative; whose sovereignty is absolute, and whose will is a perfect rule, and reason itself; so as for man to usurp such authority, is tyranny...."
Anno Domini 1644

Due Process of Law is the "general law, operating equally upon every member of our community, which the words 'by the law of the land,' in Magna Charta, and in every subsequent declaration of rights which has borrowed its phraseology, make essential to the safety of the citizen, securing thereby both his liberty and his property, by preventing the unlawful arrest of his person, or any unlawful interference with his estate.' ... Chancellor KENT, (2 Comm. 13,) adopts this mode of construing the phrase. Quoting the language of Magna Charta, and referring to Lord COKE's comment upon it, he says: 'The better and larger definition of due process of law is that it means LAW in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.' This accords with what is said in Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 202, by DENIO, J., p. 212: 'The provision was designed to protect the citizen against all mere acts of power, whether flowing from the legislative or executive branches of the government.' ... And in Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90 the court said: 'A state cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law.... Due process of law is process according to the law of the land. This process in the states is regulated by the law of the state.' ... Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power. It must be not a special rule for a particular person or a particular case, but, in the language of Mr. Webster, in his familiar definition, 'the general law, a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial,' so 'that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society,' ... Abritrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude. And the limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the action of the governments, both state and national, are essential to the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of our political institutions. The enforcement of these limitations by judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government."
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) - 527

"As we explained in Hurtado, 'bulwarks' of protection such as the Magna Charta and the Due Process Clause 'guarantee not particular forms of procedure, but the very substance of individual rights to life, liberty, and property.'"

"The citizens are the authors of the LAW ... because the Law derives its AUTHORITY from the CONSENT of the public, expressed through the democratic process." 628 F.2d 730, 734 (1st Cir. 1980).

Government "derives its authority [to act and to enact rules] from the same pure and sacred source as itself: the voluntary and deliberate choice of the people. ... Laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the CONSENT of those whose obedience they require. " Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

If a ruler has no duty to refrain from intentionally committing an "unauthorized deprivation" of a person's life, liberty, or property, then that person is not a "citizen" in a Republic, but merely a "subject" or a "slave." Acts 22.24-23.11 Accord, Dred Scott.

A "Citizen" is protected by the Constitution from Random and UNauthorized deprivations, BUT a "'slave" is by definition a "subject" who has no Constitutional rights that Executives and Judges are "bound to respect." Dred Scott. "A subject ... hath no way to oblige his Prince to give him his due. " Chisholm.

Pursuant to the US Constitution, a "citizen" of a "Free State" has the "right to resist" an unauthorized deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and "to keep and carry arms" for that lawful purpose. Dred Scott. "[I]t being reasonable and just [that] I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction." (Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, 14)

The only remedy associated with an injury to a "slave", was "compensation" (to his master). The Thirteenth Amendment, a result of the first american Civil War, provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Therefore, the million or more slaves in our prisons today who "have been duly convicted" of "crime" are not supposed to enjoy the SAME rights (to have Liberty, and to hold Property) as free citizens expect to enjoy. The Form of Government existing inside our prisons is not a Republic, and rarely resembles a Government of Laws- and the inmates have no "right to resist" the Will of their Masters.

Until about 1950, American law schools taught that: "Constitutional government is a government by law. The office of the state is to establish and maintain laws." Henry Campbell Black, American Constitutional Law §70 (4th ed., West Pub. 1927). They also taught: "Due process of law requires, first, the legislative act authorizing the [depriv]ation, pointing out how it may be made... etc."

These original principles of the People subsequently went out of favor with "law professors," and are no longer found written in any common "law school" textbooks. By the 1970s, Attorney Richard M. Nixon and his associates including (now-Chief Justice) William Rehnquist endeavored to establish a different Form of Government that can act against the People totally unconstrained by Law (and therefore operate outside and beyond the Consent of the Governed). They have now accomplished that.

