Pro-liberty: January 2023

Covid Cases And Deaths In Leading Nations In 2022

Covid Cases Totals of leading nations in 2022(Number of Cases in 2022)

1. 46.8 million USA

2. 9.8 million IND

3. 29.6 million FRA

4. 30.2 million GER

5. 14.1 million BRA

6. 27.5 million JAP

7. 28.4 million SKOR

8. 19.1 million ITA

9. 10.7 million UK

10.11.3 million RUS

11. 7.6 million TUR

12. 7.4 million SPA

13. 8.8 million VIET

14.10.7 million AUS

15. 8.8 million TAI

16. 5.4 million NED

17. 4.3 million ARG

18. 4.4 million ASTR

19. 4.2 million POR

20. 4.3 million GRE

21. 4.8 million NK

The United States has the most numbers of cases. However, considering that nation has a third of a billion people, that is expected. In regards to other nations, major European mainland and East Asian nations (France, Germany, Japan, South Korea) lead the pack in having the most number of cases. Italy is not too far behind.

This report did not include Mainland China (excluding Hong Kong). Based on my algebraic calculations, that nation actually had 82 million cases in 2022. That is the highest number of Covid cases throughout the world.

Per Capita Covid cases of leading nations in 2022(Population divided by 2022 Covid cases)

1. USA 7.14

2. IND 143.53

3. FRA 2.22

4. GER 2.78

5. JAP 4.57

6. SKOR 1.81

7. ITA 3.16

8. UK 6.40

9. SPA 6.31

10. AUS 2.44

11. TAI 2.71

12. NED 3.19

13. ASTR 2.06

14. POR 2.41

15. GRE 2.40

16. NK 5.45

17. Chile 5.96

18. ISR 2.76

19. BELG 4.50

20. CZCH REP 5.19

21. SWZ 2.88

22. DEN 2.43

23. HK 2.91

24. SERB 7.54

25. SPORE- 3.09

26. NZ-2.35

This compiled study is based on nations that have more than two million people and have less than ten times the population in comparison to new Covid cases in 2022. France, Germany, South Korea, and Italy are the major nations that lead in this statistic. Australia and Taiwan are the medium-sized nations that lead in this stats.

Covid Deaths of leading nations in 2022-

1. USA 266,455 (21.8% of world total)

2. IND-43010

3. BRA- 74880

4. FRA-38410

5. GER-48953

6. JAP- 38873

7. ITA-47328

8. UK-48954

9. RUS-85706

10. SPA-27690

11. MEX-31967

The USA still leads the world in per capita deaths as well. They had one death for every 1250 people in 2022. The 2022 Covid deaths in the USA are five times higher per capita than the rest of the world. Overmedication, poor diet, and exposure to chemicals were big factors for this.

The History Of Covid In China (January 2023)

The earthshaking news on the Covid front are the developments in China. As case and death numbers in China are skyrocketing, people need to know the following.

In the first few months of the pandemic, China had in actuality 17-18 million cases and 1,160,000 deaths by mid-February 2020. It was truly an epidemic even though many of these cases and deaths were due to the Five-g rollout. When China instituted draconian lockdowns, actual cases numbers dropped from 8 million a month to approximately 340,000 a month. Simultaneously, real death numbers dropped from a half million per month to 8000 a month.

When Omicron BF.7 variant was released by a Taiwanese lab, actual case and death numbers per month increased to approximately over six million and nearly 19,000 respectively. If it had not been for these highly restrictive lockdowns, the monthly totals of cases and deaths for China would have been 25 million and 75,000 respectively. These lockdowns in 2022 decreased the actual totals by 80%.

It is a testament that air-tight lockdowns did obviously halt the transmission of Covid throughout China. However, was it worth it considering the financial and human rights costs? After all, the Covid pathogen has to be dealt with eventually as it will not go anywhere. It will have to be allowed to "burn through" the population.

All a lockdown can do is prepare the nation and its people to tackle a "pandemic" at a proper time. It merely delays the eventual "burn through" phase that the opportunistic pathogen needs to affect the entire population. It certainly does not cure "what is out there".

In 2023, it is estimated that China will have 300 million cases and over 900,000 deaths. Hopefully, after three years of such harsh measures, it has the tools, infrastructure, and staff to focus on the treatment of people who get sick from this illness.

The lockdowns in China, as harsh as they were, did reduce the case numbers by 96% and the death numbers by 98% for 22 months. Even after the purported leak of BF.7 variant in that Taiwan lab in December 2021, the lockdowns did decrease the potential case and death numbers totals by 80%.

While the lockdowns had gone on for too long, something that strict should not be immediately and suddenly stopped. Those lockdowns should have been phased out in a gradual manner so that the transition and follow-up phases are effective to establish normalcy.

