The Current State of America
We all see what is going on with our government. We all see the erosion of our rights, and we all wonder how we got here. Who is to blame, and how do we fix it?
It is easy to blame the politicians who pass laws that seem illogical. It is easy to blame the boomers or those before them. It is easy to accept the blame ourselves — that we, or our parents, should have stood up and done something about it years ago. We can even be selective and blame the states or the federal government. However, I believe — and will demonstrate in this article — that our problems run much deeper than any of these.
Before we begin: who am I, and why should you care? Those who know me might say I am hard-headed and persistent when they are being nice. It would be more accurate to say that I am you, an average citizen. I differ from most people only in that I enjoy reading law and trying to figure out what chain of events brought us to where we are today. Otherwise, there is nothing exceedingly special about me, except that I may be more upset about our government’s efforts to destroy America than most people are willing to admit they are.
In all my years of reading, I have arrived at a definite conclusion. None of the things mentioned above has destroyed our rights. I lay one hundred percent of the blame at the feet of judges across America. Yes, there are a few who fight for us, but the vast majority are either ignorant or complicit. I don’t much care to argue over which, or even to what degree.
After reaching this conclusion, I decided to do something most people wouldn’t consider. I decided to go after my government and determine whether there was anything at all we could do to fix things. We all know — or should by now — that they do not listen. You can attend as many meetings as you like, but nothing will change what they are doing. The courts are our only hope of stopping another revolution, and to the courts I went.
I started with a traffic ticket for not having a sticker on my tag, then moved to suing over property taxes, FLOCK cameras, school zone cameras, and more. During the process, an ex-friend decided to sue me, which only added to the experience. Every step of the way, I was told the old adage: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.” It isn’t that I necessarily disagree, but the saying should include what one is supposed to do when few attorneys are capable of or willing to take on the fight. Even when they are, it would take a very wealthy person to fund them, and most people with that kind of money are not willing to part with it.
Most of my cases are still in court, but I want to focus on a few of them to explain what I have discovered.
The Traffic Ticket
If you go into court and ask for a jury trial — which I did in November 2024 — you will discover the first step in wearing you out. As of June 2026, I have spent entire days under arrest (because if you don’t show up, they arrest you) for no productive reason whatsoever. I have sat through five days of arraignments and one day of a jury trial that never actually happened and was later pushed off until October of this year. When I say I spent entire days there, I mean the entire day — they made certain I was the very last person called, every single time. To make matters worse, the judges are hostile, everyone makes fun of you, and I even had a judge threaten me with up to one year in jail because I was representing myself.
The Property Tax Cases
I filed property tax cases in two counties. The first was dismissed after six months for reasons disproven by the court’s own record — the judge cited statutes that didn’t apply, ignored evidence filed months earlier, and refused to address the actual arguments. That case is now before the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Combined with the decision of the first case, the second case exposed something worse — a legislative trap that makes it constitutionally impossible to challenge property taxes in court. Georgia law, under O.C.G.A. § 48-5-29, requires you to pay the disputed taxes before the court will hear your case. But if you pay the taxes, as with the first case, the court dismisses for mootness — the controversy is over because you already paid. If you don’t pay, as with the second case, the court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction — you haven’t met the statutory prerequisite. Either way, no court ever reaches the merits.
I stood before the judge and explained this. I pointed out that the statute creates a catch-22 that eliminates all judicial review. I offered to place the disputed taxes into an escrow account — protecting the county’s money while preserving my right to be heard. The Supreme Court has held in Boddie v. Connecticut that requiring payment as a condition of accessing the courts violates due process when a fundamental interest is at stake. Georgia’s own Declaratory Judgment Act says courts can hear these cases even when other remedies exist. I even explained that I was not protesting taxes, I was raising an ultra vires complaint against officials who were violating the Georgia Constitution and OCGA, and that the statute being raised didn’t even apply.
The judge listened to all of this. The defense attorney cited § 48-5-29. The judge read the statute, agreed with the attorney, and dismissed. That was the entirety of the analysis — one statute, read aloud, case over. The catch-22 argument was not addressed. The escrow offer was not addressed. The Declaratory Judgment Act was not addressed. The due process argument was not addressed. None of my arguments received a single word of response. Now, this case is also being sent to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
This is not a judge weighing arguments and reaching a conclusion. This is a judge looking for the fastest path to dismissal and ignoring everything that doesn’t lead there. And it is happening in courtrooms across America, every single day.
The FLOCK Camera Case
This case was removed to federal court and is sitting idle. The defendants are trying to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity and all manner of other defenses, and I don’t yet know where it will land. Before any of these cases against the government ever reach the substance of the complaint itself, the government is allowed to throw everything against the wall in an effort to dismiss. This is something you are not permitted to do when an ex-friend sues you, no matter how meritless his case may be.
Sovereign Immunity
Sovereign immunity is my favorite government defense, because you will not find it anywhere in the law. Even if you could, the state cannot create its own immunity from constitutional violations — but the courts have done it for them. Everyone should look up and read Chisholm v. Georgia for one of the best discussions of sovereignty ever written. Courts and attorneys like to say that the decision was overruled by the Eleventh Amendment, but its reasoning still holds true. The Eleventh Amendment did not actually grant the states immunity over their own citizens — anyone with the ability to read can see that by spending two minutes with the text — yet the courts say otherwise. See below for my article on Sovereign Immunity for a more detailed analysis.
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights
If you hire an attorney and attempt to fight the government, you will first be told that you can only access your Bill of Rights protections by going through the Fourteenth Amendment — another court-invented doctrine that defies all logic. I want to spend a moment on the pure absurdity of this because it provides a real-world example of where we find ourselves and proves my thesis about where our problems truly lie.
Barron v. Baltimore is the case you should read next. In that decision, the judge — without sound reason or logic — determined that the states were not bound by the Bill of Rights. Only the federal government was restricted by them. The problem? The Bill of Rights did not grant anyone any rights. Had the judge bothered to read the Ninth Amendment, he would have seen this. Our rights are given to us at birth. None are derived from any government — it was we who created the government. If these rights existed at birth — which is exactly what Chisholm said, confirmed by the words of the founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence — then how could any government whatsoever defy them?
Yet because of this single judge — and proving there are few truly thoughtful judges — all the courts began to operate with this understanding as their foundation and continue to do so to this day, dating back to a case decided in 1833. That is, until the Fourteenth Amendment came along and another judge decided in Gitlow v. New York that he could outdo the earlier decision. He literally used the word “assume” when he declared that he would assume the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides access to the Bill of Rights. And just like that, things were placed back in order. Or were they?
You see, the Bill of Rights does not grant rights — it enumerates what we all possess at birth. But the Fourteenth Amendment speaks of privileges and immunities granted to you by the federal government. It gets worse when you grasp the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was created to address the citizenship of freed slaves, and a plain reading of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proves it. But the government can take advantage of citizens it created far more easily than those pesky ones who gained their rights at birth. So they moved to convince everyone that they were Fourteenth Amendment citizens instead of state citizens. Even the states got in on this exciting new development. All created and made up by judges and their opinions!
The point of all of this is twofold. First, we need to pass the 28th Amendment that I have created as a starting point. See below for a link to this Amendment. Secondly, we need to force these issues into appellate courts, State Supreme Courts, and eventually the Federal Supreme Court. We have been taught that decisions made by judges are final, but this simply is not true. What is more accurate is that they remain final only until someone points out the obvious error, at which point they should be overruled and returned to the nonexistence they should always have had.
But there is a catch. The States have all but outlawed us from helping each other; we can’t practice law without a license, despite the Constitution guaranteeing us the right to counsel, not representation. This is why I’m working on a Federal case against the Georgia Bar Association to show that it is unconstitutional. Each case takes time, each case takes determination, and each case requires us to handle it ourselves. To risk looking stupid to save our children. There is a lot at stake if we continue to do what those before us have done: sit in our chairs and complain, never taking the time to fight back.
We do need to be careful, though. We have to research and plan our attacks carefully because approaching a problem the wrong way only adds to their standing argument and makes the next person’s attack less likely to succeed. We need to start groups that educate us not only about the Constitution but also about the operations of the courts.