I sat in the main hall of Hamline Law School during the memorial and listened to each of his colleagues get up and talk about Professor Oakes. Each one of them seemed to repeat the same mantra. Here was an aspiring young lawyer, sought after by many big buck corporations that wanted to dedicate his life to helping folks that often couldn't pay the retainer fee. He took his dreams and imagination, and his famous motto "why not?" and suggested the idea of starting a law school dedicated to public service interests. He took this idea, convinced others to believe in it as well, and with little to no money, all odds against them, he and his colleagues pieced together with cardboard and string an institution that today is competitive with the Harvard's and the Yale's coast to coast.
From the back row of the audience, my thoughts couldn't help but wander off to our little tire shop of construction workers and middle level corporate and public servants who had come together to learn why the system keeps screwing the little guy. We started with a paperback book that suggested some real radical ideas about U.S. tax laws. Who would have thought then where we would be now? How far can we go? As long as we can be true to that motto, "why not?" there really are no limits. But Professor Oakes did something else at the early stages of the law school, just when it was gaining notoriety in the 'mainstream' community of the American Bar Association, he stepped down as Dean and assumed the role to which he was well suited, a teacher of no greater or lesser standing than any of the others that would share office space in the halls of their building in the years to come. He did this, I would guess, to allow for the fresh and diverse ideas of others to keep the thing growing.
Common Law Venue is just an idea, that's all. Each one of us that gets involved with this process and finds himself making some headway, seeing others joining the cause of learning and growing, must recognize the value of letting go as much as holding on for dear life. If our idea is to truly grow and develop a life and legacy that can benefit as many as possible, then the torch must constantly be passed on from sovereign to sovereign. This means, as we have always said from the beginning, not being another patriot for hire outfit that simply tells you 'how to' do your taxes, or reclaim your land, or reclaim commercial title to your strawman JOHN HENRY DOE. Look at our links section and you will find dozens of outfits that already do that and more.
It is often suggested that we need our own building, a full time Article Three Court, classes and manuals, and a library. Would our own building make the truth of the law seem more valid than simply hearing it in the basement of a fire hall? With the glut of books and manuals regurgitating everything the system already shovels out, what more could we publish to reaffirm the country is bankrupt and taxes are actually voluntary? Why build a law library when the ones we used are maintained and staffed by folks who are happy to help us find whatever we need? And when will the patriots learn, if they truly are "We the People," that the courts that exist already belong to "We the People," who step up to the plate and act like people in charge instead of people in fear and dismay?
What is needed is to ignite the flame of sovereignty in each person who bothers to tie up his or her Tuesday night at a meeting instead of in front of the television. What is needed is for others to recreate in their own garage, community center, or tire shop, the same nexus that got us off the ground. What is needed is study groups who get together and teach each other how to use the law library and the courts. True reform, true power, grows from the independence of such groups who seek to make themselves formidable and educated, and who then come together and share their discoveries as a community. One hundred people in a 'HOW TO' seminar for a hundred bucks produces five folks that already knew and ninety five others saying for the next ten weeks, "What the hell do I do now?"
I have noticed, in recent months, many folks who initially show up to a monthly meeting filled with inspiration and awe at their introduction, only to become incredibly overwhelmed by the multitude of material they can quickly lose themselves in. This is not surprising, especially in the area of income taxes. It is hard to find ten IRS agents to agree on the Internal Revenue Code, let alone ten tax court judges. That inspiration often transforms immediately into intimidation when the stories from those who "took on the system" are loaded with masses of information that demonstrate how much time and effort the person, doing his victory dance from the podium, had put into the adventure. This often does as much to suffocate the flame in the beginner as it does to inspire.
The other thing that seems to keep finding its way into an idea that none of the original group had in mind is this pounding of the Christian message to the extent that many newcomers get the idea that Christianity is somehow a necessary prerequisite to understanding the law. It is understandable considering our national heritage is laced with that legacy and many of the grassroots contributors to this movement are fired with conviction in the Bible that equals their conviction in the cause of freedom. However, the biblical code can be as subjectively manipulated as the U.S. Code so it should be no less subject to scrutiny as a source for justification and precedent. The law does not exist because it is in the Bible. The Bible exists because someone recognized the law. The Declaration of Independence exists for the same reason. Every man and woman is a sovereign, free, if they choose, to embrace Christianity. But true understanding of the Christian message must surrender to the proposition that one cannot truly be a Christian if they are not first acting with total and absolute free will to choose their belief. That means 'sovereign' does not necessarily equal 'Christian.' This conflict was most visible two years ago when we had a sizeable minority that adamantly opposed allowing women on our juries because of, at least in my opinion, an antiquated addiction to an outdated tradition for which a careful study of state histories does not even lend sufficient support.