China spent too much of its resources building hospitals. Medicine is best practiced when people are kept out of hospitals. That nation's government should have focused on supplying medicines,spices, and steamers to its 1.45 billion people, particularly Ivermectin.

India has the same population as China. That nation has been effective in stifling Covid through the widespread and aggressive distribution of Ivermectin. After three years, only 3% of its population has been effected and their death rate is only overall 1%. They had a stiff lockdown for 10 weeks before they gradually but effectively eased such restrictions. Nothing was rushed. These systematic policies have helped that nation's people live with Covid.

Taiwanese Lab Leak In 2021 December

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15095103/worlds-most-dangerous-biolabs-covid-leak/?fbclid=IwAR1YAea_N6Vx2QhBSTosdMAR0P4R-iu7Q8qivSkFRU4oYDm_ebr37VRvuig

Before this leak, Covid cases in Taiwan, Communist China, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and even Singapore were comparatively low. In 2022, these nations showed geometric gains in both Covid cases and even deaths.

In Taiwan and Communist China, it took a few months(late April to early May) before this leak really manifested itself in a huge spike in Omicron cases. In Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea, the exponential rise in cases took place sooner(late January to mid February).

The draconian lockdowns in China did help to curtail the spread of Covid, although overall it did more harm than good. Since that lab leak in Taiwan, China had in actuality 75 million new symptomatic cases and 225,000 deaths. Now that these high levels of restrictions have been lifted, it is expected that in this coming year 300 million new symptomatic cases and 900,000 deaths will occur. This is a 300% increase from the previous year.

It was inevitable that these extreme preventive measures had to end. After all, no one can "hide in their home forever while the monster lurks outside" forever. At a certain point in time, China would have to take on this opportunistic pathogen head-on. It is of utmost hope that in the three years of lockdowns, China has enough properly-trained staff and infrastructure to now focus on the treatment of the BF.7 variant of Omicron rather than on preventive measures.

Projected Covid Cases And Deaths In China in 2023

If Japan had the same population as China, they would have an average of 846,000 cases a day for the entire year of 2022.

If South Korea had the same population as China, they would have an average of two million cases a day for the entire year of 2022.

If Taiwan had the same population as China, they would have an average of 1,468,000 cases a day for the entire year of 2022.

If Hong Kong had the same population as China, they would have an average of nearly 1.3 million cases a day for the entire year of 2022.

It is very conceivable then, based on the preceding information, that China could have a minimum of a million infections and 3000 deaths daily for the entire year of 2023. This would affect the 2nd largest economy and that would impact the world.

More importantly this new bio-weapon variant could easily spread to many other nations, including the USA.

NEW LAB BIO-WEAPON RELEASED? (January 2023)

In China, as the pandemic has nearly completed its third year, that nation is expecting a tsunami of Covid. Many experts are now predicting that China will have 800 million infections, 279 million cases, and 1.3-2.1 million deaths in the first three months of 2023.

Many are blaming the end of the draconian lockdowns for this unprecedented massive wave. Severe lockdowns are only effective in the first ten weeks of a bad epidemic or pandemic. After that, its effectiveness wanes. While these lockdowns have helped to a certain extent to limit the spread, it has caused its society far more harm that good after that ten week window.

Since Covid is mainly airborne, lockdowns after the ten week period have only marginally halted the spread of Covid. A major reason for this is Covid is primarily an airborne virus. How will a prolonged lockdown be effective against that? Limiting crowds will help in the short term but it will have a null effect in the long term.

If this "Tsunami" takes places in which 10% of the world's population is infected, it must be speculated that maybe another lab bio-weapon, called the B.F7 variant of Covid, was released in China a few months ago. This would explain why other contiguous nations and province, such Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong have seen such a steep rise in Covid infections and cases in the last 6 months.

Nations With The Highest Growth Rate Of Covid Cases: World Covid Death Totals (January 2023)

The number of cases has increased for the following nations in the last year 2022.

World 2.38x Australia-44.49x Singapore-7.94x

France-4.55x New Zealand-154.3x HK-189.34x

USA-1.95x SKOR- 50.54x

India-1.29x JAP-15.68x

UK-2.07x TAI-511.25x

ITA-4.61x Greece-5.15x

GER-5.45x Finland-6.51x

Austria-4.57x Norway-4.24x

As anyone can clearly see, the real growth of Covid cases are in the North Orient. China's totals were not included because other than the high-ranking executive elite of the CCP, no one really knows what their actual totals are. Their lockdowns obviously did help in curtailing the spread of Covid. However, as they have finally figured out, they eventually have to "let the genie in the bottle out". China cannot play hide and seek with Covid forever. They are now solely focused on treatment rather than physical prevention.

