I Am A Citizen!

Author: Roger F. Gay
“Yes. Everybody’s going to be nice. I get it. Magic.”

No….not everyone will be nice…..some people will infringe on others rights. And when they do the complainant submits an affidavit to the NP and sends a copy to the respondent to notice the respondent properly. The respondent has 7 days to respond with a return affidavit. Should a return affidavit not come back a final notice is sent and another 7 days passes. Once the 14 days have passed the NP can issue a default judgement with remedy as defined by precedent. The default judgement is given to the peace officer whos role is to go to the respondent, serve the default judgment and execute the remedy. Obviously serious crime does not go through this longer process.

Should the respondent rebutt all points of the affidavit then the matter goes to 12 good men who take an oath to judge the matter. The jury issues it’s decision and if the respondent is found guilty and remedy is ordered the peace officer goes to the respondent and carries out the remedy ordered.

The Magna Carta defines the role of the peace officer well. He can not detain someone unless he has witnessed a crime or has an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury by someone alleging a crime. Detention and inconvenience to the respondent can not be in out of line with the seriousness of the crime. Any number of people can take oath as a peace officer. Today mayors and JPs are all ‘peace officers’ with the same powers as ‘police officers’.

This is pretty well the setup at the time of the Magna Carta where there was no such things as standing armies etc and people in villages needed to be able to deal with disputes. It still exists and it works well. Sure, you can argue that ‘national defense’ is a bigger issue. You can argue that crime has changed and criminals have become much better armed etc. However, the peace officer is the basis for the proposed C3PO in Canada.

Given that there must be a clear violation of someones rights to bring a case and that all cases are criminal cases you can clearly see that the number of cases will be vastly less. Also, there are far fewer ‘laws’ and they are all simple enough for anyone to understand. Parties are expected to resolve issues privately taking counsel from those around them and to only go to court as a last resort. Lawyers are not required as the law is in english, not legalese. Most court cases in the US are not criminal. They are for Family Law or miscellaneous fines and ‘statute infringement’.

This is essentially the process in play today except it has been perverted to remove the Jury in most cases. Guvments also wrote tens of thousands of statutes in legalese to pretty much ‘make everyone a criminal’. This mass of legislation then creates the mass of cases requiring armies and armies of lawyers. All effectively draining resources off the people.

Roger F. Gay Says:
“I take your arguments as representative of what you, yourself, believe; and I’ve found it to be silly”
You find having that you have been decieved by your government and being given information about that deception such that you can educate yourself ‘silly’. Ok…you sure you want to stand by that comment?

Roger:
“You’re just a little too weird to hold a conversation with. You don’t seem serious. Saying I agree with the Communists because we’ve both used the word “democracy” even though you know that I prefer US-style Constitutional rule. That’s beyond silly.”
You said that what the US needed was democracy. This is what the communists say too. So I am not ‘beyond silly’ saying you agree with communists on the ‘need for democracy’.

Roger, I am intentionally ‘a little weird’. This is needed to ‘interrupt’ the ‘programming’ of those who read what I am saying. I am an expert on programming, mind control, belief system construction, identity construction and such things that human beings put in place to deal with the world. They are not accidental. We think we put these things in place for ourselves, and for the most part we do and we do not realise it. But, to a significant extent, we have been programmed by our society. This is normal. To ‘interrupt’ the programming the person who wishes to ‘interrupt it’ has a number of options. One of the best is to be ‘provokative’, to challenge, to stop the person from thinking in their ‘normal’ way, to make them uncomfortable. Another is humour, and I suck at that way…;-) It’s not personal. Without the ‘interruption’ to the ‘programming’ men can not ‘hear’ what is being said. A person challenging their own belief system is very hard to do.

Let me give you an example of how we are all programmed…me too. You all think you have a ‘NAME’. It is the NAME on your ‘berth certificate’. Your parents taught you this is your NAME. The first thing you learned at school was how to write your NAME. Guess what? This is NOT YOUR NAME. This is the NAME of a corporation. You are a human being. You don’t have a name. The ‘guvment’ needed to brainwash you into thinking you had a NAME so that when you are asked ‘Is your name Global A Man’ you will answer ‘Yes’. They call this “voluntarily enjoining with your ‘stawman’ “. When you say ‘yes’ you waive all legal and lawful rights according to them. Now, even though I have told you that you do not have a NAME most of you will still believe you have a NAME because you have been programmed to believe you do since you were very young.

Rule #1. If you wish to be free you do not have a NAME. You must never respond to the NAME on your Birth Certificate.

Now. If our guvment lied to us about our ‘NAME’ to control us. What else do you think they lied to us about? This is my point about “I am a citizen”. No, you can’t be a citizen. Only a corporation can be a citizen. Your strawman is a citizen. You are a human. A human can not be a citizen. But, by your statement, you think you are a citizen.

Roger:
“Menard, if I’m not mistaken, is a socialist who was born in Algeria, to a French family. I don’t know if he eventually became a Canadian citizen, but he seems to have spent a good bit of his life in France and his org is based in Paris.”

Roger, I have a reply from Robert-Arthur: Menard on this quote:
“Hi xxxxxx. You made me laugh! Born in Algeria? LMAO! I was born (apparently) in Grace Hospital in Windsor Ontario to Loretta and Eugene. As for being a socialist, again he cracks me up. I am one of the most Libertarian minded people I know. Thank you for your kind words. Tell your friend he is so far off base, he appears to be playing ice hockey in the next field.
Rob”

Now..I think we are done with saying Robert-Arthur: Menard was born in Algeria and is a socialist. Unless you can provide some evidence this is the mans testimony. The man has spent nine years of his life learning about how the guvment decieves people and is proposing a new society which will refute government tyranny as it exists today. From all my reading, he is the one with the best plan. That is why I support his idea for a ‘Free Man Society’.

Author: Roger F. Gay
“My knowledge of the fact that things are not working the way they are supposed to be is based in large part on what is happening now.”
Things are working EXACTLY as they are ‘supposed’ to be. For the Illuminati. Not for the rest of us.

“I know what common law is. Statute replaces common law”
Really? Roger. I am not trying to be difficult. But you do keep making false statements as well as statements that clearly demonstrate you have been decieved. It’s not your fault. The deception is brilliant. Your comment is false. Please read UCC Section 1-103 below which clearly states that UCC is complementary to ‘principles of law’ by which they mean Common Law. Your statutes are written under the provisions of UCC, not common law, and statutes are inferior to common law.

You may also want to take note of this decision:
“There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellow men without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

“Menard, if I’m not mistaken, is a socialist who was born in Algeria, to a French family. I don’t know if he eventually became a Canadian citizen, but he seems to have spent a good bit of his life in France and his org is based in Paris.”
I shall ask him. His story is that he started his trip into statutes when his child was kidnapped by child protection services.

“The Bill of Rights focuses much on “fundamental rights” that allow citizens to keep themselves free from tyranny.”
This is what they want you to believe, yes. It is what I believed too until I discovered the deception underlying the creation of such documents. It is no sin to be decieved, we have all been decieved. It is none too clever to willfully refuse to review new evidence put before you. I have just put before you the section of the UCC that says it may not over-ride ‘law’ meaning common law. I have just put before you a US Court judgement that no man can be subject to any intitutions without his consent. That includes government. Now. Are you going to listen to me or are you going to keep saying things that are false?

§ 1-103. Construction of [Uniform Commercial Code] to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.

(a) [The Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-103

Author: Roger F. Gay
“There is a difference between how things should be (according to the Constitution), and the way they are.”
Actually, no, there isn’t. The way things are are exactly the way that the people who wrote the constitution intended them to become. The Constitution is part of the grand deception. It is way too long a story for comment boxes. Common Law is FAR more important than the Constitution. Men would do well to forget the Constutition for a while. It is a device to steal from you. They WANT you focused on the Constitution and NOT on Common Law. They will do everything in their power to stop you thinking about Common Law. And if they don’t want you to know Common Law, there is a very good reason for it. Because once you know how Common Law works you realise they have no power.

“Common law with a natural law understanding would solve the child custody problem and many others. I have never indicated that I am opposed to common law in this sense. You claim that common law could solve the problems of fathers now if fathers would bother to learn about it. How is that so? Will fathers then be able to impose their will, in the name of common law, on those in power?”