What happens on the day that a gay couple, seeking recognition of their contractual union, comes to the court to hopefully find the remedy they can't find in the statutory system without overcoming tremendous bureaucratic barriers and hurdles? What will they tell all their friends, gay or straight, of these liberty loving patriots advocating justice and reform if they are turned away by a group who can only adhere to the Bible as the last resort to suggest that their union cannot be recognized by law? Many reading this article may clear it off their screen right now, offended or fearful that I am not somehow being 'true' to the real 'law.' Maybe that is the problem though. So many folks in the freedom movement don't have a clue what the hell the 'law' actually is. What is frightening is when folks just getting started in the movement are giving seminars six months later, or pushing paperwork for fifty bucks a pop for people having no clue what to do with it in a crunch. This is a major liability for a fractionalized group of 'radicals' spread here and there around the country advocating a message that is quickly interpreted in the mainstream media as dangerous and immediately attracts labels that make the word 'patriot' synonymous with 'militia,' 'anti-government,' and worse.
As we have progressed we have also, not surprisingly, caused no small amount of friction with many agents of the statutory system who don't know who they are and where they are. Some of the stories are down right humorous; others fill us with hope, while others seem to depict nothing but despair in our nations long road to rediscovering liberty. Last summer one of our regular attendees of monthly meetings was trying his hand at the role of 'common law counsel' for a guy in traffic court. As it was related to me, this fellow appeared several times in the court room with his companion who had requested he sit at the table and help him answer questions and so on. The first time the judge wouldn't have it and the 'counselor' had to sit in the peanut gallery. But apparently in a subsequent proceeding the judge allowed this guy to not only sit at the table but to also 'voir dire' the judge himself as to what law would be administered in this court. The judge responded, "The only law in this courtroom is the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota." This small anecdotal victory did not sit well with the prosecuting attorney who later threatened to have him charged with 'practicing law without a license.'
That is the dumbest phrase I ever heard! It is an impossibility of law to 'practice law without license.' In fact, the very concept of a society capable of manifesting order and liberty, side by side, presumes that everyone practice law. It is, however, an absolute necessity to know the law in order to practice it.
Law: That which is laid down, ordained, or established.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Practice: Repeated or customary action; habitual performance; a succession of acts of similar kind; custom; usage. Application of science to the wants of men. The exercise of any profession.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
License. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful.
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.
It is said that a scientist will attempt to make the impossible possible, while a politician will almost always make the possible impossible. Lawyers seem to make it impossible to do anything at all without getting sued. The strange thing about lawyers is that they are trained to literally advocate, if necessary, a position that asserts that reality which you know IS actually IS NOT. What we today call government, in it's myriad forms and offshoots, makes it impossible to exist without its constant intervention, permission, and supervision. It is this anathema to liberty that has sparked the movement that has been most popularly coined 'patriot.'
There is no shortage of folks out there who will offer you advice and counsel on how to free yourself from the bonds of government and the messed up legal system. They all tell you the same thing, 'Learn the law.' They also will say, if they have any smarts at all, you must learn to think for yourself and master the law eventually on your own since no one else can do it for you. So how do you learn the law? Who do you listen to? Where do you start? A law dictionary? The Constitution? How about page one of the U.S. Code and just keep turning pages? Or maybe go to law school? You can learn a lot in law school, but don't kid yourself. Law schools train practitioners skilled at getting around the law. That does not mean that lawyers are all bad people intent on screwing everyone anymore than cops are all meatheads that just want to thump people and write tickets. A lot of these folks beat their heads against the wall trying to do their jobs and still look in the mirror while most of society, in its complacency and selfish shortsightedness, does nothing to make it any easier for them. This societal apathy is THE CAUSE of the disease that infects the nation losing its freedoms day by day.
