A Treatise On Freeing Mankind From Corporate Bond And Surety


I am a person who likes to learn as much as possible about an action before taking it. And the most important lesson I’ve learned thus far is that nothing worth learning or doing is easy, and its implementation is generally that much more difficult. Thus, I am learning as best I can while fishing for truth in a sea of disinformation and “Universal Deceit”. Unfortunately, it seems that often the best lessons come from the fatal mistakes in action of others now incarcerated or necessarily fled from the corporation nation of the United States, that tiny but magnanimous district set aside by fools for total tyranny and oppression over the true founding principles and declaration of common equity and natural law within the confederation of self-governing states.

With that said, the following should not be regarded and is not intended as legal advice, but rather anti-legal advice from a non-attorney flesh and blood man who has become self-aware. In this spirit, I wish to relay to my readers and listeners my own personal plans based on what I have learned thus far – an outline for becoming truly free; as opposed to the acceptance of political freedom as a political privilege from government, and the enjoyment of that freedom only as long as I obey government’s uncountable statutes and private corporate law. “The Constitution of no Authority” which supposedly substantiates this corporate district and its legal codes of no authority no longer serve the best interests of any man, even among the wealthiest and most status holding common citizens. The following simply and honestly represents nothing but my own perceived path and is posted here with the intention and hope that others may follow on similar intersecting courses. In the end, without fallacy or ill-logic, I believe this to be the only solution for a free and thriving human race – a Renaissance of the individual conscious that can only take place within the individual empathetic mind of natural men, one soul at a time…

Many barriers to process and critical thinking stand in the way of this path – the path to self-actualization and true liberty under nature. First and foremost, as a barrier to realizing the self, is the almost religious concept of what citizenship is. This artificial political status of being a citizen and “person” must be comprehended before one can proceed in disregarding citizenship as an unnatural, corporate thing. Most importantly, we must realize that citizenship is not a defined thing. It is just a word used to represent the various ways in which an individual man has been enfranchised (denizened) into the government corporation through artificial and illicit means, and this word vaguely describes the many webs that place into bondage the soul through its fleshy body or vessel as surety. Indeed, “citizenship” is nothing if not a collection of various already null and unlawful contracts, and is certainly not a single thing for which one can point a finger at. It is an intangible. You cannot confidently point to some thing and say that is a “citizen”, for a living man is not artificial as a citizen is. Citizenship is not anything but a legal presumption to be rebutted; for the presumption is that the natural man carrying the artificial person (citizen) is always acting as if dead and in a commercial activity with the state. The state wishes every man woman and child to believe that every action they take is a commercial venture to be regulated under corporate statute – even a trip to the grocery store or to drop the kids off at the park. Thus the most simple solution to this imposed state of artificiality is to create for yourself a disposition to where the government and its private BAR association courts can never assume you to be dead (an artificial person in regulated commerce) and in a status as an artificial corporate person. Simply stated, you must always be alive! For a living man is invisible to the government and its courts (jurisdiction) without an artificial (dead) person (state created identification) attached to the living body in surety and bond-age.

Let’s use a similar example: In order to officially quit my membership to a gym (membership = citizenship), I must have a solution in order to leave that gym. I must end my contract in good standing and with honor, lest that gyms collectors (agents) haunt me for the rest of my life as an honor-less debtor under contract.

The word solution means one and only one thing for our purposes, which in its legal definition means only to end or satisfy contract. There are no solutions to government tyranny and oppression of your natural rights under the natural law without a solution. There are no other forms or types of solutions, for the word has only this meaning in legal language. Thus, as government is a purely artificial legally created corporation, one must only speak to government as a citizen in a legal capacity with legal terms. Any other attempts to communicate or to terminate your contractual relationship with government will be fruitless and without standing, for as an artificial person speaking to an artificial corporation, you must speak the language of the dead. There is no love or other emotion in legal entities, for they are lifeless and without a soul. A protest sign will be ignored, simply because the language is not written in the proper legal context, not notarized, and not sent to the proper legal office. Emotion is not recognized in legal settings any more than the soul – it is out of order and without artificial political status. Emotion stems from life. Government acknowledges only the dead person.

So this process of ending our membership (citizenship) with the United States must similarly be an honorable one. If you have debt or other form of obligation it must come to a solution before your contractual separation from the government, for separation of your body and soul as surety in contract to 2the go2vernment created artificial (dead) person cannot be done without honor. Only in honor can one proceed…

Honor, not ironically, in the legal language again means one and only one thing – duty to pay or satisfy a contractual obligation or debt. Government has no natural honor among men for government is not a man – it is an artificial person (corporation). The biggest mistake you can make is to expect dignity and honor from government. Government is dead, and thus only operates under the legal language. In other words, in no way does government honor your mother or father, accept to recognize their status as dead citizen in order to force payment of a debt or obligation. And government certainly does not honor God and the natural law. An unnatural entity does not exist and does not recognize anything in nature, and is not capable of knowing God. Government has no soul!

So before I can proceed and be transformed into my inherent honorable natural man with no contractual ties (citizenship) to any corporation (government) through any artificial person (contract), I must first honor (pay or satisfy) all of my contractual debts (duties/obligations)… even if I know these contractual obligations were made in fraud. This concept may be repulsive to many conscious folks out there, but we must remember that in man’s law, the law of contract represents the obligation of persons who applied for that status and debt freely and knowingly under unilateral contract. While many other “remedies” in government’s legal codes exist to escape a legal contractual debt without honoring it, the debt never truly goes away until it is honored. And an honorable man (representing a “person” in contract) will go much farther than one with a record of dishonor in their person, even within government. Like it or not, this is a self-evident truth.

Man’s law does not distinguish honor in any capacity or relation to the soul, for the legal language is unemotional and has no traditional honor or chivalry as we generally and conversationally perceive the words from scripture, our parents, and from other living sources. Honor, again, only means one thing in legalese… to pay off a debt or satisfy an obligation (political duty). As a citizen/person, you must act like one and speak accordingly.

When in Rome, give Caesar his due…

A clean, debt free artificial person thus carries no ties or bond to the natural man it was placed upon, for there is no longer any duty as surety if there is no obligation or debt attached to the artificial person (end and satisfaction of contract), thus no need or legal cause for collectors (agents). The surety need not exist if no future commerce shall be utilized by the natural man under the artificial corporate person. And thus no bond can legally continue to exist to require citizenship if no debt is acquired or existing under that artificial person (corporate surname). In other words, debt and obligation are the puppet strings that insure and control your strawman, and satisfaction of that debt and obligation equals the cutting of those strings – a fly escaping the web.

STRAWMAN – 1. Draft or outline copy ready for suggestions and comments. 2. Third party used as a cover in illegal or shady deals. 3. Nominee director. 4. A weak or flawed person with no standing. Also called man of straw.

STRAMINEUS HOMO – L. Latin. A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety.

–Black’s Law 2nd Edition

After many years of research and comprehension, it has become my firm opinion that no process or remedy within man’s commercial law of government will be successful, for it requires one to still play under government tyranny in an artificial capacity. One cannot escape from a deep hole while standing within. One must partake in this important step (satisfaction of debt), for there can be no legal snares left to entangle the natural man (mind, body and soul) with what the corporation (government) has subscribed to the debt-based artificial (dead) citizen (person).

It is my hope that when one considers the information I am presenting here, it will become clear that this is the only true reasonable and logically correct solution there is to the debt slavery we call citizenship, for always remember that to government, solution can and only ever will mean “to end or satisfy contract”.

When considering our status in the eyes and opinion of the soulless inequity of the ad-ministerial court system, debt and obligation under contract must come to an honorable solution before we can proceed to shed government as our corporate ad-ministrant. As per this reality and necessity of legally honoring our own individual debts and obligations, it is imperative for you to understand the following Maxim’s of law, which will be fully understood and are a requirement to be utilized by the administrative judge who oversees your person in a trial if you try and get out of your debt or obligation without honorable (paid or legal) satisfaction and solution. In all cases I’ve read, these maxims are always applied, a well laid trap with the appearance of holy righteousness. Unfortunately, the law does not favor the uneducated, and allows with perfect clarity for the common man to enter into fraud through consent and contract. Here are a few of those maxims that will be considered when trying to bring debt or obligation to a solution (translated from Latin) in less than an honorable way:

–=–

The contract makes the law.

The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract.

The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law.

Consent makes the law:A contract is a law between the parties,
which can acquire force only by consent.

He who consents cannot receive an injury.

Consent removes or obviates a mistake.

Consent makes the law: The terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose,
constitute the law as between the parties.

Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding
of parties supersedes such understanding as the law would imply.

–=–

One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.

What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time.
I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.

He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.

He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.

He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage.
A privilege is, as it were, a private law.

A privilege is a personal benefit and dies with the person.

–=–

He who does not deny, admits.

He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived.

He who does not forbid a crime while he may, sanctions it.

He who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it.

He who does not forbid what he can forbid, seems to assent.

He who does not prevent what he can prevent, is viewed as assenting.

–=–

There is no fiction without law.

Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.

Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

Fiction is against the truth, but it is to have truth.

A fiction is a rule of law that assumes something
which is or may be false as true.

In a fiction of law, equity always subsists.

A fiction of law injures no one.

Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to any one.

–=–

An outlaw is, as it were, is put out of the protection of the law.

–=–

Please remember that anytime you appear before a magistrate or false-judge, these are but a few of the maxims of law that will be honored. Here we see the reasons why the judicial is seemingly so corrupt, when in reality it is just following the maxims of law in promoting the fraudulent contractual nature of citizenship and other contracts. Truly, the court does not suffer fools – those men who are ignorant of their own contractual and consenting nature that places artificial fictional law of contract over that of God’s natural law. In other words, the courts are literally required to recognize even the most fraudulent contract under man’s law according to these scriptural maxims. We have played the fool for too long, and it is time for us all to have solution in honor. For the natural law of God suffers no fools either. Under natural law, one is wholly responsible for all of their actions, and no protections are offered for those who cannot govern themselves under that only de jure law.

Why must we first recognize and then cast out that of our artificial (dead) person?

Remembering that the scripture creates the law and its maxims, we can read continuously from the Bible that man should never hold an artificial status above others:

“For there is no respecting of persons with God.” (Romans 2: 11)

“Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35 , KJV)

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (i.e. walking the path of natural law). For when the Gentiles (people/citizens/persons), which have not the (natural) law, do by nature the things contained in the (government) law, these, having not the (natural) law, are a (false/private) law unto themselves (person-hood): Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while (in court and in churches) accusing or else excusing one another…” (Romans 2, 13-15, KJV)

It is important to comprehend that the Bible as used in the court room represents the evidence and therefore the abused authority of law. The word testament means evidence.

It is also important to note that the word scripture has nothing to do with religion, but is a general term for the passing on of knowledge. Therefore any book of knowledge could technically be referred to as “scripture”. But we must also remember that only one book is “authorized” as the scripture of the natural law, which is the Bible. Your personal beliefs go out the window on this subject, for we are speaking here of government not yourself.

TEST’AMENT, n. [L. testamentum, from testor, to make a will.] 1. A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death. This is otherwise called a will. A testament, to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes. –Webster’s Dictionary of English Language, 1828

SCRIP’TURE, n. [L. scriptura, from scribo, to write.] 1. In its primary sense, a writing; any thing written. 2. Appropriately, and by way of distinction, the books of the Old and New Testament; the Bible. The word is used either in the singular or plural number, to denote the sacred writings or divine oracles, called sacred or holy, as proceeding from God and containing sacred doctrines and precepts. There is not any action that a man ought to do or forbear, but the Scripture will give him a clear precept or prohibition for it. Compared with the knowledge which the Scriptures contain, every other subject of human inquiry is vanity and emptiness.

Remember, this is the legal definition, not your own. And we have to remember that words like sacred and holy usually refer to the opinions of government and church, not to God. The oath is a sacred ritual of the church, for instance, but not because it is sacred to God. The church and government, acting in replacement (vicar) of Christ (the new testament and evidence of law) is the legal entity receiving benefit of the pledge and oath, not God. Just as U.S. soldiers take an oath to the president and the constitution, but never to God or to the common man or citizens. To the contrary, all soldiers, officers, congress, attorneys, and the president of the United States take an oath to protect the District of Columbia corporation called “United States” and its “possessions” from the foreign and domestic people of America. The United States is not America. It sits outside of America and is not one of the states united. It is a corporation for which free people contract with in order to receive “protection” from it. But after reading the maxims above, it is easy to comprehend that with the benefit of rights, freedom, and protection, citizens must suffer 1,000’s of obligations and punishments, taxes and licenses, exaction and extortion of every kind. This is the price of respecting artificial persons, just as the Bible forewarns.

