I Am A Citizen!
Being no stranger to political debate, I am constantly irritated by the ceaseless drum-beat of vacuous partisan come-backs. Most often from the left – Rush Limbaugh this, “you right-wingers” – and the endless drone of repeated propaganda “talking points”.
Let me introduce myself. I am one of the forgotten people, lost in the haze of partisan self-interest. I was not always so unimportant. The Constitution on which the nation was founded was written for me. It was a promise of limiting the power of government to maintain my freedom. That purpose was further clarified in the first 10 Amendments to the document; setting out specific prohabitions against government intrusion. The right to be left alone – the demand for government to “do nothing” but stay away and mind its own limited legitimate business is among the most important.
In pursuit of freedom, many of my kind have fought and died, to found the nation defined by the document, to preserve it and defend it against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
I am now quite often, primarily from the left, treated as if I should apologize for not immediately yielding to their plans. The elected president has even issued a threat of violence to silence me, calling those who believe in Constitutional rule “domestic terrorists.” But the right to speak openly in opposition to political plans is yet another of those specific fundamental rights promised to me, that my kind fought and died for while creating and maintaining the nation that the president now seeks to control. In my view, the Constitution is still the official law of the land, and the president is a criminal.
Among the partisans, the document has been forgotten, just as my identity. They have forgotten their place in my country, their oath and obligations as public servants. They want us all to forget the history of humanity and government, the human thirst for freedom, and most importantly ourselves. We are to be absorbed into their collective. They want to rule.
I am a citizen. I will not apologize for my opposition.
I am an American. I bow to no one.
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
September 10th, 2009 at 9:55 am
The trouble is the Constitution was compromised from the very beginning. Even Jefferson contradicted some of his own principals when he became president. Your United States is also in fact a forced union imposed during the war for southern independence. So the Constitution was imposed through war. Lincoln shut newspapers and imprisoned dissenters. To be honest you can look at virtually any period in USA history and find the Constitution ignored. But you mention the left so often that I suspect you might approve of some of that. Where were your Constitutional safeguards when McCarthy was doing his bit for persecution?
There is an expression ‘what goes around comes around’. Which means that those who where happy to have their enemies persecuted should not be surprised when the same methods get applied to them.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:12 am
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.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“In my view, the Constitution is still the official law of the land, and the president is a criminal.”
Roger, your view is not correct. The “Law of the Land” is Common Law. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. This is a deception that most americans believe. I wrote at length about it on a post to another article.
The Constitution does not guarantee your freedom. That is a deception. The Constitution was designed to limit your freedom. Your freedom is guaranteed by Common Law if you are willing learn how it works.
Let me show you what I mean. Take the second amendment the “right to bear arms”. If you read the Constitution you might be inclined to believe that the Constitution gives you the “right to bear arms”. You would be wrong.
Who REALLY gave you the “right to bear arms”? Your creator whoever that might be. If you are Christian it is “God”. Your creator gave you life, limbs, a brain and some intelligence. He clearly intended for you to use these and He clearly intended for you to be able to defend yourself as best you can. That is He intended you to bear arms for your own defense against all those who might harm you. So, you have an inalienable right to bear arms given you by your creator. OK?
Now, along comes the second ammendment and it says “You have the right to bear arms”. Why do that? Because if you believe the Constitution grants your rights and not your creator they can later say “Ok, we’ve made another ammendment, now you can no longer bear arms” and you might be inclined to believe you have now lost that right.
Let me give you another example close to the heart of many men here. The creator gifts a man with a son. The man thinks he has an inalienable right to be the father to his son given him by the creator. Along comes some guys in blue with guns. They take away his son. They kick him to the curb. The court steals all his money. They also steal his future income. The man figures “Gee, somewhere along the line I lost my inalienable right to be the father to the boy God gifted me. I’ll be damned. Well that’s just the way it is.” He was deceived into thinking his inalienable right to raise his son given him by his creator was somehow lost. He’d be wrong in this case too. Any men here know a guy like this? I do. Me.
THAT is what the Constitution and Legislation system is for. To fraudulently remove your inalienable rights. Now do you think the Constitution is such a good idea?
September 10th, 2009 at 11:38 am
“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…
September 10th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Jay Black:
And Clinton. Don’t forget Clinton. For the whole story based on my research, which started in the very late 1980s, I would include the Reagan administration as well. The Reagan admin. worked on the legislation and lobbying to nationalize marriage and family and saw those laws go into effect. (Please, no tutorials on how laws are made – Reagan actually had a staff focused on this – managing the process. Reagan also led the no-fault movement. Destruction of marriage as it was, was a big important thing for Ronald Reagan personally, and he was aligned with N.O.W. to accomplish it.)
Clinton defended them, with the result that federal courts reclassified marriage and family law from Civil Law to “social policy” – also known as “economic policy” – like tax rates and entitlement levels. Under Civil Law, you had civil rights (typically called in context of Constitutional discussions “individual rights”). Under “social policy” you have no civil rights – just the right of equal treatment – and w.r.t. arbitrarily politically controlled marriage and family law – “equal mistreatment” became the rule.
Nationalization of marriage and family law – illegally absorbing an area left to the states and to the people into federal control – provided the model for current federal efforts to take more power at the cost of civil rights. Politicians from both parties admire Ronald Reagan for his successful approach to destroying Constitutional rule and seek to emulate it.
At this point, Constitutional rule has collapsed, the US is a lawless land, and the federal government operates as a gang of outlaws – i.e. “we are a nation of laws” is no longer true. That phrase refers to a state of Constitutional rule – opposite the current state in which the federal government has arbitrary unlimited power. This is a state in which the people “in power” rule.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
The impact of nationalization is not trivial from a Constitutional perspective. The shift to “social policy” (i.e. “economic policy”) was essential in the acceptance of nationalization by federal courts. Economic policy is one of those areas of law that has long been accepted in the federal domain; while of course marriage and family is an area reserved to the states and to the people. Preserved in its Constitutional state, civil rights (including substantive due process, not just equal administrative process) is also preserved – but no such rights exist in the areas of law defined Constitutionally in the federal government’s enumerated powers. (Exceptions have been created where federal law has been created for certain domestic crimes.)
With “equal treatment” being the only Constitutionally based right – there is simply no check against en masse abuse of power. “Checks and balances” is a fundamental property of Constitutional rule, and that has been abolished. That Constitutional rule has collapsed is not at all an exaggeration. That both parties have conspired to this end is a fact.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Globalman;
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. And I think Judge Napolitano makes some pretty good presentations re: “endowed by their creator” etc. (See YouTube Napolitano & Constitution) This is important to understanding Constitutional history – the whole history of western thought and the systemic establishment of modern government and freedom. Another term you can use is “natural law.”
The “living document” concept has obviously been twisted and abused. The necessity of “interpretation” has given way to changing the very structure of government – to do whatever the hell they please. The difference is obvious, and there is really no honest choice but to conclude that the collapse of Constitutional rule has been an intentional criminal act.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
paul;
The downfall of the Constitution has been accomplished with full bi-partisan support.
I have written a number of times re: the language of politics – particular that “left” and “right”, “liberal” and “conservative” do not correspond to Democrats and Republicans. The Democrat and Republican Parties are both on the far left. Their rhetoric is of course tuned to their audience, often in deceptive ways. On social policy for example, Obama’s campaign speeches were clearly Ronald Reagan in character – but most people did not perceive it as such since he delivered the speeches in a carefully practiced imitation of the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King.
As a defender of the Constitution, I am in fact an American political conservative – i.e. by definition I am a politically liberal. If that all seems confusing, see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ
The Democrats are currently in power and current events need to be addressed. Democrats are not the least bit shy about supporting the downfall of Constitutional rule, openly and aggressively, and usually with the blatant mindlessness that I mention in the article. Republicans typically do not openly and directly challenge Constitutional rule. In front of the TV cameras at least, they tend more often to arrange bipartisan “compromises” that accept its downfall. The “two-party system” is no different than a one-party system.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
paul;
While distortions of the Constitution have been a problem for much longer than the focus of my studies, the collapse of Constitutional rule is, IMO, a very recent event. An exponential increase in abusing the Constitution has roots in the social liberal movements of the late 1960s. The 1970s, thought relatively calm in some ways – after the end of the Vietnam “Conflict,” actually included some very meaningful Constitutional battles.
A movement to eliminate civil rights from marriage and family law as part of welfare reform actually failed toward the end of Nixon’s presidency. When signing a bill that included last minute amendments to federal child support legislation in 1975, Gerald Ford became the last president to complain about federal intrusion in areas in which they do not belong:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=5168
Reagan made social conservativism just as poisonous as social liberalism in promoting federalism and Constitutional collapse. This was really the great key to the propaganda war. Over the past three decades, the political parties and so-called “mainstream media” have used “social” rhetoric to define “right” “left” “liberal” and “conservative”. Slight of hand – a distraction – with no focus of attention on the fact that both parties were racing in the same direction politically; both arguing for more government power – against the people – and particularly federal power in areas in which the federal government does not belong.
