Do You Own Your Children?


Do you know who owns your child?

This might seem like a strange question to most… but the answer is even stranger and more terrifying to comprehend.

When a question like this is posed, we the people often look to our legislature and our constitution for the answers, as esoteric and interpretable as those answers may be. But without the rose-colored glasses, we can actually read with our own eyes what the answer to this question is from the eyes and opinion of our government.

Before you can truly attain the answer to this question though, and comprehend how it applies to you and your children, you must first temporarily suspend your emotion, your idealism, and your beliefs. For when we refer to law, these things do not apply. And when it is a corporation that writes these laws, morals, ethics, and values go out the window.

Anger though, for the purpose of the information you are about to receive, is permitted and requested…

First of all, let’s clarify that what we are about to see is the opinion of the court system. Courts do not offer “judgment”, only “opinion”. The justices (not judges) of the “Supreme Court” as well offer nothing but opinion, which then becomes what the BAR association considers to be “Public Policy” or public opinion. The BAR copyrights these opinions then misleadingly calls it the “law”.

The side effect of being a consenting citizen of the United States (corporation) is that these copyrighted codes are applied to you with what the U.S.CODE itself calls Prima Facie law (law which derives its authority from presumed consent). Therefore, all branches of government technically operate under presumed law, meaning that the consent of the governed is automatically assumed in all legal matters and decisions based on court opinion.

This, unfortunately, applies to all contracts made with or on behalf of the state…

And one of those contracts is called a “Marriage License“.

Yours and your spouses signature on that state-sanctioned and federally registered document signifies a consent-based contract between all three parties – you, your spouse, and the “State“.

But don’t take my word for it… Let’s see what the court system offers in their opinion about this subject?

First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:

Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:

Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.

Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

Continued…

…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State

Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).

The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.

Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).

Continued…

This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family.   The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.   Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.

Also, this case law states…

The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.

Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.

(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1486817.html)

Well now… the courts sure do seem to offer the opinion that your child is owned by the state!

But heck, what should we the people (not People) expect?

When such authority and jurisdiction is just arbitrarily handed over to a bunch of attorneys running around in black moo-moos with little wooden hammers yelling that they rule supreme in their houses of judicial worship simply because the state allows them to presume such authority and jurisdiction… I suppose those people who consent to this charade get just what they deserve – slavery through a bondage contract.

But then, when the President of the country is also a lawyer, along with his wife, and for that mater more than half of all U.S. Presidents, 56/100 Senators, over 35% of Congressmen, both “speakers” of the house, and most of the State Governors in office today are all BAR attorneys/lawyers, I suppose we shouldn’t be at all surprised that the opinion of the BAR Association is the law of the land…

Of course, the above opinion is not just some isolated case. This opinion is quite general in its purview, and quite common in its legal application. In fact, it is the very basis of the criminal racket we call the dreaded “Child Protective Services (CPS)”, which claims its overarching authority from the Federal “Health And Human Services (HHS)” as it legally kidnaps your children.

So where else can we find such blatant power abused so absolutely?

How about in the case of MEADOWS v. MEADOWS, (Aug 2008), in the “Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama”?

“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”

Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.

Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).

The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.

Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)․

…we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.

Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.

In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.

Ziegler v. Ziegler, 107 Idaho 527, 691 P.2d 773 (Idaho App.1985) (citing Carlson v. Carlson, 8 Kan.App.2d 564, 661 P.2d 833 (1983)).

**Note: The word “interest”, when it is used by the courts on behalf of “the state”, should be considered here to be defined in layman’s terms as the monetary interest in what the State considers one of its trade-able commodities. For to a for-profit government, people are considered legal “persons”, and their value is not in flesh and blood, but in labor and tax. Persons are the original form of legal tender. -Clint-

Continued…

“Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”

Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).

“Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ”

Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “

Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’).

(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-court-of-civil-appeals/1325717.html)

Wait a minute, you say. This doesn’t sound very “constitutional” to me…

Oh, you mean that mythical and more importantly interpretable (in court opinion) document that you believe gives you rights? Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids.

In reality, everything that happens is in fact “constitutional” as long as the court (an attorney in a black moo-moo) says it is “constitutional” from within its (his/her) opinion.

In the end, you have only one right. And that right is the right of non-consent. (Consent is the most important legal term that you can possibly ever comprehend.)

But don’t take my word for it… here are a few more instances of “case law” which let you know that the constitution simply does not apply to you in the corporate world of commercial (copyrighted) code…

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.

Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

**Note: Remember, the word “person” refers to your veil of artificial person-hood; your STRAWMAN if you will. The court will never refer to you in the sense that you are a living, breathing, sentient being with god-given rights that cannot be taken away, but instead relies on your presumed consent as the physical representation of your fiction, your corporate self. “Person” is defined in U.S. CODE as an “individual, association, corporation, group…” etc. It is not defined as “people” unless those people are a group of “persons”, in which case, as in the constitution, the word “people” is capitalized (i.e. We, the People – referring to the men who signed the constitution, and whom were the only men for which that constitution held under “contract” with any authority. The constitution has no authority accept that for which the court passes judgment (opinion) upon. -Clint-

“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act… It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.

The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: “U.S. v Cruikshank”

Well, there you have it!

Even as the Supreme Court – which has mistakenly translated the word “supreme” to mean that these seven appointed “justices” who pass “opinion” upon the masses of consenting “citizens” are more supreme than even God himself – these men and women; who are not voted into these positions of power in any way by the people, but instead are appointed by the President of the United States (corporation)… these self-imposed deities clearly state here that they are the law of the land, and that that “the natural consequence of citizenship” is for the people to be under their supreme opinion!

Well I for one do not voluntarily submit to the opinions of these megalomaniacs any longer.

And for the record, as a free man with God as my witness…

I DO NOT CONSENT!!!