Back to Scripture:

“Let us appreciate the fact that while the Law of Moses (Old Testament or evidence of law for Jews) has been abrogated, we are under the law of Christ (Gal 6:2 I Cor. 9: 21). This law is unique in that it is law and grace (remedy) combined, hence, the perfect law of liberty (see Jn 1:17). Jude refers to “common salvation” available to all men through Christ (Jude 3)”, (which later became known as the “common law”, and is now usurped by the law of Merchants and thieves (bankers)).

RESPECT OF PERSONS – re-spekt’: The phrase nasa’ phanim, means literally, “lift up the face,” and, among other translations, is rendered indifferently “accept” or “respect the person” in the King James Version (contrast Prov 18:5 and 24:23). As applied to a (prostrate) suppliant, the phrase means “receive him with favor,” and is so used in 1 Sam 25:35; Mal 1:8,9 (compare Gen 19:21, etc.). By a shift in force the phrase came to mean “accept the person instead of the cause” or “show partiality” (Job 13:8,10 the American Standard Revised Version), and is so used commonly. A literal translation into Greek gave lambano prosopon (Sirach 35:13 (32:16); Lk 20:21; Gal 2:6), with the noun prosopolempsia, “face-taking” (Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; Jas 2:1), rendered uniformly “respect of persons” in English Versions of the Bible. A noun prosopolemptes, “respecter of persons,” and a verb prosopolempteo, are found Acts 10:34; Jas 2:9. God’s judgment rests solely on the character of the man and will be influenced by no worldly (Eph 6:9) or national (Rom 2:11) considerations. (Source: http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Respect%20of%20Persons)

In essence, we see here that the status of person-hood (a hood of artificial clothing/status) refers to the assignment of citizenship or other legal status, for which God (nature) does not recognize or respect. In short, we are born naked and will die naked – stripped of any wealth and perceived legal status assigned by unnatural persons (governments, societies, and churches) that we also should not respect according to the words of Christ in the Bible, who simply taught and shared the evidence of how to live under natural law without persons (corporations). Where more than in the United States of America do we see the pervasive state of artificial status in justifying atrocities of war, pestilence, and poverty over other persons and nations? And what people in the world consider themselves more privileged as persons/citizens of the state than in America, denying all others this status without “naturalizing” into an artificial status called citizen or resident?

America and its population are literally suffocating under a pile of artificial personages and privilege against nature, with virtually no man living under the natural law. And in case you haven’t noticed, nature in all of its heavenly glory is suffering because of it.

In reality, the District and corporation we call the United States has only one purpose – to step over the natural law and natural inherent rights of men, only to replace those rights with revokable privileges against God’s (natural) Law. For an artificial person (government corporation) can not deal in nature, but only in artificiality and death. It must by necessity for its continuity strip anything natural from mankind in order to rule over God and nature, for God recognizes no persons. And if it’s not obvious by now, neither should you.

–=–
Step By Step
–=–

I will also say that my research and conclusions have led me to understand that the only actual process for becoming a free man without legal constraints (person-hood) of any kind involves the following necessities:

1) Perhaps the hardest step is the 1st one. For the government of the Church has destroyed true knowledge and understanding of the Bible and its paramount place in civil (pagan) and cannon (ecclesiastical) law. The civil law was created within the Catholic church to deal with non-church related business. The corporate church has promoted the anthropomorphism and fundamentalist fallacy of the allegories (stories) within the New Testament, hiding the fact that the testament is the very evidence of the law of nature and the path to being self-governing free men as presented in stories that men could tell other men in their illiteracy, similar to mythology as one of many scriptures of alagoric knowledge. The Bible indeed is the foundation and land-lordly god-like authority of all of man’s ecclesiastic and civil law to rule over men in contract and force, offering a choice of freewill to follow mammon (man’s statutory legal law and debt-money system) or to follow the path taught by the character of Christ under God and nature.

In freemasonry and other societies and corporate churches, the common people are considered fools – goyim, to be managed and controlled for their acceptance and unwitting consent to man’s law with absolute ignorance of what the Bible teaches of the natural path. And this is why corporate churches rule supreme over the reality of the Bible as tools of those holding sacred scriptural knowledge. And so first and foremost, regardless of your actual belief, you must recognize a higher power (God) so as to disclaim the Vatican’s and Crown’s claim of being the “lord god” over man, acting in place of God as temporal (non-spiritual) ruler in God’s name – the “Vicor of Christ”. In other words, one must become a true Christian without title or status (person). For most this is a difficult transition, no matter if you are religious or atheist. For a true Christian cannot also be a member of any corporate church, be it Catholic, Methodist, Protestant, Jewish (old testament/evidence), etc… no more than a true natural man can be a member (citizen) of government and also be a free man. These 501 tax-exempt churches are all without exception idols (simulations) and are corporations of and for the government. They are ultimately false, containing their own doctrines against and purposefully to hide the true teachings within the Bible. True Christianity has no borders, buildings, or other symbols, for it is of the individual mind, body, and soul. Christianity is the words of the character Christ, not the words of a minister or preacher.

This is similar to the oxymoron of “sovereign citizen”, for of course one can not be sovereign with supreme power over all and also be a subject to government rule as a citizen (debt slave). Likewise, one cannot be Christian and at the same time follow another (man-made) doctrine. One cannot worship saints as a Catholic and also qualify to be a Christian, for idol worship is against Christ’s teachings, and even against the ten commandments. When a people (goy) worship outside of the natural law and from outside of nature, the consequences are easily seen today, as most proclaimed Christians follow church doctrine as opposed to the actual teachings of Christ in natural law. For God is nature. A cursory look up to the polluted and Geo-engineered sky is proof enough of mans battle to overcome God’s law of nature.

This action does not require belief in “God” or that Jesus was a real man, for that argument is yet another obfuscation from the teachings of the Bible of the natural law (God’s law) and by those whom for centuries have tried to exterminate true followers of natural law without government, sometimes called “true Christians”. But even a follower of Christ’s teachings understands that the term “Christian” is yet another legal status, and that Christ never commanded his followers to use that title and legal status. All that is required is the deep understanding and true comprehension that without acknowledgment of a higher power (God), man may rule as lord in God’s place. This is the law and doctrine of consent and contract, and God will never respect or protect persons. And the act of becoming truly a follower of Christ’s teachings may be translated here as nothing more than to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ to learn and live under God’s Natural Law. For the Maxim’s of law in all governments are of scripture, and this is easily verified. Denial of God as a higher power than government and church (mammon) actually legally proves that man’s governing law must prevail over God’s law – the price of ignorance for those who have been brainwashed by the church to dismiss or replace the Bible with church doctrine – which is ironically the creator of the very mammon the church wishes man to follow so as to govern and control man.

Here again, the judge is obligated and will conduct himself ad-ministerially upon the following Maxim’s of Law, (God’s Law = Natural Law) and always presumes that the defendant in any case knows God and chooses mammon (the doctrine of freewill) as God’s replacement. A citizen turns his back on God, and therefore chooses government over self-governance according to natural law. In reality, each court is a church. The judge is present to ad-minister the evidence of law. You must be able to tell that minister (judge) that you are not a member (citizen) of his church (government), and that your only judge will be a higher power than the state pretending to be gods.

These are more of the maxims of law, that the ad-minister (judge) uses, and is why the Bible is present in every court for swearing in:

–=–

All men know God. [Hebrews 8:11]

That is the highest law which favors religion.

To swear (in by oath) is to call God to witness, and is an act of religion.

Truth, by whomever pronounced, is from God.

Truth is the mother of justice.

Truth fears nothing but concealment.

He who becomes a soldier of Christ
has ceased to be a soldier of the world. [2 Timothy 2:3-4]

No man warring for God should be troubled by secular business.

If ever the law of God and man are at variance,
the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the later. [Acts 5:29]

That which is against Divine Law is repugnant to society and is void.

Where the Divinity is insulted the case is unpardonable.

Human things never prosper when divine things are neglected.

The Law of God and the law of the land are all one,
and both favor and preserve the common good of the land.

–=–

The presumption that all men know God is the most important aspect of man’s ecclesiastical and civil (pagan) law, for we must remember that the Bible is evidence (testament) of the law, presented as both mammon and natural within its pages. Man may choose to respect the person assigned by government to him, but this necesarily projects that person into the pagan law of civil authority (law without God’s natural law considered). The taking of status and person-hood is the taking of civil (pagan) law, and the understanding that the court can offer no protection from God (natural law). Therefore, as the law of nature is taught only by the character Jesus Christ, following in the natural law path in self-governance to escape church and government oppression and contract is the same thing as becoming a “true Christian”. For the follower of Christ’s teachings according to the Bible (evidence of the law), must by nature shed all artificial persons (corporations) to be free under that law. A true Christian has no membership to any church or government, and yet he or she is governed by the laws of God and nature to do no harm to others or their property as taught. Your personal beliefs in God and religion are irrelevant, for we are only talking here about the path to being free men (men = natural male and female, i.e. mankind).

In the end, to be a free man, one must have a remedy and exemption from man’s law. This remedy is the evidence of Jesus Christ as lord and savior. This may be repulsive to many foolish people because of the conditioning of the corporate church to destroy any semblance of true Christianity in lieu of the Vicor’s ecclesiastical rule, but we must remember that we are not speaking in religious terms here, but legal ones. For we are dealing not with a natural creation of God, but a legal creation called government, and therefore we must have a religious exemption that is of higher authority than man’s claim to rule as a lesser god. In short, church and government considers itself to be the middleman between us and God. So we must bypass the middleman and report directly to the God (authority) that the megalomaniacs of government and church purport to rule by and with permission of for those who cannot govern themselves under God’s law.

LORD = landlord, master in law (currently government and corporate church)

LORD, n. 1. A master; a person possessing supreme power and authority; a ruler; a governor. Man over man he made not lord. But now I was the lord of this fair mansion. 2. A tyrant; an oppressive ruler. 3. A husband. I oft in bitterness of soul deplores my absent daughter, and my dearer lord. My lord also being old. Gen. 18. 4. A baron; the proprietor of a manor; as the lord of the manor. 5. A nobleman; a title of honor in Great Britain given to those who are noble by birth or creation; a peer of the realm, including dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts and barons. Archbishops and bishops also, as members of the house of lords, are lords of parliament. Thus we say, lords temporal and spiritual. By courtesy also the title is given to the sons of dukes and marquises, and to the eldest sons of earls. 6. An honorary title bestowed on certain official characters; as lord advocate, lord chamberlain, lord chancellor, lord chief justice, &c.7. In scripture, the Supreme Being; Jehovah. When Lord, in the Old Testament, is printed in capitals, it is the translation of JEHOVAH, and so might, with more propriety, be rendered. The word is applied to Christ, Ps. 110. Col. 3. and to the Holy Spirit, 2Thess. 3. As a title of respect, it is applied to kings, Gen. 40. 2Sam. 19. to princes and nobles, Gen 42. Dan. 4. to a husband, Gen. 18. to a prophet, 1Kings 18. 2Kings 2. and to a respectable person, Gen. 24. Christ is called the Lord of glory, 1Cor. 2. and Lord of lords, Rev. 19.

(Note here that only when capitalized in the Bible is the word God or Lord applied to Christ or to God. All other Bible words like the un-capitalized “gods” and “lords” refer to the temporal replacement of Christ/God on earth as landlord ruling by false authority of Christ. This is the Pope, the Biships, the Queen, the Presidents, the Prime Ministers, etc. Often they rule under a “Corporation Sole” as a sovereign outside of their own created legal civil laws. A corporation sole is of the church, not of the government.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole

LORD, v.t. To invest with the dignity and privileges of a lord.

(Notice the word lord is not capitalized, thus not referring to God. A lord is a form of artificial person, and should not be respected or given false authority under God and natural law.)

LORD, v.i. To domineer; to rule with arbitrary or despotic sway; sometimes followed by over, and sometimes by it, in the manner of a transitive verb.

–above from Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

SAVIOR = saved from artificial person-hood (slavery) and placed into the natural law.

SAVIOR, n. savyur. One that saves or preserves; but properly applied only to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer (remedy in law), who has opened the way to everlasting salvation by his obedience and death, and who is therefore called the Savior, by way of distinction, the Savior of men, the Savior of the world. General Washington may be called the saver, but not the savior of his country

REDEE’MER, n. 1. One who redeems or ransoms.2. The Savior of the world, JESUS CHRIST.

