Understanding The Contractual Relationship


In my last post, “To Protect And Serve” (link), we discussed the nature of the contractual relationship between the people and government. The importance of this relationship cannot be understated, as the authority and jurisdiction of government CODE, legal requirements, licenses, taxation, imprisonment, and everything else that is forced upon the people is done so through contract. And force is used upon the people when the stipulations of a legal contract are not met and the people decide to not cooperate with the law enforcement officers who protect and serve the people on behalf of government. As we discussed, protecting and serving does not mean protecting and serving your God-given natural rights, but instead it means to enforce the law through the protection of its continuity and uniformity, as well as to serve you with arrest, summons, process, and notices. To protect does not mean to defend you, and to serve does not mean to be hospitable to you or help you.

Again, the understanding of the following U.S. CODE explains this quite well…

42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

Protecting your rights to be punished, put in pain, penalized, taxed, forced to obtain licenses, and exacted (extorted) from is the job of a police officer, and the service of these “benefits” and “privileges” of extortion through process, notice, and summons is the requisite of that protection – the protection of the right of government to extort.

But the important aspect for the implementation of this protection and service is all based on what paragraph (b) defines as the contractual relationship. This relationship between you and government must be understood if ever you wish to stand up against this legal extortion via contract.

The interaction of police with you as a contracted or licensed citizen is a prerequisite for this interaction. In other words, the police must “identify” you through license or other form of identification in order to serve you with a process, summons, or notice. Agreeing to this contractual relationship is agreeing to being protected and served… and arrested, put in pain, and punished for non-compliance of contract.

A police officer cannot lawfully interact with you unless you are legally contracted with his corporation (government), giving him jurisdiction and authority (your permission and consent) to do so. As a citizen and licensed driver, you are within this contractual relationship.

The best way to understand this need for police to verify your legal person through legal license or other identification is to revisit an old confrontation I had with the Salt Lake City Airport Police. Keep in mind as you are watching this video that I did not have a contract in the form of a “permit” to be in the airport handing out fliers. I was in a public area, not within a secured area. As you are watching, you will realize what I was realizing as this event unfolded – that these police officers had no authority or jurisdiction over me or my actions because I did not sign a contract called a permit. If I had obtained this permit for free speech, I would have been subject to their will. But without the contract, they knew that they had no real power over me… except that of threat and coercion.

In my opinion, this was one of the most important “caught on tape” moments in modern history, and so here it is again. Enjoy!

Part 1:

“Free speech is not absolute.” – David J. Bywater, Airport Police

Illogical, irrational, unreasonable…

Notice that the police officer states as fact that if I violate the stipulations of the permit (which I don’t have), then and only then are my actions a misdemeanor. So why would I then sign a permit limiting my rights and giving this idiot permission to protect and serve me by arresting me and serving me process? He then states that I can get in trouble for not getting a permit – charged for the crime of not obtaining permission for free speech… That’s about as ridiculous as being charged with resisting arrest with no other charges for being arrested in the first place.

So if I don’t cooperate with military rule by obtaining a permit, martial law tactics of violence by police will be enforced. Cooperate with martial law military statutes or become a prisoner of the Civil War with no ending? Do you get it yet, folks?

Now watch as the media spins this and makes us look ineffectual. Notice that I completely explained the situation, and gave the media the opportunity to report on the absolute violation by Airport Police of my rights. Instead, they chose to protect the government; which is really their first priority – just as it is the police’s first priority. I also handed them my flier, chalked full of information about these scanners. Yet not one mention to the public as a service to the people. This is why you should never trust your major media, which is owned through collective government investments by the very governments (private corporations) who are destroying our way of life:

Part 2:

If you understand what happened here, you now understand that the contractual relationship between you and government is everything, and it allows the tyranny that you just saw and live under every day. Perhaps you haven’t experienced it first hand yet, but you will… Perhaps when forced vaccination of your child comes to town, or the banning of your fresh organic backyard garden that you don’t have a permit for. The contractual relationship is what allows peaceful military rule through the cooperation of the citizenry and through a martial law De facto government. The only reason that you don’t see the fact that martial law already does and has been in place since 1863 (General Orders 100) is simply the fact that you are contractually obligated to be cooperative and peaceful like sheep – and you consent to this every day. These police are acting under martial law, though they wont admit it or don’t comprehend it themselves. All police and military are the secret police, you see?