Most outfits in the patriot industry that claim to teach (market) law teach it from the vantage point of the Constitution. Others use the Bible as their foundation. The newest trend is to begin with the Uniform Commercial Code. Many others, lacking a coherent plan, simply operate from the "I got royally screwed" school of thought. As a rule, the harder it is for them to explain the law to you, the less likely they really know the law at all. So let me give you two very simple words that, in my opinion, are the only two words you will ever need to master to know the law.
All law is based in the understanding of these two words. Any five year old kid after a couple sessions in the playground understands this intrinsically. Every working class Joe that sweats out an honest living already knows subconsciously that these two words are the law of basic survival. Every dude who makes it to the top and manages to stay there knows it too. So what is it that these regular folks already know, from experience, that others have to go through three years of law school to be certified to assert in a courtroom on someone else's behalf?
Let's begin with the first word, agreement. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, agreement is defined as;
"A meeting of two or more minds; a coming together in opinion or determination; the coming together in accord of two minds on a given proposition. In law, a concord of understanding and intention between two or more relative rights and duties, of certain past or future facts or performances. The consent of two or more persons concurring respecting the transmission of some property, right, or benefits, with the view of contracting an obligation, a mutual obligation."
Agreement is a term distinguished from 'contract' in that a contract requires the demonstration of bargain or consideration. All contracts represent agreements, but all agreements are not necessarily contracts. If Joe asks Jim to loan him his pole digger so he can put in a fence and Jim agrees if Joe loans Jim his ladder for a roofing project such an agreement is a contract. The bargain is use/possession of property in exchange for the same. If, on the other hand, Jim merely asks to borrow Joe's ladder for a day to fix his own roof there is no contract. Joe, besides the benefits of a good relationship with Jim and the warm fuzzy feeling that he lent him aid, gets nothing of market value in return for the displacement of his ladder for a day. The agreement is unenforceable in a court because it lacks consideration. However, Jim still has constructive title to Joe's property for the day because Joe agreed to transfer possession. Possession is nine tenths of the law. While Jim is using the ladder the law is on his side because he has possession.
Now let us change the scenario. Jim doesn't really know Joe well but walks by Joe's driveway and sees in the open garage a ladder laying on the floor. Jim walks onto the driveway and into the garage, takes the ladder home with him and uses it for the day to fix his roof. He returns the next day with the ladder and there stands a disturbed Joe. Jim has committed a trespass.
"Trespass. An unlawful interference with one's person, property, or rights. At common law, trespass was a form of action brought to recover damages for any injury to one?s person or property or relationship with another."
The term trespass presumes an inherent right already existing in the thing or boundary in question. This is an important and fundamental element to consider when reading paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
If Jim strikes Joe in the head with a shovel and kills him it is a trespass. If Joe kidnaps Jim and locks him in the basement it is a trespass. But here is an interesting question. What if Joe is dying of an extremely debilitating disease and wishes to relinquish his possession of life on this earth. If Joe asks Jim to put him out of his misery is there a trespass? Has there been an agreement if Jim submits to Joe's request and executes performance? If Joe executed his wish for Jim to kill him and did so in writing, in the presence of witness, even had his signature notarized side by side with Jim's signature, has this agreement not been 'laid down, ordained, or established' as the term 'law' is defined in Black's'
A violation of law requires some quantifiable infraction or breach of a right. Black's defines the term violation as an 'injury; infringement; breach of right, duty or law; ravishment; seduction.' Therefore, trespass conforms to the term 'violation' in that there is a definitive right in question subject to infringement. But if a person waives their right or claim to a thing and submits its use or possession to another, no violation has occurred.
In the most basic sense, trespass is a required element in identifying any breach of law. Even in the 'color of law' laden world of bankruptcy, statutes, codes, and ordinances, trespass is still a requisite element upon which the burden of proof rests. It demands one to show an injury to a person or property, even in the slippery slope of negligence law the breach and the damage must be shown even if the presumed duty of care is agreed to exist. In the statutory world, every 'offense' the system alleges in any ordinance or regulation must allege a trespass against the state as a moving party. Such a theory quickly falls on its face, however, for want of an injured party that can articulate rights that were affected. The state has no rights, it is an idea, not a person and can therefore never suffer harm. And when called to the stand, it cannot testify against the accused. But for the purposes of this essay it is time to return to Joe and his Kevorkian companion Jim. If you are of the religious persuasion found in a large percentage of vocal individuals in the patriot movement, you may argue that this assisted suicide is a violation because God gave Joe his Life and only God may take it from him. This is a fine argument but it presumes that God has title to Joe. This is fine to suggest and thus, if provable, meets the burden of proof necessary to show Jim has trespassed on God's property right in Joe. If God wishes to enforce that claim he can stay Jim's hand by divine intervention, or seek remedy by bringing seven years of plague and misfortune upon Jim's shoulders.
But if God won't enforce his claim of title against Joe can anyone else do so on God's behalf? The Bill of Rights clearly states that the Congress may pass no law establishing religion. On whose behalf, if the state seeks to punish Jim for this alleged violation, can the state articulate authority to do so? Upon behalf of what victim or aggrieved party can the state make a claim? Can any other person step in God's shoes with a claim? If the state won't even recognize in court the existence of a Creator as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, how then can it claim trespass on anyone save Joe himself? And if Joe submitted to a death sentence, thereby waiving for the record any possibility of a third party entering claim upon his behalf, whose rights or property were interfered with?
In today's modern society, where so many hail the necessity of separation of church and state to such a degree that the football coach can't say a prayer with his team before a game, there is only one argument the state can possibly make for the prohibition of suicide or assisted suicide. The state must submit the notion that THE STATE itself has property rights over Joe. Since this scenario would be an absolute anathema to the founding principles on which this nation was conceived, such a conclusion cannot comport with the law.
When trying to ascertain and understand the law it is often helpful to look to nature and recognize the laws we tend to never question. If you pull a quarter from your pocket and release it to fall, it will descend to the ground at the rate of 32 feet per second. If you release your car keys they will descend at the same rate. This is the law of gravity. No legislative body can change it. They may 'agree' for the purposes of an experimental hypothesis to accept the law of gravity to be something else but no agreement will change the reality of the quarter and the car keys rate of descent. The 'law' of gravity is merely the recording of something observed consistently over many trials. It is only 'laid down, ordained, or established' because no one has observed any occurrence to the contrary.
In the study of human anatomy and biology we observe that when a foreign body enters the system of a human the physiology of the human exercises its right of control and title by sounding the call of numerous antibodies to either expel the foreign matter, digest, or kill it outright. Our years of observing human reactions to foreign intrusions show the law of trespass played out in the human body. The common cold virus is a trespass. A shard of glass stuck in your skin is a trespass. On the more spiritual level, one might as easily argue demonic possession is a trespass. Trespass is easy to see and identify, it is a 'res ipsa loquitor' the thing speaks for itself.
One need look no farther than the obvious in nature to also find identifiable examples of agreement. Hydrogen and Oxygen hook up and make water. Flame identifies the agreement of heat, carbon, and oxygen. Polar magnetism, moss on a rock, tree roots in the soil, the train of cargo hauling ants in the colony, the planets in orbit, all these unique events of nature demonstrate a harmony of agreement. Two bald eagles, soaring through the same territory, may be a unique vision to the eye, yet one of them will eventually have to leave the territory either by agreement or by the victor in a trespass action. Darwin's law determines which claimant will prevail in such an action.
Man, on the other hand, is an anomaly in this discussion of law because man possesses a trait unique and set apart from the other beasts of nature. Man exercises imagination. Man can construct an abstract of his observations of reality and in so doing create a reality not contemplated by nature. Assuming for the sake of argument that an ant lacks the power of imagination, the ant then cannot cognate the idea of doing anything else other than hauling the cargo through the tunnels of the colony. The moss cannot imagine not growing on a rock or exposed tree root. The tiger cannot contemplate harvesting soybeans as an alternative protein to the gazelle that it chases down and kills with its claws and jaws. Man alone (as far as we know) possesses this trait.
This means man can imagine his way outside of the law. Man is the only creature that can push that envelope. He can agree to commerce outside those boundaries, he can breach, trespass, defy, and rise above the law. But man cannot change the law. It is this fact that makes our statutory maze of codes and regulations so maddening. Yet the most difficult concept many have in their comprehension of the statutory wonderland is that it does in fact conform with the notion that man cannot change the law.
The example that comes closest to home for us in this study of the bankrupt economy is House Joint Resolution 192. Read it again and again and it strikes one as the most asinine piece of legalese ever published by the Congress;
(a)'every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy'
(b)'the term 'coin or currency' means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal Reserve banks and national banks and national banking associations.
This says in plain English that it is against the law to demand payment on a debt.