“enforcing personal responsibility” – just contemplate that phrase.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Globalman;
Are you an anarchist, or what? 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.”
There are certainly differences in way things are and the way they should be. But if we redefine all the words in the English language to reflect corruption, then all is truly lost. We will have no way to express what should be. If you can control the language, you can control the people. Let’s not distort the language to allow the forces of evil to control us.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”
Thomas Jefferson
September 12th, 2009 at 3:58 am
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.
September 12th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Kevin Merck; Case of perfect timing when I read the quote you posted. I’m watching a speech at the Tea Party protest in Washington, DC, live CNN via computer. The speaker just made the point – we don’t get our freedom from Congress or presidents, Democrats or Republicans. They are endowed by our creator …..
He says if they don’t listen now, they’re going to have to pack their bags and get out of OUR HOUSE!
September 12th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Globalman: I’m as picky about terminology as anyone, and I think you seem about half right. The “law of the land” reference was not given in the context of a technical manual and I don’t believe people will typically misunderstand or misconstrue it.
RE: Common Law. I think I’m starting to understand what you’re saying … the more I read and re-read your comments. I do however, think they are more supplemental rather than corrective (which may be partly why they were difficult to understand).
There is a difference – a really big difference now – between how things should be and how they actually are, and how they were originally and how they are now. When you consider writing in debate form, please be clear about which you are talking about; and try to be sure that you know which your selected opponent is referring to.
September 12th, 2009 at 7:08 am
“we don’t get our freedom from Congress or presidents, Democrats or Republicans. They are endowed by our creator …..”
I agree with that philosophy, and I think that’s all Globalman was trying to say. The Constitution doesn’t give us any rights; it only serves as a tool to protect them.
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. The truth be known, many of our public servants are guilty of warring against the Constitution, many of them belong in prison.
I think it’s defiantly time to ask them to leave our house peacefully or we will all suffer the consequences.
I liked your op-ed because I understand exactly where you’re coming from. I know you understand the basic problem we face in this country, which is a steadfast adherence to a one party system that has us circling the drain.
Keep up the good work.
September 12th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Here’s a thought: Richard Mourdock, a Republican from Indiana just gave a speech at the Tea Party March on Washington. He said that we know that governments do not give freedom, but they can take it away.
Agreed?
In the context of the real working world, where EVERY form of government is a dictatorship (well, a pure philosopher could stop there) UNLESS it is structured in such a way as to avoid it.
The Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – provides “a promise of limiting the power of government to maintain my freedom. That purpose was further clarified in the first 10 Amendments to the document; setting out specific prohabitions against government intrusion. The right to be left alone – the demand for government to “do nothing” but stay away and mind its own limited legitimate business is among the most important.”
September 12th, 2009 at 8:31 am
“When you consider writing in debate form, please be clear about which you are talking about; and try to be sure that you know which your selected opponent is referring to.”
Hi Roger, I do not have ‘opponents’ in this place as far as I know. Merely other men who do not yet understand the distinctions great men (like Robert-Arthur: Menard) have spent years deciphering with respect to laws and statutes. I am being 100% accurate (to the best of my knowledge) in what it is I am describing. Legislation and Statutes are man made and deal only with ‘corporations’ and fictitious legal entities like ‘persons’ and ‘citizens’. Not human beings.
This is not easy to understand because the deception is so extensive and subtle. The lawyers make up words and redefine them in ‘legalese’ and don’t give you their dictionary. You have to go get your own Blacks Law Dictionary to find out what they men when they use a word. For example, they define ‘Human’ as ‘Monster’. Not many people know that.
But the words they use sound like words you know and they are in the dictionaries you read so when they are said to you, you think you know their meaning. Like the words ‘person’, ‘citizen’ and ‘human’. When these terms are use in a legal setting they are then legal terms and they have a very different meaning to what you think they have.
Take the word ‘understand’. You think it means ‘comprehend’. But when a judge says “Do you understand the charges against you?” and you say ‘yes’ thinking the just means ‘comprehend’ he actually means ’stand under’. What he really means is “Do you accept these charges and do you submit to my will in whatever it is I decide and by the way you just waived all your rights.” Not many people know this. You can not win by participating in court because it is ‘rigged’. The lawyers and judges collude against the people who are in dispute. The whole thing is a criminal racket, no more, no less. Just like your guvment is a criminal racket. Men can only win by challenging the courts and proving the court has no jurisdiction over them except when constituted as a ‘Common Law’ court.
“I do however, think they are more supplemental rather than corrective”
Right now, today, Common Law can be used in our courts to solve all the issues bar child custody for the Mens Movement. It can also be used to remove the ability of the guvment to discrimate against men using biased statutes and legislation. I’ve pointed to Robs 3 hour video Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception. If the leaders of the Mens Movement view this video, perhaps get in touch with Rob, or engage me in emails..you have my address. I can educate you if you wish. I am one of the first guys in the ‘cross over’ between Mens Movement and ThinkFree.
Rob has started a series called ‘Freedom Skewl’ which will teach men how to use Common Law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtNQy8J6GWM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me1_F9BDC7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=comPZCGf7w4
You can also read Mary Crofts book here:
http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/mary_croft.pdf
What does all this mean? In Common Law jurisdictions the following is true.
1. We can defend those deserate and emotionally injured Dads who are, right now, going through the process of being destroyed by the corrupt Family Law system and having their children taken off them.
2. Men who are incarcerated for ‘violations’ of Family Law such as non payment of child support or alimony can be freed.
3. Men who have so called ‘debts’ based on orders of family court can have them wiped off.
4. Men who have had their passports taken off them can get a ‘world passport’ to restore their right to travel.
5. Men can lawfully stop paying income tax.
6. Men can clear their so called ‘mortgage debt’.
All this hinges on deep understanding of Common Law and Uniform Commercial Code which is the ‘law’ of Statutes and Legislation. I am doing my best to wake men up….but they really want to ’sleep on’. They just can not believe the breadth of the deception. Well, I’m here to ring the ‘wake up bell’. Comments like ‘I am a citizen’ clearly indicate you do not know what that means. I am offering to educate you on what it really means in the legal sense.
September 12th, 2009 at 9:03 am
“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.
September 12th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I think a great place to start raising awareness is by checking out “America Freedom to Fascism”. It’s a great documentary that lasts 111 minutes and is very well done. It’s as good, if not better, than any movie I’ve ever seen, and the best part is it’s all true.
Also watch historic interview of Aaron Russo, the director of Freedom to Fascism.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Globalman;
I still don’t see your criticism as accurate. Common law with a natural law understanding would solve the child custody problem and many others. I have never indicated and never will, that I am opposed to common law in this sense.
You present theory, and refer to a Frenchman to back it up. I know nothing of him, so I can’t respond directly to the reference. But once again, there is a difference between the way things should be. 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?
September 13th, 2009 at 8:43 am
(correction) … difference between the way things should be and the way they are. …
September 13th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Globalman:
September 12th, 2009 at 9:03 am edit
You go on to say that it is deception to think that “The Constitution doesn’t give us any rights; it only serves as a tool to protect them.”
You base your analysis on things that are happening … things that are done by people rather than the Constitution. People in power … where the corruption is. There is a difference between how things should be (according to the Constitution), and the way they are.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Alot of commies popping up to comment it seems. Hey fellas, on the 12th over a million “Right Wing Fascist Christians” (as you call them) marched on Washington. Times are a changing indeed. Wait for doomsday, your time is over, your victory short-lived.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
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.
September 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Author: Roger F. Gay
You go on to say that it is deception to think that “The Constitution doesn’t give us any rights; it only serves as a tool to protect them. You base your analysis on things that are happening”
Roger. Actually, no. I base my opinion on knowing WHY the Constitution was written in the first place not what is happening now. Men simply do not ask WHY any more. It is amazing. Countries were created and constitutions (and similar) were written for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was to be able to take rights off people as and when the government wanted to while pretending that the constitution was actually preserving those rights. It is nothing special to the US. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and many others all have something that looks like a ‘Constitution’ or ‘Bill of Rights’ which defines the ‘country’ of which people become ‘citizens’. In all cases it is all about the same thing. Control of the people. It is NEVER about freedom for the people.
This is why they keep banging the drum about why it is such a ‘good thing’ to be a ‘citizen’ and have citizenship and why they make it really hard for anyone who does not want to be a ‘citizen’ of a ‘country’. If it really IS a good thing they would not repeat it so much. Being a ‘citizen’ is the path to slavery. This is the same as ‘democracy’. The US Communist Party has on it’s home page that that good communists should ‘fight for democracy’. Karl Marx said democracy is the road to socialism. The US Army Handbook as late as 1928 talked of the ills of democracies. Yet every day the criminals in government beat the drum about how good it is to be a ‘citizen’ of a ‘democracy’. And ‘we are exporting freedom and democracy to the world’. Rubbish. Democracy leads to slavery and the Muslim world knows it which is why they don’t want a bar of ‘democracy’.
The simplest form of brainwashing is repetition. ‘Citizen’ and ‘democracy’ have been repeated as ‘good’ so many times most americans think they are. They could not be more wrong. Americans were ’sovereigns’ until after the civil war if I recall correctly.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:47 am
Globalman Says:
September 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“I base my opinion on knowing WHY the Constitution was written in the first place not what is happening now.”
