I AM A LIVING, BREATHING MUGWUMP: Patriot Myths, Mythology, and Lies which Sabotage and Undermine Real Patriotic Americans


According to my mother, in the U of Chicago and Radcliffe “slang” parlance of her college days, a “MUGWUMP” was a mythological bird that flies backwards because it doesn’t know its mug from its wump…

Some “Patriot Mythmongers” just have to be government agents who infiltrate the Patriotic, Traditional, Pro-Constitutional, Anti-Communist movements and give not just misinformation but suicidally bad advice to otherwise decent people who find themselves crosswise with the law: They advise and counsel being rude, disrespectful, and “sassy” to the Court, engaging in unmannerly behavior which (not in the legal but in the common, everyday sense) shows true “CONTEMPT” (i.e. disdain and disregard) of the Court and its proceedings.  

To say this is bad advice, let me give this example:  Imagine that you are in Germany in the 1930s and summoned to a GESTAPO inquiry about whether you have lied about your status as an Aryan when you are in fact Jewish.  The “Patriot Mythmongers'” to which I refer here give the equivalent of the following advice: “Just tell the GESTAPO Gauleiter that your Rabbi tells you that that fact that you were circumcised and Bar-Mitzvahed by him does not make you any less of an Aryan.”  That would have gone over like a lead balloon and probably led to immediate deportation, and what some “Sovereign Citizen” Patriots advise people to do in Court is absolutely no better.

Case in point that just came to my attention in an official transcript from Florida (but it is a tragic scene that is played out OVER and OVER again all around the USA):

(1)     Court called to Order at 9:00 AM

(2)     The Court: “We’re here in the case of the State of Florida vs. (Defendant’s Full Legal name).  Is there a Mr. (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present? If there are [sic, even judges apparently use bad grammatical constructions, mixing singular and plural, come forward, please, sir.  

(3)    The Defedant: “No Audible Response.”

(4)    The Court: Is there a (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present?  If there is, come forward please, sir.  

(5)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m here to speak to that matter.”

(6)    The Court: Are you Mr. (Defendant’s Full Name)

(7)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m a living, breathing—”

(8)    The Court:  Is there a (Defendant’s Full Name) present?

(9)    The Defendant:  “No audible response”  

(10)   The Court:  If there is a (Defendant’s Full Name) present, have him come forward.  If not, I will be issuing a capias for his arrest.  Is there a (Defendant’s last name) here?  

(11)    Unidentified Speaker: “For the Record—”  

(12)   The Court:  Let the record reflect—

(13)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter

(14)   The Court: Let the record reflect—

(15)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter.

(16)   The Court: Let the record reflect (Defendant’s last name) has not appeared.  Capias will be issued for his arrest to be returned to the Court, no bond.  If there’s a surety bond — was the bondsman noticed?

What the judge did here was: he put the “Defendant” in jail for 21 days without hearing or bond.  This was arguably an overreaction, but why did the Defendant do what he did?  Why did he try to open up with the ridiculous formulaic statement “I am a living, breathing person?”  It’s because s/he got idiotic advice from a Patriot Mythmonger—“Defendant” who told me this story would not tell me who (perhaps because I offered to put said Patriot Mythmonger on my “to kill” or at least “deserves to die later” list).  

Now what were the Judge’s options here: (1) well he could have said, “I’m glad to hear you’re a living and breathing person, but what’s your name you stupid Mo-Fo?”; (2) the Judge could have said, “Will the bailiff please cause Mr. (Defendant’s full name) to enter and stand before the court?  You may use all such force as appears to you reasonable and necessary to cause (the Defendant) to do so (that would have been the same as the CAPIAS, but with more immediate results); (3) the Judge could do what he did, which was to have the Defendant arrested and jailed (effectively punishing him for Contempt of Court, although nominally it was merely an order compelling the Defendant to appear by admitting his name in Court where he had already appeared by body in person); (4) the Judge could have let the Defendant ramble on about being a living breathing person and not a fictitious ALL CAPS Corporation created without his consent.  

