Date:   8/8/2008 1:21:52 PM ( 16 y ago)
Hits:   1,461
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1233531

2 of 2 (100%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

 It was Benjamin Franklin who said it was better to go to bed hungry than in
debt. He said you'd be better off to go to bed without your dinner than to
borrow money to eat dinner and wake up to be in servitude the following
morning.

People understood debt.

What does scriipture have to say about that?
Isn't the debtor servant to the lender?

Does it make you wonder why banks want you to be in debt constantly?
You've got a house that free and clear. "Why, free up that equity, friend.
Come on in and get a twenty five thousand dollar cash second mortgage and go
to Hawaii and squander the money and become our servant for the next
twenty-five years."

Isn't that what they've been telling you?

Now look where Toby is. He has a wife. He's tied to the plantation. He's a
family man. He got permission to do something that a free man would do
anyway.

Have you ever heard of a common law wife or a common law marriage?
Do you suppose that people always got marriage licenses from the government
to get married?

Well, was there ever a time when you could get married without a license?
Why don't you ask yourself that one.

Let's carry the story on just a couple of steps: The master came to Toby and
said, "Toby you've been good. You've been picking cotton and you've got a
wife and you're not running away. Tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna give
you another privilege. How would you like to drive the wagon to town to get
the supplies?"

Now that's a cushy job. Truck driver's job is like that. Airline pilots job
is like that.

So he put Toby on the wagon. He trained him to the rules of the road, and
there was the master's permission to do something that would otherwise be
unlawful. You see Toby couldn't leave the plantation. He has to have the
master's permission. That's the driver's license. There's your privilege.
The master/servant relationship. The state licenses you to drive on the
road. The master/servant relationship.

Let me ask you this: Toby is driving the wagon to town, he has an accident,
he hits another wagon and causes some damage. Who is responsible for the
damages that Toby causes on that road?

It isn't Toby. He's a slave. He doesn't have any property and can't possibly
pay for any damage.

The person who licensed him. The person who gave him that permission to go
out there on the road. The master is responsible for Toby.
Well then, when you're out on the road in an insured automobile, in an
insured truck, who's responsible when you have an accident?
The insurance company is responsible.

Well if the insurance company is responsible, isn't the insurance company
going to make rules and regulations for you to follow?
It makes sense to me. It makes sense to government. It makes sense to
everybody. Because, you see, when you're insured, you're not responsible for
your actions, the insurance company is.

If you're going to be free, you're going to have to be responsible for your
actions, and that's where the com mon law comes in. The common law acts
after the fact. The common law does not act in equity prior to the
occurrence.

When the policeman gives you a ticket for driving eighty, he's trying to
prevent an accident. That's equity. That's trying to prevent something. That
isn't the common law.

The common law acts when the damage has occurred. Then you sue and you get
money damages back.

It's when the guy gouges the other guy's eye out that you gouge his eye out,
after the fact. That's the common law.

Trying to prevent the eye from being gouged out is in the parameters of the
insurance company preventing the loss so that they can protect the claims
window.

Now that's how your status works. That's how it works with Garrett. That's
why you have a driver's license.

Let's carry this on another step and look at your status when you're talking
about building a house.

You go out and you buy a house. You live in it a few years and you say,
"Well, I think I'm going to convert the garage over into a family room."
You are?
Wait a minute. Who are you affecting?
Who's house is that? Yours?

Well, that's not your house. You have an equitable interest that house, but
you're not a property owner. You are bound by contract to specific
performance. You are a servant, a slave. A slave to the bank that lent you
the money to buy the house.

Now there is a $50,000 house. You have a $10,000 equitable interest in it.
The bank has a $40,000 equitable interest in it. The house is insured for
$50,000 and the insurance company stands to lose $50,000 if the house burns
to the ground because you didn't wire it right when you added the room on.
In addition to that, the bank is sitting over there saying, "We don't want
just anybody adding rooms on, creating 'tobacco-road' tar-paper shacks,
depreciating the value of our home that we own, that in case this guy dies
or defaults we have to repossess and sell to somebody else."

So the banks and the insurance companies and all the lending institutions go
to the legislature and get zoning laws. They get building laws to protect
their property.

That makes sense.

If I owned a house, and I sold it to you, I certainly want to be protected.
I don't want you to add a room on to that house, wire it incorrectly and
have it burn down. I stand to lose $40,000 and you lose $10,000?
If I'm the insurer of it, I certainly don't want to lose $50,000 because of
your ineptness.

So you see, a debtor is servant to the lender. The debtor is an incompetent.
That's right. Now you're begin ning to see why God in the scriipture said,
"The servant is debtor to the lender."

You know in ancient times, if you went into debt and didn't pay specific
performance they bore a hole in your ear and sold you for seven years until
the debt was paid off.

Today, we call that bankruptcy. In ancient times they called that slavery.
And boy it could get real severe.

You know if we were at law, and had substance at the common law all, I'll
tell you the common law is pretty brutal. The common law doesn't leave any
room for bankruptcy. You're gonna pay your debts or you're going to pay them
off. Crime doesn't pay at the common law because we're not interested in the
law enforcement growth industry, we're only interested in justice.

You know you gouge a man's eye out, the old adage "an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth" is based in the common law.

Equity is, "We want to prevent that loss."

Now, let's discuss this law enforcement growth industry because the
police-state environment we have created around ourselves is really
inexplicably bound up in this thing I call the law enforcement growth
industry.

This law enforcement growth industry, I don't know how big it is, but let's
start with a few parameters and let's take a look at what we're talking
about with the subject matter

You've got a lot of policemen out here, nationwide, don't you? I don't know
how many policemen there are, but there are thousands and thousands and
thousands of policemen. There may be two or three million, right?
Now, how do they make their living?
They make it off of crime.

Don't you have to have lawyers to defend those criminals?
And don't we have to have lawyers to become prosecutors to prosecute those
criminals?

Don't we have to have prisons to house those criminals?
Don't we have to have jails?
Don't we have to have sheriffs, judges?
I don't know how many people that are involved in law enforcement, but I'll
bet there are four or five million.

Let's try it this way. Let's suppose that everybody in America, starting
tomorrow morning, refused to disobey any more laws and nobody would drive
drunk, and nobody would build a room on their house without a permits, and
everybody obeyed all laws. We would have chaos by the middle of the week.
What would we do? Why, we'd have five or six million out of work law
enforcement people. I don't know how many there are. I wish somebody would
let me know. But, I'm telling you that these law schools are graduat ing law
students all the time. Every time a lawyer comes out, he's got to have a job
somewhere. So he has a real interest in law enforcement and law, prevention
and crime, and punishment.

So, I've been in jail a couple or three times, and when I go out there
people like to ask me:?"What are you in here for? What did you do?"
I say, "My government puts me in here every once in a while because I don't
have a driver's license, or because my car's not registered, and because
they don't understand my status. I'm in here because I'm a real bad fellow,
and I'm a criminal, and society needs to be protected from me because I want
my rights and I want my freedoms, and for demanding these rights and
freedoms my government locks me up every now and again to protect you from
me."

And I find that there are other people in there also . . .
I asked a young fellow, "Why are you in here?"
He said, "I'm in here because I've been convicted on a felony."
"A felony?" I asked, "What did you do?"

He said, "Well, I drove drunk."

"You drove drunk? What happened?" I asked.

"Last year, I was out driving drunk and the policeman caught me and took me
over in front of the judge, and I plead guilty and that was one. Then six
months later I went out and I did the same thing and that was two. Then
about two months ago I was having a big party over at my apartment, and we
were all drunk and having a good time, and we were making too much noise,
and the police came up and recognized me and they said, 'Is that your car
down there?'"

I said, "yeah."

They said, "It's parked a little close to a fire hydrant, go down there and
move it.?"

So he went down to move it, and as soon as he started the car, they arrested
him for drunk driving.

He fell within the statute, didn't he?

He had the driver's license. He was acting in privilege. He went down and
started the motor. The statute says, " . . . in control of an automobile
under the influence." So they arrested him.
Why did they do that? Did you need to be protected from that fellow?
No, they entrapped him because they need business.

You know, in our county it costs thirteen dollars and sixteen cents a day to
keep a man in the county jail.

Now, while you're in this county jail, you're locked up in this room and
there are ten other guys in there. Ten times thirteen-sixteen is a hundred
and thirty dollars a day for that little tank. They have to feed you every
day, and so they have these uniformed bell boys running up and down the
halls and they bring you your food.

