If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
DO SHERIFFS KNOW THE POWER OF THEIR AUTHORITY? WILL ANY OF THEM USE IT?
by Jedi Pauly
(Jun. 9, 2011) — The county sheriff is defined as:
- The chief law enforcement officer for the courts in a U.S. county.
- An officer of a county or an administrative region in England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, charged mainly with judicial duties.
Today The Post & Email spoke with Jedi Pauly, who discussed the role of the county sheriff in America, particularly as it relates to elections, as well as the economic havoc caused by a currency issued at will by a private corporation rather than the states or federal government.
The people are sovereign people; they have sovereign political rights. It’s the county sheriff’s job to protect the people in his county, including their political rights, from an unlawful election that has overthrown the Constitution. It’s the sheriff’s job to protect that. Therefore, the first sheriff who has the guts to stand up and say, “There will be no election held in our county which permits Barack Hussein Obama on the ballot. We will use force of arms, if we have to, to prevent him from being on the ballot” could begin an avalanche.
That’s their job; they have the authority to do it under these circumstances and they have the obligation to do it. If they’re not going to do it, then they become the ones who are soldiers implementing the overthrow of the U.S. government. They become soldiers to the Obama criminal regime who rob you of your sovereignty and place you in involuntary servitude to a non-representative government, one that doesn’t recognize your political rights and your sovereign political status such that you can’t even get standing in the courts.
Therefore, it is the sheriff’s job to prevent this from happening by standing up and saying, “Obama will not be allowed to be on any ballots in my county. No polling place will be allowed to function with his name on the ballot.”
If someone tries to sue the sheriff for making that decision, what will the person say? They have no legal grounds to stand on. By trying to sue the sheriff to prevent him from taking that action, they will just expose themselves as working to overthrow the United States government and to put in a fraudulent, criminal chief. What is their defense going to be?
If the sheriff has the natural law argument on his side and understands what a natural born Citizen is and that you have to have a citizen father, what is the other side going to say? They have nothing on their side, and they’ll look as if they’re involved in the very criminal conspiracy which the sheriff is standing up against on behalf of the citizens of his county.
Now if the citizens of the county can’t rely on their sheriffs to do it, then they can take the law into their own hands, because if the people go there with guns and the sheriff tries to take over the polling places and prevent them, you have a militant overthrow of the people’s rights. So it really is up to the sheriff.
If the sheriff would stand up and do this, the first thing he would need to do is get on the phone to the governor, the secretary of state, and the state attorney general and tell them that there is a problem: “My constituents in my county have sovereign political rights that I am bound to protect, and Mr. Obama is not a natural born Citizen. By creating a government with him as the president, you have a non-representative government where you cannot pass any valid laws; therefore, with a non-representative government, the people will have lost their government. They are also being forced into taxation for laws passed for which they did not give their consent; therefore, any new taxes to pay for those laws is involuntary servitude, which is slavery. I’m not going to allow slavery in my county; I was not elected sheriff to institute slavery.”
The first person who stands up and says, “You will not put this man on the ballot because I will close those polling places if you do in order to protect and prevent this from happening, which is my duty and my obligation…” As soon as that happens, it’s over; Obama is toast. That’s what has to happen, in my opinion.
This is the pressure I’ve been putting on someone I know who wants to be his county’s sheriff. Now that he understands what a “natural born Citizen” is, I’ve shown him the ramifications of what will happen if he becomes sheriff. Knowledge is responsibility. The people can say, “If you’re going to become the sheriff, then this is the duty and responsibility you’re going to have to exercise, because if you don’t, then We the People can see that you are the criminal, that you are the one overthrowing our rights. You are now using the office of the sheriff, which is a force, against the people.”
Historically, the word “sheriff” comes from “shire reeve.” That is a person of the shire. England was broken up into shires, which is where we get our counties. The “shire reeve” was the one who was the people’s representative in the shire, and he was the go-between between the king and his government and the people and their local community. The Sheriff of Nottingham is an example. He was supposed to be a neutral person who was expected to protect the people and make sure that the king’s laws were implemented. He was between the two, in the middle. That’s where we get the concept of our sheriff.
Monetary Deviations from the U.S. Constitution
If you look at the British “pound,” they call it “quid,” as in “quid quo pro.” Where does that word “quid” come from, and why is it there? It’s short for “quid quo pro,” which is Latin for “something for something.” The British pound was based on silver. It used to have some silver in it; the old British pound actually had a bar of silver embedded in it so that when you exchanged it, you were exchanging “something for something.” That’s where the word “quid” comes from; it’s short for “quid pro quo.”
The U.S. Constitution and all the state constitutions all made nothing but gold and silver so that under the Laws of Nature, the natural laws applying to man would not be artificially inflated by a privileged class. That is what has happened with the Federal Reserve Note. Having the money system nailed down under the laws of nature, except for the natural law of supply and demand, is outside of man’s control; it is only a function of the laws of nature. This prevents people from becoming indebted and preserves the labor.
Human beings have what’s called a natural right to labor and the natural right to valuation. The natural right to labor is my right to exercise my muscles, to use my talents and my industry to produce or create something. Natural law of valuation gives me the natural right to place a value on that which I produce and create. So if I want to exchange it for something else of value, that thing for which I exchange it must be something of value which also falls under the Laws of Nature so that the value does not fluctuate. Otherwise, I have no control over my natural law of valuation; my natural law of valuation is subject to being outside of my control, which means I am essentially robbed of the value of whatever it is I have. That is what the Federal Reserve has done.
The Federal Reserve Note, because it’s not controlled by the natural law of supply and demand – in fact, it’s controlled by an artificial supply and demand, where the people actually print the amount they want so they control the supply – because they control the supply, they control the value. And they can control what the value is. The demand has been changed from a natural one due to an increase in the population. The natural demand is now removed, and the demand is artificially controlled by those who control the supply. It’s not based upon population; it’s based strictly upon how much money they want to release and how much they want keep. So they control the value. Therefore, when you go and exchange your labor and you exercise your natural right to place a value on your labor, and you exchange that for something where the value is not constant but is subject to manipulation and change by someone else, you are essentially robbed of your natural right, robbed of your ability to preserve that which you create, which is exactly what we’ve seen happening today.
This is why the Founding Fathers bound the states and the federal government down under the laws of nature: so that the sovereign citizen, who lived according to the laws of nature, would have a natural means of exchange. Those who wanted to live by privilege – they can have Federal Reserve Notes if they want to – then owe a tax and a duty for the use of it. The government cannot make any demand upon your holding something subject to the Laws of Nature unless it declares an emergency. In that case, it must declare how much they need to raise; they must have a time period on it; it has to end; and it must be such that everybody gives his approval.
That is not the way the income tax works; the income tax works around that, because it was never subject to that. It always falls under the laws of corporations and privileges which the government was given the authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. It’s a privilege, and when you exercise corporate privilege and you use Federal Reserve Notes, those notes are defined as “profit, income and gain,” which is what is called “fruits” of the “privilege.” That is why you are taxed on the fruits of your labor when you work for someone else.
If you work for yourself, you don’t want to use the term “self-employed.” You’re not self-employed; “employed” indicates that you’ve created your own corporation. You just work for yourself. You’re not an employee; you’re not self-employed. You’re just a person who lives according to the Laws of Nature who works for yourself. You live by your own industry, by that which you create with your own hands by the Laws of Nature. So you’re not “employed.”
If you live by the Laws of Nature, you create your own product which is exchanged for something else, which was prevented by the Constitution from being altered. What has happened is that the Federal Reserve has taken control of the government, and they convinced the government that they could be given a monopoly to control the currency. In fact, the name “Federal Reserve” was coined to make people believe that it had something to do with the federal government. But it’s not; it’s a private corporation. They have gotten their people into Congress and paid off people to create a monopoly such that they’re the only ones with the right to control the money via the medium of exchange. It was never supposed to be controlled by a private corporation.
This is how far this goes: the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Corporation appoints the head of the Treasury Department. They actually choose him and the president says, “OK” and appoints him, but he waits for the Federal Reserve to tell him who the appointee is going to be. Why do they do that? They put their man in the Treasury Department because the Treasury Department has to order the printing of the Federal Reserve Note. The actual Federal Reserve can’t print it; that would be too blatant, even for them; the government actually has to print the dollar. So the Fed appoints their man to be the head of the Treasury, and he’s the guy who orders what gets printed and what doesn’t. They then sell those Federal Reserve Notes that the government prints back to the Federal Reserve for three cents apiece, no matter how much is on the actual bill. It could $100, $10, $20; they get paid for cost of the paper and running the printing press. They then turn around and lend that money, they borrow it, and then they get to charge interest on all of that. It’s a tremendous scam, and this is how it works.
When Woodrow Wilson brought in the Federal Reserve in 1913, which he later regretted, it was unconstitutional. You can create a corporation, and the corporation can have its own slips of paper which it uses for money; that’s not illegal. What is illegal is giving a monopoly to a corporation to control the currency of the country.
The Post & Email then asked, “Is it like changing our form of government from a representative republic to a monarchy?”
Yes. Right now we have a fascist oligarchy or an empire. That’s essentially what it is. This is what happens when you take the privileged class at birth, which is what Obama is, because he has a foreign father. Any citizen who has been given citizenship is a recipient of the privilege, no different from Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you read the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 4, it gives the government the authority to create naturalized citizens. That’s the only type of citizen the government can create. They can create only naturalized citizens. They cannot create natural born Citizens; only the Laws of Nature can do that. Therefore, when it says “natural born Citizen” for president in Article II, it proves that there are two sources of authority from which citizens come. They come from Congress, and those are called naturalized citizens. You could be naturalized at birth if you’re born on the soil, or you can emigrate, or you can naturalize by having a citizen mother and a foreign father. Those are the three different types of ways that you can become a naturalized citizen. That’s it. All of those are naturalized citizens, and those are a privileged political class. They are born with the privilege of citizenship or are awarded citizenship later, but they cannot claim natural sovereign political rights or authority. Only those born to citizen fathers can make that claim, and those are the “natural born Citizens.”
Privileged vs. Non-Privileged Class
It’s true that if both your parents are citizens and you’re born on the soil, you are a natural born Citizen, and there is no doubt that that person can be president. That’s not a privilege, but rather, under the Laws of Nature, it doesn’t require the soil or your mother. By having a citizen father, you can claim that you inherited the sovereign political rights, the natural and inalienable rights which do not cover the function of a privilege; it comes by the fact that your father is a citizen, and you have a natural right to citizenship. No foreign mother or foreign jurisdiction can take that away from you, because it is an unalienable, natural right. No force on earth can take away your natural and unalienable rights. So any citizenship you have due to a foreign mother or birth on foreign soil might give you the privilege of citizenship. Even in the foreign jurisdictions, that would just be the privilege of citizenship. They are revocable because they’re not natural, unalienable rights.
One really has to understand the difference between natural law and natural rights; what is a privilege and what is an unalienable right. The privileged class has no lawful authority to claim that they represent those of us who are the non-privileged class. Those of us born to citizen fathers are not represented by Obama, who had to obtain his rights as a privilege. Because his rights come as a privilege and Congress cannot bestow a person with sovereignty, it works the other way around: we, the sovereign people, bestow sovereignty on the government. They don’t bestow sovereign rights on us; that would make them the source of sovereign rights.
The Post & Email then interjected: “It seems that is what they are trying to do.”
Right. In other words, they’ve become like God, like an empire from the Roman times, when the government is Caesar, or God on earth, where they’re now the ones who bestow sovereignty upon you and they’re the source of sovereign political rights instead of God and the Laws of Nature as it says in the Declaration of Independence. The government physically cannot bestow sovereign political rights with a statute. Therefore, any naturalized citizen, whether or not born on the soil, despite the CRS memos which are totally wrong, cannot be given the right to become president. That right is a sovereign political right and a natural right that must be inherited. It comes only from the Laws of Nature; government cannot give that to you even if they want to, not legally.
But they’ve done it; that’s exactly what they’ve done by using the soil to justify it. In order for a person born on the soil to a foreign father to be a natural born Citizen, the soil would have to become pregnant, to gestate a child, and the child would have to come out of the soil. Then you would have a sovereign representative of the country, and we all know that that’s not where babies come from. They don’t come from the soil, and they don’t come from foreign jurisdictions; they come from your mother, who was impregnated by your citizen father. That’s where you get your sovereign political rights. That’s just the way nature is. To deny this is insane. Just look at what nature says. In fact, when you now examine the law, you’ll see that the law is actually perfectly in line with nature.
“How would you say citizens could go about educating their respective county sheriffs about the natural born Citizen issue and protecting the sovereign political rights of their residents?”
That’s a difficult question because you’re dealing with human emotions, fear, and other things on the part of the sheriff. It will vary from person to person quite a bit. You might have to have different approaches for different personalities. What I know is this: If all it takes is being born on the soil to become president, that means that any foreigner, for instance, from Mexico, can come here, never get United States citizenship, have a child on the soil who becomes a U.S. citizen, and that child can become president, but he’ll owe political allegiance to Mexico. They then can write laws which benefit Mexicans; they can say, “We’re going to start giving every Mexican citizen $50 a month,” and the American taxpayers are going to have to pay for this. That president will then pass that law into existence without your consent because he doesn’t represent your political class, and now they’re going to turn around, and you’re going to be a slave to have to pay for this because they’re going to put a demand on your taxes to pay for these privileges for foreigners to which you never gave your consent because you don’t even have a representative government which is authorized to create this law in the first place.
This is slavery for the benefit of foreigners, and citizens can tell their sheriff that. A president is created from privilege, from statute, which can then be given to anybody, disenfranchising the people of the United States. If they can do that by the soil, they can make it up any way they want. They don’t even need the soil; they can just make up any statute and say, “We’re going to make this person a citizen who has the right to be president.” It’s arbitrary, at their own whim, and that’s exactly what was meant to be prevented by putting that “natural born Citizen” clause in there. That removes it from the jurisdiction of Congress, from their authority so that they have no say in it. They were given the ability to create naturalized citizens, but naturalized citizens cannot be president. Only their children can become president because their children will be born to citizen fathers. They will then inherit their sovereign political authority.
The first thing I would say to a sheriff is “Do you know what sovereignty is? How many types of sovereignty are there?” There are only two types of sovereignty: natural sovereignty, which comes as a natural right and is inherited; and there’s an artificial sovereignty, which is a grant of authority from the sovereign people to their government, which creates a sovereign government, which is an artificial legal body.
I would have to get the sheriff to see that sovereign political rights are natural rights and that the function of the government and his job is to protect the natural rights of the people. That is the function of the sheriff, the function of the positive law. That is why we created the government in the first place. It even says it: “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…” What rights are they talking about? The rights don’t even exist if you haven’t created a government yet, so they can’t have any legal rights. They’re talking about natural rights. That’s the purpose of the government: to preserve and protect the natural rights. “So now, Sheriff, what are you going to do about protecting my natural sovereign political rights? We have a president and a non-representative government which can’t possibly represent us. He’s the privileged class.”
The sheriff has to become aware of what sovereign political rights are, where they come from, what it means to have a representative government, why that “natural born Citizen” clause is in there, how that differentiates between a citizen who is created by the Laws of Nature as opposed to one who is created by an artificial, statutory authority, which is called a “naturalized” citizen. He would have to understand how naturalized citizens are a privileged class and cannot represent those of us who are the non-privilege class: the whole history. Put this in historical context going back to 1776.
Show the sheriff that it is his duty to do this, and if he’s not going to do it, then he becomes the actual violent force that is overthrowing the government in his refusing to stop this. He would become complicit. In fact, the word “treason” is defined as an organized military overthrow of your government, waging war against the people. The sheriffs are the ones empowered to wage a war. They have all the guns, they have all the weapons, the SWAT teams, the paramilitary force, and if they’re going to use that paramilitary force against the people by not preventing Obama from being on the ballot, then they’re the ones who are actually engaged in treason by engaging in warfare against the people.
Let the sheriff know that if they don’t listen to you and do not take this seriously, they then will be named in a criminal conspiracy, and one day, they will be made to answer in a way that they’re not going to like. They’re all indictable for crimes at some point, if we ever get our government back.
“Could someone file a criminal complaint against the sheriff for failing to act?”
Absolutely they could. The first time this happened in 2008, the sheriffs got a pass because they were taken by surprise as many people were. This next time, now that you know, you have to notify them. Send them a letter, write this up; send them to my website or to The Post & Email to learn what a natural born Citizen is and what is going on. Once you become aware and accept it, you have no choice but to do something about it; otherwise, you then become part of the problem. By not exercising your authority, you are now working to overthrow the government.
We need to put the pressure on the sheriffs at the local level. There are about 3100 counties in the country. The sheriffs are actually the ones who have the duty and the obligation to make sure that only eligible persons are on the ballot in his county, where he is the ultimate authority.
The Post & Email commented, “We’ve seen in some counties where the sheriff has been working against the citizens for many years prior to Obama’s candidacy for president.”
You’re putting your finger right on the issue, which is that if we don’t control our local sheriffs, we can’t control our national government. You have to get a hold of your sheriff; otherwise, the national government will do whatever it wants, and there will be no sheriff to stop them.
My understanding of the law is that any sheriff can go in and physically seize those polling places if they put Obama on the ballot. They can physically prevent people from voting for him. That’s how far the law protects him, and that’s the right that he has. Whether or not he will exercise that right on behalf of the people as it is his duty to do is the issue. And the only way that that’s going to happen is if the people in the counties rise up and demand it of the sheriff. I don’t think it will ever get to that point, because I think if the sheriffs stand up and make that threat to the state government, the state government will be bound to prevent putting Obama on the ballot. Then they’ll be forced to do their job. They’ll stand up and say, “Well, all the sheriffs aren’t going to allow it anyway, and actually they’re right; it’s their duty and the law is on their side. We have no leg to stand on, and look how bad we’re going to look if we try to fight against that…therefore, I guess we better go along with the program and not allow Obama to be on the ballot in the next election.
In my opinion, that’s the only way to present it and stop it.
“So one sheriff would be all it would take?”
Yes, that’s what I think. He would get the national spotlight…”This sheriff is not going to allow Obama on the ballot…” Can you imagine all those cries of racism and how he would be attacked? But then they would have to listen to his side, and the truth would come out. People would start saying, “This guy is making an awful lot of sense.” And then he’d contact another sheriff, and then more and more would get involved and say, “Yeah, you know, you’re right; I’m going to do the same thing in my county.” It would snowball. Pretty soon, they would not be able to contain it. That’s what I’m seeing.