The foundation of government rests in the legal guarantee of right. We shall assume that the moral basis for rights-primary law is pure. Laws define rights. Secondary laws define the legal process to be used to uphold rights.

The commonwealth for this purpose is pure from eternal, natural, and positive law now in the concrete sense. A facet of the true sovereign is this guarantee of right of all individuals within the jurisdiction of the state.

The head of state is the first citizen and all subjects are similar in their enfranchisement. (In the real there are differences in the plurality for heads of states and governments). In this schema, Game Theory a la Prisoner’s Dilemma will be used. This postulates a prosecutor offering a plea bargain to two suspected criminals with the same charges pending. The prosecutor is an agent for the constitution. The criminals are legally identified as such for specific illegal behaviors, which negate citizenship.

In a simple format, two individuals are isolated. A deal is offered to criminal one for one out of five charges. Criminal one agrees implicating himself after being disclosed that criminal two has accepted an offer to a plea bargain. He has not. One completes the deal for lenience.

Number two has been told that this has occurred. He makes the same deal to other charges implicating him as well as one. This process occurs back and forth until he prosecutor has completed agreements on all five charges.

The prosecutor has granted leniency for a confession as well as implicating evidence.

The sovereign-citizen-relationship implicit in this procedure usually guarantees a right to remain silent and not implicate oneself. The will of the state desires to guarantee the perpetuity of the commonwealth by justly prosecuting the criminals restoring their citizenship. Legally this may only occur through legal rules of the court, statutes of limitation, pardons, or amnesty.

In opposition to the upholding of the law is constitutional wrecking. This is a conscious act taken to undermine the legitimacy of the state.

The polity in this model is a constitutional state with a sovereign subject relationship with a head of state, constitution and agency of 100 persons in a spatiality that is a legally empowered jurisdiction.

It shall be opposed by agents of a foreign country of a similarly empowered state, which also was a state of pure citizens.

The model then is like such:

In the beginning of our state religiosity, natural, and positive law were willed universally. All were morally good pure legal citizens of this world. State Two as well as State One have experienced deviance. State Two desires to expand its regime against State One through its security apparatus. It will use constitutional wrecking of three laws to ensure a revolution in State One, which it chooses to develop and then present itself as the greater polity.

The only deviance in State One has been committed by one citizen. This is a victimless crime only involving oneself. The Head of State and the Department of Justice must in all cases prosecute this person based on administrative procedure, due process, probable cause, and equal protection until the debt to the commonwealth is repaid.

All manners of operations should and will exist as pure prior to State Two’s intervention. State Two tacitly approaches three citizens 99, 98, and 97 to attack 100, the criminal outside the law. The security agents pose as the legitimate will of State One. The three citizens of State One are not cognizant of the identity of State Two as a foreign government.

These three individuals are told to illegally harass number 100 or they shall be guilty for aiding the criminal activities of number 100. They agree to attack number 100 with unconstitutional behaviors. They too are now criminals in State One. There is no legal right to move on number 100 in a criminal operation. The agents of State Two are criminals in State One as well.

The sanctity and erectness of State One now rests on 96 citizens. Number 100 is actually less guilty than 99, 98, and 97. The efficient operation of State One lies in the prosecution of Number 100 for a victimless crime and numbers 99, 98, and 97 for harassment.

The constitutional wrecking will only involve the criminalization of citizens with indirect implications on social structures.

Number 100 generates a complaint. While the state responds citizens 96, 95, 94, and 93 are requested to attack and harass the previous four individuals. They do and the state’s sancticity is now resting on 92 individuals. As these persons argue fear of criminalization these persons are accepting the method of criminalization for upholding the polity.

This process now moves to the agents of the state in secondary rules. The law enforcement of State One, as they approach the eight members in number 100’s complaint, then are told that they are too slow. They do indeed condone the seven criminals against number 100. At this point the security apparatus of State Two has criminally wrecked the police, which numbered four individuals drawing the equilibrium down to 88 individual citizens under the head of state. The police arrange to only prosecute number 100. The image of the once pure state is now only an idol. The police are the heroes. The remaining citizens although noble are turning into buffoons. Number 100 is a scapegoat.

The classical lottery has been developed. The sovereign-citizen-subject relationship has been violated as persons accept the security apparatus of State Two.

The origin is the law school of a university. The security apparatus includes members of this state’s police as well as members of the law school.

At some point in time a fall occurred from law in State Two with a similar effect.

State Two now recruits the police of State One to act upon their own citizens eventually to hierachialize the crime to other citizens, institutions, and levels of government to the Head of State thus orchestrating a revolt to which it shall aid in the future state.

The concept above has isolated constitutional infringements. The results are personality diffusion and illicit behavior transactions, which are measurable in a legal manner for all persons. The resultant hiearchialization of this small illicit culture permeates the legal community. The behaviorist argument is that the environment selects for a behavior as well as operating on the development of personality. A certain concept of scientific determinism is inclusive in that unconstitutional acts must be rectified otherwise they lead to the closure of murder.

The concept is a systematic model in a social system taking advantage of intellectual spatial communities criminalizing persons from misdemeanors to murder.

The immediate psychological personality profiles are designed to disintegrate until the Head of State and government are implicated against the original covenant of the state.

At this time this is inclusive of a model of a Perfect Dictator, a Head of State who looks on with cognizance and or tacit approval as the security apparatus operates on its own citizens. Totalitarianism strives for isolation of the individual or group incommunicado. The primary and secondary institutions are targeted from individuals as the crime multiplier and extra-legal procedures to reconcile events corrupts towards absoluteness. This is an object in the abstract as well as an equilibrium to keep the invertaebrated polity at bay or a prelude to revolution or invasion in the concrete. This type of procedure may be planned out a priori as 50, 100, or perhaps 200 years is needed to foster dissent.

Within the sovereign-citizen-subject relationship, the concept of administrative procedure, due process, probable cause, and equal protection are subject to impunity within the defection model as the modus operandi for constitutional wrecking.

As the Head of State is the legal authority for the rights of all citizens, we shall attempt to argue the right of the citizen and state.

Number 100 has committed a victimless crime. He is guilty against the constitution injuring the commonwealth. The security apparatus of State Two approaches numbers 99, 98, and 97 to harass 100. In State One they may be guilty and culpable as soon as they plan the event. They are definitive criminals as their activity enters State One. These three individuals do not realize the identity of the agents. Their moral failure and legal failure increase as they harass 100.

For simple purposes five criminal events exist against State 100: a victimless crime and three events of harassment and the plan of State Two.

The Head of State manages the state as citizens reciprocate with him within the polity. The extralegal events of all members are constructs that weaken the survival of the government.

The three consequent citizens move as criminals to secure themselves with a crime. The constitution has granted them security. The fact that in the concrete the agents of State Two operate criminally is irreverent against number 100 citizenship sovereign- subject.

The development of a crime multiplier from misdemeanors, felonies, and treason to capital offenses is a foundation for revolution. It is not exclusive but a primary event as most revolutions clamor for equality and justice.

The concept argues the rectification of subject to Head of State in an individual manner to protect the commonwealth.

Crimes are reconciled in the relation ship of one Doe against the constitution. The constitution shall guarantee all rights of the citizen and the right of the State Department and Head of State to punish criminals thus restoring the deviant to his right. To dispense with this relationship is defacto and in no manner the right of the commonwealth to operate under secondary laws. A crime is never argued as a rule. A concept of orders backed by threats allows for an open texture as a fireman screams harshly to clear an area for the execution of his duty.

Argumentation ad absurdium from personal history, family, religion, ad populum, and ad miseriocordium fill the rationality and spatiality based on fear as the criminalized subjects obey a false authority.

Crime is structural and a process. Our model is universal in a concept that would include a pure linkage to religion. What is perceived to be the pure exclusive legal qualification of civil law is reconcilable with theistic models in the social contract. The eternal may be the foundation and the personality and psychological profiles can be incorporated into rights. Crime is material and able to be dichotomized against citizenship and legal right. All extra-logical argument shall be separated, as the criminal exists in a state of non-reciprocation only for his crime. One does not entirely lose one’s right.

Citizenship guarantees due process for the citizen as well as the criminal. The individual who has chosen crime over primary laws must be legally prosecuted to restore citizenship.

The tendency and mission goal of the system is to expand and multiply criminally behaviors in a spatiality through escalation and scaling in a continuum of space-time to calculate the invertaebration of State One. State Two must orchestrate this defection as to not pollute its own structure to escalate its collapse.

Primarily we are dealing with consciousness and topographical personality. Habituation and socialization of crime will facilitate the emergence of the dictator and secret police force.

The sovereign-citizen-subject, all John and Jane Does are citizens and equal under the law has been replaced. The Head State emerges as a Perfect Dictator. The constitution and police are merged into the function of a secret police department with extra-legal operations. Citizens are transformed into informants who exchange acts with the security apparatus to gain power and security as all totalitarianistic systems in complex systems management. Consequent purges then arise through the remaining citizens as they attack or oppose the informants or vice versa perhaps illegally. This activity affects the police who then with others begin ton plot against the dictator. In advance of this the dictator may have in place a body guard apparatus as such are the closest class of persons to him in deviance. Any challenge is also most likely to arise from these persons or a radical or reactionist position from below.

The concept of irrationality involves the area of inconsistent closure of an event. This is a failure of prioritizing materials, hiearchialization, closure, and systematization. This yields personality diffusion and in our model criminal violence. This in turn injures the constitutional body of citizens.

The modus operandi of prisoner’s dilemma pits two persons who are isolated and lead to believe that testimony one against the other yields the higher payoff. In substitution they are also told that if they commit a criminal act against a criminal or other citizen that such is a deal or legal. This is also done to avoid formal prosecution for one’s own criminal acts.

Simply put the primary rights implicit in the sovereign-citizenship relation are unalienable. In our paradigm no individual may infringe, by or sell off the right of another. Legislation is in the hand of the representatives of the people as prescribed from the constitution and ultimately decided on by the courts.

The citizens here accept criminal activities outside constitutionality, as all John and Jane Does are equal under the Head of State. The sovereignty cannot be violated by any unconstitutional act. If such the mover of these illegal constructs is now identified as a criminal.

Crime is reconciled by the Justice Department and court with the cooperation of citizens without the use, manufacture, possession, or distribution of a crime. No appeal or tacit agreement amongst the security apparatus agents may replace the rule of law.

The constitutional wrecking here involves the hiearchialization of the crime multiplier to duplicity differentiate the administration of justice in a manner that it stratifies the equal protection of our pure polity.

Appendix

As a sovereign (Head of State) and his agent (Judiciary) uphold primary laws. No violence may argued as a rule or law. The defense of fear by the agents of State Two is a probability. Fear is usually not upheld (converse accident/reverse converse accident) as duty to respect another’s right has sway. Any operation outside of citizenship as subject to the state to operate on number 100 is clearly a crime. Any similar argument construed by a person to operate outside of sovereign-citizen-subject relations is a crime and against all constitutional platforms. Any person(s) have nor right as citizens to accept any negative order from any de facto party to act on 100. This is clear from any interpretation of administrative procedure, due process, probable cause, and equal protection.