1

April 5, 2010
Governors across the country received letters a few days ago
directing them to resign within three days or be removed. The exact
language hasn't turned up in any articles I've seen, but apparently it
doesn't specify the means of removal and isn't directly threatening.
Security has been stepped up in some capitals, but due less to any
anticipated danger from the source of the letters than to possible
action from nuts who might take the hint. The organization behind
the letters, Guardians of the Free Republics, seems more confused
than menacing, although there are some worrisome comments,
associations and implications.
On their web page,1 the Guardians set out a Restore America Plan, a
"strategy for behind-the-scenes peaceful reconstruction of the de jure
institutions of government without controversy, violence or civil war."
De jure is only one of several words or phrases that the author or
authors misinterpret; they define it as "original." The Plan would
"Restore and reinhabit [sic] the de jure institutions of lawful
government." That isn't explained on the main page, but elsewhere it
is revealed that we must undo changes made since 1933; other
comments indicate that we must return to 1865. In other words, no
government intervention in the economy and no civil rights laws. At
yet another point, the Guardians opt for "restoring, in principle, the
Constitutional institutions through December 19, 1860," which seems
to relate to the December 20 declaration by South Carolina to secede.
One might infer an extreme states-rights position, but the Guardians
don't seem to think very highly of state government either. On this, as
on all points, there is much confusion; there also is a reference to
1861, noted below.
The Guardians are under the odd impression that the United States
-- or it may be the US government -- has become a corporation. (That
notion is based on a misreading of a federal statute governing debt
collection procedure which defines "United States" to include, along
with other agencies and instrumentalities, a federal corporation). The
imaginary corporation is illegitimate and so, therefore, are its laws
 2

and actions.
The Guardians want to end the use of "covert contracts such as
Form 1040, car registrations, birth certificate applications, and bank
signature cards" because those documents imply that the person
involved is a "subject" of the United States Federal Corporation.
They oppose tax evasion prosecutions because the IRS is a foreign
banking cartel, formerly the Puerto Rico Bureau of Taxation. (There's
no clue as to where that one comes from). Actually, the real identity of
the IRS or any taxing authority is beside the point: another demand is
to "end all non-consensual and unlawful taxation including all taxes
on the sacred rights of labor and privacy." I'll bet there won't be any
consensual taxes either.
In an unusually muddled accusation, even for this source, the
Guardians demand an end to "admiralty prosecutions for kidnapping
and other heinous crimes against mankind as 'commercial crimes'
against the corporate State under a contrived corporate color-of-law
venue." The quoted phrase is lifted from a section of the Code of
Federal Regulations which deals with the disposition of property
seized by the ATF and defines, for that purpose, certain crimes as
commercial crimes. Somehow the Guardians think that converts all
crimes into commercial ones and, even though the regulation dates
only to 1978, it somehow relates to the Civil War: "U.S. Inc. defines all
crime as commercial as a result of the fall of the republic when the
South walked out of congress in 1861 and the de jure congress, unable
to raise a quorum, was replaced by Lincoln with the de facto corporate
Congress; and the de jure district court of the United States was
replaced by the de facto corporate UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT." Since the corporate government apparently came into being
in 1861, why is 1865 used as the crucial date? Never mind; none of this
makes sense. The reference to admiralty is based on another
misinterpretation; whenever the Guardians get near a legal concept,
weird conclusions follow.
Although the ostensible target is the hypothetical US Corporation,
the Guardians object to laws which have nothing to do with it, such as
 3

the "use of deeds which classify the People as 'tenants' on their own
land, thereby transferring control to incorporated County registrars
and tax assessors"; the conversion of marriage into "a commercial
system of state-issued privileges through the so-called 'marriage
license' whereby incorporated 'courts' presume the 'right' to trespass
on families and kidnap children;" and interference with automobile
ownership “through DMV registrations which covertly exchange the
divine rights of travel and ownership for the state-issued 'privileges' of
'driving' and 'title.' " In short, they don't like laws.
The revolution is to be accomplished "peacefully, discreetly, quietly
and honorably," which is reassuring. However, the Guardians claim at
one point that the Plan was created after consultation with high-
ranking members of the United States armed forces, and at others that
it is a "war college restoration strategy" proposed by such officers,
"who are tired of taking orders from a corporate CEO. . . ." That
certainly is all bluff, and so is the claim that the military has agreed to
follow the orders of the Guardians' new government. More troubling,
the Guardians think that law enforcement is illegitimate because it
proceeds from the dread corporation. The disdain for the courts leads
to including among immediate goals "Arrest and shackling of the
District Court of the District of Columbia." That is more bluster, but
the incitements to violence begin to add up.
There is a religious overtone -- restoring Biblical law, a covenant
with the Creator, salvaging the souls of mankind, "the satanic
institutions and rituals of 1933 and 1865" -- which is another
dangerous element. There are references to Rothschilds and Warbugs
which convey a whiff of anti-Semitism.
A posting on Mother Jones claimed that there is only one person
behind the Guardians. An article in The Christian Science Monitor
named four, three of them "elders." A comment to the Mother Jones
report claimed that there are 2,000 members. One of the Guardians'
web pages claims that "thousands upon thousands" have expressed
support for the Plan. My impression is that there are only a few
people directly involved, and that the web material may well be written
 4

by only one; two of the subsidiary pages are written in the first person
singular, and they all share a pretentious, semi-educated style.
One of the pages is signed "Sam Kennedy" who, it develops, has a
radio show on the Republic Broadcasting Network which is based, not
to my surprise, in Texas. His bio on its page states that he is "a retired
physician who treats pain disorders" and that he "served as a
journalist and professional writer for many years." That's difficult to
believe. After reading the web site, listening to one of his broadcasts
and part of another, and reading descriptions of others, I can't believe
that he has much education, analytic ability or real-world experience
or that he ever made a living as a writer.
His program is entitled "Take No Prisoners." which rather detracts
from the promise of peaceful change, and it's not encouraging that one
of the other talkers on Republic Broadcasting is Michael Collins Piper,
who writes for the right-wing paper The American Free Press. Several
others in the lineup profess concern about the New World Order or
the UN. One promises to teach you how to protect your family from
terrorism and another describes himself as a tactical firearms trainer
who instructs in the defensive use of handguns, shotguns, rifles and
sub-machine guns. One claims to be articulating the popular rage.
This sort of lineup will encourage the irrationally angry to do
something, very possibly not peacefully and quietly.
The Kennedy broadcast I listened to in full, from March 3, was
rambling and at times incoherent. As on the web site, he seemed
ambivalent about his own program. At times he counsels patience and
even tells the faithful that they need not do anything because the great
transformation will somehow just happen. (The web site still states
that the great transformation will occur by March 31, 2010.) At other
times, there are ominous hints, one of which promises action if
directives from the military are ignored by civilians.
Part of the broadcast was devoted to goofy advice on how to bypass
normal legal procedure, which he described as "devil worship;" that
apparently ties in to the demand on the web site for an end to the
blasphemous and perverse act of "requiring the People to pray to
 5

'courts' as is now required." The only sense I can make of this is that,
in complaints and other documents asking for favorable action from a
court, the petitioner "prays" for that result. The word, of course, is
simply a legal archaism, but Kennedy takes it literally.
Kennedy's Plan is a muddled quasi-anarchic program. He doesn't
seem to be anything but a babbler, and much of what he says is so silly
that it should be impossible to take it seriously. However, I watched a
clip on You Tube in which an unidentified woman expresses her
excitement over his notion that we could ignore taxes and mortgages.
She said she wants to invite him to appear on Freedomizer Radio,
which, according to its web page, is committed to "REAL Patriot
News." Another web site called Patriot Radio Review gives Kennedy
high marks for legal knowledge, which makes his radio show a
valuable asset for the Patriot/Truth movement.
I'm afraid that the Kennedy-Guardian claims about the illegitimacy
of the government, ignorant as they are, could appeal not only to other
babblers but to any number of nut groups, and could provide them
with theories on which to hang their resentments.
Increased security for the governors isn't a bad idea.

April 7, 2010
Since writing Monday's note concerning the Guardians of a Free
Republic, I've located, thanks to another admiring You Tube clip,
The unanimous Declaration of the sovereign
People of the united States of America to restore and
reinhabit the free American republics.
The varying type size may reveal that states are really more important than the
people, although later we see that evil corporate states must be converted into
republics. Don't look for consistency.
The Declaration runs to thirty pages, all in Old English script, and includes a
"warrant" to all fifty governors (presumably the document which has generated the
news reports), orders to the governors, declarations of principle, and "general
orders" directed to, among other people, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This self-
important effusion is signed by four people, including Samuel Kennedy.
 6

The Declaration is similar in tone and, for the most part, in

ideology, to the Guardians' web pages but is even more pompous and
confused. It is a parody of a serious political document and almost a
parody of the Guardians' beliefs. In places it reads like something
produced by the Postmodernism Generator. For example, a goal is to
restore to every American "their in-law, dry land divine rights of
birth…."
The Warrant carries this imposing caption:
Warrant
of the De jure Grand Juries
of the People of the united States of America
assembled under God as

Guardians of the Free Republics

and sole lawful authority on the land

The four signers claim to speak for "the sovereign People" and invoke
their "sacred dominion over all the earth." The Governors are listed
by name and state, each identified as a person "occupying the office of
Governor, incorporated state of ____."
Each is advised of the "reinhabitation [by the people, presumably] of
the legitimate de jure un-incorporated republican government
institutions pursuant to the constitutions of the free American
republics and the United States of America republic, c. 1787."2 How
the states became incorporated is not revealed; perhaps the
conversion of the federal government into a corporation1 carries them
along. The Warrant declares "the conclusion, termination, voiding
and de-funding of the de facto office of 'Governor' of each of the
aforesaid fifty (50) political subdivisions of the United States Federal
Corporation."
It goes on to "arrest, redeem and recall" the Governors' bonds,
insurance, "surety and de facto escrow," thereby "rendering them
null, void and non-negotiable and the public wanting for
indemnification." The last phrase, assuming that it means something,
expresses a concern inconsistent with cancelling indemnification

on is discussed in Monday's note.

1
 7

instruments.
The Warrant then recites that the de facto office of Governor is
"resorbed" into a de jure office, which will be, e.g., Governor of the
New York republic, not Governor of the State of New York.
Failure to comply with the orders would result in "immediate
removal from office by order of the De Jure Grand Juries." Those
bodies, if they existed, would be something on the order of
revolutionary councils.
The Warrant is restrained in tone, but the oath of office required of
a governor under the new regime is a "sacred actionable blood-oath
contract with the People. . . ." A later document, General Order Seven,
orders someone to "arrest, detain and bring before these De Jure
Grand Juries" anyone who refuses both to resign and to take the oath,
to be tried for "the high crime of treason." This all begins to have a
French-revolutionary odor; can the guillotine be far away? It adds,
"This order shall not impair the People's right of letter of marque."
Are they going to send privateers after ships escaping with the
Governors' ill-gotten treasure?
The revolutionary character of this fantasy is partially hidden by
references to the Constitution and to restoration of an early form of
federal government. However, the invocation of the Constitution is
entirely pragmatic. On the Rationale page of their web site, the
Guardians explain that they chose to appeal to it because "restoring, in
principle, the Constitutional institutions through December 19, 1860
was the approach MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED. . . ." Despite the
Constitution's flaws, the Guardians can accomplish their goals "by
agreeing with those who choose to glorify a man-made document."
Their preference was to restore Biblical law, but not to worry: "In due
time, the higher goal of salvaging the souls of mankind can be
addressed."
General Order Six orders someone, again not identified, to "place de
facto agencies Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, the U.S. Small Business
Administration, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development under the protective custody of the armed forces . . . to
 8

ensure the People’s credit and access thereto." Exactly why that
should be necessary is not clear, the only specific reference being to
the New Deal limitation on possession of gold, long since repealed.
There is a general reference to banks and the monetary system, which
are frequent targets. The Guardians have issues with the Federal
Reserve, foreign bankers, "fraudulent foreign taxation," "global
money predators" and foreign governments, specifically (as shown in
the Appendix: Self-evident Expositions of Truth) with the World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, Bildeberg [sic] Group, "Crown of
England," Bank of England, Bank of France, Vatican Bank and Bank of
International Settlements. Somehow we are in thrall to them "by
swearing a confession to being an artfully named legal fiction 'U.S.
person' on a bank signature card as a condition of transacting our
private affairs. . . ."
The Guardians' attitude toward the military is ambivalent. They
propose military seizure, and they claim that the Restore America
Plan was devised by the military. However, on the first page of the
Declaration, they complain that "each of the free American republics
and the constitutional republic of the United States of America . . .
have been preempted by military power. . . ."
There are any number of additional oddities, some echoing
conspiracy stories on the internet, such as reliance on the "lost"
Thirteenth Amendment, which, it is argued bars lawyers from public
office because they hold a "title of nobility" (Esquire) from a foreign
government, i.e., Britain. Or the notion that the Treasury is
"repackaging . . . birth registrations as securities."
However, the only reason for looking closely at this comedy is its
potential for acceptance by more active or influential groups. I
mentioned some fans on the fringe on Monday. A somewhat more
mainstream source is The Daily Paul, a site dedicated to "restoring
Constitutional government" and to electing Ron Paul President, which
ran an admiring post on March 3. The tea partiers also are an obvious
target for this nonsense. Ignorance, gullibility, insecurity and
resentment are an explosive mix, and adding conspiracy theories
 9

about lost freedom, and ideology, in the form of religion or patriotism,

can light the fuse.
 Gerald G. Day 2010
________
1. The main page is at
http://guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html
Some of the material I refer to is on subsidiary pages listed under "About."
2. At various points, known dates are made approximate by the use of "circa" or "c." This
appears to be another misunderstood term.