.

FYI… Stay tuned, subscribe, or do what ever you need to do to monitor future postings from my blog – for there are BIG things happening and lots of important information coming to you soon, free of charge, from yours truly and my band of merry men.

Stay tuned…

.

Special thanks to Burt for all that he does to open my eyes. Please visit his YouTube page here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/donotconsent83?ob=video-mustangbase

And keep this future website in your bookmarks, of which I very much plan to be a part of:

onlyfreemen.com

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, December 16, 2011

About these ads
Leave a comment

60 Comments

  1. stayonmywatch

     /  December 16, 2011

    Thank You Clint! I posted this on my the FB Right away! Much appreciated for all you do!

    Reply
  2. Jack

     /  December 16, 2011

    Children are big business for government. In 1974, The Adoption and Safe Families Act, created federal aid in the form of financial incentive to the states that increase adoption numbers. Local CPS must therefore get more children (merchandise) Funding becomes avail to the states, to the CPS agents, to the foster families, when children are placed in foster homes and/or mental homes and medicated against the parent’s will Poor children are often targeted because they do not have the wherewithal to hire an attorney or fight the system.

    Six times more children die in foster care than in the public at large, yet more and more children are put in foster care as it’s very profitable. Not to mention the child trafficking that takes place through CPS. Children are used as either personnel benefit and/or form of entrapment to keep the powerful in line.

    Former Georgia State Senator and her husband were gunned down for exposing the CPS. “The Corrupt Business of CPS”

    http://fightcps.co/pdf/TheCorruptBusinessOfChildProtectiveServices.pdf

    Reply
  3. Dan

     /  December 18, 2011

    To think you own your children is utter immaturity. You cannot own another self aware being, with regards to legality thats merely claims, games and toys insane humans play.

    If your Children hate you, dont be surprised.

    Reply
    • Morgan O'Conner

       /  December 18, 2011

      Yes, I do hate my ‘incubator’ and ‘sperm donor’. I disavowed them, and trashed the more evil, crotch-dropping abusing incubator for eternity in a published e-book series I wrote, and in song. (The biotch will NEVER know about it for as long as she’s alive.) I also got sterilised BEFORE having sex (Planned Parenthood is WONDERFUL!!!!!!! Yes, Maggie Sanger is my hero!), and having a very nice, statistically easy, more problem-free, life for it with much less wasted time and resources. (As ya can tell, I don’t think much of the concept of pregeny either, but having to take care of my half siblings when I was 6, and they were a defiant 2 and 3 turned me off to the infernal creatures FOREVER!!!!!!!)

      Reply
      • Your comment is disgusting, but it unfortunately represents a too-large percent of popular opinion.

        I post it hesitantly, but recognize you as a victim of many propagandist theaters.

        Per Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist, please see my documnetary, “Lethal Injection: The Story of Vaccination”.

        Reply
        • Thanks to blog author for qualifying posting that comment. I can’t tell for sure, but it sounds like the “half-siblingsr” thing means an absent parent and remarriage somewhere early in life and within 4 years of having kids by someone else. Sounds like the writer also got abused in more than one way as a kid (just speculating), and is from henceforth a good “hater.”

          Hate =/= anger. Hating people can blind, but anger I think can be channeled into something good, like commitment to change something for the sake of others, i.e., not just my life. Just another comment — one person who helped me the most deal with some of the loss of kids (that i apparently was just a trustee of for the state, as their biological mother), who I happened to love also — that person suffered very badly growing up; she was beat up one side and down the other by her father, from VERY young til young adult. This person is now, at the end of a really successful and productive professional life, still contributing (absent any children) to society.

          But more than that, she really helped me as a witness of some of the sudden transfer of my kids to the other “trustee” (parent) overnight, and out of ALLLLLLLllllllll llll the people I know who witnessed this, knew about it, and were not directly involved in profiting rom it (which many did) — whether religious or not religious — the only one who actually expressed indignation and anger about it — was a person who had survived childhood abuse, and lots of it. I know other family members, and husband, this is not a hearsay situation….

          So I agree with Clint on this one, but unless we really want to have a world of clones (or no more people), those who opt out of child-bearing are going to have to deal with those who don’t and with the fact that the government is farming us like a resource.

          I heard on radio today that in Michigan?? there are some legal changes afoot making it harder to get either contraception OR abortions, but I haven’t followed up on it. Michigan Univ. has a well-known “Children’s Law Clinic” too, with speakers from all over working to develop another legal niche for the attorneys and recommend that ALL of us get more attorney involvement in every aspect of our lives — and no doubt pay for it with public funds, too (GALs, etc.)

          Reply
          • Oops, this was unclear on the nouns/pronouns: “one person who helped me the most deal with some of the loss of kids (that i apparently was just a trustee of for the state, as their biological mother), who I happened to love also — that person suffered very badly growing up; she was beat up one side and down the other by her father, from VERY young til young adult”

            The “who I happened to love also” refers to my children. The other person, I respect, but I wouldn’t call it “love!” Love and hate I also think beyond a certain point are spiritual matters, and in those matters, watch out who is in the drivers’ seat! Hence the term “Crime of passion,” i.e., passion shouldn’t excuse crimes, but is often used to justify them… The passion of “love” is also used by both state and some truly sick parents, to excuse abuse and exploitation.

            If we can change the power balance (I think economics has to come first) we might be able to change the resonance in the room, after acknowledging we are dealing with a collective entity (USA, Inc. and all the thousands of little critter offspring “Your Local Gov’t, Inc.’s” throughout the land) that have commandeered media AND educational systems (and major institutions to control people) — and are expert at “Divide and Conquor” (polarizing the opposition), which also is part of the “Hegelian Dialectic,” a guided discussion into centralized control, etc.

