Taken into Custody; and a Few Queer Questions.

Stephen Baskerville's Taken Into Custody is a book that no serious MRA can be without!

The book is 300+ pages of raw, brutish, and ugly truth. And it only costs about 16.00 USD, so it won't set you back too much.

In my case, I am seriously considering buying a few more copies and mailing them to select figures in my local community in order to raise awareness of the massive injustices that take place in our "Family" tribu... er courts on a daily basis.

You know, dear reader, I heard somewhere once before that, "In death, avoid Hell. In life, avoid the Law Courts!"

While truer words were never spoken in our day and age, it shouldn't discourage us as MRAs and Truthseekers to take a very hard look at the Statutes that are on the books in this nation.

If you recall, I asked the question on this blog, "Are you a U.S. citizen, or an American Citizen?"

Some of you might have glossed over the significance of this question. However, I think that this idea is crucial to the success or failure of the greater push, from MRAs, Fathers Rights, Truthers, and other Freedom lovers in general, to restore liberty and true justice to this Republic for us, and for our generations to come.

For example, did you know that you can have Natural Rights as opposed to Civil Rights [1][2]?

Are we fighting for the Natural Right to have and hold our children, free from government interference, or are we ASKING the government to please be nice nice and allow us to have the right to be with them?

Did you know that you can be a Natural Person versus an Artificial Person (corporation)?

Do Artificial Persons have Constitutional rights can be upheld and respected in all places and all times, regardless of public opinion, in the family courts of law? Or are we subject to whatever privileges that our various government units decide to hand out to us?

If we look to the Federalist Papers no. 10:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

Do we live in a society where the Rights of an unpopular "minority," i.e. Men, are respected? The answer to that question is obvious.

My point with this is that if we were truly Natural Persons with Natural Rights, as the Founding Fathers proscribed, then the Rights of Man to be a part of their own families would be on much stronger grounds than they are today.

Something isn't right here.

Moving on, did you know that Black persons are not, yesterday and today, under the Constitution, Natural Persons with Natural Rights, and that there is such a thing as different classes of Citizens vs. citizens?

From Dred Scott v. Sanford:

3. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the record must show that the case is one in which, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the court had jurisdiction -- and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court -- and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guaranteed to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.

8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens, as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State...

... The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them...

... In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States...

Just where am I going with this? you may wonder.

Simply this... there are differing legal definitions of citizenship: one group being Sovereign, and the other being dependent upon Civil Rights that can be given, and taken away, by legislature, executive order, or judicial decree.

Does it now make sense why so many laws dealing with Black people and other minorities deal with the issue of Civil Rights?

Taking this a bit farther, it may be true that, with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment [1][2], that all American persons might just be in the Civil Rights, not the Natural Rights crowd.

A partial reading of the text:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let's take a closer look at:

privilege

n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.

immunity

n. exemption from penalties, payments or legal requirements, granted by authorities or statutes. Generally there are three types of immunity at law: a) a promise not to prosecute for a crime in exchange for information or testimony in a criminal matter, granted by the prosecutors, a judge, a grand jury or an investigating legislative committee; b) public officials' protection from liability for their decisions (like a city manager or member of a public hospital board); c) governmental (or sovereign) immunity, which protects government agencies from lawsuits unless the government agreed to be sued; d) diplomatic immunity which excuses foreign ambassadors from most U.S. criminal laws.

The question is then... WHERE IN THIS AMENDMENT DOES IT STATE THAT ALL U.S. CITIZENS HAVE NATURAL, CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS?

This is an important question, and one to which I plan on devoting more time and study in order to answer it.

We as MRAs and Truthseekers complain loudly about all of the numerous violations of our basic, God given, Constitutional rights that feminist groups and others trample underfoot. But what if we are literally barking up the wrong tree? What if we are dealing with a different political animal than what we have been led to believe?

If we are dealing with a Civil Rights vs. Natural Rights issue, shouldn't our efforts go towards amending our Constitutions to secure NATURAL, INALIENABLE RIGHTS for all citizens, instead of begging our legislatures and courts to throw us a bone?

Needless to say, I don't have all the answers to these questions I've just proposed. Much more study on my part will be needed before I can begin to offer a clearer answer.

However, picking up Mr. Baskerville's work is a good place to start. We need to know our enemy, as much as they know themselves, or we have no hope of winning the most important battle facing Western Civilization today, Securing the Rights of all free men to their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.

Kumo out.