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. Without that, you’re only presenting a personal theory about the way things should be, in your opinion.
You’re wasting a lot of words trying to explain common law to me. I know what common law is and its place in the US Constitutional system. Statute replaces common law – but in the US – it should be, if and only if the statute is not unconstitutional (that includes consideration of all amendments, which are part of The Constitution). You may, if you wish, consider the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution as statutory, in a special sense. There is a very high requirement for making changes to them – and the intention is that they trump all other statute making. These fundamental rights, if treated properly, shape the common law in a positive way and keep ordinary statutes from distorting or destroying natural rights.
The Bill of Rights focuses much on “fundamental rights” that allow citizens to keep themselves free from tyranny. They are to be allowed to think and speak freely, and defend themselves; with out-of-control would be political dictators at a great disadvantage if the checks and balances system – set up by the Constitution – is functioning as it should.
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.
Socialists would argue that the US Constitution is a yoke on the people, along with capitalism. But that’s just because they hate for “the masses” to have any liberty. They are only comfortable living within a class system in which they are allowed to play the elitists.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:47 am
@Jay Black
“republicans and conservitives need to sit down and shut the f*** up. This is a democracy.”
1) The Republic of the United States of America is NOT a democracy. It has electoral systems for it’s leaders; but, not everyone is intended to have a vote. In fact the origional system gave votes to only land owning families, as they had a stake in the physical land of the country, and, could therefore be trusted to act in its best interest.
2) Surely you are not suggesting that one’s political affiliation, justifies an infrigemnet of one’s right to free speech, or otherwise denile thereof. If you are serious, then you have no right to even be calling for democratic processes!
September 16th, 2009 at 5:47 am
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
September 16th, 2009 at 5:54 am
And yet, democracy IMO is the only thing that can save the US today – short of a violent revolution (that’s always the choice). So, what the US needs now is democracy.
I read an article the other day – maybe I’ve already mentioned it here – I know I did somewhere. Every western nation has two large parties with one center-right and the other center-left, except one. The exception is – you guessed it – the US of A.
All of those other countries have multi-party parliamentary systems. When one large party becomes non-representative, it shrinks to the advantage of a party or parties that provide better representation. The natural result is what the Republicans and Democrats pretend to provide – politics that focus for the most part around the center – where The People are.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am
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’.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Roger F. Gay Says:
September 16th, 2009 at 5:54 am
“And yet, democracy IMO is the only thing that can save the US today…. So, what the US needs now is democracy.”
“Democracy is the road to socialism”. Karl Mark
“Fight for democracy.” US Communist Party.
Roger. Your opinion is that you agree with the socialists and communists because that is what ‘democracy’ is. The path to socialism and communism. This is why democracy has been touted since the end of WW II. Those in power are working towards a One World Government which will be a totalitarian communist government.
If you go back and read your US Arny Handbook circa 1928 you will read: Democracy:
“A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”
People who support democracy are supporting anarchy, destruction of individual rights, elimination of property rights, and oppression of all ‘minorities’. They are supporting mob rule. Democracy is one of the most dangerous forms of government.
Now…do you still support ‘democracy’? I sure as hell don’t. This is why they tell you over and over again democracy is good…because it is not.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Globalman;
I guess you and Robert are going to have to work on corrections to Wikipedia. Personally, I never heard of the guy before you mentioned him. Although Canada has a western style Constitution, as I recall looking at it once, they’re in the grips of the same corruption against Constitutional rule as the US. I don’t know if you followed much of the revolution via the child support issue. It infected most of the western world.
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” is beyond silly. Elections are held in the US, Canada, western Europe – all over the place. The two-party system in the US keeps them from having any effect – creates a situation in which The People have no say in the character of government. That was quite tolerable back when the Constitution was in effect. Limits against arbitrary government intrusion and individual rights kept government at arms length, allowing people to get on with their daily lives – even though the big picture was effected.
There is no way to return to that state (or better) unless The People cause it.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Globalman;
I guess you and Robert are going to have to work on corrections to Wikipedia. Personally, I never heard of the guy before you mentioned him. Although Canada has a western style Constitution, as I recall looking at it once, they’re in the grips of the same corruption against Constitutional rule as the US. I don’t know if you followed much of the revolution via the child support issue. It infected most of the western world.
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.
Throughout my writing, you’ll find that I use descriptive terms intended to make distinctions. The theory of Communism presents it as a system of “pure democracy.” I’m not referring to that unless I explicitly say so.