In Hudson v. Palmer (1984) and Parratt v. Taylor (1981), etc., the US Supreme Court opined that the Constitutional rights of Free Citizens and of Slaves (prisoners) to hold property shall henceforth be the SAME in the United States, and that free citizens shall be governed like the slaves- by the same Form of "random and unauthorized" government which operates efficiently inside our prisons. The Court opined that no Executive or Judicial officer of the United States nor of the several States who has sworn to uphold the Constitution has any duty under it to "refrain" from "intentionally" committing "random and unauthorized deprivations" of a free citizen's ____, "liberty" or "property."

BUT FOR this evil Doctrine, the wilful commission of an unauthorized deprivation of a free citizen's Life, Liberty or Property by a state or federal agent would be punishable as a Federal Crime. 18 USC § 242

The Doctrine "provide[s] that random, unauthorized deprivations did not violate [the Constitution] if adequate" money is available to pay compensation.

According to this Doctrine, as confirmed by Chief "Justice" Rehnquist, "Justice" O'Connor, "Justice" Scalia, and "Justice" Kennedy, a government agent's "wanton, unauthorized departure from a [Legislature]'s established policies and procedures, working a deprivation of liberty" or "property" does NOT violate any Constitutional DUTY that must be respected by the agent. (Zinermon dissent) In fact, according to this perverse judicial cult, "The wanton or reckless nature of the" unauthorized deprivation is what makes the unauthorized deprivation Constitutionally permissible. Id. The Deprivations which are most permissible under the Doctrine are those that are committed by an Executive agent who has wilfully, "deliberately or recklessly subverted his [the citizen's] rights and contravened" the Law. Id.

This Doctrine is designed to leave every Executive agent of the Federal government free to pursue any "random, unauthorized personal vendetta against the" free citizen, with the financial backing and the full weight of the government's machinery and Lawyers at the Executive agent's disposal. (Zinermon) The Doctrine is designed to empower Executive agents of the Federal Government to "harass or persecute prisoners" AND FREE CITIZENS, under any pretense of authority or without any pretense of lawful authority other than their official titles. (Zinermon) The Doctrine is designed specifically to permit any state or federal government agent to "exceed the limits of his established search and seizure authority," to "wrongfully ... withhold" property, and to otherwise "disregard" and to "flout" the People's Laws. (Zinermon dissent)

According to the Doctrine, an Executive agent of the Government has no Constitutional Duty to "refrain" from committing an "Unauthorized Deprivation" if sufficient taxpayer money is "available" from the Government to the person deprived, (or to his heirs), by which he (or they) might "recover[ ] the value of the" Life, Liberty, or Property he has been unlawfully deprived of.

According to the Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation, BECAUSE the government has enough taxpayer's MONEY to pay "damages" (e.g., in a "tort action") for any "unconstitutional deprivation" committed by a government official, then "the random and unauthorized act of [government] officials (not pursuant to Law)" is not forbidden by the Constitution. Id.

The Doctrine has been expressly extended beyond its initial application to the "property" of incarcerated prisoners, to the property of free citizens, and then extended further "to specifically include deprivations of Liberty interests" of free citizens. Id. The Rehnquist Court has even held that an unauthorized deprivation of "Life" by a government agent is not forbidden by the Constitution. "This doctrine dictates that a state actor's random and unauthorized deprivation of a [free citizen's, Life, Liberty or] property does not result in a violation of [Constitutional rights that will be respected]. Under this Doctrine, Agents of the Government are no longer required by their Oath of Office "to follow established stat[utory] procedures [i.e., Law]" when dealing with the Life, Liberty, and Property of citizens.

The Doctrine empowers every petty tyrant to intentionally falsely accuse a citizen of "crime", even for engaging in purely lawful activities (such as owning land coveted by government agents, or keeping or displaying arms for lawful purposes ) and to thereby "disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends" without authority of Law.

Know what civil Liberty IS, and you shall Know what it is Not.

This Doctrine permitting "Unauthorized Deprivations" is as destructive of the security of Life, Liberty and Property as were the odious Writs of Assistance, pursuant to which "Every [executive agent of the government] may reign secure in his petty tyranny and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. [N]ot only deputies but even their menial servants are allowed to lord it over us."

"In 1761 the validity of the use of the Writs [of Assistance] was contested in the historic proceedings in Boston. James Otis attacked the Writ of Assistance because its use placed 'the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.' [Otis argued: "This Writ is against the fundamental Principles of Law." ] His powerful argument so impressed itself first on his audience and later on the People of all the Colonies that President Adams was in retrospect moved to say that 'American Independence was then and there born.' ... [It was therefore recognized that] the broad constitutional proscription [against Unauthorized Deprivation in the Due Process of Law clauses, includes] the right to shut the door on officials of the state unless their entry is under proper authority of law. [AND] self-protection: the right to resist unauthorized [deprivations of Life, Liberty and Property]"
Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959)

Thomas Jefferson said: "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." (to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440 )

The Due Process of Law clause in the US Constitution and in every state constitution (formerly) guaranteed "the inherent and inalienable right to protect [life, liberty, and] property" from unauthorized deprivations. Cross v. State, 370 P.2d at 376-7 (Wyo 1962); People v. McManus, 67 NY2d 541, 496 NE2d 202, 505 NYS2d 43 (1986); Frank v. Maryland.

This "great and fundamental principle of all constitutional governments . . . secures to every individual the right to acquire, possess, and defend property." Young v. Wiggins, 240 SC at 435, 126 SE2d at 365 (1962)

The Constitutional right to keep, hold and to defend Life, Liberty and Property under the Protection of the Law has been dispensed with by the Supreme Court's Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation. The Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation disparages or denies to the People their inalienable "right to resist" and punish unauthorized deprivations.

To avoid objection by the Aristocratic Masters of the People (i.e., Attorneys), the Doctrine carefully preserves the "procedural" right of the citizen's adoptive Master (i.e., Attorney) to seek compensation (e.g., up to 1/3 of the market value of the citizen) for an "unauthorized" injury to his citizen. Justice Powell, although not a true champion of Government by Law, objected to the Court's "narrow, wholly procedural view of the limitation imposed on the [government] by the Due Process Clause" in the Parratt decision and warned that there was "a somewhat disturbing implication in the Court's opinion" and "that the reasoning and decision of the Court today, even if viewed as compatible with our precedents, create new uncertainties" with respect to the "substantive" rights of free citizens! Nevertheless, this degenerate (Sodomite) form of "Random and Unauthorized" Government is becoming the actual Form of the Government of the United States and of every government in the United States.

In this Sodomite Form of Government, no Executive Agent of the Government has any Constitutional Duty to Read the Laws, nor any duty to "keep within" the Authority conferred by Law; No Judge need bother to restrain an unlawful (Unauthorized) deprivation committed or threatened under false pretense of authority. The People in each State, their lives, liberty, and property, are to be subject to the arbitrary Will of Men, and their income and property is to be subject to unlimited taxation to support and fund such unlimited lawless deprivations. The Unlimited Power to Tax the People has become the Unlimited Power to Control and Destroy the People, one individual at a time, or whole families (e.g., R. Weaver's) and communities (e.g., in Waco, TX) at a time.

A Government that claims the unlimited Power to Destroy its People, is destructive of the rights of Life, Liberty and Property that it was established to Secure. The Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation subverts the explicit "right of the People" to "Keep" arms for lawful purposes, because Executive Agents of the Government are no longer forbidden to commit "unauthorized deprivations" of any "property," including arms.
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purpose [i.e., to commit unlimited Unauthorized Deprivations] without resistance is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep [or to "display"] arms ...." Justice Story, (1893) (quoted by Stephen P. Halbrook)

These prophetic words seem apropos: "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission, which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

"Remember, I have the right to do anything to anybody." Caligula, Emperor of Rome. "
Rome fell when Romans came to view their government’s predations as worse than those of the invaders." Paul Craig Roberts

According to John Locke, "The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property." He also said, "Whenever [rulers] endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,..." -- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690.

Jefferson said: "The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves" To Colonel Charles Yancey (6 Jan. 1816), Bergh 14:384.

James Madison said: "The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained; but, more especially, that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people [i.e., the Rule of Law]. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are [not] governed by laws made ... by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves." (c. 20 June 1785) The Papers of James Madison

The Declaration of Independence teaches that: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed," to "SECURE" Mankind's "inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," and that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a 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."