REDEE’M, v.t. [L. redimo; red, re, and emo, to obtain or purchase.] 1. To purchase back; to ransom; to liberate or rescue from captivity or bondage, or from any obligation or liability to suffer or to be forfeited, by paying an equivalent; as, to redeem prisoners or captured goods; to redeem a pledge. 2. To repurchase what has been sold; to regain possession of a thing alienated (i.e. the body as bonded surety) by repaying the value of it to the possessor (solution by end or satisfaction of contract)… 7. To save. He could not have redeemed a portion of his time for contemplating the powers of nature. 8. To perform what has been promised; to make good by performance. He has redeemed his pledge or promise.9. In law, to recall an estate, or to obtain the right to re-enter upon a mortgaged estate by paying to the mortgagee his principal, interest, and expenses or costs. 10. In theology, to rescue and deliver from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God’s violated law, by obedience and suffering in the place of the sinner, or by doing and suffering that which is accepted in lieu of the sinner’s obedience. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Gal. 3. Titus 2.11. In commerce, to purchase or pay the value in specie, of any promissory note, bill or other evidence of debt, given by the state, by a company or corporation, or by an individual. The credit of a state, a banking company or individuals, is good when they can redeem all their stock, notes or bills, at par. To redeem time, is to use more diligence in the improvement of it; to be diligent and active in duty and preparation. Eph. 5.

–above from Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

It is important to note here that the word sin or sinner as used in the Bible also has duel meanings, depending upon which lord/Lord or god/God it is being applied to. The word sin is taken from the word “synn” – in old english, “moral wrongdoing, injury, mischief, enmity, feud, guilt, crime, offense against God, misdeed,. This word within the legal law of man’s temporal church and government however, means to sin against the government law of mammon, and thus be subject to the wrath of the lord god (church and state). Sin, in legal law, means to be “guilty” of a crime against church or government, not against God and nature. Government is not of nature, and therefore a sin against government is not a sin against God. The Declaration of Independence spells this out quite nicely, as this was a declaration of the natural inherent rights of men, whereas the constitution was a declaration of man’s rule of law over God’s natural law. These two documents are totally opposed to each other, and yet they are taught to both be inspired by God. The the constitution is nothing but the creation of and respect of a person (corporation). How can that be inspired by God?

The word hell also refers to two different places. One, the spiritual Hell, refers to the spiritual world. But hell was actually the true name of the dungeon or prison located beneath the kings courts in older days (debtors prisons). These were for the goyim (persons) who did not honor (pay) their debts to the king and church on time.

HELL – The name formerly given to a place under the exchequer chamber, where the king’s debtors were confined. Rich. Diet  –Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition

Unbeknownst and just out of reach of the collective group-think mentality of the citizens of the United States, each and every person is literally living in hell – a giant open-air prison for debtors as government chattel. The national debt and ongoing bankruptcy of the United States corporation ensures that all persons as citizens and all registered property and real estate are declared to be used as the good faith and credit of the United States as collateral for the bankruptcy under martial law (see Leiber Code).
And so it turns out that all of these words we have taken for granted, with the help of government,  its corporate religions, and a horrific system of required government education. Most of our language in fact has duel meanings under the natural and political (legal) realm. In the end, the English language is a word magik trap for those who are controlled as goy by the corporate church and governments around the world.

Forget the doctrines of religion, for the teachings of walking on the path of natural law is the only religion (in America, as recognized by legal law); one without private corporate doctrine. And it’s teacher is the character of Jesus Christ. It requires no church and no leader but you. What may happen to ones beliefs and “faith” after one is walking this path of God (nature) is a whole other subject, and is for the individual to work out for themselves outside of corporations and falsely taught doctrines that take one away from the natural path to worship saints, symbols, and sacrileges. It is my belief that more people will come back to God and nature by walking the natural law path than will ever be converted through fear and intimidation of the Pope and Ministers of corporations with their own designs to enslave the mind and body – the vessel for the soul.

For through Christ’s teachings of natural law all things are possible, if only there’s no government to stand in the way.

But more importantly, through Christ’s teachings, one may recognize that because some thing is possible, it very well might ought not be created against nature. “Do as thou wilt”, the infamous church of satanism’s coveted credo, was stolen and warped from the original credo of Christ, which is written – “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Mathew 7:12). In natural law, this is easily stated as do no harm to others or their property. With this rule, no societal law can be broken, and a free man may never need the judgement of the courts of that society of artificial persons playing god.

–=–
The Body Of Christ
–=–

2) Now that the soul is taken care of and has the safety, security, and lawful and legal remedy of the natural law of God to fall upon as recognized legally by the state and its courts of inequity, we must now focus on the physical body – legally referred to as the vessel. Each individual person must begin the arduous process of shedding their corporate veil of clothing, ridding all contractual connections to “the state” and shedding all positive law rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits from government – for God and nature recognizes and respects none of these personages. Acceptance of any benefit or right from government to exalt oneself over others in unnatural inequity necessarily requires the natural living man to become and respect an artificial person (status). Thus no tie or contract must be left unsatisfied regarding the citizen. The Bible states over and over to not respect “persons”. This refers to our own corporate fiction called the artificial person, as well to the entirety of all corporations, including church and government.

So if we consider for a moment, our end goal here is to never be a dead (artificial) person, and to always be in the disposition of being a living, sentient being under God’s law and no other. If one is never an artificial (dead) person in a dead pledge, one can never be recognized as anything but a living natural man. He cannot be a person, for a person is artificial. He cannot be a citizen, for a citizen is artificial. He cannot be a member, for a membership is an artificial status requiring a person. However, he can be a true Christian, for being a Christian requires no membership or citizenship, no contract, nothing artificial, and it has no fictional borders or legalities. We seek a civil death.

DEAD PLEDGEA mortgage; mortuum vadium. –Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition

MORTMAIN – A term applied to denote the alienation of lands or tenements to any corporation, sole or aggregate, ecclesiastical or temporal. These purchases having been chiefly made by religious houses, in consequence of which lands became perpetually inherent in one dead hand, this has occasioned the general appellation of “mortmain” to be applied to such alienations.

DEAD HAND – A provision contained within some POISON PILL defenses preventing the acquisition of the company by another firm even if a majority of shareholders approve of the offer. Only incumbent DIRECTORS can remove the provision.

CIVIL DEATH – Civil death, which is that change in a person’s legal and civil condition which deprives him of civic rights and juridical capacities and qualifications, as natural death extinguishes his natural condition. It follows as a consequence of being attainted of treason or felony, in English law, and anciently of entering a monastery or abjuring the realm. The person in this condition is said to be civiliter mortuus, civilly dead, or dead in law.

To obtain the status of free man, one must necessarily kill his civil artificial person – he or she must have a civil death to live under the natural law. For again, God and nature do not respect or recognize persons. We are born naked and ultimately die naked. We  are born innocent under nature and we take no status with us in our natural death. We cannot hide from our actions, even when done under the auspices of artificial persons, for the person dies with the man and God recognizes and respects no person.

–=–

3) Next comes the Paperwork. Form SSA-521 is a good place to start, though through my own research it may be better to not use any government (mammon) produced forms but to emulate them and US CODE in the scribing of such legal notification and demand in freehand. This form SSA-521 (or legal demand) kills the original application for Social Security, nipping it in the butt so that the account or trust attached to the monetized application cannot exist or be attached to the man through his or her name (corporate surname). This is one step in detaching your natural body from being a surety to the contractual nature of the artificial person government has assigned to you. This is a retroactive step to nullify this person (number) by declaring it fraud from its inception, as no child can make a contract under age and without understanding. Once this is done and verified, any and all contracts, including the DMV driver’s license, Selective Service, Voter Registration, and any and all other accounts or trusts connected to the Social Security number are automatically null and void due to the now recognized fraud of that number and person. So a series of legal demands would need to be sent as notice and verification to each individual government agency severing these now illegitimate contracts. I would then sever any personal contracts for which I had used my artificial person as bail and surety with (I must end or satisfy all contracts as the solution). This would include my gym, Costco, the library, etc. The end goal would be to have a completely debt and contract free “person” that is attachable to the natural man, for only then can the natural man not be forcibly held as surety for the debts and contracts of the artificial person (in the court’s opinion). Thus the state cannot invoke the authority of its position of lord god over your person by holding you as a free man under the real “God” with Christ as your remedy responsible for any debt or obligation of the person.

–=–

4) The next hardest step – Quit ones job. I would of course attempt to be immediately rehired as a “represented” employee that is a private contractor and non-taxpayer. Nothing really has to change here, other than the ensured severing of the contractual relationship with the State and IRS to be a taxpayer/citizen. As I said, no contractual state of artificiality can be left other than the bare minimum personal contract without the corporate name. Many use only a handshake. Many revert to getting paid in gold or other commodities or services. Anything is better than being a slave to mammon.

–=–

5) Declare your independence from government and your dependence on Christ/God in remedy simultaneously. I have written an extensive declaration of my own individual independence of which I will be posting to the Federal and State websites and perhaps carring personally to the federal district, as well as many international forums. I’m not sure this step needs to be done in any order, but I will personally likely reserve it until this point when all debts are honored and obligations null.

If you’d like to read the first draft of my own personal declaration which needs editing and additions, click the link below:

LINK–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/a-new-declaration-of-independence-for-free-men/

–=–

6) Be free…

But now the journey really just begins, for as you have probably noted, the Bible tells us that true Christians (followers of Christ’s teachings) will without a doubt be persecuted and even killed for their efforts to be separated from the corporate, corporal world of artificial church and state person-hood. Since at this point you will certainly be one of the very few true Christians on this continent, you will have no government to protect you or elevate you to a person-hood that grants you false status over other men. You will be responsible for all of your own actions, without the false paradigm of insurance and social welfare. You will be shunned by corporations who wish you to join them and become artificial members/citizens again. It will be a constant temptation to become artificial if only for convenience of the trans-humanist biometric agenda. Your children will be shunned, but at least they will for once be your own with no legality that says they belong to the state. Your use of credit cards will be nullified. You will not be able to use biometrics, for there will be no artificial person/citizen that a biometric scanner can match you to, for you are now 100% of the time a living sentient being with no strawman.

And yet unbeknownst to most, it is actually illegal to require a social security number from an applicant. A free man may sue that man posing as a “person” for discrimination. For as a free man, one may still use the restrictive laws of government against it.

Honestly, from this point on, only experience alone will reveal the path, unless you can find others walking in it. I intend to start a community if at all possible, or find one already in existence for support and fellowship. In theory and in practice this can not be turned into a cult, for there is no sovereign ruler but yourself over your own will and (new) testament of Christ. You have no obligation but to obey the laws of nature, do no harm, and be responsible for your actions. And as a guidepost to avoiding the doctrines of persons, any man who seeks your membership in blood or by signature is indeed not on the right path. This makes avoidance of mammon almost second nature.

Honestly, you will have to figure it out as you go, even as you are persecuted. But persecution is indeed a badge of courage and honor – of non-conformity to mammon. This is the best I can describe what my goals will be. Unfortunately, the rewards of being truly free under God and nature is likely not appealing to most citizen-slaves that are in many ways vested in their own debt enslavement, from pensions to welfare, which as discussed is a perfectly legal form of servitude and slavery under the false god called government and church.

Walking into Christian persecution may not sound like success to most, but to me it sounds like the road to heaven as harmony with nature and therefore God.

The thought of walking through the TSA checkpoint at the airport by simply and honorably stating that I am not in fact a U.S. citizen and that my business is private here as a natural man without name or status is especially appealing to me, as I simply say no to being scanned and touched inappropriately. For there is no jurisdiction that applies to a free man under the self-governance of God but that of nature. I do know of others who have created their own “I.D.” – for identification is whatever you say and choose it to be when you have not to bow to anyone else but Christ’s jurisdiction.

Like I said, this is not legal advice. I hope the harsh reality of it harmonizes with your natural instinct. I believe it is the only way, for I don’t believe one status is better than another – that a house slave is still a slave no matter how wealthy and privileged. UCC and other methods and remedies cannot by their nature make a man free, for they all require some corporate status of person-hood or other artificiality or trust, where upon the doctrine of commerce creates legal contract.

I suppose you could say that being a free and natural man means most of all that you will be totally and wholly 100% responsible for your own well-being and safety, and for that of all others. It means no welfare, no medicare, no retirement, and no protection from the nanny government. This is enough to “make most people love their servitude”, to quote Huxley.

Most of all I wish to empathize. I understand your reticence when it comes to the word “God”. My mind is much too analytical and rational to accept the doctrines of corporate churches, as I am sure that most professed corporate Christians feel the same way beneath their public personas within their perspective church settings. This remedy is for all people, for it requires no doctrine, membership, or contract but that of holding precious the natural law. A year ago, before I comprehended the true form and authority of the Bible as the law of man and nature, I would have properly poo-poo’ed this treatise of mine as crazy and religious nonsense. Only time may make one realize their foolish ways, myself included. So here is my own personal truth…

I don’t personally believe in or bow to any God, only because God is not something that man can comprehend. I do not anthropomorphize God into a man, for that spells out the arrogance of man and his quest to rule in the “personification”of God’s name. I acknowledge a higher power I do not and cannot understand in this state of temporal being, and that God is in fact everything we see, taste, touch, and feel. God is nature; and the mathematical perfection of nature and the golden proportion is proof of this to me. But still I do not say God is human, for this is naught but the teachings from the arrogance of men who seek to rule through impersonation of God and to justify their dastardly actions. In fact I would say only the arrogance of man allows him or her to think they would be able to perceive God. That said, belief is not the point, and is not a requirement. For on this earth there are 7 billion different versions of what God is. The reality of God is likely not even close to any of those 7 billion opinions. The reality is that if God exists, God would exist despite mine or your belief and despite the doctrines of over 1,000 corporate religions around the world. This is a humbling rational. It is logical and reasonable.

All you need to know for our purposes is that ALL LAW in this temporal realm of persons is based on the cannons, ecclesiastics, and Biblical scriptures, and is literally owned and copyrighted statute by the BAR and by the Vatican.. This, my friend, only a fool would deny due to evidential reality. Thus, the only way to step out from the power of a bunch of megalomaniacs who believe they rule under God’s name is to deny that authority by claiming a higher power than those men who claim to act in God’s name – which is indeed recognized in court. The teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible and in the lost books of scripture have nothing to do with doctrinal corporate religion. They are guidelines to live without government and without congregational religion. Once you comprehend this, everything changes, and you suddenly realize that the organized corporate churches of all denominations are actually all standing against or anti-Christ… against Christ’s teachings.

Ultimately, if you do not comprehend this, that the source of authority in law is “God”, and if you refuse to legally acknowledge this fact, then literally by legal default you will remain forcibly ruled under and in the name of those who claim to rule in God’s name. It’s a delicious irony to be sure. And trust me when I say I only truly discovered this for myself within the last year and after many years of searching for this only remedy – for eventually all research and the quest for knowledge leads to this point. Perhaps most important to you is that your “opinion” about this whole religion thing was certainly taught to you as opposed to being gained by actual study and personal learning and enlightenment, and that there is a gigantic effort to hide what I am telling you now as there has always been in history. Your philosophy, as was mine, is likely that of the Illuminati “New Age” and Theosophist movements that I never realized had taken over everything mainstream, from music to media to religion, and is as was mine not your own. Not in a million years did I ever think I’d support “Christianity”, but now I understand everything else is there to entrap and enslave the mind. If you read just a few lines of the red letters of the Bible and apply those words to that of the legal language, you’ll quickly see that the character of Jesus did nothing but teach the natural law through allegory and was indeed the original non-pacifist outlaw.

All I can say is, once you see this, and you realize it has nothing to do with doctrinal religion, everything changes and you’ll never look back. You realize “God” is not mentioned as often as you think in the Bible, and that God is used just like the “Big Bang Theory” is used in science to explain the creation of the world and universe in the Genesis of the Bible. Other references to god and lord refer to the lord-god (man ruling as god, pope, king), that sin is against government (god), and that most of the concepts and words of the Bible are actually legal terms dealing with the landlord of man. It changes your whole perspective, and you begin to understand why this is the true gnostic knowledge.

One other note… the Catholic and other churches have been killing true “Christians” (free people) for centuries, and is vehemently opposed to this true nature and understanding. The church is anti-Christ’s teachings, which should be enough reason for anyone to look and see what it was that Christ actually spoke as the natural law to oppose the church. Only you can learn the truth by studying the words of Christ.

–=–
More To Learn

–=–

I realize without ego that I am at the beginning of this journey, cautiously learning and applying this remedy as I go. I invite you to join me at RepublicBroadcasting.org to learn as I do every Wednesday from 8-10 Eastern from Daniel, who only uses his Christian (first) name while rejecting in whole his surname (last name) as a corporate person. This series will be called “Christian Remedy In Law”. We are not selling anything, just trying to figure it all out for ourselves and help others achieve a state of free will and self-governance.

I will post each weeks show here below as we progress. We started yesterday, Feb 26th, 2014, even as the tyranny of government gains in exponential momentum…

–=–

————————————-
Show #1 – Meet Daniel:
————————————-

Download here: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/show89_feb26.mp3

————————————————
Show #1 – Birth Into Bondage:
————————————————

Tune in Wednesday, March 5th!

http://republicbroadcasting.org/

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, February 27th, 2014

Tyranny Requires Equality


Question: What is required for a set of uniform codes and regulations to apply to all the persons of the United States?

Answer: Uniformity of legal equality under the law. In other words, equal rights.

It is an ultra-common misconception amongst the subjected people of the United States in their thought that “rights” are always a good thing, and that “rights” are always somehow a protection against the erosion and encroachment of government and corporations (persons) into the people’s personal liberties. To be even more clear, the general thought is that rights are always in place to prevent things like crime, extortion, tyranny, foreclosure, unlawful searches and seizures, incarceration, and so on from happening to the people.

For instance, one might arrogantly say that they have the right to a “fair trial”. And yet not once does the consideration dawn upon men of good conscious that the trial itself is literally forced upon them by government. Thus, the “right” to a “fair” or “speedy” trial is in actuality a direct consequence of an oppressive government in the first place. In other words, the fact that the trial is forced upon a person is the actual “right”, and the ability to receive the qualities of “fair” and “speedy” in that trial are not the root of that right. In this way, we begin to understand that rights are not voluntary at all, and these governmental rights are indeed forced upon the people. The government sells this tyranny to the people by baiting us like snake oil salesman with positive sounding diatribe such as fair and speedy. This is like me offering you (forcing upon you) my services to get hit with a hammer upon your head, but the impact will be “quick” and “painless”. Your right, you see, is to get hit upon the head with a hammer, with the beneficial service of the impact of that hammer being quick and painless.

Or you might believe in the “right” to free speech and the ability to freely assemble. Yet hate speech laws proclaim your speech must be nice and politically correct. Some cities require you to get a permit for free speech and to protest or assemble peacefully – but only in small, roped off , designated areas. The police even tell you that “anything you say may be used against you” when they read you your “rights”. But how can this be your right? If you don’t have a choice about these rights, are they really rights?

The real question you must ask is: Can a right be violently forced upon you?

Today we are going to be talking about a concept that is very difficult to understand. In legal code, we find what is called positive law. But we often forget that where there is a positive there is usually also a negative – an opposite and equal reaction, if you will. Positive law and “positive rights” are put into place in purposeful and direct violation or opposition to natural law and “negative rights”. A right is either positive or negative, and never-ever in between. Positive laws are laws assigning temporary and are revokable governmental rights placed upon legal persons, which usually create a direct violation of a man’s natural rights under God – the natural laws outside of governmental code.

The difference between these two types of law or “rights” is paramount to understand.

The problem is that all legal codes are positive, including the very misunderstood U.S. constitution itself.

Let’s use as an example the constitutional (positive) right known as the “freedom of religion”. This is one of the most deceptive phrases in legal code (positive law) that I can imagine. For in order to comprehend what it is to have the “freedom of religion,” we must first have a legal definition of these two legal words. All terms and phrases in the legal language have very specific meanings, and are often quite opposite to what we generally think of as conversational words – the words generally defined in an English general language dictionary. The word “freedom” is perhaps the best example of a legal word used to fool the unwitting public. We must realize that there is a very good reason why the legal dictionary is completely separate from the regular English dictionary, and why general dictionary definitions specifically tell you when referring to the same legal definitions within. English and Legal are two completely different languages, no different than English and Chinese. And every word in government must be a legal one, for government only deals in the legal construct, in the legal language.

Would it surprise you to learn that government is acting constitutionally when it requires you to get a permit for exercising “free speech”? To understand why this is so, we must define the legal terms involved, and you must stop thinking of the constitution as anything other than a legal language document.

So what is “freedom”, and what is “speech”?

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First, let’s get it into our heads what the word “freedom” means as used in this legal constitution.

While the natural or negative right to free participation in any religion is unalienable, the governmental or positive constitutional right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech is most certainly alienable. To understand this, we must understand the legal meaning of this legal term called freedom. In the Merriam Webster or any other normal English dictionary, you will see that the word freedom is defined in two distinctly different ways. Let’s take a look…

FREEDOM:

(1) The quality or state of being free: as

(a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

(b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: independence

(c) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>

(h) unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

FREEDOM:

(2)   (a) A political right

(b) franchise, privilege

(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom)

And so we can see here that there are without a doubt two distinctly different definitions of the word freedom, and that the legal definition is indeed a political or “positive” right.

The truth about freedom is this…

There is but one freedom under government rule enjoyed by citizens (subjects): freedom is the revokable political positive right (privilege) to be free to act as you will as long as you obey the laws of government. This is not the state of actually being free in an unrestricted way to do what you please while being responsible for your actions, but rather a literal legal enslavement to government law to act under government rule. It is a truism to state that free men must have responsibility for their own actions, lest government become the master and punisher of those who are its servants (subjects). United States citizens are not free men, but instead they live within invisible legal chains called “freedom”.

The right to bear arms as a natural/negative right must go unchallenged by government by its very nature of being a negative right – the natural right of non-interference. But the positive governmental rights which are assigned to citizens to carry legalfire-arms” is certainly being challenged in government right now – as we speak. The trick with government you see, in order for its tyranny to prevail, is to make all its equal people as citizens accept positive rights by government so that the people turn their backs on their natural, God-given, negative, unalienable rights the rights of men against government intrusion into those rights. Indeed, government actually requires a lien on all people’s natural/negative rights for them to enjoy citizenship within the United States under government’s strictly positive law, for we must remember that negative rights cancel out positive rights. So government must find legal ways to circumvent the peoples liberties (negative rights) and assign restrict-able political (positive) rights. Government does this via the contractual relationship offered to the people called “citizenship”, which carries with it the contractual benefit of positive rights, often called “civil rights” and/or “constitutional rights”. While it calls these liberties, they are far from it…

–=–

The Laws Of Attraction

–=–

So that we do not get confused here, let’s see just how one form of “right” is cancelled out by the other form. The job of an attorney as an “officer of the court” is to keep you within the legal language, so that the court never has to talk in plain English. The legal language of the law society within government is meant to keep you always in the artificial person-hood of your citizenship – never speaking the language of mankind. The following list shows the difference between the laws of man (natural) and the laws of government (legal):

Negative ……………………………………………………… Positive

Man …………………………………………………………….. Person

Free …………………………………………………………. Freedom

Free Man ………………………………………………………. Citizen

Natural ………………………………………………………. Political

Liberty ………………………………………………….. Entitlement

God-given ………………… Man-made (government granted)

Right (natural) …………………………… Privilege (revokable)

Right (natural) ……………………….. Duty (moral obligation)

Duty (responsibility, trust)…………. Contractual obligation

Responsibility ……………… Limited liability (incorporated)

Unalienable (inherent) ………… Alienable (not permanent)

De Jure ……………………………………………………… De Facto

Lawful …………………………………………………… Color of law

The words unalienable and inherent can be defined as essential and intrinsic . These words apply to ideals rather than to actual living beings. While life itself is not unalienable in any way (as is apparent throughout all of nature and its food-chain) the idea that life is an unalienable right is a negative concept in that it refers to the negative right of men to not be subject to the will of other men. This is the moral obligation of honor and duty that men should not kill other men… or as it is more commonly known: “Thou Shall Not Kill”.

On the contrary, cows, pigs, and chickens live under the positive rights granted by ranchers and farmers, in that they are subjects of that farm and its positive laws. These animal’s natural rights are only valid in as much as the farmer or rancher grants the same positive right to mirror their natural/negative rights. But when slaughter-season comes around and the market-price for bacon goes up, the cows, pigs, and chickens learn real quick that any rights they may perceive as livestock (citizens) of that farm are certainly alienable and in no way inherent or permanent. The cows only eat because the government (farmer) feeds them hey – thus the cows believe it is their natural right to have food brought to them every day by the farmer. But the farmer is only acting under his own positive law, and in reality the cows have no natural rights. But they still believe… The chickens may only have children (chicks) if the government (farmer) allows the hens to keep their eggs and hatch them. Parenthood is a legal term under contract with the state (farm). But the farmer, under the positive law of his farm (his rules), overpowers the natural rights of the chickens and allows those unborn children of the chickens to be collected for sale to others.

The only difference between the cows, pigs, and chickens and that of the humans within the United States farm is that the humans contractually volunteer and agree to be livestock under positive rights and laws, whereas these animals never had a choice.

And people think animals are dumb?

The difficult aspect here is to make people understand that as citizens they are not free, but are also livestock under the United States farm which grants the alienable privilege of “freedom”. Breaking through the “it’s a free country” paradox and fallacy of the American people seems to be the biggest challenge of our modern life and times.

Perhaps the most difficult of these opposite terms is the way in which a right creates an opposite duty. The individual natural right of “liberty” creates an opposite natural duty for all other individuals to respect the right of each others’ individual liberties. It would be the duty, for instance, for the people to use arms against government for violating their natural negative rights, no differently than if it was just a neighbor. For a natural right is something to be cherished and protected to the death. And it is a man’s duty to protect his own rights and that of others. It is a man’s duty to not interfere or trespass upon others rights – the duty to protect each others’ negative rights.

But when government offers political rights to citizens (artificial persons), the moral duty changes into a contractual obligation under legal law. The obligation of legal duty is no longer a choice, but rather a forced positive right – a right that forces you to conduct yourself in an activity that may be against your own interests or those of other individuals’ interests. The negative right requires only the opposite negative duty – a moral obligation to do no harm to others or yourself and to defend your negative rights with your life if necessary. But the contractual relationship of citizenship stifles negative rights (the right to not have your own rights trampled) so that positive rights are agreed to by the persons under contract. In other words, citizens agree to abandon their natural (negative) rights and accept under contract with government or corporations a replacement to their natural rights with the political (positive) rights offered by government, and accepted through contract by citizens. Thus, while in the natural realm government has no power over a man. But in the political realm government has total control over the person/citizen. For a positive law to be acceptable to natural men, that positive law must not be in violation of any negative right.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines a the word Duty:

DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them. 2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them. 3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind… 4. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites. 5. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.

To live under natural law is to follow the laws of non-interference, responsibility of ones own actions, and honor to fulfill one’s moral obligations under promise and private contract.

On the contrary, the magnetic opposite of this natural law called duty is offered by government through contract, as a political or positive right:

DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things; in its more restrained sense, it is often used as equivalent to customs, (q. v.) or imposts. (q. v.) Vide, for the rate of duties payable on goods and merchandise…

When the services of government are forced upon the people, the people must pay duties (taxes) on those services whether they enjoy or require those services or not. The right to pay taxes is a positive right, and the right to be punished for not paying those taxes is also a positive right. Punishment is an artificial duty created upon the positive right to be taxed – extortion being the right granted by government to persons. You, as a citizen/person, have the positive right to be taxed without the negative right to say no. The imprisonment you may enjoy as punishment for not paying mandatory taxes is also your positive right and duty. And most importantly, the right to pay more and more taxes on more and more things and accept more and more government services with more and more duties, as well as the right to allow government to raise those taxes at its own whim, is also your positive right.

Again, a right is not voluntary in the positive legal realm. So unfortunately, tyranny through extortion is certainly your right if government says it is so, and creates the positive law declaring it as such.

Positive law is involuntary service at the barrel of a gun…

It is perhaps easiest to comprehend these two completely opposite kinds of “rights” by using an analogy of magnets. Most people have played with magnets in their lifetime, attempting to push together two equal magnets that are opposed to each other in their polarities. A positive and a negative are diametrically opposed to each other. The harder we push those magnets together, the harder it becomes to push them, until the negative magnet throws off the positive magnet with a protective shield. And so the only way to make those magnets stick to each other is to turn one magnet around so that the polarities are equal, allowing them to join together. When speaking of God’s law and natural rights (negative rights), our opposing magnet in this case is government code and legality (positive rights). In essence, we must turn our back on law and our natural rights in order to function within government and its legal law and codes. The natural law is magnetically opposed to the positive (legal) law, just as negative rights are magnetically opposed to positive rights.

The first thing to consider whenever attempting to discern the legal language is to remember that emotion must be left out of the equation; that morals and ethics happen in men, not in legal codes. The legal language is just words, with a specific meaning, and with no humanity or consideration of morals or ethics. A contract, for instance, is just an agreement as written in this legal language. It has no moral obligations in an of itself to do anything, but instead establishes the specific positive rights and counterpart duties that will be followed. The moral and ethical parts of the fulfillment of that contract happen outside of the contract, in the hearts, minds, and actions of the men who signed that contract. The contract itself is a bridge between the moral realm and the legal realm, allowing what would otherwise be a natural duty to become an enforceable positive right. For instance, the right to be paid in exchange for an already delivered service or thing as agreed to within a private contract is a positive right, enforceable by law if one party to that contract doesn’t fulfill. Multiply this by 1 million and you have a government contract with men to be citizens, and in exchange the men as citizens must accept the services of government’s legal codes as a forced legal duty to accept. This is also positive law, the difference being that the former contract between men is done in good faith, where no legal recourse is needed, while the contract of citizenship is done without understanding, intention, comprehension, or good faith. A contract steeped in fraud is not enforceable by law, unless the law has been replaced by the positive laws created by government that allow that fraud to be law. This is government.

Just remember that rights are a double-edged sword, which can be positive or negative. In defining what this means, the term positive should not be misconstrued to mean good, no more than the word negative should be misunderstood as a bad thing. They are legal terms, and so attaching an emotional meaning to these words will only lead to confusion.

–=–

Equality – Ladies Acting As Men

–=–

A woman reading this may have an emotional response and espouse that women may sign contracts too, so why only mention “men” here? The confusing answer to this question is that in law, women are men. This is not my opinion, it is just legal law. All people are part of mankind, regardless of sex.  The legal language sees no sex and feels no emotion or obligation to appease the feminist or male perspective, unless specifically written into that code as an artificial construct. The word “men” simply refers to the species man, regardless of color, race, creed, or sex. In this way, the basic legal language itself is a higher language, not weighted down with petty intricacies and debates about whether women and men are equal, or whether all men are created equal. In actuality, the legal language has no ability in and of itself to make such a discernment, and is only concerned with defining the artificiality of mankind as “persons”. It is just a tool. Thus it does not recognize sex unless it is specifically told to, and then does so only in terms of a legal “status”. Legal code cannot be prejudiced, for it has no emotion or predisposition. A natural (real female) woman has equal rights with a natural man only if that natural woman has the legal status assigned to her as a legal fictional man called a legal “woman”. The legal term “Woman” is a status, not a natural state of a living being – not a living man (mankind). For legal does not recognize a natural living man or woman, only the artificial persons of these living people – which have no sex unless specifically defined that way in the code for legal separation purposes (rape, etc.). But this is no different legally than separating different species of ants for research and classification. There is no realization of feminism or masculinity in legal code, because a piece of paper has not the ability to make such distinctions or realizations. Paper has no emotions, any more than the legal words written on that paper. And so any sexual or other emotional or physical distinction between these two artificial persons is solely a construct of science and legal status, no different than distinguishing between garbage and recyclables. To the legal language, garbage and recyclables are the same thing – trash. Only when the legal codes are changed to recognize a certain type of trash as recyclable will a legal status be created allowing certain rights, restrictions, and benefits to be placed upon certain trash legally defined as “recyclables”. Though all garbage is created equal, certain garbage has a status. But that status can only be granted if all trash is first made equal under the legal law. Similarly, women have equal rights with men in law only because they take upon themselves the artificial person-hood status called “woman”, creating this status in positive law which states that persons shall be equally protected and punished under the law and shall have equal rights under the legal law known as “positive rights” but called “Equal Protection Under The Law”.

The reality for women is that their legal status is detrimental to their natural rights as men (mankind), and they become whatever the legal codes say they are as artificial constructs. Equal rights for “women” in law makes them no better or no worse than men, but instead makes them “equal” – removing any sexual differences unless specifically enumerated within that code and how it applies to that particular status of “woman” in opposite to men. Once this equality is established, then special positive rights can be assigned to the legal status of “women”. Thus, a “woman” can have unequal rights giving them special privileges over their supposed equal citizens of the male persuasion. The same goes for “African American” or other ethnicity’s – who are given a special status of “minority”, which then allows them to claim certain positive rights which trample all other citizen’s natural rights or lesser positive rights. In this way, it is the lesser status citizens who have inequality forced upon them, of which it is their contractual duty to accept that positive right and give up their right to sue for what would otherwise be blatant discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is an example of this. Protected rights of a certain status of citizens requires unfair and unequal treatment of all other citizens. Equality steals away the individualism of a human (regardless of sex, color, race, etc.) and makes everyone not special in any way. It peals away the sex, the color, the race, the religion, and the humanity of each individual living man and woman and places them all in one giant legal blender – a melting pot of unwarranted equality. The end result of this multicultural duel-sexed cornucopia of persons is called legal “U.S. citizens”, whom in the end are in no way equal under law due to the assigned legal status’ called entitlements. If one person is entitled to a positive right that other persons are not entitled to, then the negative right of liberty does not exist in that legal system.

This is not to say that the legal language doesn’t neutrally define these unique traits of mankind in a scientific and unemotional way, it is just to say that it treats them no different than any other legal concept (like the trash example), and its basis is not founded on anything but simply defining these terms without the hindrance of human emotional traits. In short, the legal language only deals with artificiality in the form of corporations, contracts, and persons (i.e. citizens). These citizens are artificial things, not living people. Thus, when defining legality, emotion and humanity really has no place, race becomes a legal weapon, and equality exists only when considering positive rights and punishment for not obeying the forced contractual obligation of legal codes.

Back in 1856, this was the definition of “Sex” in Bouvier’s and other dictionaries, which shows that “women” is a status:

SEX. The physical difference between male and female in animals. 2. In the human species (of animals) the male is called man, (q. v.) and the female, woman. (q. v.) Some human beings whose sexual organs are somewhat imperfect, have acquired the name of hermaphrodite. (q. v.) 3. In the civil state the sex creates a difference among individuals. Women cannot generally be elected or appointed to offices or service in public capa-cities. In this our law agrees with that of other nations. The civil law excluded women from all offices civil or public: Faemintae ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt. Dig. 50, 17, 2. The principal reason of this exclusion is to encourage that modesty which is natural to the female sex, and which renders them unqualified to mix and contend with men; the pretended weakness of the sex is not probably the true reason. Poth. Des Personnes, tit. Vide Gender; Male; Man; Women; Worthiest of blood.

A mature and thinking natural female human should be able to see that though this legal definition has changed over the years, the status is still the same. Legal persons called “women” have now been made to have equal status with legal persons called “men”. This is to say that the equality established in the legal code is completely artificial with respect to the hearts and minds of men. And though this status seems to benefit the female sex of mankind, you as a woman must remember that government defines you first as an “animal” here, and then assigns you a special status of woman-human-animal. So while you may certainly enjoy the positive rights bestowed upon you as “wo-man”, you must accept these positive rights with the knowledge that they create inequality among all natural men. In other words, equality in law is not true natural equality, but is an artificial status granted by a corrupt government that by definition tramples the negative rights of half of the population (male-human-animals). You, as a female of the species human, will only ever know true natural equality when men are not forced by law to treat you as such by positive law. As it is in legal code, men are forced to accept your legal equality, which in the end creates a resentment between sexes in the natural realm. This goes for creed, race, sex, and any other status that is “protected”. And in this way, citizens are forced to accept the most deviant and sinister of persons as equal, even when those persons act completely against the morals and values of others’ negative rights, and even as organizations of these persons legally extort from others. These persons are equal under punishment of legal law. Ironically, the struggle for equal rights for women, slaves, blacks, homosexuals, and other minority groups necessarily requires the unequal state of equality and status for certain individuals, but in no way creates equality among mankind.

If you are emotionally angry right now, then you are speaking a different language than the legal one, and your emotions are getting in the way of understanding your own enslavement.

As a woman, you are a legal fiction.

As a man, you are a beautiful creature of emotion, love, and flesh and blood.

Here is how these legal terms are defined in Bouvier’s Law Dict, 1856:

MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children… 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things.

–=–

MANKIND. Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. See Gender.

–=–

GENDER. That which designates the sexes. 2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the feminine, as, man sometimes includes women. This is the general rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the feminine, the latter is not in general included… 3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the feminine never includes the masculine; that according to this rule if a man were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the legacy; but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be included.

–=–

WOMEN, persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject.

In the modern definition, Webster’s English Dictionary defines the word woman not as a natural being, but as an artificial person. Most people will not realize what is being defined here:

WOMAN-

a : an adult female person
b : a woman (person) belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilwoman>

In the legal language, the term woman is never used in legal code to describe the natural state of a female, but only to issue a legal status.

However, the word female is used:

FEMALE. This term denotes the sex which bears young. 2. It is a general rule, that the young of female animals which belong to us, are ours, nam fetus ventrem sequitur. The rule is, in general, the same with regard to slaves; but when a female slave comes into a free state, even without the consent of her master, and is there delivered of a child, the latter is free.

If right now, while claiming to be a “woman”, you wish to call me sexist, a chauvinist, racist, or other false paradigm, you could be no further from the truth than I can possibly imagine – and you need to reread this section. In fact, I may be one of the few men in existence who actually recognize your natural/negative equality without the threat or need of being punished by the positive legal system if I don’t!!!

For those who can separate the legal and English languages with logic and reason, we can move on…

–=–

Love And Marriage

–=–

Love and hate are not considered in this legal language when speaking of the contract of legal marriage. Marriage is nothing but a contractual state of being between (as persons) the man, the woman, and the State. It is paper with legal words written on it, and signed by all parties involved. It has no emotion, ethics, morals, values, etc.

Children produced by this marriage contract are not treated as living breathing humans, because the legal language does not deal with living breathing humans. Rather, it treats children as artificial things that are State property – things which are disputed due to the avoidance or negation of a contract by the artificial persons contracted in that legal marriage. Children are no less fictitious persons than the persons who birthed them, when considering the legal nature of human animals.

Again, judging or discussing the legal language with emotion is foolish, since it has no emotion when it defines you. It does not understand love any more than that for which it may necessarily define love as a legal concept. Like an android, the legal language may sometimes simulate the emotions of living man, but will never actually feel them. And like an android with its humanoid appearing synthetic skin and outer shell, our own artificial persons may appear to be living men and women; but are in fact made up of nothing but the wires and circuitry of this legal language.

Love and marriage are distinctly different concepts. One is an emotion and one is a legal arrangement through contract. Love is for the most part incredibly outside of our control while marriage is a legal set of rules and regulations defining a state of contract controlled by government. Love is not in any way dependent upon the contract of marriage, nor is love required in a contract of marriage – for the legal language knows not love! But this does not mean that attempts by modern society, religions, and the courts have not presupposed the conjoining of these two concepts. But love is an emotion, and marriage is a thing (a signed paper contract). But most importantly, love is not controllable by law while marriage is.

Therefore love is a negative right whereas marriage is a positive right.

Love has no limits, whereas marriage is nothing but limits.

So now we may begin to personally see and feel the difference between positive and negative rights – like feeling the difference between heat and cold. When it comes to love, it is safe to say that our natural or God-given right is that we should be able to love any man or woman we choose, and that in fact it is not even a controllable choice – as love is an emotional feeling that, as most of us have certainly felt, is way outside of our emotional control. So love is not something that can be controlled by government with regards to law.

But the government deals especially well in the creation and enforcement of contracts. And marriage is nothing but a legal contract, which has nothing to do with love or emotion in the eyes of legal law. Therefore, marriage is indeed something that can be controlled by government with regards to positive law.

This again makes love a negative right and marriage a positive right.

I imagine right about now your emotion has kicked in again and you are feeling something that is causing you to perhaps forget that legality has no hindrance of emotion. This disposition may be getting in the way of your understanding of why or how love can ever be considered a negative thing. And some folks may musingly be thinking the opposite about marriage being a positive thing! But the confusion is only there because you are assigning emotion to the equation of the definitions of a legal construct. You must never do this. And one of the most difficult aspects of truly understanding the law and how it applies to living man is to be able to switch back and forth between the conversational and the legal language. For while we express our emotions through our interjectional conversations among other living humans, we must assume an unemotional state of person-hood when we switch over to the legal language. For the legal language is nothing if not a perversion of the natural state of man. Thus, we must recognize this perversion and imitate it in order to succeed in legal dealings and communications. If I am going to speak to an android, I would not expect that machine to contemplate morals or ethics other than what is written into its software and codes as a simulation. So why should I do anything different when speaking the legal language to an attorney or a judge? To them, you are nothing but an artificial person, and they are speaking the legal language without the limitations of human emotion if indeed they are doing their jobs correctly. They, in their capacities and regulations as officers of the court, are perversions of man that can only act within the scope of their written code and court procedures. They are legal automatons working in a fictional legal world that in my opinion no man should ever lay his natural rights or trust within. Doing so creates a contract of acceptance of the moral perversions of the legal language, the giving up of negative rights for positive ones, and acquiescence to all of the codes that are created and opinion-ed by such legal automatons in government.

And so your confusion about why a negative right is actually a good thing can be compared to traveling to another country and attempting to speak a new language there. In China, a horse may have the same name as a pig does in America. Thus, confusion may stem in conversations with the Chinese people when they call a horse a pig. But after a while, one becomes accustomed to switching back and forth between ones natural or “1st” language and that of the foreign language.

To most people, the legal language is certainly a foreign one. And so for now, simply realize that any confusion that you may be experiencing is just a loss in translation from your normal every-day conversational language to the foreign legal language.

A negative right is very much a good thing. Sometimes negative rights are referred to as “liberties”. Negative rights are also stated to be “unalienable” – which in legal language means that a legal lien cannot be taken out against that negative right. The constitution lays out some of these unalienable rights in a legal context, but is certainly no guarantee of such an unalienable status upon those constitutional (positive) rights. The thought that any legal document can ever guarantee another legal thing or right as unalienable is pure fallacy. For remember, a legal right is a positive right. And a legal positive right can be revoked at any time by its creator. Perhaps this is why God’s law in its permanence over man’s law is so important. We will talk about that in a moment.

Instead, the constitution as a legal document contradicts the very essence of protecting negative or “unalienable” rights as it boldly describes the ways in which such supposedly unalienable rights may indeed have liens put upon them or against them through legal means. And because of this, you will continuously hear me state loudly and fervently that my “rights” are absolutely not derived from the constitution or any other man-made law or legal code.

I have stated many times before that the 5th Amendment of the “BILL OF RIGHTS” in the U.S. constitution is perhaps the worst example of the deceptive nature of the legal language I have ever encountered. Perhaps in understanding what a “liberty” is as a negative (natural) right can help us to understand why the constitution in no way whatsoever gives individuals unalienable (negative) rights.

The 5th Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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.

Geez, the constitution uses longer run-on sentences than I do!

Firstly, this is the right of persons, not men. A fictional person cannot have unalienable rights. A person can only be granted political positive rights.

Secondly, we must know what a “bill” is:

BILL, legislation. An instrument drawn or presented by a member or committee to a legislative body for its approbation and enactment. After it has gone through both houses and received the constitutional sanction of the chief magistrate, where such approbation is requisite, it becomes a law.

This nickname given to the first ten amendments to the constitution is not an official legal term, but instead borrows from the original English term of the “Bill Of Rights”, which was a declaration granted by Royals William and Mary who reigned England. But this was not a declaration of natural rights of the British people, but was instead a declaration of the rights bestowed upon the SUBJECTS of the crown. Again, this can be compared to a farmer declaring positive rights of a bail of hey to be fed to his cows (subjects) twice a day. But with these seemingly wonderful rights also come the duties to submit as subjects to all other rights forced upon the subjects.

And what is the legal definition of “subject”?

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement.

–=–

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. 2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.

–=–

SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others. 2. Subjection is either private or public. By the former is meant the subjection to the authority of private persons; as, of children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and the like. By the latter is understood the subjection to the authority of public persons.

–=–

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children. 2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that ” the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Art. 4, s. 2. 3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white.

Now, you should be wondering how a “right” can ever be “lost”. Of course, only political (positive law) rights can be taken away by government. Natural rights must be voluntarily given up to government.

But you may also be wondering why I am including these antiquated definitions within this essay.

The answer is an important realization about rights in general. For to declare that all men are created equal, and then to claim citizenship only for white persons should be a big clue to you that the legal law sees no equity but that for which is written by the hands of privileged men. And the preponderance by 100’s of millions of U.S. citizens that the constitution ever granted equal rights in natural men is the greatest fallacy of our time. Instead, the constitution literally and clearly states that only certain individuals (persons) are equally privileged and have the right to entitlements as positive rights that trample on the negative rights of all other colored or female persons.

And if you are not a citizen… let’s face it folks, then you are just an animal without government granted privileges and positive rights.

But even more importantly to comprehend here is that just because the constitution and other legislation has been changed over time to reflect “equality” in all persons regardless of sex or color, this if anything proves that nothing in the constitution or civil rights is in anyway an unalienable negative right. In other words, as they were changed in the past, so too can they be changed in the future.

Just ask the Japanese American citizens who were imprisoned during World War II if all citizens are equal regardless of race or color?

Here in this Bill Of Rights we have a listing of 10 positive entitlements that people mistakenly refer to as unalienable negative rights or liberties. But these are not in any way negative rights. They are instead listed here as positive rights that can be aliened upon through what is called “due process of law“.

This is why I call these an “exception clause”… and the constitution and all of legal code is riddled with them.

If your protections from double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and your protections of the rights of life, liberty, and property are indeed absolute and unalienable, then there would be no need to write them down in the first place, let alone place an exception clause within this statement (bill) of rights that allowed “due process of law” to deny you those very rights. In this way, these listed constitutional positive rights are not at all unalienable, and the constitution states clearly the “process” of how a lien can indeed be placed upon these listed positive rights – with due process of law.

Just ask anyone whose had their land stolen by government for “public use” through “eminent domain”; having watched in horror and helplessness as that land was then sold off to private corporate developers for a parking garage, a strip mall, or housing projects. Then ask that person whether they feel that their rights to property and liberty are secure and unalienable?

The 5th Amendment is the entire basis of the positive right of eminent domain claimed by government. In eminent domain cases, the 5th Amendment is noted as being the “takings clause“. This refers to the “exception clause” as noted within the 5th Amendment that property can be “taken” for public use by government with due process of law and “just compensation“. It is a fallacy to mistake the term “due process of law” with the “protection of natural rights”. Law and legal code can only protect legal or positive rights without exception.

If property rights were truly negative in nature for citizens, then government would be forced to respect the nature of that negative right without the ability to apply its right of positive law to nullify that individual persons’ negative right. In other words, the negative or natural right would not be able to be tread upon by a legal concoction of codes and concepts. A positive right by true republican idealism and rules of ethics can never trump a negative right.

In the case of eminent domain, with the backing and righteousness of the constitution itself, the government claims that it is your political “positive” right to literally have your land and home stolen by providing a remedy of what it terms to be “just compensation” for the imposing of that positive right upon you. We know this is a positive right when government won’t take no for an answer…

Imagine if I came up to your front door and handed you a check for $10,000 for the forceful purchase of your home that has a market value of $200,000 – me being just some guy with no government or militarized police force to back me up. Your first inclination would likely be to tell me to go stick my check where the sun don’t shine. But when government comes-a-knocking, our knees quiver and our head spins; for we know not how to tell government to stick its positive law where the sun doth not shineth.

So what’s the difference between when an average every day Joe “offers” you the contract of his version of “just compensation” in exchange for your home and when government makes you the same legal contractual offer?

Ah, this is where positive and negative rights truly come into play…

When the man approaches you to purchase your home, you use your negative right to say no to the contract offered by this individual man. You did not recognize his person, and refused the right of contract – acting in a negative capacity. This means that you have imposed the consequence of your negative right upon the man and expect him to fulfill his natural duty to uphold your right to say no. The abeyance and non-retaliation against your own negative rights by others with similar negative rights is called a “duty”. Thus, when average Joe made the offer for your home at a ridiculously low price, well below the market value of what you might sell that same house to another individual, it was your negative right to deny that offer of contract. It is now the duty of average Joe to respect your negative right to say no by walking away from the offer without force, retaliation, or theft of your property.

Duty has a direct association with negative rights. The consequence of a man declaring his natural, God-given, negative rights means that all other men of good conscious have the duty to respect that negative right. Thus, a negative right creates a duty in others to refrain from taking action against another. So a negative right is best explained as the right to not have “due process of law”, violence, or coercion forced against you. Therefore, a negative right is the right to be left alone. So Joe would respect your negative right to say no to his offer by fulfilling his natural or negative duty to not coerce you to sell your house to him. When this process is complete, the natural or unalienable right has been fully implemented and respected.

Under this system of respect and integrity between men, a lawful society without government can be imagined.  But since we live in and except the artificial world of fictional persons we must understand how this mutually respectful system of trust and integrity-based law has been perverted by government legal codes and its courts – which claim the very power of “due process of law” as listed in the Bill of Rights. In this regard, the constitution is in direct violation of all of man’s natural rights.

Before we can go on, this realization must be acknowledged: that the constitution does not give inalienable rights to individuals. Without this conscious admission, we cannot proceed. And we must fully realize and appreciate that the difference between a negative right and a positive right is that a negative right will never be written down as a legal right. Only a positive right must be written down, for this is the only way that a positive right may be enforced through due process of law to have power over a negative right. A positive right is adjudicated under positive law. And through the perversion of the legal code and its contractual nature, men are tricked into accepting positive rights that are in direct conflict with their natural/negative rights. They voluntarily relinquish the right to utilize negative rights against legal positive rights. Without the contractual nature of legal codes, no positive right of men could ever overshadow a negative right of God. In other words, the duty of men to respect and acknowledge the natural rights of their fellow man would never be excusable under color of law just because that man has a government ID, a police uniform, or a judges robe. The acceptance of a voluntary contractual obligation of positive rights by “citizens” allows other men to act as perverted beasts – artificial persons that trample upon any semblance of another man’s natural/negative right to not to be trampled on in the first place, with the excuse that their duty to respect man’s negative rights do not exist in legal code and are justified through due process of law, which is forcibly served upon that person/citizen for the benefit of the collective “public”. And in doing so, any recompense or remedy for their actions is applied not to the man himself for committing these acts of violence, coercion, and theft (taking) of property against the natural rights of another man, but are instead considered legal actions by an artificial person against another artificial person and its estate. You might say that no man was harmed, but only his dead or artificial person. This is referred to as acting under the “color of law”. Thus, the man doing the taking is not responsible for his own actions – actions taken by an artificial person (an incorporated entity with limited liability) on behalf of the due process of law of government. Positive rights then really equate to moral corruption of the living man in lieu of legal protections granted to the artificial person for which that man carries – the veil of artificial and limited liability corporation status called person-hood. And with this disposition; as in the art and atrocities of war where men kill men while claiming the positive right to do so as their perverted legal “duty” in the following of orders; men avoid their true and natural duties to protect the sanctity, integrity, freedom, and livelihood of the rest of their fellow man by claiming that due process of law allows constitutional and legal authority to do so. And government protects that positive right.

And so we now take for our example the constitutionally proclaimed power by government to at any time, through due process of law  and with just compensation, “take” your property through this process of eminent domain. To do this, the government exercises the true nature of your constitutional “rights” by utilizing the legal system of which government created in the first place. Thus, the taking of your property is justified by these artificial persons in government with the disclaimer that they as men are not responsible for the theft of your property because the due process of law allows such perversion of responsibility to be delegated to an artificial construct within the protection of legal code. Government officers are not men, but instead an incorporated group of persons. They have the positive (government granted and protected) right to ignore their duties to uphold and respect your negative rights because you agreed through contract to consent and be subject to these positive rights granted by government. They claim this positive right for one and only one reason: because you unwittingly told them they could. You gave up your natural rights when you became a citizen, accepting positive rights through contract. And every time that you state a pledge of allegiance to the “flag” of this artificial corporation called the United States (not a pledge to the other people within these united states of America and their natural rights, mind you), and every time you check the box that states you are a “citizen of the United States”, and every time you claim legal constitutional rights instead of negative natural rights, you are literally giving your consent and permission for government to tread on you and your negative rights via contractual obligations and duties to government’s provided positive rights and services.

Understanding and proving to government that you are alive 100% of your life seems like a ridiculous notion. But the truth is that government requires you to be dead for any transaction in commerce or contract with itself, and assigns you an artificial person for such commerce and communication. Proving that you are alive every minute of every day of your life while claiming only natural rights is the only true defense against government tyranny. Any other right provided by government and claimed by you in court is of a contractual nature, meaning it is by default a revokable and enforceable positive right – the validity of which will be decided by an artificial person known as a judge.

A negative right is the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A positive right is the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man has the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A citizen has the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man enjoys the negative right to be free under God and nature, deriving his rights as such.

A citizen enjoys the positive right (privilege) to be free under government, as long as and only if he obeys the law (legal codes) of that government no matter how tyrannical and inhumane they become.

The perversion of the words positive and negative is just one example of how the legal language harms man’s natural state of being by perverting even the basic definition of natural words. However, legal words only apply in the fictional legal realm, which is why of course living men must be attached to an artificial person.

But I digress, for the title of this writing is “Tyranny Requires Equality”.

And so I had better now qualify why I believe that this is so…

Just as the words negative and positive have been perverted into different meanings than we are accustomed to in our everyday speech, so too have the words equality and rights.

It is important to understand that as with all legal terms, when the legal language uses the word equality it does not predispose that such equality is espoused by living men. Remember, the legal code does not deal in living beings. It can only define legal terms for artificial persons attached to human animals. Thus, when the government states that all men are created equal, it doesn’t really mean that in literal terms. It is referring to persons. And it is referring to the way in which the law punishes equally that of all persons under the law.

Let’s face the hard truth… When the constitution and Declaration of Independence was penned over two centuries ago, the term men combined with the term equal only applied to white male land-owners. As much as it pains us to admit that the constitution did not in any way make all men equal, and in fact made some men 3/5 a person (not a man) for political purposes, we must admit that the constitution was only a legal document granting subjects of the government certain entitlements. It did not deal in men as flesh and blood human animals, it dealt strictly with artificial persons. A statement of equality as is laid down in the constitution does not necessitate the conversational meaning of that word when describing flesh and blood men, race, or color. In fact, since the constitution only applies to persons as citizens, its privileges also only apply to persons as citizens. Remember, a legal government document only applies to men who have taken the perversion of artificial person-hood. The constitution promoted slavery and entitled only the privileged class to “freedom” – which again means the requirement to obey the law. And it can only be considered a document of freedom for those who contractually accepted the legal definition of freedom to “obey the government’s laws”. The constitution, if anything, made all men un-free, but gave the privileged class of white male citizens the “freedom” to arbitrarily own other men and be higher in legal status than the female half of the species. Of course, the contract of marriage created the STRAWMAN Dominus name change that allowed women to obtain some of the rights of their husbands via a legal contractual nature.

This ownership of people was without question or doubt the “original intent” of the constitution. Just read the damn thing! And remember that slavery was outlawed in England long before it was in the United States.

Over the decades, incremental change began to be seen, amendments passed, and legislation created that allowed for all “persons” to obtain “equal rights” under the law. But remember that these were certainly not natural rights granted by the government, but were instead positive rights. And slowly but surely all persons were made civilly equal. But what this really meant was that all men were allowed to accept the perversion of their natural state of being men and were allowed to become persons. And so again, I cannot stress enough that the constitution only makes contractual obligations of men as persons for which it calls “equal” and “civil” rights. Again, any natural man, woman, or child who wonders into the fictional borders of the United States will know immediately that all men are not equal, but that equality requires the voluntary agreement and contract of tyranny of citizenship. An illegal alien is simply a man who has not sold his soul for the positive rights and entitlements of citizenship. And the treatment, imprisonment, and exportation of these “human animals” by government and it’s millions of citizens is enough evidence to me to call any woman, black man, or legal immigrant a total and complete hypocrite – one who screams for their equal rights from a government and constitution that for centuries denied their ancestors those same rights that they now deny all other men of the world. Americans are hypocrisy defined – free men enslaved by their own freedom. And the white, property-owning citizen is ironically the only non-hypocrite… but only because his ancestors were born into the privileges of citizenship in the first place that denied all others their own rights and entitlements.

Never again should any United States citizen falsely and hypocritically declare that all men are created equal. For they are not men – as citizens they are not even alive.

This is the oft quoted fallacy that plagues the people of the United States and other governments. For government can not declare all men as equal and free, but can only declare its citizens as equal with freedom. For what happens when one bucks their government and tries to act upon their natural God-given rights in their negative capacity and as protection against the forcibly assigned positive rights violently bestowed by that government upon its people? Why of course the government violates the man’s natural rights claiming that his person’s positive rights come first!

And this is the most difficult thing about law and rights to comprehend. For most people believe that rights are somehow voluntary, and don’t realize that there is such a thing as positive rights that are involuntary. It’s certainly a confusing concept – that there should be in existence a human right that is enforceable by punishment from government, whether you want that right or not. Well… that’s because people think only in terms of humanity, and not in the terms of their artificial person for which those forced rights apply.

Another example I like to use over and over is this one from TITLE 42 of U.S. CODE. This code is in my opinion the perfect examination of how a “positive right” is actually a forced privilege through coercion and violence upon persons and not men:

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 exaction 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.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

And so here in one neat little package, the tyranny requires equality concept comes shining through. Remember, as stated here, the nature of “civil rights” is not to make men equal, but to make all persons equally screwed under the law. Government does not define men. It’s legal language simply makes all human animals as equal citizens – which means equal protection of the positive rights that are forced upon those citizens. This is the tyranny of legal equality. True natural equality will only ever happen in the minds of men, not through statute or positive right. It will never happen in all men, and no legal statute will ever succeed in this task. For the acceptance of all men as equal is a negative right, and this type of acceptance can only happen within men, not without. The bottom line is that respect for human and animal rights must be earned and learned, not entitled and forced.

First, in Section (a) of this U.S. CODE we have an explanation of your positive rights as an (artificial) person within the jurisdiction of the United States (federal government) – the federation controlling the “union” of States. It tells you that you have the positive right to enter into contract equally with all other persons, and most importantly into contracts with government. And then it tells you that by committing to such a contractual nature, the positive rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction (literally defined as legal extortion) are applied to you under that contract. If you sign a government or other contract, you are subject to positive rights. If you sign a contract, you give up your power of natural negative rights in acceptance of politically assigned privileges called positive rights. And in doing so, as a person and citizen, you are subject to all of the coercive measures that government allows itself to use against you to enforce those positive rights against you, including pain, punishment, and extortion.

Notice here that taxation and extortion are listed here side by side as a your right. There is hardly a difference between the two, and the avoidance of both gives you the positive, forceful, contractual duty to give acceptance to your right to be receive (enjoy) penalties, be punished, and be put in pain.

Now do you understand what a positive right is?

In Section (c) it states something that is also very important. It implies here that State laws, when compared to Federal laws, are subservient to these Federal U.S. CODES. By stating that the laws of the government of the individual States are only assigned to be as authoritative as to the “color of law”, this code is stating that you have no positive State’s rights that will protect you against these stated Federal positive rights. Federal contract law (citizenship), in other words, trumps any state law that may protect any other right you enjoy, either positive or negative. In other words, as a citizen you really have no negative rights!!!

But most important here is the legal right that all persons have to be equal with every other person. The last thing that government wants is for a man to break out of his or her artificial person/cage and be special – and claim to be unequal in the eyes of the legal code. Only with equality can democracy exist. Only with uniform equality can the people be considered a “body politic”. And only in a body politic can the government claim to act with the consent of all the equal people through representative government – representatives of the whole equal citizenry.

Some folks think that by exercising their right not to vote in elections that they are withdrawing consent to the election itself. But not voting is just another political positive right that persons have, in that this duty is not enforced as a requirement. Not voting is technically voting “no contest” to what the majority votes. Government doesn’t mind at all if individuals don’t vote in its public elections, for not voting means nothing at all. Even with less than 50% of the people voting in an election cycle, the majority of those actual votes still creates a majority vote. There is no law stating otherwise. And the president is not elected by the people anyway, but instead by the “electors”. That’s right, the constitution clearly states that the president is not elected by the people (voters) by popular vote, but by appointed electors. Amazingly, the majority of United States citizens believe that they actually elect the president every four years – a laughable psy-op that creates the illusion of authority of that office.

If this is news to you, you’ll be tickled to death to know that migrants who obtain citizenship in the United States know more about our presidential election process than most natural born citizens do!

Here is a link to the questions asked of potential legal immigrants before they become citizens. You’ll notice that question #16 asks: “Who elects the President of the United States?”

Scroll down a ways and you’ll see “The Electoral College” as the official answer.

LINK: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/typical-citizenship-examination-questions.html?DCMP=ADC-IMMI_Citizenship-NaturalizationTestQuestions&HBX_PK=the+naturalization+test+questions

Elections are a positive, not a negative right. Citizens do not have negative rights, other than those which have not been supplanted YET by positive ones.

What is the definition of the word “negative”?

NEGATIVE. This word has several significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to giving assent; thus we say the president has put his negative upon such a bill. Vide Veto. 2. It is also used in contradistinction to affirmative; as, a negative does not always admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable. When a party affirms a negative in his pleadings, and without the establishment of which, by evidence, he cannot recover or defend himself, the burden of the proof lies upon him, and he must prove the negative. Although as a general rule the affirmative of every issue must be proved, yet this rule ceases to operate the moment the presumption of law is thrown into the other scale. When the issue is on the legitimacy of a child, therefore, it is incumbent on the party asserting the illegitimacy to prove it. Vide Affirmative Innocence.

NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted. 2. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale. For example, when the issue is on the legitimacy of a child born in lawful wedlock, it is, incumbent on the party asserting its illegitimacy to prove it. Upon the same principle, when, the negative averment involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty, whether official or otherwise, it must be proved, for the law presumes every man to perform the duties which it imposes. Vide Onus Probandi.

And from Webster’s 2012 dictionary:

NEGATIVE-

(1) a: marked by denial, prohibition, or refusal <received a negative answer>; also : marked by absence, withholding, or removal of something positive <the negative motivation of shame — Garrett Hardin>

b (1) : denying a predicate of a subject or a part of a subject <“no A is B” is a negative proposition> (2) : denoting the absence or the contradictory of something <nontoxic is a negative term> (3) : expressing negation <negative particles such as no and not>

c : adverse, unfavorable <the reviews were mostly negative>

(5) a : not affirming the presence of a condition, substance, or organism suspected to be present; also : having a test result indicating the absence especially of a condition, substance, or organism <she is HIV negative>

By these definitions we can construct a view of how the word negative applies to and interacts with the word positive in law. A negative right attempts to remove or refuse a positive right, and a man seeks to withhold or remove the positive right with his negative right. Negative rights are a prohibition against positive ones. A living man may deny a positive right exists by denoting the contradiction of that positive right to his negative right. A living man must prove the non-existence of a positive. Positive rights directly contradict negative rights, negating the inherent and replacing it with the artificial, creating an absence of liberty. Positive is adverse and unfavorable to the negative. Men must not affirm the presence of a positive right, unless he is prepared to accept the conditions of its disease.

Even the word enjoyment has been twisted into a legal perversion, as defined in Bouvier’s:

ENJOYMENT. The right which a man possesses of receiving all the product of a thing for his necessity, his use, or his pleasure.

And Black’s Law Dictionary online defines Enjoyment as:

ENJOYMENT: 1 (a) possession and use <the enjoyment of civic rights>

And from Webster’s:

ENJOYMENT: The exercise of a right; the possession and fruition of a right, privilege, or incorporeal hereditament.

So while you may emotionally enjoy living somewhere, enjoyment is a legal term with no emotional attachments. It is the state of usufruct to which you are a person who enjoys the use of property, but do not legally own that property. Paying off a loan to a bank, it turns out, has absolutely nothing to do with ownership, as the home never belonged to the bank in the first place. A “lien” position is not an ownership position, but rather just a status of legal claim.

Legislative records explain this positive right of equal enjoyment best:

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933

“The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” –Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, and referring to the Act of March 9, 1933.

Enjoyment is use, as a user, of government property. Persons are not owners, they are users. Persons enjoy incorporeal use of real estate. The word estate in Latin means “status”. And a status of course is an entitlement – a positive right.

But don’t worry, all property holders have equal rights under the law – which really means that all property holders cannot say no when the government wants to eminent domain (legally steal) their property. Equal rights means equal enjoyment of equal extortion, which means equal victim-hood of the people is equally enjoyed as persons under the contractual nature of citizenship. Does it make you feel better that at any time the government can take anyone’s property, including your own? Does this equate to the disposition we take when our friends and neighbors have their property stolen by government for the public good? You are the “public”, you know.

Is it this equality of the possibility of legal theft upon all citizens that stops us from defending the property of our fellow man?

Have we been artificial for so long that we are becoming emotionless?

Have we grown to love our servitude, as Huxley declared so long ago?

Perhaps we have just lost our ability to do anything but legally enjoy our servitude – and have forgotten how to be free men.

Equality in legal terms is a detriment to all men, for no two men are alike. Under the law, men and women have no sex, except as a mechanical function in science. Their uniqueness is stripped away and replaced by a legal status. Their thoughts and ideas are stunted so that equality can prevail. By accepting the artificial person, the living soul becomes nothing but a user of the body – with enjoyment of the artificial person which interacts with the artificial world. In this way, the man hides away behind the mask of his or her person.

But the person is not the man, it is not created by the man, and it is not owned by the man. The person is a creation of and property of the government, assigned numbers and statistics which define each artificial person. And only the creator of persons can establish forced equality and tyranny among all persons equally.

And so I leave you with these final questions…

If government is the creator of persons, then isn’t it time to stop worshiping these idols of the false god of government and get back to nature’s and God’s law?

Who is your creator?

Isn’t it time to become a man again?

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, February 19, 2013

The Ten Commandments For Government


Imagine if the Ten Commandments were written today in U.S. CODE…

Though I am not a “religious” man, I think that the Biblical God might not have imagined that one day his word would be scrutinized and altered by his own terrible creation – politicians and attorneys.

Despite your beliefs when it comes to the Bible and religions, or that of my own beliefs, the Ten Commandments gives us one of the truest looks into the difference between a moral declaration of men and the legal code of persons in government.

We can even see this difference within the writings of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. While the Declaration is a poetic and moral outlook on the free and natural state of men, stating the ethical and lawful reasons for independence in common and heartfelt language, the Constitution is a legal document with legal terminology creating nothing but restrictions and legal bounds without emotion or ethics.

The perfect example of the difference between these two documents is to compare the Ten Commandments to the U.S. Constitution.

The concept of not killing other men is instilled by men to other men; by parents to their children. In a singularly simple statement the rule of not committing murder becomes readily apparent, the consequences dire. And yet, in no modern or ancient legal code of government can we find such simplistic logic and law – one that appeals to ethics, morals and values without creating exceptions to the rule.

If government and its officers and attorney’s were to write the Ten Commandments today, they would look similar to the original “Commandments” but would in fact be quite different – even unrecognizable  in their interpretations and legal meanings.

For example, Commandment #1 simply states:

1: “You shall have no other gods before Me.”

But if government attorney’s were to have written this within the U.S. legal documents, and codes, it would look more like this:

1 (USC). “Persons shall have no other gods before the One God, without written consent of Congress. Citizens shall gain license to worship said God and shall be subject to the punishments, pains, taxes, and exaction (extortion) of the corporation clergy thereof. Persons in violation and non-payment of tithing shall be assessed fees not unreasonable, to be determined by law. If a person is found to have any other gods before the One God, that person shall be fined not more than $10,000 and be subject to no more than 5 years in jail, under the Federal work program entitled “License Plates For Jesus”.

6: “You shall not murder.”

6 (USC). Murder shall be illegal under civil penalties, to be paid directly to the U.S. treasury, and under due process of law the person conducting the act of murder shall be incarcerated and made to labor under imprisonment, except as stated in paragraph (2) in this section. Murder shall consist of the ending of or severing of civil contract (civil death), taking the life and contractual nature of another person and citizen with government.

The definition of murder shall mean:

(1) The taking of another human life.

(a) the term “human” shall include only the male and female species of human beings, and shall include no other animals.

(b) the term “life” shall be defined as the civil contractual nature of a person, including individuals, associations, corporations, and groups of any of these.

(2) Exceptions. The following persons shall be exempt from Section 6 of this section: Congress (when ordering the cessation of other “human lives”), The President (when acting under Executive emergency powers), or any employee thereof acting within the bounds of the “United States”, Washington D.C, or any state, territory, or possession within, as well as persons of and employed by the “military” of the United States or other Executive Offices and corporations such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or any other private corporation acting within a contract with the United States, or when acting as agents of the United States as employees or through contract with the United States.

You see, government legal code has no morals, ethics, values, or any other good qualities of human nature. These things cannot be legislated. Love cannot be legislated. Ethics can certainly be made into rules, but true ethical behavior happens within the man, not without. And government’s codes are set up to bypass any laws passed or rules made to ensure ethics in government. The only honor in government is honor among legal thieves. After all, the rule-makers decide if they themselves are actually breaking their own rules – and they call these deciders the Senate and House “Select Committee on Ethics”. Morals are not something that can be forced. They exist or do not exist depending on the man, not the legal fiction person.

What can be legislated?

Punishments. Pains. Penalties. Taxes. Licenses. Incarceration. Extortion. Usury. Death…

And of course when was the last time you heard a political campaign that focused on anything but all of the things that cannot be legislated if that candidate were to be elected to office: Family values? Hope? Change? Children? These are not the things that politicians do!!!

A child is flesh, until he or she is made into a legal contracted “person” that government can control.

Nothing in legal code can be compared to the Ten Commandments. Again, regardless of your personal beliefs on religion, the Ten Commandments are moral declarations. The Constitution is not. The Bill of Rights is certainly not. Remember, the 5th Amendment states very clearly that your life, liberty, and property can be taken by government with due process of law and with just compensations. This is not moral or ethical, it is tyranny cleverly written by attorney’s and tyrants so that most persons will never realize how structurally enslaving the constitution and the Bill of Rights actually are in reality, just as these mythological 10 Commandment definitions are.

7: “You shall not commit adultery.”

7 (USC): Persons shall not breach the contract of marriage, a three party contract between the male and female persons and the State, in the act of adultery. The term “adultery” shall mean the act of copulation of two or more persons not in contract of marriage while one or more of those same U.S. citizens  (persons) are in fact under the constraints of marriage contract with another person of the opposite sex. Under due process of law, the just compensation of this violation of marriage license and contract shall be decided by the court, and monies collected for such actions shall be entered into the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) before being credited to the recipient of said money payment installments. Persons shall obey all opinions of the court as if they are their own.

(1) Exceptions: The Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial branches and agencies of the United States and its insular possessions shall be exempt from the laws regarding adultery while acting as employees of the United States, whether in Washington D.C. or in any other territory or place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or in any state, or in a foreign land or country while acting under diplomacy as a representative of the United States.

The difference between law and the legal Code can definitely be seen when comparing the Ten Commandments with what we now call the law.

8: “You shall not steal.”

8 (USC): The taking of objects, monies, services, things, property, pets, persons, children, or other legal possessions of persons and of the United States, without the express permission of said person or U.S. government agency in ownership of that possession, shall be considered theft. The punishment for such stealing of private or public property shall be determined by a court of equity within the United States jurisdiction, and said “thief” shall be entitled to a fair trial and reasonable bail.

(1) Exceptions: The word “theft” and “steal”, and the title of “thief” shall not apply to members, officers, or employees of the United States government. Also, the activities of government, including Congressional Members, Executive Branch Secretaries and employees including military and the IRS, or that of any private corporate contractor with the United States shall not be construed as “theft” or “stealing”, and these persons shall not be titled as “thief” unless due process of law requires it. Actions that shall not be construed as “theft” or “stealing” by Congress and other Branch employees, officers, and Members shall include the following terms and definitions:

(a) “Insider trading” – the trading of stocks, bonds, and other “financial instruments” upon pre-knowledge of the activities of the corporation, municipal corporation, country, banking institution, or government with the express intention of profiting from that trade.

(b) “Eminent Domain” – Real Property taken legally according to the “Taking’s Clause” of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as long as due process and just compensation, decided by the court, is paid to the person or citizen for whom that real property is taken.

(1) For the purposes of this section, the word “taken” and “taking” shall not be construed to mean “theft” or stealing”.

(c) “Exaction” – the legal extortion of U.S. Federal Reserve Notes as a rightful privilege of government shall not be infringed, be it through taxation, taking, or other methods of legal collection, as long as the taking in question is so accomplished by due process of law, and is within the definition of TITLE 42, Section 1981 of U.S. CODE.

(Link to TITLE 42 Section 1981: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981)

Now, do I really need to create a fictional code for the 9th Commandment, which for all intents and purposes states that you shall not lie? I mean really, the very soul of congress is a lie, and lairs sit upon its throne! Every actor and politician is indeed a professional lair.

How about one for coveting your neighbor’s home or donkey? I think you get the idea…

The Ten Commandments, despite the parts about worshiping only one jealous God and about not making carvings about other images of other gods or worlds, was a declaration of morals, values, and ethics – something that is wholly lacking in government, and especially in its legal codes. The point here is that legal codes are not capable of these human qualities, and do everything in their power to take law away from the human side in favor of the fictional person side, where emotion, love, and all of the beautiful things about humanity are subsequently squeezed away, leaving only a cold and heartless code of rules and regulations that serve little purpose other than to extort from the people who contract with government.

And hell, if you think about it, why else would government wish to force the Ten Commandments to be torn away from government buildings, schools, courthouses, and legislative halls?

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, January 30th, 2013