Elections are held in the US, Canada, western Europe – all over the place. The two-party system in the US keeps them from having any effect – creates a situation in which The People have no say in the character of government. That was quite tolerable back when the Constitution was in effect. Limits against arbitrary government intrusion and individual rights kept government at arms length, allowing people to get on with their daily lives – even though the big picture was effected.
There is no way to return to that state (or better) unless The People cause it. It’s not going to happen automatically.
You haven’t presented your own views on solving the problem, IMO. I agree that Common Law is a good thing, essential in my view in the maintenance of a “free country.” But your thoughts on whether the US has ever operated a common law system are not clear, nor have you divulged how you think – in practical terms – how we’re going to get a system of common law working – or back to working after now that its been abolished.
The issue at this point is abuse of power; not dissection of theory. Those in power have decided to abolish the system of common law. It’s been replaced by dictatorial rule by a Political Class. Any practical solution requires the current stranglehold on power to be broken.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Forms of Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw
September 17th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Author: Roger F. Gay
“Forms of Government”
Yes, democracy is not a good idea. This is why the criminals in power keep talking about how great democracy is. Now…if the criminal in power keep talking about ‘democracy and freedom’ so endlessly. What else do you think they are lying about?
“The proper amount of government makes everyone freer”
It is a compelling idea..it is just that it is false. The proper amount of “Rights Protection” makes everyone freer. And you do not need ‘government’ to protect rights. You need ‘peace officers’. If everyone has rights under common law and the Notary Process is recognised as the peaceful way to address violation of rights then you don’t need ‘government’ as in you do not need ‘law enforcement’. ‘Enforcement’ means to force something onto some one who does not wish that enforced on them. This is the basis of ALL ‘government’. To ‘make you do what the government wants’.
Once one stops thinking about ‘laws’ and starts thinking about ‘rights’ and ‘violation of rights’ rather than ‘enforcement of laws’ the entire situation can be transformed. You are not ‘enforcing laws’ you are ‘protecting individual rights’. Someone is not ‘penalised because a law is being enforced’ they are ‘punished for violating someone elses rights’. You do not ‘punish stealing as a crime via law enforcement’ you ‘punish the violation of a persons property rights by justifable means according to the wishes of the community represented by 12 good men from that community’.
It is the protection of rights that makes people freer. Not the ‘enforcement of laws’ because ‘law enforcement’ will always end up enforcing the ‘governments laws onto law abiding people’. Exactly the situation we have.
This is why what is happening today is exactly what was designed to happen. Those who wrote the constitution knew what the plan was which is why they wrote it the way they wrote it. One can only understand this when one knows who was responsible for the French Revolution and the American Revolution and why they created those two revolutions.
The wikipedia entry is a differnt ‘Robert Menard’. I am talking about Robert-Arthur: Menard who heads up the World Freeman Society at http://www.thinkfree.ca. I have put his full name and web address in numerous times. It is no surprise there is another man of similar name.
“You haven’t presented your own views on solving the problem…nor have you divulged how you think”
I am more than happy to write more detail to you in an email for your consideration for publication or merely to establish my bonafides. There are myriad problems to solve. One part of that is that I support the Free Man concept for most people. MRAs can achieve all they want bar child custody just by taking up ‘Free Man’. There are 5,000 members so far and there is good documentation and support for people wishing to go this way. By taking up ‘Free Man’ one steps entirely OUT of the jurisdiction of the corrupt guvments. No more Family Court…period. It is the fastest and easiest way for a man to end his slavery and reclaim his freedom.
For those who wish a more powerful but complex solution I recommend the ‘recapture the strawman’ process. It is FAR more complex and requires deep understanding of UCC. I would not recommend this for any man without a good 1000 hours to spare to learn it very, very well. I have extensive background in commercial contract law. I am taking this path due to my global business dealings. This has taken me more than three months to feel confident to get started. I am just below genius level with 27 years in business. So, it’s not easy. And if I mess up the bad guys may still try and put me in jail. The Free Man route is far simpler.
Not sure what you mean ‘how you think’? Feel free to email me directly.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
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.
September 18th, 2009 at 12:15 am
petersmh
So, you’re going to have “peace officers” without government? I’d be opposed to that so strongly that I’d volunteer to join the opposition army that puts the system down by any means necessary. You’re talking about nothing short of giving a bunch of people guns and telling them they run things. What you need to see are a few of those post-apocalyptic movies like Thunderdome or whatever they’re called.
Similarly, you propose no civilized way to enforce rights or agreements. Fine if you want to say that you have them. Good luck against the armed guys who have no laws to obey. Back to tribal warfare?
September 18th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Globalman
I don’t need to have my head played with. I take your arguments as representative of what you, yourself, believe; and I’ve found it to be silly. Please don’t waste my time with posting under my articles stuff that is “intentionally weird.”
September 18th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Oops….petersmh is what I use on the smh.
“Similarly, you propose no civilized way to enforce rights or agreements.”
Roger, which part of….
“If everyone has rights under common law and the Notary Process is recognised as the peaceful way to address violation of rights then you don’t need ‘government’ as in you do not need ‘law enforcement’.”…do you not understand?
Robert-Arthur: Menard had published masses of information. How much of it have you read? What do you know of the Notary Process and how it works under Common Law? And if you know any of this why do you so blatantly characterise this proposal, which has worked for most of 800 years, as ‘no civilised way to enforce rights or agreements’? That is a blatant misrepresentation.
“You’re talking about nothing short of giving a bunch of people guns and telling them they run things.”
That is such a blatant misrepresentation as to be laughable except you seem to say it seriously. Who said peace officers were the only people with guns? Who said they ‘run things’? Not me. Peace officers are servants under oath who suffer severe penalties themselves should they break their oath as in forfeit their bond and perhaps be incarcerated. They do not ‘run’ anything. They do not make ANY decisions. ALL decisions are made by 12 men under oath. Who ‘runs things’ are 12 men under oath to judge fairly any man accused of violating someone elses rights.
What do we have today in the western world? We have a bunch of people running around with guns running things. What you describe is EXACTLY THE OUTCOME OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACTIC GOVERNMENT. I can prove it because all I have to do is point you to the newspapers about how many people the cops are killing, how many people ‘guvments’ are killing in ‘terrorist attacks’, how many people the US army are killing in their illegal wars.
Which part of ‘Guvments kill more people than any other un-natural cause’ do you not understand?
Your problem Roger is that the system of government you support is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. Killing and oppressing people.
The proposed path to freedom is to have a well armed population with peace officers sworn to uphild the peace and all people living by their natural law and common law rights.
Where some very large projects might be needed people may form a corporation as shareholders and invest into that corporation. But pretty much, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ and the normal common laws will provide more than enough protection for people. I think that we have seen over the last 6,000 years that single central governments have always been about oppressing people. People do not need ‘guvments’ to go about their lives. Did the Australian Aborginies have ‘governments’? Did the american indians have ‘governments’? As far as I know, they did not. They had elders who decided any serious issues as far as I am aware.
It is interesting that you feel so strongly about defending something that has, for 6,000 years, proved to be the #1 killer of any states citizens. Why do you think that is?
September 18th, 2009 at 1:52 am
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?
September 18th, 2009 at 4:35 am
Globalman:
“If everyone has rights under common law and the Notary Process is recognised as the peaceful way to address violation of rights then you don’t need ‘government’ as in you do not need ‘law enforcement’.”…do you not understand?”
Yes. Everybody’s going to be nice. I get it. Magic.
September 18th, 2009 at 5:39 am
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.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Globalman
You’re describing law related to process. Every state in the US and the Fed. have such laws – similar to the filing process you describe. The US Constitution presents a right to jury trial, which you seem to think is important. In fact, the US Constitution defines the judiciary as being separate and independent of the executive and legislative branches. It is the Constitution that defines that independence and provides a basis for courts to reject and refuse to order the enforcement laws – to provide a check against arbitrary government intrusion and manipulation.
Apparently, you’re thinking you just won’t write the description of the process down anywhere? And then it’s not law? And there’s no one to maintain the process – i.e. a “judge”? And you’re depending on all volunteers? The NP works for free? You expect people who disagree to agree on a jury without trying to rig it? What happens when the jury decides and the loser does not want to abide by their decision? Does each party assemble their clan and go to war?
September 18th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Globalman;
I’ve been trying to figure out where you’re coming from, if anywhere. I’ll make one guess, and then if you don’t come clean with me, there’s a chance I’m not going to spend any more time with this (or you maybe).
Are you suggesting that the US should drop it’s system and society back a few hundred years so that Americans can repeat their version of British history? To establish a system of Common Law without the Constitution to frame things?
One chance. Do me right this time.
September 19th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Author: Roger F. Gay
Globalman
“Apparently, you’re thinking you just won’t write the description of the process down anywhere? And then it’s not law? And there’s no one to maintain the process – i.e. a “judge”? And you’re depending on all volunteers? The NP works for free? You expect people who disagree to agree on a jury without trying to rig it? What happens when the jury decides and the loser does not want to abide by their decision? Does each party assemble their clan and go to war?”
