The God Defense

The one thing that evil cannot do is to overthrow God and his natural law or natural order. Mankind will try to make his own laws, but unless these laws conform to the natural law, there is absolutely no authority for that law. Any group of men cannot make rules for other men other than what is already present in the natural law. Those written commandments which conform to the natural law are also included. Other men can take authority over a murderer, thief, rapist, or a liar; however, these men cannot make rules i.e. legislation to compel other men to obey them unless they are conformed to the natural order.

For example: there is no body of man-made law which can impose any income tax on another man. If income tax is lawful; then so is slavery. Because the principles of the natural law are self-evident that if a man works, then he is entitled to all of the fruit of his labor. Whether he works for “federal reserve notes”, fiddlesticks, barter, or silver and gold he is entitled to all of it. No man can be compelled to pay any income tax or any other tax. Such compulsions by governments are a form of stealing.

If I were to gather 10 or 20 men and then go house to house demanding money from the people, then I would be considered a thief. If I tell them if you don't pay the money, then I'm going to steal your property and assault you personally; and maybe even kill you. This is extortion, and most governments of the world operate on such a system. But all of us have been raised to respect government when the reality of it is that the government is just another bunch of thieves who feed off of the producers. This is a form of communism which is a modern version of the old feudal system. It really doesn't matter when the facts show that people are being robbed of their production by greedy government people who are nothing more than communists. It seems almost impossible to defend oneself against the onslaught of government and I want to explore and suggest some methods by which one can defend himself whenever confronted by a govtard.

The Courts

The courts are the most corrupted system known to mankind. And it doesn't matter much which “nation” the courts are formed. The courts reek of the evil of oath-taking and it is this oath-taking that is the conduit of that evil. However, the refusal of taking any oaths is the best way to short-circuit their pathetically evil process. The courts are based upon the principles of Satan and operate under the rules of war. The best thing people can do is to stand back and let the system rot on its own. The product or results of these courts are self-evident in that they rarely “get it right” and many innocent people have their lives destroyed by them. These judges don't wear black dresses for nothing.

Words of Art

The words that are used in any legal process usually mean something entirely different than what the normal man would use with the most simple interpretation. Accordingly, simple nouns are redefined in the various codes to make things even more confusing. For instance, I have counted at least 25 different definitions of the term “United States.” So, depending upon which Chapter or Section one is reading, it is virtually impossible for anyone to understand the real intent of the code. Another example would be the term “person.” Most normal people understand the word to mean a man, woman, or child. However, it could mean a corporation, a trust, or some other kind of entity. Even the word government is rendered in court papers as Government right in the middle of a sentence. I would have flunked 5^th grade English if I wrote my papers in this fashion. This is why I call “government” people govtards. They are morally and intellectually so retarded that it defies rational thought. In fact, I would guess most nouns used in the codes mean something completely different than what is normally understood in the language. This is why I take any writing with a grain of salt, because I can only understand the writing only within my own knowledge and understanding; and even that may be wrong.

Back to the Court System

The so-called court system is supposed to be an arm of the judicial branch of government. However, if you look up the court system in a business directory, you'll find that they are listed as private corporations. Here's an example: click here In this example, the 11^th Circuit Court is listed as a privately held corporation. Geez, I thought is was a government branch. It gets worse, you'll see the same thing for almost all “government” agencies. So then the best that can be said of any “law” is that in fact, they are only policies established by the owners of the corporations. Policies can be changed at the whim of management; and when it comes to government, that's exactly what they do. Remember, most corporations are established to make a profit and these courts seem to make money from any poor soul that happens to get caught up in their net. When anyone gets a presentment from an attorney, they will get some of the most insane writings. In the heading it will be addressed to:

JOHN SCHMUCK DOE Here we see that this would not even pass 5^th grade English. Of course the proper rendering of the name would be John Schmuck Doe. And in the body of the presentment, there proper English is used: John Schmuck Doe. In my opinion, I believe that the all caps “name” is an artificial entity such as a trust, and that the real man or woman is unknowingly being lead into the trap of being the surety for JOHN SCHMUCK DOE. Or in other words, John Schmuck Doe is the surety for JOHN SCHMUCK DOE. Look at your driver's license, bank statements, insurance policies, or military ID and they will reflect the same things. But, that's just my opinion as I do not know exactly how it works and the govtards will not disclose it. But there is a reason for the all caps rendering of the name and I don't believe its good.

Firing all attorneys

Just before the proceeding starts, I would say the following to the prosecutor: If you think you are representing me or my commercial affairs, you are mistaken and your are fired. I learned this from Rice McCleod who told me that he learned it from a practicing attorney. Apparently, prosecuting attorneys can represent the defendants. I'm not sure exactly sure how this works, but I would make it very clear that you do not want anyone—including the judge—to represent you. Remember, the judge may be representing you when he enters a “not guilty” plea for you. So in theory, it would be proper to include the judge in the firing or the discharge. If you have a stanby attorney, I would suggest that you fire him to because even though you are handling your own case, they will sit in the background and silently represent you. The idea here is to clear the decks and make sure that no one is representing you without your knowledge. I think it's best to get it out of the way right from the start. Now, others who have used this method have seen the prosecutor replaced by another attorney. I was dragged out of the courtroom when I used it and I was bounced around the elevator by U.S. Marshalls (Brown Shirts). So the results are variable, but the main thing you want to accomplish is to make sure you aren't being secretly represented by some esquire. Because when you are, you are also being subject to their oaths. It's just much better to be rid of them. Get used to taking care of your own business, rather than having someone else do it for you.

The Arraignment

In my opinion, this is the most critical phase of any legal proceeding. Remember, the players are demonic and they are after your ass, so don't make it easy on them. When you go into court and the judge says: “Please state your name for the record...” how are you going to respond? Under these conditions, you really don't even know your name in the context of legal speak or how it fits into the particular case. One way to respond would be to say: “I don't have enough facts to give you a responsive answer.” Another way to answer is: “I don't have to answer that, that's compelled testimony.” It is obvious by the all caps that the legal system never got past the 5^th grade with their English, so how am I supposed to understand such gibberish? It gets even better or worse... When a judge asks you: “Do you understand?” The most sane answer would be no or I don't have enough information to give you a responsive answer. Now, the judge may lose it at this point, but you have to stay calm, because it is their nonsense that is causing the problem. If you say you understand the when you know perfectly well that you don't, you are lying and setting your own trap. People who believe like me might also say: I believe that these proceedings are satanic in their nature and they are repugnant to my spiritual beliefs and I do not wish to participate in any proceedings by reason of conscience. I've never used this so I'm not sure what the response will be but it will take the power away from the so-called court. If the judge asks why would you say such a thing, you can then respond that since the courts operate upon oath-taking, that is what makes it repugnant to my faith by reason of conscience. In addition, the vague usage of the language renders these legal proceedings to be unintelligible. Hopefully, it will end right here. You might get asked over 20 times “do you understand?” and all you have to do is say no. You really don't need to give a reason. They asked the question; you give the correct answer.

Understanding the Charges

Mr. DOE, you have been charged with a violation of Municipal Code: No.345958ww009i3857600w0r9t8394 Section 1234999

How do you plead?

My first reaction to this would be to ask the judge: What is a charge? And the reason for this is that in some of the older Black's Law Dictionaries there are multiple definitions of the term “charge.” A charge could be a debit on an account, encumbrance, lien, or a claim. It may also be an accusation. Again, to make any plea in this instance would be an uninformed plea with potentially dire consequences. So, if the judge doesn't answer the question: What is a charge? How could it be possible for anyone to then say he “understands” the charges when the judge won't explain? It is impossible. Some people think that when you say that “I understand the charges” that it really means in legal speak that I stand under the charges or that I am underwriting the charges. Regardless of what the term “charges” really mean, you can never truthfully say that you understand them. If you answer yes, then the steamroll is on and you will be the one being rolled-over. The judge is like a bad used car salesman who will attempt to get you to make a bad decision. Remember, these courts are corporations and it only follows that they are in it for profit. They make money on each conviction and that is their purpose for existing.

Heading for the exit

Now that the fury of the judge is going full speed, the idea is to get out of the courtroom without incurring a contempt issue or getting arrested. No one can compel a man to understand anything and this presents a problem to the court because they can't prosecute anything unless the man understands. So, before they have time to think, this is what I recommend:

Ask the following:

Am I free to go? Am I being detained? Does anyone have a claim or accusation against me? Generally, no one will answer these questions. If the judge gets nasty ask: Are you threatening me? Remember, if the court is a corporation, it could incur a liability if you are coerced against your will. If they break the natural law by putting you in jail, then you have a great case against them. You could also put in a claim into “risk management” for vindictive prosecution. However, I think it is sufficient to just get the hell away from them as the are demonic and using their system is like using the feces out of Satan's ass to try to get a remedy. If you don't get any coherent answers, then it should be safe to leave the courtroom and don't look back. Do not respond to them if they call you; just slide out the door and get out of Dodge.

Shifting the burden of proof

Regardless of the venue or the nature of the court, if they are going to make an accusations on you then it is up to them to prove it. The problem in most courts is that the judge and the prosecutor will work together to obstruct the process so that a lot of exculpatory evidence will be missing; especially when working with a jury. A simple question asked by many of us: “How does the constitution and the code apply to me?” They can't answer the question. They usually come up with the stupid answer: “The code applies because the code applies.” I've actually heard a govtard tell me this. One constantly must shift the burden of proof over to the accuser in order to even attempt to get a remedy. I suggest that people just stay away from them if at all possible because nothing good is going to happen when encountering a govtard.

The real remedy is the God Defense

I believe that the religions I have encountered have completely twisted what God the creator intended. All of us were born with the ability to know the difference between right and wrong. We were not born defective in that regard, and I believe that religion has twisted the reality so out of proportion, that to rely upon any religious writing is ludicrous. We have a latent knowledge of the basics which are present and self-evident in nature. We know it's wrong to kill people, to steal from them, and to lie. I think we would all be better off just focusing on raising our own moral standards, because government and religion will not help us do that. But if we simply follow the natural law that the God who created us established we could all do a lot better. The best defense is to use the natural law and the commandments against evil whenever we find it. Evil cannot stand to hear about the commandments, nor can it tolerate to hear about anything good. And that's why when confronted with a conflict with a government or religion, it is my suggestion that people simply use these commandments to the fullest and I'm certain they will get better results. The God Defense is simply the idea of using what God created for us and to abide in the natural law. It's the only thing works consistently.  If evil cannot overthrow the natural law and the commandments, then it only makes sense to use it.

Walter Allen Thompson has a new book called Natural Law: The True Supreme Law of the Land