In these situations, the most important responsibility for you is to attempt to educate these men, who are acting under color of law but not true law. Your fate will be in the hands of these men some day.

If only I knew then what I know now…

Original Opt Out Day post with full radiation information on body scanners is here:

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/national-opt-out-day-the-most-important-story-you-missed/

Read it. Understand it. Print it. Us it!

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, August 15th, 2012

What Is A Representative?


In a recent conversation, I was enlightened on a subject that I think will clear up a few things in your quest of comprehension as to why our “representative” congressmen, presidents, governors, and other elected officers of the UNITED STATES (a federal corporation in the District of Columbia) don’t seem to be representing the interests of the people of the states for which they represent. This is very enlightening…

The simple answer to this question is this:

At some point in history, the original intended constitutional description of an elected politician went from being a “delegate” of the people to being a “Representative” of the people.

What is a delegate?

A delegate is a person chosen by the people or an other entity to represent the will of the people or that entity. That person (one of the people) is generally referred to as a “statesman” because his or her interest was only in that of the state or area (now called a district) for which he was an elected delegate. When in a national setting, such as in a congressional session with other delegates from other areas, this chosen representative of the people was there on behalf of the people and interests of those people in his district or state (statesman), and nothing else. National issues, therefore, would not trump local ones. But the most important difference between a delegate and a representative is this: a delegate was required to bring any legislation created in that lawmaking session either locally or nationally back to his area (district) for a vote of the people. In other words, he did not have the freedom to make decisions for the people, he merely was the chosen voice and scribe of the people as a representation of the people’s interests. The delegate and the laws he or she created had no power except that granted by the vote of the people. This made the laws passed by the delegate the actual law of the people. And this made it very difficult to pass a law that was tyrannical and not representative of the people.

What is a Representative?

A representative in today’s legal standing is a person chosen by the people or an other entity to represent the will of the people or entity, that much is the same. But today’s elected politicians are no longer delegates of the people, but rather the parent (parens patria) of the people will. Today’s politicians become TITLE 2 and TITLE 5 employees of the federal government, not delegates of the people. What does this mean? It means that as a representative, today’s elected delegate is conferred with the legal power, authority, and jurisdiction to make their own decisions (i.e. to vote for legal CODE without a vote of the people – with disregard of a people’s vote). A representative is not a statesman. And a representative does not make law, but rather creates legal CODE. This CODE is not the will of the people, as it is not voted upon by the people. A representative does not have the interests of his area (district) or state in mind when voting or creating legal CODE. Therefore, a representative is not acting in the people’s interest, for he is not delegating the peoples will. He or she is no longer a delegate of the people. And these legal CODES which are passed off as laws are very easy to pass, simply because the people have no say in their content or their passing.

-≈-

In short, comprehending the distinction between a delegate and a representative has been the final step for me to finally understand why the entirety of the legal US CODE has no lawful power, authority, or jurisdiction over me as one of the people without my personal consent, since all law is always based on the consent of the people.

If the people as a whole did not vote for a law, it is not the law. It is prima facie legal CODE requiring the consent of the people in the enforcement of that CODE. This includes state, county, local, and district legal CODE as well.

And remember that judges are “elected” as well, and are the adjudicators of legal CODE, not the law. And please understand that you also “elect” an attorney to “represent” you. BAR attorneys swear an oath to uphold that copyrighted legal CODE and to follow legal court procedure. An attorney is not a delegate, but a representative of yourself as a ward of the court not fit to represent yourself. All BAR attorneys and judges are on the same team, representing the legal CODE, not the people. And these BAR attorneys make up a majority of our elected officials in the senate, a large majority of the house, and of course our representative President, who has granted himself the authority to make his own law (legal CODE) through the use of Presidential Directives and Executive Orders, giving force to legal CODE’s without and above constitutional considerations.

Just because a politician makes a pretty speech about being a statesman and representing the will of the people doesn’t make this a reality. Most politicians want nothing more than the corporate clout and money that being a post-politician carries with it, not to mention a multi-million dollar tax-exempt expense account and a life-long taxpayer funded pension virtually unmatched in the private sector.

So the next time you decide to vote for your local, county, state, or federal representative, including the President of the UNITED STATES, remember that you are electing a representative and not a delegate. And remember that by voting for that person, you are granting that person your presumed consent to make decisions on your behalf, but certainly not in your best interests.

(Special thanks to Burt. His information is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/donotconsent83)

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com) — (Clint4P.com)
–Friday, February 17, 2012

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

STRAWMAN Makes First Physical Appearance On Television!


As if the government of Ontario, Canada is trying to flip its middle finger to the people of Ontario, the government came out with this “public service” commercial depicting the “legal persons” of Ontario being contracted with the government by their STRAWMAN name!

From a birth certificate to an I.D Card to a Driver’s License to a Marriage License to a Home contract and a change of address form, this is one of the most perfect representations of what a STRAWMAN would look like if it were a living, breathing entity like the people it sucks the blood of.

The theme of this delightful ditty: The government serves the people by forcing them to contract with the government in every aspect of their lives!

You want to explain the STRAWMAN to somebody? This is a perfect visual aid! And official too!!!

See the commercial here: http://www.videodelivery.gov.on.ca/player/download.php?file=http://www.media.gov.on.ca/b0643a07a585b985/en/pages/text.html

Sorry, I couldn’t figure out how to embed this one…

.

–Clint Richardson (RealityBloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The United States: A Corporation


The “United States” is a corporation…

If you really want to understand why this is true, then you will have to look at each of the following pieces of the puzzle (links)… This will take a lot of your time and more importantly, the suspension of your idealism and belief.

That is hard. Trust me, I know.

I just spent an hour putting this post together and am passing this information on to you, so please don’t let it go to waste. Consider it an early Christmas present!

———————–≈———————–

Let’s focus on proving the corporate structure of the Federal Government, so that there is no doubt in your mind…

Here is the first carrot that I will dangle in front of you to get you to keep reading! This is from the U.S. CODE.

U.S. CODE is the corporate code of the UNITED STATES Federal corporation. Here it states that “United States” is defined as “a Federal corporation”.

———————–≈———————–

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

15) ‘‘United States’’ means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )

 

———————–≈———————–

Wam, bam, thank you mam!

So when did this happen…?

First, understand that the “United States” Federal corporation is a ten mile stretch of land that is not one of the 5o states united, and that this was mandated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Team Law down in SoCal has a great fact-sheet printed here… read this to get an understanding of the corporate setup of D.C, by charter in 1801:

http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology-CorpUS.htm

Now read the last two paragraphs in Article 1, Section 8 here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Note that this Article only gave the federal government authority over the D.C. land – not to exceed 10 miles square. This is the corporate structure that is the Federal Government. Note that the Government is not allowed to “own” land outside of this 10 mile D.C. area. Also, states are not authorized to “own” land either. So all federal lands, state parks, national parks, etc… are not “property” of the constitutional government.

But a corporation… which the Supreme Court now says is a person too with first amendment rights… that becomes a whole other can of worms!

———————–≈———————–

Now, as referenced above, “The Act of 1871″ (Google this term for other pdf files which explain this in more detail, but watch for misinformation as well). It does seem like a redundancy, as mentioned above. Though it does seem to join the few “municipalities” of Washington D.C. into one “municipal corporation”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

———————–≈———————–

Interestingly, the Constitution Act of 1871 was passed in Canada the same year, confirming the Queens rule over Canada through Parliament.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1871.html

———————–≈———————–

Equally as intriguing is this info which says that English Parliament changed the social security system in the United States. It is very hard to except that the history we have learned is false. But until we do, we know nothing but false history, written by the “victors”. Also check out the “Treaty of Peace” (as referenced in this article, and the “Treaty of 1213″, showing the Vatican owns the Crown.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm

Check out all of the articles on this site when you have time:

www.apfn.org

Like this one which is congressional record referring to the bankruptcy, dissolving of, and reorganization of the United States corporation:

http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm

———————–≈———————–

It is also very hard for most to imagine that the constitution that we hold so dearly is not a very good document. It takes away freedom as much as it grants it. The only true freedom is God-given, natural law, not a peace of paper. Besides, most politicians only take a verbal oath, but they do not turn it in in writing, which is what contracts them to the oath… Big grand jury’s going on up in Utah here about that, since about 75% of our government is not sworn in on paper (lawfully). In fact, one of our smaller towns recently passed a code that says legislatures and government workers are not bound by any oath they take. It is city law in Tremonton, Utah!!!

