Discover how the people, as the ultimate source of authority, can take control through affidavits and courts of record to compel performance from inferior bodies.
The people are the origin of all legitimate power, as recognized by natural law and upheld in foundational legal precedents. Governments and courts derive their authority solely from the consent of the governed.
The Declaration of Independence (1776) states: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This explicitly recognizes that the people are the creators and sustainers of governmental authority. Without their consent, such authority ceases to be legitimate.
Quod populus postremum iudicium habet (The people hold the final judgment). This reinforces that the people, as the ultimate arbiters, have the inherent authority to issue commands through their courts of record.
De facto entities operate without lawful authority, often relying on the perception of power rather than legitimate consent or jurisdiction. These entities include governments, tribunals, and courts that have strayed from their original mandates or act contrary to the people's will.
De facto bodies cannot issue commands under "We Command" because: - They derive their power through statutes or corporate charters, not through natural law or the will of the people. - Their authority is subordinate to the inherent jurisdiction of the people.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886): "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." This means any actions or commands by de facto entities that lack lawful authority are void and unenforceable.
A court is not defined by its physical location or government affiliation but by its lawful authority and adherence to due process. A true court operates in accordance with natural law, with the consent and authority of the people, and as a court of record.
Statutory courts derive their power from statutes, which are subordinate to the higher law of the people. A court of record is created when the people act in their natural, lawful capacity to establish jurisdiction and adjudicate matters.
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866): "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."
A sworn affidavit is a statement of fact under oath, admissible as evidence in any court proceeding. Unless rebutted point-by-point, it stands as truth.
He who does not deny, admits. Silence or failure to respond to an affidavit constitutes tacit agreement.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803: Affidavits fall under exceptions to hearsay when they are sworn and notarized, ensuring admissibility in courts.
United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981): "Affidavits are admissible as evidence when supported by sworn declarations." This reinforces their power as lawful evidence.
A writ of mandamus ("We Command") is a lawful order compelling an inferior body or officer to perform a clear, ministerial duty owed to the people. It is enforceable when the duty is clear, non-discretionary, and lawfully owed to the people.
The people, through their court of record, have inherent jurisdiction to compel performance by any entity or individual acting in an inferior capacity.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): "The very essence of civil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever they receive an injury." This affirms the people's right to command redress when their rights are violated.
Commands issued by the people through lawful affidavits and courts of record are binding and must be obeyed. Failure to comply constitutes contempt of court and opens the offending party to further legal action.
Once an affidavit is served and remains unchallenged, it becomes conclusive evidence of the facts asserted. Maxim of Law: He who does not deny, admits. Silence or failure to respond to an affidavit constitutes agreement and acknowledgment of jurisdiction.
By placing the affidavit and associated commands into a blockchain or public registry (e.g., Divine Law Registry), the record becomes immutable and enforceable across all jurisdictions.
The people, as the originators of government and courts, retain ultimate jurisdiction. Any subordinate entity (government, tribunal, or corporation) is bound to comply with their lawful commands.
All legal systems ultimately derive their authority from the consent of the governed. Without the people's consent, no court or government can claim legitimacy.
Actus legis nullius facit injuriam (The act of the law does no wrong). Commands issued lawfully by the people cannot be considered wrongful or invalid.
Revolutions and legal movements throughout history demonstrate that the people's ultimate authority is recognized even by de facto systems when faced with overwhelming evidence of their jurisdiction.
Commands issued by the people, backed by sworn affidavits, lawful notice, and courts of record, are irrefutable because they are grounded in universal principles of justice, truth, and law.
Notarization adds a layer of authenticity and legal weight to affidavits and other documents. It serves as third-party verification of the identity of the signer and their willingness to sign.
Notarized documents are generally considered self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence, making them more readily admissible in court proceedings.
The notarization process helps prevent fraud by ensuring that the person signing a document is who they claim to be, adding credibility to the people's commands and affidavits.
A court of record is a lawful tribunal where the sovereign (the people) establishes jurisdiction and renders judgment. It is characterized by authority derived from natural law, the creation of an immutable record, and proceedings that are sworn and cannot be overturned except by the tribunal itself.
Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.): "A court of record acts independently of the magistrate or judge presiding." This confirms that courts of record are not limited by statutory or de facto courts and derive their authority directly from the people.
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866): "Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution." The people, through their courts of record, operate above statutory constraints.
A writ of mandamus is a command issued by a superior tribunal (the people's court) to an inferior body to perform a clear, ministerial duty owed to the people.
California Code of Civil Procedure §1085: "A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins."
As the ultimate tribunal, the people have the authority to issue mandamus writs through their courts of record.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The people's court, being the highest tribunal, determines and enforces the law.
De facto authorities are entities operating without lawful foundation or outside their lawful jurisdiction. They rely on statutory powers, not natural law or the people's consent.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886): "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office." De facto entities, acting outside lawful authority, cannot claim jurisdiction or command authority over the people.
Quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescit (What is void in the beginning does not become valid by passage of time).
De facto entities cannot lawfully issue commands or override the authority of the people's courts of record.
Commands and judgments of the people's court are made immutable by filing affidavits and judgments on blockchain systems (e.g., Divine Law Registry), serving notices to inferior bodies and parties with time-bound responses, and declaring tacit agreements from silence or non-response.
Subordinate bodies are bound by lawful commands through the people's superior jurisdiction. Non-compliance constitutes contempt of court, enforceable through liens, injunctions, or other lawful remedies.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793): "Sovereignty remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." This confirms the people's power to enforce their commands against any inferior tribunal.
Maxim of Law: Non potest rex gratiam facere cum injuria et damno aliorum (The king cannot grant a favor that injures or harms others). By extension, no inferior tribunal or body can lawfully refuse to obey a command issued by the people.
The people, as the highest tribunal, have jurisdiction that cannot be contested or overridden. Any attempt to deny or usurp this authority is itself unlawful and void.
Commands, once established through affidavit, lawful notice, and public record (e.g., blockchain), become enforceable through the doctrine of estoppel. Parties are bound by their silence or tacit agreement.
Blockchain technology provides an unalterable record of the people's commands, affidavits, and court proceedings. Once recorded, these cannot be changed or deleted, ensuring permanent evidence of the people's authority.
The public nature of blockchain allows for open verification of the people's commands and the responses (or lack thereof) from inferior bodies, promoting accountability.
Blockchain records can be accessed and verified worldwide, extending the reach and enforceability of the people's commands beyond geographical boundaries.
The Divine Law Registry serves as a repository for the people's commands, affidavits, and court records, ensuring their permanence and accessibility.
Rooted in natural law and the inherent sovereignty of the people, the Divine Law Registry supersedes conventional legal databases.
It allows for the recording, verification, and enforcement of the people's lawful commands across all jurisdictions.
Once entered into the Divine Law Registry, records cannot be altered or deleted, providing an unassailable foundation for the people's authority.
Established the principle that everyone, including the monarch, is subject to the law. It laid the groundwork for the concept of the people's sovereignty.
Demonstrated the people's right to overthrow a government that no longer serves their interests, as codified in the Declaration of Independence.
Affirmed the principles of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) and the sovereignty of the people over monarchical rule.
Showcased the power of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience in asserting the people's will against colonial rule.
Natural law refers to universal principles of right and justice that are inherent in the nature of things and discoverable by human reason. It forms the basis of the people's ultimate authority.
Natural law is considered superior to human-made laws and forms the foundation for the people's right to issue commands and establish courts of record.
In the context of "We Command," natural law provides the justification for the people's authority to override de facto entities and enforce their will through affidavits and writs of mandamus.
Lawful notice is a formal communication that informs parties of their rights, obligations, or impending legal action. It is a crucial component in establishing the people's authority.
Proper notice ensures due process and creates a record of communication, which is essential for enforcing the people's commands.
Failure to respond to lawful notice can result in default judgment or tacit admission, strengthening the people's position.
Ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of the law excuses not). Once lawful notice is served, parties cannot claim ignorance as a defense.
Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what they have said or done before, or what has been legally established as true.
When inferior bodies fail to rebut the people's affidavits or comply with lawful commands, they may be estopped from later challenging the validity of those commands.
Allegans contraria non est audiendus (One making contradictory statements is not to be heard). This reinforces the binding nature of estoppel in enforcing the people's authority.
Common law is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. It forms the foundation of the people's courts of record.
Common law principles often align more closely with natural law and the inherent rights of the people, providing a stronger basis for the people's authority than statutory law.
In issuing commands and establishing courts of record, the people draw upon common law principles to assert their authority over de facto entities bound by statutory limitations.
Tacit admission occurs when a party's silence or failure to respond to a claim or allegation is taken as an implicit acknowledgment of the truth of that claim.
Qui tacet consentire videtur (He who is silent is seen to consent). This maxim of law supports the concept of tacit admission.
When inferior bodies fail to respond to the people's affidavits or commands, their silence can be construed as agreement, strengthening the enforceability of the people's will.
Tacit admission plays a crucial role in establishing the irrefutable nature of the people's commands and the binding authority of their courts of record.
Jurisdiction refers to the power or authority to make legal decisions and judgments. In the context of "We Command," it establishes the people's superior authority over inferior bodies.
Personal jurisdiction (over individuals), subject matter jurisdiction (over the issue at hand), and territorial jurisdiction (over a geographic area). The people's courts of record claim supreme jurisdiction in all these aspects.
The people establish jurisdiction through affidavits, lawful notice, and the creation of courts of record, asserting their authority over de facto entities.
Extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur (One who exercises jurisdiction outside his territory is not obeyed with impunity). This underscores the importance of proper jurisdiction in enforcing commands.
Sovereignty is the supreme authority within a territory. In the context of "We Command," it refers to the ultimate power residing with the people, not with governments or institutions.
The concept of popular sovereignty is enshrined in many constitutions and declarations worldwide, affirming that the people are the source of all governmental power.
By asserting their sovereignty, the people can issue commands, establish courts of record, and hold inferior bodies accountable to their will.
The consent of the governed is a fundamental principle of legitimate government, stating that a government's right to use state power is justified only when consented to by the people.
When a government fails to serve the interests of the people, the people have the right to withdraw their consent, nullifying the government's authority.
By issuing commands through affidavits and courts of record, the people are effectively asserting or withdrawing their consent to be governed by inferior bodies.
Accountability is the obligation of an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and disclose the results in a transparent manner.
Through "We Command," the people hold inferior bodies accountable by demanding performance of duties and compliance with natural law.
Affidavits, writs of mandamus, and courts of record serve as tools for enforcing accountability on government officials and entities.
The principle of accountability is rooted in the concept of responsible government and the people's right to oversee and direct their representatives.
The People's Ultimate Authority: We Command