Problems with Modern Written "Constitution" Documents:

Our nations original "Articles of Confederation" did not make the arrogant claim as to be "The Constitution" for this nation. That idea was "Invented" during the 1787 Philadelphia convention, by powerful and self-serving people, in order to more effectively Entrench that Documents Status as a "Supreme Governing Document" which Must Be "Blindly Obeyed" by the generally trusting common American People, and by their Elected Representatives. It gave a theoretical Reason for Oppressive Policies. "Because the Constitution Says So", was to be the "Boiler-Plate Excuse" of the next generation of governmental power-abusing aristocrats. There-under; "Reasoning", in open and public forums, such as court-rooms, was "No Longer Required".

In the Mad Rush to gain Colorable "Adoption" of that so-called "U.S. Constitution" document, many passages were purposefully included there-in which contained specific words which were in Conflict with other more honorable passages there-in. The indulgence of the "Slave-Trade" is one example. In order to effect their military-like campaign with greater efficiency and speed, those same Conspirators also Included Purposefully Ambiguous Terms in their so-called "U.S. Constitution" document. This enabled them to more quickly and efficiently bamboozle the more honorable members of that Convention into abandoning their natural opposition to the adoption of that power-centralizing document. Thankfully; the more honorable members of that Convention not only insisted on numerous more positive words being inserted into that document, but they also gained the insertion of numerous complete passages and concepts there-in. How-ever; this resulted in a very chaotic and dis-
organized supreme national governing document; although thankfully, it did very significantly obstruct the "Hostile Take-Over" Intent of the Conspirators.

Here-under; even under that largely corrupted written "U.S. Constitution" document; Many very "Good Laws" can be found, mostly from the "Bill of Rights", which Authorize the Common American People, and their Representatives, to use their Consciences and Reasoning abilities, to Effect Returns to the More Fundamental, Principle-based, and Natural/Organic Laws upon which our nation was truly founded. This is a Critically Important Point to remember; because that largely corrupted "U.S. Constitution" document does not give concerned and true modern American Constitutionalists very much wiggle-room to work in our efforts to effect returns to our truly "Fundamental American Natural/Organic-Law".

And so; when examining the various conflicting Governmental Structural-Organization Concepts and Social-Policies which may be found to have been included in that allegedly supreme national governing document, it should be expected that continuing "Debate" Will Un-Fold concerning Which of those Conflicting Organizational-Concepts and Social-Policies our nation's Governmental Office-Holders and Body-Politic should Follow. Here-under, true patriotic Americans need to repeatedly and emphatically Advocate Only those Few truly "Fundamental Principles" of our American Nation's supreme written governing document which Actually "Work" to Secure "Justice", "domestic Tranquility" (Peace), "common defense", "general Welfare", and "Liberty"; "for ourselves and our Posterity"; all as agreed in that document's "Preamble" to be our American Nations "Constitutional Priority". Truly Honorable and Patriotic Americans Must Actively Support Only traditionally recognizable "Workable-Pathways" for Securing Justice, Safety, Peace, and Happiness for the larger Body-Politic of our Common American People. This is the "Moral High Ground" up-on which All Truly Honorable and Patriotic Americans Must Entrench.

It is worthy to note here that the adoption of the written so-called "U.S. Constitution" document was, in large-part, a "Departure" from those traditionally-recognizable "Workable Pathways" for securing Justice, Safety, and Peace, for the common people. This is true because our American People's traditionally-recognizable Source of "Constitutional-Law" came from the nation of England. The vast majority of the people who founded and established this nation were from England. Our Nation's Founders already had laid down amongst them-selves a pre-existing and traditional body of Organic "Constitutional-Law", which they Voluntarily "Consented to be Governed" by; because they all recognized that this body of law was profoundly efficient at Securing Justice, Safety, and Peace, for them-selves and for their neighbors. These were the "Norms of Behavior" which they and their ancestors had been practicing since "Beyond Legal-Memory"1.

As under that old body of English Law; in modern England still, the word "Constitution" indicates a "Generally Recognized Principle" or Socially-Organic "Moving Target"; similar to "Justice", "Reasonableness", "Truth", or "Peace". In and of itself, no written document could reasonably boast to be the full embodiment of those very high Principles. Under these General Principles of English Law, it could be proper to declare a written document to be "Constitutional", because those words would simply declare it to be "Truthful", "Peaceful", "Just" or "Reasonable". Similarly; America's Founders could correctly apply all of those words to the "Declaration of Independence", and to the "Articles of Confederation"; because those documents were traditionally-
recognizable as being basically Harmonious with these General and Fundamental Principles of Good Government.

But to claim that, in and of itself, any specific written document Was a "Constitution"; would be similar to declaring that that document it-self Was "Truth", "Reason", "Justice", and/or "Peace". Under these then generally-accepted Definitions of these English-Law based terms, such a bold proposition were Not at all "Workable". The Heroes who Organized Americas Revolution did not dare to play any such word-games with the documents which they were then asking their proud early American neighbors and friends to "consent to be governed" by. Any such wording would be immediately and correctly have been seen as being intended to un-justifiably thwart the ability of the various general community-counsels in their ability to chart their own smaller community's path-ways of de-centralized responsible self-governing. That was the precise essence of what they were all trying to get away from under the defacto English monarch. At that point in time, any such use of the term "Constitution" to indicate a supreme written governing document would have been suicidal for the individual leader so advocating it. Being governed by such power-centralizing documents and policies would have been little different from continuing to exist under the defacto English monarch. It certainly would not have been worth fighting and dying for in the American Revolutionary War; merely there-after to be again be coercively governed by the similarly un-reasonable, un-justifiable, and non-consent-based, power-centralizing policies which would inherently be necessary, in order to enforce compliance with any such an allegedly supreme written national governing document.

When it came time for the First American Heroes to compose a generally-issuing document which articulated more clearly than the "Declaration of Independence", the general parameters with-in which they envisioned the future "Free Government" for our nation to operate; their organic body-
politic of delegates assembled and composed our nations first formal governing document, which was entitled the "Articles of Confederation". Like the "Declaration", the "Articles" honorably and responsibly Continued along under the Same general body of Traditionally Recognizable "Fundamental Principles" of un-written but justifiable and reasonable Organic "Constitutional-Laws" of "Free Government". These were the Same "Fundamental Principles" which those First American Heroes had fought and died for in the "Revolutionary War", in order to accomplish the end-goal of throwing-off the "Despotism" of the defacto English Monarch, and there-after of securing their lasting general "Liberty" .

Both the "Declaration" and the "Articles" were little more than "Memorandums of Understanding". As had already been clearly articulated in our nations organic/constitutional "Declaration of Independence"; the "Articles" were firmly based on the concept of the "Consent of the Governed". They were both designed essentially to be "Un-Enforceable Pledges" amongst "Honorable Communities of Men", which Non-Coercively Obligated them, upon their Honor and general Reputations in their communities, to act together for their own mutually-collective protection and benefit.

As the "Preamble" and the "Bill of Rights" clearly show, the Retaining of the "Pre-Existing Fundamental-Law" was written into many specific Provisions of the written 1789 supreme national governing document. Indeed, and as the above citations show; that document could not have framed any logical-reasonable basis for its bold claim to be a "Constitution" for the people who organically compose this nation, unless it retained at least some of these "Pre-Existing Fundamental-Laws". Examples of Conflicts with those "Fundamental-Laws" are to be found in the poorly reasoned adoption of the "Bi-Cameral Congressional-Assemblies" and the "Separation of Powers" Doctrine. Those doctrines can Not be shown to be any part of these "Pre-Existing Fundamental-Laws"; which formed the basis of our nations True Organic Anglo-American "Constitutional-Law". They were then "Invented", just prior to the 1787 - 1789 Conventions, and then sold to the American People, through one of the most high-pressured propaganda campaigns in our nations history.

How-ever; it is note-worthy that, in modern times, the authors of Black's Law Dictionary (which does seem to make compromises in other areas) praise-worthily have continued to retain these more true and honest Definitions of such critically important words as "Constitution". This citation, as quoted below here-in; from this modern and reputable law-dictionary, shows clearly that the basic term "Constitution" has not been changed by the adoption of the written "U.S. Constitution" document. If that piece of paper document as composed in 1789, actually was "The Constitution" of our American nation; then it would make no sense at all to refer to "Constitutional-Law" as "Organic-Law", as is done in the "Black's Law Dictionary" citation above.

This indicates that America's Fundamental/Organic Law is still the Same as it was between 1776 and 1789! This indicates that, even under modern American "Constitutional Law", that any and all specific provisions in that allegedly supreme written governing document which can be clearly proven to be "In Conflict" with the Fundamental/Organic General-Principles of Law upon which our American Nation was truly founded, are actually "Un-Constitutional", and they can and should be surgically-removed there-from.

If one reviews the definitions of "Lex-Non-Scripta" and "Lex-Scripta" from "Black's Law Dictionary", quoted above; it will be seen there-in that documents which purport to command the blind-obedience of men, are Not "Common-Law" Documents; but rather they may accurately be classified as Roman-based "Civil-Law" Documents. This is true because commands of "Blind Obedience" are the Central-Characteristic of the Roman-based "Civil-Law", as shown from the citations in the previous chapter.

A bit of contemplation reveals that the Roman-based "Civil-Law", and its heavy reliance on Written "Codes" of Human Conduct, are specifically Designed to Promote "Class Divisions". Here-
under; there is a Larger general Confused Mass of Oppressed Population; and an opposing and comparatively Small class of Well-Rewarded "Privileged People", an artificial and un-natural aristocratic class2, in position to command obedience from the larger and confused masses. This is precisely how the artificial/un-natural aristocrats prefer for human society to be organized. Mechanisms such as this have been in place since very ancient times, and the un-natural aristocracy prefers it to remain that way, and written codes of human conduct are one of their most highly-evolved weapons for psychological-warfare in convincing the confused masses that they must blindly obey the commands of the un-natural aristocratic classes.

Under the "Articles of Confederation", the collective members of the General Congressional Assembly could exercise both the Judicial and Executive powers. They could form Juries, follow ancient common-law "Due Process of Law" to issue "Warrants of Arrest", and organize the "Peace Officers" and Executive Personnel necessary to directly march there-from, so-as-to Execute any and all such arrest warrants. This was obviously a very large amount of Power to be placed under the direct control of the peoples elected delegates. They could move in any direction that "Due Process of Law" and the "Course of Justice" might lead them. Un-Natural Aristocrat Classes, who were in the habit of pillaging and plundering the common masses of the general population, might be held to an accounting at any time. What-ever their defects, the un-natural aristocratic classes are not stupid. They could see the hand-writing on the wall. And so they organized to obstruct the empowerment of the peoples delegates, as it then existed, under the "Articles of Confederation".

Here-under; close examination reveals that: that allegedly supreme written national governing document was actually a "Compromise" between: the supporters of the truly Fundamental Natural/Organic Principles for the Lawful Governing of our American nation; and some Powerful "Private Interest Groups" which were Actively Hostile to those Natural/Organic Fundamental Principles. This "Compromise" was proposed by these Powerful Hostile Forces, because they believed, correctly, that once the American People became Alienated from those Fundamental Principles, then the American People would become Easy Targets for the Schemes of of Pillage and Plunder which those Hostile Forces had been seeking in legacy since ancient times.

Here-under; the main authors of the so-called Written "U.S. Constitution" document, as composed in Philadelphia between 1787 and 1789, had become "Morally Compromised"; and there-
under, they had under-taken to "Re-Define" the Pre-Existing Term "Constitution", in order to alienate it from its Principle based Natural/Organic Common-Law Roots, and to give it a rigid, un-organic, and Coercive implication. This activity was under-taken in closed-door and secretive session, out-side of then-existing principle-based organic/fundamental "Constitutional-Law", all for the explicit purpose of subjecting the American People to a form of Romanistic, Municipal Franchise-based Private-Interest-
Group Serving, Corporate Government; which could be used, slowly and incrementally, to progressively escalate to higher and higher levels of pillage and plunder of the Organic Body-Politic of the American People.

Further here-under; the Conspirators who were most powerfully-influential at the so-called "Constitutional Convention", in 1787; sought to quickly, belligerently, and Lawlessly Rush-Through at least a Colorable "Adoption" of their so-called "Constitution" document. Those Conspirators knew that the more Honorable Delegates to that "Convention" were coming up-to-speed quickly in recognizing the Conspirators "Malicious Intent", and there-under those more Honorable Delegates would soon begin Organizing to successfully Resist their Conspiratorial scheme. Any such successful Resistance would result in the Conspirators being forced from their positions of political power and wealth, and to then get their hands dirty by doing honest labor, just like the rest of the American People. To them, that was clearly an un-acceptable proposition. And so, those Conspirators were, self-servingly, in a Big "Rush" to have their document "Adopted", Before the more Honorable Delegates of the People's States could Organize any Opposition to their "Hostile-Take-Over" Scheme. Here-under, and with militarily-efficient pre-planning, the entire Convention and Adoption of the so-
called "Constitution" document, was Lawlessly "Rushed Through", before potential opposition from the more honorable but under-prepared delegates could be accomplished.

The entire subject of the Lawless Adoption of the 1789 Written "U.S. Constitution" document, and of its conflicting relation with our nation's true natural/organic law and "Articles of Confederation"; is not the subject of this document; and further detailed discussion is presented in an accompanying document composed by this same author, and entitled "The Un-Constitutional Nature of the 'U.S. Constitution" document.

Holding Public-Servants to an Accountability:

The Natural, Organic, and Constitutional-Law up-on which our nation is based, have solidified specific sociological rules and "norms of behavior", which are specifically designed for Identifying and Defending our organic-community body-politic from Socially "Violent", "Parasitical", or other-
wise Dangerous People. The smallest communities of life-forms on this planet will defend them-
selves against hostile invaders. Even single-celled organisms, like the "amoeba", will defend them-
selves from hostile invaders. Schools of fish and flocks of birds will defend them-selves from hostile invaders. This author believes that every community of humans which has ever existed on his planet, has organized some kind of force-administering capabilities, to defend it-self from hostile invaders. This is a Natural, Organic, and Fundamental "Law", which applies to All Communities of people, not just to Americans.

The fashionable mis-conception is that if the American people are being Abused by Despotic Public-Servants; then their Only Remedy is either to Wait until the Next Election and "Vote them Out of Office", or to attempt to convince both houses of their state or national legislature to "Impeach" that corrupted public-officer, or perhaps to bring a criminal complaint to the district attorney or attorney general, who in turn may or may not decide to prosecute on behalf of the complaining party. All of these mechanisms are monumentally Cumbersome and Inefficient in serving "Justice", or the true organic body-politic needs of the American People.

How-ever; even our nation's seriously-compromised written national "U.S. Constitution" document still recognizes and preserves to "We the People", "Other Remedies", through the "Judicial" Process, which are (designed to be) much More Efficient at removing Corrupted Public-Servants from Office. These Remedies may be contemplated as "Tools of Law" for Identifying and Removing from our organic body-politic all "Hostile Invaders", even those who masquerade among us as "Public-
Servants". Here-under, and upon the filing of a proper complaint in a court of law, all "Public-
Servants" may be Forced to Answer for the Manner in which they are Operating the Public-Offices which they have been en-trusted to control. In America, No Person is "Above the Law", Including "Public-Servants"; and even the aristocratic provisions built into our Written "U.S. Constitution" document, and its later power-centralizing post-civil-war "Amendments", did not destroy that.

Before proceeding to the core of this idea, it is good to review some more fundamental concepts, so that a sharply-defined Focus of the subject at hand may be presented. Here-under, and as previously quoted; Each American Constitutional "Body-Politic" has been Organically Drawn-
Together for the Singular Purpose of "the Defense of Their Rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners". This is the Singular Purpose for the Formation of the Constitutional Social-Compacts of our American Nation (both Un-Written and Written). This is true at the Federal, State, and All Lower Levels of Government. This is Clear from the Prioritized Position of the term "Justice" in the very "Preambles" of Both the Federal and State Written "Constitution" Documents.

Under these "Social-Compacts", the Constitutionally-Recognizable "Rights of the People" are the "Top Priority". These "Rights of the People" are to be secured by the Lawful "State". To further support these conclusions, it is good to look to the definition of the term "Right", as follows:

"Right: As a Noun, and taken in the abstract sense, means justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In this signification it answers to one meaning of the Latin "jus", and serves to indicate law in the abstract, considered as the foundation of all rights, or the complex of underlying moral principles which impart the character of justice to all positive law, or give it ethical content. ... And the primal rights pertaining to men ... existing prior to positive law. But leaving the abstract moral sphere and giving to the term a juristic content, a "right" is well defined as 'a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of others'. As an adjective, the term 'right' means just, morally correct, constant with ethical principles or rules of positive law. It is the opposite of wrong, unjust, illegal. ... A legally enforceable claim of one person against another, that the other shall do a given act or not do a given act. That which one person ought to have or receive from another, it being with held from him, or not in his possession. In this sense, 'right' has the force of 'claim', and is properly expressed by the Latin 'jus'. ... Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and depend upon civilized society; ... they are those which are plainly assured by natural law; ... those which, by fair deduction from the present physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him.

(Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition)

In all of these authoritative sources, we find that Anglo-American Jurisprudence considers the term "State" to invoke a Socially-Compacted Relationship where-under specific Individual Members who Solemnly Affirm that they have Suffered a Crime, are Guaranteed the Right to "Control ... Others" ... by way of their "Relationship" with the "State", until that Accusation has been Fully Resolved. Here-under, Logic Dictates that they will not be able to "Control" those "Others", Unless they can also Control the "Public-Servants" of that "State".

When a Member of the "Social-Compact" is Directly and Physically Injured by a Criminal Act, it is an Injury To Every-Other Member of that Socially-Compacted Community. It is a "Breach of the Peace", a "Trespass", a "Common-Law Crime" of "Malum in Se", aka: "a Wrong in It's-Self". All Members of such communities are Bound-Together under the Terms of this "Social-Compact", to Defend the Rights of Each-Other against all such Physical Crimes. It is like banging your thumb with a hammer. When one member of the body suffers pain, all other true members of that same body sympathetically and empathetically feel that same pain. These are Natural/Organic "Laws", and they are the Same for All Organic "Bodies-Politic", and they are the Same for All "Constitutional States". This is Why the above citations indicate that "Organic Law" is the same as "Constitutional-Law".

In order for these powerful concepts to be respected, immense amounts of power need to be placed in the hands of the common people. True to these Higher Principles of "Law", our American System of Constitutional Government, even under the "U.S. Constitution" document and its "Amendments", still recognizes well that this immense amount of power is truly "Inherent" in the common American People. This point is set forth well in the following citation:

"And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law - the 'Lawmakers being the People themselves', in whom under Our System All Political Power and Sovereignty primarily Resides, and through whom such Power and Sovereignty primarily Speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess.

The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the people of the United States', it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution ...'. Ordain and Establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with dignity and character of law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but provided explicitly - 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... 'The supremacy of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification.

That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance to the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the supreme law and reject the inferior statute whenever the two conflict."

Carpenter v. Carter, 298 US 296 (1935)

This citation emphasizes clearly the great power and authority which resides in the common American People. It also states that "a judicial tribunal * * * (is) required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, ...". Here-under, the Judges before whom any accompanying complaint have been presented, are "Required" to "Ascertain and Apply the Law to the Facts" of the Complaint, directly against those Individuals named there-in. Another citation in support of all of this, is the following:

"We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, then to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."

U.S. v. Will, ... 1980; Cohens v. Virginia, ... 1821.

These are clearly very powerful citations. They clearly recognize that, under True American Constitutional-Law, immense amounts of power are inherent in each and every American, and that Judges and other Public-Servants have "Duties" to Follow American Constitutional-Law, and if they willfully dis-obey their Duties there-under, they can be Prosecuted for Criminal Abuse of Public Office, up to and including "Treason".

These "Laws" tend to indicate, that, When-Ever Any Public-Servant Acts Out-Side of his or her Constitutionally-Lawful scope of Authority, they have "No Protections" for their constitutionally-
lawless actions. This is a Fundamental Principle of American Constitutional-Law; and it has been summarized more from a large number of differing reputable citations, more sharply, into the following single citation:

"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.

Such an unconstitutional law is void, ((and when-ever colorably enacted)) the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed 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 land, it is superseded thereby.

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

"The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudged unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility... Daniel Webster, James Otis, and Sir Edward Coke, all pointed out that the mere fact of enactment does not and cannot raise mere statutes to the standing of law. Not everything which may pass under the form of statutory enactment can be considered the Law of the Land."

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257; (Pages: 547 & 177?)

Please note that this reputable and prominent citation from "American Jurisprudence", is phrased in terms which pre-suppose that some judge, or other public-servant or agent, is acting in basic good-faith, with no obvious malicious-intent, as he acts in ignorance to enforce a statute which is constitutionally un-lawful, and where-by he Violates the Constitutionally-Secured Rights of a free and sovereign American. Yet, as stated there-in; the "Law" still provides that such a Public-Servant has "No Protections" from attempts to hold him to a "Criminal Responsibility" for any damage which he does to innocent Americans, for any violations of their Constitutionally-Secured Rights, even though he had some color of authority under an un-constitutional but lawlessly-enacted statute. Here-under; such an ignorant judge may be compared to a "Drunken Driver", who has ignorantly driven his automobile, and killed someone. The man should have been smart enough to not drive his car when he was drunk, and it is "Reckless Negligence" if he does drive while he is drunk, and if he does kill or other-wise damage innocent Americans, then he can be held "Criminally Liable" for such recklessly-
negligent and potentially-lethal behavior.

Please note further; that, neither Legislative Assemblies nor Executive Officers have any constitutionally recognizable authority to Judicially Decide whether or not any such "Criminal Responsibility" should be enforced against such a constitution-violating public-servant. Such issues are to be resolved by the "Judicial" authorities of this nation, alone. It is only through the Constitutionally-Lawful exercise of this "Judicial Power" that such a public-servant can Lawfully be held to a "Criminal Responsibility" for his damage to such a free and sovereign American. This "Criminal Responsibility" is the precise phrase declared applicable against such public-servants in the above quoted and very authoritative text from "American Jurisprudence". And the only way for that to happen, under American constitutional-law; is if there is a "Criminal-Complaint" sworn-out by some natural/real American person.

If "Un-Constitutionality Dates from the Time of (the) Enactment" of any such "Un-
Constitutional Statute", then logic and reason dictate that When these same Public-Servants Begin Acting in Criminal-Conspiracy, with-out even having any tinge of color of statutory authority (as will frequently be the conditions alleged in complaints in accompaniment here-to); then surely logic and reason dictate that, under "Law", From the very Moment in which these very same Public-Servants Begin Acting in any such "Criminal-Conspiracy", Then They Begin Acting with "No Protection" from the "Criminal Responsibilities", which necessarily accompany the Crimes in which they are then engaging. This is a critically-important and pivotal point, which is touched on repeatedly in other accompanying memorandum and complaint documents. This point needs to be kept firmly in mind at every moment when any criminal prosecution against any corrupted public-servant is being contemplated.

Another important citation which will present a nicely rounded-out historical context of these boldly un-orthodox (and un-civilized) ideas, is here provided from a book which has else-where here-
in had different text quoted from it, and which book is entitled: "Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the United States"; by John Dickenson.3 The new text quoted from this book valuable reads as follows:

"The multiplication in recent years of public bodies like public service commissions and industrial accident boards, accompanied by vesting of ampler powers in health officers, building inspectors, and the like, has raised anew for our law, after three centuries, the problem of executive justice. That government officials should assume the traditional function of courts of law, and be permitted to determine the rights of individuals, is a development so out of line with the supposed path of our legal growth as to challenge renewed attention to certain underlying principles of our jurisprudence. ...

In the age of Coke such questions as these arose in connection with what has since been called "executive justice." To-day the term "executive" seems fitted to a narrower need, and "administrative justice" suggests itself a better name for the broader current legal development. ...

The introduction of administrative justice has encountered in our constitutional doctrine of the "separation of powers" a barrier which has been evaded only by the invention of a new set of glaring legal fictions embodied in such words as "quasi-legislative," "quasi-judicial," and the like. To review the development of these fictions would supply an instructive commentary on an important branch of American constitutional law, but it would not shed helpful light on the more fundamental problems presented by the substitution of administrative justice for adjudication by courts of law. These problems reach below the special limitations of American constitutional law and turn up for inspection some of the deepest principles of the Anglo-
American legal system.

In Anglo-American jurisprudence, government and the law have always in a sense stood opposed to each other; the law has been rather something to give the citizen a check on the government than an instrument to give the government control over citizens. There is a famous phrase, which has long been attributed to Bracton, ... that "the king has a superior, to whit, the law; and if he be without a bridle, a bridle ought to be put on him, namely, the law." This "rule of law" as Dicey calls it, or "supremacy of law," in Libeler's phrase, has uniformly been treated as the central and most characteristic feature of Anglo-American juristic habit; and nothing has been held more fundamental to the supremacy of law than the right of every citizen to bring the action of government officials to trial in the ordinary courts of the common law. That government officials, on the contrary, should themselves assume to preform the functions of a law court and determine the rights of individuals, as is the case under a system of administrative justice, has been traditionally felt to be inconsistent with the supremacy of law. It was the ground of attack on the Court of Star Chamber, in the days when the Chancellor was still mainly an administrative officer of the King. Lieber mentions freedom from "government by commissions," and from the jurisdiction of executive courts, as one of the elements of Anglo-
American Liberty. ...

The orthodox doctrine of the supremacy of law has been stated by Dicey as including two principles: "It means in the first place that no man can lawfully be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary courts of the land." It mans in the second place "that no man is above the law, but that every man, whatever his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm, and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals . . . With us, every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen."4

"In short, every citizen is entitled, first, to have his rights adjudicated in a regular common-law court, and, secondly, to call into question in such a court the legality of any act done by an administrative official." ...

"The substantive difference between administrative procedure and the procedure by law is that the administrative tribunals decide controversies coming before them, not by fixed rules of law, but by the application of governmental discretion or policy.

It is this last point which is of capital interest here. The competition between administrative & legal justice, is ... a phase of the age-old struggle between discretion and fixed rule, between vouops and ekleiakela, between equity and the strict law."

In so far as administrative adjudication is coming in certain fields to take the place of adjudication by law courts, the supremacy of law as formulated in Dicey's first proposition is overridden. But a possible way of escaping this result is left open by his second proposition. An administrative determination is an act of a governmental officer or officers; and if it be true that all the acts of such officers are subject to be questioned in the courts, it is then possible to have the issue of any questionable administrative adjudication raised and decided anew in a law court, with the special advantages guarantees of the procedure at law. We see here the reason why the question of court review of administrative determinations has become of such central importance and has been the focus of so much discussion since the rise of the administrative procedure. For just so far as administrative determinations are subject to court review, a means exists for maintaining the supremacy of law, though at one remove and as a sort of secondary line of defense. The special advantages of the administrative procedure may be substantially retained, while at the same time, in a given case, the result can be brought to the test of the procedure at law. Administrative justice exists in defiance of the supremacy of law only in so far as administrative adjudications are final and conclusive, and not subject to correction by a law court."

As is clearly implied through Mr Dickenson's text above, and numerous other sources quoted here-in; the "Rule of Law" is Supreme in our democratic American Constitutional Republic, and it clearly declares that when-ever any corrupted public-servant acts in any obviously malicious criminal-
conspiracy to abuse the Constitutionally-Secured Rights of the American People, then these very same Abused American People Have the Constitutionally-Secured Right to Directly File and Prosecute Criminal-Complaints against that corrupted public-servant. This is the "Rule of Law", where-under Everyone, including "Public-Servants", can be brought to an Accountability, under Equal Application of the Laws. Here-under; No One is "Above the Law", and that especially includes "Public Servants". This is what Mr Dickenson has clearly stated in his text above, and that text is an accurate summary of how the "Rule of Law" functions in our American Constitutional Republic.

Mr Dickenson's text above out-lines well this larger general policy that our American Constitutional System of "Law" Demands that this Immense Power be placed in the hands of each and every American. And the deeper constitutional authorities which he cites, such as from Dicey and Libeler; further support this bold but modernly unfashionable concept. And when coupled with the text previously set forth in this document, which illustrates the fundamental principles of "Natural Law" up-on which our entire American nation is based; and also, later in this document, when considering our constitutional history, going back to the Anglo-Saxons and to ancient Israel; then this larger historical and natural-law philosophical perspective does clearly reveal that the Fundamental Principles of our American Constitutional-Law do truly place this immense amount of Power in the hands of Individual Members of our organic American body-politic.

A powerful citation which illustrates how this "Common-Law Process" is preserved to every modern American, is set forth in the following U.S. Supreme Court case-law precedent, which is entitled "Beacon Theaters Vs. Westover"5, as follows:

"the Court of Appeals held it was not an abuse of discretion for the district judge, ... to try the equitable cause first even though this might, through collateral estoppel, prevent a full jury trial of the counterclaim and cross-claim which were as effectively stopped as by an equity injunction. ... the use of discretion by the trial court under Rule 42(b) to deprive Beacon of a full jury trial on its counterclaim and cross-claim, as well as on Fox's plea for declaratory relief, cannot be justified. ... Thus any defenses, equitable or legal, Fox may have to charges of antitrust violations can be raised ... in answer to Beacon's counterclaim. ... By contrast, the holding of the court below ... would compel Beacon to split his antitrust case, trying part to a judge & part to a jury. Such ... is not permissible.

Our decision is consistent with the plan ... to effect substantial procedural reform while retaining a distinction between jury and nonjury issues and leaving substantive rights unchanged. Since in the federal courts equity has always acted only when legal remedies were inadequate, the expansion of adequate legal remedies ... necessarily affects the scope of equity. ... This is not only in accord with the spirit of the Rules and the Act but is required by the provision in the Rules that '(t)he right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution ... shall be preserved ... inviolate. ...

Since the right to jury trial is a constitutional one, however, while no similar requirement protects trials by the court, that discretion is very narrowly limited and must, wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial. ... 'In the Federal courts this (jury) right cannot be dispensed with ... nor can it be impaired by any blending with a claim, properly cognizable at law, of a demand for equitable relief ... ."

There is another article available on the reputable web-page of FindLaw.Com, which explains in much greater detail, and in very clear terms, how this Beacon Theaters Vs Westover case, and others, all fit together to Support the Right of Every American to access this Common-Law Jury-Trial process. The arguments set forth in that article are incorporated by reference into this document. The web page containing that full article is here: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment07/02.html

Under these very reputable and accurate citations, it should be clear to the reader, that, even under the modern judicial process of the current civil government, and even with all of its emergency war-powers declarations in place which have largely alienated average Americans from their natural-
law and common-law rights, even under these modernly adverse conditions; this modern reputable case-law and constitutional-interpretation still recognizes, that, if a properly articulated common-law complaint is alleged, and jury-trial is there-in demanded, that these complaints and demands place lawful requirements on acting civil governmental judges to facilitate originally-intended Seventh Amendment common-law jury-trial process.

Please note that the Seventh Amendment used the phrase "Common-Law", Twice; and that in light of the reference in the last above-quoted sentence from the Beacon case to: "claim, properly cognizable at law"; that here-under, through their wording "at law", the supreme court is obviously referring to a "Common-Law action". This means that the word "Law", when used in the context of judicial or court-room complaints, Means "Common-Law". This means when the words "Court of Law" are used, that such words should properly be construed to mean Courts which follow "the rules of the common-law", or more precisely as: "Common-Law Courts". The general Priority which the Beacon case above assigns to these "claims, ... cognizable at law", and to the jury-trial process which is to be there-by facilitated, is clearly harmonious and supportive of this general proposition that: the general body of the "rules of the common-law" are the only body of government sponsored social-
behavior regulating guide-lines which can honestly be said to be "Lawful". The previously here-in presented general body of quotations from "Blacks Law Dictionary" similarly lends vast support to these precise conclusions. And since our American Constitutional-Law is generally recognized as the "Supreme Law"; here-under, it is accurate to Summarize all of these insights through the statement that "True 'Constitutional-Law' Is Only 'Common-Law'". This leaves honest investigators confronting the cold and heard conclusion, that, all of these other "Equity" and "Administrative" modes of court-
room proceedings, may also be more accurately identified as "Un-Constitutional" modes of court-room procedure.

There is such a very larger body of reputable citations pointing in this precise direction, as here-in cited; and such a vacuum of any evidence to the contrary; that honest investigators will surely find that their Consciences Demand that This is "The Only Conclusion" which they may honestly arrive at.

Here-under, and for "cause shown"; Constituents of Any Public Servant have a Constitutional Right to Bring an "Action at Law" to Remove Any Public-Servant from the Office which they hold; and also to Name Another Individual to Replace him in their complaint. When such a complaint is successfully prosecuted, the successful litigant has the Right to move that Court to Direct any Executive Personnel available to use "What-Ever Force is Necessary" in order to Force a Change in the Physical Possession of that Public Office. This is an ages-old Lawful American Constitutional Process which is "Due" to each and every Constituent in the body-politic/community in question. Here-under; this Process has traditionally been recognized as "Due Process of Law"; and "Courts of Law", and the Judges there-in have a Constitutionally Required "Duty" to Facilitate the Full Adjudication of these forms of Complaints.

The specific Sub-Category of "Due Process of Law" and Common-Law which provides for this very powerful Remedy is known by two different names, which are: "Writ of Quo Warranto", and also as "State Ex Rel" Process. These two names mean basically the same thing. The "Writ of Quo Warranto" was a "Writ" from the pre American Revolution England days, and it was a Tool where-by the King of England could Invoke Judicial Proceedings to Remove the "Civil-Servants" of the kingdom from the Offices which they held. There-in; the King could Demand that Civil-Servants Answer in Court the related question of "By What Warrant" they had acted or not acted in certain manners, and if they did not answer in manners which pleased him, then they were promptly removed from the office which they held. At the American Revolution, that and all other Kingly Authority "Descended" down to each and every one of our "American People". Here-under; Each of "We the People" now all have the Lawful Right to Call All "Public-Servants" to an Accounting for their Official Behavior, through basically this Same "Quo-Warranto" process. Even though it centralized power in the hands of the King, this "Quo-Warranto" process was basically referred to in late England as a "Common-Law Process".

The American civil/statutory term for the same process, is "State-Ex-Rel" process. This is clearly an American "Statutory" wording, which is based on our previously quoted definition of the word "State"; and where-under (please remember) the "State Is the People", and the "People" are "Bound Together by Common-Law Habits and Customs". So, when these two word-phrases are contemplated and compared from the different angles which each of them demand, and their true "Essential Purpose" of "holding Public Servants to Accountability" through Judicial Proceedings is then recognized; then further here-under, it quickly becomes obvious that these two phrases are actually referring to exactly the "Same Thing".

Current Oregon Supreme Court Case-Law, and other reputable sources, all say that these two phrases mean precisely the same thing. There is so much more information available concerning this "Quo-Warranto" and "State-Ex-Rel" Process, and it is of such great importance in modern efforts of honorably concerned Americans to bring desperately-needed Accountability through Judicial Proceedings against Corrupted Public Servants, that a Separate Memorandum/Document has been composed by this author for that purpose. That memorandum/document is probably in accompaniment with this document, and it is entitled as: "Quo-Warranto for the Common People". This document may also be referred to as this author's "Quo-Warranto Memorandum"; and it explains this entire very powerful Constitutional Process in exhaustive detail.6 That document is much shorter than this document, but it should be read in conjunction with this document, because this document provides a lot of supportive detail, which is not as fully explored in that document.7

Deeper Sources of Under-Lying Problems:

The modernly fashionable habit of Regulating Social Behavior through Coercing People into Following Civil "Statutes", causes the Honest Common People to who seek the protections of that so-
called "Law", into being forced to go scurrying about to Lawyers and/or Judges, in their frantic Search for authoritative Guidance and Direction in their very important legal decisions. In turn; those Lawyers and/or Judges frequently merely open stature or case-law precedent citation books, to read some pre-determined, pre-formatted, and possibly obsolete solution to the current problem sought to be resolved.

The thought that the Common People might responsibly use their "Consciences" in conjunction with their natural ability to "Reason" about how Sociological "Natural-Law" might apply to the current situation, is usually not even considered. When a Society collectively forms a Heavy Reliance on those Civil "Statutes" and Civil Case–Law "Precedent", the Individual Members of that Society will collectively and progressively Loose their collective ability to use their Consciences, and to Reason about how the Higher "Natural-Law" should apply to their current sociological problems. And for those people with Anglo-/American ethnic back-grounds, they will have forgotten the more fundamental and natural-organic "Rules of the Common-Law", "Due Process of Law", and "Maxims of Law", which their Ancestors successfully used for generations in achieving significant degrees of Harmony with the Supreme Sociological "Natural Law".

Modern Citations from Civil Statutes and civil judge-made case Precedents are possibly useful Only in Aiding Juries in their Constitutional "Reasoning " Duties. How-ever; such text-book based Civil Citations s are of No Use if they advocate any form of the Limiting of the Parameters of the Solution-Options or modes of procedure which are available to the local Juries or to their locally Elected Leaders, when they seek to decide the Best Solution to the current problems pressing on their organic local bodies-politic.

This begs the question of Why legislative assemblages then pass statutory enactments, by majority-rule process, at all. The answer to that question is that they do so because they have been told to do that, by our allegedly supreme written statute-law, deceptively mis-named as the "Constitution". The members of these legislative assemblies seem totally un-aware that the Best Source for Defining true supreme "Constitutional-Law", as well as for defining smaller issues of Law; is through the Consensus-Building process of twelve common-law Jurors of good reputation in their local community, using their Consciences and Reasoning Capabilities to arrive at "Unanimous Verdicts".

**

How-ever; it is quite clear, from the citations contained here-in concerning the Anglo/Saxon's "Witenagemote", that the "Norman Conquest" event Commanded Significant "Centralization of Power" Away from anything remotely resembling the clearly documented more natural and organic process of either the Anglo/Saxons or the Ancient Christian and/or Israelite Nation. In light of the fact that "Government by Unanimous Jury" seems logically possible; and the fact that the only historical evidence of anything resembling "Government by Jury" which has survived the history-falsifying of the Romanist book-burners, is from the ancient Roman-Persecuted "Nation of Israel"; here-under, enlightened readers should find "Just Cause" to "Presume" Against those Romanist slave-traders, and in favor of the surviving significant circumstantial evidence that the Anglo/Saxon's "Witenagemote", and possibly even "King Author's Round Table" were Governed by "Twelve Member Juries".

Governing by this "Unanimous Decision" policy is certainly much more "Reasonable" than is the "Majority Rule" social behavior control guide-lines enacted by almost all modern civil legislative assemblies. The use of those Majority-Rule Statutory Enactments do not actually serve any truly useful purpose in securing the general welfare of the common people.8 The entire bankrupt policy of "Statute Enactment" is given life-force through it's present intellectually-lethargic "Majority Rule" philosophy, which is now in place almost every-where. The previously-mentioned "Consensus" is no longer sought by congressional assemblages, as was traditionally required under our culture's ancient organic and un-written common-law based "Constitutional-Law".

***

Prior to 1787, our American Constitutional System of Government had largely descended from our "Mother Country", the nation of Britain/England; and that nation had no written document which made any such claim as to be "The Constitution". When the British people speak of "Our Constitution", they are speaking of the general body of very slow-changing Fundamental-Principles of Organic "Maxims of Law" which have traditionally been viewed as "Supreme Law" in governing the affairs of their national body-politic. These principle-based fundamental "Constitutional-Law" policies, are all firmly rooted in our mutually-shared tradition of Anglo/American "Common-Law".

Further here-under, please note that; the more ancient and true pre-1066-ad English "Maxims of Law", and the "Rules of the Common-Law" were brought into existence through the "Unanimous-
Verdicts" of Twelve-Member "Juries"; and that modern "Majority-Rule Statutes" from modern Anglo/American Legislative-Assemblies are Not nearly so Worthy of Commanding the Obedience of the Common People or Elected Representatives who are fashionably considered to be Governed by them. For further insight on this point, please review the Difference between the "Malum-In-Se" and "Malum-Prohibitum" forms of Legislation, as previously quoted here-in from "Black's Law Dictionary".

Under the parameters of these mutually-shared and principle-based "Maxims" of un-written Anglo/American, Organic "Constitutional-Law"; the Elected Representatives of the common Constituent People have to "Think" and "Reason" about how most responsibly to administer the affairs of government.9 Here-under; Every Issue of Concern is "On The Table", At All Times; Including the Organization of the General Assembly of the People's Elected Representatives, and the Modes of Procedure to be followed there-in.

As an example of how a truly Organic/Constitutional "General Congressional Assembly" Should Function; when the individual members of our American Body-Politics's Mechanical and Governmental "Ship of State" are looking at a new problematic situation or case before them, and they are considering how to apply any previously articulated or written solution to the problem to that case; then every one of those previously expressed solutions should be considered merely as "Guide-Posts" along a well-worn pathway or trail, or markings of danger on a map; in a darkened forest or a turbulent ocean of sociological confusion. Our ancient organic Body-Politics's traditional "Common-Law" and "Maxims of Law" should usually be strictly followed, like the Map for a Ship in moving through precarious and rock-infested waters. Such a Map should be Obediently and Faithfully Followed at All Times, Except under the very rare circumstances when meticulously well-reasoned "Just Cause" is "Shown" for taking the Gamble of proceed along a different (and possibly entirely new, or "trail-
blazing") pathway.

But again; when-ever seriously considering any such Diversion of our American Mechanical and Governmental "Ship of State" form the Well-Charted Course of our ancestors along these traditional Anglo/American "Maxims of Law"; All Governmental Agents (and especially Elected Representatives) here-under have a "Organic/Constitutional-Duty", to their Constituents, to exercise Every Caution so-as-to Avoid the very real danger of the "Serious Sociological Disaster" which should Reasonably be Feared from such a Diversion from that Well-Charted Course by our Nation's Mechanical/Governmental "Ship of State". Even considering modern technological and sociological changes; these "Common-Law Maxims-of-Law" have been Practiced over So Many Centuries, that, there are very few instances in which any "Justification" can be found, for making any significant Diversion, from these traditional and well-settled "Course of Procedure" Guide-Lines.10

These Common-Law Guide-Posts in this darkened forest or turbulent ocean of confusion may also be considered as "Statues", carved in marble, clearly marking the traditionally-recognized "Lawful Path-Way" to follow, if sociological disaster is to be avoided. This concept of Statue-like Guide-Posts, in a forest or ocean of sociological confusion, is believed by this author to be the ancient source of the word "Statute". Here-under; "'Statutes" are Not "Laws"; but they are Merely Guide-Post-like "Advisory Markers", which can be disregarded at any time or place, if "Just Cause" is Conclusively Shown for so disregarding them.

Most modern American National and State "Civil-Government's Statues" recognize this very powerful "Justification" grounds, as a Legitimate Excuse for Disregarding their own Civil Statutes. For example, in "Oregon Revised Statutes", the "Justification" Excuse is found in ORS 161.190, 161.195, and a similar one at 161.200.11 The US-Code probably has similar "Justification Exemptions"; but this author is not sure precisely where those would be found. However, the "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure" at "Rule 2" governing "Interpretation" of these Rules, does declare that: "These rules are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding ..."; and other U.S. Code Statutes do command much similar respect for the People's "Natural Rights", as are Secured by our Un-Written, Organic Constitutional-Law. Most State "Rules of Criminal Procedure" and "Rules of Civil Procedure" similarly declare that Seeking "Justice" is the Primary Goal of the proceedings in the court-rooms governed by those rules.

So; even under modern National and State "Statutory-Law", Much "Justification" can be found for Individual Americans using their Conscience and Reasoning Process, so-as-to Re-Chart the modern Course of the modern "Ship of State" back along that Well-Mapped but presently lost traditional and well-settled "Common-Law/Maxims-of-Law" Course, which was and is designed to secure Justice, Peace, and Harmony with "Natural-Law", and which our Nation and its States have so disastrously diverted from. ***

The manner in which this ancient "Due Process" was engineered was both benevolent and militaristically "Disciplined". "Life and Death Decisions" were frequently necessary to be made through this "Due Process of Law". This is how All Serious Controversies were anciently settled in these "Common-Law Communities". These ancients knew well that any Less than Twelve Members in the decision-making body would render it susceptible to Hostile Take-Over from Private Factions, while More than Twelve there-in leads to Chaos, Confusion, and unnecessary Delay. Like the Twelve Constellations of the Stars and the Zodiac, the Number "Twelve" was sufficiently large to represent all legitimate interests in the universe of the subject which it is concerned with; yet still small enough to collectively impose their own Self-Discipline, and there-by to Complete their Duty to their Community to Peacefully and Promptly Settle the Argument before them, by arriving at a "Unanimous Declaration of Law" in a reasonable time period.

Once these profound ancient concepts behind our Anglo/American Constitutional Ideas of "Due Process of Law" and "Common-Law" are fully comprehended; it is reasonable and logical (lawgical) to conclude that: with-in the truly "Lawful Parameters" of our "American Constitutional System of Government"; "all 'Majority Rule' Decision-Makings (whether forth-coming from 'Legislative Assemblies', 'Supreme Courts', or any other "Majority Rule" decision-making bodies); are Not "Lawful". Do The Math. When focused on the "Fundamental Principles" of our American Constitutional System of Government, in a Tightly and Militaristically Disciplined Manner; the fashionable "Majority Rule" practice among the the "US Congress" of passing "Legislation", and the "US Supreme Court" of rendering "Judgements", is "Lawless"!

Specifically; in order for True American Constitutional "Law" to allow for any of the modernly fashionable of "Majority Rule" Declarations of the "U.S. Legislative Assembly" or the "U.S. Supreme Court" to also be considered at all a part of the "Single Voice" of that True American Constitutional "Law"; the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments would have to be Abolished. This is true because those amendments make Specific Reference to the Pre-1776-Definitions of that Superior "Due Process" and "Common-Law", both of which Require "Unanimous Jury Verdicts". The Ninth and Tenth Amendments also strongly imply support of this same "Due Process" and "Common-Law", and similar arguments can be made for support from many of the other amendments. This Scientific Common-Law "Due Process" is so entrenched on our American Constitution Document's "Bill of Rights"; that in order for the advocates of class-warfare malum-prohibitum based coercive societies to successfully make any colorably lawful circumvention of it, they would first have to complete the Surgical Removal of a Clear Majority of the provisions of that "Bill of Rights".

Such bold steps are unlikely to occur. And if such circumvention of the "Bill of Rights' ever did colorably occur, it would still not change the pre-existing Natural-Law based Definition of "Law"; and so those changes could only be implemented through brute-force and superior physical-power. And as every fiber of our American Constitutional System of Government clearly bears witness, Mere "Power" is Not the Source of our American Nation's true Constitutional "Law".

Capitalism, Competition, and Anarchy:

(Reserved for expansion of discussion, in later versions of this document)