Did you ever wonder how some people seem to be able to get away with almost anything, but if you even think of trying to do the same thing you are threatened with jail or some other legal problems?
To avoid being caught in a trap and labeled an outlaw, you must know the difference between the rules and law. Laws are written to PROTECT the people and their rights. Rules are written to CONTROL the people and almost always limit their rights.
You are required to obey the laws. You are not given options. Laws are written within the limitations and restrictions imposed on government by our U.S. Constitution. Rules cannot mandate obedience unless you have agreed to voluntarily abide by them.

Someone has been fighting city hall and they've been winning! Pick up almost any daily newspaper and you'll read an article or two about how some corporation or developer is "exempt" from obeying a certain law, or the law has been changed to accommodate a major industry. The media is responsible for much of the misleading information. Editors and journalism professors could solve part of the problem by teaching reporters to know the subtle differences between rules and laws.
Major companies, as well as wealthy, influential citizens seem to fight the bureaucracy and win. Occasionally we cheer silently when we hear stories of a little guy taking on the gigantic bureaucracy and coming out a winner. With a lump in our throat we again take pride in being free Americans, and we wish that we could fight such battles and win, too.
Corporations have vast teams of lawyers and accountants going to bat for them. They seem to have virtually unlimited resources to use if some bureaucrat resists their wishes. Railroads are given property tax breaks which make you wonder why their property should be taxed less than your home. You hear of public officials being caught with their hands in the cookie jar and they are merely fired from their job instead of going to trial and maybe prison. The big guys take their lawyers and drop-in on the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) or some other agency and walk away with whatever exemption or exception they want.
How do these people get away with such actions and get special considerations from the courts and the legal system? How can such firms apparently break the law and pay relatively small fines while the corporate officers go unpunished? You know what would happen to you if you tried the same thing...JAIL! Right?
Those big firms are not being exempted from abiding by the law. They are excused from obeying certain rules. That's the way things are. Don't you remember hearing about how "We must all obey the law" or "No man is above the law!"? How about "Rules are made to be broken!" or "Rules are for simpletons!"? There is a difference in these old adages.
Nobody is or should be above the law! The Constitution clearly limits government authority and defines the authority that we, the people, have given to it. There are no exceptions to the law. It is simple, clear and for everyone.
The procedures government uses to carry out its designated responsibilities are spelled out in the Rules. The rules (regulations) become mandatory on the part of government employees and they must obey them just as if the rules are law. If they don't like the rules, they can try to get them changed or they can go to work somewhere else.
Most companies adopt their own rules of conduct by which their business is operated. The rules are enforced on the employees and penalties are exacted such as docking an employee for being late or loss of certain privileges or position for failing to abide by the company rules. It is the right of the company to adopt reasonable rules and enforce them. If the employee does not want to abide by such rules, he or she can go elsewhere to work. The rules can even be discriminatory as long as they do not violate specific Federal laws against discrimination on the basis of sex, age, race or religious preference.
Most of us have certain rules we enforce in our own homes, which, if used as Laws outside the home, would be in violation of the Constitution and Rights of the people. We can make a rule that everyone who eats must do dishes. If you don't like the rule, do not sit down at the table. Within reason, you have the right to make such rules for your house. The government has the authority to legislate such rules for conducting its business.
However, the government usually passes RULES for its own employees to live and work by, then the bureaucrats try to make their jobs easier by misconstruing the Rules as being enforceable against the general public, as if they are actual laws.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amended some of its rules because they could not force General Motors Corporation and a few other major firms to comply with all the regulations. Unable to enforce compliance with the rules and fearing that making exceptions would lead to further violations by smaller firms, the SEC adjusted them to coincide with the way GM and others were operating. Corporations break the rules and win...especially the big ones.
When Citizen Band (CB) radios became popular with truckers and motorists in the early 1970's, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had rules which stated operators must have licenses and every CB radio must have a separate station license. The fees were not very high for station licenses (about $10) and operators could get a license just by signing an application and agreeing to abide by the FCC RULES.
FCC has the right to regulate the airways (within reason) for the public good. This is construed to mean adopting rules so that radio and TV stations don't "step all over each other" and you can tune in your TV set to one station per channel. To enforce regulations of low-powered CB units (range about 3 to 5 miles) the FCC would have to put a lot of men out on the roads with some sophisticated equipment. To make public compliance easy, applications for station licenses were included along with the CB unit when it was purchased. The people still refused to send them in to the FCC.
At first the FCC sent out news releases threatening fines if people were found to operate a CB without a license. When the people refused to comply the government no longer "required" CBers to have an operator's license. The FCC even dropped the radio license fee to just $1 and the Application. People still refused. To make it even easier, FCC dropped the fee completely and literally begged the people to send in the Application.
The rules fell on deaf ears. Truckers ignored the FCC rules about licenses and so did the general public. Eventually, just to save face in the communications industry, FCC dropped the CB rules altogether. The little guys broke those rules and they won.
Mahatma Gandhi led the people of India in civil disobedience to the rules which were imposed on them by the British bureaucracy. The people of India were determined to take over and rule themselves. They broke the rules and won. Young college students tried civil disobedience to the rules in this country in the 1960's and, although some even gave up their lives (Kent State), they won. If you don"t think so, go to a public library and read an old issue of the publications. You will find that there have been many changes made in our society and government. Much of that change is the result of civil disobedience to the rules, not violation of laws.
Rules can be given the force and effect of law if you volunteer for them. Regulations are often foisted first on major, highly regulated, businesses and industry which usually volunteer to allow the rules and regulations to be imposed. Regulations and rules can only be enforced as Law if the subjected parties agree or are tricked into complying with them.
The exception, which may not always be applicable, would be if the U.S. Senate ratified a treaty (as provided for in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI), and the terms of that treaty then become the valid LAW OF THE LAND, the laws and constitutions of the states not withstanding. Such is the case when Limitations and Regulations were imposed on Arms and Ammunition manufacturers as the result of a 1954 International Treaty. It was supposed to prevent private firms and citizens from exporting weapons outside the U.S.. With such a Treaty becoming the LAW, bureaucrats and Congress joined together to force arms and weapons manufacturers to obey a new set of rules or they would not be permitted to export arms or munitions to foreign countries or sell them to the Pentagon (Chapter 13). To comply with the terms of the treaty, the Federal government preempted the field of manufacturing such items in every state.
The U.S./Canada Free Trade Agreement, and subsequently NAFTA, are examples of treaties being manipulated so certain industries can be exempt from government regulations and taxes.
When you read about certain companies beating out the bureaucracy and being exempted from the law, remember the secret of their power is that they (or their lawyers) know the difference between rules and laws...and they only break the rules!

 

Click on a chapter:
home page - preface - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - afterword - glossary

If you were asked to voluntarily give up your unalienable or Constitutional Rights, chances are you would reply with an emphatic “NO!” The truth is that you are being asked to surrender certain of your rights every day and you are doing it without even a murmur of complaint.
Did you take a driver's test before being issued a driver's license? Did you give the IRS information on your tax return which could be used against you in a court of law if you are found to be stretching the truth?
Did you ever apply for a permit to add on to your present house or a permit to buy a firearm? Did you ever apply to a government agency for any permit to do something?
Each time, you VOLUNTARILY surrendered some of your rights!

You have the right to travel about freely in America without undue hindrance, harassment or restrictions by government. You have the right to travel about via the most common method of transportation within your means. Yet, you have allowed the government to usurp those rights with a prior restraint rule. The rule is that you get a driver's license from a government agency. To do this you must prove, in advance, that you are qualified to exercise your rights as a citizen by taking certain tests. The test will, supposedly, permit a civil servant to determine if you are an unsafe driver. (See Chapter 11 - Licenses - “Get Out of Jail Free” Card)
A rule usually demands action on your part. The Constitution specifically forbids prior restraint and if the driver's license were a mandatory law, it would do just that—prohibit you from driving until you proved yourself worthy. When you VOLUNTEERED, by applying for a driver's license, you agreed to give the rule the force of law.
Rules or regulations, to be enforced as law, must have your agreement. Most rules are not passed by Congress or a state legislature. The rules are made by bureaucrats. The Constitution does not make provisions for anyone to pass laws except the Legislative Branch of government. The Administrative Branch and the Judicial Branch can pass all the rules they want regarding their own actions, but they have no authority to foist rules off as laws and then compel the citizens to obey them. They can, however, attempt to intimidate or bribe you to accept their rules as valid laws.
Sometimes the bribe is subtle and loaded with tricks. Sometimes it is obvious and reeks of Threats and Intimidation (T&I). You can go through ten kinds of hell fighting with an agency of government which is trying to enforce voluntary compliance with rules. Their purpose is that you must be Made to Volunteer or their bureaucracy will be without power. If they cannot exercise a power over you, then others may follow your lead and soon the bureaucrats will be out of a job.
One of the prerequisites our government has for recognizing the validity of a foreign government is that the government in power must display an ability to control the citizens. That is the official position of our Department of State. If that is how our government feels about recognizing dictators, why should it hesitate to apply the same standards for our own bureaucracy?
If the bureaucrats cannot keep you in line, they are out of work. Period. Now you know what motivates the bureaucrats in their efforts to seduce and intimidate you to voluntarily surrender your rights and abide by their regulations.
It is not easy to fight against the rules and still avoid being caught in the web of voluntary entrapment. It takes some thought and caution on your part.
If you receive a letter from the city, the driver's license department, zoning board or any other agency of the government do not take the implied threats literally. Do not make the mistake of initiating court action or negotiations. You may think the letter is threatening to violate your rights, but rest assured that it has been carefully worded to make you BELIEVE, but unable to prove, such a threat has been made.
If you receive a certified letter or an official notice has been published notifying you that a “court” action has been instituted, then you must do something:
Write a brief note stating: “I will not VOLUNTARILY permit anyone to usurp or change my rights, nor am I designating anyone to be a binding arbitrator in any disputes of rights or equity. If anyone has a Constitutionally valid claim, they must follow the Law, according to the Constitution, and I will remain an Involuntary Litigant in any such action.”
Show this to your lawyer, pointing out to him that this is your position regarding the matter and you want him to represent you, but he must be certain that no action is taken which might be construed to grant authority to the court. When retaining counsel, remember that lawyers are officers of the court and subject to its rules of procedure. Following such procedures can result in your being considered to have “volunteered for the rules” and subsequent binding decisions by an arbitrator instead of a judge in a court of law.
To avoid giving anyone the mistaken impression that you are submitting to or granting the court authority in the matter, you or your attorney must preface all responses, remarks and appearances with the qualification that this is a “Special Appearance” or a “Special Response” to the action before the court. Remember, if you ask permission for anything you imply authority to deny permission. Some courts and even your own lawyer may attempt to panic you into making a voluntary commitment or agreement. NEVER INITIATE COURT ACTION when some official sounding agency appears to be threatening you. Look over any implied threat and make sure that it is real. If the letter says “do this and comply with such and such within 10 days or appropriate legal action will be taken,” you may be the recipient of a meaningless threat. If you initiate an action with the courts to stop them from taking “appropriate legal action” you will lose. You cannot stop any government agency from doing its duty. Appropriate legal action is the duty of every government agency. If the implied threat is not “appropriate” (within the scope of governmental authority) then no lawful action can be taken. By initiating a fight in the courts, you will give it authority to rule and since you are in court VOLUNTARILY, the rules can be enforced as LAW.
The legal maxim “VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA” can apply in all such cases. If you volunteer, you cannot claim injury as a result of your voluntary act. If you are not FORCED into court via a summons, you are volunteering and the court gets the entire question or case to rule on.
When you voluntarily enter into those stoic chambers known as the “Halls of Justice,” you agree to abide by the rules of the court. Among those innumerable rules is one which permits the judge to rule for PUBLIC GOOD just as if he was ruling for PUBLIC USE. You have agreed to abide by the court's decision. Since you are in court voluntarily, your interests will be considered secondary to those of society.
If you can think of something that the law requires you to do, you will find that it is a rule. If you are prohibited from doing something, most likely it is a valid law!
If you were in the Armed Forces, you might remember being advised early in boot camp “Don't Volunteer for Anything!” That was sage advice from your drill sergeant. From that time on, you were often selected for undesirable duties by a process which included a REQUEST for volunteers —- then an authoritative finger pointed at you and indicated you were “volunteering for duty.” Didn't your drill instructor warn you not to volunteer? When that finger pointed your way and you obediently got up or stepped forward, you volunteered!
You can volunteer by serving on a committee and supposedly finding solutions to problems the community faces. Most of us feel honored when the government asks us for our opinion. But such commissions, boards, committees or panels are often nothing more than a subtle ruse to trick the public into going along with some government program which might otherwise encounter troublesome resistance. They also help shield the real culprits who are trying to get us to voluntarily surrender our rights.
Phil Cogswell, as associate editor for The Oregonian, put it very well when he wrote: “A lot of what's called public participation in local decision-making is really an effort to lower the stakes for the people who are supposed to do something. Public involvement makes a decision seem like a shared responsibility, but often the apparent community consensus is only an illusion. Blue-Ribbon panels shield the decision-maker more than they protect the public.” Most government programs now REQUIRE a “Citizen Advisory Committee” (or some similar sounding name) in order to protect the bureaucrats behind the scenes.
When you take any action, no matter how innocent it may appear, you are giving your consent and volunteering. Despite protection for accused criminals via the famous Miranda Decision, those rights do not apply to individuals when they have not been charged with a crime.
Under the MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA ruling, a criminal suspect cannot make a confession unless he has been forewarned of his rights and it is the responsibility of government to ascertain that the person is making the confession intelligently and VOLUNTARILY. On the civil side, if you are not charged with a crime and the government is trying to violate your rights by tricking you into volunteering, the courts will take the opposite tack and permit the government to swindle you into volunteering without a warning or advising you of your legal rights. If you owned property along a river bank and the water was constantly eroding your shore and carrying away your property, what would you do?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and rules emphatically imply you can do nothing without first getting EPA approval. The moment you apply for “permission” to put some rocks along your bank to stop the erosion, you open a Pandora's Box which could result in complete loss of your property.
Remember: When you ask for permission, you imply that the agency has authority and you volunteer to go along with their rules. One of their rules is that you must submit a plan, complete with an environmental impact study. That study could cost you thousands of dollars in engineering and research fees and take several months to complete. By the time EPA gives its approval, half of your land could be down stream and the cost of the impact reports greater than the value of the remaining property.
If, however, you just DO IT without asking permission, what can the EPA do? Chances are they will not do a thing except demand explanations or that forms be filled out. Filling out such forms could again subject you to the jurisdiction of the EPA rules and regulations.
The EPA, if it was so disposed, might conduct its own environmental impact study on your little project, at their own expense. If they felt they could actually prove you did some specific damage to the environment, they could file a lawsuit (Due Process) and get a court order to have you restore the area to its pre-project condition. The possibilities of this happening are almost zilch and zero.
Don't ask for permission —- they may say no! It is your property and you have a right to take any reasonable action to protect it. Do not let any power seeker convince you otherwise.

DEFINITIONS
VOLUNTARILY—Done by design or intention, intentional, proposed or not accidental. Intentionally and without coercion. Young v. Young, 148 Kan. 876, 84 P.2d 916, 917.

VOLUNTARY—Unimpelled by another's influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself. Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20, 33 S.E. 2d 171, 174.

VOLUNTARY JURISDICTION—In old English law, a jurisdiction exercised by certain courts in matters were there is no opposition. 3 Bl. Comm. 66.

There are almost as many traps laid out to ensnare unsuspecting citizens as there are government regulations for "our own good." The procedures are varied but the end result is usually the same: You did something or failed to do something which is then construed to be an acknowledgment that you volunteered.
Government bureaucrats are not going to meet you head on. They invariably try to have buffers in the game to take the brunt of your criticisms and retaliations when you discover that they are trying to control you or take your property.
Most government agents you encounter will eventually say "I don't make the laws, I just carry out my orders." It is a little like a good-guy, bad-guy team you see on the TV cop shows --- one is your courteous, concerned friend and is trying to protect you from the other, violent, impatient cop.
When the State of Arizona decided it wanted more control over every aspect of life in that state, the bureaucrats formed a Water Management Control Agency. Water, in any state and especially in the Southwest, is one item of extreme importance. Range wars were fought in the old west to establish water rights. Men have died fighting over simple water holes or creeks.
Since the Arizona property owners have deeded rights to water included with their land deeds, the state was hard pressed to try and control the water. The legal experts quietly agreed and said that attempting to enforce such rules would violate the property rights of the people.
The Water Management people were about to be put out of a job unless they found a way to wrest control of the water in Arizona. Bruce Babbitt, then governor of the Arizona, later appointed as Secretary of the Interior by the Clinton Administration, took "credit" for coming up with the solution. He urged the water controllers to file a lawsuit claiming that they were responsible for protecting the water of the state. They sued every property owner for title. To further their cause they sent out notices (somewhat vague) to every property owner, via Certified Mail, that each was named in the pending lawsuit. At the same time the various water companies of the state notified their customers that the water company would protect their rights and they would not have to answer the lawsuit.
If you haven't guessed, the result was a quiet, voluntary default judgment against the water owners (property owners) with title and control of water passing to the government bureaucrats. When strictly enforced this program allows the watercrats to dictate regarding who will do what and where. They have complete control over most property unless the owner can find a way to "personally drill" a well or use the land without water or waste. In this case the court will be used as the buffer. Subsequent court decisions will use the legal maxim of STARE DECISIS to continue with this abuse of private property and the legal system.
Simply stated, the rule of STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE, means "let the decision stand and do not disturb things which have been settled." It could also be construed to mean "We've made up our collective minds and we do not want to be confused with more facts."
Courts are gutless when they refuse to hear arguments of law as well as variations of facts. They fall back on precedent to avoid making a decision which will upset their own little world. Dispensing justice is often ignored as a purpose of the courts if it means going against the principle of "stare decisis." Such a legal maxim can be used to trick otherwise honest and competent judges into going along with rules which are contrary to the laws and the Constitution.
When you find yourself subjected to adjudication by a commissioner or arbitrator (even those calling themselves "judge"), rather than by a real judge in a real court of law, you are being exposed to Principled Adjudication --a theory which the U.S. Supreme Court approves of and follows, allowing a designated officer of the court to make decisions based on the principle of Stare Decisis (Chapter 15). Usually such kangaroo tribunals can be avoided if you are tenacious and demand a trial by a qualified court of competent jurisdiction. It is the court's method of providing buffers for the judges.
In Monroe County, Florida, which is made up of hundreds of small and medium sized tropical islands or keys (Florida Keys), the State bureaucrats technically ordered THE COUNTY to stop issuing building permits to anyone until it complied with a Federal Housing & Urban Development (HUD) program. The HUD plan is to trick every city and county in the nation to submit Master Plans for their area. The Master Plans are then construed to be a voluntary commitment on the part of local government. Local officials are then told by State Officials (the buffers) that they must do certain things to comply with the Master Plan.

When Monroe County officials heard that they were supposed to cease issuing building permits, they sent a formal question to the State and HUD officials. The letter asked "Is it true that we are ordered to stop issuing building permits as of July lst?" That is the interpretation the local officials had placed on the information they received. The State of Florida did not reply. HUD officials did not answer the question. The County had asked the question wrong --- or right --- depending on your point of view. If they had merely asked, "Is it true that we are not supposed to issue any more building permits after July 1st?" the State and HUD would have promptly responded "Yes!"
The State and HUD did not have authority to order Monroe County to violate the property rights of its citizens by denying them permits to build on their property. Such a procedure might collapse the theory that any government agency has any real authority to dictate what a person may do with his own private property. As long as the property is not utilized in direct violation of deed restrictions or zoning rules which existed at the time of purchase, they can do anything they want. If the government, at any level, or a neighbor believes the use is detrimental to the property rights of others, then they have the burden of proof to take the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction and prove it.
If Monroe County refuses to issue building permits, which most people believe they are required to have, the county officials are acting innocently. The county believes it is under orders from higher up. County officials become the buffer between the property owners and the state, while the state is the buffer between the county and HUD to enforce the HUD rules.
Similar tactics are used to enforce the "Wetlands Act" and to take private property rights via the creation of so-called Marine Sanctuaries.
Big Brother bureaucrats appear to prefer introducing their twisted programs in fast growing areas such as Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Southern Texas and Southern California. One disgruntled government employee who retired said it was because the people don't have old roots and contacts in those states. They are less likely to have a close relative in a position of authority within local government and less likely to be inclined to organize a group to fight and resist efforts to reduce their rights.
In 1990 the Florida Keys came under a scurrilous attack by Federal and State government when they attempted to use the same type of tricks used in HUD takeovers. Officially the entire area was declared a "Marine Sanctuary" and a citizen's group was appointed to determine the methods which would be employed to carry out the protection of the "sanctuary."
This will be used to help major hotel firms take-over valuable lands to build more hotels; make lobster fishing too expensive and thereby open the door to foreign interests to ship "farmed lobster" into the U.S. without resistance.
When anti-smoking crusaders in Congress wanted to pass rules which could not be challenged in court, a rider was attached to an appropriations bill authorizing the bureaucrats to adopt rules regarding smoking on flights within the U.S. The rider, circumvented the requirement that hearings be held regarding planned rule-making which would affect a large portion of the population. It authorized the agency to adopt rules to prevent anyone from smoking on airlines.
The rules were adopted quickly "to prohibit the pilot from turning off the No Smoking light" on flights of less than 2 hours and then changed to include all flights under 6 hours duration (that means all flights). Those who were inclined to challenge such regulations (NOT LAWS) would need time to prepare a case. If anyone did get to court within a year, it would be dismissed for some reason or another. Eventually, the theory was that since AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL is limited to a specific time frame it is dead after that time. That means the bureaucrats no longer had the authority to impose rules which prohibited smoking on airlines. If challenged in court, the judge would merely rule that since there was no such valid rule which "prohibited smoking," the litigant was in court VOLUNTARILY and would rule for what the judge perceived to be PUBLIC GOOD.
Another example of usurping the Rights of the people is the Class Action Lawsuit. When properly filed, the Court orders publication of a public notice which will (they presume) preclude anyone else from ever filing a lawsuit under these particular circumstances. The idea is to make your claim now or forever be on the outside.
Such lawsuits are a favorite ploy of manufacturers who are suddenly being exposed to numerous lawsuits for knowingly putting out an unsafe product. It is far cheaper to defend one big lawsuit than a thousand small ones. Invariably there is an out of court settlement and it is implied that all litigants must accept the decision of the lawyers and the court in final settlement. The ideal situation is for the company in question to get some friendly lawyers to file a class action in Federal Court (one fight). If the company is concerned about the outcome, they can get lawyers to file class action lawsuits in every state (50 fights) and then appeal the unfavorable decisions. It is certainly cheaper than having to go to court with every litigant.

If you have a business and you want to protect yourself, come to an agreement for penalties (civil sanctions) or settlement with some government agency. Firestone did it and profited millions by admitting it had put out a defective steel-belt radial tire. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) entered into an agreement with Firestone lawyers and "ordered" the tire manufacturer to replace all the defective tires. Since it was not possible to do them all at once, they were given time. The serial numbers of the tires effected would not be made public until they were actually recalled for replacement. In every case, the tires were not recalled until they had been on the road for over 4 years. Four years? How many cars have 4-year old tires with tread left?
When actually called in, the tires were only adjusted for remaining tread life. If someone did show up with good tires on the car, they had to take an upgrade since that recalled tire was no longer manufactured. End result--profits for Firestone! They broke the rules and they won!
The Miranda decision orders that an accused must be informed of his rights. The Supreme Court ruled "...a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused...." Can't we, the non-criminals, be given similar consideration by the courts?
The Courts say we cannot! That is their ruling. If you give the court jurisdiction, you will lose. Unless your lawyer is on his toes, he will volunteer you to enter into the twisted system almost every time you consult him. You must pay close attention to every word and phrase uttered by a bureaucrat or court or you may find yourself volunteering to become a slave to government.

POINT TO PONDER

The information about volunteering is not new. Ayn Rand, a noted philosopher and author, used much of her famous novel, "Atlas Shrugged", to make similar points when government tricks became obvious to her in the l940's.
At one point in her book the scenario went like this as the government tried to control the hero's special technique for making metal. The scene is a courtroom where a three judge panel has summoned Hank Reardon. He has just been advised that cases of this nature are not tried by a jury, but are tried by a three judge panel appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. Reardon has just refused to enter a plea:

"Do you..." the judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself on the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognize this court's right to try me."
"What?"
Hank Reardon repeated his statement.
"But, Mr. Reardon, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognize my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your metal."
"I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my metal."
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law --- to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
The dialogue in Ayn Rand's novel continues between Reardon and the court for another page and then the court questions if he is aware of the gravity of the charges against him and the sentence he could receive.
Reardon challenges the panel to impose their sentence.
"This is unprecedented," one of the judges said.
"It is completely irregular," said the second judge. "The law requires you to submit a plea in your own defense. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself on the mercy of the court."
"I do not."
"But you have to."
"Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?"
"Yes."
"I volunteer nothing."
"But the law demands that defendant's side be represented on the record."
"Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?"
"Well, no...yes...that is, to complete the form."
"I will not help you."
The exchange continues until the oldest judge smiles condoningly and says, "Mr. Reardon, it is regrettable that you should have misunderstood us so completely. That's the trouble --- that businessmen refuse to approach us in a spirit of trust and friendship. They seem to imagine that we are their enemies. Why do you speak of human sacrifices? What made you go to such an extreme? We have no intention of seizing your property or destroying your life. We do not seek to harm your interests."