For instance, why would anyone think that the 5th amendment is a good thing, or even idealistically “constitutional”?

Let’s read and understand the 5th amendment…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

“…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Notice that the clause “without due process of law” nullifies the statement before it, and “without just compensation” nullifies the statement before it!

This last part is called the “Takings Clause”, and is what eminent domain is largely based on – taking property and land with “just compensation“.

Who decides what “just compensation” is?

Why, the very government that is doing the “taking”!

All of this, right under our noses…

Read more:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm

Now to the 13th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Section 2. “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

The statement “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” nullifies the former and later statement that slavery is illegal. This didn’t outlaw slavery… it legalized state sanctioned slavery while outlawing private individual ownership!

The constitution is full of these “except” clauses, which is why this holy worship of the constitution is ridiculous in my mind, and why it needs to be rewritten for modern times, not just reinstated. For once in history, the problem with a legal document (the constitution) is that it does not have enough small print!!!

Here is my blog about this:

http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/is-slavery-legal-in-america/

I highly recomend it.

———————–≈———————–

Even worse, the “Federal Prison Industries” website is the “Amway” or “Wallmart” for the corporate U.S. slave prison system, called Unicor. Basically, the private prison system is huge. It relies on the courts to ensure a continuous influx of “prisoners” or “slaves” to build the products which the Federal Prison Industries sells. Think jobs are outsourced to India, check out the jobs outsourced to the prison industry!

Unicor Corporate Overview:

UNICOR, Federal Prison Industries is a self-sustaining, self-funded corporation established in 1934 by executive order to create a voluntary real-world work program to train federal inmates.

Check out Unicor here:

http://www.unicor.gov/

———————–≈———————–

***Also, the most important legal term you can understand is “CONSENT”. This is a must read. It also shows that the whole of the Internal Revenue Code is not statutory law, and in fact is Prima Facie law, meaning it is presumed law, meaning it is only law with the free peoples consent. Please, please read this. It will change your whole perspective on what law is and how it affects you.

http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/consent-why-the-irs-domestic-and-homeland-security-have-no-lawful-power/

———————–≈———————–

But aren’t the courts there to ensure justice against government tyranny, you know, the whole checks and balances thingy?

The biggest mistake you can make is to get an attorney (plead incompetence and inability to represent yourself, and become a ward of the court) and then go into court to fight anything (consent to the corporate court and its non-statutory legal codes – not law).

Why?

You must understand that the courts are also private corporations. In fact, in Los Angeles they did a freedom of information act and found out that the judges down there build and own the private corporate courts, rent them out to the government for millions of dollars, and write checks on dummy and city “municipal” accounts that are not registered with the IRS! In other words, the court system is a money laundering system. This is happening all over the U.S. It involves the crime families as well, and other corporate structures that would surprise you.

Watch these videos… Though they are of horrible quality and video production, they are very revealing:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtHCIXVb_eo

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_lwzj8DY_U&feature=related

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKVNKCiGMpM&feature=related

So we see that the courts are indeed private corporations, just like all governments across the country.

———————–≈———————–

One last website to check out…

http://www.usavsus.info/

Understanding the difference between what is lawful and what is legal is paramount. They are two different concepts, one natural law and one corporate law (legality and code) with the peoples’ consent needed.

———————–≈———————–

I could go on and on… but if this doesn’t do the trick, then I am almost all out of tricks. If you haven’t watched The Corporation Nation, now would be the time. The movie will explain the rest, and explain the general accounting system for corporate government, the CAFR.

http://thecorporationnation.com/

My Christmas Gift to you, the gift of truth and comprehension!

Happy New Year everybody…

.

-Clint Richardson- (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,340 other followers