But as my great-grandfather, a Louisiana State Court Judge and later Justice used to say, “We are brought into this world without our knowledge and taken without our consent.”  This is relevant, because another one of the Patriot Myths is that “All Law Proceeds by Contract”—sometimes specifically under the U.C.C., or else under Admiralty Law—and these are the most misleading and pernicious lies of all….. and have cause many, including but not limited to my dear old Texas friends Daniel Marion Swank, Drs. Kamil Kreit and Jacques S. Jaikaran, to lose some liberty and a great deal of property in what should have been very important cases.

Anyhow, in the transcript excerpt above, the lines attributed to an “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were spoken in open Court by the same person.  About twenty-five people witnesses this.

The “Unidentified Speaker’s” comments may be quite mystifying to anyone who has not kept up with certain quasi-underground legal-activist elements of the (Mostly Conservative, Traditionalist, Constitutionalist) “Patriot” movement in the United States of America  over the past 25-30 years.

A certain brand of “Patriot” believes that we do not own our names, especially if they are written in capital letters.  If this sounds absurd to you, it sounds absurder to me, because I have seen the consequences.

If the “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were in fact the same person in the exchange above, it is pretty clear that “neither of these individuals” admitted to having the Defendant’s full name (even if that was his/her/its legal name).  

Now I despise bad Judges who disregard civil rights and the Constitution.  You might say I’ve dedicated my life to fighting them. But listen people: A JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AT THE VERY LEAST, IS DESIGNED TO BE A CIVILIZED ALTERNATIVE TO FIGHTING IN THE STREETS AS A WAY OF RESOLVING DISPUTES.  

Whatever information we have about judicial corruption or disregard for law, rules of procedure, or the constitution, it does NOT justify being rude to a judge in Court.

When I was 11 I left Dallas to go to school in Los Angeles.  When I came back to Dallas at 14, at the local Highland Park Swimming Pool, I saw a guy I thought was my friend from 5th grade and earlier, three years before, but at that age, kids are growing up fast and changing very quickly.  So I wasn’t sure.  I asked my friend, “Hey, are you John T.?”  He looked at me like I was crazy, as teenage boys kind of like to do, and said, “No Charlie, I’m Michael Jackson of the Jackson Five, don’t you recognize me?”  (It’s irrelevant to this discussion that I could truthfully respond, “No, I was in school with Mikey out in LA, and you don’t look anything like him, ’cause he was kind of black…”)  This kind of behavior might be perfectly appropriate among teenagers at a public pool, but it has no place in Court.  And adults should know that.

Being polite is the first step towards being respected—because we all know that to get respect you have to show respect.  Kind of a “Golden Rule” type of thing.  But still the Patriot Mythmongers go around telling people to show their CONTEMPT OF COURT and COURT RULES visibly and audibly—and they should all be taken out by friendly fire.  

It is NOT appropriate in ANY legal proceeding to say, “I am a living, breathing, person.”  It is NEITHER true in any sense nor appropriate to say that your name WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS (e.g.: CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN III) is not the same legal individual as your name written in Title Format (Charles Edward Lincoln III).  

BUT NOT ONLY IS IT NOT TRUE TO SAY THESE THINGS, WHEN YOU SAY THEM, YOU PAINT A RED BULLSEYE ON YOURSELF AND TELL THE COPS AND THE COURTS “OK, SHOOT ME, BECAUSE I AM A REAL MUGWUMP”—by which I mean, you are (like the bird) so stupid you really don’t know your mug from your wump, you don’t know which way is up, and you basically deserve to die (ok, not really—I’m not advocating shooting of ALL people who believe this stuff–though I am advocating their radical re-education).

For all the corruption in this country, I have seen no evidence in the 30 years since I first became acquainted with the “Republic of Texas” and other “sovereign citizen” movements, that we have special corporate accounts set up at birth by the government matching our social security numbers and these (non-existent) accounts cannot be accessed by writing weird negotiable instruments.  I have seen people go to jail for trying.  I have seen other people get by with such things, at least temporarily.  

But I ask you, in the spirit of our founding fathers:  what can there possibly be that is legitimate or patriotic about (1) being rude in court, (2) refusing to acknowledge the name which your parents gave you, and by which you presumably have lived all of your life, (3) trying to get something for nothing, i.e. by trying to draw on these non-existent social security birth accounts, filing 1099-OIDS, using Fred & Nina Gutierrez EFT process, or anything else that passes for “brilliant insight” in the Patriot Movement?  

NO, let’s stick to the Constitution AND Civilized Manners of our Grandparents and Great-Grandparents, and let’s NOT act like MUGWUMPS in Court or anywhere else…

One response to “I AM A LIVING, BREATHING MUGWUMP: Patriot Myths, Mythology, and Lies which Sabotage and Undermine Real Patriotic Americans

  1. Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
    Winston Churchill
    Is this some kind of an insult to my paperwork that worked in court? Is jurisdiction not important any more in the corrupt courts of America? Is the decision by Justice Mathews in YICK WO v. HOPKINS (1886) a “Patriot Myth”?
    Are men of flesh and blood now reduced to no more than “legal fictions” with no say over their status in life? Are the creations of men now their executioners and masters over their lives?
    Are “Words of Art” created and used by lawyers to confuse and confound the law now meant to reduce the creatures who created the government to serve them now supposed to serve their creations?
    While it is true that there is no such thing as a “Living, breathing “PERSON” The truth is that a living, breathing man of flesh and blood cannot be tried in the courts which serve us without a first amendment complaint being obtained. “PERSON” is a legal fiction that the corrupted courts use to trick ignorant men and women into and under their jurisdiction. There are other legal fictions such as “Individual”, “male”, etc. Since a corporation can be a “PERSON” a living, breathing man of flesh and blood cannot be lumped into the same category as a corporation.
    It really sounds as if the judge in your court case was close to committing treason of his oath. In the first place the judge is not the court, he is an officer of the court, paid by the state to deal out the justice in the law. The court is a perfect machine. It can be corrupted by judges and lawyers and it has been of late but they must obey the law and the law says that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.

    All government agencies have incorporated and according to the Clearfield Doctrine have no more jurisdiction (power) than a “private citizen”. “Citizen” in the old Greek meant “subject”. A living breathing man of flesh and blood cannot be a subject to any government or corporation unless and until he raises his arm to the square and swears an oath to either of those entities which is very un Christian.

    A living, breathing man who hasn’t sworn any oath owes no loyalty to any Government Municipal Corporation and is not subject to their laws (codes). If I don’t belong to your club I don’t have to abide by your rules.

    There is a maxim of law that says: The created can never be greater than the creator. Man can never be greater than God and man is only subject to the laws of God, not of men.

    Disprove this: (this is from a man who knew and studied the law who was not a lawyer but was respected.)

    What law are we subject to? All law? What does Yick Wo say? What it doesn’t say is we are subject to that law of our Creator and that common law of the land which is based upon that law.
    We are not subject to statutes made by our creation, that is man’s law to limit and define government and not the people.

    Man is brought to task for evil by first amendment complaint which is necessary for the government to get involved in our lives, in any way, shape or form. That is not lawless, that is order. What we have today is anarchy because the government does not obey the law.
    This is why we have such a problem with order in the government as the people don’t understand the chain of command. I drew this out in the one law class I had and the Professor, an older retired judge ratified it as correct.

    God created man
    Man created the Constitution
    The Constitution created the three branches of government
    And the law created the corporations

    I hope this gives you an understanding of the real law. Sovereigns don’t agree to be bound by any law unless they raise their right arms to the square and so affirm. This is a myth that we are bound to some law that is created by our creations. That is crazy thinking and no one would create a robot which he would be subject to, or he would destroy it.
    We have no choice we are subject to the law of our Creator in whom we trust, and we don’t trust our creations. It doesn’t say on our money that we trust in the US to my knowledge.
    …end…

    Your entire premise is blown away by the decision in “YICK WO v. HOPKINS (1886)” which the Supreme Court has cited 138 times which would make it perfect law:

    “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power….

    For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”

    Justice Douglas in Terry v. State of Ohio, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1889), commenting upon police powers, said, “Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him in their discretion, we enter a new regime.”
    I dare any judge to tell me on the record that I am not a Sovereign and that I am subject to any of the laws that govern GOVERNMENT!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s