Roger, the Free Man society, which is what I am proposing is the likely best step forward for most men who wish to exercise their rights, perhaps as many as 95% of them, has well documented all the things I am talking about. To say I won’t write a description down of what I am talking about is not reasonable because I’ve pointed to vast amounts of information. I could give you whole BOOKs detailing the corruption of this system that you seem to be so supportive of.
I refer you to http://www.thinkfree.ca and http://thinkfreeforums.org/index.php. This is far more than can be sensibly put into a comment box. In Canada they are up to the process of creating their own de jour courts. Existing members of the judiciary have been invited to take oath and participate in the new courts. Existing sherrifs and peace officers are being invited to take oath and participate. Some will, some won’t.
Rob posted a video just this week pointing out that it is one goal of the Free Man Courts to have peace officers who carry weapons who will implement the remedy ordered by the court. Some of these peace officers may also be government employees called ‘police officers’. his is not ‘either/or’. The Free Man Society is proposing men have a choice. They can choose to remain slaves to the government or they can choose to live as Free Men. Many will choose to remain slaves because it is the easiest option. The Free Man Society is not proposing abolishing existing governments. It is proposing that they lose their ‘monopoly’ because it is being abused. In short, it is proposing that Governments obey their own statutes. (Radical idea, I know.)
Parties will be no more able to ‘gather the clan and go to war’ than they are today. Because the Free Man Society also represents ‘the people’ orders given by Free Man Courts must be obeyed by government officials. The government is the servant of the people. Why are you so against the idea that men can choose to live as Free Men and only contract with the Governments as and when they consent?
“I’ve been trying to figure out where you’re coming from, if anywhere”
Roger, you do not need to ‘figure it out’. I am presenting it clearly. The World Free Man Society is proposing to co-exist with existing governments to provide an alternative way to live free of the tyranny that existing governments are progressively implementing. The World Free Man Society is doing so based on Common Law which still exists in all former british colonies. Common Law is extremely well established and all governments in former british colonies recognise Common Law. Indeed, all former british colonies governments developed their systems of government based on Common Law. The World Free Man Society is a way, I believe the best way, for 95% of men to exercise their rights in the former british colonies. There is extensive information available on the Free Man Society and it has 5,000 members so far.
I am proposing that MRAs would be well advised to read over what the Free Man Society is proposing and give it serious consideration. Nothing more. Nothing less. The Free Man Society is going forward. I am putting my money into it. MRAs are welcome to join or not as they choose. As far as payment. NPs are paid today by fees for services. People who provide services must be paid. The exception is ‘peace officers’. Anyone can become a ‘peace officer’. They do not need to be paid to do so.
My main point is this. MRAs have failed to make any real progress for 30 years for the simple reason the governments are corrupt and do not want men to have equal rights. MRAs who petition governments are wasting their time. The World Free Man Society has gone from nothing to getting COURTS in less than 2 years. Compare that progress to MRAs. The World Free Man Society is working because it recognises the corruption of all western governments and refuses to negotiate with them preferring to use well established laws to exercise rights.
By the way. People would do very, very well to burn all these things like ‘Constitutions’, ‘Bill of Rights’ and the UNs ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. In case you don’t know. In the UN, right above the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ which is on a big board….sits the symbol of the ‘All seeing eye atop a pyramid’. The same symbol is used for M-eye-5, the same symbol is on the US1 Bill. Hell, the same symbol is on Maddonas back in ‘Desperately Seeking Susan’!!!
The ‘all seeing eye atop a pyramid’ is their favourite symbol and they stick it ALL OVER the place. They like to stick it all over the place to show the ‘faithful’ that they are in charge and that the ’sheeple’ sleep on oblivious. Like I said. They are not hiding. ALL these ‘rights’ documents that have been prepared have ALL been prepared with ‘control of the people’ in mind while pretending to ‘protect peoples rights’.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 am
I’m not going buy books and attempt to study the philosophy. From your description, I get the impression that it’s some kind of cult thing which has a limited to no practical value related to actual real-life political systems. Attempting to start from scratch with an idea – and one that obviously won’t work because everyone (and every other nation) does not have the prescribed character. If such an effort began in earnest, it would be trampled over. Any effort to maintain it would require a violent dictatorship that attempted to control individual character – exactly what the philosophy claims to attempt to avoid.
Please don’t come around to my articles anymore, making strange claims like the Constitution is the yoke of the people kinds of stuff. What you’re doing is spamming – co-opting another discussion – which seems quite contrary in itself to the aim you promote. I’m here freely discussing a particular point and others are invited to discuss it. You’re cramping our freedom.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry