A Real Hero … For Once

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here’s a news article about him: 

MIAMI (AP) — Drivers at drunken-driving checkpoints don’t have to speak to police or even roll down their windows. They just have to place their license and registration on the glass, along with a note saying they have no comment, won’t permit a search and want a lawyer. At least, that’s the view of a South Florida attorney.

Warren Redlich contends the commonly-used checkpoints violate drivers’ constitutional rights. He and an associate have created a website detailing their tactics. They’ve even made videos, one viewed more than 2 million times on the Internet, of their refusals to interact with police.

Doubts over the legality — and wisdom — of the tactics have been expressed by legal experts and local authorities.

Redlich, of Boca Raton, said his goal is not to protect drunken drivers, but to protect the innocent. He says some of his clients who passed breath-alcohol tests still faced DUI charges because the officer said he detected an odor of alcohol or the person had slurred speech.

“The point of the card is, you are affirmatively asserting your rights without having to speak to the police and without opening your window,” he said.

Not surprisingly, this does not sit well with law enforcement officials who insist drivers must speak in order to make the checkpoints work. And, they point out the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 upheld the use of random DUI checkpoints, concluding they don’t violate constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The widely viewed video was shot Dec. 31 at a checkpoint in Levy County, Florida, by Redlich’s associate Jeff Gray. In it, Gray approaches the officers with the flyer, his license, registration and insurance card in a plastic bag dangling outside the slightly open car window. The officers briefly examine it with a flashlight and then allow him to continue.

In bold type, the flyer states: “I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer.”

Police across Florida have seen the video. A spokeswoman for a large metro police agency says Gray’s experience at the checkpoint doesn’t mean the no-talk tactic is legitimate.

“He was allowed to proceed because he clearly was not driving while intoxicated,” said Veda Coleman-Wright, spokeswoman for the Broward Sheriff’s Office. “If those officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver was impaired, they would have investigated further.”

There have been other incidents of motorists refusing to speak at DUI checkpoints around the country. In the Southwest, some drivers resist cooperating at Border Patrol checkpoints miles from the Mexican border that are aimed at finding immigrants in the country illegally.

Based on differences in DUI laws, Redlich has created versions of his flyer for 10 states with more on the way.

There are no comprehensive statistics on how many drunken drivers get caught at checkpoints, which are usually announced publicly in advance and must adhere to a strict set of court-approved rules.

For example, the Miami-Dade Police Department uses a “neutral” method of selecting which drivers get stopped, such as every single vehicle or maybe every third vehicle. The Miami Police Department uses the “chute” method in which 10 cars are randomly diverted from a busy thoroughfare to a side road and checked simultaneously by officers, followed by 10 more.

At a recent checkpoint, Miami Police Sgt. Luis Taborda said it’s as much about deterrence and visibility as making DUI arrests. Taborda has frequently brought bad news to a family when someone is killed or seriously injured by a drunken driver.

“I’m the one that has to knock on somebody’s door and see the pain that person has to go through,” he said.

Legal experts said it’s unclear whether Redlich’s tactics will hold up in court. David S. Weinstein, a former Miami state and federal prosecutor now in private practice, said most states consider driving a privilege and drivers give up some rights.

“You may have to roll your window down and interact” with officers, Weinstein said. “These guys are all pushing the envelope.”

Redlich, however, said to his knowledge his flyers have been successful every time they have been used. His goal is not to challenge or confront police, he said.

“I’m not anti-cop. I’m anti-bad government and anti-bad cop. I support good cops,” he said. “I would like if police didn’t waste their time with something like checkpoints and would focus their attention on violent crime.”

Share Button


  1. I wonder if you can learn even more by reading about men of infamy, rather the supposed titans of the ruling class…

    Ideas are important. But ultimately, ideas should serve men. Men should never be sacrificed to serve ideas. There has to some winners behind an idea. An idea in and of itself should never be paramount. Someone somewhere must benefit. Or it should be discarded and work should commence on a new idea.

    Marx’s ideas were more important to him, even than his own life. It seems he went too far in pursuit of knowledge. And neglected himself to a ridiculous extent.

    Karl Marx’s life and attitudes were shaped by hidradenitis suppurativa, Sam Shuster noted in the British Journal of Dermatology.

    One of its symptoms is alienation – a concept Marx, a martyr to boils and carbuncles, put into words as he wrote Das Kapital.

    The condition was described as early as 1839 by a French physician, Alfred Velpeau. But ideas crossed the Channel less readily than wine and Marx’s true condition was never diagnosed, Professor Shuster says.

    Hidradenitis suppurativa is a disease of the apocrine sweat glands, found in the armpits and the groin.

    The skin in the affected areas shows a mixture of blackheads, lumps that look like boils, spots and areas that leak pus.

    Karl Marx’s Concept Of Alienation Result of Genital Boils http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/karl-marx-s-concept-of-alienation-result-of-genital-boils-t1563.html

    Successful Treatment of Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa With Anakinra

    The Tragedy of Karl Marx

    A real anti-hero? Or is every pursuit of knowledge good, no matter the consequences.

    Marx’s work in economics laid the basis for much of the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital, and subsequent economic thought. He is one of the founders of sociology and social science. He published numerous books during his lifetime, the most notable being The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.

    Truth About Karl Marx – Stefan Molyneux

    Intellectuals. From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky. Paul Johnson

    Some takeaways from Molyneux’s video about Marx.

    Most left wing movements did tend to be dominated by really rotten nasty men like Marx – who treated women rottenly along with everyone else.

    It’s fascinating how Marx was funded by Engels, who was a very successful businessman. I personally think that Marxist theory was developed by the business world and meant to be used in service of capitalism in some way.

    Marxism is especially lucrative for international businessmen, because think about it. Say I am a businessman who is from some rich country like the USA. I’d love to stir up socialist revolutions in foreign countries which depress their own economies in ways that make them dependent upon me. Modern warfare seems mostly to be about inventing and popularizing really bad ideas in the nations who are your greatest competitors. That’s a lot of what’s happened to America. Competing nations are winning that war. Fill our people’s heads with terrible ideas.

    What Marx wrote was a kind of propagandistic religion all of which serves the interests of capitalism and industrialization and mass production. When you are a business elite, you almost NEED to pay people like Marx to propagandize to the masses. There is no real scarcity anymore, like before. You need some artificial way to impose it, so you can maintain your dominance and power.

    In this same way, feminists such as Gloria Steinem and Kate Millet also follow the same pattern of Marx. They’re plucked from obscurity and poverty, and then turned into celebrities by the publishing world.

    That’s the interesting thing about the way business works — it’s all “I scratch your back you scratch my back” in its approach. Meaning, if the publishing world and media was interested in promoting feminism, that is all because feminism was something the business community both wanted and was willing to pay for. It’s controlled opposition that clearly benefits the ruling class.

    In a way, Marx is right about capitalism in the sense that capitalists often do really evil things — however, he was deliberately misleading others about capitalism too. Because, he was WORKING for capitalists and everything he WROTE couldn’t be better calculated to provide just what they really wanted.

    Being officially anti-capitalist IS a propaganda tactic — you pretend to be against those very people who are funding you and who you are working for, so as to better mislead and brainwash the public.

    Feminists are similar in that they are anti-patriarchy — yet, if a patriarchy exists, feminists were both funded by it and surely are working for it and doing its bidding.

    Henry Ford, for instance, bankrolled feminism and if you examine his business interests, you can see why. But, before having the Ford Foundation establish feminism in colleges and universities by donating funds to gender studies departments, he officially declared himself to be an anti-feminist.

    Ford almost had to do that. Feminism would never have gotten as far as it has, if feminists had been honest about how this was all about increasing use of automobiles and consumption of oil. And providing a whole new source if relatively cheap labor.

    I have non-violent anarchist leanings, but I am not anti-capitalist in the way much of anarchism has been. Capitalism exists, it always has, it always will. It’s part of the whole money economy and all that.

    I’m more of an anti fascist — which is different from being anti-capitalist. Capitalism is, simply the way things have to work anyway. We need concentrations of wealth which then get funneled through the economy and make it run properly.

    However, capitalism can be said to properly works if it never loses sight of its purpose — which is, it’s all about efficiently producing things that people need and want. Capitalism becomes fascist when the goal of efficiency results in capitalists trying to undermine culture — aka, destroy all sorts of moral values which limited the efficiency of capitalist production. And to violent impose these things, not merely offer them as a free-market alternative.

    For instance, mothers taking care of their own children rather than dropping them off to an institutional daycare setting is something which lowers efficiency, and also lowers profits.

    It’s clearly fascist to say that women must therefore, in the name of efficiency, be forced to put their children in daycare and spend all their time working, so we can more efficiently produce more things. The “more things” women can buy because they work are really NOT WORTH the “time not spent” with their own children because they are forced to work.

    Feminism, however, refuses to acknowledge that reality — and pushes for more efficiency even when it’s not what people want. Women (and men) increasingly say, they wish work interfered less with family time.

    Feminists simply countermand the wishes and desires of women, in everything they push for. Where instead of pushing for family leave, they push for subsidized child care — even though, for both men and women, their biggest concern is how much work interferes with their family and social lives. THAT is fascism — and feminists take things to fascist extremes, when they try to undermine cultural values. And capitalism turns into fascism when it refuses to respect basic cultural or moral values that place LOVE and SOCIAL LIVES above WORK and PRODUCTION.

    It is a CULTURAL VALUE when you say that mothers should spend time with their children rather than put them in daycare so they can go out and work OUTSIDE the home. Feminists want to undermine that, and other cultural values, in the name of capitalist efficiency — and that’s what makes them fascist.