            I have found the people I have least in common with, wouldn’t normally schmooze with, and at least SOME of whose general attitudes or beliefs would probably offend me if we hung out personally over time — have actually had the most valuable information and outlook.

            One reason why is we already know approximately where the current associates (etc.) stand, and a lot of the information being discussed by people we naturally associate with, is going to be stale, limited, or simply a rehash of things we agree on = a form of inbreeding. One reason what looks like “lone-wolf” or oddball bloggers (people) is so valuable is that these people are often stepping back and looking at the system at some level from outside the system.

            Reply
    • hybridrogue1

       /  December 18, 2011

      Well gee Dan, I suppose you then must agree that the state should “own” your children as they have so clearly claimed.

      And since you are someones child the state “owns” you as well.

      Did you not comprehend a thing that has been said herein?

      There’s no business like bullshit – and that is business as usual in a corporitist state.

      It’s too bad people like you are in the market for such bullshit.
      ww

      Reply
  4. Freeing Your Lives Once and For All – Vote Correctly !

    Working the fields or that humans need to eat grain is ALSO a myth. Humans can well subsist on a diet of domestic animals and fruits that grow on trees and bushes. There might be no need to work any field at a certain densiy level. Labour could well be a thing of the past under this hunter-gatherer paradigm.

    Note that a cow produces 2 litres of milk daily. With a small self sustaining herd, chickens, a water reservoir, and a number of fruit trees/plants on ALLODIAL land (without Eminent Domain powers which MP’s should be voted on the basis of their ability to abolish by) there hardly is anything to ‘labour’ about, barring the taxes that your idiot MPs again allow in law to begin with and should not be voted for unless they intend to abolish the same.

    If MP’s abolish assessments and taxes on the subsistence land owners, and the fact that MONEY (food) DOES GROW ON TREES, who needs to work or labour or pay any taxes at all?

    The entire ‘democratic’ system is a ‘remake’ of feudalism via mob rule, and your new parasitic version of the monarch (not the4 limited types with only ceremonial powers) is government itself – especially those who are nepotistic within government (and less so but still harmful nepotists) within political parties where independent MPs should be in power instead.

    Finally one does not need to own that much land but to be considerate, should have what produces a good amount for one’s family or extended family at most with reasonable space to walk around on and provide some privace (1-2 acres minimal? No more than 100 acres at most . . . )

    This is the end of big govt. but vote very carefully for pro-ALLODIAL anti-EMINENT DOMAIN candidates. And make sure those you vote or even those in undemocratic political parties are term limited.

    Reply
  5. Thanks, good job.

    Of course, I don’t own my children.

    But the State sure as hell doesn’t either.

    Reply
  6. Don

     /  December 18, 2011

    @Dan although as parents/humans we don’t “own” anyone but we do have inalienable rights about how we choose to raise our kids, not the government. As a parent i choose if my children will get vaccinations, i choose what my children eat, I choose what they will wear, i choose what they will watch on TV, if anything and how much TV they watch. It is not any business of the state or federal government and I will fight any government agency and i don’t mean in the court system. They will be meeted at the door with my AK47 and i will make all those pay a dear price, even at the cost of my own life, to defend my rights and my children from the state. So if you work for the state and are willing to die to take my kid or force my kid to do something i don’t consent please come and try to take my kid or froce my kids to your whims. I will gladly give you an opportunity to meet your maker.

    Reply
    • That’s very nice, Don? You are married and living with your children, and not a racial minority?

      I like the attitude, but the fact is, if this actually happened, you would probably give your live one way or another (i.e., be killed, or end up in jail) and the state would come after the children anyhow sooner or later; you wouldn’t see them grow up.

      ______
      Here’s how it worked out when a single (and sounds like intelligent, competent) black mother from Detroit fared, and she didn’t try to injure anyone — but she did have a gun, and she did resist a warrantless home invasion when she had previously, as a parent, opted to take her child off Risperdal, that the child had somehow gotten on when school enrollment (I don’t remember how that occurred) required vaccinations, which had adverse reactions.

      So did Risperdal, but that didn’t stop a social worker calling in a SWAT team (helicopters and tanks) when a mother said “no.”

      http://www.cchrint.org/tag/maryanne-godboldo/

      (please look at this case which was very well written up. THough she was single, the father stood with her on this one, it was a real fight. And the same social worker that apparently kick-started the original standoff was already being sued by another (intact) family whose kids were improperly removed previously. “We the public” will continue to get to pay for lawsuits (civil rights violations), the medication (through public aid), the courts (they are public employees) and in general, keep on paying – until an alternative is figured out, chosen, and enacted.

      http://www.cchrint.org/2011/12/13/vindicated—detroit-mom-gets-daughter-back-all-charges-dropped-following-police-stand-off-over-refusing-to-drug-daughter/

      “Vindicated—Detroit Mom gets daughter back & all charges dropped following police stand off over refusing to drug daughter
      Detroit Free Press – December 13, 2011
      2 wins for mom: Charges tossed, she gets daughter

      Two courts gave Maryanne Godboldo early Christmas presents Monday — her child and dismissal of multiple felonies from an eight-hour standoff with police last spring.

      “Thank you for just doing your job and following the law,” a weeping Godboldo said in the morning after Wayne County Circuit Judge Gregory Bill ruled that a lower court judge was correct in tossing out the criminal charges from the March incident.

      “Godboldo had held off child welfare workers and police who were try to remove her teenage daughter because Godboldo would not give the child Risperdal, a drug prescribed for an undisclosed psychiatric condition. Godboldo insisted that the drug, also used to stem aggressive behavior, was harming her daughter.