Note I did not say against statute or code, but against the law. Recall again that law requires only two concepts; agreement and trespass. The economic system set up in this nation by the Congress and the Federal Reserve DEMANDED the passage of the above Statute at Large. They had no choice but to enact this law if the system they sought to put in place was to operate in harmony with the law.
The law is something one observes as true, not something we merely invent and modify by a body politic no matter how much informed public support there may be behind it. In this case the Fed set up a currency system that would allow commerce within a bankruptcy. Eventually the only currency available to anyone would be Federal Reserve notes. A note cannot pay off a debt so it is therefore not money. If you have no means to pay debts available you can never get out of debt even if you wish to. This presents a state that violates the law recognized in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed in the thirteenth amendment and subsequent sections of the US Code under Title 18.
18 USC § 1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement
(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned no more than 10 years, or both.
Peonage: A condition of servitude (prohibited by the 13th Amendment) compelling persons to perform labor in order to pay of a debt.
Black's Law Dictionary
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Declaration of Independence
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has 'property' in his own 'person.' This nobody has any right to but himself.
John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government
The reason indentured or involuntary servitude is 'unlawful' is because one of the truths we hold to be as self evident as gravity is that man is not meant to be a slave. Samuel Adams went so far as to suggest man could not even agree to such a condition if he wished. And if the Declaration of Independence is reflective of truth in law then an UNALIENABLE right means it cannot be sold or transferred. Property can be sold, labor can be sold. Liberty is a right unalienable and therefore to suggest any person can be in a state of involuntary servitude by a government enacted commercial currency system that allows a person no means to access his right to liberty is to advocate government sponsored trespass. To avoid such a situation, at least as far as the U.S. Statutes at Large are concerned, the Congress is bound by their oath to obey the law. The system had to be from its inception one that a person participates in daily by agreement, but NOT by contract. If the person has no opt out clause the agreement is unlawful because it would be a trespass. Now if one chooses freely, every day of his life, to remain in this goofy system of perpetual servitude, he can. But he is never in a state of involuntary servitude, according to HJR 192.
He is in voluntary servitude.
Liberty is the law of man because it is the birthright of mankind endowed by the mystery we call Creator in the Declaration of Independence.. But because man has the power of imagination he has the unique capacity to turn his back on this right out of ignorance, laziness, greed, fear, pride, or just plain disregard of common sense. Don't shake your fist at the evil government agent who 'stole' your property or put you into jail 'against your will' if you can't embrace the notion that you are in charge of your own life. This is why the Kevorkian hypothetical raised earlier in this essay is a necessary exercise for the student of the law. Even if the, argumentatively, justification the essay seems to be implying for assisted suicide shakes the very fiber of your being it is incumbent upon you to wrestle with that argument. By the way, if you have read this article carefully, the counter argument to the Kevorkian scenario is right in front of you as well. Regardless, however, of where you stand on that one issue, you have to ask the underlying questions that address the nature of the CLAIM being made every day in courtrooms across this nation when again and again the STATE takes silent judicial notice to ownership of the entity named on the docket. And, no, it does not matter one iota if the judge on the bench ACTUALLY realizes that is what is going on. It matters not whether an IRS agent really KNOWS he is acting as a bill collector for a private banking cartel that presumes a Chapter 11 hold over a bankrupt corporation call the UNITED STATES or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USA, whatever! If you don't truly believe you are sovereign, how the hell do you think you will project that confidence to anyone else?
In his book Human Destiny [link] , Pierre Le Comte du Nouy wrote, 'liberty is not only a privilege, it is a test.' Liberty is the criterion of man's evolutionary partnership with the mystery that put man in the equation. The law is a natural part of the playground of that evolution so that man as a player can evolve beyond it. Every religious and spiritual concept out there contemplates an existence free of the corporeal bonds of this material universe. An existence without physical boundaries, where trespass would be a non-issue, where pure thought and imagination define living and existence.
Man alone operates as a creature, bound in a material universe with physical boundaries, capable of conceiving and imagining what the natural world rarely seems to demonstrate to all but those with faith. While here, however, man must reconcile that imagination of liberty with the limits the law of his physical existence lays out on the game board. His power of imagination is limitless, but it also suggests his power to imagine himself right out of the equation by failing to guard against the ultimate of human weakness, pride. That weakness demonstrates itself whether the player is a religious fanatic or an unbeliever. One denies man's ability as an equal partner in this stage play because of the constant need for a supreme deity in the spiritual hierarchy. The other denies man?s intuition to connect with and conceive of realities our science and extensive system of academics falls short of explaining.
Many in the freedom movement throw the accusations around that the state has substituted itself for God, yet religion itself is nothing more than the institutional quest to capture that idea. From who do you, the sovereign, acquire 'license' to act in any contractual capacity? Your answer, if you wish to claim you are sovereign, must be 'no one.'
Many skeptics of this movement are quick (and wise) to demand citations of proof, references to statutes, case precedence, treaties, or whatever. Such aids are helpful and have a great utility value for the man or woman truly seeking to discover their own sovereignty. But too many patriots who claim the desire for recognition of sovereignty are really asking for permission because they have not yet granted it to themselves. If you are looking to a document, any document, hell it could be the holy grail of ancient parchments that holds the missing link to the meaning of life itself, you will not find the permission you seek. Until you find it in yourself to claim what you are, to imagine what you are, to BELIEVE what you are, you will never realize it.
Two thousand years ago a fellow wandering around Palestine peddling an idea stirred up a hornets nest that I firmly believe was a key progenitor in the great experiment we now call America. Of all the things he said, the one statement attributed to him above all others that seems most appropriate to close this article went something like this:
"If you had the faith the size of a mustard seed, you could move mountains."
Go out there and practice your faith. Practice the Law. You will move mountains.
Peace be with you.
9 Jul 2005 @ 01:29 by : Hmm
But it's common knowledge, we must all be law students, because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Crime law, whats a crime? There should only be laws for crime, like its a misdamenor to run a stop sign, its not a crime unless something happens, and life or property is damaged or destroyed, compounded charges, etc.... But look in that law dictionary, Whats a crime, as far as I know, crime only is crime if human life is lost or maimed, property is not alive, or is it? Sure enough corperations are considered living entities/beings, is that just twisted or what? So they can arrest you now for infractions , because you put stress on the comunity, that is owned by some corperation. Peace officers, are to fight crime, not protect corperations. Like the average person in the USA, would or could know the law or even find the time to learn it. Do animals have laws, oh ya , theres the law of the jungle, laws of nature, thing is those laws never change, no new laws get added behind thier backs, and yes, the animals are constantly being educated to those laws. Is it the same with man? A sworn peace officer beats the law into you?, man this planet is just so twisted, lol.
9 Jul 2005 @ 01:41 by astrid : Now, you're talking,
Professor Oakes II !!! : ) One lit Candle ... how many -other- Candles can it lite ???!!!... an' people are doing just that... http://www.stop-chemtrails.com/vision.html#part2
Not to mention that Your Candle is lit... just like Prof. Oakes I's ... My Candle is lit... There's millions of others whose Candle is lit. Certainly with joint efforts of Tuesday Night Meetings and Faith; ALL together we can move mountains. eh?! *_*
9 Jul 2005 @ 06:59 by : The Police...
are there to pro-tech and serve 'warrants' and 'summonses.' They aren't there to protect the citizen and or Citizen. Corporations are a 'fiction.' A legal 'fiction.' Oh, I have many references for that. The UNITED STATES is a Cirporation and is not the same thing as the united States. It gets very devious. Two points, though, that you must remember where law is concerned: Agreements and Trespasses.
The limits if the Corporation called the UNITED STATES are in the contract called the Constitution. It purportedly was written by a Sovereign, individually and collectively, people. This is true but...cf., Lysander Spooner on what it really is.
We are under Contract and Equity law, Very unconstitutional. You must decide whether, or not, you are a Citizen, proper noun, or a citizen, common noun. The 14th amendment made 'citizens' 'subjects' of the Corporation called the 'UNITED STATES.' The 14th amendment was primarily for "Negroes." That's a fact.
Now what these traitors have done is taken your birth and certified it. That is to say that your birth certificate is a 'certificate.' Certificates are worth "MONEY!" In 1933 the UNITED STATES Corporation went bankrupt, calculated to do so, by the international banksters, with the institution of the 'Federal Reserve Act' in 1913, and the Gold was confiscated. The birth certificate is a security certificate worth real 'money', and the original goes to the department of commerce! A security certificate on the bankruptcy securing the payment of the loans. This is why no one, unless you reclaim your first class citizenship right of sovereignty, owns any property whatsoever! That includes everything you buy with their phoney Federal Reserve Notes, or promises to pay...it is a stinking system and most judges and lawyers aren't even aware of the horrors of it!
Start doing a little bit of research along this line and you will soon see that Washingtons' UNITED STATES Corporation has committed treason! You have recourse of rebuttal under the Uniform Commercial Code. You must file a cancellatura of foreign instruments and get an apostille stating that you are not a member of that bankrupt, and insidious, band of thieves and murderers!
Glad you liked the article A-d. Thanks to both for your comments. Something didn't parse correctly. Maybe it's just my browser but I'm seeing ? marks all over the place where there should be ' and "...
Well, I think I got all the errors in parsement. ;)
9 Jul 2005 @ 08:02 by : Ya
seems the person put ? mark all over the place, like where " and ' and some ,s. A crazy finger who knows, lol. Well, they dont own me, not by a long shot, even if they lock me away, exile me, or kill me , they got nothing. They will get nothing. They will never break my will, it sort of bums me out, that peoples wills are so easily broken, sure there is the mind control aspect, bla bla bla, lol, but most the time its just vanity and greed, hardship, Im sure you could list other things, that break them. They been doing some serious bronco bustin, You know , YAHOO... RIDEUM COWBOY!! lol.
9 Jul 2005 @ 08:10 by : Well,
I agree that they do not own you. They don't know it because until you cancel(Cancellatura) the hidden agreement/contract that you made, unknowingly, they will take it on face value that you agree. The process is fairly simple. Though I really agree with the above...first thing that each of us must realise is that we are sovereign! That is why this country was established in the first place regardless of what a traitorous bunch of people in Washington D.C.s' 'Whitehouse' did. That is not, nor has it ever been, sovereign over the people of this country except by their 'agreement' to be slaves...we are not 14th amendment citizens we are first class Citizen Sovereigns beholden to no one! Time to tell the traitors that we know their game and their game is up!
9 Jul 2005 @ 16:42 by astrid : You ARE
the Borne Teacher/Instructor, "Prof.Oakes II" aka vaxen! and what a Divine Mission that is! ( guys, remember this : "The Jordan River is muddy and cold / It chills the body, but tot the Soul./ All my trials, soon be over" Could this Song "All My Trials" have been one of the earlier teaching efforts by someone?...)
I wish I had a way to convey to you, how much you have enlightened me, vax, and supported, with your Info the knowledge I already had. This opportunity to bounce Insights back & forth is SO IMPORTANT at least to me. It means a World to me. Literally!
Oh, let me tell you a little Real Life Story here how these kind of little "secret" Tuesday Night Meetings can change the world. In the Seventies sometime, Shakti Gawain saw a small ad in the Classified section of SFo Tribune about a meeting at xxxxxx (totally unknown/non -public location.) The Subject for the meeting was "Physical Immortality" and the 'teacher' was Leonard Orr.
Needless to say: the world has never been the same after that one first meeting by Leonard, in that little attic room of the building where he lived at the time. Shakti got hooked, so to speak, and I don't think there is one person, who hasn't at some point heard about the Power of Visualization.That is 99.9% thanks to Shakti Gawain; her first most famous book "Creative Visualization" ( sold more than three million copies in --at least-- 25 languages )!!!
And I don't think there is one person in the Us , who at some point haven't heard about the importance and Power of Conscious BREATHING and RE-BIRTHING; Leonard Orr is the "father" of Re-Birthing! Never under-estimate the Power of "Tuesday Night Meetings"!
Time for the New Wave of Spiritual Growth of same scale as the late Seventies and early Eighties. I think. ... and , like the saying goes: "Why not go out on the limb? That's where all the fruit is." : )
From the book: "Excuse Me, Your Life is Waiting : The Astonishing Power of Feelings" by Lynn Grabhorn: 1. on Page 22: Step 1. Identify what you DON'T want.
Step 2. From that, identify what you DO want.
Step 3. Get into the feeling place of what you want.
Step 4. Expect, listen, and allow it to happen.
THIS is a UNIVERSAL Law: You get what you FEEL ( the mostpart of your time )
9 Jul 2005 @ 20:12 by : Very good reading
Thanks for this very insightful stuff.
17 Oct 2016 @ 17:32 by @184.108.40.206 : togel online hongkong
thank you for providing web were very nice and helpful