Contract Law?

[Anonymous]

from Karl-Heintz Eisbrenner:                                                                                  

people separate walnuts from walnut shells
like brains from skulls
talking about "the brain" in a vacuum...
disconnected, unconnected, analyzed to the nth degree...
 
people separate "lawyers" from "the public at large
giving them power, privilege and immunity
this "separated out crowd", functions the same way as the word pharisaioi [literally "the separated out ones"] from the Greek whence we get the designation pharisee
 
recently, in a case involving Mr Starson, The State sought his incarceration in a state mental facility... How?  By hiring mouthpieces, lawyers... to present The State's position in Court... these hired mercenaries can be described as "for-profit-prophets"... hired, paid for, retained, contracted with... to re-present parties in Court...
 
The State authorities, and State paid-for-psychiatrists, wanted Mr Starson incarcerated as an inpatient, i.e. committed into a psychiatric facility, involuntarily... The State, through its hired lobbyists, told the Supreme Court of Canada's 9 Justices... Mr Starson's refusal to voluntarily ingest what the State wanted him to ingest... showed he did not understand, could not appreciate the benefit of taking anti-psychotic psychotropic synthetic pharmaceutical medication...  
 
The State, through its counselors and its advocates, said Mr Starson could not decide for himself whether or what to ingest...
 
Contract.  Contracts for hire.  The essence of law = contract.  Lots of adages floating around.
 
Contract.  Breaks apart like the walnut from its shell, into con and tract.
Conscience.  Breaks apart into con and science.
 
Far as I know, the 9 Justices of the Canadian Supreme Court, a.k.a. The Supreme Court of Canada, a.k.a. Canada's Highest Court... divided into two groups... 6 voted to allow Mr Starson the choice, the entitlement, about what to ingest and whether to ingest The State's medication.  3 voted to incarcerate Mr Starson, including Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin... who wrote the dissenting decision... basically ignoring evidence and arguing Mr Starson was "crazy" for not recognizing the benefits of The State licensed pharmaceutical industry's medication... 
 
Contract.  Lawyers hired by The State... argued, stated their "client's" position, made submissions... did everything they could to make sure The Court did what The State wanted...  Lawyers contracted to The State.  Mercenaries.  Mouthpieces.  Without a mind of their own.  For "lawyers" are trained "to follow their client's instructions"... to do what their clients want them to do...  to go where their clients want them to go... like in the story of Ruth and Naomi... whither thou goest, I will go... whither thou lodgest, I will lodge... thy people shall be my people... and thy God, my God...
 
What a wonderful illustration of "the blind leading the blind"... contracted to each other, shackled to each other, bound to each other, hand-cuffed to each other... saddled with mutual dutiful freedoms to act in certain ways, according to certain principles... following certain rules and procedures and regulations and legislation and statutes and codes...
 
The State pays for knowledge of law.  The State does not know "the law"... It needs "legal advice".  Makes me think about that cartoon, a lawyer sitting at a desk says to his client... "do you want my legal opinion, or do you want the truth".
 
Truth.  Does not conveniently break apart into two parts, like con and tract.  It does not carry the semantic reaction that the word "con" brings to the word "tract"... a contract... sounds like something fishy...  like a con science...  something that passes for science... something that masks itself as something it is not...
 
Robert Jackson, the Nuremberg prosecutor, describes the most odious oppression as "that which masks as justice"...
 
Truth.
Contract.
 
Truth stems from the Teutonic treu ["true"... as used in engineering and structure and functional craftsmanship, or tekne [Greek], whence we get technology].  The word treue signifies what Latin describes as virtu and Norse as vril, whence "virility".
 
One's aim is said to be "true".  A column can stand "true" to 90 degrees, perpendicular to the world.
 
The debate as to whether "contract" forms the basis, essence, foundation, fons et origo [fount and origin of law]... begins and ends with the two words : contract + truth.
 
The concept of "trust"... includes the functional structure of the "truss"... a weight bearing structure...  Trust + Truth + treue mean and signify a straight path a "true" compass direction, whether geographical or psychological... whether in the realm of atoms and fractals and particles and waves and particular waves... or in the realm of "language", our "talk-about-talk".
 
Professor Donovan Waters, Q.C., a renowned scholar in the area of Trust Law... clearly identifies the demise, the erosion, the falling away of the legal profession from "a calling" to just another business.
 
Business = busy-ness.  Business = commercial agreements, contracts, charters... stemming from the 6000 B.C. culture at a place called Shinar or Sumer.  There, the beginnings of "contract" as the essence of "law" begins to take shape and form, by The State beginning to create for itself its own "management" agency... made up of 
"separated out ones", identified by some "oath" binding them to loyal obedience or adherence to The State... a self-fulfilling accretive device... ever seeking to create and to produce and to pass more and more laws, rules, regulations... creating more and more and more of a separation between "the private sector"... those who do not occupy official office, or take "oaths" of office, or swear allegiance to some entity... under the terms of contract that provide for the equivalent of "the confessional"...
 
Secrecy.  Contractual secrecy.  An inherent aspect of the "hiring" by The State... of people... to speak The State's version of "the truth"... yet hiding behind "solicitor/client privilege"... the omerta of our "adversarial" system... the same "adversarial" system prevelant in belief systems, or webs of belief named : zoroastrianism... where perpetually the nut and the shell are at war... good v. bad... right v. wrong... black v. white...
 
The "suzerain" treaty, contract, agreement = a "superior" contracts with an "inferior", designed as an "unequal" bargaining situtation, one party exercises power, immunity and privilege the other party does not have...
 
The "parity" treaty = an agreement among equals... similar to the design of the British North America Act, 1867, where the Provinces [all "Sovereign" enter into a Charter Agreement, similar to a Corporate Charter... 
 
The Doukhabours who married each other in the story below, who made mutual promises to each other, who received assurances from each other... did not follow any prescribed "procedure" or "rule" or "regulation"...  The couple engaged in a mutual agreement based on trust without paperwork, without "by the powers invested in me by the Province of British Columbia"... they effectively acted within the bounds of their dutiful freedoms... without The State as a 3rd party to their "marriage"... their engaging in Holy Matrimony...
 
A Doukhabour couple go to a lawyer, asking for a divorce.  Where were you married?  Down by the river.  Who married you?  She married me.  I married her.  Who presided at the ceremony?  What ceremony?  I asked her to marry me.  She asked me to marry her.  So we got married.  Was there no priest or minister or justice of the peace [licenced by or vested with the power of The State?  No. Nobody but she and me were there, down by the river.
 
Good news, says the lawyer, You don't need a divorce.  In fact, you cannot get a divorce!  You were never "married"!  Never married?
 
What happened down at the river?, they asked... shaking their heads on the way out.
 
The Web of Belief = a title of a book by Willard van Orman Quine... outlines how we tend to adhere to believing a set of statements to be true... creating a "world-view"... what the German language calls a Weltanshauung - a way of seeing the world.
 
Since 6000 B.C. Sumer, the apartheid created by words and titles and labels and names, saw developed in a culture a 2-tiered caste system... the one occupied by "public servants", or "priests", or "paid-for-State-prophets [lawyers]"... ruling over the 'lower' class, known as "the herd", or "the masses", or "Joe SixPack"... what the Greeks called hoi polloi - those who do not share power, privilege and immunity as 'officers' or 'employees' or 'servants' of The State.
 
This overbearing "superior" body, made of entities created by words... use words to control and to extort and to oppress and to lay taxing burdens on the 'serfs', also known as 'slaves' or 'employees'...
 
The Roman political scene 2000 years ago illustrates the same 4-tiered taxing structure we see in place in Canada today... local, regional, provincial and federal... with Rome exercising imperial federal control over "puppet" States [provinces], and The Priesthood and the "separated out ones" [public servants]... participating in creating differing taxing systems... to ensure their survival as legal entities... created out of words...
 
When Jesus spoke about the elite forgetting the weightier matters of the law... justice and mercy... and proclaimed destruction to those participating in making rules and regulations so unbearable... taxing the people to death... his words offended the 'powers that be'.
 
One need not look far to recognize Jesus' teachings fall into the pattern and the spirit of the prophets of social ethic...  his "testimony" serves to distil the hypocrisy - laden system, where promises need not be kept... excusing lack of trust-worthiness as "... well that is just politics".
 
Some pundits depict the Emerson and Stronach defections from one Party to another, as not a matter of ethics, but a matter of politics.  Notice the adept way the principle "divide and conquer" comes into word-play.
 
Some pundits argue actions by The State can be labeled "legal" and "unethical" and still valid.
 
The word "valid" needs unpacking.  Arguments can be valid without being "sound".
Inferences can be "valid"... without being "true".
 
Ironically, how the word hypocrisy and its counterpart hypocrite find an echo in the words expressed by the hippocratic oath. 
 
Are contracts "supreme" in law?
 
What principles underly contract if not principles of trust, truth and trustworthiness?
 
'd' 
 
 
 

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Very interesting... thanks for sharing JackieG!

If we are truly at a Millenium Grand Super Cycle Peak... we are possibly looking at the one of those times where the Western World touches the most elemental "foundation" stones for building their societies ...




Elliott's Wave Principle was popularized during the 1980's by Robert Prechter, a Yale graduate who majored in psychology. In a book he coauthored with a fellow stock market analyst in 1978 called Elliott Wave Principle: Key To Stock Market Profits (6), Prechter anticipated the roaring bull market in stocks that started in the early-1980's. He then accurately timed most of the major twists and turns in the climbing stock market averages during the 1980's in an investment letter dubbed "The Elliott Wave Theorist" (7).

The reason Prechter achieved such success at calling the market is because a well-defined, large-scale Elliott Wave uptrend pattern has developed over the last 60 years-or-so that is nearing or past completion. This price pattern in U.S. stocks, which is shown in figure 7, developed in the wake of a 90 percent drop in stock prices associated with the Great Depression of the 1930's- a Supercycle bear market (note that the chart is logarithmic- the Wave Principle calls for this when working with long-term market periods). Thus, the rising price pattern over the past 60 years is an example of a Elliott Wave "Supercycle" bull market. As can be seen, since 1932 the DJIA has risen according to Elliott's five-wave uptrend pattern presented in figure 3. Furthermore, this pattern involved an has an extended third wave and a variety of corrections, just as the tenets of the Wave Principle predict (keep in mind that Elliott developed the Wave Principle during the 1930's and before the pattern in figure 7 developed). As should be clear, the well-defined Elliott Wave pattern which has developed over the last sixty-or-so years is inconsistent with the random walk stock prices are supposed to follow according to economists.

(One should note that the Supercycle pattern in stock prices from 1932 does not show the complete long-wave picture. In figure 7, (IV) & (V) appear at the bottom and top of the Elliott Wave uptrend, respectively. This is because the Supercycle run-up in stock prices since 1932 may have been the final, fifth wave of a "Grand Supercycle" bull market that started in the late-eighteenth century. The Grand Supercycle pattern in stock prices is visible in figure 8. What is even more alarming is that the huge Grand Supercycle upswing in stock prices over the last 200-or-so years might be the fifth wave of a Millenium Cycle upswing in collective expectations reflected in a long-run chart of the general price level for Western Civilization. This rising five-wave pattern is shown in figure 9. If, indeed, the top of the Supercycle being reached at present marks the completion of a Grand Supercycle and possibly Millenium Cycle upswing in market prices and people's expectations, then the approaching cyclical downswing and upset of prevaling expectations could very well be of biblical proportions.)

http://users.rcn.com/virtual.nai/sot/peak.htm

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Jackie, do you think a "revolution" is going to happen in the USA?  I curious to see how this could be done if Americans go to arms over the economic collapse?

[§N9sh2bj]

A technical analysis assumes a kind of market, a kind of giant randomness. The works of a small group of people engaging in monopoly and direct manipulation, are not a market. Tell me what I missed.
Revolution does not need to be found at the barrel of a gun, and militarism is a mistake.

[Anonymous]

It's for sure some kind of revolution is going to erupt.
I mean people ain't going to take this shit lying down......NO WAY!!
The more unemployed there is...the more people will look to the net to see whats really the reason they lost their job.
A lot of unhappy campers out there....isn't there?
The lawyer that wrote that was killed in a strange car accident around Kelowna B.C. a couple of years ago.

[targa2]

This guy had it right.  The power of words and their ability to control and stifle clear thought is unbelievable.  It is hard for people to accept that very little of what we know is original thought. The more I study law ,and in particular the original meanings of words, the better I see how we volunteered for this mess we are in.  Shakespeare said it " kill all the lawyers".

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

targa and JackieG:

I'm curious to know what you might think of John Locke's writings on the American Colonies such as this Letter Concerning Toleration:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/to ... c&part=all
---
Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil right of the community. For example: we cannot find any sect that teaches, expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise; that princes may be dethroned by those that differ from them in religion; or that the dominion of all things belongs only to themselves. For these things, proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw on them the eye and hand of the magistrate and awaken all the care of the commonwealth to a watchfulness against the spreading of so dangerous an evil. But, nevertheless, we find those that say the same things in other words. What else do they mean who teach that faith is not to be kept with heretics? Their meaning, forsooth, is that the privilege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves; for they declare all that are not of their communion to be heretics, or at least may declare them so whensoever they think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting that kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns and kingdoms? It is evident that they thereby arrogate unto themselves the power of deposing kings, because they challenge the power of excommunication, as the peculiar right of their hierarchy. That dominion is founded in grace is also an assertion by which those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all things. For they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe, or at least as not to profess themselves to be the truly pious and faithful. These, therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?

 Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.

   Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.
---

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

http://www.johnlocke.org/about/legacy.html

I think "rights" in the US and Canada are going to be "tested" quite monstrously during these thieving "banker bailouts"!
--------------------------------------------------------

How Courts Have Viewed Property Rights

How have Locke's principles fared in the United Sates of America? Recognizing that he believed that rights in property were the basis for human freedom, because "every man has a property in his own person," let us concentrate on them.

From ratification of the Constitution until the 1930's, the Supreme Court generally upheld the rights of the people in their properties. Marbury v. Madison established judicial review over laws of Congress. In Fletcher v. Peck, opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, and in Terrett v. Taylor, by Justice Story, the Court struck down legislation on the basis that the nature of society restrained the power of states to divest the owners of property they had acquired in good faith. In 1805 the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that under the law of the land clause in the state constitution, the legislature could not repeal a prior grant of lands to the University of North Carolina. It set an important national precedent.

In 1872 , the U. S. Supreme Court dealt property rights a setback, ruling that Louisiana could set up a monopoly of the slaughter-house business in several of its parishes. The monopoly had damaged the businesses of others. Justice Bradley, in a dissent which later became influential, said, "The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration of Independence." Slaughter-House notwithstanding, the judicial trend was toward the protection of economic rights.

The years between 1897 and 1937 were the period of "substantive due process," beginning with Allgeyer v. Louisiana, in which the Court ruled that the state could not make it illegal to buy marine insurance from a company not licensed in the state. It relied on the due process clause in finding that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving the defendant of his liberty to "enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned" (to earn his livelihood). The Lochner, Adair and Coppage cases of that era upheld economic rights even where working-condition, health and union issues were allegedly involved, because the states did not make compelling cases for their necessity.

The erosion of property rights began with Euclid Village v. Ambler Realty in 1926. The Village said that its zoning ordinance was necessary to solve certain development problems. It was upheld based on the "police power" of government to protect public health and safety, even though more fitting remedies to the alleged problems were available and the zoning reduced the land's value by 75 percent. (The Court later allowed takings of up to 95 percent of a property's value, saying that as long as there is any remaining economic value, there is no taking)! No compensation was awarded for the reduction in value of Ambler Realty's property, even though under the Fifth Amendment a taking must be for a public purpose, and it must be compensated.

Takings without compensation put costs which should be shared by all on a few people selected by the law, such as when, to protect watersheds, an ordinance "down-zones" from an allowed one house per acre to one per two or more acres. This reduces the value of the land substantially. A few landowners are made to pay for the protection of the public's water, when the cost should be shared by all citizens.

With Euclid the U. S. Supreme Court virtually gave up any effort to monitor legislation in land use cases. It said that there need only be a "rational relation" to a public purpose in order to escape judicial scrutiny. This is in contrast to First Amendment cases, in which the Court will strike down a statute unless there is a compelling state interest. In First Amendment cases (free speech, press, religion, assembly) the burden of proof is on the government, where it should be. In Fifth Amendment cases (property rights) it is on the citizen.

A further argument for strict protection of property rights is that there can be no freedom of speech where the speaker can be silenced by threats to his property. Justice Potter Stewart observed in 1972 that "the dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other."

The Nebbia v. New York case in 1934 allowed a commission to set milk prices. In 1937's West Coast Hotel v. Parrish minimum wage case the decision writer, Justice Hughes, equated liberty with the application of the police power, rejecting the belief that the common good is predicated on the freedom of the individual. Olsen v. Nebraska in 1941 unanimously upheld a state statute limiting the fees that private employment agencies could charge. Like Nebbia, it was an obvious negation of the Constitutional guarantee against state impairment of private contracts. The era of "substantive due process" had come to an end. The Supreme Court would no longer overrule legislatures on the basis of natural economic rights, which had been supreme civil rights from the Declaration of Independence onward. In no other area has the Court extinguished a set of fundamental rights.

 
The Court turns Toward Locke

Is John Locke's legacy of freedom then extinguished? To a great extent it is, though the Supreme Court in very recent years has edged toward a restoration of property rights. In First Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles (1987), it said that development moratoria must be compensated in some cases. The Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) ruling was that regulations must have a close relationship with the purpose of the law in question, and, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), that regulations that deny the property owner all "economically viable use of his land" require compensation. In a 1994 case, Dolan v. City of Tigard, Mrs. Dolan argued that the City's requirement for a bicycle path on her plumbing and electrical supply store property in return for a development permit was not related to the proposed development, and that it was an uncompensated taking of her property. The Court agreed with her and gave an important reminder of Locke's doctrine when it said: "One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."

The most hopeful statement in the Dolan decision was this: "We see no reason why the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the First or Fourth Amendment, should be relegated to the status of a poor relation in these comparable circumstances." The Court was perhaps signaling its readiness to reverse Euclid and the other decisions which have relegated rights in property to a lower level of judicial scrutiny than other rights. There is to be no more two-tier review system. Property rights are as protected as free speech.

Logical evolution in the restoration of rights in property should lead to compensation for partial takings of value. Even more important would be re-institution of the strict-scrutiny standard, which would return property rights to individuals.

If property rights were restored some laws might be declared unconstitutional. To cite a few examples:

    * the recent "family leave" law, because it restricts employers' and employees' rights to make their own compensation contracts;
    * mandated health care benefits, for the same reason;
    * minimum wage laws, for the same reason;
    * occupational-licensing laws which impede access to occupations ("pursuit of happiness") without being necessary for public health and safety (such as those for real estate brokers and appraisers);
    * automobile gasoline-mileage mandates, which impair contracts between buyers and sellers for the features of automobiles;
    * rent control, for not being for a public purpose, for taking without compensation and for impairment of contracts;
    * government price-fixing (e.g., milk, oil, cable-television, medical services) for taking and impairment.

The unconstitutionality of many land development regulations has already been noted. The environment is important, and some regulation to protect it is justified. Under strict scrutiny of economic rights the really necessary ones would probably be upheld under the "police power" to protect public health and safety, but might require compensation. Some might not be upheld at all. Protecting the rights of private property owners will tend to help the environment, because they have generally been better stewards of land and resources than governments.

Some think that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution should change with the times. It must not, for that view would dismantle the rule of law. The Constitution may only be changed by amendment. The Court's job is to interpret the law, not make it.

Some say that the Court cannot now uphold property rights after extinguishing them, because to do so would violate the principle of stare decisis ("let the decided matter stand"). This is not persuasive, because the Supreme Court violated the principle when it extinguished them. It has reversed itself many times. It can correct the wrong decisions it has made in respect to economic rights.

A practical reason for restoring these rights is that unconstitutional over-regulation is a huge drag on the economy and injures the poor more than others, because it reduces their opportunities. If the Court re-instituted strict scrutiny of economic rights the cost of living would be lower, the poor wealthier and the economy stronger.

Equally compelling on legal grounds is that "unalienable rights" is still in the Declaration of Independence, and "inalienable rights" is in the North Carolina Constitution. The phrases "due process of law," "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," "equal protection of the laws" and "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" are still in the Supreme Law of the United States, and the intent of the Founders to protect our rights in property is well-documented.

[targa2]

I didn't read that deeply in to it ,but, it seems that he is struggling with the concept of tribalism. Whether that tribal concept be religious in nature or otherwise,  how do we employ the concept of a society into the framework of different philosophical and religious beliefs.

A key thing he points out initially, is that ,regardless of peoples' background we all seem to agree on some fundamental ethics and do not outwardly teach against those ethics within tribal boundaries. Yet, there seems to be an implied deceit in the occult language of each distinct tribal unit, which hides the real meaning of their outward intent.

Those who see their religion as a form of law ( theocracy ) are,to the author, accused of wanting to depose Kings based on certain grounds. They also are seen as to view all who are not of their belief as outsiders and heretics. So how is this any different than any other belief .Urban peoples do not mix with the rural peoples.  Rolling Stones fans avoid Boy George fans. If these peripheral trivialities can be construed by people to represent some philosophical disconnect with others, who are not of their mindset , why are we so surprised that  people of a particular religious view feel the same way.  After all, if one wishes to be part of a theocracy, he must give his entire being into servitude to god, or he is a heretic himself, outside gods law, and outside of that community. Music fans are content to disassociate others, over an aspect of their lives which is superficial, and subject to whimsical change with the change of age or geography. For example, consider a pledge to become a TRUE servant of Christ. This cannot be construed as trivial by any means, if it is done in earnest.  I contend that if a theocratic community were to actually live by gods law , as written in their scripture, they would not be concerned with the King .Nor should the King be overly concerned with them.  If , for example, someone was to live by the 10 Commandments and the `do unto others `doctrine,  how could they pose a threat to another.  If they pose no threat to you or anyone else, why should you or the King or any politician really care what they do. Shouldn`t society just leave them be . Is this not what all of us are ultimately in search of.  Would outsiders who have conflicting interests not potentially pose a grave threat to those adherents of such a code.

If I, as an adherent to a theocratic community, and it`s `law of God `doctrine, were to truly follow these laws,  I should have no contest with temporal authority.  Temporal authority ,for the most part, is necessary to govern and control those who do not follow Gods law.  Those who are simply out for gain ,will often pursue that gain without any concern for the ramification of their actions to others.  This is the way of the commercial world.  Look around you.  Do you not see the world as nothing more than a bunch of self-interested persons, hoping to acquire more STUFF. Stuff to make us feel good temporarily.   Those people can justify their actions by the doctrine of Social Darwinism.  Temporal governments are necessary to control and manage the massive potential for damage that commerce, in it`s disregard for others, can and does cause. `` It`s just business``, is the siren song of the commercial world. `` I`m just doing my job ``.  In this capacity we create a disconnect to the ramifications of what we do, as if some unseen force , outside of ourselves, is really responsible.

To some it up I will simply say this.   We either resolve to follow the 11 laws of God or we are destined to follow the 60,000,000 laws of man.
The US colonies were essentially a theocracy until the Constitution came on the scene.  This aspect of history is conveniently ignored in lieu of promoting The Constitution.  The Constitution, in my opinion,  is nothing more than an attempt at merging Theocracy and Commerce, thus masking over and eventually destroying the former.  Wasn`t this the stated goal of the Illuminati, just 20 years prior to the Constitutions`founding.   Doesn`t  evil try to impersonate god.

Hope this helps.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Very interesting and well thought Targa2. It helps.  

I'll take another step down the rabbit hole with this thread though.  

Okay, I thought the Constitution and Modern "Democracy" are a formalization of the thought that mankind does not know the "Mind of God".  Of course this apparent Greco-Deist-Christian "idea" has apparently been used by Jewry to destroy the Divine Right of Kings for the last 225 years as well as any other economic and spiritual leader opposing International Jewry. Without considering "the Mind of God", all temporal evils can be justified by a state - much like Marxism's rabid secularism.  

The ideas of the Consitution are actually religious in nature. If one looks at Johnathan Edwards and his influence on the American Statesmen it becomes apparent.  The Great Awakening led to the dissolution of the US ties to the Church of England. Many of the reasons for the break would be later used for breaking away from the rule of England over the USA politically.   For example, do we have "Freedom of the Will" as per Edwards?  
Consequently, the 60,000,000 laws of man come from the belief that we do not know "the mind of God" , at least as far as the USA is concerned, and must make it up as we go along.  

BTW, I believe a group of evil Jews have hijacked the idea of "Freedom" for their own Protocols.

A quick note on J. Edwards influences:
-------
The first part of such an answer relates to the cultural and ecclesiastical setting within which Edwards lived and worked. Christopher Hill has argued that the 1640s constituted the most crucial decade in British history. The same could be said of the 1740s in American history. As the 1640s set the intellectual terms of the Restoration establishment in England and shaped the future of both church and state there, so the ideas and alliances of the 1740s shaped Revolutionary and Constitutional America, again in both church and state. And Edwards was at the very heart of the most crucial debates of the 1740s. He was at their heart both as a pastor and as a theologian. He saw and responded to the big issues on a national (and sometimes international scale), and he did so in a way which brought those issues directly home to the lives of the people whom he served as pastor. He provided biblical critiques of the values which were coming to define America ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") and called both his people and all future Americans to the deepest possible understanding of far older values ("glorify God and enjoy Him forever").

John Adams, second President of the United States, made the following extraordinary statement in a letter to Hezekiah Niles in 1818: "What do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people; a change in their religious sentiments . . . This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution" (quoted by Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 262). Edwards wrote and ministered during this "real" American revolution and his theological insights cut right to the quick of the values which define the nation we now call America. In his brilliant analysis of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (which volume won both the Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft Prize for American History) Bernard Bailyn entitled his massive concluding chapter, "The Contagion of Liberty" (see The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967], 230-320). To the degree that America, to this day, understands itself as "the land of the free" and to the degree that the highest of all American values and virtues (including some spiritual values and virtues) are defined in terms of freedom and liberty, to that very degree is Edwards's Freedom of the Will, the most fundamental analysis of American culture (see Marsden's ch. 26). And to the degree that America seeks to export its values to the nations of the earth, to that very degree is Edwards's The Nature of True Virtue, the most significant biblical critique of current global political and social issues (see Marsden's ch. 28).

http://www.wts.edu/resources/articles/l ... wards.html

[targa2]

To further my previous answer I will have to make a stronger case for biblical text.  Keep in mind that 20 years ago I was an agnostic , so this is a new revelation for me.  Keep in mind also that what I am about to tell you is simply a studied work in progress and that I , by no means , practice what I am talking about in any fullness of it's pure sense.

The problem with the Christian community is this.  They could never become a theocratic institution today simply because they have several disconnects.  First, most Christians are " futurists ".  Second, they do not see the biblical writings as "law " .  I will address these two points as they relate to the first statement in the paragraph.

Futurists see biblical prophesy as " waiting to come to pass ".  Most of them also believe they are " walking in GRACE ", meaning that they do not see the biblical writings as a LAW.  They see the law of the Old Testament as having been done away with when Christ was nailed to the cross.  An examination of the scripture tells us otherwise.  I believe that all bible prophesy was fulfilled in the first century and that it is a book of LAW and ECONOMICS.  This is a much more sane position to take when you examine it more deeply.  It is also a much more palatable doctrine to those who are turned off by the Church and it's nonsense.

On freedom....... I would say....define it!!!  I do not believe in freedom.  There is no such thing in the pure sense.  For example, if one were to build a cabin in the woods and live off the land without any outside interference from others, they would still have to deal with the laws of nature.  Poor forward planning may leave one very hungry or very cold, or even very dead. Does this describe freedom? I guess it depends on the individual.
I think that the best approach is to decide who or what you will be of service to.  Making a conscious choice to decide your path in this arena is true freedom, because it removes the anxiety of not knowing where one belongs in the grand scheme of things.  This is how those who have decided to serve god see their role.  They believe the scriptures are divine and want to serve god through these writings.  This may seem to be form of insanity to our secular society. However, the more I study the writings of people who have chosen this path, the more sense they make.

I have been involved in the law/ patriot movement for 10 years now. I have several acquaintances that have been on this journey through it's different variations, following different peoples thought processes and interpretations of the law.  The interesting thing I have discovered is that there is a growing awareness among the really devoted students of law, that the biblical writings are much more profound than we had originally considered.  There is little doubt left in my mind that the bible is a book of law and that it was god inspired.  A strong statement I know. This is not something I could possibly impart to someone else , particularly in a short blurb on a web page , so I won't attempt to bore you with an attempt.

Suffice it to say, after studying man made law and gods law , there are some correlations that simply cannot be an accident.  Again, this is not something that one person can impart to another.  It requires a long , open minded process of discovery.  Many layers of learning and unlearning are needed over a period of time to see the depth of the subject of law.  One must not get to "invested " in any particular beliefs to early on, lest this become a barrier to progress.  Most people want "silver bullet " solutions to everything and are just not willing to go through the process.The process is necessary.  I have studied this list of people, and at the end I will tell you who I think has the best grasp on the subject, and invite you to look into his research . I sense that you are wanting to know more.
Alex Muljiani
Eldon Warman
Russ Porisky
Howard Freeman
Rice McCleod
Victoria Joy
Roger Elvick
Pat Holley
Winston Shrout
Robert Menard
Victor Beck
Richard Anthony

I would recommend the last two, and particularly Richard Anthony above all the others by far.

Here is his site     http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/assembly.html    he will state the position I am currently dwelling deeply upon at this time.  If you like what you find on this site he has another.      http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/index.html#h

Don't be turned away by the biblical context .  This will be an insight that will impress even the most hardened person.  Start with  " the power of words " and work your way down.  If you follow through with it, I would like your feedback.

You will have to decide for yourself if the mind of god can be known.

[Anonymous]

I think "rights" in the US and Canada are going to be "tested" quite monstrously during these thieving "banker bailouts"!

Courts and government only recognize two entities:
CREDITORS (masters),and,
DEBTORS (slaves)
Other than that....thats it.
No one appears....save for a number to be counted on your fingers before the government or courts as a "creditor"
Thats simply because no one rebuts the unproved assumptions and presumptions.
No lawyer ever rebuts the charges.
He just accepts them and attempts to unwind his client (usually unsuccessfully) from them.
No one knows where their at.
They open their mouth, lose and it lands them in jail....or worse.
Contract law (the font and origin of law) began around 6000 years ago at a place known as Sumar or Sinar.
The following is an example of what happens when the crown prosecutor pretends to be above the law.
This is the end result of over a dozen affidavits and notices served on the crown and its witnesses....Affidavit-

Notice to a Justice of the Peace in the Province of Saskatchewan

For the record:

In the matter coming before the Traffic Safety court in the district of Saskatoon in the Province of Saskatchewan on February 25, 2009 between the,

Plaintiff for the crown: Sask Justice Traffic Safety Court Prosecutor Larry Danylyshen,

and,

Respondent and accused: Harper, Jackie G. aka Jackie Grant Harper
_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of Counter Claim made by the claimant:

In the matter regarding the charges laid by the Peace Officers coming to trial which the aforementioned prosecutor has seized upon and is now representing to the court,

I, Jackie Grant Vel'oice Harper make oath and claim that Traffic Safety Court Prosecutor Larry Danylyshen" of Saskatoon Saskatchewan did commit the following offences between June 27th 2008 and January 23, 2009 TO WIT: "conspiracy to commit theft of private property, gross incompetence, malicious prosecution and malfeance,

Furthermore,
Pursuant to all the crowns charges pending against "Harper, Jackie G." in the Province of Saskatchewan,

I, Jackie Grant Vel'oice Harper make oath and claim the Traffic Safety Court prosecutor has failed to provide or produce the following,
TO WIT;

1) a verifiable victim, and/or,

2) a competent witness, and/or,

3) the lawfully requested disclosure, and/or,

4) a legitimate bill in order the accused may settle the crowns offer of charges, and/or,

5) a legal juristic "person" to become a ward of the Traffic Safety court, and/or,

6) a counter claim to the public charge of conspiracy to commit theft [by the Peace Officer in attendance] of the claimants private property verbally authorized by the Prosecutor Larry Danylyshen on August 9, 2008,

Furthermore,
I claim the prosecutor has failed to provide any rebuttal or counter claim whatsoever (written or verbal) and therefore has failed, to raise a court of competent jurisdiction,
Furthermore,
I claim the prosecutor has failed to provide any court of law with the ability to possess subject matter jurisdiction, without which of course, the court can not proceed,
Furthermore,
I claim the prosecution has failed to provide or produce any evidence to the contrary as to the claims and/or counter claims made by the claimant/agent for the accused,
Furthermore,
I claim the prosecution has waived any and all remedy and provisions in law it may have been granted by any government in Canada, the Province of Saskatchewan or the municipal government of Saskatoon,
Furthermore,
I claim the crown and/or the prosecutor in question has abandoned its right to appear in any court of record concerning the "Respondant and accused",
Furthermore,
I claim to be the only one (with a verifiable claim of right) in this court room today in possession of the law as evidenced by the non-response (for want of a plea) to the numerous affidavits and Notices that I can and will produce,
Furthermore,
I charge that the Traffic Safety Court Prosecutor is verifiably, irrefutably and justifiably claimed incompetent and full liable in all matters involving the "Respondant and accused: Harper, Jackie G. and/or Jackie Grant Harper,"
Furthermore,
I claim this matter must be expressed to be resolved before any involved party may proceed in any court of record in the Province of Saskatchewan,
Furthermore,
Having exhausted all administrative procedure to remedy and recourse then, in the administration of justice I claim it is the duty of this court to bring these charges forward to the now accused Traffic Safety Court Prosecutor Larry Danylyshen and command that the accused, [now obligated], then answer to the aforementioned charges while under oath/affirmation and penalty of perjury.

Notice to the court;

Failure of the court to thoroughly investigate the veracity of these charges and/or failure of the accused prosecutor to appear and then answer to the charges put forward by the claimant can only be taken to mean by all concerned and affected parties that the scheduled appearance of the "Respondent and accused Harper Jackie G." in the aforementioned action scheduled on February 25, 2009 is now null and void [for want of a plea] to these charges.
In light of this, the Traffic Safety Court prosecutor is unequivocally seen by this claimant to have abandoned the rule of law, can not claim good faith or colour of right, TO WIT; "Has no legal or lawful standing to proceed in any court of record in the Province of Saskatchewan."






All charges within this counter claim are issued under oath as "true, correct and complete" on this 14th day of February, 2009 in the city of Saskatoon, province of Saskatchewan,

     
by:_____________________________________________________________ affiant and agent for accused with general power of attorney in fact.                                                                                  


Witness: _________________________________________________________

Address _____________________________________________________

Use of a Notary or Commissioner of Oaths is for attestation and verification purposes and does not constitute adhesion, contract or change in status in any manner. All rights reserved without prejudice.

Jackie-Grant-Vel'oice: Harper
c/o 1040-B 20th Street West,                                                                                                                                                                               Saskatoon city, Saskatchewan province.
Free-man-on-the-Land, Non-consenting and ungoverned
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended, By the Grace of God, The Rule of Law and the Law of the Land.

[Anonymous]

Here is what I think got Karl killed....


karl-heintz eisbrenner <eisbrennerlaw@yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:53:14 -0800 (PST)
From: karl-heintz eisbrenner <eisbrennerlaw@yahoo.com>
Subject: Disciplining Judicial Discretion
To: randall.libero@modavox.com,
www.rwnicholson.com reveals hundreds of cases - perverted judges, perverted lawyers, perverted politicians running rampant in British Columbia...
 
The media plays on The Pig Farm Case... where ladies, mothers, daughters... over 200 were murdered, played "roles" in snuff films... their body parts put on the BBQ - described as "long pork", cannibalism on video-tape... and Judge Dumb Dumb Patrick Dohm... and others, cover it up... 
 
The legal system in British Columbia runs on 4 principles:
 
Bribery
Blackmail
Bribery
Salvage
 
Nothing more and nothing less.
 
The Law Society of British Columbia's over 10,000 - ten thousand "members in good standing" line up like so many dildos... claiming to be "administering justice" - Yeah Right!
 
Every one of those "members in good standing" belongs to a corporation specifically designed to run "a legal monopoly", an exclusive monopoly game specifically designed to fleece the people and to abuse kids... "selling knowledge of law for money" making the House of Prayer into just another Trading Place...
 
For there is no courtroom anywhere that does not include "prayers for relief" in all pleadings... filed by so called "lawyers" or "solicitors"...
 
Lawyers in Canada = Solicitors.  Fleecing families by using so-called "divorce laws" and "family laws" to extract the equity from family homes and deprive kids of inheritance and legacies...  In the corporation called "Canada" all lawyers are "solicitors"... there is not one "barrister" among them.
 
Not one "advocate".  Only "sharp-dressed-men" [ I use the word "men" because women are not supposed to be in the line of fire - after all, Law is War! isn't it?]
 
A little girl.  Murdered.  Cut into pieces.  Bloody dress.  Bloody socks.  What happens?  The so-called Royal Canadian Mounted Police launder her clothing twice... ridding her little dress of all remnants of blood... and when the case comes to court... the "lawyers" for the "justice department" claim... IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY THE TRUTH ABOUT MINDY TRAN'S MURDER CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE REVEALED, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BECAUSE OF COURSE "NATIONAL SECURITY" IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN 1 LITTLE GIRL'S LIFE AND DEATH AT THE HANDS OF CULPRITS - OFFICIALS - WHO DO NOT WANT THE STENCH OF THEIR DIRTY DEEDS DONE DIRT CHEAP TO BE REVEALED...
 
And before some of you get "offended" at my words, take note!  I testified under oath in so-called criminal proceedings in Kelowna Provincial Court on July 28, 2003, as a Barrister, and not as a "Solicitor" that Canada's former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien [the cretan] was guilty of TREASON!... and crown counsel did not object, the judge did not object...  I testified the Law Society of British Columbia was illegitimate - simply functioning as "legalized robbery"... without any objection from anyone...  I invited Crown Counsel Prosecutor to take the stand and testify to the contrary - he refused...  I testified the entire "legal system" in British Columbia was illegitimate... each lawyer "licensed" by the Society engaged not in administration of justice, but a legal moneymaking monopoly - providing "goods and services" taxable services... in a money-making scheme designed to prevent anyone else from speaking out or speaking for their friend, their brother, their sister...
 
No one can oppose the argument made.  No one has the ability to take the witness stand in any courtroom anywhere to dispute the argument.
 
Hell!  I even had a so-called superior court justice edit my pleadings... rewrite my indictment against the current Premier of the Province of British Columbia and the former Premier... in fraud, breach of trust, obstruction of justice...  Gordon Campbell [the last name in Gaelic means "crooked mouth"]...
 
The May 2001 Provincial Election in British Columbia was RIGGED by judges... all the while our Prime Minister Paul Martin and others decry the so-called "illegal" elections in other countries. 
 
No doubt about it folks!  There is no "rule of law" in Canada... only the "law of rules"... made by offal occupying public office... claiming immunity, privilege, impunity no different than Mafioso... with one difference... at least Mafioso do not harm moms and kids...
 
The Ministry of Children and Families in British Columbia breaks its own laws every day... abuses moms and kids and dads and families, every day...  The Ministry and its Ministers [present and former] are guilty of murder... plain and simple... and yet, 633 million gets paid from the corporation Canada to British Columbia to cover it all up... to make it all go away...
 
A U.S. Federal Attorney says it all when she says in 2003 reported in the Press - Canadian judges need a good kick in the ass - is what they need.  I go further.  Judges who adjudicate divorce and property cases in Superior Courts commit TREASON and TREASON, as Louis Riel well knows, demands summary execution, nothing more and nothing less!
 
The Ministry of Children and Families in British Columbia and all who participate in it and with it, commits TREASON every day...
 
The British North America Act, 1867 calls for a Naval and Land Militia... to control the excesses of Government...
 
A Call To Arms, Brothers and Sisters!  A Call to Arms!  Time to occupy the Supreme Court buildings - hold superior justices accountable for TREASON... for breaking the law, for disobeying the dictates of the only REAL law on British Columbia Law Books, THE LAW AND EQUITY ACT that disciplines discretion and holds judges accountable... yet it is not taught in any B.C. law school... is not a part of the curriculum for the Professional Legal Training Course administered by The Law Foundation of British Columbia...
 
Politicians here are not entitled to just make or just write any law they like, like the gun registry laws, like the marijuana growing crime laws... and if they do... they commit felonies, they commit crimes, they commit TREASON...
 
There is no "Imperial Presidency"... there is no "diplomatic immunity"... there is no hiding place anymore... Judgment will come...  Judgment has come!
 
Mindy Tran's life.  Michael Dunahee's life.  And their murders will be uncovered.  Nothing covered up will remain uncovered, ladies and gentlemen... Mark well my words!
 
Karl-Heintz Eisbrenner, M.A. (Oxon.); L.L.B.
 
                                            RESUME
 
                             KARL-HEINTZ EISBRENNER
TELEPHONE: (808) 330 - 3636
EMAIL: mailto:eisbrennerlaw@yahoo.com">eisbrennerlaw@yahoo.com
 
EDUCATION

1974 - 1977 B.A.R. (Hons.), Bachelor of Arts in World Religion, North American Baptist College and Divinity School, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Class Valedictorian : "Looking Beyond What Lies Behind"
 
1976 - (Summer) Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, Studies in New Testament [koine] Greek
 
1977 - 1980 B.A. (Hons.), Regents Park Permanent Private Hall, Oxford University, England, Joint Honours in Philosophy and Theology
 
1981 - 1984 L.L.B., Bachelor of Laws, University of Alberta, Faculty of Law, Edmonton, Alberta
 
1985 M.A. (Oxon.), Philosophy and Theology
 
1997 - 1998 NLP [Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Master Practioner Training] - Erickson College, Vancouver, British Columbia, Psychotherapy Training

TEACHING and RELATED EXPERIENCE

September 30, 2005, Guest Lecture "Philosophy of Law", Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, Department of Philosophy, History, and Politics, and continuing On-Line Learning Consultation with students
 
1990 - Summer, Sessional Instructor, Critical Thinking, Cariboo College, Kamloops, B.C. [now Thompson Rivers University]
 
1989 - 1990, Sessional Instructor, Cariboo College
- Lectures, Seminars, Tutorials in Ethics, Critical Thinking, and Introductory Philosophy [Course Outlines, Content, Evaluation, Lectures, Tutorials, Seminars]
- Assisted in obtaining successful funding to introduce Critical Thinking into the College Nursing Program [Centre for Curriculum Development]
 
1982 - 1984, Volunteer/Full-Time Summer Employment
- Student Legal Services, Law Centre, University of Alberta, Legal Education Project, Lectures and Moot Courts in Introductory Law, the Legal System, Civil and Criminal at Edmonton Junior and Senior High Schools
- Boyle Street Project and Edmonton Youth Emergency Shelter Society [on call counsel],
- Strathcona Shelter Society and W.I.N. House - Forums on Family Law
- Edited "Under 18 - You and The Law" [publication distributed to all Province of Alberta Junior and Senior High Schools - outlining the transition from Juvenile Delinquent to Young Offender criminal law legislation]
 
1980 - 1981,
- Sessional Instructor, North American Baptist College, Edmonton, Alberta - Lectures in Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Modern Theories of Ethics
 
1980 - Teaching Assistant, University of Alberta, Department of Philosophy
- Lectures in Early Greek Philosophy [Plato]

1979 - Summer, Tutor in Business English as a Second Language to French students, Global Language School, Oxford

OTHER EMPLOYMENT

2000 - present,
- EisbrennerLaw: Consulting and Counseling, Writing and Research
- affiliate member of The StarGate Research Project
 
1998 - 2000
- Associate Barrister, Gordon & Company, Osoyoos, British Columbia
- General Practice, Family Law, Administrative Law, Mediation and Litgation, Judicial Review, Constitutional Law
 
1997 - 1998
- Partner, Neate Eisbrenner, Barristers and Solicitors, Langley, British Columbia, General Civil Litigation, Family Law, Legal Aid, Criminal Law
 
1996
- Contract Work - Marcotte Law Office, Abbotsford, British Columbia
- Legal Aid, Personal Injury [Defendant], Family, Separation, Custody, Divorce, Constitutional Law
 
1991 - 1995
- Legal Assistant, Articles of Clerkship,
- Associate Barrister, Taylor Tait Rands & Ruley, Barristers & Solicitors
- Civil Litigation, Family Law, Wrongful Dismissal, Administrative Law
1988
- Associate Barrister, Phillip Parker & Associates, Edmonton, Alberta
- Personal Injury, Family Law, Civil Litigation, Criminal Law, Administrative Law
 
1984 - 1988
- Articles of Clerkship, Associate Barrister, Ahlstrom Wright, Barristers & Solicitors, Sherwood Park, Alberta,
- Family Law, Administrative Law, Commercial Law, Civil Litigation
 
1980
- Digital Instruments, Courier and Delivery Computer Services, Edmonton, Alberta
 
1976 - 1977
- Assistant Pastor, German Zion Baptist Church, Edmonton, Alberta
- Bilingual German/English "Temple Baptist Church"
 
1972 - 1974 Bank of Nova Scotia, Calgary, Alberta
- Junior Computer Operator [Honewell Systems, IBM On-Line]
- Data Processing Operations Supervisor [Prince of Wales Centre]
- Management Trainee
- co-ordinated first "on-line" network banking system data processing operations in Alberta
 
OTHER WORK EXPERIENCE
 
- construction worker, laborer, carpenter's helper, plumber's apprentice, waiter, framer, delivery truck driver, hotel and restaurant magazine reporter, movie extra, dairy farm hand, farm laborer

PUBLICATIONS

"What is the scope of Provincial Court jurisdiction under the Family Relations Act?" The Advocate, July 1998, Vol. 56, No. 4 - distributed throughout the administration of justice system in the Province British Columbia [judicial, administrative/executive, legislative]
Edited "Under 18 - You and the Law" [1984] for Student Legal Services
Poetry published in "Blue Buffalo" [1985]
New York Times theatre review : "The Life of Spiders" [2004]

LANGUAGES and CULTURE

Fluent in German
Studies in Classical Hebrew and koine Greek, Oxford University
koine Greek intensive study, Princeton Theological Seminary
Classical Violin [10 years]
Second Prize Award in Calgary Stampede Art Contest [age 11]
Art Mural [in pastel] for North American Baptist College - 1977
 
REFERENCES

Professor Dan O'Reilly, Assistant Professor, Dept. of History, Philosophy and Politics, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia
<doreilly@tru.ca>
Professor Wesley W. Pue, Nemetz Professor of Legal History, Faculty of Law, Associate Dean Graduate Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia <pue@ubc.law.ca>
Wolfgang Schmidt, Ph.D., Journalist, Author, c/o Canyon Creek Ranch, Rock Creek, British Columbia, <wschmidt@direct.ca>
Eva Wilson, Librarian, Ocean Park, British Columbia, <ewilson@surrey.ca>

VOLUNTEER WORK and OTHER EXPERIENCE

Volunteer Legal Clinics at Rock Creek Medical Society, Rock Creek, B.C.
Volunteer educational advisor for the Mission and Abbotsford Small Business Associations
Volunteer legal education with The People's Law School, British Columbia
The Edmonton Youth Emergency Shelter Society [YESS], on-call counsel
Legal Advisor to Osoyoos Chamber of Commerce
Honorary Member of Osoyoos Chamber of Commerce
Former member of British Columbia Bar Association
Former member of Canadian Bar Association
Former member of Alberta Bar Association
Legal Aid - on-call counsel - Transition Houses and Shelters
Volunteer - University of British Columbia Moot Court Program
_____________________________________________________________

Canadian Citizen
Born, July 11, 1952, Lethbridge, Alberta
Change of Surname, 1997, from "Fech" to "Eisbrenner"

[targa2]

Uh huh....that would do it.  For those who get past the mind control,( public school,TV, religion ) we eventually come to the final barrier , which is the law. Most people never get past the first barriers ,so they are really no threat.  If 5% of us really knew the law and kept pounding them with it , we would gridlock the system if nothing else.  An insider like Karl goes off the reservation and they are really a problem.

[Anonymous]

Yes...the entire law society had a problem with Karl.....judges, politicians included.
He stood his ground and thus it could not be resolved.
Power does not go from point A to point B without a struggle.
I honestly think he was murdered.

[targa2]

I am curious if you and I agree on something Jackie.

I think that the real power in the world is not political but legal.  Politics, to me , seems to be a grotesque form of entertainment.  It motivates people to beg for constant change and the change comes in the form of more written laws.  Politics is just the catalyst.  

I am fascinated by the whole Zionist intrigue thing and the history behind it,  but at the end of the day it is still just politics.

Thoughts ?

[Anonymous]

Sure...bankers and politicians are at the top.
BUT.....no one makes a move without first seeking legal advice...RIGHT?
No one to a man/woman in government, banking or law is without "legal counsel on retainer."
What that means, is even the President of America is a ward of the court simply by having a lawyer on retainer.
Wards of the court are simply someone of unsound mind or a minor.
All lawyers and judges have retained legal counsel should they get into trouble.
Wards of the court leading wards of the court....i.e,the blind leading the blind and they only go where their client wants them to go.
How fucked up is that?

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

On freedom....... I would say....define it!!! I do not believe in freedom. There is no such thing in the pure sense. For example, if one were to build a cabin in the woods and live off the land without any outside interference from others, they would still have to deal with the laws of nature. Poor forward planning may leave one very hungry or very cold, or even very dead. Does this describe freedom? I guess it depends on the individual.
I think that the best approach is to decide who or what you will be of service to. Making a conscious choice to decide your path in this arena is true freedom, because it removes the anxiety of not knowing where one belongs in the grand scheme of things. This is how those who have decided to serve god see their role. They believe the scriptures are divine and want to serve god through these writings. This may seem to be form of insanity to our secular society. However, the more I study the writings of people who have chosen this path, the more sense they make.

I'm sorry to read about your friend Karl. It seems he overturned the temple symbols - perhaps with indignation like Jesus. Best regards to his family and friends. The email gives a clear impression that very sordid criminality has run rampant and unpunished.  

Interesting response - to the question. The Calvinists didn't believe in Freedom either and of course, no one is free of aging and death eventually even if one plans to avoid it. The Story of one's life and what we live for is most important.  Freedom is very close to what we live for.  If we live for material wants alone, we of course will never have true Freedom. Freedom from tyrannical decisions are a part of this as well.  Most of the what the Talmud and evil it represents has stood for extinguishing the story of life, to hide it and cover up it's memory.  Therefore, we must fight a continuous, unending battle against it.  The law is the last wall, you are correct - but it bends with the belief in the system, that is, the credit it has is only in the minds of the people. And I guess, that if we could know the "mind of God" in all of its exacitude, we wouldn't need it at all.

[Anonymous]

Liberty is "freedom from arbitrary and/or despotic government".....of any kind.
To choose to be a member of a society or the freedom to reject it and thereby exist completely free from all statutory obligations,  restraints and restrictions.
That's about it in a nutshell.

[mobes]

Liberty is "freedom from arbitrary and/or despotic government".....of any kind.
To choose to be a member of a society or the freedom to reject it and thereby exist completely free from all statutory obligations,  restraints and restrictions.
That's about it in a nutshell.

I couldn't have said it better myself!  :mrgreen:

[targa2]

Hey CrackSmokeRepublican ( that name slays me )

Interesting response - to the question. The Calvinists didn't believe in Freedom either and of course, no one is free of aging and death eventually even if one plans to avoid it. The Story of one's life and what we live for is most important. Freedom is very close to what we live for. If we live for material wants alone, we of course will never have true Freedom. Freedom from tyrannical decisions are a part of this as well. Most of the what the Talmud and evil it represents has stood for extinguishing the story of life, to hide it and cover up it's memory. Therefore, we must fight a continuous, unending battle against it. The law is the last wall, you are correct - but it bends with the belief in the system, that is, the credit it has is only in the minds of the people. And I guess, that if we could know the "mind of God" in all of its exacitude, we wouldn't need it at all.

I don't know if it was intentional but you sort of supported what I was saying about freedom.  The very idea of fighting for freedom suggests we do not have it.  If we determine that we will " fight for freedom " , we have decided " whom or what we shall serve."  I know this is getting a little existential, and I hate getting too far in to that shit, lest I start to sound like Alan Watt.  However, determining how we define freedom is important IMHO. Freedom in one area of life may leave one in bondage in another.  Financial freedom may mean having to work 12 hours a day for some.  They become bound by the time they put in.  If we are going to claim to fight for freedom or liberty, then we must define it.  If we declare that  "freedom is not having to bow down to the bankers and their agenda " then we have only stated what freedom is NOT, and not what is IS.

Again....what is it?

[Anonymous]

"It is against equity for free men not to have free disposal of their own property"
The freedom to accept or reject and if one does reject then, the banker must pay.....his own way.

[Anonymous]

Staying on point, "What is the definition of a 'free man?"
I claim he/she is one who swears no allegiance to the crown/government/state.

[targa2]

Some people claim that if you call yourself a "freeman," you are free from bondage. In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 538, the term freeman means "a person not in slavery; a person who has full civil and political rights; citizen". A freeman refers to one who is not a slave, but since the servants of Christ are slaves to God, we cannot be freemen. Civil Rights are created by man, and can be changed or abrogated at will by the creator of those rights (which is man). You will not find "civil rights" in scripture. A freeman is also defined as a citizen, and the bondmen of Christ are not a citizen of any worldly place. A freeman and citizen are synonymous.

Citizen: "A native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection. A civilian..." Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1992, page 248.

"Citizenship implies political status. It may or may not confer suffrage or any other particular incident, but it does imply incorporation into the body politic." The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III, p.358 footnote.

[Anonymous]

targa2
Your definitions are somewhat wanting.
A person is a subject/slave
A citizen is a subject/slave
A individual is a subject/slave
A slave to Christ/God is a matter of choice and therefore could not be determined to be a slave.
Check Bouviers Law 1856 or http://www.atgpress.com/inform/tx013.htm

[Anonymous]

ALLEGIANCE . By allegiance Is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence . Carlisle v. U. S. , 16 Wall. 154, 21 L. Ed. 426; Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 191; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct 456, 42 L. Ed. 890; Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 501.

"The tie or ligamen which binds the subject [or citizen] to the king [or government in return for that protection which the king [or government] affords the subject, [or citizen." ] 1 Bl. Comm. 366. It consists in "a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his sovereign." 7 Coke, 4&.

Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the state. Pol. Code Cal. § 55.

In Norman French. Alleviation; relief; redress. Kelham.

- Local allegiance. That measure of obedience which is due from a subject of one government to another government, within whose territory he is temporarily resident.-

Natural allegiance. In English law. That kind of allegiance which is due from all men born within the king's dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and cannot be divested by any act of their own. 1 Bl. Comm. 369; 2 Kent, Oomni. 42.

In American law. The allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law . 2 Kent , Comm. 43-49. It differs from local allegiance, which is temporary only, being due from an alien or stranger born for so long a time as he continues within the sovereign's dominions and protection. Fost. Cr. Law, 184.

Now do you all see how you are mere slaves, serfs, subjects, whatever you want to call yourselves? Your questions are all answered here. Now all the religions and their preachers are in on this because they all know we were supposed to owe complete allegiance to the Lord Almighty and none other. That's why the preachers are serving the state and mammon with being false preachers that The Lord mentioned in the Bible. No one reading this is then a true Christian despite your rants and raves you are. If you have a Constitution, if you created government, if you are a citizen of the State or United States, then you are not a citizen of the household of the Lord Eph 2-19, and abide by His Laws, are you? To whom do you owe allegiance, The Lord or the master called the US or state? Don't you say you are a citizen of so and so state even if you don't claim US citizenship? Well let me tell you the states are mere territories of the United States and as such it makes no difference you owe no allegiance to the Lord Almighty. Don't believe me? Try renouncing very publicly your allegiance to either State or United States and see what happens as stated in Black's definitions above. Don't they say " which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law ."

The Informer

April 2008

[Anonymous]

WHY DOES THE STATE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ME?

Today all people ask why can't I get the state off my back? Why do they say they have jurisdiction over me? Why is it that I can't seem to shake the myth that they do have jurisdiction over me? How can I rid from me, whatever they say gives them jurisdiction? Why is it they won't tell anyone what gives them jurisdiction, whether in the agency or court? Why do people say it's all admiralty when I am not in any maritime contracts?

These are but a few questions of many people have had over time and 99 percent have no clue to the answers. It is a seemingly thought provoking question to say the least. Many of us have tried to tell the people the answers. For the most part they cannot comprehend the data they are given. Maybe because it's in the court cases we have given. Maybe the people cannot comprehend the legal speak in the court decisions. Maybe it's because people don't want to believe what they read in those cases and cling to a myth of sovereignty. Maybe they believe the myth that the people created this monstrosity called government and they have to listen to the people. There are many reasons the people have not yet comprehended.

It is with this writing that I will attempt, again, to try and in doing so I will not bore you with court cases. I will attempt to give you the answer to all the above questions in a short but brief explanation. I will not go into residency, which is but one reason they can have jurisdiction over you. Hopefully you will understand.
Let's start this way; everything you do in today's world has a maritime latch. You cannot do anything without this maritime latch. What is this maritime latch you ask. