Announcement

**indio007** · 04-20-2014, 07:53 PM

No one wants to "go there" because lying is subjective.
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable but THEY believe they are telling the truth.

In regards to Rob Ford, lying is not illegal unless it's under oath.
What the guy does on his personal time is no ones business.

There is no evidence cocaine or crack usage impairs your physical and/or mental abilities . On the contrary, current evidence suggests it enhances them.

If he was drunk every hour he was off-duty, no one would have any problems.

Lets get real though.
Being a Mayor or even a president is nothing more than being a glorified professional signer.

Here's the average day.

Blah blah blah signature this Blah blah blah signature that.

The very premise of democracy is a con.

People can not make the right decisions therefore only a select few should make the decisions regarding everyone.

How will we know who is the select few?

We will let the people that can't make the right decisions choose them...!!!

The idea that people are incompetent except for the purpose of choosing a competent master is ludicrous.

**SkyWatcher** · 04-21-2014, 01:48 AM

Hi folks, hi indio, like the way you put that so simply and easy to understand, that's how they get the masses, keep them dependant, dumb and confused.
Of course fear is the main weapon that keeps people in denial state.

Hi allcanadian, I see your core point and thanks for sharing.
The example case scenario that you stated, about travelling in an automobile while influenced by alcohol, does not apply to the true law of land in most countries.
Notice I said travel, which applies to common law, the term driving applies to the commercial code, or statute rules.t
In truth, the reason they can get off without conviction, especially in a non commercial capacity, is because they have done no harm to another's body or property.
Which is common law, the true law of the land, which is essentially, if no harm is done to another living human being or their stuff and nothing is done to prevent the free use of said, then no law has been broken.
What is typically operating in court rooms today, is corporate statutory rules or the legal system or uniform commercial code or admiralty law and none of these applies to living man or woman, though they are using these systems against the people using uni lateral contracts, which lack full disclosure and so any so called consent giving by people is null and void.
These types of systems treat us as subjects, persons or property.
They believe that since our parents registered us at birth, (birth certificate) without our consent obviously, that they somehow own us.
I agree all Canadian, only the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth can prevent these systems of lies and deception.
May the highest light heal this mess as quickly as possible and may all of humanity stand in fearless courage and awaken to the chicanery perpetrated upon them.
Peace love light wisdom

**Ernst** · 04-21-2014, 02:02 AM

I could drown this thread in examples but it seems more practical to just say that you are absolutely right.

We are living in a money based society, and as long as this continues (I can see signs that the end is near

) these kind of ludicrous things will just continue happening.

One more question to think over: At what point in your life do you become subject to some law? Are you not born free?

(actually 2 questions)

Ernst.

**mbrownn** · 04-21-2014, 02:21 AM

Remember lawyers are the only ones legally allowed to lie in court. Do you ever see them take an oath to tell the truth in court?

Judges are supposed to take an oath before entering the court but do they? If they do, who is the oath sworn to? In every case I have seen they have sworn an oath to a legal corporate entity, be it the Crown or the United States of America. Check it out.

There are two types of law, natural and corporate.

In a free society you would only have natural law

Our legal systems are corruptible and were designed that way, so its no surprise when when this happens.

Take a look at the freeman movement, there is a lot of rubbish talked about it, but a lot of it is also real and true.

Democracy is "divide and rule" for the most part, and can only work fairly when everyone knows personally everyone else involved, and every vote is equal. It makes me laugh when people talk about bringing democracy to the world, as it is proven that the form of democracy they talk about is the worst form. The democracy they talk about is a parliamentary democracy, where an individuals vote is effectively irrelevant, and it is a small cabal of corruptible "representatives" that "rule" over us by law. This is the rule of law, its bought and paid for. Worse still is when abstentions are not counted. This is how someone can become a countries representative with 20% of the vote.

When the abstentions and the smaller vote is bigger than the larger vote, the vote should be nullified and the questions or persons replaced with new ones until a true majority is reached. People will say that this is not workable, and that is true when its a bad choice, that's the point. How many of these laws we have to follow would exist if this principal was followed? How many of our corruptible leaders and "representatives" would be in power?

Similarly courts with juries operate this way but where the jurors are chosen do not know the individuals involved for obvious reasons. The biggest flaw in that system is reasonable doubt. Who decides what that is? Courts without juries by definition cannot be just.

Sorry for the rant

**Ben2503** · 04-21-2014, 11:55 AM

us and them

In most countries (what the heck are countries for?) people are born free and are free to leave the country. So if you don't like the government, tax system, or what have you, you can just leave. It's like the membership of a club. If you don't like it then try to change it or leave.

What is the purpose of a legal system? to educate, punish or revenge?
Do I need punishment if I accidentally kill my neighbor in order to teach me that I did something wrong? Or if it is revenge? What good does revenge bring?

Democracy is a polarizing system. If there are slightly more pro's than con's, then the law is passed, the president is chosen etc.. I think it appeals very much to people that think in terms of 'war on drugs'; 'war on poverty'; 'war on AIDS' ; 'war on war'(?). I would try to turn democracy into a win-win system and yes I do understand that this is totally unrealistic, but perhaps a 95% / 5% rule would be much better than the present 51%/49% pro / con ratios.

Money makes the world go round, it is like energy, absolute necessary and will never disappear. Should there be hunger and poverty in this world? NO!

It is all about us and them versus we.

**mbrownn** · 04-21-2014, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Ben2503 View Post

In most countries (what the heck are countries for?) people are born free and are free to leave the country. So if you don't like the government, tax system, or what have you, you can just leave. It's like the membership of a club. If you don't like it then try to change it or leave.

What is the purpose of a legal system? to educate, punish or revenge?
Do I need punishment if I accidentally kill my neighbor in order to teach me that I did something wrong? Or if it is revenge? What good does revenge bring?

Democracy is a polarizing system. If there are slightly more pro's than con's, then the law is passed, the president is chosen etc.. I think it appeals very much to people that think in terms of 'war on drugs'; 'war on poverty'; 'war on AIDS' ; 'war on war'(?). I would try to turn democracy into a win-win system and yes I do understand that this is totally unrealistic, but perhaps a 95% / 5% rule would be much better than the present 51%/49% pro / con ratios.

Money makes the world go round, it is like energy, absolute necessary and will never disappear. Should there be hunger and poverty in this world? NO!

It is all about us and them versus we.

Hi Ben, I left for a another country, yes I'm more free than before, but I am subject to their law and their law offers no little protection for me, second class citizen if you like. Its still better than having total surveillance and being under threat of being tasered for daring to look at the police.

There is also the problem of not being allowed to vote, once you move off the reservation you are on your own. Sometimes it better to stay and fight.

The reason I left was for a lifestyle change, and not political. I don't think most would like the change I made, but its good for me.

I agree with the rest of what you say

**Ben2503** · 04-21-2014, 02:10 PM

Aliens

Originally posted by mbrownn View Post

Hi Ben, I left for a another country, yes I'm more free than before, but I am subject to their law and their law offers no little protection for me, second class citizen if you like. Its still better than having total surveillance and being under threat of being tasered for daring to look at the police.

There is also the problem of not being allowed to vote, once you move off the reservation you are on your own. Sometimes it better to stay and fight.

The reason I left was for a lifestyle change, and not political. I don't think most would like the change I made, but its good for me.

I agree with the rest of what you say

What do we need countries for?
If there are no countries, then the 'us and them' politics disappears. We become one population. No need for military. People will not be forced to stay in area's where they die from hunger and lack.

But I am quite sure that in no-time there will be all kinds of 'civil wars' such as 'ruling classes' trying to suppress 'working classes'; rich against poor; old money versus new rich; former aristocrates versus 'commons';
It's all about power. It has nothing to do with religions, gender or race, these are just used as excuses.

**mbrownn** · 04-21-2014, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Ben2503 View Post

What do we need countries for?
If there are no countries, then the 'us and them' politics disappears. We become one population. No need for military. People will not be forced to stay in area's where they die from hunger and lack.

But I am quite sure that in no-time there will be all kinds of 'civil wars' such as 'ruling classes' trying to suppress 'working classes'; rich against poor; old money versus new rich; former aristocrates versus 'commons';
It's all about power. It has nothing to do with religions, gender or race, these are just used as excuses.

Be careful what you wish for, a single planetary system is what is being implemented now. They will keep the borders and push the populations into mega cities, to do this they will use the military and drones. People will be forced into poverty and starvation which will speed up the depopulation agenda. Race, religion, money and politics is how they keep us divided.

We need to do the opposite, break up the unified mega-states, introduce border control, tariffs on imports and all these things that have been removed, so that each country can operate independently, as they did before. I know this sounds counter intuitive but it is for a reason, basically the smaller the nations are the more inter reliant they become on trade. This, in time will reduce the gap between the rich and poor nations provided we stop the cartels and multinationals. Western Europe was going this way to some extent but the corporations and the powers that be didn't want that as they wanted the power and control. I don't have all the answers, but if they want something, you can be sure the best way for the common man is to do the opposite.

I think race, religion and politics are irrelevant as long as corruption can be controlled. For money the gold standard would work, providing we got all the gold back off the banksters.

**dutchdivco** · 04-21-2014, 08:46 PM

The Golden Rule;

"He who HAS the GOLD, makes the RULES",( or, over time subverts whatever system is in place, to that end.)

Yes, the 'Rule of Law' is a myth, like many others civilisation has created.

That currency has value, that the majority 'know' whats right, there are MANY such myths, and they are necesary in order for 'civilisation' to function.

The 'problem' is NOT with the myths, its with the civilisation which requires them. Jim

**Ben2503** · 04-21-2014, 09:23 PM

one world

Originally posted by mbrownn View Post

I think race, religion and politics are irrelevant as long as corruption can be controlled. For money the gold standard would work, providing we got all the gold back off the banksters.

The more borders -> the more politicians, the more corruption, the more privileged, the more victims of the system, the more conflicts, the more aliens, the more envy, the more weapons, the more smugglers, etc
For me one borderless world will be the ideal, not perfect, as people are not perfect.

**indio007** · 04-21-2014, 09:41 PM

The fact is this. We are all just men and women.
People do not know how to ENFORCE their rights.
Asserting rights are one thing. Enforcing them against whatever man or woman comes against you using the "law" is another.

These people have us all playing pretend with them.
What are we pretending you ask?

1.That the STATE exists.
It's words on paper. It supposedly exists to protect the "public trust" whatever that means.

An example would be when someone says "The State of Missouri did XYZ."
This is anthropomorphism and is delusional.
People do things. The STATE does nothing.

That the STATE and GOVERNMENT are one and the same.

When the STATE as a legal entity administers the public trust. That is government.
Government is a function. It really means administration.
Keeping in mind, STATE is a body politic not a geographical area. It is a corporation.

That the STATE and the PUBLIC are identical legal entities.
the STATE can represent the public in court. As can anyone.

The most important thing to know is the STATE and PUBLIC are distinct legal entities.

These are basic legal facts that matter.

Nearly no one knows them.

How do you get yourself out of jail if you are completely and utterly unlawfully arrested?
No one even knows how to ASK for the keys.

People generally are the problem.
They fail to diligently protect their rights.
Which is basically consent.

I don't want to dig into a complicated legal diatribe.
you can find out more at www.suijurisclub.net a forum I visit.

Unfortunately where the rubber meets the road is the court.

**mbrownn** · 04-22-2014, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Ben2503 View Post

The more borders -> the more politicians, the more corruption, the more privileged, the more victims of the system, the more conflicts, the more aliens, the more envy, the more weapons, the more smugglers, etc
For me one borderless world will be the ideal, not perfect, as people are not perfect.

Its a nice thought, but not something that can be achieved, especially when you have the people we have dominating our existence. Remember one world government ruled by them is their goal, they want the power to decide who lives or dies, who works or doesn't. They have expressed in their writings that they intend to drastically reduce the population of the planet and they have said how they intend to do it. We look at what is happening in our world and we can see that they are doing it.

Because I have lived in many parts of the world, I know that it is not possible to impose anything on anyone, even if it is believed that what is to be imposed, is the right thing to do. You have to give people, and allow people their alternatives or you will have conflict. A one world state is such an imposition. We need alternatives so that we have a choice.

I agree that we should have the right to move freely from one region to another without penalty, something we don't have. I don't believe that we should be able to trade freely allowing the exploitation of the disadvantaged, but that is exactly what the free market economy is. Trade barriers are a means by which exploitation could be minimized but they have been used for the opposite. Imagine if the US placed a trade barrier on the importation of lithium, with the penalties for importing it being paid to the peoples that live and work in the areas where it came from. Would the Afghans be so poor if this happened? Once the Afghan economy reached the same level as the US then restrictions could be lifted. Do you see how that works?

To operate such a system does require a means of controlling it, and that is partially how corporate law came into existence, but was used as a means of control over everyone, and not just for the purpose it was written for.

Yes we need "laws", but when a law is unjust it needs to be amended or repealed. We do have that system, but we have forgotten how to use it. As indio007 says, we ourselves as individuals, have been turned into corporate entities so that corporate law can be used against us. To change these laws we have to demonstrate that they are being used incorrectly, or that they are simply wrong, and this is done by civil disobedience. If enough people disobey it becomes impossible for anyone to impose a bad law.

As I pointed out before, a method of operating democracy in a way that has little power to impose a bad law and immense power to impose a good one, is a good system. It would require little civil disobedience to get a bad law repealed. Unfortunately, for the most part, we have a system that only requires around 20% of a small corrupt cabal to impose a bad law and 51% or more to repeal it. Worse than that, in the US you have executive orders.

indio007 is correct we don't know the law and we should. We have relied on a corrupt cabal when we shouldn't. The key is education, and as you know, the cabal has corrupted that too. Threads like this, do serve to educate, but only to those that want to see it. We need to put the power back in the hands of the silent majority. That is done by disobedience, but it will be a long hard struggle because we have let things get so bad.

**mbrownn** · 04-23-2014, 03:05 AM

'Hacking the Constitution': States Quietly Plan to Ditch Electoral College

States Quietly Sign Onto Plan to Change Election System | Fox News Insider

This move, on the face of it sounds like a good idea, and similar to what I have said, but it isn't.

1) First the candidates would not be known personally to the voters and it is impossible to for that to happen.
2) It is a popular vote system, meaning that if only 20% of the people vote, whoever gets the highest share of that 20% wins, and abstentions are not counted.
3) To do this would be an imposition as only 270 people are required to push it through.

I could go on but I will say that the article briefly covers the points better than me.

"He said on the surface, the idea of the popular vote winner becoming president sounds good to a lot of people. But Stirewalt concluded by saying the United States "is not a democracy. This is a republic.""

**Allcanadian** · 04-23-2014, 08:41 AM

@mbrownn

Its a nice thought, but not something that can be achieved, especially when you have the people we have dominating our existence. Remember one world government ruled by them is their goal, they want the power to decide who lives or dies, who works or doesn't. They have expressed in their writings that they intend to drastically reduce the population of the planet and they have said how they intend to do it. We look at what is happening in our world and we can see that they are doing it

Rage, Rage at the machine.
Unfortunately blaming everyone else is not actually a solution to anything. I know it feels good but it just doesn't work in reality because it's circular.

In any case laying blame is the least of our worries because the economy is about to implode and of course the most sensible solution to an imploding economy is to start another war, a big one to solve a big problem. Believe me when I say your rights, the cabal and the economy is the least of your worries.

AC

Announcement

The rule of law or not

The rule of law or not

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment