The Truth Store II

Queen Elizabeth's visit to Jamestown, Virginia, celebrated the 400th anniversary of the "privy council's" planting of a colony on behalf of a London merchant group, monarchical investors and her ancestors. History reveals that this enterprise united as the Virginia Company and by 1616 encouraged the importation of indentured servants, granting "head right" of 50 acres of land to anyone paying the passage of a servant. It seems like a good time for reflection.

How is it that in this "republic" to which we pledge our allegiance:

- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales referred to New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias as an "absentee landlord"? Isn't a "landlord" defined as "one who leases real property"? Whose "real property" does a U.S. attorney "lease"? Who is the lessee? Who is the lessor?

- We have a "landed gentry" also-known-as an "Esquire" attending to the "business" of incorporated municipalities within the jurisdictions of an appointed U.S. "landlord"? Whose business is the Esquire protecting and defending? The lessee or the lessor? Is this a requirement in a constitutional republic?

Isn't it disingenuous to pretend that the feudalistic economic controls that attended ‘colony planting’ four hundred years ago magically disappeared after the Revolutionary War and at the constitutional convention of 1787?

It seems to me that in a business-as-usual manner, the syndicate of investors that took it upon themselves to pass the Navigation Acts of the 17th Century, could - and would - simply pay its members to promulgate colonial statutes specifically designed to (for lack of a more precise word) ‘re-venue’ the men and women of a blossoming "republic" back into the "subinfeudation" process of the "feudalism" with which they were most comfortable.

As it stands in 2007; Either we have the government cited in the Constitution for these united States, (Article 4, Section 4), or we do not. If we do, then - by definition - the Esquires and Landlords in the Pennsylvania unified judicial system are engaged in organized crime and racketeering. (For those who may not know; ORGANIZED CRIME is a criminal activity on the part of an organized and extensive group of people, and RACKETEERING is defined as 1: the extortion of money or advantage by threat or force 2: a pattern of illegal activity . . . that is carried out in furtherance of an enterprise . . . which is owned or controlled by those engaged in such activity.) If we do not, then the question becomes; When will principles overcome politics? When will members of the entrenched 'good old boy' networks separate their allegiances and protect and defend men and women who choose not to participate in a form of government not their own? When will these men and women who demand "honor" simply do the honorable thing? When will they adhere to their oaths of office and prosecute the criminal activities and racketeering that was fought against during the American Revolution?