When A Fly Escapes The Web


–=–
UNGRIP
–=–

It is said all enlightenment that is not from God is false.

This word, “God”, takes many people away from the meaning of this self evident message.

Change the word “God” to the word “nature”, as the Biblical God is nature and Jesus (as God) taught the natural law, and all becomes illuminated for all people.

The California Government Code, Section 243, simply states:

“243. Every person has, in law, a residence.”

When you understand this statement, which represents the unnatural state of man as an artificial person contracted in a jurisdiction and thus subject to man’s laws – which are against natural law (God’s Law) and nature itself (against God) – then you may finally understand how to be free of that web.

Those who remove residence, become outlaws.

Those enlightened with natural law would never choose residence, for they have the capacity to be free.

This may be the first documentary I’ve seen on what a free man actually looks like, in mind and body.

–=–

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Sunday, July 14th, 2013

Advertisements

Dear Matt Damon…


Dear Matt Damon,

First of all, let me just say that I have enjoyed your work in various movies over the years. And congratulations on all of your success, both popularly and especially financially. But I want to talk specifically to you about one of your rolls, as the voice-over talent for the recent documentary movie entitled “Inside Job”.

Again, well done sir. This was a very well presented documentary on corruption most foul within the banking industry and in the United States government. But to be honest Matt, I have never seen a more well-done and yet totally incomplete presentation of the facts about such an important event in our nations history. In short, you were the narrator of one of the biggest propaganda pieces in history, and I was wondering how that feels…

You see Matt, I figure that your participation in this thing can only be explained by two possibilities:

1) You were just reading a script, and really don’t comprehend what was truly happening outside of what that script stated within the government and banking industry. And you thought you were truly part of something quite special.

2) You were fully aware of your participation in a government cover-up of the most important aspects of what really happened during this period of organized crime, and you were rewarded handsomely for your popularity and participation in this totally incomplete propaganda piece.

Now, I see that you are supportive of many charities and organizations around the world, and that pleases me as one of your fans. And so I am writing you this letter to let you know that I want to give you the benefit of the doubt with regards to your participation in this misleading documentary. I truly believe that you were doing what you thought was best (and I’m sure the paycheck wasn’t too bad either).

But if this assumption is true, I am wondering what you would do if you found out that you were unwittingly part of a massive misinformation campaign designed to obfuscate the most important aspects of this criminal event. Would you seek to publicly rectify the situation if you saw the proof that “Inside Job” was just a half-truth, designed to allow the very government who has ravished the third-world you are so desperately trying to help through your charities and support, get away with the financial crime of the century? Have you made enough millions yet that you would be willing to sacrifice your future movie career to truly educate humanity about the real Inside Job that took place and how it is directly responsible for the poverty and destitution that you publicly rally against?

As a fan, I’d like to know the answer to these questions…

So Matt, if you will indulge me for just 15 more minutes, I’d like to explain a few things to you, so that you might publicly address the true nature of the so-called financial collapse of 2007-2008 with a fully informed head. For that, I’ve prepared this video, which is just a short snip-it of a 4-hour documentary that I made on the same subject. Please know that this movie cost me nothing to make – except my valuable personal time – and is offered for free to the public without charge. I’m not selling anything. You see, it doesn’t take 20 million dollars to uncover the truth… not like the budget for “Inside Job”, just a deep passion for the truth and a hell of a lot of research.

Now, if you will, please view this 15 minute excerpt from this free movie, The Great Pension Fund Hoax:

So as you can see, Matt, Inside Job failed to mention the most important information for the comprehension of this whole Ponzi scheme – the fact that government had massive controlling stock investments in these banks, investment corporations, mortgage corporations, and bail-out receivers. In other words, the financial collapse of these corporations was not a collapse at all, but was instead a merger of government investment held and owned corporations through what is called “corporate governance”, as well as the complete and utter theft of billions and billions of dollars from the public. This term, corporate governance, was even mentioned once to my surprise in the movie – but with no explanation of what it actually means.

Again, now that you have received this holy grail of comprehension with regards to your documentary’s cover-up, and now that you can see the true nature of government’s complete conflict of interest as major share-holder of every major and important corporation on the planet – while also regulating the markets and industries those investment held banks and corporations operate under (including the major water companies like Nestle, Coca-cola, and Pepsi that are stealing all of the clean water from the African children you are banging your head against the wall trying to help) – what are you going to do about it?

What will you do…?

I mean, considering that the government also has major controlling shares in the very media industry that has made you such a wealthy and popular icon, do you have the integrity to stand up against the hand that feeds you in order to set into motion the necessary public comprehension that is needed to truly save the world from this organized propaganda and government-military industrial machine?

By the way, here are the investments in media companies, if you can spare another 10 minutes:

So what’s it gonna be, Matt?

Will you be the hero of our generation, exposing this truth to millions?

Or will you continue to support the very government corporate owned structure that is killing the families you’re trying to protect in your charitable organizations?

The choice… and the consequence of inaction is now yours, Matt. Because now you know.

Signed, a fan that hopes #1 is the answer you seek to rectify,

–Clint Richardson–

.

Watch the full movie here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhkWueEjewM

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, March 22, 2012

Do You Own Your Children?


Do you know who owns your child?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued…

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

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

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

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

Continued…

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

Also, this case law states…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there you have it!