If they didn't have those beds filled with people, what would you need those
jail guards running up and down the halls bringing their meals for, and
guarding them? The jail guards would be unemployed if they did not have
people inside those jails go guard. If the prison wasn't full of people,
there wouldn't be any need for the guards, now would there?

Now I'm not telling you that there are not some bad people in jail. There's
some people, I suppose, that need to be locked up.

But my guesstimate is that about ten or fifteen percent of the people that
are in the jails here in Idaho are there because they are entrapped. They
are not there because I need to be protected, or you need to be protected
from them.

The guy that's driving down the road drunk . . . unless he runs into me and
causes a damage, I don't have any beef with him.

Hasn't crime always grown by five percent a year?

Well, I was born in 1939, and all I know like Will Rogers always said, is
what I read in the papers. Here's the way this comes down.

From the earliest time that I can remember reading the paper, I can see
where crime increases by a certain percentage. About five percent a year.
Isn't pretty much that way wherever you are; in Cleveland or Philadelphia or
New York? That's the way it is here.

So, in order to combat that crime, what do the police department and the FBI
and the officials that are in charge of crime prevention, and the people
that deal in crime, what do they tell you?

"We need more police, more laws, and more money."

Now isn't that about what you hear in Cleveland, Philadelphia or wherever
you are? Well, I don't know what they tell you there, but that's what they
tell us here.

Here in Boise, Idaho, let's say we have a hundred policemen, and crime is at
a level . . . let's call it level fifty, OK?

We want to reduce crime from level fifty to zero. We want no crime. We want
every policeman, every sheriff, every lawyer, every judge in the state of
Idaho unemployed. That's our goal. I want every single law enforcement
officer off the payroll and out doing something that's productive. We want
absolutely no crime whatsoever. We want every citizen obeying every law.
To do this, to achieve this goal, to combat and to curb crime, we're going
to educate people in the schools and churches, we're going to educate them
on television, and we're going to educate them in our jails, and we are
going to convert everybody to one hundred percent obedience to all laws at
all times without any exceptions whatsoever, and throw every law enforcement
worker out of a job, in a certain period of time.
Alright. That's our goal.

To accomplish that, we've got to increase the police budget by five percent.
So let's say we're spending ten million dollars a year, and increase that by
five percent. We've got to increase our police force from one hundred to one
hundred and five, so that's five percent. We have one thousand laws, so what
we're going to do is increase the laws by five percent. That's so the police
will have more tools with which to combat crime. And we're going to give
them five percent more police cars.

Now, instead of a hundred policemen out there on the road, we've got a
hundred and five.

Next we tell the policeman that in order to justify his job, he has to make,
in an eight hour shift, four contacts with the public. In order for the guy
to justify his job, doesn't he have to write four tickets, or doesn't he
have to arrest four criminals, doesn't he have to do something to justify
his job?

Now, doesn't that sound like we're creating crime?

Aren't we really, in fact, doing this: Every time we increase the budget by
five percent, the police by five percent; aren't we really increasing crime
by five percent?

Because if there are some real criminals out there who are bad types then
we've got to have other issues like drunks on the road so that the policeman
can have something to do.

Don't they have a vested interest in this the sheriffs and the jailers and
all these law enforcement people? Don't they have a vested interest in
trying to keep crime going?

You know, I don't want to pay seventy five thousand dollars to put somebody
in prison for five years because he's drunk. Or because he's an alcoholic,
because he's sick.

But for some reason, we've got it in our minds that that's what we've got to
do. You know really, all I want to do is to be protected from criminals.
I don't need any policeman to protect me from criminals because I carry a
gun.

I know that right away you're going to say, "Oh! He carries a gun."
That's right, our Founding Fathers understood crime. That's why the Second
Amendment's in the Constitution.

The police cannot prevent crime. Tell me of one rape that the police ever
prevented. Policemen catch rapists after they've committed the crime.
I'll tell you how to solve the rape problem. They did it down in Florida.
They did it up in Minneapolis one time. What they did is they went on a
campaign and started arming women.

I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again: "You put a twenty-five
automatic in the purse of every woman in America and there will be no more
rape."

That's the end of the argument.

One of two or three things has to happen.

