Understanding The System of American Government

[KnowLaw]

I've been reading more of Lee's writing and commentary from his website, and though he does seem to have a good handle on explaining how to differentiate between which laws are being applied when (and this is a good thing because we need to be aware of these things), some of his other commentary seems to be tinged with some of his own paranoia and "belief system" about what this all means and how to become disencumbered of it. It's the paranoia which creeps in that turned me off; other than that, I like the way he explains the history of how we got to where we are today. That part makes a lot of sense, because he uses case citings and quotes from the law to back up his points.

His idea that only by expatriation can a person become disentangled from the system is a bit extreme, and in my opinion totally unnecessary, not to mention that it buys into the idea that government can, by mere presumption, define the identity of flesh and blood people. Fictional actors within government have NO AUTHORITY to redefine, by mere fiat, who anyone is in reality without the admission coming from the person himself. And anyone who buys into this fiction needs to reexamine their own mind and how much delusion they've accepted as true.

In other words, by undergoing the process of expatriation the way Lee describes it, the person first has to admit, on the record, that he considered himself a 14th amendment citizen at some point in time. If you never considered yourself a 14th amendment citizen at any time, why go to the trouble of admitting in a court action that you ever were? If you never made a conscious, knowledgeable choice to make such a consideration, but rather were compelled, under duress and through ignorance, into signing documents that put forth such a presumption then the mere fact that such documents were signed under coercion and without full knowledge invalidates them as evidence of such fact. Maintain the stance that the mistake was solely the government's, and get on with the business of rebutting their claim. In other words, make them prove their claim with sworn affidavits, which they cannot do.

In one of his PDFs he makes the statement: "What was United States Notes have become Federal Reserve Notes that are not redeemable in gold but are backed by gold that is in Fort Knox. That gold in Fort Knox is the common law of the states in the Union."

One, even though FRNs were at one time backed by gold, they no longer are. He should know that. And someone unfamiliar with this fact may mistakenly believe that FRNs are backed by gold, just based on his statement.

Two, it would be nice if he could provide some objective evidence that there is any gold in Fort Knox. Many people seem to think its been long gone for many years now. That it's in the hands of the banksters. Yet, he seems to write with certainty about this. It might improve his credibility if he weren't so certain since a public, transparent accounting of Fort Knox has not been made in years.

All this is by way of saying that while I value Lee's scholarship on being able to unpack and put into context much of the history underlying how the country progressed from its beginning to the present day, it's when some of his personal opinions enter his writing that I'm not convinced by his reasoning of their relevance.