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

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

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

I DO NOT CONSENT!!!

.

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

Stay tuned…

.

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

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

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

onlyfreemen.com

.

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

Consent – Why The IRS, Domestic, And Homeland Security Have No Lawful Power


Is Domestic Security a lawful department of the U.S. Government?

The answer to this question lies within the U.S. CODE that gives the Department of Domestic and Homeland Security its power in the first place…

But what gives this CODE its power?

In this article, I will be referencing the U.S. CODE of the government of the UNITED STATES – a private corporation. All CODES referenced are sourced below each reference.

If you still have any doubt that your government is a corporation, see the indisputable proof here: http://thecorporationnation.com/ or just keep reading… For those skeptics and doubting Thomas types, here is some instant gratification showing the ‘UNITED STATES’ non-representative corporate structure:

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

15) ‘‘United States’’ means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )


First, let’s look at the most important word in legal code. This powerful and lawful word is the only reason that the majority of our U.S. CODE has any power over us at all…

CONSENT

CONSENT: (v) (law) To acquiesce, agree, approve, assent, to voluntarily comply or yield, to give permission to some act or purpose. Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur. Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement. (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent

ACQUIESCENCE: Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence. Acquiescence relates to inaction during the performance of an act.

If you understand the definition of consent, you have a legal weapon more powerful than any physical weapon you can ever carry. For consent is the very act that gives much of our legal statutes and codes their power… and in turn, our code enforcers (police) power over us.

Consent, for legal purposes, is a verbal or attitudinal contract. If a police officer (CORPORATE CODE enforcement officer) tells you that you must obey a code that is not statutory law, you must voluntarily give that police officer power (consent) by agreeing (voluntary acquiescence) to obey him; for your compliance with his request is strictly voluntary. You must volunteer to follow and obey non-statutory law (CODE).

But as we read above, consent can be “inferred from silence”, or even from “inaction”. Therefore, silence does not constitute a lack of consent. Your unwillingness to acquiesce must be made known in a verbal statement (non-contractual denial of authority). For instance:

I do not consent to an unlawful search and seizure.

I do not give you consent to unlawfully search my vehicle or my person.

I do not consent to a full body scan or a full body pat-down.

I do not consent to your Prima Facie code requiring a permit for free speech, as it is my statutory and constitutional right to express free speech and travel unencumbered while on public property, which overrides the non-statutory code that you have just quoted me.

What is PUBLIC PROPERTY?

Public Property: (n) property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public. (See: common property http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public+property)

Public Property refers to roadways, highways, sidewalks, airports (the entire airport), and any government held or owned building or business that is paid for by tax-payer money. Technically, all government property should be considered public property. After all, why should government have secrets from the people it represents, let alone property that it owns? It only owns property due to its corporate status. Complete transparency should be an integral part of a just and constitutional republic government…

Since the entirety of the airport was built with tax-payer money, and since the airport is a government building, the entire airport is public property. This means that the passageway to and from the entrance to the ticket counter to the bathroom to the gate all falls under one category: Public Property. Because of this, you have the absolute natural and constitutional right to travel on this public property, without permit, license, or any other form of legality. Law trumps legality every time. The only way you can loose this right is if you consent to the non-statutory CODE, which limits your God-given right to travel, and which requires your voluntary acquiescence to give up this right in lieu of a codified permit, license, or contract.

Statutory Law

-vs-

Prima Facie Law

This is not to say that all code is non-Statutory. In fact, of the 50 “TITLES” in UNITED STATES CODE, only 23 of those TITLES have been enacted into positive law; i.e. legal evidence of law (Congressional Statutory Law). These TITLES are as follows:

1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

(Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html )

Statutory law: Laws, or statutes, enacted by legislatures, such as the New Jersey State Legislature or the United States Congress. (Source: www.judiciary.state.nj.us/njcourts-09.htm)

Statutory law: Law enacted by the legislative branch of government (congress), as distinguished from case law or common law. A statute (i.e. statutory law) is an act of the legislature declaring, commanding or prohibiting something. (Source: www.mnbar.org/mocktrial/2007-08/GLOSSARY%20OF%20LEGAL%20TERMS.doc)

All other TITLES within the federal U.S. CODE (the topic of this writing) are what is called “Prima Facie” evidence of law. Prima facie is not statutory law (not made into law by congress), which means that it is only enforceable via your voluntary consent.

Prima Facie: (Latin) A legal presumption which means on the face of it or at first sight. (Source: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PrimaFacie.aspx)

Prima Facie: At first view; on first appearance absent other information or evidence — (Source: S. L. Lynch)

Prima Facie: Sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved < prima facie proof.  (Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)

So, now that we have established that more than half of federal U.S. CODE is in fact not statutory law by congressional decree, and is instead a legal presumption which requires voluntary consent, and with an understanding that legal and lawful are two completely different concepts with regards to your consent, lets take a look at the U.S. CODE that covers federal airport security operations: DOMESTIC SECURITY.

The Domestic Security and Homeland Security offices are Federal Executive Agencies (see below), meaning they are Departments created and appointed by the Executive branch of the government (the President). Part of the lawful measures that protect the freedom of the American people against the always evident tyranny of government corruption and absolute power is our system of checks and balances. Because of these checks and balances, any act of the president of the UNITED STATES (Executive Branch) alone or through any Executive office or officer he appoints does not have power over the Free People of America. In other words, the president is not a dictator, and cannot act as one through his appointed officers without congressional authority. This is the greatest of checks and balances…

TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES  (TITLE 5 is Statutory Law)

PART I–THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

§ 103. Government corporation

For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States;

(2) “Government controlled corporation” does not include a corporation owned by the Government of the United States.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000103—-000-.html )

§ 105. Executive agency

For the purpose of this title—

‘‘Executive agency’’ means an Executive department, a Government corporation (see above), and an independent establishment.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000105—-000-.html )

§ 301. Departmental regulations

The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000301—-000-.html )

TITLE 5

First, we must note that TITLE 5 is indeed Statutory Law.

SECTION 103 (above) confirms to us that “Executive Agencies”, regardless of their TITLES, are in fact CORPORATIONS – and in paragraph (2), that the federal government does indeed “control” corporations and also “owns” corporations.

SECTION 105 (above) then confirms that “Executive agencies” are the same as and are defined as “Executive Departments”, which are in fact “Government Corporations”.

SECTION 301 (above) then tells us what these “Executive Departments” (Government Corporations) have authority to do by this Statutory Law (as defined in TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE). And so we can see that these Presidential appointed “Executive Departments” only have the authority by congress to make regulations within the bounds of the Presidents’ own appointed Executive Agency, and not outside of said Executive Department, and definitely not for or over the free American people without their consent. “Executive Departments” and their appointed officials have no authority over the free people granted from within this TITLE (5), and only have been granted power over the “employees” within that Executive Department.

In other words, the law (CODE) states that the head of an Executive Agency or Executive Department can only make regulations for and within his own agency, not for and within the Free People of America.

And this is where CONSENT comes in to play. For it is simply your consent that gives these codified non-statutory presumed laws and the code-enforcement officers who enforce them authority over you. Without your consent, they are literally powerless. They have no authority without your consent.

Executive DOMESTIC SECURITY Department

DOMESTIC SECURITY and most of its presumed authority and legality, and therefore its power, is in TITLE 6. Title 6 is not one of the 23 TITLES of U.S. CODE enacted into “Positive” or Statutory Law. So, nothing in TITLE 6 is in fact statutory law, and therefore it requires voluntary compliance through your consent. Also, in TITLE 6, you’ll find much of the regulation and power related to “HOMELAND SECURITY”.

TITLE 6—DOMESTIC SECURITY (remember, TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)

CHAPTER 4–TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER I–TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLANNING AND INFORMATION SHARING –

Reference to: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13416. STRENGTHENING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY -George W Bush

      Ex. Ord. No. 13416, Dec. 5, 2006, 71 F.R. 71033

§ 1101(c) ‘‘security guideline’’ means any security-related guidance that the Secretary recommends, for implementation on a voluntary basis, to enhance the security of surface transportation

(Source: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/06C4.txt )

Note: An Executive Order is an order that is not approved by Congress. It is an act solely of and by the President of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES that is not Staturtory Law nor constitutional. Since we have already established that the President is not a Dictator, these Executive Orders and Presidential Directives only apply to the Executive branch of the corporate Federal government and departments within, and only have authority over the Free People with their (your) consent!

Here in black and white it is written in U.S. CODE that the TSA’s security-related guidance is in fact voluntary, meaning its power derives from your consent to give up your constitutional rights and allow this Executive Department to have the power to violate your God-given and 4rth amendment rights.

TITLE 6—

CHAPTER 1–HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION (not statutory law)

SUBCHAPTER 1 – DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

§ 111 Executive department; mission

(a) Establishment
There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of title 5.

§ 112. Secretary; functions

(a) Secretary

(1) In general; There is a Secretary of Homeland Security, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) Head of Department – The Secretary is the head of the Department and shall have direction, authority, and control over it.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000112—-000-.html )

Section 112 states that the Department of Homeland Security is an Executive Department of the United States, as defined in TITLE 5. This means that the Department of Homeland Security is a Government Corporation, appointed by the President, who is not a dictator, and therefore this Executive Department requires consent by the Free People to have power and authority over those people. The Department of Homeland Security is not constitutionally lawful, as it is not consented to and made Statutory by congress.

Since the Secretary of Homeland Security is appointed by the President (with only the Senates’ consent), and indeed not the consent and approval of the Congress, and since this appointment is in TITLE 6 which is not Statutory Law, this tells us that there is no Congressional power behind the Secretary of Homeland Security over the actual Free People of America. In fact, the “Executive Departments” known as Domestic and Homeland Security has no authority over anyone outside of their own agency and employees. Remember… Washington D.C. (the Federal Government) is a 10 mile patch of land in the District of Columbia, and it is not located in and is not a part of the united states of America. It is a separate entity. A corporation. A country within a country.