The insight Ayn Rand had in realizing what government was doing in the late 1940's and early 1950's is displayed in the books she wrote at that time. A better understanding of the attitudes which prevail among bureaucrats today, can be best developed by reading this great classic-- ATLAS SHRUGGED, New American Library, Signet Books, Hardcover Edition from Random House.

You do not always have to break the rules to win. Many big firms have found that they can enhance their own businesses by promulgating additional rules which can then be passed off as laws. Usually such laws are passed under the guise of being of benefit to the majority of the population.
A perfect example of how laws supposedly protect the people when they are actually for the protection of business is the Workman's Compensation Law (WCL). Each state has its own law, but all are basically the same.
The key provision is that the employer is providing the workers with a form of insurance in case they are hurt on the job. It sounds great. The truth is that when the worker voluntarily accepts the coverage via the WCL the liability of the employer is substantially reduced. Maximum money collectable if hurt on the job is limited to that provided for in the state's Workman's Compensation Law. If the employer can be proven to be negligent, the injured worker could collect additional damages. If the injury is the result of an accident or a normal job hazard, the liability is limited to the coverage.
Every employee is automatically covered after 10 or 30 days on the job, depending on the state. The only way to avoid such coverage and limitation is if the worker files a formal statement refusing coverage. If such a statement is filed during the normal probationary period on the job, the worker will probably be dismissed. Filing such a statement makes the employer liable for any and all losses and injury to the employee while on the job.
The highly regulated liquor industry in many states have had lobbyists pushing for rules which they can use. When the wholesalers in one state did not want to sell to bars on credit, they asked to have a rule (law) passed which prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages on credit. The public and bar owners assumed this meant they could no longer run a long tab for their customers. The saloon keepers did not complain since it would probably save them a few bucks in the long run.
Eventually, the liquor control people pulled out the sleeper and ordered the wholesalers to stop selling to the bars and liquor stores on credit. When the delivery was made, the retailers had to pay. The wholesaler innocently stated "It's the Law!"
Insurance firms are great at getting rules passed for their own benefit (Chapter Nine). How about protecting incompetent mechanics from being viewed by the car owner? Just get OSHA to pass a rule which prohibits the public from entering the work area, and then blame it on the insurance company, which requires the insured business to abide by government regulations. If you have the clout, you can get a government regulating agency to pass such a regulation and then blame it on the "law."
The most powerful of all legislative lobbyist, The National Rifle Association (NRA) has had to fight one of the subtle methods used to change their own rules. To defeat the NRA, those who oppose firearm possession by citizens are constantly in the process of trying to pack the NRA with their own people. It takes some time since the NRA by-laws require membership for a period of 5 years before one can be put on the Board of Directors.
To take over such an organization, you use their own by-laws and start grooming people to be elected to the Board. Let us use the NRA for an example: The individuals selected must be in your hip pocket and they must be groomed to give a public appearance which people will automatically accept as pro-NRA. Once the membership accepts the candidate, he must continue to appear to be in favor of NRA positions. Once a power base is established within the organization, it is simple to start lobbying from a weak position. To avoid a recall, all efforts must appear to be strong, but taking indefensible positions will make it possible to lose battles and thereby weaken the base of the organization. The membership may suspect they are being sold out by their new leaders, but they will not know for sure until it is too late.
Another way to actually apply rules to gain your position is used frequently by major organizations -- the Judas Goat technique. Let us assume there seems to be public support for a repeal of a law (rule). Your firm benefits from that law and you do not want it repealed, but you don't want to take an unfavorable public relations position of being in favor of it, either. What do you do?
From behind the scenes you can financially support and start a committee with a stated purpose to "Repeal the Law." Make lots of noise for the media about how the group is going to get signatures on petitions to bring the law to a vote of the people. Hire a voluntary chairman and three nice looking old ladies to set up tables at local shopping centers so there will be sufficient exposure to make it appear that the petition drive is underway. In most states it is illegal to get people to sign a petition and then throw the petition away, so make sure you do not get too many signatures. You only want to break the rules, not the law.
Move the three ladies and their table around the city or state and send out occasional press releases about how well the petition drive is proceeding. Then, about a week before the filing deadline, plant a negative story about lack of support and volunteers, but don't tell anyone where to go if they actually want to volunteer to get petitions signed.
Finally, about three days before the filing deadline to put the issue on the ballot, let the public know that the committee will probably be short of the required number of signatures.
The deadline comes and there are not enough signatures. If you feel really brave, submit the petitions and have someone carefully verify the authenticity. Even though you have just enough signatures, there are always many signers who are not registered or otherwise not legally qualified to sign petitions. You could make doubly sure by having one of your little old ladies be a "non-registered" voter which could disqualify all the signatures she collects. The issue never gets on the ballot and your company can continue to profit from the unpopular law.
My first awareness of being able to profit from the passage of an unpopular law came when I was only 10 years old. We lived in Kansas at the time and the state was dry --- hard alcohol was illegal. My father operated a saloon and dance hall several miles south of Wichita and I thought it was great fun when the Sheriff would call to warn that his deputies would be conducting a raid in a few hours. Dad bootlegged whiskey at the saloon and when the raid warning came, we hauled the hard stuff out to the small lake in the back. We tied the bottles to little slip-knot strings and those were tied to a heavy rope which was held down with a cement block. The rope was then lowered into the lake to be recovered later.
The sheriff and his deputies would show up and I would watch with a straight face while they pretended to search for illegal booze. Of course, they wouldn't find any. A few hours later the deputies would stop by and get a little envelope from dad.
One day my father took me into town and told me to wait in the car when he parked in front of the Baptist church. My father was never religious and I was curious. We always attended Catholic church but he would not go along. When he came out I asked why he went to a Baptist church.
"I gave a contribution to the church fund to keep whiskey illegal in Kansas," he explained, matter of factly. The money, he said, came from all the bootleggers in the area.
I was confused, so he explained. "If the law is changed to make the sale of whiskey legal, I'll be out of business. So, we want to keep the law and so does the Baptist church."
Even at the tender age of 10 years, I understood.
Whether you choose to abide by a rule, break a rule or have a rule passed and enforced for your benefit, you must always remember that volunteering will give it all the force and effect of a valid law. You can be fined, subjected to exceptional legal harassment and even go to jail for breaking such a regulation or rule.
You cannot always depend on your lawyer to help you. Many of the rules which are being enforced as law today were put into effect since 1954. Few, if any, lawyers practicing today were even in school in the 50's. Attorneys who know the variables between rules and laws usually discovered it on their own. The law schools did not teach them the subtle differences.
If you pick up any copy of the numerous volumes entitled the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR), the rules by which the Federal bureaucracy is required to operate, you would believe you are reading Federal "laws." Most lawyers are exposed to the CFR in law school and since the manuals read like law books, you cannot blame them if they do not always recognize the difference.
Usually your lawyer will try to keep you within the confines of the rules as well as the laws. It is easier for him to advise you and he may not even be aware of the dissimilarity. If you are lucky enough to have an attorney who is still willing to learn (that means he keeps his ego in check), you will be way ahead by giving him or her this book. If, as is often the case, your lawyer tries to double talk you with the mysticisms of the legal system and lets his ego get in the way of learning more about his profession, then you would be well advised to seek other counsel.
Ask your lawyer to carefully read this book. It should take about two hours. Pay for the time at regular office rates and to make sure, sit in the office while he reads it. Even if he charges you $200 an hour, the money spent will be well worth it to you over the years. The lawyers who discover this information on their own usually do not share it with others. They content themselves to sign on with major corporations or law firms which represent the biggies. That is why the Winners are usually giant conglomerates.
Since you cannot have contact with your lawyer every second just to answer your question "Is it a law or a rule?" you will have to keep certain things in mind, especially when you deal with government employees (police or clerks). Most do not know the differences and will resist your efforts to explain it to them.
LAWS are written in such a manner as to prohibit an action which would violate the rights of another. You are prohibited (by law) from stealing your neighbor's car. You are prohibited from hitting your neighbor in the nose or taking such other violent actions as to disturb the peace and tranquility of others. You are prohibited from trespassing on the private property of others. You are prohibited from violating the Rights of others. With this as the purpose, such are our laws. VALID LAWS ARE FOR EVERYONE - THERE ARE NO LICENSES TO VIOLATE A LAW!
RULES are written in such a manner as to regulate our activity and behavior. Usually, a rule will order you to do something which, if mandatory, would exceed the limited Constitutional authority of government and violate your Unalienable Rights in the process. These rules are supposed to keep us peacefully happy and content to follow the orders of our government superiors.
If dad wants to make some rules for his house, such as: No discussions of religion at the dinner table. No TV on Sunday. He can do this - within his own house. If you don't like it, you can go someplace else. Of course, if you are a minor child, you don't really have a choice unless you want to come under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court's rules. Dad's ideas are probably much easier rules with which to live. SINCE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE VOLUNTARY IN NATURE, THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY CAN MAKE AND LICENSE EXCEPTIONS!

TO PROVE A POINT

A great book suggested to prove a point about how big business can manipulate government at all levels to circumvent our Constitution and the will of the people, even in life and death situations, is "Trading With the Enemy" by Charles Higham, Delacorte Press, N.Y.
In it he reveals, via documents secured from our government under the Freedom of Information Act, that major banks, oil companies and other industries were exempted from the Trading With the Enemy Act, passed by Congress at the start of World War II. You will find that our own President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed a "General License" allowing American businesses to trade with the enemy under Executive Order No. 8389, just one week AFTER the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
You will read how U.S. oil companies shipped fuel to their Argentina branches and then to Nazi submarines. You will learn that the Bank of England as well as many American banks gleefully transferred funds to and from Nazi accounts while American, Canadian and British soldiers and sailors were being killed by the Germans.
Such firms as Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Chase Bank, the Texas Company, ITT, and Ford Motor Company used the rules of war to trade with both sides.

One of the greatest distortions of words seems to be associated with the U.S. Constitution. The first Ten Amendments are improperly called the "Bill Of Rights." Although Thomas Jefferson often referred to such additions as a bill of rights, it was not officially called that until Franklin D. Roosevelt, declared December 15th, the anniversary of the adoption of those Amendments, Bill Of Rights Day.
Although these Ten Amendments do further clarify some Rights of the people, they are the same as all the sections of the Constitution -- Limitations on Government Authority. The First Ten Amendments are actually a Bill of Limits on the government.
All rights which are not specifically granted to Government, by the people, are retained by the people -- our Unalienable Rights!

The best defense you can develop against the usurping of your rights by bureaucrats is to stay informed of current news and activity. Most men always manage to find a few minutes to read the sports pages and women seldom miss the advise to the lovelorn. Don't stop! All reading is informative, but do not limit what you read to a few favorite subjects. The scores in the paper, who will not play in Sunday's game, and your favorite humorist will not save your home from a greedy developer.
Bill Cosby, once one of TV's top entertainers and an expert in education, suggested that people could absorb much more news and information about current events if they would skim the newspapers and magazine articles. The secret is to make a list of key words and when you are skimming, let those words be like flashing red lights to stop your eyes from scanning. Those key words will let you know which articles to read slowly and carefully.
Bureaucrats play on words. It has been helping them to garner more and more power and control over you and your family. They manipulate words and have even slipped legislation past lawmakers by merely mis-naming the proposed bill.
To make it easy for bureaucrats and controllers to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and your Rights, without actually violating the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has come up with some changes in the definition of certain words. The Justices did not do this to intentionally weaken the nation, even though that is the result. Their motivations were to uphold the acts of Congress. In some instances, Congress passes bills which directly conflict with the intentions of the Constitution. To avoid this, such words as "required", "must", "shall" and "may", have been given interchangeable definitions. In doing this the Supreme Court has caused almost all laws or rules to be unconstitutionally vague. Here are the definitions from Black's Law Dictionary:

MAY--An auxiliary verb qualifying the meaning of another verb by expressing ability, competency, liberty, permission, possibility, probability or contingency.

SHALL--As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intention appears. But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit to anyone depends on it being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.

MUST--This word, like the word "shall" is primarily of mandatory effect and in that sense is used in antithesis to "may." But this meaning of the word is not the only one, and it is often used in a merely directory sense, and consequently is a synonym for the word "may" not only in the permissive sense of that word but also in the mandatory sense which it sometimes has.

REQUIRE--To direct, order, demand, instruct, command, claim, compel, request, need, exact. To be in need of. To ask for authoritively or imperatively.

Abuse of Words
If you cannot adjust each and every one of these legal definitions to suit your desire, you should take a course in English language. Every rule and law in existence uses one or more of these words and the variable definitions leave it up to the reader to decide which meaning to apply.
In effect, the Court is ruling that such words be given mandatory construction unless such an application violates someone's rights. Then it is given a "voluntary construction." That means if your rights would be violated by the mandatory definition, you must be tricked into volunteering so the rule can have the force of a mandatory law without violating your rights.

Whenever you hear a government agency try to convince you that you would be better off with a certain program, watch out! The plans always sound ideal, but if someone says it is Best for you and your family, you would be well advised to scrutinize them as you would a suspected burglar.
Most of self-serving politicians and bureaucrats are worried about being caught with their pants down so they keep themselves covered with an abundance of press releases. Of course, you might have to read five different news clips to get the entire story, but they do advise you of what they are doing.
This play on words keeps numerous people employed. It also chips away at your Unalienable Rights. Prior to the passage of the Privacy Act of 1974, it was virtually impossible for anyone to get information about your income tax return. The IRS jealously guarded that information. But the Privacy Act (so-called) opened the door so that almost any government agency could have access to your financial information. Even foreign governments can get the data on your IRS tax return. Was that really a Privacy Act? Or was it a Non-Privacy Act? Do our Congressmen know what they did? Have they taken any action to correct this blight on the privacy of citizens?
The IRS Directors are often quoted as they call our Income Tax System "Voluntary." The payment of acknowledged taxes may be mandatory, but the reporting system is definitely voluntary. They have a big problem trying to phrase every word and form to make you think you are required to file without saying that you are "required" to file a return. Keep in mind when any agency says they "require this information" that the word require also means "need."
Those who utilize this knowledge and refuse to file a 1040 form or any other kind of return are referred to by the Internal Revenue Service agents as "Illegal Tax Protesters." It is a neat play on words, but leaves a question: "Are they protesters of an illegal tax, or are they illegal protesters of taxes?"
It creates an image in the minds of the public. Nobody wants to be called "illegal," so the IRS uses the word to confuse the issues. Actually the tax is not illegal, nor is any protest of the tax. We have a right to protest anything and everything. But the IRS bureaucrats, like all others, are trying to make their jobs as easy as possible and non-conforming patriots do not help them.
If you want to be informed about rules and regulations which will affect you, your family, your bank account, your home, your car, your freedom to move about, your right to keep and bear arms, your freedom of speech, and all the other Rights most Americans say they value so highly, then you must read! You must listen carefully. You cannot accept things because they sound nice or easy.
When you know that some official is going to make a speech, ask for a copy. Rarely do public officials speak "off the cuff." Invariably they have a prepared text and they seldom deviate too far. It is the protection they have when someone tries to say "We were not warned." Whether you get the text in advance or after the speech, skim if for buzz words. Check any statement which seems to be "qualified."
In early 1968 I was in Washington, D.C., trying to hire an editor. The woman I was hoping to retain had a White House Press Pass and had to interrupt our interview to attend a Press Conference President Lyndon Johnson had called. After dropping her off, I took a copy of the prepared text and studied it while waiting for her. Then, listening to the end of the speech on the car radio as I drove to pick her up at the White House, I heard President Johnson announce that he would not run for a second full term. That information had not been in the prepared text of his speech.
By the time I reached the front gate of the White House, demonstrators seemed to appear from out of nowhere carrying banners and signs. "Thank God, The War Will Be Over" one hastily painted sign shouted.
The demonstrators and the press corps had picked up on a statement in Johnson's speech in which he stated that he had ordered a halt to the bombing of all non-strategic, non-military targets in North Vietnam, north of a certain parallel. To those who did not study the text (that included the entire Press Corps and the Congress) it sounded like he said he had stopped the bombing of North Vietnam.
The TV news media on all three major networks, at that time, reported it that way. The people in the streets celebrated as if that is what he said. It was 10 days later when an announcement was made about bombing missions in North Vietnam. The press was irate. The anti-war demonstrators were angry. Johnson had "lied" to them! He was still bombing targets in North Vietnam!
Of course, he was. He said he was "stopping the bombing of non-strategic, non-military targets north of" ... a certain line (way north) in North Vietnam. I do not know if he intended to mislead anyone with that statement, but I doubt it. The media did not listen. They did not check the prepared text. It happens all the time. If trained news people can get the story wrong when they have the facts typed out in front of them, how easy must it be for the average citizen to misunderstand.
Any percentage figure can and usually does mislead the intended audience. Treat all PERCENTAGES as buzzwords to be scrutinized. For example: "Eighty percent of the majority consider the new law to be in keeping with the goals of freedom."
Doesn't that sound like 80% of the people are in favor of the new law? But that is not what it says. A majority is 51%. If 80% of the 51% favor the law, that is only 40% of the whole. Apparently 60% were either opposed to the new law or rendered no opinion. But that means the new law does not have popular consent. Twisting words and percentages is a common game played by Tricky Dick lawyers, power hungry politicians, bureaucrats and unscrupulous media people who want to distort the truth without actually telling a lie.
You should make your own list of "red light words" to catch your attention. Some key words you should have on your list include:
RATE OF...
REDUCED RATE OF GROWTH
VOLUNTARY
COMPLIANCE
NET
INCREASE AVERAGE
GROSS
EXCEPT FOR
ADJUSTED FOR
DESPITE THE
NOTICE OF
COST-BENEFIT RATIO
MANDATORY
REQUIRED
PROPOSED BAN ON
ALLOWED
REQUIREMENT THAT
PERMITTED
LAWFUL (un-)
ADMINISTRATIVE
LICENSED

Anytime there is more than one descriptive adjective used in a speech or press release, read it carefully. Everyone is inclined to embellish a speech or press release by using a choice word to exemplify their position more colorfully. President Johnson's speech about halting the bombing of targets in North Vietnam should have been more carefully scrutinized by the national press corps. The people depend on this elite group of reporters for information and truth. When Johnson qualified his statement with the term "non-strategic" the press should have noticed. When he gave it a further qualification of "non-military," our elected officials should have noticed. When he put in geographic qualifications, everyone should have noticed and there should have been absolutely no confusion about what he had ordered regarding the bombing of North Vietnam.
Using the name of an innocent party in a story in conjunction with some known criminal is an easy ploy. Try this half-truth for an example: You have just read most of an article about how one man was convicted of land fraud. He is, according to the story, one of the biggest land swindlers of the time. We will call him John Smith. The story continues ---
"When Smith was checked into the State Prison, he had accidentally brought a list of associates' addresses with him. It was confiscated and turned over to the prosecuting attorney as potential evidence in further investigations and prosecutions.
The media has learned from a reliable source that the list included the name and address of a prominent real estate developer, Bill Jones. The prosecutor refused to comment when asked if Jones was under suspicion of land fraud.
`He hasn't been indicted yet,' an assistant told the reporters."
This type of journalism is disgusting but it goes on every day. It is well-known by the media and politicians that the public is inclined to convict people by association. This tactic made Mr. Jones suspect simply because of the way the story was presented. Someone in the media or the prosecutor's office obviously wanted to damage Mr. Jones or the statement "He hasn't been indicted yet," would not have been made or printed.
Of course, you have not been indicted either. The question should not arise. If you know someone who gets into trouble, you can easily be put into such a position and be considered tainted with "guilt by association."
Sometimes you will see the media used by publicity hungry detectives or politicians. Like us, they watch TV shows such as the many cop shows or late night re-runs of "Miami Vice" or "Starsky & Hutch." Some of our police officers are easily influenced by such shows. They will occasionally go to great lengths just to get their name in the newspapers or their pictures on TV.
One sheriff, up for reelection, wanted to get some gangbuster publicity so he instructed under-cover police officers, borrowed from out of town, to take automatic weapons, cocaine and marijuana, along with thousands of dollars in stolen goods from the police property room and haul it over to a building the undercover cops had established to be a house of prostitution. To make sure the pimps (under-cover cops) would look really bad and arouse the dander of the community, the Sheriff arranged for a juvenile prostitute to apply for a job and be in the house when uniformed deputies conducted a raid.
With TV crews on hand they kicked in the doors and ARRESTED the two men, three newly hired prostitutes and the juvenile hooker. They "found" a small arsenal of guns and automatic weapons, almost a half-million dollars worth of drugs and over $50,000 in stolen merchandise.
It was all true! The media ate it up and gave it top coverage. Child prostitution? Drug dealing? Automatic weapons? Stolen property?
The public was aroused. They demanded the Sheriff continue with his outstanding work. "Such people as these should not be allowed in our community!" was the cry of the media and the people. They might tolerate a few prostitutes and their pimps, but not child prostitution! Not an arsenal of automatic weapons! Not drugs or stolen goods!
It was some time before the general public learned that the two PIMPS who had been arrested were really undercover cops and the weapons, drugs and stolen property, displayed for the media, had actually been evidence in other cases and was planted in the house after being removed from the police property room.
Such activities as this are not always discredited. They are called "media events" and are very misleading. The biggest problem is that the public can never be sure if what they are reading or hearing is true or just a publicity seeking event.
The spokesman for the Sheriff's office never did say that the men were running a house of prostitution. He never said that they were selling drugs. He never said that the juvenile was working for the two men. He merely pointed to the goods and said "This is what was found in the house."
Eventually, the local media realized they had been suckered on more than one occasion and the reporters started asking the right questions.
Another Sheriff wanted some publicity shortly after taking office and his men arranged to have a pilot fly in a load of marijuana to a deserted airstrip. It was like making a TV movie. The officers were dressed in camouflage fatigues and carrying assault rifles. The TV NEWS crews were well hidden when the plane landed. The story went down and the next day a suspicious newspaper reporter dug out the truth. The deputies had actually blackmailed the pilot into making the flight. They had threatened to jail him for some minor violation if he did not help them.
You, too, must ask the right questions. Read, listen and don't hesitate to pin someone down who appears to be skirting your direct question. If they can be devious, then you must be tenacious. Hang in there and you'll hang them.

Bureaucrats can completely change the meaning of a word and you will wonder what hit you if you do not pay attention. My friend and his wife were taking an evening walk when they stopped to read an official notice posted at the corner. It said something about changing their quiet, neighborhood street from a secondary collector to a "primary collector." Did that mean they would be getting more frequent trash collections?
Being aware of government treachery, they called to find out what the term "primary collector" meant. After a brief, buck-passing, run-around, they learned that "collector" means "traffic street" in the bureaucratese language.
What the local bureaucrats hoped to pull off was to turn a quiet neighborhood street into a main thoroughfare with thousands of cars daily. When the people in the neighborhood learned about it (via interpretation from my friends) they all showed up at the next council meeting to stop the change. They had not known what a collector was and the change would have been made if they had not protested. George Orwell's classic novel, "1984," forecasting the future, complete with big brotherism and doublespeak, may have been off a few years but his foresight was accurate.
When you question a bureaucrat, especially if your inquiry puts them against the wall, they will often resort to subtle attempts at putting you down.
"I'm sorry you don't understand. If you would like to go over this is detail, I'll arrange some time for you. But now we must move ahead with new information," the bureaucrat says, patronizingly. Such a put down must never be accepted. This person, usually with some title, has attempted to discredit your mental prowess because he (or she) is hiding something. Do not start a war, but do not accept this tactic. Insist the speaker explain it to everyone, NOW!
"I'm very adept at understanding, Mr. so and so. You obviously did not make yourself clear and I'm sure there are other people here who would like you to make yourself clear by answering my question, now," is a good stock comeback for you to memorize and use.
You not only upset his attempt at questioning your mental ability, you can garner some support from others who would be too intimidated to ask questions similar to yours. They do not want that man up at the podium to make them appear ignorant. You must insist that he has not made himself clear, otherwise the audience will not support you. When you start asking questions or making statements contrary to the official line, you are a trouble-maker.
When I first heard about a Flood Control plan for a desert community where I edited a local, weekly newspaper, I felt as most people did --- the streets would be flooded when it rained and the Army Corps of Engineers obviously were experts about such matters. As I listened to a Colonel with the Corps explain about their planned project, I noticed he skirted some direct questions from a city councilman.
Curious, I started looking into the project. Eventually I discovered that the plan would not prevent the type of flooding to which the community was exposed. It called for a Multi-Million Dollar Bond Issue to be approved by the voters with several times that amount to be paid by the Federal Government (also tax payer's money). The voters turned the project down by voting against the bond issue.
At a meeting several months later, a General with the Army Corps of Engineers tried to explain their newly revised project to a group of interested citizens. When I asked how many times the people would have to say "no" before they stopped pushing this project, the General asked one of his Colonels to take me aside and explain the project to me (he did not want me to interrupt his meeting). The Colonel attempted to answer some of my objections to the project and when I pointed out the huge amount of money involved, he said Congress requires them to show a 2 for 1 cost-benefit ratio on all projects.
That sounded reasonable, so I asked, does that include factors for inflation. "Oh, yes," he replied.
"Over what period of time?"
He mumbled an unintelligible answer and I repeated my question. "Over what period of time is the cost-benefit ratio figured?"
The Colonel mumbled again, but this time I could hear him say, "A hundred years."
"One hundred years?" I asked in disbelief.
With that bit of information, the next bond issue was also killed. Very few projects are good for 100 years. Usually they are outdated and a nuisance at the end of 50 years. If you don't think so, take a look around. The government, developers and planners are tearing out numerous projects which are less than 30 years old.
When the Army Corps of Engineers came back again, with still another project revision, they pointed out that it would only add 5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to the property owner's tax bill. Since the flooding was only a problem for certain neighborhoods, I asked why everyone had to pay since it was designed to protect homes which had been built in flood prone areas. The financial aspects were the only legitimate concern since there was no record of anyone drowning as a result of the city floods. Usually the water only rose a few feet and ruined carpet and drywall.
Without a satisfactory answer, I pointed out that if they would pass a law which required everyone to pay me 5 cents per $100 of property value, I would gladly form an insurance company and provide total coverage for all financial losses from the flooding. That was in l966. In 1968 the Federal government made flood insurance available to property owners and in many cases it is mandatory that you have it if you want a mortgage. Another reason not to make flip suggestions to a bureaucrat!
The point is, do not accept those words and plans at face value. You must question them and what they mean. You must show the bureaucrats and the public that there are other alternatives to their control plans. If you don't, you lose!


POINT TO PONDER

Do your knees shake when you get up to speak? Sit on the side and watch the knees of the so-called experts when they stand up to talk. That podium is there to give them something to lean on and hide their shaking knees. If you find you are reluctant to speak out or challenge the so-called experts at public meetings, consider taking a Dale Carnegie Course in public speaking or join your local Toastmasters club.
Everyone is nervous when they first start to talk to a large number of people. Even small groups can make someone nervous. You can learn how to overcome such fears by taking a speaking course. Your local community college offers such courses and you can learn a lot and get practical experience by joining your local Toastmasters -- you will benefit greatly from meeting the people as well as the experience you will get speaking in public.

Most individuals who work for the government do not consider themselves to be bureaucrats. At the same time they no longer consider themselves to be public servants. They are, like most of us, interested in doing their job the easiest way possible, collect the paycheck, pay the bills, feed the kids and hopefully have some money left over for a vacation, college for the kids and a peaceful retirement.
The public servants are interested in doing what they must to keep their jobs and if there is a possibility their positions will be classified as non-essential, they will organize and fight for bigger budgets. They will say almost anything to convince the taxpaying public and the legislators that children will die and nations will fall if their agency is phased out. Terrorists will take over if their budget is not increased. Organized crime will take control of everything if more police officers are not hired. All useful services such as trash collection and schools will cease to exist if there is a tax cut. Sound familiar?
You can make your own list, but before you criticize these people, remember: They are not much different than you and your family. What would you do if there was a chance your job would be phased out and you could do something to save it? It really does not make a bit of difference to most individuals who signs the payroll checks. They put in the hours, do what they are told and cash a check. The color of the currency is the same for government employees, politicians, bureaucrats and the private sector.
The real problem bureaucrats are the ambitious individuals who go to work for the government and are anxious to climb the stairway to power and stature. They intend to advance and improve their position, even if the nation suffers as a result. They do not care about such vague things as freedom or heritage, unless professing such beliefs will help them better their bureaucratic position of power.
When you hear government employees complaining about being overworked, don't laugh. It is often very true. They are over-worked trying to comply with all of the nonsensical, multi-copy, bureaucratic requirements of their jobs. Congress knows how foolishly government can spend money (they spend more than anyone). They create buffer bureaus to write rules the government employees must follow, so they do not waste money.
Did you ever wonder why the Pentagon gets a bill for $350 for a simple ball-peen hammer? It is the system the bureaucratic rule writers have imposed on such purchasing to make sure the taxpayers do not pay too much! The rule writers received their authority from your Congressman and in the case of the famous $12 hammer which costs $350, it is the rules which drive the price up.
When the General says he wants a hammer so the mechanic can fix the jeep -- someone better find that hammer.
There are about 20 pages of typed information which outlines the standards such a hammer must meet. A clerk must now find the correct sheet and type up the purchase order, make several copies of bid sheets and publish the information (About three hours).
Contractors' employees must now read all this information to decide if they have hammers which qualify. Since they will miss out on more bids than they will win, they have to add all the time they spend making bids and reading bid sheets, and then amortize their time to recoup the costs on the bids they do win. Cost of $20 per hour for the agent to read, times 15 agents equals $300. Cost of the hammer is $12, plus $300 administrative costs, plus a 10% mark-up (cost plus 10% contractor). Bill to Pentagon $343.20 plus freight. Since the General was in a hurry it had to be shipped and handled separately --- another $6.80 and you have a $350 ball-peen hammer!
What happens when you complain to your Congressman about these ridiculous rules? He says there is nothing he can do about it. Bull! He and his colleagues wrote the laws and regulations which created the rule-writing bureaucracy and they can change it. Of course, Congressmen will have to fight with the bureaucrats for the changes. Civil clerks who push such legislation seldom leave Washington when a Congressman retires or loses the election. They merely get assigned to another legislator and continue to slant things the way their friends in the bureaucracy would prefer.
Most bureaucrats and government employees are of the opinion that in order to do their jobs effectively, and provide their service to the public, "the people must surrender certain of their rights" (at least a little bit of surrender). What they are actually saying is that they are not competent to do the job they are being paid to do.
Government's purpose for existence is to provide those services and protection to the people which they could not reasonably be expected to provide individually (streets, courts, police, prisons, etc.). When government bureaucrats say we must give up our rights in order to have the service, then they are incompetent or are building a power base. Either way they should be removed from their posts immediately. They, like the politicians and judges, have taken an oath and swore to UPHOLD the Constitution. If they attempt to circumvent it, then they are in violation of that oath and should be treated accordingly.
What many government people seem to forget is that history is filled with stories about governments which have run amuck and attempted to take advantage of the people they were created to serve. Even today there are activist organizations preparing for the downfall of the American bureaucracy. They are making lists of civil servants, officials, judges and politicians who have run roughshod over the rights of the people. Eventually, they will follow in the course of history and be hung from the lamp posts or strung up from the nearest tree.
To better understand the extremes some government employees will go to in order to make their jobs easier, take a look at our prison and parole system. Did you ever wonder why so many people who are released from prison are back in jail within just months? The answer can be found in the reports made by Prison guards and corrections officers.
Parole Boards, in most states, consist of citizens appointed by the governor. They visit the prisons and have regularly scheduled meetings to consider the parole release of those prisoners who have displayed an ability to "get along" in society. To make this determination these men and women interview the prisoners at parole board hearings after reading their individual files and records.
The record includes reports filed by the prison guards, warden, various prison officials and employees. When the prison has to put up with a real trouble-maker, a guard's job is made tougher. He would like to have everyone behave themselves so he can get his paycheck and go home without a lot of headaches. The guards are going to keep reasonable peace, but they are not going to do anything to make their jobs tougher. Some of those prisoners are borderline psychotics who would just as soon stick a knife in someone's ribs as to cut into a T-Bone steak.
As a result, some "bad ass" prisoners are given plenty of room by most prison officials. If they want to shake-down the other prisoners or push dope, the guards will look the other way as long as it does not get totally out of hand and someone is killed. When it comes time to make out reports for the parole board, the guards are not going to give the trouble-maker con a negative write-up. That would keep him behind bars and a problem for the guard. It is to the prison guard's advantage to give bad marks to the easy going prisoners who should be released -- they are easy to keep in line and the job is easier. Give good marks to the trouble maker and get them an early release -- out of the guard's hair and back on the streets to harass society!
This is how the systems work. It is doubtful that you could find a prison guard in the entire United States who considers himself to be a bureaucrat, but that is how he functions. Until such a problem is recognized, solutions for it cannot be found.

A DIFFERENT DRUMMER

In the late 1950's and early 1960's when HUD was first involved with unpopular Urban Renewal Projects, there was a rule prohibiting HUD from putting money into a project when a city did not have an approved Housing Code.
Building Codes and Housing Codes are different. The Building Code states the manner in which a house or structure will be erected, size of electrical wiring, type of water lines, etc. It is the code professional contractors agree to follow when they construct a house. It is usually applied to anyone who makes application for a remodeling permit and they are then required (as a condition of the unrequired permit) to bring the entire structure up to the building code standards.
A Housing Code, on the other hand, attempts to tell the home owner that he must make certain changes in his structure, plumbing, wiring, etc., when he is not making any changes or even applying for a permit. The housing codes are often used by city inspectors to imply authority to come into a home and make sure it is up to the latest standards of the building code.
Citizens in a major U.S. city objected to the Housing Code and repealed it. The city council was upset since they could not qualify for certain Federal funding. They offered the Housing Code back to the people with some changes. The people refused. Eventually, HUD changed its rules so that cities did not have to have a Housing Code to qualify for the Federal funds.
Bureaucrats want everything to be uniform. It is a great power tool which people, city and state governments can use to whip the Federal Bureaucrats into submission. The federal bureaucrats will play their wily tricks on everyone, if they can. One person, city, county or state, out of sync with the Washington drum beat will cause the Feds to change their tempo. It never fails. They must have four things to remain in power: (1)Information (2)Uniformity (3)Paper Work (4)Twistable Rules. Deprive them of any of these necessities and you will win!

"A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment Right and participation in an otherwise available public program." USCA Const. Amend, 1, Thomas v Review Board of Indiana, Employment Security Div., 101 Sup Ct., 1425, 450, U.S. 707, 67 L.Ed2d on remand 421 N.E. 2d 642. (1981)

Most government tricks and fraud involve the use of certain words and phrases. (See Chapter 5). Among these are the favorites, designed to get you to initiate action in court or to acknowledge the agency's authority, rules and regulations as actual law.
Almost every agency has some form of official sounding court or tribunal which terrifies the public just as much as if they went in front of a real judge in a real court. The IRS has its so-called "U.S. TAX COURT" which seems to have been the forerunner of similar kangaroo operations within other government departments. There are such things as "Administrative Law Courts" complete with "Administrative Law Judges and Clerks," -- just like the real Judicial Courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court refers to the IRS's U.S. Tax Court as a "so-called court".
When the tax man wants you to volunteer for his rules, he tells you that you can either pay the amount the IRS says you owe, or you can appeal to the U.S. Tax Court, or you can pay the money and then file a lawsuit in Federal Court to try and get it back.
Similar options are given by most agencies. You can do what the agency says, or you can appeal to some Zoning Board of Appeals or other formidable sounding body, or you can file a lawsuit in a Court of Law. Most of us are inclined to take the line of least formality. We usually take the position that our government would not intentionally do us wrong and whatever the problem, it is just a mistake or the fault of some yo-yo who should not be working for our government. We opt for the Tax Court or the Zoning Court or the Appeals Division of the MVD, or whatever. When we do, we volunteer to abide by their rules and procedures. We enter into a Contractual Agreement with the government agency making the terms. Then, if we fail to abide by the decision of that COURT(?), the agency can legally take us into a Real Court of Law and have that real court uphold the Administrative Tribunal's findings. If we did not volunteer, the agency in question would use all manner of threats and intimidation (T&I) to try and force "voluntary compliance" with their rules.
Don't be cutesy and think you can beat these experts at their own game. They are masters of word usage and abuse. You will have to listen and read very carefully. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is probably one of the biggest abusers of implied volunteerism. Their rules (CFR, 24) state that if you open negotiations with them regarding the sale price of the property, "you have agreed to sell." The only question is the amount to be paid. If you say "Everything is for sale. I'll take a million bucks for my house," you have opened negotiations.
There is an old story about a man asking a woman if she would have sex with him for $1 Million. She thought a moment and said, "If I am to be totally honest, I guess I would have to admit that I would have sex with you for a million dollars." The man then asked her if she would have sex with him for $20. She asked pointedly, "What do you think I am -- a prostitute?"
He smiled and replied, "We have already established that. Now the only question remaining is the negotiated price you will accept."
If you feel you must talk to a bureaucrat, keep a small pocket recorder handy. The $50 invested will be well worth it to you somewhere down the line. Some states prohibit secret recordings of conversations and some will not allow the information to be used, even for reference purposes, if all the parties were not aware of the recording device.
Stick the recorder out front and advise the bureaucrat that this conversation is being recorded. You will be amazed at how much less T&I you have to put up with. You will also be able to substantiate what was said, even if only for your own attorney. In the heat of what could be an angry discussion with a government agent, we are often forgetful of embarrassing things we might have said and sometimes we tend to glamorize our position in retrospect. The same is true of government agents. The recording keeps everything candid.
If there is any question in your mind about the purpose of a meeting or proposal of government, then preface your questions and statements with "I'm curious. I do not intend that anything I say or my appearance here should be construed as voluntarily agreeing to your plan or proposal, but I would like some questions answered."
With that qualification prefacing your letter, appearance or remarks it should be reasonably established (especially if you tape it) that you are not volunteering for anything.
One way you might turn the tables on some of these tricksters is to make copies of the following Federal Law and hand it to them. Let them know you are aware that their program or methods are only rules and these are real criminal laws which can land someone in jail.
There are numerous Court precedents regarding both of these particular laws most of which agree that the statutes were, and are, intended to be used to protect ALL the rights of people and to punish anyone who conspires or violates those rights. The Courts have specifically pointed out that these LAWS uphold the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment provisions of the Constitution and are not confined thereto. It is not meant to allow civil suits for such violations, although those may be brought under Federal, and some state, RICO (racketeering) laws.

READ THESE LAWS CAREFULLY!
Keep a copy of these laws, preferably printed on business size cards, and use them much like the police use the Miranda Warnings. You can politely advise any government agent or even corporate bureaucrats that they will be in violation of these FEDERAL LAWS (not rules) if they attempt to enforce rules under color of law when you have not volunteered. Such WARNING CARDS are distributed at a nominal cost by Survival Force of America.

Title 18 U.S. Criminal Code -- Chapter 13
Section 241.
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Section 242.
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

A good citizen and grandfather lived in a rather high priced desert community and his house faced on a side street, rather than the street on which it was numbered. A local ordinance required that motorhomes be parked in back of the houses -- not on the side. Legally, his motorhome was parked in "back" of his house when he parked it on the side.
Bureaucrats didn't care. They wanted it moved. They filed a suit against the man and his wife and the Constable served them with a copy of the lawsuit AND "an order" from the Justice Court that they both appear at the Sheriff's office for fingerprinting at least 24-hours before they appear in court. The man was confused and his wife was visibly upset! How could they order him to be fingerprinted for a civil matter?
He called me and told me what was happening. I knew that such an order would violate all manner of Constitutional protection and I couldn't see that community making such a mistake. The answer was simple: A service of papers by the Constable DID NOT EXIST until the Constable returned to the court and signed a "certificate of service," under oath, stating he had served the correct persons in a lawful manner. Until such a document was filed, the Subpoenas and order to be fingerprinted did not officially exist.
If the couple went to a court to have the order quashed, it would be denied since no such order exists. If they complied and went to be fingerprinted before the certificate of service was filed, they would be considered to have done so voluntarily. That is why they were supposed to fingerprinted at least 24-hours before appearing in front of the judge.
After explaining this to him, I suggested he go to the court clerk's office and see if a certificate of service had been filed.
The clerk immediately said there was a mistake in the service and he could ignore it. He then passed out the WARNING CARDS mentioned earlier. Subsequently the Magistrate and the clerks refused to have anything to do with such proceedings!
The power of the bureaucrats is great and they aren't going to surrender it easily. They will always find a new way to try and trick you. Remember: If you think it is wrong, it probably is -- and you have to find out how the trick is being played!

Example of cfr justice dept.rules 9.6

Most of us know or have heard of someone who was forced to sell their home to make way for an urban renewal or government planned, private developer project. Horror stories abound about how an elderly couple was forced to sell and move out of their life-long home so some private developer could build a hotel, shopping center or apartment complex. There have been times when little old ladies have held the Sheriff at bay with loaded shotguns while heavy bulldozers parked on the sidelines with their diesel engines coughing and chattering away.
Does this scenario sound familiar? The gray haired old lady and her almost deaf husband have been refusing to move out of their home and defied every "court order" issued. Now it is the day of reckoning. The Sheriff has been called upon by the Court and ordered to remove the elderly couple from their home of 40 years. A gigantic shopping center and 200 condominium apartments are to be built on the site and everyone else has moved away.
This lone couple is standing in the way of progress! They have had their "day in court" and a lawyer to represent them. They are now defying a valid court order. The Sheriff would have preferred to call in a S.W.A.T. team to face the armed resisters, but he is an elected official -- the TV camera teams and newspaper reporters would make political mince-meat of him if he called in a military style operation just to remove one old couple from their home.
The couple's lawyer is standing nearby pleading with them to put down the gun and give up the house. "You had your day in court and you lost," he pleads for the hundredth time. "It is a legitimate proceeding. You don't have the right to stay here anymore. It is no longer your house."
Looking like typical grandparents, the couple is steadfast. They paid for that house and did not owe anyone a dime. How could the Court say they had to sell their home and move out just so some millionaire developer could build apartments or a shopping center?
The neighbors had already surrendered and sold their homes months ago. They did not want to move out either, but they were told they did not have a choice. Some hired lawyers and tried to fight back but, like this old couple, they lost in court and were ordered to move away from their old neighborhood, friends and memories. The neighbors were all gone and their houses razed. This couple was left alone to try and fight against a system they did not understand -- a system which seemed contrary to the rights they always felt they had as American citizens. This was a matter of