      Bill’s ruling upheld 36th District Judge Ronald Giles’ ruling, which said the order to take the child was faulty and there was not enough evidence to support felony charges of assault and firearm violations.”
      _________
      She fought back hard, had good investigative reporting and community support behind her. For every victory like this are how many losses because the community will NOT stand up?

      ~ ~ Dan’s comment above was just a comment, but these issues are universal issue ones here. People are going to face them, and where’s your AK47, so to speak, going to be in 2013?

      Heard about the CT school shooting yet? this happened TODAY (12/14/2012), and just watch the spin. The 24-year old shooter, they say, was the child of divorce, he targeted his mother,

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578179271453737596.html

      “SANDY HOOK, Conn.—A man armed with two semiautomatic pistols killed 20 children at an elementary school Friday in a rampage that left 27 people dead and one injured in this suburban town before he took his own life, authorities said.

      “No motive was cited by authorities. State police said they found the body of someone who lived with the suspect at a house nearby… (roommate or partner? was this a DV situation?)….

      “Evil visited this community today,” Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy said Friday.

      President Barack Obama, who was notified of the shooting around 10:30 a.m., gave a televised statement from the White House, as he mourned the slain children, who were ages 5 to 10.”

      “Police said the suspect, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, entered Sandy Hook Elementary School and began firing shortly after 9:30 a.m., concentrating on two classrooms. It was the second-worst campus shooting in U.S. history.”
      _____
      “Two handguns were recovered near the gunman’s body: a Glock and a Sig Sauer. A federal law-enforcement official said a .223 Bushmaster rifle was found in the back of a vehicle at the school. Earlier Friday, a law-enforcement official incorrectly identified the suspected shooter as Mr. Lanza’s 24-year-old brother, Ryan. Their parents, Peter J. Lanza and Nancy J. Lanza, divorced in 2009, court records show.”
      _____

      The alleged (now dead) shooter was an honor roll student at the school. There’s a family court history (divorce) in this one, I wonder if there was any psychotherapy or antidepressants, etc. involved. Already they’re featuring that the young man was a “loner,” as if being a misfit in local school systems and smart means “is a security risk.”

      ____
      The “person he lived with” above was his mother. He also killed the principal and school psychologist. Where would a young man get all that weaponry anyhow? He allegedly had “a personality disorder” and had no contact with his older brother since 2010 (??)..

      http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/connecticut-school-shooting/2012/12/14/id/467813 (AP report)….
      Sorry to bring this one up, and I’ll probably look into it further. I’m wondering was the young man on any medications, like those atypical antipsychotics. The shooter’s father ? Lived in hoboken, NJ., etc. etc.

      Just a note: MaryAnne Godboldo had previously homeschooled her daughter, then enrolled her in the public school system bringing on the requirement for vaccinations, adverse reactions, Risperdal, and eventually SWAT team for saying No to improper Rx and warrantless home invasion. So far in this situation everyone is alive. Alternatively you can go ahead and keep dropping children off at the local public schools, with their social security#s, and go back to work (with your SS# and income tax, or EIN# if you’re running the business) and keep contributing to the centralized state which is most likely going to disarm everyone pretty soon, while we think the 2nd Amendment still applies to our contracts with USA, Inc.

      Reply
  7. Grey

     /  December 18, 2011

    I’ve read about this numerous times. There was even a story of a man going to his local court house and discussing the matter with one of the higher ups (some lawyer who administrated all of the marriages in the county). The administrator was actually glad someone had finally realized this deception was going on. I don’t always agree with you Clint but I’d stand beside you in a second. We all need to take our freedom back and make a go at a new way of life, one in which individuals are the masters of their own fate.

    Reply
  8. Neo

     /  December 18, 2011

    For newbies, This guy explains it better than I ever could.
    Side by side columns; The Republic vs THE CORPORATION
    http://www.usavsus.info/ Take the blue pill and ignore this and everything in your life will stay the same, take the RED PILL and open this, and the truth will be revealed to you and there will be no going back, it is your choice, your free will. But anyone reading this site has already taken the RED PILL.

    Reply
    • From that site, it helped me too, notice they mention school systems:

      “This is not taught in the corporate government’s public school system, because you are not to know.”

      Here’s another summary, 15 points, it took me a while to see:

      http://www.teamlaw.org/

      Here’s a summary from another country, but points out what would be obvious (If we didn’t live, work, and — many of us — come up through schooling put together by the local government entity called a School District (probably a Unified one, these days)….

      Some of the hardest people to convince of this are those who haven’t been hard hit by the system (yet) and have some kind of college degree or are professionally successful. (Three guesses how I know that…) and have years of labor invested in believing that this is a GOOD system with a few bad apples which can be removed from office, or that courts can be reformed somehow (etc.)…..

      This may sound like it’s unrelated — but some of just don’t understand that with colonial wars for independence (which are costly), someone has to pay the debtors. This is a more recent example from another continent, but some of the same debtors — Great Britain / Ecuador. The link is the one on “Development Aid” and the writers is was both an engineer, and in the ministry of public works. (The author also died in 2005, leaving this chronology). Namibia became independent in only 1990; it used to belong to Germany (“German Southwest Africa”) and is famous because of both its diamond industry (still around, can you pronounce “cartel”? and Oppenheimers?) and also for being where the Germans practiced up (on the native, i.e., indigenous, people) for both genocides and concentration camps which are also forced-labor systems. Nowaday we call these prisons.

      “SOME HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS ON DONOR AID
      http://www.klausdierks.com/FrontpageMain.html

      In order to understand the vicious donor aid – debt circle, and maybe find some solutions to the problem, we should go into history to highlight some specifically bad debt examples [2].

      To gain independence from colonial oppression was as hard for Latin America as it was for Namibia. Moreover, it cost a lot of money. In 1815/16, Simon Bolivar, South America’s Liberator, obtained private financing for his first liberation struggles against the Spanish colonial power from British interests who staked their money on him with luck as their only security. In 1823, Bolivar had won the liberation struggle, and the British interests (bankers) started to call in their claims, with the official backing of the British Government. What was surprising was that, at the time, the physical assets pledged as security for the loan – or must I call it donor assistance? – no longer existed because the ships Bolivar had bought didn’t exist anymore and there was no point in thinking about the 10.000 uniforms and personal weapons.

      In 1834 a British Commission rescheduled the debt by means of an “Agreement” and assigned £ 1,8 million of the total debt to one of Bolivar’s successor states, the Republic of Ecuador.

      The Ecuadorian Government managed to keep up intermittent payments to the British creditors until 1854, when it tried to re-negotiate the 1834 agreement. All the original debt – or must I call it donor assistance? – certificates were converted into consolidated debt bonds for the original amount. Of course, none of the capital had been amortised (after 20 years of payments!!) and Ecuador was to channel a quarter of its total customs revenue and mining taxes into the settlement of the debt. Arrears piled up over the years, as cocoa and rubber prices fluctuated” and in 1869 the Ecuadorian Parliament ordered the payments to be suspended. None of the capital had yet been paid back.

      Reply
  9. Eric Freeman

     /  December 18, 2011

    You should study up on what the certification of birth registration is all about. Same with Social Security. Neither of these are required and it’s exactly these things that binds you to contract with the State, United States, State of <insert state name here), the District of Columbia and the Crown.

    Reply
  10. Art

     /  December 18, 2011

    From what I understand one can get married by a Preacher and put the marriage in a family Bible along with a family tree stating who each of the spouses parents are. This is legal and binding contract and cuts the state out of the marriage. The Bible being like garlic to a blood sucking vampire, I guess.

    Reply
  11. Jack

     /  December 18, 2011

    One more thing. I can’t say I agree with the right of “non-consent”. In theory, yes. But, in reality, no. You can claim that you do not consent all you want. You can declare yourself a sovereign citizen, or a real flesh-and-blood human being, rejecting your incorporated self. but run into the wrong law enforcement officer, judge, etc, and try claiming “non-consent”. They’ll throw you in jail, or worse, and chuck the key.

    In other words, if jackbooted nazi law enforcement, or the often times, thug justice system wants to destroy you, they can. People who are successful at declaring themselves sovereign are few and far between. They’re either very lucky, or have exceptional smarts and ability to articulate…or maybe, both.

    After all, who is the drug kingpin of all drug kingpins? The DOJ.

    Reply
    • have a look at what they did to us. We are not registered , numbered , tatooed or contracted… We recieve no benefits , schools, hospitals or anything else. Dont vote, no bank account, no licences. Children born at home , registered in family bible. Don’t go to church and don;t practice religion or idol worship…. family business, children work, speak mutiple languages and are excellent farmers. Then they came ,, ministry of ‘health’. Child protect freaks. One year later, farm abandoned , one child dead, family scattered in different countries. See our site and you can have aring side seat at what I am going to do to these people.
      By the way,, marriage and wedding are two different things… and YES the father gives away the bride , because she IS his property. make no mistake. There are rules about this and other relationships we have in life ,, but they are not made by men.

      Reply
  12. Art

     /  December 18, 2011

    Oh yeah, a Preacher marrying a couple without a state endorsed license would violate the state endorsed 501 3c preaching license. So good luck getting a preacher to preside over your marriage. Maybe if you do the Bible thing, sign it and declare by the soverein authority over ourselves we declare ourselves married works. Its really about weather or not we have the right to enter into consentual contracts (like marriage). No one needs the consent of a government which actually needs our consent!

    Reply
    • Joe

       /  January 11, 2012

      In “the State of Georgia”, the work around to a state licensed minister marrying an unlicensed couple is for the groom to post in the church on at least two consecutive Sundays prior to the ceremony a notice called “Marriage Bans” or “Bans of Marriage”. This is what I did, so our minister would not get into trouble with the State. I did not get a marriage license.

      As for the guy who thinks expressing your non-consent is worthless in the face of jack booted thugs, I would answer that you are probably right, but if you don’t give them notice of your non-consent, you are deemed to be approving of their abuse of you. So say it anyway, and tell them you appeal to God to judge them. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.

      Reply
  13. Yes, they,.the (Body Politic) have you by the “mouth…” Yes, if you red the codes and statutes for your State, you will see it in writing. Yes, they own you and your children by contract. That is why they can do what they can and they are not even hidding it for us all. (It’s in plain view).
    The good news is, you can get out of it. By (Affidavit of Denying Corprate Statutes).You can read in Federal Rules of Civil Procedures..

    D

    Reply
  14. Chuck

     /  December 18, 2011

    It is important to understand the “invisible contracts” one frequently signs on to unwittingly with the “government”. One should know that in most cases one actually has the option to refrain from engaging into these contracts. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you can reserve your rights in any transaction, however who really ever bothers doing that? Instead, you unwittingly waive our rights that you have naturally from our Creator, and, according to the UCC, a right, once waived, is lost. When you sign up for a bank account you not only agree to certain corporate rules the Bank wishes to impose on you. Again, who ever bothers reading the fine print? But you also agree to contracts that that bank entity has with certain corporate entities that operate, under color of law, your government. (The corporations that were formed by the banks that lent money to your government, and when the government defaults under international law that stipulates a seventy year default period for such debt, the banks that lent the money take over, and form a corporation from the nation that allows it to govern that nation and distribute its assets in an orderly fashion to the creditors, and/or refinance the debt under new agreements, such as pledging the labor of all citizens to repay the debt). When you sign on the “line” on your checks that actually, when you examine it closely, says in fine print “authorized signature” (or when you sign up for your state issued driver’s license, or to multiple other invisible contracts), you agree to accept the position of agent for a legal entity that was created shortly after your birth in your name. Your signature also at the same time generates a debt (money) by simply in opening a bank account. You also right then and there agree to become a taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code. Did you read the fine print regarding to your newly created relationship with the International Monetary Fund? No, you didn’t. When you insist you are a sovereign individual; that you never volunteered for this or that; you are mistaken. You did volunteer. As did the young man who stepped up to the yellow line after he got drafted. He volunteered. He could have refrained and stayed seated. Or like the dude who is asked by the judge, “Do you understand” agrees (unwittingly) to the judge’s jurisdiction. You lost your rights because you unwittingly waived your rights. When you got married, you did agree and assent (which is different from consent but adds up to the same result; assent means agreeing by failing to protest, even if unwittingly) that the state owns your children. Keep in mind that the state only co-owns them (one third, along with you and your wife). It is actually not that the state owns your children at all, but the state owns the legal fiction created at birth with your signing of a “birth certificate”, (analogous to a “berth certificate” on a maritime vessel that causes you to come, with your agreement, mind you, under maritime jurisdiction, which is very similar to martial law; so don’t complain when the judge sits next to a flag that has a golden fringe, but that is another story). This birth (berth) certificate is a marketable security representing the legal fiction that is You, a citizen or “employee” of the state corporation, which is used as a collateral for the debt the state and Federal “governments”, Inc. continue to “restructure”. After the international default of US, Inc. of 1999 certain regulations had to be passed that would allow the creditors to own the physical bodies of those who had signed on as “authorized agents” of their fictitious c’es tui que trust, also known as Strawman, to be used as collateral, (with your assent), so that true slavery, genocide, total control can be achieved legally = with your assent, since contracts are the only real law; statutes are mere regulations), established through Legislative Acts (corporate code). Again, with your assent! If a state mandates a vaccine for the corporate cattle (humans), such as the state of California under Jesuit Governor Brown, the state, not you, gets to decide 100% if you get one. Funny, one thing, have you noticed the numbers? Somebody really likes ones and twos and nines. After 1999, as early as 2001, there was 911. That shocking event convinced you to assent to the I-wave-a-flag-Patriot Act. It passed, with the sole dissent of one Sen. Paul Wellstone. Too bad, his plane disintegrated shortly after takeoff. Ever wonder why you never hear anything anymore about this hapless man? The corporate suits (his colleagues) that ordered the hit laughed profusely at Wellstone’s funeral. Now in 2011, you get the “We-can-kill- you-any-time Act”, again with your assent. I predict that if a state passed a law that allows the corporate financier “owners” to inject an RFID chip into your baby’s body right at birth, like you brand cattle, only surreptitiously, such as in conjunction with your baby’s God-forbid-we-must-protect-baby against-unprotected-sex-early-Hepatitis B shot, you will again waive your rights and assent. Some never learn. If you wish to learn more about Invisible Contracts, read George Mercier’s book Invisible Contracts, widely available on the net.

    Reply
  15. merry men?

    Present!

    If I ever get any postal mail, “ALL CAPS”, from any of these useful idiots again, although I doubt it being as they already stole my house, I intend to right on the front of the envelope, “No Such Fiction At This Address, Return To Sender”.

    Happy Trails, . . .
    Stop Feeding These Damn Parasites!

    Reply
  16. Chili

     /  December 19, 2011

    To be a free carbon based unit, you must divest yourself of all these (adhesion) contracts. Marriage license, Drivers License, Vehicle Registration, Voter registration, Gun permits etc, accept no benefits, no welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment bennies… the list seems endless.
    You must also give notice to the parties that you withdraw consent and revoke your signature, past and present by sworn affidavit by legal ‘notice and demand’ documents.
    This is the part that people can’t comprehend. They think their government is a government. Your “government” is a de facto corporation posing as a legitimate government. Look up your city, county or state name on Dunn and Bradstreet in their search box and you’ll see that it is true. Your police and sheriff’s departments are corporations as well.
    The only thing I haven’t figured out yet is how to rescind your Social Security Number. This is the first thing they use against you when you try to claim freedom. Until I find a workable procedure, NEVER NEVER NEVER give that number to anyone, especially cops and judges.
    Social security is voluntary and for tax purposes only. It is NOT to be used for identification purposes. (Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974(?) are two sources). So it is a federal crime if anyone asks for or demands you provide that information. If you do, you are volunteering into a contract and giving your consent….thus you are a government slave and bound by the terms of that contract (Statutes and regulations)
    If you hold any of these licenses and permits or REGISTER anything with the STATE,or accept ANY benefits, you can’t claim freedom. That’s why people don’t win in “court” or get thrown in jail. Just look in your wallet. If you have anything with your name in all CAPS, you are considered a corporation/statutory fiction/Person/US CITIZEN..

    OK Clint, you are hereby challenged. Let’s see if you can help with the Social Security Number thing. Good article by the way. I like how you reference court cases instead of just making claims.

    Reply
    • Social Security, in my opinion, is the hook that has many people baited into staying a citizen.

      The legal act of relinquishing citizenship is in US CODE, and by default the “social services” like Social Security would be relinquished, since they are services provided by the corporation to “citizens”.

      You should follow Burt, who is walking the walk.

      His info is listed at the end of this article.

      -Clint-

      Reply
      • Bill

         /  December 14, 2012

        I’m unsure that receiving a benefit compels one to assume citizenship. Citizenship being equal to being a trustee – i.e. employee. For instance, I can draw the benefit of a disability insurance policy. That doesn’t make me an employee of the company. So I’m no more an employee of my insurance company by getting a benefit of having paid in than I am an employee of the government if I were to obtain SSI or SSDI payments. It’s the benefit of paying the dues. I can’t imagine this being argued against one in court, how ridiculous would they sound?

