The Solution the Law Avoids or A Conspiracy Theory That is Actually Plausible

My Recent Posts

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (another government agency that deals in lies and propaganda, but humor me) “An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.” That fact was originally from JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association.

 

As noted in a report by the League of Oregon Cities: “In some cities, alcohol is involved in 80 percent of certain crimes, while liquor law violations, such as driving under the influence, can cost a city up to $2,500 per arrest.” What the government doesn’t want you to know, (and some of the folks on WB have learned a few things about research, so if they can find some data I would be glad to consider it) is how much money the government makes in fines imposed on citizens committing alcohol-related crimes. Alcohol is a booming industry. The government collects taxes on alcohol, and then sales taxes, and then arrests and fines for people committing alcohol-related offenses. It’s sort of a win-win pay-pay scenario. Alcohol attracts people to things like sports and entertainment, because alcohol is closely associated with entertainment.  These revenue generators of fines and taxes make no mention of the defense lawyers who make money defending people with alcohol-related offenses. From the farmers who sell the grapes or grain to make the stuff, to the trucks that haul it, to the stores and venues that sell it to the judges and courts who impose fines, alcohol is a major part of the U.S. economy. It kills people as well, but we think it is worth it. After all, with the billions involved, a few deaths are, well, acceptable.

 

I know all too well that we tried to make alcohol illegal and that it was a social, political and legal disaster; Americans love their booze. One of the things I would love the government to do, and it never will because they simply don’t want anyone to know, is to publicly post how much revenue in fines and court costs each city, county and state court makes from people paying fines because of alcohol offenses. The average cost of a DUI is $10,000, and depending on where you live, could be much higher. There have been solutions for some time now. It’s just that no one making money, no municipality, county or state, and no attorney making money, wants things to change a great deal. There’s too much money involved. They all feel sorry for your mistake, and yet they all insist that you pay, pay, pay. They have jobs because people drink; not serving or providing the entertainment aspect of alcohol, but the misery and expense of it. On top of the cost of the booze, mind you.

 

Enter the picture, RO15-4513. No name, just letters and numbers. I discovered it outside of the assigned reading in my neuroanatomy class. It is hard to pin down when it was discovered, but awareness of the drug has existed since the 1980s. It is in the benzodiazepine class, whose popularity has soared since the 1960s with Valium. It was discovered that it blocks the effects of alcohol, making the person sober, at least until it wears off. There are very unpleasant side effects to it, and I make no promises that the extreme anxiety or convulsions might come along with the drug. But then, alcohol has bad side effects too, doesn’t it?

 

One scenario is that a person at the local bar has a few, and then takes the drug to ensure a safe and sober drive home. After waiting for about thirty minutes, he is walking out of the bar. While strolling out he meets a friend that is coming in to the bar. The friend invites him to come back into the bar and share a drink. But now, since the drug has taken effect, he has no idea how much the additional alcohol will do, and under the influence of the drug, literally drinks himself to death, ingesting a lethal amount of alcohol because the drug subdued the effect of the alcohol in terms of what he could feel. Negating the alcohol does not remove the toxicity, it just makes you feel sober, even if you aren’t. The next of kin discover that the victim had taken an alcohol relieving drug and sues the drug maker for offering a product where a person could not determine the effect of the alcohol and drank a lethal dose of the poison.

 

Another recently discovered drug is Dihydromyricetin (DHM), recently discovered as a hangover cure and intoxication blocker. DHM is the “natural extract of the Oriental Raisin Tree” and is said to negate alcohol. It appears that DHM is available via the internet. Both of these have the effect (RO15-4513 proven) of negating alcohol. Of course, the police state men in blue would not be able to generate revenue by waiting for some poor shmuck to leave the bar after a few drinks on Friday night if these drugs existed and were available.

 

It’s all about money. The drug companies are afraid of an accidental overdose. The definition of intoxicated would have to be reconsidered if intoxication could be reversed with a simple pill. All of this means that people will not get pulled over. The men in blue will not be able to rack up DUI arrests. The courts will not be able to rack up fines. The defense lawyers would lose income defending the poor schmucks who got pulled over and charged with DUI. This rates pretty well with a conspiracy. Too many people have too much to lose to let this alcohol inhibitor make it to the market, even if the safety of people that have a drink and drive would be greatly improved. There is too much to lose. The police state wishes to control as many aspects of the citizens’ lives, and this remedy to legal problems and denier of revenue cannot stand, and will not make it to the market. In all of the evolution of science, chemistry and medicine, this drug was inevitable, and yet the corrupt powers will not allow it on the market, even under the premise that it can save lives. I welcome any and all to look into this. I have only scratched the surface. Having posted essays online for four years, this is finally the moment to unleash this piece of information.

 

Keep in mind the “plausible deniability” excuse by the government. They can claim it is not now nor has ever been in the mainstream of science. But I found it, reading outside of the assigned reading, and the objections of the overdose scenario were made clear. The question is if the alcohol poisoning possibility is strong enough to outweigh any other risks that might be taken. I say it’s the money. There is too much to lose. I have never known any court to publicly announce how much revenue is generated by DUI cases, and, let’s face it, with today’s technology that wouldn’t take more than an hour of programming to pull the number from the accounting files and post it on the internet. It won’t happen, and we all know why.

 

So here is your conspiracy theory, and a quite plausible one. Nothing buried under the Sphinx. No one hiding information, it is all accessible, and no “key people” are dead, at least not yet. No “secret manuscript” that the Vatican won’t release. No “government files” hidden somewhere under the Pentagon. There are excuses, but I’m not buying that explanation. Just before the self-driving cars take over and make DUI disappear forever, let’s consider the drug that has existed for decades, and never made it to any reasonable application to remedy a problem that everyone wanted solved. Let me correct that, everyone not making money off the problem wanted solved. The folks collecting the money were fine with it. They still are, for obvious reasons. It’s all about the money.

 

Comments

Ari Silverstein Added May 12, 2017 - 9:02pm
What conspiracy are you outing?  The government doesn’t deny heavy fines related to drunk driving or taxes paid on the consumption of alcohol.  The amount of money flowing to government thanks to alcohol is the same argument for legalizing marijuana in many states.  Of course people die because of alcohol abuse, but that doesn’t prove any conspiracy.  
 
What does the League of Oregon Cities factoid supposed to prove or disprove?
Jeff Jackson Added May 12, 2017 - 9:32pm
The application of RO15-4513 was deliberately ignored. Drunk driving could have been completely eliminated. It wasn't because of the money.
Bill H. Added May 12, 2017 - 10:54pm
 
Jeff - basically the same reason why we won't be seeing a cure for cancer in short order.
Joanna Nutile Added May 13, 2017 - 4:49am
Any drug with that causes “very unpleasant side effects” including “extreme anxiety or convulsions” is one that we should be very cautious about.  So no, the government isn’t conducting some massive conspiracy so that it can profit from alcohol by not promoting this drug.  Besides, if there is one thing we know about alcohol is that people who abuse it don’t make the smartest decisions or think very clearly.  So even if the drug didn’t cause any side effects, I don’t see people being smart enough to take it, much like millionaire athletes not using Uber versus drive home drunk. 
 
As it relates to the conspiracy of not promoting a cure all drug for cancer or drunkenness for the purposes of making more money, just think about all the people that would have to be in on it.  It’s a ridiculous suggestion. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 13, 2017 - 8:34am
An "unpleasant side effect" is a far cry from $10,000 spent in a DUI or a fatal car crash. They knew about it, they did nothing.
George N Romey Added May 13, 2017 - 10:30am
The same reason we still drive automobiles with the basic internal combustion engine from 1900. Its all about the money.
Dino Manalis Added May 13, 2017 - 12:01pm
Abuse has to be avoided, including alcohol, that's why parents need to talk to their children about responsible alcohol consumption and abuse of it.  A glass of wine is actually healthy!  Avod the abuse and higher costs for oneself and society in general!  Be careful!
Jeff Jackson Added May 13, 2017 - 12:39pm
Yes, a small amount of booze is healthy. But when we have 88,000 people a year passing away, it looks like they're not taking that healthy dose.
Utpal Patel Added May 14, 2017 - 9:08am
Let’s follow the money. By having drunks on the road, money flows to our legal system and justice system.  The justice department then writes checks to the various government officials to keep them quiet and not inform the public about the cure to drunks on the road.  Is this essentially the conspiracy you’re perpetuating?  How much money do you think is being sent to Obama, Hillary and Trump for their silence?
Jeff Jackson Added May 14, 2017 - 9:28am
Utpal, nice extrapolation, but it doesn't work like that. The authorities, especially the states, fund no research to detoxify or  drugs that block the inebriating effects on the brain, such as the drug described. The municipalities, counties and states then collect the revenues from the drunk drivers, even when there is a drug that can block the effects of alcohol on the central nervous system.
In the article, I invited anyone to show me where any state, county or municipality has announced the revenues generated by fines levied against citizens convicted of DUI. No one has responded. I'd be delightfully surprised if someone did respond, as the WB people, at least some of the them, seem to be so impressed with their abilities to research and find evidence that contradicts my research and evidence.
Utpal, the cities and counties and states are too greedy to share with the federal authorities the money they make. As well, DUI is not, for the most part and with a few exceptions, a federal issue. Thanks for making the feds aware of money they can chase after. Now they'll be looking for it as well.
Utpal Patel Added May 14, 2017 - 5:37pm
Because states don’t publish a record of how much money they make enforcing alcohol abuse, does not mean there is a conspiracy at play.  Knowing we’re talking about the government and the many different municipalities that must deal with drunks, they probably have no idea how much money. 
 
My advice is to rid this article of all mentions of some grand conspiracy to suppress this drug and just focus on the merits of the drug.  One of the reasons I drink is to let loose and experience all those “harmful” affects alcohol.  This drug sounds like a massive buzz kill with some nasty side effects, so no way would I take it.  There is also no way I would drive drunk, especially with Uber just a few clicks away. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 14, 2017 - 5:53pm
Point number one: You must have missed "So here is your conspiracy theory, and a quite plausible one." Plausible, as defined as "of an argument or statement, seeming reasonable or probable." You know, plausible, possible, not certain.
Point number two: Could the authorities eliminated drunk driving with this drug? It sure seems that way, now doesn't it? Why would they let all of those people die, and risk their lives when a remedy was possible? If nothing else, it is ineptitude, when a cure for the disease was available and no one did anything. The cure was applicable, if only on an individual scale, since the doses could be adjusted for the individual, but no, not even that.
Point number three: "I have never known any court to publicly announce how much revenue is generated by DUI cases, and, let’s face it, with today’s technology that wouldn’t take more than an hour of programming to pull the number from the accounting files and post it on the internet. It won’t happen, and we all know why." The statement stands for itself, no further explanation required.
Point number four: It isn't a grand conspiracy, and I never used that distinct phrase, so please don't put those words on my page.  (Wow, that's a real cool saying and I bet it gets copied a lot. If you read this and copy it, make sure to give Jeff Jackson credit the next time you write "don't put those words on my page.")

Point number five: Yes, it is buzzkill, just as you say, so I think at some level you understand at least some of the essay.
 
Stephen Hunter Added May 15, 2017 - 7:50am
An excellent hypothesis Jeff, and yes there is something here that does not make any sense, based on the facts you have discovered. 
Could the real issue be that in most impaired driving situations involving accidents, it is the drunks who cause most of the issues? By drunks I mean the addicted, those who drink a lot everyday. 
It is not the people who have one or two over the limit who cause the serious accidents imo, it is those who are shit-faced and get behind the wheel, because they have no conscious in that condition. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 15, 2017 - 8:35am
Thank you Stephen, and certainly, the addicted need treatment. It is the ordinary people, not addicted, who might once in a while have "one too many" and then gets a DUI and it costs them plenty. People could have avoided that situation quite easily, as well as the risks of death or injury, but no one did anything. 
With all of the conspiracy trolls out there, I would think that this could be a great conspiracy. The conspiracy people, as described, need to have one piece of the puzzles that can never, ever be revealed, like under the Pentagon or the Sphinx, or someone who knew all about it who died under mysterious circumstances. Let me be clear, I do not know this to be a conspiracy, but if you want one that really applied and there isn't any hidden evidence (or is there?) this is a great choice. I sure hope the conspiracy folks don't disappoint me. 
Utpal Patel Added May 15, 2017 - 1:46pm
Fair enough, however I don’t think it’s plausible that a conspiracy to suppress a cure-all drug for alcohol exists let alone the existence of a cure all drug for alcohol.  On the latter point of there being such a drug in existence, you provided nothing by way of a link or support.  I just did some research and in addition to the terrible side affects you already mentioned, there is plenty more to be skeptical about.  A simple Wikipedia search offers a host of information on why this drug wasn’t developed, here’s a brief snippet:
 
Ro15-4513 blocks the effects of ethanol but does not remove it from the bloodstream, which could lead to potential problems, as the effects of the alcohol would be masked only temporarily. As a result, patients might, for instance, feel that they are sober and discharge themselves from hospital once the drug took effect, then become drunk again once it wore off, possibly crashing their car or having other accidents that might lead to legal consequences for Roche.
Jeffry Gilbert Added May 15, 2017 - 1:57pm
that might lead to legal consequences for Roche.
 
After all one wouldn't want such stellar drugs manufacturers like Roche to be in legal jeopardy. Tens of thousands of dead people a year to protect Roche is a reasonable trade-off for your ilk isn't it Patel.
 
This comment is in no way intended to be in support of the author. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 15, 2017 - 2:14pm
Well there you go, Utpal, I read that too, from Wikipedia, I believe. You just proved the point, that the effects of alcohol are masked, or taken away. Of course if does not remove it from the bloodstream, I never made that claim, it simply negates the effects, and I already noted that someone who takes it could drink themself to death because it negates the effect, i.e. they can no longer tell that they are drunk. 
I never said it was a cure all for alcohol, I said it could prevent drunk driving, and I stand by that position. Again, the maker, Roche, was afraid for getting sued, and I addressed that issue in the original article. 
"Negating the alcohol does not remove the toxicity, it just makes you feel sober, even if you aren’t. The next of kin discover that the victim had taken an alcohol relieving drug and sues the drug maker for offering a product where a person could not determine the effect of the alcohol and drank a lethal dose of the poison." 
The other thing is that drugs are developed, not just discarded because of one or even many bad side effects. Listen to any commercial on television and they'll mention enough side effects to scare anyone from taking the drug being advertised. Legal liabilities do not stop the development of drugs. Consider the drugs like Cialis and Viagra, which have side effects like losing your hearing or going completely blind, and all that for a few minutes of fun? The fact that it wasn't developed in no way convinces me that it wasn't viable. Look at what Thalidomide did. Anxiety and convulsions are nothing compared with $10,000 fines. The drug could come with explanations that when you take it the alcohol is still in your system, something that I never denied and even pointed out. 
Utpal Patel Added May 16, 2017 - 9:29am
I’m well aware that drugs have side effects, but that doesn’t mean all drugs get approved.  Sometimes the side effects are worse than what the ailment the drug is trying to treat and that is why many drugs never get approved.  The Wikipedia article lists all bunch of negative information about this drug, as stated previously, that was a snippet.  Can you send me to a reputable source that advocates this drug being developed?  Let me guess, the information is being suppressed because of the government conspiracy to profit off drunk driving and other alcohol related revenue?
Jeff Jackson Added May 16, 2017 - 12:58pm
Keeping with the internet mentality, which allow me to keep on suggesting that it might be a conspiracy, is: Wikipedia is an unreliable source, and/or Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy, so why wouldn't they say bad things about the drug. You're last sentence is on the right track.
Utpal Patel Added May 17, 2017 - 1:00am
What source is more reliable than Wikipedia?  All I’m asking is that you produce some evidence that this drug does the thing you say it does.  All we know is that you discovered this drug while doing some reading for your neuroanatomy class.  The fact you think it’s being suppressed by some government conspiracy is something you can’t prove, as that is the nature of all conspiracies.  However, you should be able to show me sources which advocate this be produced for the reasons you say it should be consumed. This is my second request for that information. 
Jeff Jackson Added May 17, 2017 - 6:08am
Utpal Patel Added May 18, 2017 - 2:40pm
Your first link is a chat forum…that is not reputable source.
 
The second link was page #59 of a book published in 1991. Not only is the source dated, the scientists do not give the drug their blessing and argue it should be legalized. 
 
I rest my case. 
Duane Eugene Kirkland Added Jun 11, 2017 - 12:32pm
Solutions by Duane Eugene Kirkland. Revised.






target="_blank">Duane Kirkland
we are at war within .................... lower courts and judges and lawyers.................... united states commerce versus united states of America we the people.





Submitted by officerkirkland on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 11:45



Duane Kirkland's solutions to fraud.......

Declare and do something about it by challenging the lower courts and filing motions. Its our duty to question by thresh hold questions concerning the true intent of the Constitution's in harmony.


Unconstitutional acts are void and not bound to anyone or any enforcement, and it does not need to be said in the court of law.

If any so called law or statutes or codes are in conflict with the states all levels. The individual can make that deserting choice if its in conflict at a state or federal level.

He or she is obligated to not follow any law that is in conflict with basic fundamental God given rights. Its simple right- any person that actually knows and follows the Constitutions has the ability and authority as a Constitutional officer to ignore any law and not to obeying any conflicting law.. Its actually our duty to not comply with breaking down the locked laws of the lands that are in harmony with all sister state in the union of the compact contract. Its a crime if we do not follow the Constitutions true intent.

How do we do this ? As individual and as a American of the contract we must know the difference between actual laws versus unconstitutional acts. Individuals must be willing to stand up with all mass and ignore laws- that are in conflict with all Constitutions that are in harmony.

Our Duty by Constitutional Authority by locked law under the 10 Amendment delegated powers. and secured by the Locke of the 9th Amendment.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Facts collected...............

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each,
Duane Eugene Kirkland Added Jun 11, 2017 - 12:34pm
By Publius Huldah

1. The Constitution grants to Congress only limited powers to make criminal laws. These powers fall into five categories: a) those made pursuant to express authorizations for four specific crimes; b) those made under the “necessary and proper” clause; c) those made for the few tiny geographical areas over which Congress has “exclusive Legislation”; d) those governing the military; and e) those made pursuant to two of the Amendments to the Constitution.  Let’s look at each category:
a) Art. I, § 8 grants to Congress authority to define & punish counterfeiting, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, & offenses against “the Laws of Nations”. [1] Article III, §3 grants to Congress a restricted power to declare the punishment of Treason.
b) Art. I, §8, last clause, grants to Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution …all …Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…”.  This necessary and proper clause allows Congress to make criminal laws when necessary to enforce powers vested by the Constitution in the federal government.   This worried people, so Madison & Hamilton explained it:
In Federalist No. 44, Madison said, regarding the peoples’ fears of usurpations by Congress:

what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them…the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, [2] which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers (17th Para).

In Federalist No. 33, Hamilton cited Art. VI, cl.2, as showing that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such (7th Para).  He also said:

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. (6th Para)

So! Congress has authority under the necessary and proper clause to make criminal laws enforcing the “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” authorized by Art. I, §8, cl.1; to make criminal laws prohibiting the filing of false statements or claims in Bankruptcy Court (Art. I, §8, cl. 4); and to make criminal laws forbidding the importation of slaves after 1808 (Art. I, §9, cl. 1).  Article II, §4 mentions impeachment of civil officers for, among other things, “bribery”; so by implication, Congress is authorized to pass a criminal statute prohibiting the accepting of bribes by civil officers of the United States.  The main duty of the federal judiciary created by Art. III is to conduct trials [in the limited category of cases which they are permitted to hear], and that means parties & witnesses. Parties & witnesses must be required to tell the Truth.  So, it would be necessary and proper for Congress to make laws declaring perjury and lying under oath in federal court criminal offenses.
These examples are not exclusive – there are doubtless additional criminal laws which would be appropriate exercises of the necessary and proper clause.  But it is important to note that private citizens would rarely, if ever, be in situations where these criminal laws would apply to them!
c) Article I, §8, next to last clause, authorizes Congress to exercise “exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over small defined geographical areas: the seat of the government of the United States [not to exceed ten squares miles], forts, dock-yards, magazines, arsenals, and the like.  As Madison said in The Federalist No. 43 (4th –6th Paras), it is necessary for the government of the United States to have “complete authority” at the seat of governmen
Duane Eugene Kirkland Added Jun 11, 2017 - 12:47pm
c) Article I, §8, next to last clause, authorizes Congress to exercise “exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over small defined geographical areas: the seat of the government of the United States [not to exceed ten squares miles], forts, dock-yards, magazines, arsenals, and the like.  As Madison said in The Federalist No. 43 (4th –6th Paras), it is necessary for the government of the United States to have “complete authority” at the seat of government, and over forts, dock-yards, etc.  This means that over these limited geographical areas, Congress has authority to make the full range of laws criminalizing murder, robbery, extortion, arson, rape, kidnapping, etc.  It is important to note that private citizens would not be affected by these laws unless they are inside the District of Columbia, military bases, dock-yards, and the like. [3]
d) Article I, §8, cl. 14 authorizes Congress “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”  Under this grant of authority, Congress has properly enacted The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the criminal code which governs members of our military forces. This covers all the “standard” criminal offenses plus additional crimes uniquely appropriate to those in the military: failure to obey a lawful order, dereliction of duty, absent without leave, desertion, conduct unbecoming an officer, etc.  Again, it is important to note that civilians are not affected by the criminal code which governs our military forces.
e) Some of the Amendments to the Constitution authorize Congress to enact laws to enforce them: The 13th Amendment would authorize Congress to make laws criminally punishing those who keep slaves.  The 16thAmendment presumably authorizes Congress to make criminal laws to enforce the “income” tax.  The 18th Amendment (now repealed) authorized Congress & the States to make laws criminally punishing those who manufactured or trafficked in intoxicating liquors. The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th Amendments restrict only States &/or the federal government. The other Amendments (after the original Ten) address “housekeeping” issues.  So, Congress’ criminal jurisdiction over private citizens under all Amendments is limited to those who keep slaves or don’t pay “income” taxes (whatever “income” meant when the Amendment was adopted).  Estate and gift taxes are not authorized by the Constitution.
2. So! Much of the federal criminal code of today consists of “laws” which are mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such.  They are not “laws”, because they are outside the legislative powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.  Excepting members of the military, and outside the tiny geographical areas (the District of Columbia, military bases, dock-yards, etc., and any Territories) where Congress has “exclusive legislation”; Congress has no general authority to pass criminal laws.  Thus, laws which purport to be of general application throughout the several States criminalizing acts respecting firearms, ammunition, hate crimes, environmental crimes, economic crimes, banking crimes, computer crimes, murder, kidnapping, narcotics, arson, extortion, etc. etc., etc., etc., etc., are all unconstitutional usurpations.
Lest you think this is astonishing, remember that before the 18th Amendment was ratified in 1919, everybody knew that Congress didn’t have the power to make laws criminalizing the manufacture or distribution of intoxicating beverages!   Congress needed an Amendment to the Constitution to authorize them to make the laws giving effect to prohibition!   But today, Congress is lawless & filled with usurpers; and the federal prisons are filled with inmates convicted under unconstitutional laws.
Do we have a remedy for these usurpations by Congress?  YES! As Madison, quoted above, said,

the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts.

Thus, when Congress makes a criminal law for which it lacks constitutional authority, the Executive Branch (in the person of the U.S. Attorney) has the power & duty to refuse to prosecute the violation.  If that check fails, the Judicial Branch has the power to declare the statute unconstitutional. [4] If the U.S. attorneys and federal judges both fail in their obligations to enforce the  Constitution, Madison said, as qu
Duane Eugene Kirkland Added Jun 11, 2017 - 12:48pm
Alexander Hamilton considered the people to be “the natural guardians of the Constitution”; and contemplated “a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (The Federalist, No. 16, 10th Para). [5] One expects Hamilton would be disappointed in “the People” of today. [6] It is OUR responsibility to learn the Constitution, to educate the people in our spheres of influence, and to take this country back from the faithless usurpers who have betrayed us.
3. Did the Framers of the Constitution advocate anarchy?  No way!  The legislatures of the States have whatever authority granted to them by their State Constitutions to enact criminal codes applicable to those within the borders of their States.  Madison said it all in Federalist No. 45 (9th Para):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

It is up to the States to enact the criminal codes which apply to the people within their borders.
Publius/Huldah  July 4,  2009

[1]Webster’s American Dictionary (1828) defines “laws of nations” as, “the rules that regulate the mutual intercourse of nations or states.  These rules depend on natural law, or the principles of justice which spring from the social state; or they are founded on customs, compacts, treaties, leagues and agreements between independent communities.”
Here is one example of a “law of nations” based on custom: From antiquity to modern times, envoys between warring armies have been entitled to safe conduct while on their missions.  In the [excellent!] movie, “300”, it was a shocking thing when the Spartan King, Leonidas, killed the envoys of the Persian King Xerxes.  Our concept of “diplomatic immunity” is thus an ancient one.
[2] Madison here illustrates checks which the Executive & Judicial Branches have over Congress. We all know that Courts may declare an act of Congress unconstitutional; but most don’t know that the President should refuse to enforce an Act of Congress which the President, in the exercise of his thoughtful & independent judgment, deems unconstitutional.  The President’s Oath is to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution…” (Art II, § 1, last cl.).  It is not to “go along with” Congress – it is not to “obey” the Courts. The President must make his own independent determinations.  He may not properly abdicate this duty in favor of another Branch! The Executive Branch is to function as a check on the other two!  The check on the President is impeachment & removal from office.
[3] Article IV, §3, cl. 2 also granted to Congress authority to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territories belonging to the United States [such as the Western Territories before they became States – Federalist No. 43, 11th Para].  This gave Congress authority to make the full range of criminal laws to govern those Territories until such time as they became States.  When they became States, jurisdiction to enact criminal laws would be transferred TO the new State.
[4] It is the responsibility of defense counsel to raise the issue of the unconstitutionality of the statute under which defendant is charged.  But lawyers, like everybody else in our modern culture, have been indoctrinated into statism; and like everybody else, are often unaware that Congress must be authorized by the Constitution to enact a criminal law before the law is valid.  The judge has an
Duane Eugene Kirkland Added Jun 11, 2017 - 12:48pm
Warning! The following contains explicit religious content which may be highly offensive to some:  This obligation to protest lawlessness reflects the covenantal nature of civil government as established in the Bible (See David’s covenant at 1 Chron 11:1-3 & 2 Sam 5:1-4; Joash’s (via the priest Jehoiada) covenant at 2 Kings 11:17 & 2 Chron 23:16; and Josiah’s covenant at 2 Kings 23:1-3). Out of this covenantal relationship arises the peoples’ obligation to protest lawlessness.  If they don’t protest, God punishes the people because of the misdeeds of their “kings”.  See, e.g., 2 Sam 21, which tells of God’s sending a 3 year famine because Saul put the Gibeonites to death; 1 Chron 21 & 2 Sam 24, which tell of the pestilence which killed 70,000 Israelites because David took the census; 1 Kings 16:29-33, 17:1, 18:1, 18:17-19 which tell of the reign of Ahab & Jezebel and the famine God (via Elijah) sent because Ahab & his house had forsaken the commandments of the Lord; 2 Chron 21:1-14, which tell of King Joram and the heavy blow God struck at Joram’s people because of Joram’s wickedness; and 2 Kings 21:10-17 & Jer 15:3-4 which tell of the four dooms God visited upon Jerusalem & the S. Kingdom because of the sins of Manasseh.  If the Germans had protested Hitler in a timely fashion, millions of lives would have been spared.  Will we make the same mistake?
[6] Hamilton contemplated “…the most vigilant and careful attention of the people…” (Federalist No. 23, next to last Para).  In speaking of power disputes between the federal and state governments, Hamilton said that if the rights of the people “…are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.” (Federalist No. 28 7th Para).
Postscript added June 16, 2015:
Hat tip to my FB Friend, Richard Storm:
Watch this video and listen carefully from the 2.50 minute mark to 3:20.  That sums it all up:  rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_voVdVnvw_I&feature=share
Duane Eugene Kirkland Added Jun 11, 2017 - 1:17pm
Duane Eugene Kirkland UCC 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice
breaking it down for a lower communication ..............
 
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (another government agency that deals in lies and propaganda, but humor me) “An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.” That fact was originally from JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association.
 
Kirkland's thoughts , and studies.
Most illegal agencies and insti
Duane Eugene Kirkland Added Jun 11, 2017 - 1:21pm
Duane Eugene Kirkland UCC 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice
breaking it down for a lower communication ..............
 
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (another government agency that deals in lies and propaganda, but humor me) “An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.” That fact was originally from JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association.
 
Kirkland's thoughts , and studies.
Most illegal agencies and institution are part of the major problem- with the society they have learned to rob by unconstitutional acts, the corporations and the illegal laws by within are the Trojan horse , and they are being exposed., when it comes to these agency in correlation there is crimes being committed and harm brought upon those who are being robed in many ways by illegal statues and codes that are not laws at all.
These  acts by the institutions supported by illegal government institutions- is robing the branches purse, and draining victims - ones accounts for creative trickery schema of situations and the basic necessities of life.
 
These government agency have joined to establish a way to trick and capitalize on ones life, the society's life in general by utilizing the laws that was intent for the public and not the government. Who does the law really help ?  Judges lawyers and cops, The whole purpose of the government is to govern by contract, as the agreement by contract by the we the people agreed to the compact states.
 
But they- who is they ?  institutions , agencies and crooked courts and crooked police agencies. and corporations in correlation with government control under democracy, not republic, have tricked and manipulated the schemer to make money and enforce capitalizing on direct taxes and bill of attainders, and ways to rob and justify it by safety.
 
That is illegal and fraud by the actual intent of law. But if you don't know and your taught a certain way then you have to comply to the ignorance of the actual law until you learn it.
 
The way they have it set up is backwards, and its a crime its self. Capitalizing on basic necessities of ones life to create a situation , by institutions saying there is a problem then only to trick you to make the problem worse.
 
The medical institutions are a perfect example of the situation, I call it the window to death, the the way to see your bank account , and to contaminate you and then make many of the sickness they have created, until your window of death runs out of money they cant rob anymore. Then no more care.
 
Drugs and drinks alcohol and many other products, from institutions have a monopolized system to make money and claim it under illegal laws that they have no jurisdiction and no legal authority … wow.
 
example of crimes committed by institutions/ city of hamilton
 
 
Complaint allegation against the city of Hamilton
 
# 1 (the city of Hamilton and the police agencies) are involving criminally prosecuting people without a victim or property damages, and justifying by safety- By tricking and enforcing stealthy hidden conflicting statues by distinctive difference by definitions of international commerce and none private people traveling to pursue basic necessities of life and liberty.
 
# 2 (the city of Hamilton) is using the officers to their advantage to enforce conflicting laws, even though an officer has a separation of powers for conducting police powers which is limited.
 
The police are committing crimes there self as an officer by arresting individuals for crimes without no victims and no property damage, and running plate checks on individuals while in a public institutions enjoying life,without no probable cause,for personal information by violating the privacy and the 4th amendment, leading to further bill of rights violations on the public.
 
# 3 (the city of Hamilton and its police agency and other institutions) are obstructing one rights by infringing on them and violating the oath of the supremacy clause.
And the bill of rights of the state of Montana, By obstructing the freedom to live without bills of pain and direct taxes by writing citations and illegal complaints under false jurisdiction, over stepping authority.
&n