Roger, thanks for staying in the conversation. You said that the Constitution provides a Common Law structure…abbreviating. This is not correct. ‘Common Law’ is entirely independent of the Constitution and exists without it. I did not claim you were opposed to Common Law. I claimed it looks like you are confusing Statutes/Legislation with Common Law. I claim that confusion is to our detriment. Especially fathers being worked over by the corrupt courts. Rober-Arthur: Menard is not french. He is Canadian. The exact same common law exists in Canada as the USA because both are ex-british. There is a World Freeman Chapter in the USA. I point to his excellent 3 hour video because it gives an excellent grounding in the deception of statutes/legislation. As does John Harris’ “It’s an Illusion”.

With respect especially to fathers and their rights. Today, our guvments have no power over us that we do not consent to. They trick us into consenting and then hide the remedy. That is not the same as ‘having legitimate power’. People have been fooled into thinking guvments have ‘power’. They have been tricked into believing courts have ‘legitimate power’. They don’t unless we consent. We can withdraw our consent at any time as human beings. We just say ‘NO’.

Common Law prevails over statutes unless the statute specifically removes the Common Law. What does this mean? How does this help a father in court? When the court offers the man the service of taking his money from him in a tax called ‘Child Support’ the man can choose to refuse to consent to the provision of that service. IF he knows how to do that.

If the court sends a summons the man can choose to refuse what is really just an invitation to provide services at a place of business. A judge has no more power than a burger flipper at McDonalds. A summons from a court has the exact same ‘power’ as a letter from McDonalds inviting you to come and have a burger. Courts are private run for profit companies just like McDonalds. A court has NO POWER to compell a man to pay child support, alimony or income tax in a Common Law jurisdiction. Now, wouldn’t that help a lot of Dads? Futher, mortgages are fraudulent and those who know how to get them discharged are doing so. Wouldn’t that help a lot of Dads? This is being successfully done across the former british world. The legal precident of mortgage discharge was first done in 1968 in the US. This has been known for 40 years and buried. (The judge in that case had a ‘fatal accident’ real soon after his decision.)

The problem of the ‘berth certificate’ has not been solved to my knowledge. The berth certificate is actually the transfer of ownership of the child to the state. No-one I know has yet successfully challenged that. Parents who refuse to register their children (hand over ownership) can not have their children taken from them lawfully and the courts have no jurisdiction over a child not registered. Hence the recommendation. Do not register a child. Do not get a ‘berth-certicate’. We are having successes all over the world. If the ‘Mens Movement’ would only sit up and take notice of Common Law we would be able to stop abuses like this. I have paid no ‘interim support’ or ‘child support’ in 22 months and there is no lien or warrant out for my strawman. These comment boxes are small. You have my email. You/Mike may email me.

“The Constitution doesn’t give us any rights; it only serves as a tool to protect them.”
No. It is a deception. It serves to undermine your rights while pretending to protect them. I know it is hard to believe because you have been told the opposite for so long. But that is how progamming works.

“I understand what Globalman is talking about, the only problem is the courts are in the business of taking away our inalienable rights and will not recognize his “person” argument no matter how accurate it is. They will label him an anarchist, or worse yet, *a conspiracy theorist* and try to lock him up.”

Of course the police and courts have thrown plenty of those who have come before me in jail. It is called kidnapping. Just because it is unlawful does not stop our criminals in the legal system from doing it.

However, what is starting to happen is that the Attourney Generals of various countries have been challenged to PROVE the jurisdiction of the courts. Since they have failed to PROVE this and the judges know the AGs have failed to prove it the judges are now well aware that to incarcerate someone who knows what they are doing may result in charges against the judge supported by the AG. The judges are actually powerless over an innocent human being who knows what he is doing. Period.

Example. Judges threaten person(s) with ‘contempt of court’ and incarceration if they refuse to answer to their NAME. This is very common. The judge will say “Are you Mr. Global Man?” and insist that if you do not provide your NAME then you are in contempt of court. And if you think you are a ‘person’ you are and he can incarcerate you lawfully and legally. If a human being does not know how to defeat that threat they may wind up in the cells.

The proper answer to that threat is: “Sir. Is your oath in the court room today?” The next question being “Sir. For and on the record, are you practicing under Oath?” You don’t know it but the ‘default’ position for judges is to not practice under oath. You can only be sure they are practicing under oath by placing it on the court record.

When the judge is practicing under oath he cannot find you in contempt of court for not answering your name and cannot jail you under his threat. The judges know this. This is why they sometimes run away or terminate the case if they are asked if they are operating under oath. But the human being needs to know what this all means because the judges are very tricky and make great efforts to trap people. One of our colleages was doing this and the judge asked the bailif to pass ‘Mr Jones’ a copy of the charges. If ‘Mr. Jones’ accepted a copy of the charges by taking them in his hand he would have been ‘done’. Mr. Jones response was essentially: “Go away bailif, Mr. Jones is a corporation. Do I look like a corporation to you?”.

The Freeman movement is having many successes like this. There are also other ways to deal with this. What I am here to share is this. Done properly, you can refuse jurisdiction. And yes, sometimes they will lock you up for doing so to see if you will comply. It’s called coersion and it is unlawful.

“Conspiracy theorist” is a term that the Illuminati have worked hard to program into our society as ‘nutter’. Want an example? In the movie ‘Conspiracy Theory’ with Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson everything the Mel Gibson character said was true. And was played out as true in the movie. But, by making the Mel Gibson character seem ‘crazy’ we get one more piece of programming that ‘anyone who talks about a conspiracy is crazy’…despite the fact that in the movie he was actually right. Mainstream media is full of people labeling ‘conspiracy theorists’ as ‘nutters’. That’s how you know it’s programmnig. It’s everywhere and there is no reason for it to be.

Author: Roger F. Gay
“You seem to present a false choice – either “common law” or the Constitution. The Constitutional system of checks and balances, with certain inalienable rights, and that the laws apply equally to everyone, provides a common law structure.”

Roger, I do not present a ‘choice’ at all. False or otherwise. I present facts. Common Law exists in all states (not Luisiana) and former british colonies like Canada, Australia etc. All men have inalienable rigthts under Common Law. The Constitution and Legistlation are not ‘laws’ according to Blacks Law Dictionary, not me. They are statutes or legislation or man made and named ‘laws’ to decieve people. They are subordinate to and complementary to Common Law. Men have an inalienable right to choose to refuse to be subject to statutes or legislation. However, few people know Common Law exists and can resolve all the issues of the Mens Movement save custody? Example. Do you know this is true?

The Constitution does not have ANY inalienble rights because it can be amended. We all know that much of what happens today in your courts is not constitutional. However, courts in the US can be converted into Common Law courts by a man who knows what he is doing and then he can defend himself using Common Law. This is my point. Every ‘issue’ the Mens Movement has can be resolved TODAY using Common Law. Men are having a hard time coming to grips with this idea.

“As a “citizen” I have a right and an obligation to object to misuse of government power in my country. I declare that I am not a “subject” which seems to be what you describe when you write about citizenship. Certainly, citizens have obligations as well as rights – but “ownership by a corporation” is well outside my view of the natural definition of “citizen” in what is supposed to be a “free country.”"

Roger, this is all a deception. If you think a ‘citizen’ has any inaleinable ‘rights’ you are mistaken. The men who are jailed for non payment of exhorbidant child support for children who are not theirs are often ‘citizens’. However, the very fact they sit in jails without fault, without conviction should tell you exactly what rights they have. NONE. That they sit in jail is perfectly legal and lawful because they consented to being jailed. If you don’t know that ‘The Unites States of America’ is merely a declared sovereign entity like a corporation (as is Australia etc) that simply means you don’t know this. That ‘citizens’ are ‘persons’ who are corporations owned by these corporations called countries is also true. I have suggested Robert-Arthur: Menards video ‘Bursting the Bubbles of Government Deception’ is an excellent place for men here to start learning. If men here do not want to start learning, that is their choice. There is no law against being willfully ignorant of the law.

I am here to assist educate the Mens Movement. It is frustrating that facts written in many books developed by brilliant people that have been proven in court are being called ‘anachist’ and are being ignored by the Mens Movement. I understand why men resist hearing such comment. They do not like to know they have been conned. But we have all been conned on a massive scale. Time to ‘wake up’. If you bind yourself to your ‘person’ by calling yourself a ‘citizen’ you are saying you are owned by the corporation and they can do with you what they please. And if you take a look around the jails, you will notice this is exactly what is happening. Men like me can educate you, but you have to want to be educated.

“I am an American. I bow to no one.”
Roger. Are you familiar with the concept of being a ‘sovereign’? This is what men were before they became ‘citizens’.

“I am a citizen. I will not apologize for my opposition.”
Roger/Men, do you know what a ‘citizen’ is when used in this context? It means you are the property of a corporation known as the United States of America. It also means you have NO INALIENABLE RIGHTS AT ALL. Why would you want to be a ‘citizen’ if it includes having NO INALIENABLE RIGHTS? Yes, this is a leading question. Making the statment “I am a citizen” invites discussion as to what that really means because very few people know what that really means. Most are deceived about what it really means.

Firstly, it is worth pointing out that there is a difference between a ‘person’ and a human being. In legalese ‘person’ has been extended to include corporations among other things. You are decieved into thinking that you are a ‘person’. You are not. You are a human being because you can read this. If you are reading this you have eyes and a brain. Human being things. A ‘person’ is a corporation that was created for you by the guvment and that ‘person’s name is on your ‘berth certificate’. You HAVE a ‘person’. Then they brainwash you into thinking YOU are that ‘person’ by teaching you to respond to your ‘name’ when you are very little. Then all your legislation says ‘person(s)’ and you think they mean YOU but what they really mean is THEIR corporation.

So what is a ‘citizen’? A ‘citizen’ is a ‘person’ (dummy corporation owned by the guvment) that is registered property (via the berth certificate) of the ‘corporation’ (fill in the county). In this case the corporation called ‘The United States of America’. A ‘citizen’ has no inalienable rights because it is the lawful and legal property of the guvment. The guvment can change the rights and obligations of all ‘persons’ that it owns at its will. For example, a guvment can increase taxes payable by all ‘persons’. It can not levy ANY taxes against human beings. BIG difference.

YOU, as a human being, have an inalienable right to legally ‘enjoin’ with your person as and when YOU choose to do so. Think of this analogy. Right now you are (hopefully) wearing a shirt of some sort. You can keep this shirt on or remove it as you wish. You are not your shirt. You do not get confused about being or not being your shirt. In the same way you can take off or put on your ‘person’ as and when you see fit. You do not wear your shirt 24×7 and you do not need to be legally enjoined to your person 24×7 either.

But your guvment brainwashes you into thinking you ARE the ‘person’ and you are confused about that or even convinced you ARE your person. This is exactly like thinking you are your shirt. They do NOT tell you that you can separate yourself from the ‘person’ as and when you please. This is the KEY to the posts I’ve put here in the last few days. It’s kind of interesting that ‘citizen’ has been mentioned to bring out the ‘person’ discussion.

Bottom line. You are a human being. You are not a ‘person’. You have a ‘person’. You are not a ‘citizen’. Your ‘person’ became the property of one or more guvments when it joined the ‘citizen ship’. Your guvment deceptively offered your parents the dubious ‘benefits’ of registering you as the property of the guvment on the ‘berth certificate’ thereby joining the ‘citizen ship’. Men. It’s really important. Please tell men about to have babies not to register them as the property of the guvment via a ‘berth certificate’. It’s a terrible thing to do. The legal meaning is the man hands ownership of the child to the guvment. No man wants to hand ownership of his child to the guvment. So tell them not to do it.

For those who wish to learn more I invite you to watch this 53 minute video by John Harris which goes into the deception of the ‘person’ in great detail. John is one of the leaders of the ‘Free Man’ movement in the UK.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4024663011008894776&ei=MGCpSsWoBZKF-QbEorEC&q=john+harris+it%27s+an+illusion#

For those wondering how to refuse jurisdiction of a court. Being a branch of guvment a court can only have jurisdiction over a ‘person’. So, if you refuse to legally enjoin with your ‘person’ (do not put on the ‘person shirt’) the court has no jurisdiction over you. Simple! The judges hate that…

What constitutioinal principles is Obama breaking? Was it the ones that Bush broke, like ignoring rights to due process, rights to privacy, rights to unlawful search and siesures, rights that your punishment not be cruel or unusual (“cough” torture “cough”)? Keep it about the MRA movement. Plenty of us like Obama a hell of a lot more than Bush. I don’t trust government either, but republicans and conservitives need to sit down and shut the f*** up. This is a democracy. Let it work, and stop making up conspiracy theories.