the law of redress

THE LAW of redress is:

That as a democracy we the people have a legitimate right, and fundamental duty to oversee our government employees; our reality of living; our basic needs as the future will require; our own protection; and our own decisions for a life that is consistent with the values of constitutional doctrine. Which we demand a sworn oath from our employees: allowing for penalties if they fail to obey that oath. This is ownership, rather than being ruled.

The critical elements are: as a democratic society, individuals are not allowed to simply bring their government “we have allowed this work to be done for us”; into court. All the facts cannot be known. Instead, when confronted with facts that are not consistent with our best interests as a state or nation: we are allowed by redress to bring to trial a jury, selected at random. To convince them as an individual, that our society is threatened; our world is threatened; our future is threatened; our democracy is threatened; your children are threatened; and so on. That is a fundamental legal right justified by the assertion of threat, failure, foolishness, criminal acts, or other definable realities which the public does have a legitimate right to understand through the experience of knowledge. That knowledge is known to exist for the community only when it is achieved through the proper investigation of facts and the examination of that evidence to understand as best we can: what is, or is not true! That reality of legal right, and democratic authority through law;  can only be discovered, and verified to the state or nation; within a courtroom.

Ownership constructs the right, to know/ to understand/ and to decide upon a different path, than what our employees have decided for us. As we elected them NOT to rule over us; but to undertake the decisions and directions of life which produce the business and interest of a state or nation; as aligned with our constitutional contract; as they swore to do. We are not ruled/ we are not owned/ we are not cowed (forced into obedience without a legal right, by our rulers). We are the owners, and we do have distinct legal rights over our democracy, as is consistent with constitutional law, purpose, & restraints.

Because democracy is inherently a unity among the people, to establish that unity we vote. NOT for someone to vote for me, in direct matters of critical importance. But a vote for myself, on what is the most important realities which will then govern our lives: WHEN the reality of what our employees have done. Brings the question: CAN WE AFFORD TO LET THIS GO WRONG/ CAN WE ENDURE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR FAILURE/ AND DO WE NEED TO TAKE THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF DECISION AWAY FROM OUR EMPLOYEES; to decide for our own democracy, by one citizen one vote; majority rule/ under constitutional law. The answer is: when we cannot allow the consequences of being wrong to ruin our lives, nation, earth, etcetera. DUTY requires us to investigate, and determine a new direction for ourselves. That is the essence of democracy, to rule over ourselves/ because we legally can.

Therefore as directed by the first amendment: the accumulation of votes is the first step in redress. To prove that we the people are unified in our resolve to undertake the necessary steps: to investigate what is believed to threaten, or risk, or destroy our ability to survive as the democracy constitutionally intended. That is not a political issue: because this goes to the foundation of our democracy itself. Politics are about what people want, rather than what our democracy needs for us to do; as is duty.

Duty presents the individual making the claim: WE MUST NOT simply let these things continue as they are! But require an investigation to determine as best we can: what will go wrong. When the jury agrees: they agree to continue the demand to unify the people in accordance with law through this courtroom. To call the people for themselves to a vote. Shall we or shall we not: allow and demand that our democratic authority shall rule in these specific decisions or directions as is consistent with trial? The vote is for a trial to investigate; and thereby make an informed vote, in protection of our society, our world, nation, state, children, etcetera; as best we can.

We the people are the government of this USA/ even this state of IL. So according to redress of grievances: we petition ourselves when we demand an investigation. To accept the duty of oversight; and the reality of responsibility to be the true protectors of ourselves through the law, which governs our society. That law is our concern. That law determines who does, and who does not rule over us all.

Simple elements of the law are governed by the court system. But the critical elements of our own democracy are determined by ourselves. As is consistent with constitutional purpose, direction, and desire. We are the final say. We are the final authority as one people united by our vote; in determining what our laws, our society, and our employees; shall or shall not be. That is the essence of democracy as well. Not a vote for someone to vote for me/ but my own vote, equal to every other vote, legally deciding the realities of life and living that make us a nation, state, & so on. We are the judge, when the decision is democracy itself/ or the reality is, threats which cannot be undone, become our decision alone. One vote/ one citizen: majority rules under constitutional restraint.

In this trial 2018 TR 5950

The reality is simple: threats have been identified which we cannot undo, if they go wrong/ or prove to be bad decisions that will then take over our lives or influence the future in ways we cannot survive. No greater need for democracy to arise, has ever been known upon this earth. There are no second chances with regard to these threats; past the point of no return/ our world goes extinct.

THAT IS, A FACT “you the people” can understand. Which means to investigate the realities, and examine the facts which will impact our lives with consequences we cannot endure. Is a requirement for survival of our world. No greater duty has ever existed either.

But the fact is: that I cannot save you from yourselves. I cannot keep you from hiding from your reality of existence/ the decisions that you made in connection with your universities. You created these problems which now threaten us; by refusing to accept THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES, to these decisions governed only by want. Which means what you wanted, by refusing truth: now threatens to destroy our world.

Make a better decision. Choosing the law to fight for your lives. Let truth lead for life, because nothing less can keep us alive as a world. Religion says “listen to us”/ but that too is not so. Reality says: only truth can keep us alive. But make no mistake OUR CREATOR, is at the core of life itself; and your decisions to blindly and foolishly disrespect that truth. Has allowed the consequences of your own decision to threaten HIS world. TO DESTROY HIS CREATION, because of your pride, arrogance, disrespect, foolishness, and failures IS a very serious offense.   CHOOSE BETTER, or receive your chosen reward.

JESUS is the evidence presented: that we are not abandoned. Life is the evidence, that we were born into miracles; we cannot understand. Even though we can clearly conceive of:  “this was no accident”.

The university “big brain” brought you to this moment; where threats of extinction surround us with horror “if, the consequences of this, comes true”.  I suggest you investigate the reality of their influence, the consequences of their decisions, and the reality of their direction for life on earth. Before you continue with “they can be our gods”! HELL is waiting.

 

In terms of simple process, the reality is this: that by uniting as one people through the deliberate, knowledge first based acceptance of courtroom law. The duty called a vote, identifies whether or not we are a true democracy: when governing ourselves by the authority of our own laws. We adhere to constitutional due process: through the courtroom, by clear and deliberate investigation of the facts that are proven to our satisfaction one way or the other, as a society. Now calling for a vote. Until that vote is called for by society: the trial is not over. MORE must be done/ different options for law must be adapted/ a clearer understanding of the purpose, and the consequences; must be achieved.

THE LAW IS: our liberty to govern ourselves by the placement, definition, and enforcement of laws which then govern us all. That is not limited to our employees to decide. We the people ARE the government; and we do control all aspects of governing through constitutional descriptions, and the sworn oath of our officials. That oath is:  “I do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute………and to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.” The constitution is our contract with ourselves, that unifies and declares our purpose for, and as this state or nation. It is OUR GOVERNMENT, through the definitions created by we the people for governing ourselves by laws we create. Previous to this time in history, IT WAS; absolutely necessary to hire someone to vote for me. That is no longer true.

TODAY, through redress of grievances: the process by which we do as a people identify specific issues we have with the decisions our employees have made. That we may then make a different decision and produce a different direction as one people in charge of ourselves.

TO MAKE LAW, AS WE THE PEOPLE; is not a trivial matter. Thereby you must be very careful what you do; because any possibility of circumvention that may arise; can then undo everything you have done or intended to do. The example is the first amendment:  short, direct, and with no more words than absolutely necessary, to insure understanding of the primary purpose demanded by our liberty to enforce democracy on ourselves.

Therefore redress trial, through the investigation and thereby knowledge presented and understood:  becomes our method of taking control over our own democracy through the law we subsequently create/ or choose not to change.

The US constitutional contract is the foundation of every law in this USA: nothing is superior/ which does give this the power of government.

Redress law, as governed by we the people have chosen this for ourselves: REQUIRES, THAT there must be a proven majority/ and whatever law you attempt to create MUST be within the boundaries and purposes of our constitutional contract with each other. Or it shall not stand.

A redress law is a constitutional amendment: and must be so attached to the constitution as our democratic authority. Proven by our vote which shall not be less than three fourths majority: to become a constitutional amendment overtaking, and controlling all other inferior laws. Once the vote is verified: this law immediately is attached as constitutional law.

A redress law, that does not meet this requirement/ fails constitutional authority; and arrives at the same level of congressional authority as if congress made the law themselves. That requires a two thirds majority. Unless as the congress does from time to time: allow a simple majority to decide. All the same rules shall apply with regards to voting to make a law true. the judiciary shall insure, with evidence: that your law is, or is not within constitutional guidelines or restrictions.

 

That summary of intent identifies the reality of change that is consistent with a true democracy enforced by its own people. Because we now can!

This opportunity for change is currently in its infancy; as a trial called “Champaign county 2018 TR 5950 ILLINOIS”.  Which means it can be killed without true public support, protection, acceptance, and defense by law; NOT war.

Whether your chance at true democracy,  lives or dies: is entirely up to you. It is not up to me! I am only one vote, among the many.

In that regard: my physical presence at trial is unnecessary as this is the decision to protect your world, your future, your nation, your child, your world and all its life: BY democracy itself. Which makes the people of this society a litigant for the defense as well. I expect to attend that trial/ but there are those who would like to see this trial killed. One way or the other. DEFEND YOUR RIGHT to proceed without me; as I have now made my testimony before the court and you the public. I swear this is my true testimony whether live or dead: let the trial proceed, by replacing me with whosoever agrees, as society itself:  to give this people its chance to survive.

Protect the judge: as this one did in fact let constitutional law proceed (it was his duty)/ when each judge and lawyer before him failed, to let democracy rule.

Defend your law: as original jurisdiction, the right of we the people to accept our own democratic and constitutional authority. Means even the US supreme court cannot interfere; because they have only appellate (deciding if your decision is constitution: means you must make that decision first) jurisdiction.

Accept the responsibility of making your own decisions/ changing your own direction as a nation or state/ identifying what is necessary to survive. And defending what is necessary so that we do not face our own extinction by choosing   LIFE FOR THIS PLANET, comes first.