Understanding Jurisdiction

(This is an article that got me started on the oath issue.  Refusing the oath is still a powerful defense against any legal persecution.)

Anonymous

In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be "anti-government." They don’t talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken." The protest obviously didn’t happen here. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here’s what happened.

The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to given to the extremely high cost of paper. Contrary to what you’ve been taught, it was not the invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. "Feud" is Old English for "oath." The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved land, itself, save to hunter/gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to farming. So that’s how the nobility made their wealth. No, they didn’t push a plow. They had servants to do it. The nobility wouldn’t sell their land, nor would they lease it. They rented it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you couldn’t have moved out? Then you’d have a feel for what feudalism was all about.

A tenant wasn’t a freeman. He was a servant to the (land)lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate). That oath established a servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an "income tax." The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a "personal and dependent deductions."

The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and unallieged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they’d also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He’d learn a trade. He’d never need to become a tenant farmer. He’d keep what he earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven. The tradesmen didn’t need adolescents; they needed someone strong enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under 13. By age 21 he’d have learned enough to practice the craft. That’s when the contract expired. He was then called a "journeyman." Had he made a journey? No. But, if you pronounce that word, it is "Jur-nee-man." He was a "man," formerly ("nee"), bound by oath ("jur)." He’d then go to work for a "master" (craftsman). The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he felt he was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that’s quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he’d be recognized by the market as a "master" (craftsman) and people would be begging him to take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21! The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice’s father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds (means "gold") as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths.

When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally swore to "serve gold." Only gold. He swore he’d only work for pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very benevolent master: gold! (Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They’d love to have you think that the "G" in the middle of their logo stands for "God." The obvious truth is that it stands for "GOLD.")

Then the Bible came to print. The market for this tome wasn’t the wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants. They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the tradesmen were the market was that they’d also been taught how to read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich (and the priests) nobody else knew how to read.

These men were blown away when they read Jesus’ command against swearing oaths (Matt 5: 33-37). This was news to them. For well over a millennia they’d been trusting that the church - originally just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about an eye-opener.

Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths there’d have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. "Livid" might be a better term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better scheme. You call it the "Reformation."

In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and then. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty.

Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, "None." The churches all said (and still say), "None, except . . ." Who do you think was (is) right?

The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of England. But with every new "reformed" church still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech. But they couldn’t establish a church, which followed Jesus’ words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those who’d kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one’s hat when he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn’t miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term "you" was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior. "Thee" was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun "thee" or by their Christian names, "George, Peter, Robert, etc." We call these folk "Quakers." That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them had told the judge that he’d better "Quake before the Lord, God almighty." The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, "Thee are the quaker here." They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer (as you shall soon see), and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who’d been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn’t just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new "Reformed Churches." 

Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.

But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can’t go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%). But it made a deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax as a tax "without jurisdiction,’ at least so far as they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they didn’t have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was "no jurisdiction." And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.

That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who’d thought the Quakers were "extremists" suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the unsworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes weren’t enough to offset these further losses. The tithe (income) tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an oath. Who’d then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the payment for that use established in the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They’d always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as equals?

They began to use the term "anarchy." But England was a monarchy, not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so those in government thought. There’s an aspect of a monarchy that Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, "jump." Everyone jumps.

Why do they jump? Simple. It’s a crime to NOT jump. To "willfully fail (hey, there’s a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command" is considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.

Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that wasn’t possible. There really was "no jurisdiction." And that would have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally!

A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a simple matter of black and white. Jesus said "swear not at all." They opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant’s oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one’s self. He refused to accept the administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes.

That expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treasons against the crown. In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they weren’t filled as you’d envision them. The men who’d refused the oaths weren’t there. Their children were. There was a "Stand-in" law allowing for that. There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a married man in prison existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of a petty crime to have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table, without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society. But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood- in for the breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to the family earnings.

That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.) Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been set free. That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. 

There were highwaymen afoot on every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they’d exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos (and nearly anarchy: "no crown") came to be, not as the result of the refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus’ words didn’t bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an "affirmation in lieu of oath." The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they’d been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath "by thy head." Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy!

When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation. That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it’s the opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can’t be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession.

Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official "fail" to perform his lawful duties, he’d evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that’s still the situation. It’s just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn’t apportioned, and couldn’t be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn’t absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return." Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn’t be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn’t apply. Make sense?

Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs standing." The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question couldn’t have come up.

Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer. That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. 

Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it’s far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That’s a very strange concept at law. Actually, it’s impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment.

The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn’t say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That’s absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers’ incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don’t have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.

Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, "Man, I’d never be so foolish as to claim that." I’ll betcha $100 I can prove that you did it and that you’ll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.

Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It’s common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you’d need to be under oath, right? Right. There’s no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it’s a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to claim that you’re under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.

You’ve read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you can’t even be placed in jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.

The term "penalties" is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn’t you just state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There’s a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That’s why you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath spoken), allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury (especially for a perjury of official oath). You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You aren’t under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You can’t be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that the government wouldn’t try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction (oath spoken) where there was none.

Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you’ll be charged with "willful failure to file," a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!

Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed) before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge. If he didn’t list it, then swore that the form was "true, correct and complete," he could be charged and convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the "gross" and "net income" lines, forcing NO answer on the "tax due" line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of "testimony."

Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance.

There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court. The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a "failure." That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.

However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.

The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements "(I’m) under penalties of perjury" and "I’m not a federal official or employee" would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. Can’t have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for "willful failure" where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they weren’t federal persons. Unfortunately, they didn’t tell the court that while under oath. A most curious phenomenon occurs at "willful failure" trials where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he isn’t a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that’s surely what he’d try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he’s not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the "perjury clause" on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he’s under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties. It’s still a matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). 

That hasn’t changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is "voluntary," in the beginning, but "compulsory" once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. 

But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers (including you) would vanish to zero. It’s still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don’t immediately realize it. Yes, it’s a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You’ve wondered who are persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective.

The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the "jurisdiction" of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.

After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they couldn’t vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren’t about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that. It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren’t about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right to secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them didn’t have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!

Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves. The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal officials, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.

Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of office of a federal officer (information). Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with a perjury. It’s all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be extended is ... perjury.

You must understand "jurisdiction." That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what "jurisdiction" means. You didn’t WILLFULLY claim that you were "Under penalties of perjury" on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn’t realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just didn’t give those words any thought. What do you do when you discover you’ve made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have been affected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes. You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be "under oath" a perjury of which might be "twice" penalized. Explain that you’ve never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you’d ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you’ll most certainly not make that mistake again! That’ll be the end of any possibility that you’ll ever be charged with "willful failure to file." Too simple? No, it’s only as simple as it’s supposed to be. Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction, by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you aren’t under oath, and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided, on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman can’t be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here.

It’s a matter of history. European history, American history, and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you’ve never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does that. Funny how that works.

Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers "Swear not at all." That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who’d farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with "sedition" for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He’d "tear down the temple" (a government building). At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!

The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, "I adjure you in the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition)." An adjuration is a "compelled oath." Jesus then broke his silence, responding, "You have so said."

He didn’t "take" the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he’d said so. That’s what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, "You have so said," Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn’t get jurisdiction.

Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of "person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate "marveled at that." He’d never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. 

Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn’t kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How’s that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn’t do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.

In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it’s a "lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.

Jesus said, "Swear no oaths," extending that even to oaths which don’t name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus’ followers, suits that they couldn’t answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call "judgement proof." They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court (without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That wasn’t a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!

It’s rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus’ commands out of a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It’s all a matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can’t abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. We can’t serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That’s certain.

As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even affirmations, this writer honestly can’t envision. Certainly it would have been anarchy (no crown). Would it have also been chaos? My initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I can’t envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly violating Jesus’ command. When the British crown attempted to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus’ own death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a compelled oath and an offered oath.

The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.

Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned, without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bringing a complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury (a panel of sworn men), to punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind. Even if you can’t, you still have to obey His command. That will set you free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths, I guess we won’t see how it will function until it arrives.

Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE claims of being under oath (of office) on those income tax forms. You claimed "jurisdiction." Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. It worked 400 years ago. It’ll still work. It’s the only thing that’ll work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason extended to you (or your daughters). You can cause it. Know and tell this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to realize that you aren’t the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there’d be no servants! No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That’s only money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure "between the lines" of history, they can run the same money game. Pass this essay on to your Christian friends. But save a copy. Will it to your grandchildren. Someday, they too will probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell the truth. That will set you free - and it’ll scare the government silly.

Author unknown

Related:

Swear Not at All

Nature Always Recovers

If you look at the above photo, you can see the power of nature.  This insignificant weed plant has popped through the cement patio as if it wasn't even there.  While the concrete is strong and seemingly invincible, the concrete is no match for this little weed plant.  And to me it suggests that no matter what men and women want to do, nature will prevail over everything if given enough time.  And that there is no force on earth that can stop the natural forces that were created by God.  No one on the earth is exempt from the natural aspects of life.  We all breath the same air, drink the same water, and eat the same food.  While the styles may differ, the substance is always the same.  It is the natural law that possesses the power of life as God intended.  The natural forces should be an encouragement, especially those who are becoming depressed over the state of society today.

Natural laws are governed by the same power

Natural laws always trump man-made laws because they were established by the creator.  But with the availability of the various media, evil people try to overthrow the natural order and attempt to establish their perverted "new world order."  The cure from the disease of the new world order is a good healthy dose of God's world order.  The above photo is an excellent example of that, and it also demonstrates the futility of engaging in evil.  At the end of the day, the evil loses, even though they may think they are winning.  The problem is that evil has no place in the natural order, and it will eventually implode the whole political and religious systems.

The physical; the spiritual

There is no argument that the physical must reside within the natural order.  Our physical bodies are the same as every other man and woman in the basic function of life.  This cannot be changed as it is a part of the natural law.  While man can attempt to assist or destroy the natural life of a man, man cannot overpower the natural laws.  If a man abides outside of the natural law, he does harm to himself and others he encounters and eventually self-destructs.  The spiritual must also reside within the natural order.  While many will debate about religious or spiritual issues, there is only one truth and that truth is what must be discovered in order to learn to live within the spiritual-natural order.  This natural order was set up a certain way and no one, outside of God himself can change it.  Let's look at the feeble attempts to change the natural order.

Fornication and Homosexuality

The evidence in the natural order shows that homosexuality is not only unnatural, but it is evil.  It is never found in nature and the purpose of any kind of sex is primarily for the procreation of more people.
While sex may be a fun thing to do, the danger of it is that it is done in the wrong context of fornication.  The natural order for sexual activity is within a marriage between a man and a woman.  However, the fornicators and the homos attempt to destroy the proper order that God set forth and attempts to establish their perversion as some kind of "alternate" lifestyle.  The bad fruit of this kind of thinking is evident in society today.  Once society has been corrupted to the extent that we see today, it is obvious that the bad fruit of fornication (includes homosexuals) shows up in broken families.  The damage that is done to society, in general, is immeasurable.  Religions do not help as they partner with government to screw up the natural order.  The problem for them is that they may try to go against the natural order, but they will always fail.  Again, look at the cement on the photo.  It looks strong, but against a little weed created by God, it is nothing.

Natural order produces harmony within mankind

In order for a man to achieve happiness, he must stay within the natural order the way God created it. The various religions may have opinions about what is right and what is wrong, but the facts show that their is only one truth.  It is better for a man to learn how to think critically, and then learn how to properly apply the truth.  The truth will always stand against the lie.  Again, the lie is weak and it holds no value.  When pushed by the truth, the lie falls down in disorder.  Look at the above photo again.  Think of the cement as the lie and the weed as the truth.  The truth always prevails.  The way to a good life is always in truth and in honor.  However, the society in general, seems to be on the same level as Sodom and Gomorrah; maybe even worse.  The young people in the colleges and universities are not given any kind of moral instruction because the schools are not capable of it.  The natural law is in direct conflict with the state, State, or STATE.  The "United States" has the most hideous government and has spread the evil doctrines of communism all over the world. There aren't too many people in the world who would choose to be under the yoke of communism, and the idea of government in this fashion is a nightmare.  The State does not want a moral population; but rather, a sleazy collage of immature perverts to set a bad example on the rest of the young people.  I might suggest that one of the best ways to lose your mind is to go to college; unless of course you can actually learn something useful.  The other side of this is that by avoiding all of these unnatural traps, start thinking about your own benefit and judge your own actions by using the natural law.  When I am within those natural laws, I always do better.

Nature Always Recovers

The catastrophe of the new world order will be overcome by the natural order; the natural order always wins.  That's just how things are, so that when a man makes a good choice, he is farther ahead than the one who violates the natural law just to get along.  Rather than being depressed about all of the evil, make sure you do everything you can to get it out of your life.  Remember, the knowledge of evil is not wisdom.  It's good to know what to avoid, but after some basic knowledge, it does no good wallowing in the cesspool of the knowledge of evil.  God set forth his creation and nothing will be able to destroy it.  I think it is better to get on his side, than on the satanic.  The new world order freaks would like to have the people think that they are all powerful and that the "State" is their god.  That is so profoundly stupid that it is hardly worth mentioning.  However, by being more careful about our own choices will help us to exit out of the new world order into something much, much, better.

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

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

Separating from the New World Order

There is no shortage of information on the "new world order".  There are a lot of websites which deal with the exposure of the evil doings of govtards and religious leaders; one is not any better than the other.  Their product is essentially everything that is bad and that goes against God's natural order of life.  The purpose of the new world order is to bring misery, death and hell upon mankind.  Most government and religious leaders are demented wretches.  While my language is harsh, the facts show that this description is as accurate as it is crude.  There is really no political opposition to the new world order because most groups are connected at the hip with it. The most prominent tool of the govtards is communism.  All of the countries that I am aware of are practicing communists, socialists, fascists, and "globalists."  Globalist means communism for everyone.  The new age movement is just another form of satanism.  The underlying foundation (if you want to call it that) of the new world order is satanism which has manifested itself in government through oath-taking and communism.  God's world order simply uses the natural laws with men and women exercising their natural rights regardless of what any government legislates.  Any government with any authority would have to respect the natural order and history has shown that they are not capable of it.  However, the new world order is weak as it appears strong.  It has nothing good going for it and those who are influenced by it will continue to be unhappy and miserable.  The purpose of this article is not so much to expose the new world order, but I'm going to present some ideas as to how to separate from it and minimize the influence that it has on our hearts and minds.

Separating the mind

There is nothing to be learned from a socialist or a communist. There is nothing to be learned from any government which violates the natural law and the natural rights that come with a man or woman's own existence.  The government doesn't have authority to do anything that would violate God's natural laws.  For instance: if Congress enacted legislation that suspended the law of gravity, it would have no authority because it doesn't have the power to do it. The law of gravity is what it is and no one can change it.  This is what I mean by natural law.  A man has the natural right to live his life in peace and to keep all of the fruit of his labor.  Whether he is paid in Federal Reserve Notes or fiddlesticks, the facts show that anything less than keeping all of the fruit of one's labor is a form of slavery.  So all of the things we have learned as children, have to be re-examined for their veracity and there will have to be many mental adjustments before any progress can be mad.  The mind has to be pulled away from this nonsense.  Most forms of media are completely useless and they are as open sewer lines into the mind.  There is a constant inculcating of satanic gibberish the fouls the mind and turns people around from God's natural order.  So the idea here is to limit the amount of intake until we can get the exposure to it down to a more manageable level. Here is what I do for myself to make sure I'm not taken in by rotten information:

• I shut down the television completely and especially I avoid any of the mainstream media.
• I read various internet sites, however, I do not trust any writing or any video that may lead me into useless information.  I do use the internet for research and I do read some news sites.  But I am very cautious as to not be taken in by bogus stories.
• I do not go to any churches or religious groups because none of them believe in what they say they believe.  My experience in this has been with "Christians" who talk a good talk, but in their deeds, they are just as bad as anyone else.  But all religions seems to be like this.  They distort sound doctrines which instill high morality in order to make themselves look righteous. When speaking with any religious leader, one has to approach the man with the idea that he's probably lying.  I believe that God is the same for everyone and that none of the religious groups I am aware of reflect the true teachings of God which is self-evident in nature.  Once bad religion gets into someone's mind, it is very difficult to get it out; it can be done, but why go through it if you don't have to?
• I work on matching my own actions to God's commandments which conform to the natural laws.  Only those commandments which conform to the natural laws should be followed and the ones that don't should--at the very least--should be put aside or avoided i.e. circumcision and the Sabbath.  Most religions can't agree which day the Sabbath is on and this is an example of the stupidity of religion.  Circumcision and the Sabbath are doctrines which cannot be reasoned with common sense nor can they be observed in nature.  Just because someone wrote them down a few thousand years ago, doesn't mean that they are true.
• I do not vote for any reason as it seems to give the politician who wins more credibility than he deserves.  Voting is like contributing to the problem.  Voting for a bunch of communists isn't going to help anything.  And yes, whether they are "liberal" or "conservatives" they are all essentially practicing communists.  Some of the voters just haven't figured it out yet.  Democracy in its political form is like two wolves and a sheep deciding who is going to be for dinner.  Also, it is not a good idea to sign any form that requires any oath, and in order to vote, one must swear an oath.  Don't give the govtards the oath.  A lot of problems always follows oath-taking.
• Do not listen to any politician as they are all controlled one way or the other by satanic forces. Most of them don't know the truth and even if they do, they dare not speak up against their leader: Satan.  
• Listen to your conscience as this is one of the most practical ways to stay out of trouble.  If you're not sure what it means, pay attention to it anyway and refrain from the thought or action that may be provoking it.  I remember times where my conscience kicked in but I did the bad deed anyway and incurred the payback that always comes with bad actions.  Take control over your own self by using the conscience, commandments, and the natural law and things will go much better.
• Keep your guard up and do not be taken in by anyone.  If you see someone who seems righteous and then gets caught up in idolatry, adultery, or whatever you know that there's a problem.  If they are giving satanic hand signals, or using satanic symbols in their literature, they are telling you what they believe.  For instance: I was sent a nice bible, Geneva bible, and right on the front of the cover was a pagan symbol.  It came from a Baptist organization.  Now, unless the written material I read can be verified, I simply put it aside as I don't want to have my mind twisted anymore.  Watch for revealing hand signals, and stay away from people who use them.
• Separate away from groups and focus on reforming yourself.  Groups of people are bad because you don't know who is going to stab who in the back: figuratively and literally.  So it is best to make the observations and then separate from the evil whenever it occurs.  If you do join a group, just watch your back.
• Do not sign any documents "under the penalties of perjury" and don't swear any oaths.  I've written a lot about oaths on this blog and as time goes on, I can see the value in not swearing any oaths.  People who swear oaths bring a curse upon themselves, so it is better to not do it at all.
• Learn to be responsible for your own actions and be humble enough to admit mistakes.  Once the mistake is identified, then it is time to repent and to take action to make a correction. It doesn't work to anyone's benefit to keep making the same mistakes over and over again and expecting a good result.
• Remember, there is really nothing to be desired nor is there any power in the new world order. It's just a bunch of crap that will destroy those who involve themselves in it.  Separate from them.

One of the easiest things that I've done for myself is to stop swearing oaths.  That seems to stop the progress of evil right in its tracks.  Make sure you don't sign anything under the "penalties of perjury."  Don't let any of their garbage creep into your life.  If you can keep mostly to yourself, chances are that you will not stab yourself in the back.  But by being separated from the influences of the new world order will render their teachings impotent.


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