Their number of cases and deaths could easily surpass that of the USA in 2023 if it actually has not already.

Australia and New Zealand had rapid growth cases as well in 2022. However, it appears that both island nations in Oceania have arrested its high growth. New Zealand still, if it were size of the US in terms of population, has in excess of 350,000 cases a day.

Throughout the world, death numbers have decreased by 2.37 times per month in 2022 than the totals per month in 2020 and 2021. The very fact these deaths totals per month have decreased by only 2.37 times is very perturbing indeed.

The "VAX" has kept these death totals artificially high. H1N1 and H5N1 only lasted 18 months before case and death totals disappeared. Covid, since it is not as potent as "swine flu" and "bird flu", may have lasted longer but its potency would have dropped drastically if the "VAX" was not administered during this epidemic.

While the death totals per month were only decreased by 237 percent, the death rates for infected people decreased 574 percent. This means that Covid cases per month worldwide increased by 237%. Considering the "Vax" was fully administered throughout the world in 2021, case numbers should have significantly decreased. Yet it significantly increased.

Of course one reason for that increase in case numbers is a new variant was allegedly released in South Africa that was much less potent but was far more contagious and infectious. However, another major reason for this increase was the introduction of the "VAX" caused the existing Covid virus to artificially mutate and therefore become resistant to both artificial and natural immunity.

Covid has not gone anywhere. In fact it may come back with a vengeance, again beginning in China.

Russia-Ukraine War-The Calm Before The Storm Part Five (January 2023)

Russia-Ukraine War-The Calm Before The Storm Part Five

As the war drags on and Ukraine will not settle for anything less than a Russia withdrawal from all its former territory, including Crimea. Moreover, Ukraine will not even assure Russia that they will not join NATO or they will not eventually get rid of foreign military presence after their war with Russia has ended. Due to the preceding, Russia has according to reliable sources announced this three step final plan.

1. Destroy the Ukraine military completely east of Dnieper River and then immobilize the rest of Ukraine's military.
2. Seal the Polish/Ukraine border to make certain no weapons enter into Ukraine.

3. Remove the Volodmyr Zelensky administration and any and all Ukrainian nationalist elements, which have strong sentiments against Russian ethnic groups, from the entire government apparatus.

This will be Russia's end game and it will be achieved within six months' time.

Russia-Ukraine War-The Calm Before The Storm Part Four (January 2023)

America will dole out $110 billion in military equipment and other assistance to Ukraine since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began less than 10.5 months ago.

Russia spends $65 billion on their military annually. No one is getting wealthy in Russia due to this war. Moreover, Russia is not even close from exhausting any military equipment and supplies.

The corporate Western Press, since this Russia-Ukraine War began, kept reporting that Russia lacked the economic strength to wage a war for more than several months. It stated that the Russian military was too incompetent and its leadership, along with V. Putin, was too corrupt for its military actions to last. It also stated there was too much dissension and desertion for Russia to execute its military plans for the long term.

10.5 months later, here Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine are. Russia is mobilizing T-90 and the upgraded T-72 tanks. They are about introduce state of the art weapons that are "user-friendly", unlike the Patriot Missile System that Ukraine will be receiving soon from the USA.

When it comes to the military production, application and deployment, Socialism trumps Power Broker Elitism every time. Russia does not have high military profits funneled into political campaign funds. We Americans need to learn from this.

Russia-Ukraine War-The Calm Before The Storm Part Three (January 2023)

President Vladimir Putin and Russia are obviously planning something major in the next few months.

1. Many police officers are being taken out of city and are being trained to use machine guns and grenades. They are now being taught to march in a military.

2. Moscow and other cities are establishing bomb centers.

3. The Kremlin and Russian parliament are practicing emergency evacuation drills.

The Western Press has erroneously stated that Russia haphazardly started this war. The truth is NATO nations, Ukraine, and Russia have been meticulously planning this war since 2014. Military conflict has been happening between Ukraine and the Donbas separatists since that year. Russia, as everyone had predicted, entered that war 10.5 months ago.

This war will reach its climax within the next six months.

Russia-Ukraine War-The Calm Before The Storm Part Two (January 2023)

Russia-Ukraine War-The Calm Before The Storm Part Two

When the ground hardens in Ukraine, which should either be in two to four weeks, a significant number of reserve ground forces will be deployed to greatly escalate this military conflict. Russia has 700,000 crack, highly-trained troops with the most potent equipment at its disposal. Russia will launch this three-pronged attack soon from the northern, western, and southern fronts.

General Valerii Zaluzhnyi is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine states Ukraine can halt the Russians and even take back much of its lost territory if the Ukraine military and even the Azov Battalion receive 300 tanks, 500 armored vehicles, 500 artillery systems, and unlimited ammunition.

Zaluzhnyi additionally cited that if they are are not provided this, Russia will eventually defeat Ukraine.

NATO and Western Powers pledges have not even come close to providing this requested total. Starting either in late January or early February, this war will be kicked up to a much higher notch. The next 3-5 months after this lull will be as horrific as anything that happened during World War 2.

Russia-Ukraine War-The Calm Before The Storm (January 2023)

Any real war starts when ground troops are sent in to take and to keep territory. That requires so much political and grassroots political will. It is easy for a nation's people to support a war when they are launching missiles and bombs miles away from the target. When ground forces have to be deployed to directly confront the enemy, heavy losses are to be expected. That is usually when the appetite for war changes.

Ukraine has recaptured 40% of the territory once held by Russia. Most of that territory was abandoned by Russia. Russia has softened the ground for nearly 10.5 months. The total loss of troops(casualties and fatalities) for Russia is probably the same as Ukraine at this juncture.

However, Russia has not used its best military while Ukraine has. The burn to replenishment ratio for Ukraine is much higher than it is for Russia. Ukraine is now losing as much equipment as Russia is. That is indeed a troubling statistic as an invading military is always supposed to lose 3-4 times more equipment than the military of the occupied nation to successfully occupy the invaded nation on a short-term basis. If the invading military,particularly the army, loses more than this ratio, they will be repelled soon. If that same military loses less than this ratio, they will have successfully defeated and perhaps even conquered that occupied nation.

Covid Vaccinations: Governmental Modes

Imperial Democratic Republic Mode- This is also the current right-wing, conservative position. This mode states that all Covid vaccines should be banned.

direct democratic Republic Mode- This is also the current left-wing, liberal position. This mode states that all Covid vaccines should be forcibly administered to all individual(s).

Representative Democratic Republic Mode- This mode states that certain vaccines such as viral vectors(uses a modified, weakened version of a different virus) or inactivated vaccines(uses viruses whose genetic material has been destroyed so they cannot infect cells and replicate, but can still cause an immunity response) is permissible to high-risk patients who are definitely immune-compromised.

This mode bans any vaccines unless it has a track record of safety. The mRNA vaccine would definitely be prohibited! This mode also neither prohibits nor mandates an individual(s) to receive a vaccine. All vaccinations are strictly voluntary.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Nineteen Session Five

Pertaining to the phrase "He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client", the following must be noted.

An individual who works on his house's plumbing does not make that individual a plumber. An individual who paints his own house does not make that individual a painter. An individual who fixes his own car does not make that individual an auto mechanic. An individual who prepares a feast for family and friends does not make that individual a chef. Therefore an individual who presents his/her case in a court of law over a redress of grievances for adjudication purposes does not make that individual either a lawyer or an attorney at-law.

As cited in previous sessions, that phrase/quote was intended to apply to only those individual(s) who provide assistance of counsel to other individual(s) on a habitual basis. That phrase/quote was to prevent those individual(s) who habitually assist other individual(s) in the presentation of their cases from presenting his/her own case.

The people who initially used that phrase were aware that those who habitually provided assistance of counsel to others would develop familiarity with the court(s) and its participants/members/officers. Therefore if "professional counsel" tried to present his/her own case, it would certainly appear that the habitual provider of assistance of counsel to others is indeed trying to solicit personal favors and preferential treatment from the court(s) and its participants/members/officers due to familiarity with each other.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Nineteen Session Four

When a judge uses the statement "He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client", it must be understood when that statement was originated, there was no existence of attorney advocates. There were prosecutors at that time who were often referred to as attorneys. This is because these prosecutors aka attorneys were government "State" officials who sought to have people who were indicted of a criminal act punished.

Again their purpose was to try to punish those who violated the law and not serve the interests of anyone, including that of the "State"(local, state or federal government).

The preceding is why individual(s) who present his/her case must inform the court that he/she is neither a lawyer or an attorney at-law. Moreover he/she must state for the record that he/she is not "practicing law" and therefore should not be regulated by anything governing that. Additionally it must be noted that the individual(s) is exercising both his/her right and responsibility to present his/her case in a court of law.

Finally the judge or any other jurist must be told by that litigant that if there is a jurist and/or court official who cannot respect that in its entirety, that court official and/or jurist needs to remove himself/herself from the bench and/or proceedings. It is that plain and simple.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Nineteen Session Three

BAR judges like to use the phrase/quote "He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." to discourage individual(s) from presenting his/her own case. It must be noted that people need to inform the judge who uses that quote of the following as well as what is posted in previous sessions.

The individual litigant(s) needs to reply that an attorney at-law is not a lawyer nor does it meet the definition of counsel. That litigant(s) furthermore must explain that a BAR attorney-at-law is an officer of the court who has been assigned (unconstitutionally of course) the title of esquire which is a title of nobility.

Finally that individual litigant(s) must reveal that an attorney at-law "attorns" by turning over matters to the court administration for adjudication and that their first loyalty is to the court administration and not to the client. This is in contrast to the role of lawyer or even counsel, whose role is to serve the client solely by advocating the law. While an attorney at-law and lawyer or counsel must obey the law, an attorney's capacity and loyalty is different than the capacity of lawyer and/or of counsel.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Nineteen Session Two

Please read the previous session before this session is read. It will update one properly.

"He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" was a phrase/quote meant to be only applied to "professional counsel" who assisted other individual(s) in the presentation of that individual(s) case(s). That phrase/quote was intended to prohibit a lawyer/advocate from presenting his/her own case. While previous reasons for this have been explained in the previous session, the major reason for this desired ban is that since a professional lawyer/advocate presents cases on behalf of other people in front of usually the same judges, it would definitely be a conflict of interest if that professional lawyer/advocate presented his/her own case in that same court. That professional counsel would appear to be a fool since the perception of desired preferential treatment is obvious if he/she were to advocate a case on his/her behalf and not on the behalf of his/her client.

There is another reason why the ban of professional counsel of presenting his/her case on his/her behalf and of working on his/her own case was suggested. This analogy is to be cited. Healthcare professionals are generally prohibited from treating themselves. For example, a doctor of medicine is generally not allowed to prescribe his/her own medications. Therefore an "officer of the court" (attorney at-law), based on the described principle, should be highly discouraged from presenting his/her own case in a court of law in which they are members.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Nineteen

Individual(s) who choose to present his/her own case are often intimidated and harassed into hiring attorney(s) at-law. This obviously is a violation of the law and the U.S. Constitution. BAR judges often use the quote "He Who Is His Own Lawyer Has A Fool for a Client”.

That quote has been attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court justice in the late 19th century. However that proverb appeared in The Flowers of Wit by English author Henry Kett, who published it in 1814. Some claim that phrase originated in Philadelphia in 1809. It has been stated that President Abraham Lincoln may have cited this quote in the mid-19th century.

While there is no proof that Oliver Wendell Holmes cited this phrase, one thing has to be certain. That phrase was never applicable to individual(s) who are not lawyers or attorneys at-law. That phrase was meant to be applied to lawyers who desired to present his/her case in a court of law. Individual(s) were never regarded as lawyer(s) as individual(s) never represented anyone else in a court of law. That phrase was meant to be applied to lawyers who regularly provided assistance to others.

That intent of that phrase was to prevent "professional counsel" from lawyering his/her own case as that would breed subjectivity and personal influence. It was not meant to restrict not just the right but also the responsibility of individual(s) from presenting his/her own case over the redress of grievances.

The U.S. Constitution does not mention the word "lawyer" and especially not "attorney at-law". That document made it clear that individual(s) had not just the right but also the responsibility to present his/her case in person. Flesh and blood appearance, arguments, and testimony directly from individual(s) were deemed essential for the proper adjudication of cases of controversy. The nation's charter also made it clear that individual(s) were only entitled to counsel's assistance in criminal cases. Individual(s) were not entitled to such assistance in civil cases. In criminal cases, individual(s) still were mandated to present his/her case in a judicial court of law.

The next time individual(s) are pressured to hire an attorney at-law by using that phrase/quote, they must inform the court that this phrase/quote only applies to "professional counsel" who desire to present/her case. Moreover, its intent was to prevent that "professional counsel" from being subjective and personal by the presentation of his/her case. That phrase/quote never meant to apply to individual(s) who have no part in governance and therefore who cannot be perceived as participating in a conflict of interest.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Eighteen

People need to first understand the difference between a lawyer and an Attorney At-Law. A lawyer can be any American citizen who has a registered state address, who is old enough to not be a household dependent, and who is not involved in a conflict of interests.

An Attorney At-Law, on the other hand, is a judicial officer. While he/she is required to serve (work for) his/her client, their first allegiance is to the judicial "court" administration. Corpus Juris Secundum, an encyclopedia of United States federal and state law, validates this. While anyone is welcome to research this, one just needs to look at the term 'Attorney At-Law'. The word Attorn is defined as the formal act and/or acknowledgement a transfer of something. The word Attornment is the act of granting authority or jurisdiction to a party even though no legal rights exist. So it should be obvious for anyone to deduce that an Attorney-At-Law serves a different role and acts in a different capacity than a lawyer.

There is no such thing as a lawyer in America. The BAR Attorneys really do not do "lawyering" because while they have the responsibility to work for the clients, their first responsibility is to answer to the administration of the court. Their clientele is considered to be a chattel/ward of the court.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Seventeen

Individual(s) who desire to accept the responsibility and exercise his/her right to present his/her case are often intimidated and harassed into instead hiring an "Officer Of The Court", an Attorney At-Law, to represent him/her instead. This again is a gross violation of the law and the American Constitution.

An adult individual has the right of choice as hiring an Attorney At-Law is supposed to be an option, not a mandate. No one should be pressured to violate his/her social conscience if he/she chooses to present his/her case in a court of law. Moreover, presentation of an individual's case by that individual may actually be a requirement and not an option if Attorney At-Law affordability or Attorney At-Law availability is an issue.

There are many people who simply have no choice but to present his/her case because he/she does not have the money to hire an Attorney At-Law or he/she cannot find an Attorney At-Law who can properly serve him/her. Access to the judicial branch is an absolute guaranteed right for all adult individual(s).

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Sixteen

Currently fictional entities such as corporations are currently compelled to be represented by BAR Attorneys-At-Law in both the judicial and executive branch. Officers of these fictional entities are barred from providing representation.

Only the reverse should be true. Only officer(s) of any fictional entity must be compelled to represent the fictional entity in both the judicial and executive branch. Officer(s) must be sworn to truthfulness.

Regarding the assistance of counsel to these fictional entities, the same laws that govern eligibility of this capacity to individual(s) apply.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Fifteen

To summarize, individual(s) still have the right and responsibility to present his/her own case in a court of law and in the executive branch's judicial record-keeping department. An individual(s) can have the option of having another individual(s) assist him/her/them in their legal matters provided the following conditions are met. It must be noted that Representation By Counsel is prohibited according to the dictates of the U.S. Constitution. Only Assistance of Counsel is permitted.

1. That individual who provides assistance must be a certain age so that he/she can never be considered to be a dependent. Usually that age is 23.

2. That individual who provides such assistance, in a state court matter, must be an addressee/citizen of that state.

3. That individual who serves as counsel must be an US Citizen.

4. That individual who assists cannot be a member of any of the three branches of government.

5. That assisting individual cannot be a participant of any of the three branches of government other than his/her capacity as Counsel.

6. No individual who assists others in the judiciary are permitted to do the same in the other two branches of government, mainly but not limited to the judicial record-keeping department aka clerk's office, which belongs to the executive branch. This ban should also apply to the providing of assistance to impeached officials being tried in the legislative branch, if an impeached official desires such assistance.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Fourteen

When the drafters authored the American Constitution, they did not envision the "legal profession" being the cottage industry it is today. Obviously they believed that the existence of this cottage industry would be in violation of the ideals of the nation's charter. That is why they stipulated certain clauses to prohibit this. Unfortunately it has been and still is largely ignored.

The US Constitution did not "go far enough" to prevent this current corrupt and tyrannical malaise. So much of the work by the BAR Attorneys At-Law (again an unlawful organization) is not even conducted in the judiciary but rather in the executive branch's judicial record-keeping department aka clerk's office.

The Founding Fathers had no idea matters would be so formal that a bureaucratic agency would be totally consumed with the recording of contracts by counsel. Therefore the US Constitution needs to be amended so that those who provide assistance of counsel in the judicial branch of government are prohibited from providing the same in the executive branch, namely the judicial record-keeping department aka clerk's office.

In turn those who provide assistance of counsel in the executive branch, namely the executive branch's judicial record-keeping department aka clerk's office, are prohibited by the US Constitution from providing the same in the judicial branch of government.

The separation of powers is essential as counsel who are participants in two branches of government become tyrannical in the process. It garners them too much power and influence. That in itself erodes necessary checks and balances.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Thirteen

The BAR Attorney at-law officialdom is the only mode of counsel that is currently sanctified as legal when it actually should be outlawed. It violates the U.S. Constitution and all ideals of Representative Governance.

An attorney at-law is an officer of the courts. He/she don the title of nobility "esquire". Thereby he/she is a member of the judiciary. He/she also participates in the judicial recording department which so happens to belong to the executive branch. This is in violation of Article 2, Section 2, and Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Only the chief executive (President or governor), according to this law, have the authority to select judicial officers or to select such officers who on their own are able to choose their subordinates.

An attorney at-law is allowed to advertise, collect fees for his/her representation , and must take an oath to properly represent individual(s) and even fictional entities.

An attorney-at-law must either graduate from a BAR accredited center of training aka "law school" or apprentice for three years before they are allowed to take a BAR accredited exam. After clearing a subjective and arbitrarily administered exam, he/she becomes a member of his/her State's Bar Association and only then is permitted to offer Representation By Officer Of The Court. An attorney at-law holds an fudiciary office of trust and profit.

