For those of you who are interested to see how Gnostic science works in the real
world I submit the following essay. The U.S. Constitution is a Pythagorean
model document, like other law oriented documents, the “Coropus Juris Secundum”
being another.

You will notice I declare a right on the basis of the tetrad. You will also
note that although it is not stated in the essay, the first sentence of the U.S. Constitution is a Monadic sequence. In the time of the writing of the
Constitution, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and a few more, were privy to the
private work of Gottfried Leibnitz, who is responsible for the term Monadology
in modern science. Leibnitz’ work defined the Monad only and not the sequence.
He also only defined the Monad as a material thing, at least in his public

As a Monadic sequence the Preamble of the Const. is directed at the Collective
Mind. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.”

The types in the sequence (hexad) are “Unity of the People,” Justice, Domestic
Tranquility, Common Defense, General Welfare, “Secure Liberty.” As a Monadic
sequence the types are polarized….

Unity of the people is the primary or Monadic force of the sequence. Justice
serves as the dyad, and therefore the dualities of justice pertain to all the
types. Secure Liberty, is the last type and in the Pythagorean system it
polarizes all the other types to this action. As a Monadic force this sequence
serves as the primary wisdom to the body of the text, and should be applicable
to every other part of the document as the Monadic force, or primary directed
wisdom to the enumerated rights and procedures prescribed in the document.

Unity of the American people is dependent upon the following…

Organizing Diverse American Activists


Tom Saunders

I’m on the Board of Directors of the Congress Against Racism and Police
Corruption, and the National Judicial Conduct Disability Law Project. These are
activist organizations that focus on Judicial corruption. On the other hand, I’m
a member of the Oklahoma Task Force for Initiative Rights, and an officer in the
Oklahoma Libertarian Party. These organizations focus on legislation reform, and
ballot access, and were instrumental in the “Free Paul Jacob Movement.”

I am actually a part of a few more organizations or groups like those above, but
I want to point out something about them. There are two kinds of political
activists who do very different things, and actually know very little about each
other. They, however are not mutually exclusive, in that they both want
Constitutional protections, and see the corruption in the courts and
legislatures as a major problem in fixing American liberty. However, Judicial
Activists don’t tend to focus on legislation reform, and the those activist who
focus on getting laws passed or rescinded, stay focused on their perspective,
either judicial or legislative. For instance my colleagues in Judicial Activism
don’t know my colleagues in other civil libertarian efforts.

This organizational diversity has created a gap in knowledge that effects unity
in American activism.

For instance, the group, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, and
the John Birch Society both want Constitutional rights restored. However, both
tend to target the base beliefs of the core organizations’ membership to the
point where they are never likely to bond. One reason is the ‘John Birchers,’
are heavily Conservative and dedicated Right Wing, Christians. ‘Americans for
Separation,’ attracts atheists, more liberal Christians, and others. In the
context of ‘liberal vs. Conservative,’ or even Democrat vs. Republican, these
folks see one another as the enemy in enough ways that the diversity can and
does become counter productive to the mutual goals of restoring liberty.

Restoring liberty may be a matter of creating unity among the diverse groups
seeking goals in different aspects of liberty, before meaningful change can be
brought about.

So far the ‘movers and shakers’ of ‘Judicial’ reform, are not bonded with groups
that focus on ‘Legislative’ action. There are a few activists who work both
sides of the street and I am sure they see what I am seeing, the diversity of
the two groups. There is also a tendency to be mutually exclusive to a single
cause, like Americans for the Separation of Church and State, (A.U.) focus on
just that ”First Amendment” issue, the mandate against forming a state
religion. So, what does this have to do with Judicial corruption or say freedom
of speech, or other Constitutional protections? All of these protections are
wrapped up together in the First Amendment, and therefore they are not mutually

Activism, is like any other economy. There is a supply and demand factor that
cannot be ignored. The social fabric contains just so many people that will have
a direct role in restoring liberty. Diversity has made a lot of individual
organizations. Sometimes it seems to me everyone who opened up a separate cause
drained the main social corpus, to the point where we became ”fished out,” and
there are not enough activists to go around.

I no longer try and recruit for any one organization. I am simply involved with
too many. The up side is many of the organizations I am involved with, still
focus on their particular cause, but an overall realization that diversity needs
to be overcome is happily a growing awareness. One way to do this is to present
liberty in a way that it circumvents the mindset of liberal vs. conservative.
The way to frame the civil liberties issues is to take them out of liberal vs.
conservative agendas, and make the agenda, liberty vs. legalism

It is also logical to try and present liberty issues in the context of science
rather than dogma.

Legalism for instance is a rather well defined term in regard to both formal and
historical references. Legalism vs. liberty can be seen as polar opposites. What
makes this a significant duality is that liberty is secured by Constitutional
provisions, and mandates, starting with the first sentence of the Constitution.
This shows one purpose of the Constitution is to provide a guidepost for liberty
over legalism. The preamble or first sentence of the U. S. Constitution

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.”

The provisions of the preamble are not mutually exclusive, and the protections
of the First Amendment are not either.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”

It is logical that the concepts in the preamble are also, not mutually exclusive
to other parts of the body of the document, which means the Preamble and First
Amendment are mutually linked to provide just what the preamble would suggest.
That would be a synergy between the provisions of the document. One part of the
Constitution provides direct support of other parts. So the provisions of the
preamble are aligned with all other parts. This would be to provide the issues
of the preamble to the specific protections of the First Amendment, and others.

This type of dependence is also seen in the way the Constitution organizes the
government into the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches. American law
is made two ways. One through the legislation of laws through the Congress, and
through the ‘stare decisis,’ of Court decisions. This method of making law is
meant to be a safeguard for the protection of Constitutional provisions, and
enumerated rights.

American civil liberties are not mutually exclusive to either the Legislative,
or Judicial branches as to remedies. But organizations that only focus on one
aspect, either legislative method, or judicial reform, don’t utilize the whole
scope of American law. Further both legislative and judicial corruption are at
an all time high, and one of the reasons is the checks and balance systems of
Constitutional law have been allowed to faultier. Legalism has been allowed to
triumph over liberty. This is a direct result of legalism being promoted in both
the judicial and legislative branches of law making.

Another factor that provides a gap in American legal reform is that judicial
matters require a command of legal and technical knowledge higher than the
educational level of most people. Judicial reformers tend to be lawyers or
academics that understand Legalese. Organizations like the Fully Informed Jury
Association, address the issues of how juries work, but they don’t organize to
promote other issues concerning matters out of that domain. For instance FIJA,
or ACORN as organizations would not participate in say the ”Free Paul Jacob
Movement,” although individuals would support freedom of speech issues. So how
can anyone link these diverse organizations for any cause out of their domain?

I have discovered that bringing diverse organizations together can be done.

One way is to make all discussions about civil liberties in the context of
liberty vs. legalism. Another is to show people in various civil liberties
organizations the way to enumerate an American right, using a formula. It is
fairly simple, and can put diverse activists on the same page, this is because
it combines the various law making bodies and methods together, so nothing as to
rights are mutually exclusive from the very process of providing rights.

Further, the method of using a formula to put people on the same page, makes the
process of defining rights a valid science. It works like the checks and
balances of measurement. In other words you show a right the same way you show a
yardstick is both 36 inches and three feet long.

The formula uses the following methodology….

1. Show the right mandated or enumerated from the Constitution.
2. Show any legislation that supports the right.
3. Show court decisions, or stare decisis that support the right.
4. Show where the right has been violated..

This formula can be shown to work with the various Amendments and other mandates
of the U.S. Constitution. It encompasses the entire law making process of both
the legislature and judicial branches. It puts diverse activists on the same
page for showing rights. A person does not need a law degree to find the
provisions of the formula, but would have to do research into what particular
right is being addressed. The advantage is clear, the formula can put certain
rights and diverse views on the same page, although there are some issues it
won’t solve, for the most part it provides a basis in fact for anyone to be able
to prove a Constitutionally protected right.