According to the standard articulated by President Abraham Lincoln, because the Federal Government has asserted an Unconstitutional and Unlimited Power to Destroy the People in each state through "Unauthorized Deprivations" of __, Liberty, and Property, the People in each State have been deprived of their allegiance to it, and now have the moral and legal authority to secede from and/or to wage War against the Government of the United States.

The People should first consider amending Article III of the US Constitution to reform or abolish the US Supreme Court and repudiating that Court's pernicious "doctrine" which permits "unauthorized deprivations" and which promotes here the same lawless and arbitrary form of government that was deceitfully established in Sodom and condemned by God. Isaiah 1:9-23, Ezekiel 22:25-28 )

In case the People's effort to Limit their Government By Words shall continue to fail, the People should prepare to do so By Swords. Those among the People who now Keep and bear arms and who cherish the Security for Life, Liberty and Property which only a constitutionally limited government (i.e. limited in its deprivations by the Consent of the People) can provide, should begin engraving their swords, their guns, and their bullets and every weapon they possess with the motto "Inimicus Tyrrani" (The Enemy of Tyrants). And, as Jesus instructed,
"let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one." (Luke 22:36; Matthew 10:34) Let those among the People who do not yet possess arms sufficient to defend themselves sell their clothes if necessary to purchase arms, or make them. And, "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in [High] places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness." Ephesians 6:11-14

"Evil will succeed only if enough good people do nothing"
-Edmund Burke

"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants & patriots alike. ... Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson

Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl

Read Part 1 and other writings, at

In a message dated 6/15/02 10:08:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Restoreliberty writes:

The Supreme Court of Mammon
By Adrian Banks
June 15, 2002

Anyone who takes the time to study the rulings of the United States Supreme Court can see that today's court is not the same as the supreme court of, say, a century ago. The older rulings were more liberty friendly. A century ago, people had confidence that the courts would uphold their rights that their Constitution secured them, and the rulings of that time proved this. No so today. Today's courts, from the supreme court on down, show little if any regard for people's constitutional rights. Myself, like many other people who have filed suits in the various state and federal courts for rights violations have found out this bitter truth the hard way. Some of us have even had sanctions imposed against us for filing suits that the courts deemed to be "frivolous." Our rights have become frivolous things in the eyes of today's judges. [See, for example: ]
I knew there had to be a period in history where something happened that changed the courts into anti-liberty courts. I found it during the period of our history known as the "New Deal" of the 1930's. Roosevelt and his administration massively expanded the size and power of the federal executive. His administration was able to usurp legislative powers, something the supreme court unanimously ruled in 1935 was unconstitutional. Today, Congress writes only about 10% of the laws it votes on. About 90% of all laws are written outside the halls of Congress by Executive bureaucrats and then a congressional representative "sponsors" the legislation. It doesn't take a genius to see that de facto government begets de facto judges.

As the justices of the supreme court died and retired in the 1930's, Roosevelt completely restructured the supreme court by appointing new justices who were pledged, not to uphold the Constitution, but to create whatever fictions were necessary to uphold unconstitutional practices. These justices knew that the Constitution was being violated and that their oath to support the Constitution was a lie. The people overwhelmingly re-elected the very political forces that were destroying the philosophy of government that respected their constitutional rights, and every election cycle today merely keeps these anti-liberty forces in power.

There are no liberty friendly justices on the bench today. In fact, a recent newspaper article pointed out that "The nine Supreme Court justices are richer than all but a small percentage of Americans, with at least five millionaires among them."

So you have found the truth, and now you expect justice from the Supreme Court of Mammon. Once again, money and power controls the system, and this leaves the common working folks out in the cold.

The only way to get truth and justice back in the system would be to throw the money changers out of the temple. But, as long as the majority of the people feel safe and secure in the system, they will not vote to change it. Therefore, each election cycle adds another link to the chain that shackles the people's liberties.

Dead, are the judges who used to respect the people's constitutional rights. In the eyes of today's judges it is your duty to accept the system, the Constitution notwithstanding.

Yours in Liberty
Adrian C. Banks
Please Forward, or Post/Archive