        Besides, where does government get everything they have? From THE PEOPLE! If I take $100 from you and “give” you back $20, how does that compel you into contract as my employee?

        Reply
        • Don’t take the word employee so literally. Government and private sector is vastly different.

          An employee is nothing if not a contractor of another person/corporation, be it full time or temporary (independent).

          You can draw the benefit of a disability insurance policy as a contractee with that company.

          Citizenship is a contract with the corporate government (Washington D.C. is a municipal corporation).

          All property is of the government, used as collateral for its good faith and credit. The people are nothing but users of that government property.

          What you believe is private property is irrelevant, and it can be taken at any time. But government loves the fact that you think you are a free man, when all you actually have is the contractual privilege of freedom to obey the law.

          Reply
    • Joe

       /  January 12, 2012

      I took a completed Form SSA-521 to the local SSA office along with the SS card. I surrendered the card and gave them the completed form. I just stated on the form that my decision to apply for the benefit has resulted in a disadvantage to me, and that I do not believe I am a U.S. citizen. (Would be better to say “I have never consented to be a U.S. citizen.” The benefit that I withdrew my application for was the SS card. The type of application being withdrawn is Form SS-5. I asked the clerk at the counter to make a copy of my completed form and to stamp it received by them for my records. She obliged. 60 days went by without any objection being received by SSA. Silence equals acquiescence.

      The benefit of this is, if I am ever asked for this number again by the occupational military forces, I can honestly state that I do not have one.

      Now, I did this simply because I believe I was led by the Holy Spirit to do this. It does not mean this is right for everyone.

      The truth, however, is that even if you hold a SS card, YOU do not have an SSN. The SSN belongs to a trust. You granted the license to SSA to create the trust for your benefit. So you are the grantor-beneficiary of the trust, but the owner/trustee of the trust is SSA. The trust has a name similar to the Birth Certificate name, but it is different, because it uses only a middle initial instead of a middle name. You are allowed the beneficial use of the number.

      Thus, a good reply when asked for the SSN is “That number is trust property. It does not belong to me. You should contact the trustee.”

      Reply
    • I know the answer.
      email me if you like.

      Reply
  17. oooops?

    Clint, you posted above,

    “Even as the Supreme Court – which has mistakenly translated the word “supreme” to mean that these seven appointed “justices” who pass “opinion” upon the masses of consenting “citizens” are more “supreme than even God himself” etc.

    Correction,

    The Supreme Court of the United States, which meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they are removed after impeachment.

    Happy Trails, . . .

    Reply
  18. Irene Raelian

     /  December 19, 2011

    DON’T GET MARRIED, DON’T SIGN ANY CONTRACT WITH PEOPLE. THAT WAY YOU ARE FREE

    Reply
  19. Eric Freeman

     /  December 19, 2011

    @Chili – “The only thing I haven’t figured out yet is how to rescind your Social Security Number.”

    You can only file a request for the SSA to delete the record of your SSN “application”, they will not rescind a SSN once assigned. Call SSA and get further information on how to receive and fill out a form to void the account they created.

    Also, you will have to void, null, cancel, purge, etc your Birth Certificate as well.

    Everyone must renounce their U.S. citizenship and go back to being nonresidential aliens (aka American Citizens). Stop paying income, Federal, FICA, SS, medicare, medicaid and State taxes. This is a positive non-violent way to protest and tell the “government” where they can go!

    Go to Youtube and watch videos from Dean Clifford and Kurt Kallenbach (listen to Kurt at http://libertyandfreedomradio.net/archives.asp under “I Am The People” – sorry I’m not trying to advertise but this IS IMPORTANT information to get out!). They understand this system very well and Kurt will tell you how to get out of the system. The only dilemma is the United States [Corporation] will fight you tooth and nail; they will fight you either by consent or conquest.

    And don’t think Ron Paul will save the day either! And Alex Jones is a Zionist shill who’s job is to keep you in the system by becoming a “register” voter (look up the term “Register” in Black Law’s dictionary 5th addition – it means “to enroll” aka contract!).

    We need more men and women Withdrawing their Consent and get out of the system. Let this so called “government” die!!! We don’t need “government” of any kind! Not even the Republic created by the Founding Fathers because they did it for their own selfish needs! Remember, a CONstitution is a Contract — Why in the heck would anyone give up their God/Natural given birth rights for man made rights (privileges) created by selfish people?!?!

    Reply
  20. Interesting…

    Reply
  21. Chex

     /  January 11, 2012

    Parens patriae is Latin for “parent of the nation.” “In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents. This inherent power is generally supplemented by legislative acts that define the scope of child protection in a state.”

    Seems to me that the property taxes that we pay should be billed back to the state because: “The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children.”

    That is until the age of majority: The age at which a person, formerly a minor or an infant, is recognized by law to be an adult, capable of managing his or her own affairs and responsible for any legal obligations created by his or her actions.

    That is if you give you’re consent.

    Reply
    • Just one problem…

      As soon as you accept “representation” via a lawyer/attorney, you have just admitted to being incompetent and made yourself and your property a ward of the courts. At this point, you are considered “mentally ill” as an incompetent person.

      You loose immediately.

      Reply
      • You know, while a person is “going through it” and also going through many times the internet, looking for a “clue,” I find I’ll run across the information, register it, but it’s so “at odds” with the reality we know (even though in your gut it makes sense) the acting on it — promptly and firmly — just doesn’t happen.

        I ran across that “ward of the court” if you accept an “officer of the court” to represent you makes complete sense now, which leaves me kind of stuck because I currently have someone extorting me over a trust I’m the beneficiary of, and the word “extort” really does apply.