Number one, the women kill all the rapists. If women killed all the rapists
there wouldn't be any more rapes, would there? Isn't that logical?
If there's ten thousand rapists in America . . . I don't know how many there
are, let's say there's ten thousand. If we killed all then thousand of them,
there wouldn't be any more. If we killed five thousand of them, I'll bet the
other five thousand would become reformed rapists and we wouldn't have any
more rapes.

What we do is we disarm all the citizens. We tell them, "You've got to have
a gun permit to carry this gun." We take all the guns away from the
citizens.

Now the citizen can't protect himself, and the policemen is not there. How
many rapists run out and say, "Officer, come on over. I'm gonna rape this
woman and I want you here to catch me." When did that ever hap pen? I never
saw that.

So rape goes up every year, and armed robbery goes up every year.
I remember down in Oakland, California, there was a liquor store owner down
there. He had a gun and he killed three robbers; bang, bang, bang. He kept
getting robbed all the time. He got a gun. He killed three. He's not getting
robbed any more.

You know, there was some blood there for a while. And I'm sure that some of
these ladies will shoot their feet off, and shoot their husbands, and have
some accidents and there will be some blood and the bleeding hearts will
come out and say, "My God, we've got to take all these guns away from
people."

Well, the problem with people is that they don't know how to handle guns.
I'm not here on some kick to get you to arm yourself, because I don't really
care. What I want to do in this segment is I'm trying to show you what crime
is and I'm trying to show you what your status is. I'm trying to show you
what the root cause of our problem is. And then as we progress with these
lessons, how you go in on that courtroom floor and how you win every time.
Because, if you are going to go in there and you are going to lose every
time, then there is no advantage in going into the courtroom.

Citizens that go into the courtroom go in there in stark terror. I mean
literally. The average guy going in to a traffic court, he says, "Uh, I want
to plead guilty, you honor, with explanation. Let me tell you why I'm guilty
and why I'm sorry and why this happened so you'll give me a twenty-five
dollar fine instead of a thirty-five dollar fine."

Why doesn't he go in there and say, "I haven't committed any crime and I'm
not going to plead to this. I am standing mute. If the government wants to
spend two thousand dollars convicting me, then so be it."
"My attitude is, sir, that any crime that's important enough for my
government to prosecute is important enough for me to defend."
Now, that's my attitude.

I carry a gun because I don't need policemen to protect me. I don't need to
spend millions of dollars of tax money out here for people to drive up and
down the streets with badges on their chests, and nifty uniforms, carry ing
guns on their hip, acting as hired guns.
I don't need any of that.

Why would I need it?

I dare you to come rob me.

I'll tell you one thing, robbing me could get real hazardous to your health.
If we had two hundred million red-blooded Americans all carrying a gun under
their shirt, there wouldn't be any armed robberies. There wouldn't be any
armed robbers!

The only reason you've got armed robbers is because you've got citizens that
don't have guns and can't kill 'em. That's why you've got armed robbers.
You know there was a time, about 1900, I think every man in the country
carried a gun. I came from a family . . . I can't remember a how many guns
my dad had. He must have had ten or fifteen. I can't ever remember living in
a house that didn't have a gun in it.

My house has got ten guns in it now.

You know, I talk to people all the time that not only don't have guns, are
afraid of them.

I'm sitting there going, "You're afraid of a gun? Don't you know how to use
one? Haven't you been in the army. Didn't they teach you in the army how to
use a gun?"

People come back from the army and they don't have guns.
Women don't have guns. Women get raped all the time, they get abused all the
time.

Well let me tell you . . . you know our Founding Fathers knew how to solve
that problem and they wrote that right into your Constitution. Because
that's a right, it's inalienable and it can't be taken away from you. You
can give it up, you know you can give up a right but it cannot be taken away
from you.

Now that's the difference between status at law and privilege under
contract.

I would say that starting about 1900 we began to shift away from our natural
unalienable rights. I remember falling into that syndrome about 1965,
somebody got it in my head that the way to make money and be successful in
life was to get into debt. Borrow money, pyramid, buy, sell, trade and
become kind of a business man. Boy let me tell you all I had was misery the
entire time. I was in debt and I was a slave and I was a servant and I paid
taxes

.
My government was after me constantly for not paying my taxes. Gosh I
couldn't afford to pay my taxes. I could barely afford to keep ends meeting
and I think that most of you all have the same problem.

Then one day I began to find out what was the root cause of my problem. Well
the root cause of my problem was my status, I was a slave, a servant. I was
in the Constitutional sense a subject and a member of society. Not a
sovereign and a natural person who is a law maker instead of a law obeyer.
You know law has to be made for people who cannot govern themselves. You
have to have rules for Toby when he's driving the horses to town. Don't whip
the horses, don't speed, and stop for ladies as their crossing the road.
Isn't that the rule for of the master concerning Toby the slave?
So the insurance company does that to us they say, don't you whip the horses
in that car and drive over fifty -five because there's a possibility that
you might cause an accident which would then make us liable and we'd have to
pay these damages. You see where you're at. The master/servant relationship?
You know the root cause of our problem then is whether or not we're willing
to be responsible for our actions. I think that's where the bottom line is.

Most people want limited liability for debt. They want limited responsibil
ity. And the insurance agents, boy let me tell you, they can't preach a
sermon about well you know what'll happen to ya if you get in this accident,
well you could lose your house, you could lose this you could lose that or
one thing and another.

Well certainly you could.

Why don't you go out and learn how your courtroom works?
What's wrong with learning how to be a responsible person when you cause a
damage, you have to pay for it.

But if you don't cause a damage, why should you be paying money into an
insurance fund to cover the dam ages and the irresponsibilities of other
people?

That's what the insurance fund is all about.
The insurance company pays out about five percent. So you pay ten million
dollars in and they pay what...about five hundred thousand out. I think
that's about what the ratio is.

Somebody once told me that the insurance companies pay out about five
percent, and take the rest in as profit and commissions, etc.
I say "poppycock"! I can spend that money on myself just as well as they
can. I don't need anybody to spend my money.

I was thirty-seven before I learned how to count. Once I learned how to
count I fired my accountant. I try to encourage other people to learn how to
count also.

In review, when you get in on that courtroom floor, and if you want common
law rights, then you have to be responsible at the common law.
We're going to talk about the scene of the crime and we're going to get into
the nitty-gritty. I'm going to show you classroom scenes here of
arraignments, probable cause hearings, felonies, misdemeanors, traffic
tickets. We're going to show you in detail how you go into the courtroom to
learn that language. There's some words, terms, phrases; there's rules and
regulations that you have to learn.

But, the way I see this, it's about the equivalent of learning how to fly.
If you can learn how to fly an airplane, you can learn how to be a free
common law man. You can learn courtroom strategy and procedure, you can
learn how to get into that courtroom and demand your rights at the common
law.

In order to do that, the first thing you have to do is change your status at
law.

I'm going to show you how to win if you've got a driver's license. I'm going
to show you that even if you're wrong, you can still win.
I don't recommend that. I'm not saying you should get on the wrong side of
the issue and then go into the courtroom and win your case. I'm not telling
people to go out a get drunk and then drive down the road and, even if
you've got a driver's license, I'll show you how to win . . . although I can
do that.

I've done it and I've demonstrated it for a long time, for about five years.
We don't have any students here that have lost a case. Not a one.
Every graduate from this school knows how to win; because, he knows how to
conduct the scene of the crime.

For instance in taxes: Do you know how many people the government's laying
away every year on income tax evasion and willful failure to file a return,
etc.?

I can teach you how to win those cases, but wouldn't it be better if you
corrected your status and didn't even owe the tax.

You know, some years ago I dropped out of the income tax system and I've
never even had an audit.

I go to audits all the time. I go with people that have tax problems that
just want to make you cry. I mean they are attaching their property.
Attaching their homes and leaving them with barely enough money . . . in
some cases I don't even think they leave them with enough money to buy food,
and they've got wives and children. I don't know how they can do it, how
those government agents can do that. It makes you sad.

So, what I want to do, and I've told people this and I'm going to tell you
now: You should start in, not with a drunk driving case that's coming to
trial next week. Because if you're going to trial next week, and you are a
novice, and you don't understand what you're doing, and you status is wrong,
and you've got a driver's license and you've already made admissions and
confessions, and they are going to use them against you, and you are on the
video tape down at the police station, and you've made these confessions;
its going to be tough. It's going to be awful hard for you to win.

What I like to see is a student who comes in and says, "Yeah, I'm a tax
payer now but I want to stop paying taxes."

You get the deal set-up for next year. You go ahead a pay your taxes this
year. You get rid of your checking accounts and your credit cards and your
obligations. You start paying off your debts and you get clean with the
world and then you drop out of the system in a logical systematic way and
they don't even miss ya. You're just gone.

All of a sudden, from tax payer to non-tax payer, from paying twenty-five
percent of your total productivity for your government to squander on Poland
guaranteeing the Polish debt that your international bankers made.
Put the money in your sock, or buy gold or silver or do whatever you want
with it. You don't have to send your money to Poland.

You don't have to pay your money out in property taxes. You don't have to
pay that money unless you want to.

You don't have to have a driver's license. You don't have to be a slave to
the traffic cop. You don't have to run down the road in fear and
trepidation.

And judges understand law. You know, your Supreme Court understands law. The
problem is that I don't believe a lot of the citizens out here understand
the Constitution.

And the first building-block to becoming a sovereign is to get your status
straight. Once you get that status squared around you're gong to find that
about seventy-five percent of your legal problems are just going to evapo
rate and disappear.

Now that doesn't mean that the government isn't going to harass you. That
they're not going to charge you falsely, because let me tell you that when
you become a competent pro se litigant, and you become a what they call
"Constitutionalist."

You go out here and jail and they call after you: "Hey, he's one of those
Constitutionalists." I heard them say that the other day when they were
booking me, or trying to book me.

"You mean you're not a Constitutionalist?"

The conversation broke right down. The cop didn't want to admit that he
wasn't.

But, I'm one of those.

You know, they call me a Constitutionalist like I'm a Communist or a Nazi or
a queer or a sex pervert or something. They have to hang a label on me.
Slaves are that way. They have to hang a label so they can identify you.
They don't know what a free man looks like. They've never seen one before!
And so they don't know what a free man is, and it's a strange and foreign
doctrine to them, this thing of driving without a driver's license. Driving
a car without license plates. Building a house without your government's
permission. Holding something free and clear and absolute alodial free-hold
fee simple. How many people do you know like that?

When I was a kid, there was a lot of them. But there's not very many of
those any more. I'll bet you there's not but a million or two Americans left
in the United States who aren't in debt.

Show me a farmer somewhere who isn't in hock. You know these farmers out
here, they owe five hundred to seven hundred thousand to a million dollars.
I used to be in the cattle business. I remember, I used to be in debt back
in the fifties and sixties. You know, it used to be, when I was a young man,
the objective was: You borrowed thirty thousand for production credit and
you tried to bet it paid off within the terms of your first lease and you
were free and clear and you were out making money.

Something's happened. You know, our land is mortgaged to the government. I
don't know if there's very much land . . . I'll bet you not only does the
government own over a third of all America well they claim to, but that's
another subject matter but I'll bet you that the government probably owns
ninety percent of all the land in America.

We like to think of ourselves as property owners. Why, we're not a nation of
property owners. We're a nation of people who are indentured in feudal
serfdom. We've done it to ourselves voluntarily. We have voluntarily taken
on this debt and squandered it.

Look at the national debt. Look at our mortgages. Look at our local debt and
our government debt. Nobody complains about debt. Why, people have been led
to believe that debt is wonderful and good.
Let me tell you, debt it slavery. It's just that simple.

Debt is slavery in scriipture. Debt is slavery in practical every-day
application. Debt is slavery in law.

When you walk in on the courtroom floor, that judge assumes that you are a
merchant and trader in equitable debt.

He doesn't assume you are a free man walking in there demanding your common
law rights. He assumes you are a merchant in trade or in equity that has an
equitable interest in some piece of property or some issue, and you're
coming into the courtroom to throw yourself on the mercy of the court to
have them decide how to divide up you marriage.

Have you ever seen a divorce at common law?

Show me a divorce with a jury. Have you ever seen one of those? Well, you're
starting to see one or two, once in a while. They're called "palimony"
suits.

You know when this fellow Lee Marvin broke up with his common law wife, you
had a common law divorce. That is so strange and bizarre, so foreign, the
news media picked that up and said, "Here's a milestone in law in America."
That's nothing new. That's the common law working. The woman had a right to
what she claimed . . . abso lute alodial free-hold right and claim at law to
what his property was.

He's sitting there going, "Well this can't be right. We weren't even
married." Right? He said, "I'm not even married to her."

We've got people here that can get married without a marriage license. I
just heard of one the other day. A young fellow went out with this lady and
had this nice wedding. They couldn't get a preacher to come over there and
marry them because you know preachers are licensed.

Do you want to talk about separation of church and state? Don't believe it
for a minute. We don't have separation of church and state.

Government licenses all preachers! You show me a preacher in America that's
not licensed by his government. I don't know of any. I'm not saying there
aren't any. There's probably some of them out there. But as a general rule
the churches are all corporate organizations.

Where do you get corporate privilege?
Well, from the government!

The churches are corporations and they are regulated by then by the
government. All the preachers are licensed by the government. They're doing
something that would otherwise be illegal.

Since when has it been illegal to be a preacher without the government's
permission?

I don't claim to be a preacher, but I'll tell you one thing: I sure as Hell
don't need my government's permission to tell me whether or not I can or
can't be. I don't need my government's permission to do anything. I'm the
sovereign, not the government.

When you learn to be the sovereign, then you can learn to be free.
When you go into a court in your county, you're going to find this to be
true. The first time that you walk in there, those judges are going to be
shocked out of their gourd when you walk in and demand all of your rights at
law.

Watch this: "Your honor, I demand all of my rights at law, and I don't wave
any of my rights at any time. I'm not coming in here to grovel before you,
or to explain to you that I'm guilty. I'm here to tell you that no crime has
been committed and I'm not going to plead to this cause of action. There is
no cause of action before this court. Driving eighty miles an hour down the
road is not against the law. I haven't broken any law. There's no corpus
delicti. There's no loss to anybody involved here. There's no contract.
There's no penal clause."

Well the poor judges are sitting back there and wondering what sort of
foreign and bizarre behavior is this of this fool coming into this
courtroom, who doesn't plead guilty.

Not one person in a hundred and pleads not guilty.

If you took a hundred people who plead not guilty, there's not one of those
in a hundred that could go in and competently argue his position at law. He
goes in and argues, "Well, I didn't do the act."

What's he saying? He's saying, "Well, yeah I was driving the car and I've
got the driver's license and the government commissioned me to go out there
on that road, but I wasn't going eighty, I was only going sixty-five. I
wasn't breaking the speed limit by twenty-five miles an hour, I was only
breaking it by ten, and it's for that reason that I'm pleading not guilty."
He can't even shut up and keep his mouth shut. He's got to spill the beans
and go into the courtroom and show the judge that he's guilty of doing
something even if it isn't what he really did.

That's the problem that our citizenry has. In the last eights years we have
moved from status to contract. We are all of us operating in equity.
We've got marriage licenses and so we have children that are owned by our
government and controlled. Take your ten year old kid out of school and find
out what your government does to you.

Start educating, training and teaching your own kids in your own home and
find out what your government is going to say to you.

I'll bet you that you haven't got the nerve to go in there to that school
and tell the principle, "I'm taking my kid out of school, dummy. I don't
think you are doing good job here. I think I'll just take him home and teach
him myself." Try that one.

Your government tells you when to come in and it tells you when to go out.
It tells you when to get up and it tells you when to go to bed. You know
that's true and I know that's true, we've all lived through it. We've all
been raised, educated, taught and trained by the educational system. They
taught you how to use the legislative and executive branches of government.
They taught you that redress of grievance come by writing letters to the
editor and picketing up and down at the state house to get redress of
grievance, and writing letters to your congressman.
Poppycock! Balderdash! Bon phooey!

You get redress of grievance, if you are a free man, on the courtroom floor,
by being a belligerent claimant in person and demanding it. You walk into
that courtroom and you demand your rights. You don't go in there like a
groveling slave named Toby to plead and beg and whine and wheedle before the
master and say, "Oh please, massa. Don't beat me, don't whip me, massa."
Isn't that what a slave does?

He understands and recognizes the status. He isn't ignorant.
You know, we citizens of the United States think we're free, and we tell
each other we're free, and we kid ourselves that we're free, and our
government propagandizes and tells us that we're free.
But I'll tell you, the status of a free man is the man that doesn't have to
show his driver's license to some officer on the road, to drive.

The status of a free man is a man that can work and earn a living and
doesn't need a number or somebody's permission to work.

The free man is the man that educates his children at home or sends them to
school, or to any school that he wants to, whether the government likes it
or not.

A free man, then, having assumed full responsibility for his actions, acts as a matter of right, not as a matter of privilege.

THE END

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1233531