Tuesday, December 1, 2015

December 1, 2015 UPDATE: Seeking help from attorneys.

    I finally decided what to do with the nice letter from Senior Assistant Attorney General Stephen T. Reinmuth. I sent letters of request to a couple of civil rights organizations to see if I could get their attention. With the letters, I also sent copies of Stephen's letter. Perhaps these civil rights attorneys will decide to give me a hand.
    Before I publish my letter of request on this blog, I want to untangle some nonsense that is found in Stephen's letter. You see, these government employees are like most Americans. They are shallow thinkers. They hear a clever cliche and don't bother to think it through. They just go on repeating it as if it is the gospel truth. Then, since they fall for the snippet, they act and perform their duties as if the incomplete cliche is gospel and complete. Then they try to get the public, ME, to fall for the nonsense the same way they do.
    I have already untangled a lot of nonsense coming from government employees, but let me list a couple here. First, I untangled the application and jurisdiction of "Administrative Law." Administrative Law governs the administration of a government program. Administrative law governs people who sign up to participate in the government program. Administrative law does not apply to the general public who has not signed away their constitutionally protected rights in order to participate in the government program. Administrative law does not overrule constitutionally protected rights and liberties. SIMPLE! It can't get any simpler!
    Another bunch of nonsense I untangled is the "Helping the Local Handyman" bill that Rep. Shelley Short introduced to the legislature. These legislators, and all government employees, need to simply uphold our Supreme Law of the Land and repeal unconstitutional legislation, not introduce more nonsensical laws to fix unconstitutional laws. What is so hard to understand about that? Didn't they all take an Oath of Office to support our contracts between We the People and their public servants? It is so frustrating trying to communicate with people who are stuck in la-la land and who willfully refuse to come back to simple reality.
   Okay, the nonsense and deceit in Reinmuth's letter that needs to be untangled is found in his second to the last sentence. "Until there is a change in the electrical contractor law, the Department of Labor and Industries must enforce, and the Attorney General's Office must defend, the law as it currently stands." Does Reinmuth really expect me to fall for that nonsense? Is he forgetting his Oath of Office regarding our Supreme Law of the Land and my right to publish a list of my skills, and my right to a speedy trial by jury? Reinmuth is thinking shallow. He takes his "cliche" directive to mean that he is required to defend legislation, regulations, and statutes that are clearly unconstitutional, thus nullifying our Supreme Law of the Land. Nullifying our Supreme Law of the Land is equal to disregarding his own Oath of Attorney. His position and words to me are completely untenable. Is he really that stupid? Evidently so, and it appears that nearly all government employees are in la-la land doing the same thing. From my perspective, all of this is ridiculous. The citations I received are clearly unconstitutional, and correcting the mistake is way too simple! Yet, the government employees continue to make fools of themselves believing their nonsensical cliches and unconstitutional directives. Our Supreme Law of the Land is written in 6th grade English. It is easily understood by the people who ratified our state and federal constitutions, but these foolish government employees pretend that our constitutions cannot be understood by themselves or by We the People. These government employees defer to to the State and Federal Supreme Courts to tell us what our constitutions really mean. Once again, more ridiculousness! What is a simple and clear thinking person like myself supposed to do with this onslaught of ridiculous nonsense? The citations are absolutely clear nonsense and unconstitutional, yet government employees PRETEND that they are not nonsense! How do you rescue people from PRETEND? How do you pull people out of la-la land when they prefer to invent more nonsense and lies in order to stay in la-la land? SHEESH!  ...at least it is as amusing to me. It should be embarrassing to them! Good grief!
    There, I untangled some more nonsense... Here is the letter I wrote in hopes of getting some help from attorneys who are not in la-la land. [Reinmuth's letter to me is uploaded to my previous UPDATE, November 12, 2015]

November 30, 2015

TO: Attorney

FROM: Russ Hinds

SUBJECT: First Amendment case

Dear Mr. Attorney,
Please find the enclosed letter from Stephen T. Reinmuth, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Washington State, which is in regard to my dispute with Washington Department of Labor and Industries. The dispute is over 2 citations with fines totaling $1500.00 issued to me by WDLI for publishing a list of my skills and posting that list on a private bulletin board in an effort to serve my neighbors and make new friends.
The letter asks me to seek legal counsel in my dispute so that my perspective on the administrative law (RCW 19.28) may be properly presented to the appropriate public servants in charge of interpreting and enforcing the law. In my view, the tone of the letter implies that the public servants would like to have the dispute clarified and resolved correctly according to our state and federal constitutions FOR THEM so that they may do their job better in compliance with their Oath of Office/Attorney. My experience dealing with these public servants makes it obvious that they are doing their job by the seat of their pants without the courage to go against the government employee crowd (the machine) which has disregarded our constitutionally protected rights for the last 5 decades, and more.
It is my belief and hope that correctly resolving the unconstitutional issuance of fines for hanging an innocent flier on a private bulletin board in accordance with our Supreme Law of the Land will result in more confidence and courage on the part of public servants who honestly desire to abide by their Oath of Office/Attorney. Public servants adhering to their Oath will bring back some sanity to out of control government...
From you, I am seeking a phone conversation to discuss ways I may pursue victory in standing up for my constitutionally protected rights. Obviously, I am not pursuing this for my own benefit, but for the benefit of all people who desire the freedom and rights protected in our contract with government employees. However, there is some just compensation desired on my part in order to be made whole regarding the expense of appeals and the income lost due to my loss of liberty and due process of law.
In today's out of control government, if we do not exorcise our rights, we lose them.

Please respond via the address, phone, or email above.
Much appreciation for your time,

Russ Hinds                                                                                            enclosure, 2 pages

I would love to get a response from these attorneys. It would be very refreshing to speak to people who do not reside in la-la land.


  1. The problem with hiring an attorney is that their first duty is to the court that is going to try to screw you. He will waive challenging the nature and cause against you. You have not committed a crime. They are trying to enforce statutes against you. I don't see the letter they sent you.
    Check this out:

    "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

    Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia, and the political rights of federal citizens are franchises which they hold as privileges at the legislative discretion of Congress.” (Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 (1885)).

    "The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

    "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
    Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

    “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

    "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

  2. Continued...

    "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

    "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
    City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

    "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

    This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

    Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

    The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

    "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."

    The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

    A US citizen is a corporation:

    Congressional Record , June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646). A "citizen of the United States" is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

    “...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political'[ rights]' which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political '[rights]' of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870)


  3. United States Code that uses “American national” while maintaining no such status as 14th Amendment “naturalized citizen of the United States”.
    8 U.S.C. § 1502 : Certificate of nationality issued by Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state
    The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an AMERICAN NATIONAL and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate official channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the FOREIGN STATE in which it is to be used.
    19 Corpus Juris Secundum § 883, [t]he United States government is a FOREIGN CORPORATION with respect to a state.
    8 USC § 1101(a)(21), [t]he term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.”
    8 USC § 1101(a)(22), [t]he term “national of the United States” means
    (A) a citizen of the United States, or
    (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
    American national ≠ national/citizen of the United States
    These are TWO distinct status’ within the American system. The former is a freeman, the latter is a voluntary slave subject to the jurisdiction thereof created by section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It is a FEDERALLY CREATED capacity/title that owes allegiance to it.
    American National/State Citizens Printing Office

    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
    [[Page 73]]
    Nationalities, etc.
    5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used
    for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.
    5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the
    following forms will be used.

    New Hampshirite
    New Jerseyan
    New Mexican
    New Yorker
    North Carolinian
    North Dakotan
    Rhode Islander
    South Carolinian
    South Dakotan
    West Virginian

    5.24. Observe the following forms:
    Alaska Native (Aleuts, Eskimos, Indians of Alaska)
    Native American (American Indian)
    Puerto Rican
    Part-Hawaiian (legal status)
    but part-Japanese, etc.
    Native American words
    5.25. Words, including tribal and other proper names of Indian, Aleut, Hawaiian, and other groups, are to be followed literally as to spelling and the use of spaces, hyphens, etc.