To put this into perspective… let’s look at another Executive appointed office within the Executive branch of government. The President of the corporation of the UNITED STATES has appointed an executive department for the care of current corporate President Obama’s dog (the “first dog”). This department has the job of taking care of and grooming this dog, and is paid an over $100,000 salary plus $45,000 in benefits. But that is where his and his Executive appointed Departments’ power ends. He does not have the power to take care of your dog, and he certainly doesn’t have the power to force you or your dog to do anything you don’t want to do. But then, he might ask you or even tell you forcibly that he is going to feed, brush, and groom your dog! And if you wanted him to, all you’d have to do is to give Him and his “Executive Department” permission (consent) to do so, be it by verbal permission or lack of declaration of non-consent (inaction). Likewise, the Executive Departments of Domestic Security and of Homeland Security have no power to force you to do anything, especially to grope and hand-rape you and your children or to force you to walk through radiation expelling DNA destroying cancer causing devices… unless you give them permission (consent).

Remember, the President is not a Dictator due to governments checks and balances! And because of this, the President cannot dictate power over the Free People through any appointed office or political appointee. He is only in charge of the federal government as President of the CORPORATION. There are only two persons in the Executive Branch of government who have the peoples authority over the Executive Branch, but not over the people themselves: The President and the Vice President of U.S. INC. Every other officer, office, department, military branch (army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard etc…), and any other political appointment by the President has no authority over you, a free and natural man or woman – without your consent.

I cannot stress this enough. Your consent is the only thing that gives these bullies any power. This single word is the most powerful weapon in your arsenal against mislaid tyranny. It is a shield against the presumption of law, known as legality, or Prima Facie law.

The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION     (TITLE 49 is Statutory Law)

SUBTITLE I–DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

§ 102. Department of Transportation

(a) The Department of Transportation is an executive department of the United States Government at the seat of Government.

(b) The head of the Department is the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

…….Note: Also very interesting in this section…….

…….An office to mitigate the effects of Climate Change (Chemtrails?)…….

(g) Office of Climate Change and Environment.—

(1) Establishment.— There is established in the Department an Office of Climate Change and Environment to plan, coordinate, and implement—
(A) department-wide research, strategies, and actions under the Department’s statutory authority to reduce transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change; and
(B) department-wide research strategies and actions to address the impacts of climate change on transportation systems and infrastructure.
(2) Clearinghouse.— The Office shall establish a clearinghouse of solutions, including cost-effective congestion reduction approaches, to reduce air pollution and transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change.
(h) The Department shall have a seal that shall be judicially recognized.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00000102—-000-.html )

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION

SUBTITLE VII–AVIATION PROGRAMS

§ 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public

right of transit through the navigable airspace.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00040103—-000-.html )

TITLE 49 is in fact Statutory Law by order of Congress, according to the list of U.S. CODES that are law above.

SECTION 102 states plainly that the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is in fact an “Executive Department” – meaning it is a corporation that was appointed by the Executive Branch. And in Paragraph (B) it states that the Secretary of Transportation is an Executive (Presidential) appointed office with only the consent of the Senate, not of the congress. This makes the office of Secretary of Transportation Executive non-Statutory Law, and assigns no power over the Free People to this office or its Secretary.

SECTION 40103 in SUBTITLE 7 states that it is Statutory Law that transit through the “navigational airspace” is in fact a right, and not a privilege. This is important, because it reinforces the natural and constitutional right to travel freely by the American people, without permission, permit or regulation, throughout the land (and airspace). This TITLE is actually beneficial to the Free People, as this CODE recognizes the Free Peoples’ ability to travel as a right, not a privilege, and makes that a law – which severely cripples the “States” authority over you!

What is a RIGHT?

Public Right (as quoted in SECTION 40103): (n.) a right created by the legislature that may be exercised against the government. (Source: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/public-right.html)

Right: (n.)  – 1) an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

2) (adj.) just, fair, correct.

Right: In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law… In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right)

So in general, a right can never be restricted. If it is restricted by your consent to a contract, legality, etc… then it is no longer a RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE granted by government (the State). Again, CONSENT must be given to turn a right into a privilege, through verbal contract or a lack of verbal non-consent, or through a written contract (permit, license, etc…) which you sign, giving up your rights for the privilege to do something, like traveling freely in a car as a natural right -vs- driving a car with a license, which is a contractual permission to drive from the state and permission (consent) by you to be punished for not obeying their rules under contractual law.

The “STATE” and the “UNITED STATES”

-vs-

The Republic and the 50 states united

It is important to understand what the corporate U.S. CODE defines as “the State”, and how that relates to the 50 states that form the Republic of the united states of America.

You must remember that U.S. CODE is the code writen for the corporation that is UNITED STATES INC. It is the system of law set up for the federal corporation to follow. This corporate structure was created to build a legal bridge over the lawful constitution for the united states of America, whereas the corporation of the same name, UNITED STATES INC, can operate outside of that constitution. And they created the corporate equivalent of the constitution through such tools as U.S.CODE.

Read the following very carefully…

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

(14) ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )

TITLE 4–FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 4–THE STATES

Sec. 110. Same; definitions

(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.

(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000110—-000-.html )


Once again, the U.S. CODE states irrevocably that the term “United States” is defined as a Corporation – In this case a “Federal Corporation”. This Federal Corporation was created strategically, to build a legal bridge over and bypass the real lawful declaration of independence and the constitution. This is not to say that the original constitution for the united states of America is not still in effect, but it is to say that as consenting citizens of the UNITED STATES as a corporation, we are bound by the corporation of the UNITED STATES and by its corporate rules, codes, legalities, and therefore its punishments, taxes, and fines as long as we consent and continuously enter into voluntary acquiescence of IT’S contracts, licenses, permits, and other contractually binding documents via our social security numbers (which are our livestock informational ownership ID’s)…

The word “State” is being defined here as anything other that the actual geographical land and Free People of the united states of America, and is being defined as all territory and PROPERTY of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Here the “States” are not any of the 50 states of the constitutional republic. “States” in this CODE refers to something which belongs as property (a corporate term) to the UNITED STATES INC, the corporation. No state of the union is owned by the federal government according to the constitution, and no part of any of the 50 States is owned by the United States, for that would be against the precepts of the Constitution and the very foundation of the republic and the intentions of and enumerated powers of the federal government.

Paragraph (a) states that a “person” is defined elsewhere. After following the breadcrumb trail, I finally arrived here:

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

SUBTITLE F–PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 79–DEFINITIONS

§ 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html )

Wow! This is the big one!!!

TITLE 26, which holds the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE that is used by the Internal Revenue Service as the basis to tax, steal, imprison, subjugate, and ruin the lives of many Americans… IS NOT STATUTORY LAW. IT REQUIRES CONSENT!

This means that the entire basis for the Income Tax levied on the people of America is strictly voluntary! You enter into an agreement with the IRS tax forms you fill out.

If  the word “taxpayer” as defined above in paragraph (14) is any “person” as defined above in paragraph (1) that is “subject to any internal revenue tax”, and if the U.S. CODE requires consent for the so defined “person” to be subject to any authority presented by the IRS and it’s non-Statutory, Prima Facie INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, then no individual Free Man or Woman in America is required to pay and income tax on their wages earned, unless they consent to doing so by signing the corporate IRS and IRC paperwork that binds them to the tax.

This is not the case with individual “persons” who own corporations, for the corporation is an artificial person, which is not a Free Man or Woman, given permission to exist by the U.S.CODE, and must obey these CODES as required in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE listed above. It is not the individual “person” that owes the tax, but is instead the corporation for which that real “person” owns.

The question is, can that individual “person” be held responsible for paying Income Taxes to the IRS for their Corporation out of their own income from said Corporation. Is this not just a paycheck similar to every other “person’s” income, written by a separate entity called a corporation – an artificial person?

This is an interesting paradox… Can you be held accountable for your corporation’s debt to the IRS if the corporation is not you, a Free Man or Woman, but indeed a separate (artificial) “State”-created person altogether?

TITLE 5–GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I–THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

§ 103. Government corporation – For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States

(Sourced above)

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE

SUBTITLE I–GENERAL

§ 103. United States – In this title, ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00000103—-000-.html )

TITLE 5, repeated here from above, once again shows that the United States, for which TITLE 28 defines as a Federal Corporation, now helps to define what the word “State” means in this U.S. CODE. TITLE 5 helps to define the word “State” as a Government Corporation.

TITLE 31 is statutory Law. This TITLE declares that the “United States” are the 50 “States” (government corporations) of this “Federal Corporation”.


TITLE 18–CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE     (Statutory Law)

PART I–CRIMES

CHAPTER 109–SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Sec. 2236. Searches without warrant

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined under this title for a first offense; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to any person–

(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or

(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed a felony; or

(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002236—-000-.html )

TITLE 18 is Statutory Law. Simply stated, paragraph (c) tells us that we have no recourse against the Agency Agent (TSA, Policeman, etc.) if we give our consent to be searched, meaning they can touch us anywhere and however the want if we consent to a search, and the fact that you do not deny your consent means that you are indeed granting consent to search and seizure, by which consent eliminates this protective CODE – as stated above in paragraph (c): “This section shall not apply to any person–making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.” This cancels this statute in court for use as in your defense, because your consent relieved any protective aspect of this statutory law. They could rape you because you gave consent, and this Statutory Law (CODE) would stop a courts’ ruling of rape, calling that rape or molestation a “consensual search”. VERY IMPORTANT!!!

By denying consent to be searched and/or to have your property seized by this Government Corporation/Executive Department, IT has no right or authority to interact with you, detain you, or block your way to freely travel without reasonable proof of a commitment of a felony, or in order to serve a warrant for your arrest (and a warrant would take a long time to acquire from a court).

Recap

Nobody has the right to see or check your plane ticket or ID but the airline in which you are doing business with. Only an airline representative can request your ticket. Unless the TSA and police have probable cause to detain you, you are not bound by these corporate code enforcement officers if you do not consent and acquiesce to their presumed authority. Consent and non-consent must be verbally stated, as inaction and silence can be considered as consent. Do not be intimidated by these power-hungry thugs in Federal Corporation U.S. INC  uniforms. Remember, their power is delegated by Statutory Law only to the 10 mile non united states of America piece of land called Washington D.C, and only within their own federal department – not over you as a Free and Sovereign man or woman. Stand your ground. Fear and intimidation are the only power they have. Without it, and without your consent, they are powerless – but only if you so declare.

If these Executive appointed federal government corporate workers threaten or try to intimidate you by standing in your way or telling or asking you to wait for a supervisor, do not comply. Simply state that you are a Sovereign man or woman, that you do not consent, that you do not give that federal employee any authority over you or your children (or property), and that they may not impede your God-given and constitutional right to travel nor violate any of your natural rights. Then politely ask if you are being detained, and am I free to be on my way.

You may also let the federal corporate employee know that you intend to sue them and their department head’s bond at a certain dollar amount ($100 per minute, for example) if they interfere with your free right to travel on public property by contractually and forcibly detaining you (by verbally claiming authority to halt your free travel despite your non-consent to their authority to do so).

Film this process. A video camera is your best defense and offense, and these thugs do not like being filmed. Video footage of this exchange is your record and evidence of your lack of consent in a court of law.

If they still intimidate you, follow up with a taste of their own medicine… State that you are warning them that anything that you say and do to me or my family can and will be used against you in a Court of Law, a Common Law Court, and as evidence for a Grand Jury.

And most important, do not answer any questions posed to you by these Federal Employees. You have the right to remain silent! Remember, they have no authority or rule of law on their side to interact or ask you anything without your consent. Answering their questions could be construed by them and by a corporate judge in a court of law as consent.

And remember, your local police and Airport Police work for the municipal corporation that is acting as a government in your city or county. They are corporations as well, making them corporate police or code enforcers. They need your consent too. They cannot detain you or restrict your movement without violating the warning you just gave them. You are a free traveler. You do not consent to their questions or their unlawful interference with your freedom of travel in a public place. Again, you are not required to answer their questions as you have the right to remain silent. Your answers can be misconstrued as consent to their authority over you, and you must verbally acknowledge that you do not consent (the only reason to break your silence).

Be polite. Never become confrontational, rude, or arrogant. A confident attitude mixed with a polite and straight-forward attitude is a winner every time. Do not get tricked into a “friendly conversation” or banter with a corporate code enforcement thug. It will only lead to frustration, argument, and possible unwitting consent. These guys are trained to trip up people like you – free people claiming their rights above corporate tyranny.

If you do not let the situation escalate, and instead control the conversation by simply not consenting to have a conversation or answer any questions, you are free to go by law and Statutory Law.

Warning: they may not step out of your way. They may stand in front of you and not say anything or that you are free to go to intimidate you further. They will tell you, however, if you are being detained. It is a chess game. If they step aside or if they do not, you should just start walking to your destination. Their consent to your rights is their inaction to detain you.

Remember, the courts are private corporations, often owned outright by the very judges who rule the court, and rent that court to the corporate government municipality unlawfully. These “judges” are corporate attorneys in fancy black robes, who work for the corporate government of the United States, and will always rule in favor of the “city”, “county”, or “state” corporation he works for. An attorney will never represent you in court. An attorney is there to ensure the continuity of court procedure, and by taking an attorney as representation for yourself in court, you have just contractually admitted to the corporate court that you are unfit and too mentally unstable to represent yourself in court. You are then a ward of the court. This is consent of the judicial system, which again is part of the corporation. Every judge works for the United States Corporation, and therefore his first interest is always to protect the corporate interest, to not set precedent that could be beneficial to Sovereignty and freedom, and is never concerned with justice for the people including yourself.

FEMA Camps, Oh My!

Now, some of you may be thinking, after years of fear and conditioning, that Homeland Security might throw you into a FEMA camp for such disregard of corporate legality and authority over your freedom. But guess what? FEMA is in TITLE 6, is an Executive Department, is not Statutory Law, and requires your consent of authority!

TITLE 6–DOMESTIC SECURITY  (TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)

CHAPTER 1–HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION

SUBCHAPTER V–NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

§ 313. Federal Emergency Management Agency
(a) In general

There is in the Department the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by an Administrator.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000313—-000-.html )

Constitutional Corporate Statutory Law?

Oxymoron?

Paradox?

One question remains… Even though some of these U.S. CODES exist in the Congressional Statutory realm of Law, can a corporation – a private for-profit non-representative corporation – enact any law over the Free and Sovereign people of the republic of the united states of America without their consent?

Constitutionally speaking… No.

The powers of the Federal Government are specifically enumerated in the constitution.

More importantly, nowhere does it mention that a vile corporation should be given power to take the place of this constitutionally created representative federal government and then enact laws and CODES which break free of these enumerated powers. Therefore, if we examine the source of this U.S. CODE, no office in the Federal Government can have lawful power over the people unless it is consented to by the Free People, simply because the whole of the private Corporation known today as the Federal Government of the UNITED STATES is not a constitutional entity. Thus even the Statutory Laws based on U.S. CODE are not constitutional, and therefore require our consent as Free People. No corporation can be government, nor can a private corporation nor their corporate code-enforcement police force have power over the people without our contractual consent.

Learn the Law!

For more information, and for much of the source of this info (with my gratitude), please visit this website: ( https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1NKPsi1ofhiMmavI5hi3z_zYOEeWM9b4JSiSfeL64pd0 ) and his new YouTube Channel: (http://www.youtube.com/user/donotconsent83) which will be updated periodically with more of this type of information.

Also, you’ll find that many Federal Executive Departments in fact have no authority except by your consent if you start on your own journey of researching U.S.CODE. Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services, Terrorism Protection, Military, and many more unconstitutional Executive corporate structures that have no Statutory Law to back up their powers.

To access and search the corporate U.S.CODE, go here: ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html ) and here: ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ )

Yours in freedom and constitutional Sovereign liberty,

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

 

Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and TRF’s -vs- Common, Natural, Maritime, and UCC Law – Which takes precedence right now?


When I first met Walter Burien, I was full of anger and resentment… Not towards him, of course!

It’s just that I had learned so much about the corruption and horrific truths about so many things that I had become hopeless (thank you to great men like Alex Jones, Alan Watt, Mike Rivero, Jeff Rense, Steve Quayle, and others for that dour education).

I kept wanting to talk about things that I had researched and heard on the radio or in random emails with Walter.

“Walter, what do you think of this?” – “Walter, what about the horrible things that they did?” – “Walter, don’t you think this is important?” – “Are they the elite?”

But every time, even though he knew what I was talking about, he just shrugged it off as if it didn’t have any relevance to anything and kept talking about CAFR’s and TRF’s.

The best answer I got out of him was “What does it matter…?”

Needless to say, this pissed me off! I wanted to be heard! And because of this resentful state of mind, I wasn’t hearing or comprehending what really needed to be communicated to me.

And so, when I calmed down enough and realized that I was talking to what you might call the guru of government corruption and wealth, I fell silent and just started to listen…

And suddenly, once I was able to push all of the little pieces of the much more grand puzzle that I know I will never fully comprehend out of they way, I started to understand the importance of what this smoking, long-haired, long-winded, incredibly intuitive dude was saying. I started to comprehend what trouble we are all in if we don’t do something immediately to reverse the deadly course this country and it’s government have taken.

And I realized then that he was absolutely correct about these extraneous puzzle pieces… IT DOESN’T MATTER!!!

You see, we all perceive things in our own way. We all listen to different sources of information. We all like or dislike those sources of information based on other peoples perceptions of those sources. And we all comprehend the information that best suits our perspectives. And without even realizing it, we form our opinions of what we perceive as real or important from the hand-picked bowl of factoids swirling around in our heads that together give us our perception of the real world.

In short, we are all in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. (http://www.viewzone.com/cognitivedissonance.html) Sure, we all know so much about so many different things, and knowledge is the key to comprehension. But what good does that knowledge of scattered little pieces from the unlimited cornucopia of fruit from the tree of knowledge do for us. How does this knowledge solve the problems that we all know this tree creates?

(I just used cornucopia in a sentence!)

In the end, it’s just information. And like a computer hard drive, we can only store so much of this conspiracy in the space of our minds until the drive gets full and can’t save any more data in a comprehensive way, or without writing over something else.

We learn something new and amazing, but then that thing reveals five more amazing things. And when those are revealed, suddenly we have 25 new and amazing things to learn, which points to what seems at the time to be an unattainable 125 new and amazing things. But eventually, we attain them, or at least an interesting enough part of them to look at the next 625 things with enough curiosity to actually keep this cycle going perpetually.

So, at what point do we loose the ability to keep our peripheral vision on all of these new and amazing things before we find that our un-sunned skin and lack of social involvement are signs that we are spending way too much time online or in books trying to figure out who is the main group of conspirators and who their leader is?

IT DOESN’T MATTER !!!

Now let me justify that, as well as answer the challenge of the title of this rant… which information should take precedence right now: CAFR’s and TRF’s  -or-  everything else…

Many responses, comments and emails I’ve received from the readers of my previous entry (The Biggest Game In Town…) who by the way have been very kind, have brought up common law, natural law, UCC code and Maritime law, the court of record, and many other topics which I must say interest me to the extreme. But, I have to ask myself…

Do they matter right now?

As much as I can’t wait to tear into this multitude of information and set myself free from taxes and tyranny, unfortunately the answer is no.

Is it relevant? Oh yes, very much so…

Will it help me solve the country’s problems, not just my own personal ones? No, I’m afraid not.

Let me explain, and by no means do I mean to belittle anyone or their cause, be it just, and for the good of the republic.

First, I always like to think of things in terms of relativity. I like to have a realistic perspective on life and all that goes on within it. And I always like to tell the truth, no matter how much trouble it gets me into.

So, let’s look at an example of reality:

If you are at an intersection with a four way stop sign, and you are in a fragile Geo Metro, and to the left of you there is a massive, decked out Dodge Hemi 4×4 who just pulled up to his stop sign at the same time as you pulled up to yours, who goes through the intersection first?

Well, the “law” or at least social  protocol states that the car on your right has the “right of way“, and so the Geo Metro wins with the perceived power of right of way (the law).

But I submit to you that the truck to the left wins every time regardless of the law or your perception of it, simply because the tires are as big as the entirety of the quite crush-able Geo Metro!

Will you challenge the 4×4 (the people) with your frail little body of a car (the government, who are about as useful as a Geo Metro) if he (the people) decides to take the right of way (power) from you?

This is the perception of ownership (in this case of the road). If the people unite to become the massive supreme and sovereign force they are, take down the “owners”, and rework that ownership for the people, then the people (4×4) take ownership from the government, queens and kings (Geo Metro).

So, let’s say we discover that the Rothschilds and the queen of England do indeed “own” everything in the world…

What does that mean exactly? What if they all die? Who owns it then? Then, what if they die? And then once it gets down to the last two people on Earth, and one claims total ownership of said Earth, and he dies… then what? Do you the sole surviving human own the Earth? Can you prove this ownership? To whom? Animals don’t read…

It’s just on paper. It means nothing unless you (we) let it. And we can take it back any time we want through peaceful means by getting TRF’s voted in place in each government venue.

But only if we unite and become Bigfoot the monster-truck and get this show on the road.

Yes, common law is a fascinating thing, and I can’t wait to start studying all of this conceptual semantic law.

But… Though I am not familiar with the technical aspects of Common Law, Natural Law, UCC Code law, the court of record, and the laws of the land and all that goes with it, I do know for a fact that it isn’t nearly as significant as what Walter and CAFR’s and the comprehension of government investment wealth for the general public and the change that is necessary with that.

Frankly, I don’t care who in their own perception rules the world, and here’s why:

#1) Once we set up a TRF in a city, the whole of the books for that city will be revealed. This will reveal links to other city’s, states, and countries for which the corruption and wealth building in that now completely audited TRF’d city was involved in. Thus, we discover who’s in charge by the chain reaction of audits in new TRF-based cities.

#2) Common law has the same symptoms as misguided or misused faith. Religion gives people hope. But this kind of hope, or faith, more often than not leads to inaction due to the faith that heaven awaits you regardless of your actions. And when that happens, and otherwise good religious folks refuse to get involved in government or politics, corruption in government and politics take over. Hope is a very dangerous tool. I should only have to point to Obama’s use of the empty campaign promises of “Hope and Change” to prove my point here. A faithful person full of hope who is convinced that everything will be alright simply because he believes in something else, easily becomes inactive in the real world around him. Even to the point that they will watch their own government order our armies to kill millions of innocent darker-skinned people without even a protest, simply because they have faith in their hearts that a few of those dark-skinned people in some far off place ran a few planes into some buildings in New York and Washington.

Proof? Nope. Just blind faith in the media… their God.

Inversely, a person who removes themselves from the tyranny of Maritime U.C.C. Code and law and clings to being free by natural or common laws, also may become inactive in the fight to set things right for our country as a whole. They have faith that they are free from the constraints of government and taxes and other tyranical slavery. But there is a huge problem with this inaction or lack of participation in the system that still governs everyone else who is unfamiliar with these freedoms around them, which is probably 98% of America – who still have faith in and believe in the law of the land and their corrupt government, frustrating as that is. They cling to thier social security number as if it was their first born. And I can sum this problem and the danger of it up in one word…

Rendition!

Obama’s new hand-me-down toy. How will common law save you if you are whisked away with no trial and no jury and no rights whatsoever to a holding cell in Ecuador? Think it can’t happen to you? Do you really think freedom brings some sort of immunity to this type of thing? Is there a freedom card that you present to get out of sticky situations in other countries… Or even in our own now completely corrupt and corporate (government) owned jail system? Learn more about rendition here: (Video)  –  (Story)  –  (Story)

You see, this common law and natural freedom is still based on a set of ideals and laws, god’s laws or other ones, that are still valid at this particular time in history if you know enough to invoke them. But if we allow the government to buy up every aspect of the United States, and they almost have by this point, and then take over the country, burn the Constitution and change the name to some Global Union of _______ ,  and make it a socialist fascist corporate state, what good will all of this common law knowledge be to anyone. It will become completely obsolete – null and void the second this takeover is complete. It would be as helpful as a 400 pound woman in a 150% gravity environment. When Rome took over a neighboring country, they did not abide by that countries laws in their theft no matter how beautiful and idealistic they were. If you went up to a Roman diplomat or soldier and tried to invoke common law from your now defunct country, you’d find yourself in the Colosseum being eaten by lions.

So, if you were to ask me what the importance of this whole social viability/common law/natural law/whatever you call it law, which is completely co-dependent on the current system of government and law (in other words America still being a free America despite the SS# and all that) compared to the importance of what Walters TRF’s will accomplish in protecting all of our sacred laws, constitutional or other, I’m going to have to say that TRF’s are 20,000,000 times more important at this time. Because all of those free-man laws go out the window if and when we are overtaken in a war or on paper by another country, a union of countries, or a conglomerate corporate monster, and we become Chinamerica. That is the thing that we must concentrate on and stop. And everyone that values their common or natural law status in this as of now free country, must maintain that country in its current state in order to keep those rights viable and applicable.

They are not free. We must fight for them and keep them.

And the country or corporate fascist government with the biggest stick (the biggest 4×4 truck) is going to win, and your idealist rights which are based on this constitutional system being still valid and screwing everyone else but you and your common law, will fade away into the night. That is, unless we take the investment wealth and “ownership” of our country back. And so far, the only person that has shown me how to do this is Mr. Walter Burien. (CAFR1.com)

So, by all means continue to practice common law, natural law, and any other free law that you can think of. I personally can’t wait to indulge in this myself. It gives me goosebumps.

But don’t for one minute think that this alone makes you a free man (or woman) or that you can stop paying attention and fighting for this system and its reconstructive change. Or you might be in for a shocking surprise when there is no corrupt United States government left to claim your freedom from. The Communists shoot people like you!

I would love to be wrong about this, and I may be. Corrections and debate to my humble opinions here will be warmly accepted…

.

*** No free people were harmed in the making of this rant.

.

-Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Monday, January 11, 2010