“Re: To all Thinkers” by Vee – 7.15.21


Entry Submitted by Vee at 11:49 AM EDT on July 15, 2021

“To all Thinkers” by TM – 7.14.21

TM..loved the picture..and post.. I like to respond to posting it gives me something to do while I’m sitting around thinking of things..since I’ve nothing better to do..while we wait for the ketchup to come out on all those nothing burgers.

At first I must apologize for my past eye virus of dyslexia. There are some words I always seem to use wrongly..because I’m either lazy..lackadaisical or my minds eye doesn’t register it. Some of those are How and Who. from and form. was and saw.
Anywho.. just a short week ago I was looking up logos meaning and mascots. 

I was wondering the relevance of the Bear to the Greatful Dead. Like I said I’ve time to kill. I’ve got some logos I’m creating and am researching on Trademarking and copyrights. 

You went really down the rabbit hole on this, then my wanting to know. But I’d like to address the aspects you state on branding-owner ship and control. 

Perhaps I use the wrong term when I say I’d like to text on a more practical point then the assumed binding of a term. 
A few yrs ago I send a email to my Preacher Father about a couple of court cases that delt with what all law deals with..subject matter and jurisdiction. 

He has been indoctrinated by the public’s persona of patriotism..coming from the Great Depression and WWII. They banding together in solidarity for the great cause and greater good. Like 9/11,  that’s all well and good..but it does not change the principles of natural law and lodgic-reasoning of law. Maxim of Law:Quod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales sunt.
All men are equal as far as natural law is concerned.

[men = men/women = people

The one case was Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)..JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court….(A most important case read.)

The other was.Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. (1796) 2 S.E. 70:

I don’t need to explain this case it’s self explanatory.. “When a change of government takes place, from a monarchical to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent

“Your consent is your agreement for something to happen that involves your Rights. Consent is voluntary, or a matter of free choice, and must be given “willingly”. Your consent is your agreement, permission, approval, or acquiescence (including your silent acquiescence). Possessing the “Right of Consent”, means that you have the “Right of Contract”.

Your Right to Contract, or Not to Contract,is INVIOLABLE and UNLIMITED.


When my Dad read that case he said… “See”! as his position and view is of a  automatic subordination to the-this-any Government is arbitrary because you were born there. I told him I should made known I was speaking to the wall. Can’t teach a old dog new tricks.. or way of thinking..no wounder things got to how they are. Society has been mentally induced as you show..logo..or maybe… plum local. 

(Oh..side note..here is a maxim that relates to a posting I made few weeks ago..about the Constitution- Articles of Confederation and rule of law… Maxim of Law:Nihil tam naturale est quam eo genere quidque dissolvere quo colligatum est; ideo verborum obligatio verbis tollitur; nudi consensus obligatio contrario consensu dissolvitur. Nothing is so natural as to dissolve anything in the way in which it was bound together; therefore the obligation of words is taken away by words; the obligation of mere consent is dissolved by the contrary consent.

Lets see what else is said about this matter of consenting to the PTB. 

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)  (note this date to the latter)


What Justice Wilson handing down opinion said.        Mind you these are judicial determinations in rules of law (In the US legal system, judicial decisions create legal precedents that guide judges in deciding similar future cases). . I’ll give you highlights. 

Wilson, Justice.

This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State — certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others more important still, and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one no less radical than this: “do the people of the United States form a Nation?” …I may say almost universally — applied. In these purposes, and in this application, I shall be justified by example the most splendid, and by authority the most binding; the example of the most refined as well as the most free nation known to antiquity; and the authority of one of the best Constitutions known to modern times. With regard to one of the terms, “state,” this authority is declared; with regard to the other, “sovereign,” the authority is implied only. But it is equally strong. For, in an instrument well drawn, as in a poem well composed, mence is sometimes most expressive….

 To the Constitution of the United States, the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But even in that place, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves “SOVEREIGN” people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration. …

Having thus avowed my disapprobation of the purposes for which the terms, state and sovereign are frequently used, and of the object to which the application of the last of them is almost universally made, it is now proper that I should disclose the meaning which I assign to both, and the application,

Page 2 U. S. 455

which I make of the latter. In doing this, I shall have occasion incidently to evince how true it is that states and governments were made for man, and, at the same time, how true it is that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker.

Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect Creator. A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man, and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. When I speak of a state as an inferior contrivance, I mean that it is a contrivance inferior only to that which is divine. …

Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people. But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics, there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. …

The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws is that he binds himself. Upon the same principles upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the courts of justice which are formed and authorised by those laws.”                                                                 ………                                                               “Man binds himself and becomes amenable to the courts of justice.” So this makes it quite clear that man is a freeman on the land unencumbered to that of any PTB..except to that of natural law (at least those that are of common law not civil) and the latter case 

Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. (1796) 2 S.E. 70: further substantiates it. “He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent“And then there was ..

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906)   

“…we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the stateThe individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose.”> As a matter of fact,since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v.Henkel a total of 144 times.

> A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times.

Why are we here at this junction of life and time ? Have you done your part ? not you TM..but in general. 

I’m done.. thinking..bon appetit. 

Vee ..peace.

Ps. Still wanting upstate New Yorkers for a project. 


If you wish to contact the author of any reader submitted guest post, you can give us an email at UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com and we’ll forward your request to the author.

All articles, videos, and images posted on Dinar Chronicles were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes.

Dinar Chronicles is not a registered investment adviser, broker dealer, banker or currency dealer and as such, no information on the website should be construed as investment advice. We do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted on this site. Information posted on this site may or may not be fictitious. We do not intend to and are not providing financial, legal, tax, political or any other advice to readers of this website.

Copyright © 2022 Dinar Chronicles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here