It is important to note that he/she provides Representation by Officer Of The Court and not Assistance of Counsel. Representation denotes his/her “client” as ward/chattel of the Court. If an individual is “Represented”, he/she is deemed a fictional entity who is no longer perceived to be a sovereign citizen by the Court.

The State Bar Associations is in most states unlawfully made part of the State Supreme Courts. This violates the U.S. Constitution because the judiciary is supposed to only interpret the facts of a specific case to the law and then apply that specific law. That government branch was clearly never given the authority to "regulate" anything, especially counsel.

An attorney at-law should not be a direct participant or member of the other two branches of government. An attorney at-law should not have any ties to the individual(s) that he/she represents and to any of the specific affairs and interests of the individual(s) who he/she represents. An attorney at-law should have a detached relationship with the individual(s) and fictional entities that they provide representation.

Obviously the preceding cited in the last paragraph is not the case. This entire post details why the American populace has been "attornied" to abject submission. Most do not realize this.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Twelve

There are three types of counsel.

1. As described in my previous posts, the role of counsel is eligible to anyone who meets age, citizenship, and state addressee requirements who also is not involved in any conflict of interests. Not only should they not be a direct participant or member of any of the three branches of government, they should not have any ties to the individual(s) that he/she assists and to any of the specific affairs and interests of the assisted individual(s). Counsel should have a detached relationship with the individual(s) they provide assistance.

He/she is allowed to collect fees for their assistance and must take an oath to properly assist the individual(s) or fictional entity(s) at a reasonable rate and price which are agreeable to those they choose to assist.

Currently this mode of counsel is outlawed.

2. A lawyer is counsel who is a participant in the judiciary and in the judicial recording department of the executive branch. He/she is allowed to advertise, collect fees for their assistance, and must take an oath to properly assist the individual(s) and even fictional entity(s) at a reasonable rate and price that are agreeable to those they choose to assist. A lawyer must register with the local authorities to notify them of his/her existence to offer Assistance of Counsel.

Anyone can serve the role of lawyer who meets age, citizenship, and state addressee requirements who is in addition not involved in any conflict of interests. He/she not be a direct participant or member of any of the three branches of government. He/she should not have any ties to the individual(s) or fictional entity(s) that he/she assists and also he/she should not have any ties to any of the specific affairs and interests of those who are in receipt of such assistance. A lawyer should have a detached relationship with the individual(s) to whom they provide assistance.

Currently this mode of counsel is outlawed.

3. The only mode of counsel that is currently sanctified as legal when it actually should be outlawed is the Bar Association Attorney "profession". It violates the U.S. Constitution and all ideals of Representative Governance. Please read the next post for its description.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Eleven

As cited previously, representation by any entity breeds tyranny. It causes power jockeying, power brokering, arbitrary and intimidating politicking, deal-cutting,and cronyism. The preceding not only allows for the emergence and existence of a ruling class, it suppresses the equal treatment of individual(s) by the judicial and executive branches of government.

That is why the U.S. Constitution needs to be abided. It mandates that in criminal cases an adult individual(s) is entitled to assistance of counsel and not representation by counsel. In other words the adult defendant, with certain exceptions, in a criminal case is still expected to present his/her case.

The U.S. Constitution does not ban counsel in civil cases but it does not prohibit the banning of counsel in civil cases. For over a century after the birth of the nation, counsel was barred from all courts in America in civil cases. It was only after the advent of the American Bar Association on American soil that this ban against counsel in doing both judicial work and judicial recording work in civil cases was lifted.

The U.S. Constitution in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, clearly states that court officers should not serve as counsel. Its Separation Of Powers Clause also prohibits participants and members of the legislative and executive branches from serving as counsel. In addition, the US Constitution does not limit counsel to anyone other than to adult citizens who are not incapacitated.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Ten

Currently there are four types of individual(s) who present his/her case in a court of law and/or do his/her legal work in an administrative office belonging to the executive branch.

1. Individual(s) who has a strong disdain for the Bar Attorney Officialdom. He/she exercises his/her social conscience by fulfilling both his/her right and responsibility to present his/her case and/or to do his/her legal work.

2. Individual(s) who have no disdain or ambivalent feelings against the Bar Attorney Officialdom. He/she simply desires to control the narrative of his/her presentation of his/her case and/or his/her legal work. He/she exercises his/her social conscience by fulfilling both his/her right and responsibility to present his/her case and/or to do his/her legal work.

3. Individual(s) who would not mind representation by an attorney but simply find it not cost-effective to hire one. He/she must instead fulfill his/her responsibility to present his/her case and/or to do legal work.

4. Individual(s) who both desire and can afford representation by an attorney but are unable to hire an attorney who can properly serve him/her.

To summarize, individual(s) whose social conscience, inability to pay an attorney, or inability to hire an attorney who can provide deferential service at a cost-effective price, currently compels him/her to either present his/her case in a court of law and/or to do his/legal legal work in an administrative office of the executive branch which handles all judicial recordings. This must change because according to the ideals of representative governance, all individual(s) who are English-speaking adults and who are not incapacitated must do the same.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Nine

Obviously any individual(s) who presents his/her case in a court of law will not be familiar with basic procedures that have to be adhered to so that a case is presented in an uniform and reasonably understood manner. People are supposed to be advised to go to the bureaucratic office in the executive branch that handles all judicial recordings in order to receive proper instructions on these basic procedures. That office would be the Clerk's Office.

An individual(s) who presents his/her case in a court of law has to appear as Sui Juris. An attorney who presents his/her own case will often appear as Pro Se. It is important that individual(s) who present his/her case do so as Sui Juris and not Pro Se. If he/she appears as Pro Se, the courts will recognize him/her as chattel/ward/fictional entities who is being represented by himself/herself. He/she will not be recognized as sovereign individual(s) if he/she presents his/her case as Pro Se.

Sui Juris means "of one's own right". It is used to describe an individual who is not under any legal disability or subject to the authority of another person. Sui Juris individual(s) are fully capable of managing his own affairs and can act on his own behalf. If individual(s) appears as Pro Se, those individual(s) will be perceived as an artificial entity, with no sovereign rights, who merely chooses to do his/legal work. There is a difference between Sui Juris and Pro Se and individual(s) must take note of that.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Eight

Presentation of a case by an individual is not just an absolute right, it is a sworn responsibility. The purpose of any representative governance is two-pronged. The first purpose is to not allow the existence of intimidating powers in society. The second purpose is to promote egalitarianism in as much as all individual citizens are treated equally under the law.

That is why it is so important that an adult individual not just be allowed but also be compelled to present his/her case in a court of law, provided that individual is not incapacitated or an invalid. Presentation of an case by an individual is not a matter of skill, knowledge, and/or eloquence. It is rather a matter of an absolute right and and sworn responsibility.

If attorneys are mandated to "represent" people, it will cause two things to happen. The first will be the emergence and existence of an intimidating power, which is what we have today in the "legal profession".

The second is the rank of individual (citizen or permanent resident) is demoted to 2nd-class status. Equal treatment and equality can never exist if 2nd-class status exists for either anyone or everyone. If "professionals" are allowed to demote the individual(s) as bearer of 2nd-class status, then the "professional" who is perceived as doing the best "professional" job will get preferential treatment. This again violates the principle of equal treatment and equality under legitimate law by all government institutions.

Representation by anyone, particularly by a "professional and/or official", will cause the existence of an intimidating power and the reduction of individual(s) as 2nd-class citizens. This will ultimately cause tyranny. Obviously representation is needed if an individual is a minor, is incapacitated, or does not understand English. However, these exceptions should remain as exceptions and coerced representation by counsel should not be the norm.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Seven

A BAR attorney at-law can only ply his trade in an admiralty/maritime court of law. A constitutional setting, based on the ideals of a Representative Democratic Republic, would not allow the existence of the BAR attorney at-law. Rather than embracing the current "legal profession" as normal, all Americans must instead reject it as abnormal and abhorrent to the ideals of functional governance.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Six

What the President does, even in a Top-Down system of governance, really does not have that much of a direct impact on individual(s). The "Attorney Profession", an unconstitutional private ruling class of people, has instead an enormous influence over the lives of individual(s). Yet Americans and people in other nations are too far gone with this illicit social revolution to advocate its abolition and dissolution.

They have been so indoctrinated that they do not realize that they have been "attornied" to abject submission. Good or bad, a ruling class can never exist if the rights and liberties of individual(s) exist. It is that simple. There never has been, is, or will ever be something known as benevolent tyranny.

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party-Part Five

The Founding Fathers simply did not want counsel, who are not members of any government branch, to have involvement in the resolution of disputes/conflict. They knew this third party involvement would make the civil justice system totally standardless, law-defying, and argumentative due to their constant presence in the judiciary. That is the case now.

The Founding Fathers were wary of the "Officialdom Of Counsel" dominating all judicial court activities. They knew that if an individual were compelled to present his/her case in a court of law, the amount of manipulation, posturing, one-upmanship, personal attacks, subjectivity, and other prejudicial activities would be kept to a minimum.

They also knew that if individual(s) were compelled to present his/her case, these individual(s) would be much more objective, focused, and in adherence to basic and elementary standards due to his/her lack of experience in the judicial courts.

Pro-liberty

Tuesday, January 17, 2023