    IF the US were poor and didn’t have enough food or other important things, they might have a point. But we aren’t poor, we are lousy with Feminism however. And feminism militantly refuses to acknowledge that reality — and pushes for more efficiency and more regimentation of our lives, more limits and control over our social lives, even when it’s not at all what people really want.

    In other words, cultural values whereby people value things such as family, love, and good times should triumph over a capitalists’ desire to work everyone hard and efficiently until they are all used up.

    Fascism is the closest word I know of to describe where the elites of a country insist that productivity is so important, that it’s worth more than family, love, good times, healthy and stimulating life, and that it doesn’t matter if everyone disagrees, fascists will force people to forego their social lives in the name of efficiency. It enslaves people to an idea. And that is always wrong.

    Fascism of late, is where you have capitalists who, in the interests of higher profits, attempt to interfere with the social lives of populations, interfere with culture, and overall make societies more slave like. Except, of course, denigrating “higher profits” isn’t really the right thing to attack, because it isn’t necessarily about that.

    A lot of businessmen today are obsessed with accumulating more money in the short term, regardless of long term damage, and even when they don’t even know what to do with that money when they have it.

    They like to accumulate money because it’s all about the “process” for them. They are, in a way, victims of what’s wrong with our culture as are the non-productive kinds, I think.

    America is forcing both men and women to spend more time in work places with longer hours and more rigid rules that interfere with our personal and family lives — and it’s all in the name of greater and more efficient production, except in a world like the one we have today, that’s ridiculous.

    We don’t need more things, but we do need more free time and quality time and better social lives. And we don’t really need any more equality either, especially if it is defined solely access to material things. Even the poor are fat and spoiled rotten these days.

    Capitalism is fine and noble if done right, but it always should exist to serve the needs of people. Not, sacrifice people exist to serve the needs of a overheated capitalism rum amuck. Government regulation nevere really restrains capitalism and keeps it in its place — it’s only basic cultural values that do that.

    My take on EVIL businessmen and the wealth disparity are pretty simple. If you believe the wealthiest 1% don’t deserve the fruits of their rewards, then do ANYTHING except purchase what they are selling. Don’t put them at the mercy of the idiot enforcers of the ruling class.

    Don’t like it that Bill Gates is so wealthy, don’t buy his products. Don’t like that he gets tax advantages or pays lower taxes, don’t waste your time listening to the ruling class and their scams that give them to him and the elites, and then triples the rates on the middle class instead.

    The top earners are not the evil ones, you are. Gate’s is not exploiting Americans any more than we are allowing ourselves to be exploited. Don’t like Rupert Murdoch, don’t watch his programming. Don’t like wealthy CEO’s of hedge funds, don’t give them your money.

    Don’t like wealthy bank owners, don’t get one of their credit cards or engage in a loan with one of those evil corporations, and by all means don’t “invest” with them, because you know their just going to “exploit” YOU.

    Find a company that provides a service that you actually need, that is not part of what you think you hate and do business with them, OR better still, learn to do it for yourself.

    Not slamming those who dislike billionaires individually, but rather calling out an erroneous mindset collectively. You have to take responsibility for the way things are. You have no one to blame but yourself. There is no one to change, but yourself.

  2. Sneering consequentialists scoff. Your sovereign scams are a waste of time. As are muslim and christian religious scams. As is the libertarian scam according to the clover majority. As are all scams not sanctioned by the United Nations of scams.

    Why read Mary Croft’s books of scams. I’m already an accredited expert of my local state of domicile scam.

    Redistribution means the most people benefit. Sure there’s a predatory ruling class. But that’s always been there. Better the scam I already know and learned about in school. The scam my family and teachers taught me. It’s a lot of effort to think from first principles of what you could be if you ignored all the scams.

    The Las Vegas scam, is connected to the Clark County NV scam. The Clark County scam is connected to the state of Nevada scam. The state of Nevada scam is connected to the United States federal scam. The United States federal scam is connected to the United Nations scam. Dem bones, dem bones, dem statist dancing bones. Doin’ the spooky state skeleton dance.

    Being made of bones I can’t never be free. So I learn to forgo my chance.

    So the words are connected to the sentence. The sentence connected to the paragraph. The paragraph connected to the chapter. The chapter connected to the book. The book connected to the library. The library competes to feed the screen play. The screen play competes to feed the tv show and movie.
    The tv show and movie is where the freedom is. I’m free to write and read whatever I want.

    I can learn the dem bones back to front. And be sure to pass it on for a thousand years. Read a book. Read the news. Think about the skeletons as they’ve always been. Scoff at all who say it could be difference.

    I’m just a sad old dancing spook. I never live my life I just read and maybe write a book. I can’t admit nearly everything I know’s a scam, and I’ve been sorely took. That would take revaluation of who I am, at that I dare not look.

  3. A psychologist once told me, “Don’t ever do anything for any male over the age of 10 unless you are specifically asked.” We are destroying our children by prolonging childhood. This is by design of the corporate monsters. Kids ought to be out doing what they want by age 12 and we ought to be available ONLY for counsel.

    I told my boys that in my books, age 13 is the age of majority. It seems the purpose of the so-called educational system is not to educate us to be free-thinking natural beings, but rather to distort what is really going on in the world and also convince us that we will be happy if we just get a good education in order to get a good job in order to make a lot of money in order to buy as many worthless items as possible, and thereby become dependent upon them, in order to create as much debt as possible, thereby enslaving us on all counts – programming, slave-labour, debt, addiction, and ultimate
    confiscation of property – the first plank of the Communist Manifesto.

    Please keep in mind this goal as you read and it will become clear that not only is this precisely what is going on but also that there is a lawful and spiritual way out of it. Your peace of mind depends upon it – and isn’t this really all we truly want?

    I knew at age nine, that there was something drastically wrong. Certainly the mere fact that someone knew that there were starving children meant they had the means to do something about it and I noticed nothing was being
    done about it … by those with the means.

    Sure, CARE packages, which depended upon the generosity of the people, were being sent yet I soon learned that the reason the problem continued is because someone wanted it that way. It would have been easy to correct if indeed the PTB wanted it corrected – same as every other ‘problem’ in the world.

    So I learned at a very tender age that the entire system is ‘designed not to work’ and hence, ‘things are not what they seem’.

    – Mary E. Croft

    • Hi Tor,

      Agreed on arrested development/endless adolescence. I was reading about Burr and Hamilton again the other day and your observation reminded of the fact that both of these titans were effectively emancipated adults at age 16 – and behaved as men not boys. Both would have been appalled by the spectacle of today’s Peter Pan culture.

      • I just read up a bit on Burr. A better bred and far more widely read Kardashian, wasn’t he. What did he really do but muck about and collect a lot expensive things, and live a grandiose life of leisure and opulence. But no substance. A great waste of intellect and potential on frivolous Francisco D’Anconian nothingness.

        I actually don’t mind watching the Kardashians. And Burr is a powerful figure in dominant scams of his era. But sitting about in fancy mansions and dandy clothes posing for the best selfie of his “regal profile, erect baring and chiseled forehead.” ugggh. To retool his best known quote more to my liking:

        Law is whatever [scam] is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.

        I guess it comes with the territory. You’re best off writing about what the paying public wants to read. I’m sure there’s many fans of Burr and Hamilton. Mencken did so much because he cannibalized his inherited businesses to do so. He made a small fortune, by beginning with a large fortune.
        Last words; Burr was an atheist. Burr’s last words were a response to the efforts of his friend, Reverend P.J. Van Pelt, to get Burr to state that there was a God. “On that subject I am coy.”

        America is sick and dying against the forces of socialism and communism because it was already vulnerable and dangerously lacking in merit based traditions long before these weak-sister scams ever came around.

        Give me a drooling St Bernard mutt that lugs barrels and works for a living over a purebred dog show prancer any day.



        I much prefer to hear the doings of science, explorers like Lewis and Clark, and even horse trader deal makers such as the financial backers that enabled the Louisiana Purchase.

        I’m not dismissing the importance of Burr or Hamilton. It just seems that for the 1000th time that whatever succeeds is accepted without experiment or deeper theorizing.

        Whatever gets the best results. Whatever desired ends happened, regardless of how idiotic it all is, regardless of the means. The be all end all of discussion is whatever works. That for all the talk of NAP, we’re here at the end of the day to discuss a few restricted sidecar constraints on the usual consequentialism of every other scam worshipping American simpleton.

        It’s okay to be a Robert Heinlein. But being a Philip K Dick is going too far and not worth sacrificing your life and creature comforts over. Actually, that does make a lot of sense, it’s not like I’m willing to endure suffering for my soup like some Soup Nazi or anything.

  4. Maybe there is a creating spirit called god. And a terrible destroying spirit, called devil. Even if true, that isn’t all there is. That’s just one more false dichotomy. My life is my own, I declare bankruptcy to whoever it was that created the atoms that make up my body. I declare indifference to whoever is destroying the atoms that make up my body.

    I’m not repaying any creative spirits. If they send spirits after me to try and collect, then that makes them assholes. I’m not wasting a minute fighting a destructive spirit. Molon labe for whatever it is of mine you seek to destroy. Let those two settle their old scores without me. I’m trying to live my own life. I’ll live my own way, wile they continue to live theirs.

    If they really are responsible for all that is. Maybe they’re bored with the same old thing after all this time. Whatever the case, doesn’t matter to me. I don’t want to help create more things under a universal dominion. I want to create something that exists for itself. Something that doesn’t require or desire being under someone else’s dominion either.
    – – –
    [Kurt Vonnegurt]
    What the Gospels actually said was: don’t kill anyone until you are absolutely sure they aren’t well connected.

    The name of the new religion is The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent. . . The two chief teachings of this religion are these: Puny man can do nothing at all to help or please God Almighty, and Luck is not the hand of God.

    How on earth can religious people believe in so much arbitrary, clearly invented balderdash?….The acceptance of a creed, any creed, entitles the acceptor to membership in the sort of artificial extended family we call a congregation. It is a way to fight loneliness. Any time I see a person fleeing from reason and into religion, I think to myself, There goes a person who simply cannot stand being so goddamned lonely anymore.

    I am of course a skeptic about the divinity of Christ and a scorner of the notion that there is a God who cares about how we are or what we do. … Religious skeptics often become very bitter towards the end, as did Mark Twain. … I know why I will become bitter. I will finally realize that I have had it right all along: that I will not see God, that there is no heaven or Judgement Day.

    The trouble with God isn’t that He so seldom makes Himself known to us… He’s holding you and me and everybody else by the scruff of the neck practically _constantly_… Contentedly adrift in the cosmos, were you?… That is a perfect description of a non-epiphany, that rarest of moments, when God Almighty lets go of the scruff of your neck and lets you be human for a little while.

    The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, ‘There’s a Chaplain who never visited the front.’

    Artists use frauds to make human beings seem more wonderful than they really are. Dancers show us human beings who move much more gracefully than human beings really move. Films and books and plays show us people talking much more entertainingly than people really talk, make paltry human enterprises seem important. Singers and musicians show us human beings making sounds far more lovely than human beings really make. Architects give us temples in which something marvelous is obviously going on. Actually, practically nothing is going on.

    Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying.
    [Kurt Vonnegut]

  5. Annette Kellerman was famous for advocating the right of women to wear a one-piece bathing suit, which was controversial in her time. According to an Australian magazine, “In the early 1900s, women were expected to wear cumbersome dress and pantaloon combinations when swimming.

    In 1907, at the height of her popularity, Kellerman was arrested on Revere Beach, Massachusetts, for indecency – she was wearing one of her fitted one-piece costumes.

    The popularity of her one-piece suits resulted in the “Annette Kellermans”, as they were known, which were the first step to modern swimwear. The “Annette Kellerman” is the direct ancestor of the unitard.

    In 1908, after a study of 3000 women, A doctor at Harvard University dubbed her the Perfect Woman because of the similarity of her physical attributes to the Venus de Milo.

    Old London Street Scenes 1903

    Delhi Durbar – color film of India in 1911

    All Five Continents Together – Stockholm 1912 Olympic Games

  6. Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts is the belief that certain sacred texts document an awareness of the natural world that was later discovered by technology and science

    Foreknowledge happens to those who correctly read the ancient sacred texts. They are granted a higher awareness of the natural world.

    4knowledge of gawd

    If we assume that God’s knowledge of the future is true (which evangelicals all agree upon), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise. But by what are their destinies determined?

    Foreknowledge and Free Will

    Fatalism is the thesis that human acts occur by necessity and hence are unfree. Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free.

    Theological fatalists say (1) there is a deity who infallibly knows the entire future, and (2) human beings have free will in the strong sense usually called libertarian.

    But the theological fatalist argument seems to show that (1) and (2) are incompatible; the only way consistently to accept (2) is to deny (1). Those philosophers who think there is a way to consistently maintain both (1) and (2) are called compatibilists about infallible foreknowledge and human free will.

    – so if there is all this and it is true. then where are its real heroes? how can you be a christian and have a drivers license. a birth certificate. a social security number. especially in this satanic state of america. how do you even begin to reconcile the two. it doesn’t make sense.

    do the sacred texts mean what they say or don’t they. are you going to live up to them or aren’t you. why is any christian asking anything of eric, when they haven’t even met the most basic requirements of what their books demand.

    you see the muslims and you know they’re living by their book. as crazy at that book might seem to you. why can’t you do the same, and tear down the berlin wall of american secular governance. are the muslims better than the christians. are they now the real chosen and adherents to the word. what gives?

  7. Maybe I’m just an old leftist xenophile, but I’m coming around to ЯΞ√’s way of thinking on this Mary Croft business as well.

    I know the scriptures due to my upbringing. But for nearly everyone else, there should be the same freedoms made available whether they care to read them or not, right? It’s not required to argue using Scriptural References is it.

    Mary Croft is saying commerce as currently practice is a completely invalid farce that it is imperative we refuse to participate in.

    She advocates total rejection of the state. She counsels a course of complete individual anarchy in regard to any manmade authorities, correct?

    No one can call themselves any kind of christian, and then a few seconds later start speaking in the language of manmade law, which is a mortal sin against the creator’s natural law.

    Now we return to the notions of the founding of America before the articles of confederation were abandoned in favor of a system primarily geared to assuring the complete repayment the colony’s war debt creditors.
    – – –

    More ideas of another commercial matrix denying hero:

    We must not give, to any fiction, our regard, obedience, attention, energy, emotion, respect, or time. If we are forced to obey their laws, via threat and intimidation, then we must call them on it, vociferously: “You are intimidating me. Why are you threatening me?” These private men and women will either back down or lose their public jobs, hazard bonds, and pensions.

    Since September 1, according to the Pope, they are no longer immune to our claims. We must not allow them to intimidate us and threaten us into breaching the first three Commandments, the entire principle of which is that we are God, the I AM, and believing that anything else is god only keeps us enslaved.

    There is nothing of any importance outside our God-selves and that includes agents who compromise their personal integrity, earn their living, sacrifice their ethics, in fact, live their entire lives trying to make us believe otherwise. The reason we are enslaved is simple: we believe in authorities outside our God-self, the I AM. When we quit believing in external authorities, we will be free.

    It is our job to “overthrow them”. We are to stand up to thugs, NOT accept their nonsense as ‘law’; it is their law. Don’t get caught up in the “oath” hoax, all their oaths are nonsense –either false, or to a false monarch, or even, in the case of the RCMP, to the RCMP. Tantamount to the BAR protecting fraudulent lawyers and the CMA protecting negligent doctors.

    If we bow down to anything man-made, if we believe anything to be greater than ourselves and worship it –whether that be money, institutions, medicine, government, possessions, organizations, desires and passions, any external information, doctrine, tradition, religion, ‘persons’, i.e.: titled people with ostensible authority, memberships, relationships with friends, family, lovers, or colleagues, degrees and certificates, laws, belief systems, advertising, Santa Claus –all of which are “false gods”– for whatever seeming significant reason, then, we have denied the God within. Doing so dis-empowers us and we fall under the spell of believing there is an authority –or multiple authorities– outside of ourselves.

    – so long as your ends are abolishing the state, I accept that you do so using some manner of collective religious mystical thinking as your means. So long as I’m not forced to participate in your beliefs and irrationalities, we can each co-exist and end the state in tandem.

    • If I could make sense of the god stuff, I might be persuaded. But (and no offense is meant here) there’s so much question begging, contradiction and just plain gibberish that all I can do is shake my head in puzzlement and move on to something I can make heads or tails out of… like a schematic for a Mikuni carburetor!

      • If I get time, I’ll rewrite it without any sky stalin gobbledygook added. See what’s left then.

        To me the godstuff is equivalent with a gourmet who prattles endlessly about the bouquet and his mouth forming a cathredal-like ombisure as he experiences a tone poem cascade of flavors and blah blah blah.

        It’s real to him. But not me. His religious culinary rapture is completely lost on me. My palate can detect sweet, savory, sour, and maybe a few more tastes. Certainly not all the tones and notes a gourmand claims to experience.

        If he says I am evil for not believing life is food, well so be it.
        Unlike a gourmet who respects boundaries. Christians often consider it a requirement to intrude everywhere no matter how little they are welcomed. There is no excuse for violating the NAP of course.

        • Indeed, Tor.

          I’d at least like my religion to be universal, my god more recently involved in our affairs than several thousand years ago and not a man with superpowers who communicates via impenetrable riddles.

          The ur problem, as I see it, is you can’t have your Jesus (or Allah) and a temporal/mortal life as other than a kind of puppet or wind-up toy, too. If, after all, this god dude is real, then he (oops, anthropomorphizing again) is beyond time, omniscient – can see the future in its entirety and certainty before we ever experience it. He already knows the outcome. The game is, therefore, rigged. So why the carpet chewing worry about “sin” and being “born again” and all that cal? Honey badger don’t give a shit! We’re either “saved” or “damned” and whatever we do has already been foreordained. Free will is at best a shabby illusion and there is no moral meaning to our existence.

          This does not appeal. Which is why disbelief in god does.

          • I wish I were more articulate. It’s puzzling that you succeed in dismissing christianity so easily and refuse to waste any time discussing it, and rightly so.

            I mean the trinity, the pope and his pointy hat. And walking on water and the altars and the stupid ceremonies. It’s all less than useless. I’m glad you get that. And I want you to encourage everyone here to join you and do the same as you.

            But then you seem to accept or at least are neutral about spending so much time discussing the bastard judeo-christian political offspring of this garbage. The holy republic new world church of America.

            The trinity of the three branches of government. The noble eagle. The bright stars and broad stripes. The miraculous flag that gave proof through the night. The president and his podium. The battleships and their captains. The fighters. The bombers. The missiles.

            The idea of fighting over territory and battles. The notion that everyone should do without so our boys have what they need. It’s every bit as stupid. And completely useless. And yet here we are discussing politics as if it has any more substance than all this church voodoo spear dancing.

            I’ve read all that war stuff too. I’ve admired the machines and the tales of great doings just like you. But I’ve come to realize its equally as delusional as is believing in Noah getting all the animals on the ark two by two and all that other allegorical stuff.

            I guess it is easy for me, when you do all the articles and discuss all the issues. Do all the leg work and then I can waltz in and copy off your notes and work before even beginning my thinking and commenting. Standing on the shoulders of my betters while criticizing them too, might not be a welcome tactic I’m sure.

            And you do mainly report on something that’s real and worth discussing. Cars and motorcycles and related issues.

            Maybe all men are just men and I am an aberration that will never have an impact. That behind it all, you just want to compare things with those who are like you. and mostly just be who you already are, and not spend much time trying to be a philosophical vector, trying to cut through all the mysticism and primitivism that men seem to take for granted.

            You are so far beyond all these other chuckleheads already. But being greedy, I want even more. I hope for someone others will take seriously to get through their thick skulls that there wasn’t some good old days when govt ever worked and made sense.

            Just like there wasn’t a garden of eden. Or a time when the savior walked the earth and all was right for some brief time. Or that some day the creator is returning and we should get ready for that, because then things are going to be good.

            You know that is complete idiocy. But so is any kind of political version of this where there was a garden of liberty planted by americas founders.

            Or a time when political saviors walked the earth and America was right for some brief time. Of that some day the founders will be avenged and appreciated and we should get ready for that, because then things are going to be good when we honor their old liberty testament.

            I’m probably over simplifying. Poorly allegorating. Whatever the term is, but I do think the principle holds true. Maybe this is already being done, and I’m missing it. Maybe what I’m saying does not appeal.

            Maybe belief in the new and improved Judeo-Christianity without any superheroes or miracles does appeal. Maybe libertarian men will just dust off confucius and hamurrabi and all those other old school guys that kept things tangible and cut and dried. And that’s all the freedom that men really want. To be free of things that aren’t transparent and easily grasped by one and all.

          • Eric – I don’t understand why you insist on equating foreknowledge with predetermination. I don’t see the connection.

            • Hi Phillip,

              If a given outcome is known (note, not believed or anticipated, but known absolutely) in advance with perfect certainty, without the least chance of being otherwise, than that outcome is certain, predetermined… or so it (logically) seems to me.

              God by definition knows exactly what the outcome of absolutely everything – down to the precise movement of subatomic particles – will be before it happens because (from the perspective of an omniscient/eternal god) there is no future or past, just the eternal now and it’s static, having already played out exactly as this omniscient/eternal being already knew it would and must. He can “fast forward” (or “reverse”) but the soundtrack is – by definition – already laid down, immutable. Though of course here we encounter another problem: For god nothing is impossible. He’s god. He could therefore mute (so to speak) the immutable… if he so desired. It all strikes me as impenetrable ukase.

              Religion is rife with anthropomorphic fallacies.

              Father-figure gods who “beget” progeny; gods (eternal, we’re told) who can be physically harmed, even die. Monotheistic doctrines … with multiple distinct individual gods conversing with one another…

              I mean no offense – and hope none is taken.

              I just don’t get it, is all.

              • Eric – I still disagree. If God knows in advance what your choices will be, even though He has told you not to make that choice, but allows you to do it anyway, that is evidence to me of (my) free will, not predetermination.

                • You can choose to see it that way, PtB.
                  At the same time, the converse is true: God KNEW what you were going to do; he didn’t stop you. I.E., it was your DESTINY to do that act.

                  And that’s before we talk predetermination.

                  • Right Jean – He didn’t stop me, even though He could have. Because HE chose to create me with freedom of choice – even though He knew we ALL would make many bad choices.
                    Knowing something is NOT the same as causing it.

                    • In this case – since he created you, personally – it is.
                      He knew before he created you that you would choose “wrongly,” yet created you and therefore put you in that situation – MULTIPLE times, as you note.
                      And then he holds you accountable, which is fair enough if you had free will – except that your “choices” are what led you there in the first place.
                      Your choices put you there, to make the WRONG choice – Again.
                      And you will be held accountable for that wrong choice.

                      So, free choice is the same as destiny or fate.
                      Which means, God put you here to make mistakes, so you could be punished…
                      Sadist or bastard, I’m afraid. Can’t see it any other way.
                      It’s like claiming that “The People” run the government. We might be nominaly in charge, but you know as well as I that there’s a legion of enforcers, punishers, bureaucrats, and law-makers who will decide when the law applies to you, and when it doesn’t. On arbitrary whim.

                      There are times when a stop sign doesn’t mean “STOP” – IF and ONLY IF the person approaching the sign is a Cop.
                      But in New Jersey, they had pigs checking how long you stopped at stop signs. See, a FULL STOP is Defined as 8 seconds…. You come to a stop, wait 8 seconds, and then proceed, IF it’s safe.

                      I don’t think I have EVER stopped for 8 seconds at a stop sign, without some other vehicle or event stopping me. E.G., railroad crossing with a train on it.

                      I think what’s sticking with me is, being Created by a creator with foreknowledge that we’d break his laws, dumping us into a world where the successful DO NOT follow God’s laws, and faulting us for doing what we MUST to survive (in addition to the little sins we commit), and punishing us for those sins – seems a bit evil, to me.
                      You don’t want things to be easy, perhaps – but is it proper to test a creature who is mortal, by putting them under pain of death repeatedly? We weigh risks to decide to act; that we might die puts a damper on acting according to Christ’s message.
                      Especially when we KNOW that we will be reviled on earth, blamed for the event; our families might be affected, even killed; and when we go before god, we are then judged, and according to the “rules,” we WILL be found guilty because of the “free will” catch-all Guilty & ready for damnation clause.

                      God is, at the very least, allowing evil, even encouraging evil.
                      And then, we are to share in the punishment, for acting in our own interests?
                      Quite cruel.
                      Evil, even.
                      To create someone knowing what they will do, so that you can damn them to Hell for doing it.

                      I’ll side with Lucifer; I’ll take freedom.

                • I don’t grok that, Phillip!

                  I mean, if he (there’s that anthropomorphism again) knows – is certain – that you are going to do exactly this (and not that) not only before you actually do it but before you were even born, before your father and grandfather (and so on) were born, then your “choice” is rather illusory, is it not? That is to say, it may feel real to you (because to you, there is this thing called “the future,” which – from your point of view – hasn’t happened yet and therefore, it sure seems as though you might elect to do X rather than Y) but since god is outside of time and knows exactly what choice you’ll make and where it will lead not just before you’ve made it or even considered making it but before you even existed, then aren’t you just like a train on pre-laid tracks, following a course that was predetermined?

                  The above is one of the biggest reason for my lack of belief in god. At least, insofar as this business of a god who created independent beings who have free will and will be held accountable for their choices. It strikes me as a logical impossibility.

                  I do believe in free will – because I do believe that the future is not certain. But if there is a god, there is no future. No past, either. Just an eternal now (from his point of view) and holding these poor critters (us) culpable for things we are inescapably destined to do seems mean-minded to me. Why torture us? He knows how the show ends. Why not just make things perfect and marvel at the perfection of it all? What is the purpose of knowingly creating (which he must have done since he’s god) defective things and then all the elaborate rigmarole?

                  Now, the apologist might respond with: But god is infinitely powerful and can sustain multiple future realities independently and without contradiction or conflict and – therefore – we have free will and omniscience compatible together.

                  I don’t grok that, either. It’s having your cake and eating it, too. Like a monotheistic religion in which there’s a god the father who begets a son. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is just one god (and this is clearly not the case with regard to Christianity) or you’ve got to accept a sort of evasive double-talking about “aspects” of the one god (and so on).

                  Same (as I see it) with this business of free will and an omniscient god. If he is omniscient, he knows everything, before it happens. If he does know, then even if we may not, we’re just like the train going down the tracks…

                  • Hey Eric, Jean – Sorry to be so long getting back to you on this, but I had to ponder a bit before replying. Also, I do have a life outside EPAutos.
                    I admit that there are things about God that are not just difficult, but impossible for us as creatures to understand about our creator. I’m not expecting to change your mind. He even said in Isaiah that “My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts.”
                    In addition to that, any ‘god’ who was small enough to be completely comprehended by a human mind would be too small to be worthy of worship.
                    Regarding the uniplural God, commonly referred to as the ‘Trinity,’ God is One covenantaly, but reveals Himself to us as more than one person – Father, Son and Spirit. The closest we can come to explaining it in human terms is marriage. Man and woman are separate individuals, but one ‘married couple.’
                    Also, your insistence that punishing you for something He knew in advance that you would do is not fair flies in the face of God’s rights as creator and owner of the universe. Whatever He chooses to do or require is, by definition, fair. If He said, ” In order to spend eternity in My presence, you must wear green socks on Thursday,” then you better wear green socks on Thursday. As Paul said, “Will the clay say to the potter, ‘Why have you made me thus?'”
                    I know this will not satisfy you, but it’s the best I can do now.
                    More later, unless you say “Enough.”

    • Thanks Tor, although it seems many don’t comprehend Mary’s idea of god, which is nature and part of our inner selves – not some imagined singular deity, the intangible created by the church.

      WE are gods in our own right. More on the strawman and more from Mary:

      As we now see that there is only statute (codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, bylaws, acts, bills, legislations, constitutions, policies, charters, and treaties) which serves only to restrict our Natural, God-given Birth-Rights, then Statute must apply to something other than man. Statutes apply only to NAMES.

      Over the years, we have all vacillated on “who owns the name?”. It’s been the prime question: how did thugs come to believe they have authority over us? Answer: someone, whom they believe has authority over them, told them, and they foolishly believed it.

      We know it is via the NAME. They create debt in OUR Name, and are holding us as surety, but the eternal question is, how did they manage to get what they believe to be the right to do this? We all know about the birth certificate is backed by a bond and that the NAME on the BC is what is charged, for the benefit of the public, not us, and then we are made liable for a debt we did not create. Not only that but also no debt could possibly exist, if all debts and charges were handled properly, i.e.: via offset and discharge, respectively.

      The NAME was made into a legal fiction, called a “person”, to which all statute applies. NOT ONE Statute applies to “man”. In only a few acts/codes, is there any definition for person, and NONE for man or woman. In the BC Motor Vehicle Act the word person is mentioned over 1200 times; in Alberta’s Traffic Safety Act, the word person is mentioned 938 times, however, in the list of 49 definitions, “person” is not defined. Since “person” is to whom the entire Act applies, logic dictates that the word would be defined, if obfuscation were not the motive for the deliberate omission.

      If any man or woman (“man”) chooses to identify himself with a NAME which is, again, somehow, under the control of the province/state, whether upon demand or under threat, intimidation, coercion, or even voluntarily, then all 100 million statutes apply to him, yet, if he is smart enough not to identify with a legal fiction/person/NAME on the BC, then, only Natural Law applies to him.

      Our holding the BC proves that only we have a right to use the name. No one can use our (or our parents’) intellectual property without our consent and, since the public has, indeed, used it for their unjust enrichment, it was fraud because their access to the name came only from having deceived and coerced our parents into signing over the name, and intimidating us into obtaining and paying for unnecessary documents. This is extortion, all in order to defraud us of our labour.

      The main issue is that there was no full disclosure. If only the agent, at the hospital had said, “We’re going to set up a trust, in your child’s name, making him the beneficiary, so that any debt he incurs, will be offset as soon as he signs, because he is entitled to his share of Canada’s value (GNP). But, any sane parent, used to the old way –prior to the bankruptcy of 1933-34– of having to pay debts with cash, would ask, “What’s the catch?” Due to the fraud, undertaken when parents are not in a state of mind to handle this type of situation, our use of the NAME causes them to think we are the trustees and liable for the accounting, and they made sure that we cannot access the credit of the trust, in order to do so. So, we had better be very careful not to identify with the name/trusteeship, until we gain control.

      From Salhany’s Police Manual: “Refusal of Citizen to Identify Self: The common law does not require a citizen to identify himself or carry identification of any sort. Therefore, while it may be the mark of a good citizen to identify himself when asked to do so, a police officer must not use force to compel someone to identify himself when he refuses; otherwise, he will be guilty of criminal assault and be liable to civil damages.”

      No officer has the right to demand identification from any man, unless said officer is witness to a breach of common law. This does not mean statute; it means: if there is an injury to a man or damage to his property. Otherwise, officers have the right to request identification, but not demand it. An officer can charge only a NAME so, without that information, a man is not subject to charges under statute. Since everything, including theft, assault, and murder are under statute, you can see that no man is subject to charges of statute. Your question ought to be: so, how can a victim of such crimes obtain justice?

      As all alleged provincial/state courts operate under statute, and no man can be charged under statute, unless he actively consents or reluctantly acquiesces or tacitly agrees, then, the only way to seek justice is to take the offender into civil court under common law jurisdiction. No man is permitted in any other court and no court has jurisdiction over man.

      From “Let’s NOT give peace a chance”, a post everyone should read:


      For those that can’t see how to get around their strawman:

      “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” –S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795

      Oldest in law, best in law.

        • Rationalwiki FOTL

          Canadian Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke wrote a 185-page judgment rejecting what he called “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” (OPCA), specifically defendant Dennis Meads’s Freeman on the Land claims, saying:
          These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations and individuals.

          The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

          The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else.

          Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers.

          This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.

          How it works (or not)

          The freeman position is not entirely lacking in moral force: considering government-created law to be a damnable imposition is a defensible stance with a long and respectable history.

          But their theory of the world is utterly spurious, and their practical approach is made entirely of magic beans and crack.

          The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case

          • Tor, I’ve read many things on rational wiki that only seek to hide the truth. I’ve come across many writings of a subject I know to be fully evidenced in historic laws and then some schmuck on rational wiki tries to debunk them simply by “saying so”, and clumsily.

            • I don’t know or care about ratwik, other than I find them a useful source such as they are. (Some kind of hipster consequentialists or whatever)

              Mary Croft for me is in the same realm as David Icke. A hero of independent thinking and individual dignity.

              I’m grateful for your mentioning her.

              I don’t understand Icke’s lizards, and would probably edit out any part of his writing that included them. I don’t understand Croft’s strawman, and would probably edit out any part of her writing that included them.

              I do understand Carl Jung’s religious references, and would probably edit out any part of his writing that included them.

              • Yes, Mary Croft is definitely one that needs to be read several times (along with others) to fully grasp what she advocates. I remember coming across her site 2 years ago and she doesn’t go much into explanations geared toward the newbie on those subjects. It’s more like she expects her readership to already be on the same page.

                However, the actual strawman never changes. It’s a government created instrument, a Trust, which is in your name but traded in the securities market. It was designed by government to appease the world bank to pay its debts by the labours of its citizens. All the benefits are supposed to be yours (because there’s no real money anymore after 1933), but you were never apprised of it. Seven years after your birth, it was declared orphaned and taken over by government.


                Courts and prosecutors steal from this fund every time they trick you into paying a fine, where they already secretly took the amount from the trust, they then demand you “pay” with hard-earned dollars.

                • I watched the video. Again no history for me to look at. Just declaring it so. I need to see this scam outlined from the day it was born. I’ve seen that with driver’s licenses to fair degree and wish I had saved it or could find it if I did. I’ve seen it with the medical system. I’ve seen it with the central bank. But this all caps strawman thing or that registration changes ownership? Not a thing.

                  I have found no actual proof of this scam functioning in the present law either (same with some of the others, but with trail, like Larkin Rose did with the income tax where he shows the trail being erased) . Which of course doesn’t mean it didn’t start out as one, but because I can’t find anything to stand on in the USA, it is now so ingrained it doesn’t matter any more. Every functionary from the cop to the supreme court believes it. This means there are no magic words, no seeing through the scam, or anything of the sort. All it means is getting beaten and jailed.

                  Even if a group separates from the government in the USA they will be raided and their children taken.

                  But lets say someone is raised entirely outside of the state and the government doesn’t know… well good luck:


                  It should mean she’s free, but the problem is, there’s not a single functionary that will allow for her to live her life. They will insert themselves into her life and not respect the fact that she’s never been signed into the bondage, as far as they are concerned, she is just another human resource and one that isn’t complying with “the law”.

                  Reinforcement that we are all slaves on a giant plantation or trapped by ‘contract’ in a company town isn’t needed. What’s needed is a practical way to get free without getting dead.

                • Hi Rev,

                  I’m with Brent on this one.

                  Much as I agree with the basic argument about the nature of the con, it doesn’t change the reality on the ground that – in the U.S. at least – they will simply ignore a Mundane’s references to law and do whatever they want to at their whim. At one time, they were somewhat constrained by the so-called “rule of law.” Now though “the law” is infinitely malleable and means – well, nothing. Or anything.

                  You have two realistic choices:

                  * Own nothing, be indifferent to material possessions and comforts; live out of a suitcase; work “off the books” for whatever you can, in cash. Have no bank accounts, no assets to speak of beyond what you can carry in your pockets. Be comfortable with the prospect of constant harassment, including time in Hotel Graybar. If you can handle all that, it is viable to play the “sovereign man” game, to ignore “the law.”

                  * Play their game. Accept that in exchange for some material comforts and stability (which will be undermined at every turn) you must at least give the appearance, if not the actuality, of obeying “the law” most of the time. Especially the “big” laws.
                  Knowing that if you do not, there is a very good chance all your material comforts and stability will be taken away – and there won’t be a damned thing you can do about it. So you “go along to get along,” and try to keep as low a profile as possible.

                  Most of us choose the second option, because as bad as things are, being a drifter with nothing much they can take is still a less pleasant alternative to (for now) at least having a bed that’s yours (until it’s not) knowing there’s food in the fridge and you’ve got some money in the bank (even though it could be seized at any moment, if they decided to).

                  Sucks, eh?

  8. I’m not advocating or claiming any knowledge. I’m just finding things in Marc Stevens'(who’s in AZ) literature based on what ЯΞ√ says. If you can pull even a little of this off, it couldn’t hurt.

    NO traffic court is ever a court of record in the unitedState. (i.e. a trial court in which a court reporter takes down a record of proceedings.)

    In courts not of record, (most small claims courts, traffic courts, justice courts presided over by a Justice of the Peace, administrative tribunals making administrative decisions) oral proceedings are not recorded, and the judge makes his or her decision based on memory.

    In most “not of record” proceedings, the parties can and usually do appear personally, without lawyers.
    – – –

    Plea of Guilty – Template For Getting Tickets Kicked Out

    With this unsigned plea of guilty you’ll be able to get judges to commit three major fundamental fairness/due process violations at an arraignment in less than three minutes (this does not mean a ticket will always get kicked).

    This is evidence the courts are run by criminals. We can predict their behavior and replicate results regardless of political boundaries.

    By intending on pleading guilty and asking for evidence the prosecutor is supposed to have anyway, we expose the judge for the criminal they are when he/she predictably refuse to address the issue of jurisdiction.

    He will lie claiming jurisdiction is a trial issue. Instead of discussing the evidence, in anger they will enter a plea of not guilty over your objection. The judge may only enter a plea of not guilty when you refuse to plea or when a plea cannot be ascertained. The unsigned plea of guilty proves he’s lying and just covering up for the prosecutor, his/her accomplice.

    The three errors, in addition to his lying about jurisdiction being a trial issue, are:

    1. They lie that you are refusing to plea.
    2. They assume jurisdiction and an essential element of the crime (applicability of the code) on behalf of the prosecutor.
    3. They adamantly refuse to presume innocence.

    When the psychopath screams at you to take your pretrial date and leave, you can object, point out his lies and put him in a real bind by asking: Can you please explain how you can assume the laws apply to me at the same time you’re supposed to presume innocence?

    You won’t get an answer, probably just a threat of contempt. By contempt is meant you caught the judge being deliberately unfair and prejudicial to you and he has no defense other then threatening violence.

    You can file a motion to disqualify the judge and vacate the plea using the three issues above and the fact he is lying about jurisdiction being a trial error. I’d use it as a basis for a complaint to the presiding judge, the judicial conduct commission, the supreme court and to the municipality’s insurance carrier.

    • Exactly Tor. It takes time to learn this shit and guts to do it. The real crime in the court is the simple fact we have to because of corruption and no separation of powers as there’s supposed to be.

      Notably, a court with a single judge on the bench is what’s called a Star Chamber, which were outlawed in 1641 primarily because of secret corruption and the fact that no man can single-handedly judge another’s fate, ruling out bias – from the bible. Oldest in law, best in law.

      One would be asking serious questions of the judge and his hero grabbermint why a court that was outlawed for very serious reasons is doing business again.

  9. I think its great an Aussie can drive about with no plates or stupid plastic license and get away with it.

    Australia has a state religion and pretends to be godly at some level. Just like all the oil kingdoms do. You can make appeals to the law being sacred there. America, though, is as godless as the Chinese. At least legally.

    In America and China, The state is god. The state defines what kind of god it is and what its godly powers are from minute to minute. Unlike the streetwise and wary Chinese, the Average Idiot American still buys into the lies of its government.

    Australia is great right now. But who knows for how long. You might want to know the lies you’re told about where you live. Let an outsider point them out so you don’t buy into them. Each of us is fed a national diet of BS that isn’t as palatable to someone from not in its borders.

    From Australian websites…

    Australian culture is founded on stories of battlers, bushrangers and brave soldiers. Of sporting heroes, working heroes and plucky migrants. It’s all about a fair go, the great outdoors and a healthy helping of irony. Today Australia also defines itself by its Aboriginal heritage, vibrant mix of cultures, innovative ideas and a thriving arts scene.

    I’ve never heard of any of that. I’m sure the UK superstate is working overtime to crush all those founders mercilessly. Soon it will be illegal to be outdoors, just like it is anywhere else. It’s hard to program people who don’t have their faces buried in a telescreen you know.

    No one remembers the Sydney Opera house until you bring it up. Then they forget five seconds later, forever.

    A few well paid American consultants could quash everything that’s decent about Australia in a New York Minute. It’s not fair you have things better than the rest of us. We can even the score quite easily.

    All those marsupials need to rounded up and put in cages in a national preserve. And then regular mammals should be imported their. They’re too deviant. Cows, squirrels, rabbits, normal dogs and cats must dominate the world. A few airdrops of rats, mice, cockroaches, ants, termites, and all the usual critters and you’ll be in compliance. It’s the law you know.

    Grass and mowers. Check. Get rid of all your slang and accents. Check. Remove Great Barrier Reef. Check. Have Al Sharpton hand pick a few fertile million urban American blacks to mix with your aborigines. Check.

    Mandate no nudity at beaches. Check. Outlaw the entire sex industry. Check. Close down your quirky business and fill your cities with strip malls and drive thrus. Check. Make it impossible to navigate without a vehicle. Close down areas where people congregate or walk. Check.

    Heavily militarized your cops. Take the last few private guns. Check. Make girls dress like men. Make men wear yankee sports team gear, sweat pants, or metrosexual collared shirts and matching belts. Check.

    Fill your airwaves with crime and military fare. Make sure all songs are about the evils of native white men and their evil selfishness of not wanting to share with their enemies and would be destroyers.

    Import enough Indians, Middle Easterners, and other UK Asians so that white English and Dutch descendants are a minority and you’re bilingual. Arabic, Hindi, Tamil, those are all important diverse tongues Aussies should coexist with.

    You’re not sedentary enough down under. You need to eat a lot more. And do a lot less. You don’t drive around like shell shocked zombies with no attention spans the way most of us do. We’ll have to fix all that.

    Close the Outback and make it a United Nations preserve. Outlaw big knives and cans of beer. Regulate vegemite and shiraz out of existence. Reopen all the penal colonies and increase capacity tenfold. Make Australia the prison capital of the world, send all terrorists their to a hundred new Guantanmo’s.

    • Australia was best in the 70’s, when bare ankles turned into full-frontal nudity, cops would rather share a beer and knew what their only job was – keeping the peace.

      • Yeah… the “Crocodile Dundee” thing…. I expect it’s vapor now; like everything America used to be all about.

        The old Soviet Union was bleak but not as mindlessly cruel, petty and simply idiotic as America has become.

        • Not quite Eric. Oz is a godless country. That’s what I find so attractive here. In the US, you have the holy trinity: the police state, god (the state), and the holy ghost (Obama bin laden).
          Our police are more interested in revenue collecting from motorists, however, these scams can be fought quite successfully in court, or even by letters. Police killings are few and far between, and it is rare to find a cop get off freely in those events.
          More suffocating in the US is the religion of god. I worked for a company for 20 years and did not participate in any conversation based on god worship. It’s what I love about living here. In the US your religion is everyone’s concern and woe to those agnostics and atheists.
          Our politicians are still crooks and criminals and shysters, but we have more freedom here, esp. in regards to free speech.
          I’ve lived half my life in the US and half in Oz. I much prefer Oz. No snow…..

          • I hear the south is like that with religion… I wouldn’t know I’ve never lived there only visited. In the big metro areas of the north (and likely the west) it’s mafia. The government itself is run on the mafia model.

            Shakedowns, protection rackets, numbers rackets, territorial cuts, and so on. And of course the thug culture that comes with it.

          • to5, although having been born in Oz, the main subject and interrogations I find myself running from is “What team do you barrack for?”

            Oz is such a sport-mad country, like the USSA. I never saw the point of running after some spherical or oblong object, for what reward I could never fathom. I don’t mind motor sports and, if I ever watch the tour de farce when it’s on, it’s for the accidents these purportedly “professional” bicycle riders have. The only time it stops being hilarious is when you realise many of them drive cars..

          • Hi to5,

            Yeah. In the South, it is very common to encounter gross public displays of religiosity. People are bursting with the “good news” and it is not uncommon for the first or second thing to come out of the mouth of a person you just met to be an interrogatory about which church you attend and even whether you have been “saved.” The first few times this happened, I was startled into speechlessness.

            The thing to understand is that – from their perspective – it’s just plain as day that “Jesus saves” and how could anyone possibly not agree? Their certainty is absolute and they cannot fathom anyone not concurring. This lack of nuance is amusing at first until you realize these people would probably cheer public hangings and worse for apostasy if they had the political power to do so. You can see it in their eyes. They’d believe themselves to be doing the “lord’s work,” right down to solemnly praying for the souls of the people about to be strung up or burned at the stake.

            In my view the pagan tolerance of different strokes for different folks is fundamentally more Libertarian than any form of religious certainty.

  10. About fairdui:

    Defense lawyers make more money when DUI laws are unreasonably harsh. It is actually against our financial interest to argue for fairness. We also have closer contact with accused drunk drivers than just about anyone else in the system.

    Maryland State Police Agree With Fair DUI Method

    A Letter From a Jersey Jackass

    Fair DUI Interview with Gary Nolan

    Fair DUI Flyer Story In Miami


    Warren Redlich is the founder of Fair DUI. A semi-retired criminal defense lawyer, Mr. Redlich was an Albany DWI lawyer.

    He co-founded the largest online directory of traffic courts and criminal courts. Mr. Redlich has also been involved in politics for many years, including his 2010 run for Governor of New York State on the Libertarian line, with the theme: Stop Wasting Money.

    Thomas Carroll Blauvelt is a NJ DUI Attorney. He has nearly 20 years experience in prosecuting and defending DUI cases, along with other traffic and criminal offenses.

    Lawrence Newman is a DWI lawyer in Ithaca, New York. His background is quite diverse, including years working as a chiropractic physician, and legal experience in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida and New York. Mr. Newman writes the Ithaca DWI blog and has produced dozens of videos on his YouTube channel.

  11. “..most states consider driving a privilege and drivers give up some rights.”

    In every law dictionary, a “driver” is: “One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon..” etc. It’s a commercial activity where one is being paid to be behind the wheel on roads paid for by the public. It’s unfair for others to make a living off public infrastructure without extra costs, that’s where licenses and registration come in. It’s been that way since before the automobile.

    This is not related to the generic term of “driving”, where “moving an object by use of a force” would require mothers and kids to register their prams and BMX bikes. It only relates to the legal term “driver”.

    The advent of the automobile saw grabbermints cash in on the fast growing mode of transport, where they decreed – against common law rights secured over centuries – that all motorised transport come under their jurisdiction.

    Further, this deception also included mandatory licensing for all using motorised transport, whereby your common law right to travel unrestricted was supposedly resigned at the stroke of a pen. Such a contract however, is null and void because there was no full disclosure that you even had the common law right to travel on the very roads you pay for, let alone resigned it.

    Although some insist that part of your registration payment goes to roads, I’d like to see it proven.

    Common law insists that:

    “(Police officers) have no power whatever to arrest or detain a citizen for the purpose of questioning him or of facilitating their investigations. It matters not at all whether the questioning or the investigation is for the purpose of enabling them to ascertain whether he is the person guilty of a crime known to have been committed or is for the purpose of enabling them to discover whether a crime has or has not been committed. If the police do so act in purported exercise of such a power, their conduct is not only destructive of civil liberties but it is unlawful.” – Regina v Banner (1970) VR 240 at p 249 – the Full Bench of the Northern Territory Supreme Court

    “It is an ancient principle of the Common Law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police, or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right. The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the Common Law for centuries.” – Hamilton v DPP – Justice Stephen Kaye – Melbourne Supreme Court ruling – 25 November 2011

    “There is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details. Nor, is s.59 of the (Road Safety) Act a statutory source of such power.” – Magistrate Duncan Reynolds – Melbourne – July 2013

    “The common law does not require a citizen to identify oneself or to carry identification of any sort” – Coaklan v Waugh 1957

    As proven by the precedents set by various judges, common law supersedes statutory law in all cases. Therefore, whether there are statutory laws compelling a person to submit to providing anything that may tend to incriminate him, the fact remains that a person has the legal right to not provide any material, whether verbal or tangible, if the production of that material would tend to incriminate that person. That material can be any or all of the following:

     Verbal statements
     Documents
     Data such as computer files
     Breath alcohol samples
     Blood alcohol samples
     DNA samples

    Statute law has no power unless consented or contracted to (as an actual “driver” for example). It’s really that simple, but I know what many of you will say. Although ‘merican cops give less of a damn about actual law than Aussie ones, just take it on board as a fellow common law country.

    • Here’s what I have to deal with:

      (625 ILCS 5/1-116) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-116)
      Sec. 1-116. Driver.
      Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
      (Source: P.A. 76-1586.)

      (625 ILCS 5/1-217) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-217)
      Sec. 1-217. Vehicle. Every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway or requiring a certificate of title under Section 3-101(d) of this Code, except devices moved by human power, devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and snowmobiles as defined in the Snowmobile Registration and Safety Act.
      For the purposes of this Code, unless otherwise prescribed, a device shall be considered to be a vehicle until such time it either comes within the definition of a junk vehicle, as defined under this Code, or a junking certificate is issued for it.
      For this Code, vehicles are divided into 2 divisions:
      First Division: Those motor vehicles which are designed for the carrying of not more than 10 persons.
      Second Division: Those vehicles which are designed for carrying more than 10 persons, those designed or used for living quarters and those vehicles which are designed for pulling or carrying property, freight or cargo, those motor vehicles of the First Division remodelled for use and used as motor vehicles of the Second Division, and those motor vehicles of the First Division used and registered as school buses.
      (Source: P.A. 92-812, eff. 8-21-02.)

      At this point the scam has become so ingrained that everyone in the system believes this is how things are and they have always been this way. Getting people to learn or even sit still long enough to be told the histories of how things got to be the way they are is practically impossible. People don’t want to learn, they don’t want to know. We’re supposed to simply ‘feel’, not think, not problem solve, but act on feelings. People want their feelings justified and addressed rather than the problems solved. Which is another reason the same problems have gone on for decades. That and people think they have the right to tell everyone else how to live.

    • Hi Rev,

      Not disputing whether what you say is true, however, what is to be done when the de facto situation is that the Governments/Courts everywhere completely ignore ANY law when inconvenient? New, old, doesn’t matter.

      I have been through two battles with monopoly utilities (gov. controlled) completely ignoring the law (Common, contract and statutes), changing existing contracts without consent and ‘deeming’ acceptance despite registered letters retuning their contracts and refusing to accept the changes. They still don’t have my agreement (for two years of fraudulent billing) but, police won’t prosecute for fraud, political representatives merely have their underling send a form letter back saying ‘government decreed on this date’, any non-payment will results in service disconnection and exorbitant extortion fees for re-connection, plus full payment, plus security deposit.

      Government here (BC) have actually passed legislation which specifically exempts some of their favorite crony-friendly projects (smart-meters) from being reviewed by Government created oversight departments……..Seriously.

      You can always sue, but see first paragraph……..

      And this is just little stuff. Now the Police…….well, you all know.

      • As can be evidenced from law dictionaries, terms such as person, vehicle, passenger, traffic etc. are all commercial terms used by statute law. If you never admit to or identify with those terms, they’re stumped.

        There is NO solution within commerce. The solution to everything is within US. Every “solution to commerce” required that we use statutory law, which only further entrapped us in “commerce”, where we lost our standing. ANY “commercial solution” IS, itself, the trap.

        ..Use of the name [yours], in a commercial environment, such as carrying a driver licence, i.e. as a PERSON, evidences our belief that we are separate from our true God-self. They, the dead, have no power over us, the living. They know this. No valid contract exists..

        Mary Croft


        Mary’s said a lot of good stuff over the years. Being Canadian, she should know what’s going on over there in BC. It’s a good read.

        Marc Stevens knows what’s going on too. No grabbermint or body could ever lawfully “decree” anything against a Man or Woman. There’s no contract or evidence in existence that binds statute law to any Man or Woman, and I dare them to produce it.

        The only thing that can truly bind any Man or Woman to a legal fiction is a signature of consent or admission, regardless how inadvertent.

        The vast majority believe they’re all part of this legal fiction universe invented by those that “decree” themselves rulers over everyone else. The most powerful statement isn’t “show me the money”, it’s “show me the contract with my signature”.

        • Hey ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N,

          I enjoy reading everything you post. I get what I can and leave the rest. Here’s what it’s like being pulled over in Las Vegas metro as of late.

          An American police roadside encounter is like most other USA point of sale experiences I would say.

          Very robotic and preordained. There’s no space in the other guy’s head for what you’re actually trying to say. You each jump to a conclusion and make an assumption without really listening to each other.

          You’re pulled over. The guy makes you sit in your car for a minute or two, By the time he gets to you, he’s seen your history and vitals on his $100k police computer and already knows how he’s gonna process you.

          Just as if you were at a McDonald’s where the clerk ordered for you. He’s irrevocably decided he’ll be handing you a slip of paper acknowledging you’ve ordered a Big Mac, 6 Piece Chicken Nugget, or a Double Quarter Pounder Value Meal with Supersize Fries.

          Well you’ve ordered a traffic statute equivalent of those unhappy meals, anyways. Whatever the computer suggested is likely what he went with. He has some minor judgement calls to make based on your history, but its fairly cut and dried, he’s done this repetitively hundreds or thousands of times.

          In America, we’re just records in a database in most matters of commerce or law. Nothing special such that we can break thru the firewall and have something out of the ordinary happen for our benefit, most likely.

          Maybe if we’re immensely charming, attractive, gifted orators, catch him in a hurry, or have some kind of powerful connections, we might receive some kind of special treatment.

          But most likely not, we’ll be lumped in a category of 1 invisible vanilla mundane. 2 garden variety undesireable scum crim. 3 someone we identify with for some reason. 4. someone we must be wary of, might be some risk to our authority or career.

          Nothing we say will be listened to or remember really. You can make the encounter unpleasant for the hero. But there’s nearly zero chance a metro police officer is actually going to take your words into consideration beyond which button on his police touchscreen any more than a clerk at a fast food restaurant is going to take your elaborate culinary instructions on how you’d like your beef prepared.

          It seems like UK, Canada, and Australia, are exceptional in that they still use standard english and communicate with each other on a human level beyond the gears and computer subroutines screens of fast food commerce and public administration.

          There’s a dumbed down Taco Bell version of what you’re saying that will work here. To get there I try to adapt what you say to my schtick I use in a quick service police state idiocracy, you’d have to experience to really understand.

          What do Australians think of America?

          • Tor, those Aussies have been dumbed down with romantic ideals via TV, same as ‘mericans. They don’t know shit from clay which is why they’re stuck paying fines without question.

            We also have the same robotic mental cripples enforcing whatever they deem fit on our highways, the only difference being is they have little fear of us being armed, so they rarely ever draw guns.

            In any case, the easiest “schtick” is to immediately ask 3 times if you’re under arrest or free to go. If he says no at any time then just leave. If he refuses to answer after the 3rd time, tell him that his evasion to the question is “acquiescence”. The point behind this is precisely what they do to us. Give us a fine and if we don’t challenge it, it stands in law. You have every right to challenge jurisdiction.

            Any other time, you could ask him what his probable cause for the stop was, what evidence he’s got that you’re acting commercially on public roads etc. Always ask questions because if you make a statement, you’re liable to prove it. Ask questions that you know he’ll lie in answer to. Then, on camera, ask him if that was a lie. If no, then ask if that was another one etc.

            It’s not against the law to lie to a cop, nor is it the same in reverse. Since none of you on the roadside are under oath to tell the whole truth, you can’t be booked for it, no matter what they say. But if you only ask questions like above, you can’t be done for lying, making a statement or anything.

            Aside from that, you have every right to silence. If you need to, for crap sake take it, because they’ll do the above to you and get YOUR confessions instead. This is why anything you say can and WILL be used AGAINST you. It’s never any different. In such a system, nothing can ever be openly discussed with a cop without prejudice – ever. That’s one thing to notify the court of if you end up there. It’s blatantly unfair and one-sided.

            This is one of my fave vids. No name, no ID, no charge (cost to you, the appointed debtor in the game, makes the cop the debtor):


            “..point of sale experiences..”

            Gotta remember that.. 🙂

            In any case, the cop’s trying to contract with you, in which case you have every right to refuse. You can’t be forced to sign anything, ever. Especially under duress which makes the sig void.

          • Oh.. a few years ago I had one of our lovely Sheriff’s drive all the way out to my place late one night with a bunch of papers regarding some 8 unpaid fines or so, worth an alleged 2300 bucks with illegal “costs” added.

            He asked me why they hadn’t been paid and so I told him in no uncertain terms that none of the allegations had been proven in any court of competent jurisdiction as per the Constitution.

            He asked me to sign the paperwork stating it was just a formality to show I received them. Suuuure..

            I then asked him if he was attempting to contract with me, which it most certainly was. He tried (with a smirk) to threaten to return with more uniforms to arrest me if I didn’t sign. I signed it preceded with “under duress”. He left rather unhappy.

            I’ve heard and paid nothing since.

            Statute law is all about contracts and they can’t lawfully do anything unless they have some form of compliance, which is why grabbermint ultimately has no power because I have no wet-ink contract with them whatsoever.

        • HI Rev,

          I understand what you are saying, but again,

          “what is to be done when the de facto situation is that the Governments/Courts everywhere completely ignore ANY law when inconvenient?”

          BTW, any website that starts quoting ‘God’s law’ as a basis for freedom……..facepalm.

          No offense, but you seem to be living in a hypothetical world where simply being right or claiming to be free is enough to stop the TBTP from abusing us.

          It isn’t. I’m looking for practical solutions, not idealism.

          • Me2, maybe you didn’t get Mary’s reference to god – the one within oneself, not the one from any bible. It’s YOU that has to power your own destiny and shake off the belief that their laws actually work, that they’re going to be honest at all times and that there actually is a separation of powers.

            Ultimately, they can’t ignore their own laws forever. I’ve had to object to magistrates asking prosecutors to back them up on their forthcoming decisions and waving away established and unrepealed laws as a blatant bluff, lie and disregard for their own laws and procedures.

            The most powerful way to make this clear and hold them to account is to ensure you’re in a court of record, object, say “for the record” and then explain your objection, that for example such law has not been repealed or that asking the prosecutor to back your claims is not allowable procedure.

            Ensure the court’s full of witnesses too. They don’t often try bluffs when the community’s watching them. You can then appeal and have a courtroom full of eager people to back you.

            There are many examples on the web how to handle these situations. Any change in a contract requires both parties to agree, or it’s void on its face. Every court gallery understands this very simple principle. It’s you that has to stand up to the liars.

            • Hi Rev,

              “…..not the one from any bible.”
              Mary actually is quoting the bible. God’s word? Irrelevant either way.

              “Ultimately, they can’t ignore their own laws forever.
              Ultimately, maybe. However, they have been doing so for as long as I can remember and I see nothing (realistic) that will change that in the future.

              “….them to account is to ensure you’re in a court…….”
              Sure, but accountable to whom? With what mechanism for enforcement? Just for the moral victory?

              “Ensure the court’s full of witnesses too.”
              How? I have a hard enough time getting anyone to even understand the problems we are facing, never mind show up in court.

              ” Any change in a contract requires both parties to agree, or it’s void on its face.”
              Yes, I know. That is the utilities issues I went through. There is a class action against the utility but it has been 3+ years and still not have not even started in-court proceedings, which will probably get dragged out another 2 years. Then appeals.


              Believe me, I am not trying to argue with you or say you are wrong. I just need to understand how any of what you are expounding will make any REAL difference.

              Specifically the, accountable to whom, with what mechanism for enforcement?


              • Me2, if there’s a class action pending, I hope you’re part of it. If so, then they have no right to shut off your power if you continue paying the bills, and especially if you disagree with the contract.

                Keep all your evidence.

                Judges can be penalised for crap decisions and corruption. Stick with your group and bring everything to light.

                • Hi Rev,

                  One more time,

                  “what is to be done when the de facto situation is that the Governments/Courts everywhere completely ignore ANY law when inconvenient?”


                  ” I just need to understand how any of what you are expounding will make any REAL difference.”

                  “Specifically the, accountable to whom, with what mechanism for enforcement?”

                  Maybe I am not being clear. Even if you are 100% right, what do you suggest when TPTB ignore all of your 100% right arguments and carry on violating your rights?

                  Check out bc-freedom.com to see the process hundreds of people have followed. The guy here sounded a lot like you right up until the point he went entirely silent. Silent because after assuring everyone that his system would protect them if they followed his plan, the utility and government ignored everything and proceeded as though this group did not exist.

                  What then?

                  • Me2, I don’t know who runs bc-freedom.com and can’t vouch for any of his “procedures”. Neither can I hold your hand on this issue.

                    Remember that any time you’re in a court other than a civil one, you’re playing into a trap and you’ve got 2 options:

                    1. Don’t go to court. They’re experts at lying and do it 40 hours a week. Return all correspondence with “no contract” on the envelope. This has worked for many, but must be done within 72 hours. The simple fact you appear in court at all is sufficient evidence to them that you allow them jurisdiction.

                    2. Every time the judge ignores a law or fobs it off, object loudly. Get a transcript and use it in your appeal if necessary.

                    I’m not aware of your exact situation and from what I gather I haven’t experienced it myself. I’m not offering a “system”, I can only say what it should be in law. I’m sure you’ve heard of an ombudsman.

                    In any case, the more you expose their sham, the more the rest of the community will back you.

                    Besides, the only way they can shut off your power is by trespassing unless you have a smart meter.

                    • Ahrg. Please read my previous posts account of what has happened to date, again. Better yet, go read pretty much what you have claimed at bc-freedom. Most that you assert is in the past and did not work as you seem to believe it will. Several of your responses seem to re-assert that which I specifically stated have failed.

                      Ombudsman, Utilities Commission, Letters to representatives, Attempts at prosecution for contract fraud and general fraud……….

                      Then, specifically please, if you can, explain the solution to the below.

                      “what is to be done when the de facto situation is that the Governments/Courts everywhere completely ignore ANY law when inconvenient?”

                      ” I just need to understand how any of what you are expounding will make any REAL difference.”

                      But MOST importantly;

                      “Specifically the, accountable to whom, with what mechanism for enforcement?”

                      Until you can answer the last one, nothing else is relevant.


                    • “In any case, the more you expose their sham, the more the rest of the community will back you.”
                      Wow. You must have a community unlike any I have seen. Specifically, this is not happening here. Less than 1% even care.

                      “Besides, the only way they can shut off your power is by trespassing unless you have a smart meter.”
                      Simply wrong. At least here. They can disconnect at the road pole. And have.

                      You should got to bc-freedom. You can see of your arguments and assertions in action. Brian Thiesen sounded just like you three years ago. He was wrong. Very wrong.

                    • Me2, that line about community got me too… The community around me considers a person who doesn’t act like everyone else to be some sort of nutter. Nobody stands up for nuts and kooks most of the time. The community is what has empowered the state. The community rarely does anything but back the state. In rare instances the tiny percentage of like minded individuals will manage to gather some place to help defend someone but they aren’t the community. These are atomized people from around the country who traveled to one spot. The government just waits it out because they can’t stay 100s or 1000s of miles from home indefinitely. The government just waits it out.

            • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N –
              under live and let live, religion is only an issue when it is used as a cudgel. which it certainly has been and continues to be.

              perhaps not in Mary’s case. but I understand me2’s reaction to any religiosity of any kind. the burden is on the believer to clarify they wouldn’t seek to impose their beliefs on any other in any coercive way.

              sometimes in the music of life, things don’t neatly resolve. that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the overall tune.

              i see her ideas might help you get out of debt, which is probably of interest to a lot of people. if they work they work.

              when acting in self-defense against a predatory state, you have full rights to use any techniques to escape aggression, including using the average boobus american’s cartoonish fool’s golden rule sentiments as a kind of martial art against him, so he remains stupefied, and you get away.

              A Spiritual Economics Book – Mary Elizabeth Croft

              How I Clobbered every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency known to Man, gives the reader a wonderful perspective as well as a thorough understanding of the fraudulent nature of the global banking system. She explains very clearly how she came to realise that there was something wrong with the whole system within our society. She also gives an outline of how to deal with banks, credit card companies and debt collectors completely lawfully. She has been a great inspiration to those of us who are challenging the system.

              free pdf download [religious tones removed]

  12. As noted elsewhere: There’s no MONEY to be made in stopping violent crime.
    In fact, there IS money to be made in IGNORING such crime (drives up workable / billable hours, OT, law creation for more power, which leads to more infractions, which leads to more money…)

    Get through the checkpoint, pull off a good distance downrange, crank one off, drive away, and never speak of it again.

    • Yes Jean,

      The more violent crime there is, the more justification for more police. It’s simple economics. Every business wants more people using their services, not less. Therefore, it is in the best interest of police for people to want more of their “services”, not less. If violent crime goes down, or disappears, it’s not good for business. They turn a blind eye to actual crime and start making non-crimes a crime. This shows the ignorant and stupid that they are “doing their job”. All the while, artificially increasing demand for their craft.

      Then, of course they belong to a union brotherhood.. We must protect the lowest common denominator through anti-competition measures…….I could go on, but will end this rant here.

      • Following similar ‘logic,’ all gunvermin agencies take great pains to spend their full budget before the end of a fiscal year. Otherwise, their budget might be cut for the following year.

      • Also, the cure to any gunvermin problem is to throw more money at it. Kids can’t read? Hire more teachers and pay them more/student. And it that doesn’t work? Must need still more money.

        • PtB

          I agree. It is maddening. Even more maddening are the people who think that type of operating is bad, unless it’s the government. Then it’s justified. After all, “we need government to keep things running right”. I especially love hearing that sentiment from people after they have bitched about government for 30 minutes or more.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here