Just what the world needed, another book

[Wolf DeVoon]

It is utopian.

Maybe so, but I believe that there exists a strong possibility of social collapse. When the shooting stops, I thought it might be handy to have a blueprint for reorganization. Let's suppose I'm wrong about that. It took a very long time for Rome to fall. In any case, there will be more Gulch-like enclaves, and from practical experience in Laissez Faire City, I am persuaded that better constitutional principles were urgently needed. It's also my life's work, so this little book is my legacy, for better or worse.

[Selene]

It is utopian.

Maybe so, but I believe that there exists a strong possibility of social collapse. When the shooting stops, I thought it might be handy to have a blueprint for reorganization. Let's suppose I'm wrong about that. It took a very long time for Rome to fall. In any case, there will be more Gulch-like enclaves, and from practical experience in Laissez Faire City, I am persuaded that better constitutional principles were urgently needed. It's also my life's work, so this little book is my legacy, for better or worse.

Wolf:

Don't understand me too fast.

That statement was semantically neutral the way I meant it.

I love your life's work and you have the mind to lay out an approach that is founded in first principles and makes sense to folks.

It was a compliment.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

I often think of my intellectual output as an ugly child, but undeniably mine, warts and all.

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

I often think of my intellectual output as an ugly child, but undeniably mine, warts and all.

I finally got it through my thick skull you weren't Warren Zevon--then this.

--Brant

Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner . . .

[Wolf DeVoon]

Zevon was a terrific talent. Tragic life, like Jimi, Janis and Jim Morrison. Luckily I'm not a great artist.

BTW that photo was hotlinked from Home On The Range, the daily journal of a patriotic and poetic female Federal agent, a friend who I admire on all sorts of levels. My book on constitutional law is dedicated to her and her courageous colleagues in law enforcement.

[Mark]

[withdrawn]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

EDIT FROM MSK: You can get a free PDF version of Wolf's The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch here. It is in a zip file.

Note, I have added the link to the end of Wolf's opening post. It goes to my Dropbox account. If ever there is a problem with Dropbox, I will move it elsewhere.

Wolf has graciously provided this to OL members and readers.

Thank you, Wolf.

Michael

[Selene]

Excellent!

Thanks to both of you.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

A note to readers:

Firstly, I thank you for such comments, favorable or otherwise, that may be posted here or at Amazon. There is no way I can alter what I've written. But your appraisal is important and sincerely appreciated. Hopefully I will have played a role in advancing discussion of how the rule of law can contribute stability and surety to a free society.

Tonight, however, I'm mindful of a much more somber truth. A friend of mine is a crime scene investigator, and she not infrequently reawakens the hard experience I gained in slightly less awful aspect as a private agent. When viewed from a courtroom or a novelist's ivory tower, the rule of law is a majestic edifice of restraint and reason. It extends into the practice of law enforcement and deployment of national defense assets, because both of these deadly agencies are, finally, what the rule of law seeks above all to regulate. In the field, however, it's a messy and steely struggle that no agent performs like an unfeeling robot. Something as simple as a traffic stop contains all the potential of fighting for your life at a moment's notice. Pursuit of a wanted desperado, or engagement with a ruthless enemy, suspends as of right whatever dainty preconditions may have been ordered or may be retrospectively taxed as one's lawful duty. On the quickened field of battle, it takes tremendous self-control to stay cool, stare death in the face, and take it home with you to replay in horrible nightmares.

I'm a supporter of the Wounded Warrior Project. I supported political candidates like Lt. Col. Allen West and Ron Paul.

Above all, I hope that my efforts as a writer -- woefully deficient in my own estimation -- will be interpreted as a positive vote of thanks to the courageous men and women of Law Enforcement and National Defense, to whom this work was respectfully dedicated.

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm a supporter of the Wounded Warrior Project. I supported political candidates like Lt. Col. Allen West and Ron Paul.

Above all, I hope that my efforts as a writer -- woefully deficient in my own estimation -- will be interpreted as a positive vote of thanks to the courageous men and women of Law Enforcement and National Defense, to whom this work was respectfully dedicated.

You mentioned the Wounded Warriors which brings to mind what we will remember next week, the invasion of the Normand Beaches. I am thinking that these men who fought there, the ones who survived and the ones killed have done more for me than I have ever done for them. These men hardly any of whom I know personally saw to it that I did not end up as a cake of soap on some German's bathroom sink. To them, I say ---- I owe you ----.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

It was the Calais diversion and Hitleran stupidity that made it possible for 150,000 men to secure the beachheads at Normandy.

Hitler was so stupid he sacrificed whole armies in the east, starting with Stalingrad. The Soviets came to think of him as an asset.

Once he attacked Russia in 1941, he probably lost the war. He cut his throat for sure by declaring war on the United States December 11, 1941. Knowing the war was won, Churchill slept like a baby. As for the Japanese, WC: "they would be ground to dust." He then went to Washington for six weeks of whisky drinking and war planning with FDR. (Churchill wasn't ever much of a war strategist, however, though he did improve on the WWI Galipoli fiasco.)

If the Normandy invasion had failed the Russians would have gotten deeper into the West taking all of Germany. They didn't need a second front. All they needed was a continuous supply of material and weapons from the US. There would have been another invasion, though; the US was going to kick Nazi ass even if it meant using atomic bombs. It was total war. By 1945 the US was hitting the bottom of the man-power barrel, however. My father with four dependents, all but blind in one eye, and in his mid 30s, was next door to being drafted. Normandy shortened the war by one or two years.

--Brant

in its next total war this country will be turned into a pile of radioactive debris, something of a collective, general knowledge in the 50s, 60s,and 70s and what hardly anyone thinks about or fears today--ergo, we are even closer to it than back then

[Selene]

Brant

Dead nuts on.

The Soviets came to think of him as an asset.

The deeper memes in Russian genetics are involved in "spacial/area" concepts.

All they needed was a continuous supply of material and weapons from the US.

Ah the stupidity of the "lend lease policy."

An isolationist policy at that pivital point might have weakened both.

A...

Post Script:

Gee...I wonder who in the Roosevelt[FDR] administration could have possibly been so pro-communist to have chosen sides and manipulated the lend lease policy?

Wow, let's get that model and present it to the UN!

[Brant Gaede]

Henry?

--Brant

Hopkins?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Yippie! My book made it to Google page 3 of organic search for Galt's Gulch.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Yippie! My book made it to Google page 3 of organic search for Galt's Gulch.

-- and resulted in zero sales. It's a big fat bitter pill to swallow, that I'm going to be ignored again.

Apparently, I'm in the wrong line of work.

National Review Online:

Hillary Clinton's book roll-out has been discussed at the White House. Clinton, and her former boss, President Obama, apparently were able to settle on a simple message in the meeting between surrogates: "Obama's team of rivals became an unrivaled team." The revelation was first reported by CNN. "In another sign of stepped up cooperation, Democratic surrogates and communicators who publicly support both Obama and Clinton met at the White House recently with Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes to talk about a number of issues, including Benghazi and Clinton's upcoming book, according to a source familiar with the meeting."

[william.scherk]

The Freeman's Constitution does not create a government. It is merely the organizational law of the laissez faire bar. It was invoked in only one case before Laissez Faire City collapsed. Petitioner A sued Respondent B and an arbitration judge was appointed to hear the case. When B petitioned for discovery of evidence, A walked away in a huff -- so the effectiveness of due process under The Freeman's Constitution was never fully tested.

Was either A or B someone close to you? If so, what was the dispute? If not, what was the dispute as far as you know? I came across an LFC dispute in a corner of the dark-roast web that concerned Will Wrangler v Phoenix Altair. Was that the A/B dispute at arbitration?

[Wolf DeVoon]

...Will Wrangler v Phoenix Altair. Was that the A/B dispute at arbitration?

I think so. Whatever her beef was, it wasn't with me as such. I was shielding someone else, took responsibility, but she wouldn't produce any evidence, so I moved to dismiss. The arbitrator was Andre Goldman, who suggested I make an offer to settle. I refused. Later I voted to seat her on the Board of Governors. Principles before personalities.

[Wolf DeVoon]

William, thanks for reviving this old thread. Gave me a lot of pleasure to re-read post #1 and comments following.

[william.scherk]

The Freeman's Constitution does not create a government. It is merely the organizational law of the laissez faire bar. It was invoked in only one case before Laissez Faire City collapsed. Petitioner A sued Respondent B and an arbitration judge was appointed to hear the case. When B petitioned for discovery of evidence, A walked away in a huff -- so the effectiveness of due process under The Freeman's Constitution was never fully tested.

Was either A or B someone close to you? If so, what was the dispute? If not, what was the dispute as far as you know? I came across an LFC dispute in a corner of the dark-roast web that concerned Will Wrangler v Phoenix Altair. Was that the A/B dispute at arbitration?

 

  

I think so. Whatever her beef was, it wasn't with me as such. I was shielding someone else, took responsibility, but she wouldn't produce any evidence, so I moved to dismiss. The arbitrator was Andre Goldman, who suggested I make an offer to settle. I refused. Later I voted to seat her on the Board of Governors. Principles before personalities.

 

Interesting. That telling doesn't quite match up with the tale told at an archived remnant of dispute mechanism from back in the day:

 

12 January 2002

ARBITRATOR'S FINDINGS: Will Wrangler v Phoenix Altair

To all interested parties:

On January 6th, Will Wrangler contacted me, asking me to help resolve a dispute with Phoenix Altair. This was a long-standing dispute, well-known to many people in Costa Rica. Wrangler acknowledged (in writing) that he owed Phoenix money. The only dispute was how much. Wrangler wanted a trial, with evidence, cross-examination, and so on. The cost of such a trial would have exceeded the entire amount in discussion; for this reason, I opposed such a plan. I negotiated, mediating between the parties. Phoenix was willing to modify her position, but Wrangler would never accept any of her positions, never made a counter-offer, and was argumentitive. He wanted evidence and cross-examination. After a few rounds of this, Phoenix wore-out. Wrangler obviously wanted the full-scale trial, regardless of cost. Phoenix would have lost money in the process.

Finally, I made a determination that I thought was overwhelmingly fair to Wrangler, and which would allow Phoeninx to recover much of the debt. (Phoenix had previously assured me that Wrangler would never pay.) I told Wrangler to pay Phoenix what he thought was fair. I also told Wrangler that since Phoenix withdrew from the process, that I would back him up in any reasonable payment. All he had to do was to itemize the amounts he thought he owed, and pay it. There would have been no challenge, and I would have been on the permanent record backing it.

Will Wrangler still refused to pay. Wrangler rationalized this to me (again, in writing) by stating that since "no man may judge his own cause", he may pay Phoenix only when a judge commands him to. For his personal reasons, Wrangler wants the show of a trial. He further informs me that he will approach the BOG, requesting that they act as his court.

It is my opinion that Will Wrangler acted dishonorably, and refuses to pay Phoenix Altair a legitimate debt. Wrangler is abusing both the community and Phoenix Altair in order to promote his personal plans for courts, constitutions, and rule of law. Also, simply to avoid paying the debt.

I suggest that you form your own judgement, and act prudently.

Andre Goldman

It seems an odd dispute -- considering that, as you say, "Whatever her beef was, it wasn't with me as such. I was shielding someone else."

How much money was at issue then, Wolf, if any? It seems that you are saying now that some other person owed something/money to "Phoenix," and that you were protecting that someone else with your shield.

Edited October 5, 2015 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

Correct. All she had to do was offer documentary evidence that she was wronged and the sum involved. Asking me to pay what I felt like paying was absurd, typical of Goldman's adamant dislike for due process, evidence, proof. No one asked for a trial. He made that up. Discovery could have been handled by email. She refused to submit evidence.

Publicly announcing that I acted dishonorably and owed a legitimate debt was based on nothing more than an emotional accusation that a business partnership with someone else (I was not a signatory) didn't pan out the way she expected.

I knew that there were signed documents and she was owed nothing.

[Selene]

Correct. All she had to do was offer documentary evidence that she was wronged and the sum involved. Asking me to pay what I felt like paying was absurd, typical of Goldman's adamant dislike for due process, evidence, proof. No one asked for a trial. He made that up. Discovery could have been handled by email. She had no evidence to submit.

That is why Bills of Particulars are so useful as early as possible in a contested matter.