        The person (somewhere above in these comments) referenced the “red pill/blue pill” analogy, taken from a movie “The Matrix” (Keanu Reeves). I think it’s a good one — a lot of our own world realities are actually perceptions and they are structured for us by many things.

        When you start pulling on one thread, or several threads, the things gradually begin to unravel until you really want to know, who “wove!” this thing, and where can I untangle it. (for another related analogy about “untangling knots” see the myth (or is it legend) of the “Gordian knot” which relates to Alexander the Great, as a young man.).

        http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_9_01.html

        http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t06.html

        http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/gordian-knot-order.htm

        (more than we wanted to know about THAT).

        I’ve been dealing for many years with certain people who love to engage you in reasoning and debate but in action, simply cut through it all with force, anyhow, while one is good-naturedly and in good faith wishing to set a standard of some legality with people who have no interest in ethics, law, or morality except when it profits (literally) them.

        I should’ve mentioned that one of these is an attorney, a member of the Bar, and what’s more a retired public servant. They planned behind my back, without my informed consent, and years ago to collaborate in taking charge of both my family and the family wealth, leaving me as a legal beneficiary but no realistic way at having any say in how it’s handled, i.e., that it gets distributed.

        The one thing I did get out of the whole mess is to better understand that the things attorneys do NOT tell you are usually what you most need to know. Also that the courts are tribal in nature anyhow, and the best way (if any way exists) of dealing with them appears to be not stepping in front of that “bar” or engaging in some form of dialogue or pretense of reason.

        I hope freeman.com gets up soon, I”m so lousy at listening to youtubes, maybe BURT can help. However I’d sure love to have contact with any female carbon-based units who have reproduced and managed any of this. I have a feeling any such break has to be firm, thorough and sudden, like Alexander (allegedly) broke that famous knot. Because I understand too well how legal rights become moot points — by either stalling, changing the dynamics while you’re figuring out a strategy, or making some other pre-emptive mood which makes the first plan unavailable.

        When I first heard about Walter Burien’s material (and I learned of it first through this blog I THINK anyhow), I was very glad — because he has a plan for rescinding this insane citizenship (which I knew I wanted to do as far back as 2007; what purpose is their subscribing to a government that does these things to people who have done it no harm, and in fact have done a great deal of service).

        My wifi spot is shutting.

        Reply
  22. I wrote a post about this topic today at my blog. technicallythatsillegal.com

    You might be interested to read it.

    Good stuff here, by the way.

    Reply
  23. how do i claim my children back??

    Reply
  24. Reblogged this on vtfree2 and commented:
    This is not new by any means but, good to make people aware as not to forget. Also a good follow up to Who owns your car.

    Reply
  25. MrcopyZ

     /  April 6, 2013

    My attorney told me this much when I filed for custody of a child out of wedlock.
    It was explained to me that once it went to a court room that if the child seemed to be in some danger then the child could be represented by a third party to act on behalf of the child. Also I was told the child would be on a CPS list and that they had the right to drop in at any time and could remove the child from my residence if they deemed necessary.

    It only takes one of the 2 parties to initiate this. But you have to appeal to govt. at some point or another to get them involved. We appealed to govt. to solve our custody issue. I wonder if the appeal to govt for a marriage license deems to whole of what happens in regards to your marriage is their business so your kids are just profits. If people didn’t pro actively get involved it would solve this problem. But if 1 party caves and appeals to govt. they can smash the other one and run off with the state on their side.
    ———————–
    “In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.“

    It is a common practice to put this onto a person. In fact, currently I am restricted to living within 5 counties because of it. I was told the restriction can be even more severe as much as within a large city in some cases.

    Reply
  26. The truth is actually much worse, and much less hypothetical than all this:

    Reply
  27. George

     /  December 24, 2011

    hello clint. ive been very inspired by your blog. I would like to ask you a couple questions. I’m sure you are a very bussy but if you get a chance i could use some help. ive basically lost all my friends and my parents think that i have lost my mind and need to see a therapist simply cause they think that there reality has to be there reality and “its just the way things are” it would be nice to talk to someone who can give me some feed back and maybe help me take back my freedom.

    Thanks and have a wonderful holiday.
    George.

    Reply
  28. Send me an email, George, and I’ll give you a call. – clint@cafr1.com

    We all go through this, trust me.

    Now I have accumulated this blog, etc, and can just pull up the proof. My parents know not to argue with me now since I can point to the law, code, patent, or CAFR that proves my point. It’s a great feeling, and they are losing their battle with cognitive dissonance me thinks.

    -Clint-

    Reply
  29. Angel

     /  October 5, 2012

    Greetings Clint.. I am also in need of help and have a few questions as well..may I email you as well? My email is tb4lf@yahoo.com

    Reply
  1. Do You Own Your Children? » Musicians for Freedom
  2. Blogs, Rants & Whatever » Blog Archive » Do You Own Your Children?
  3. Do You Own Your Children? - PECAN Group
  4. Militant Libertarian » Do You Own Your Children?
  5. FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » Do You Own Your Children?
  6. Social Security – The International Mark Of The Beast « REALITY BLOG
  7. Social Security – The International Mark Of The Beast | Sovereign Independent UK
  8. I Speak: Vaccinations And The Law « REALITY BLOG
  9. Children’s Law Center Minnesota’s leads off with Toxic Propaganda about Mothers | Let's Get Honest Blog
  10. "Free at last! Free at last!"
  11. Cracking The Cult Of The Constitution (Part I) | REALITY BLOG
  12. the constant illusion and the battle for the soul | The Labrat's Escape
  13. THE CONSTANT ILLUSION AND THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL | OBSERVING THE HUMAN ASYLUM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,355 other followers

%d bloggers like this: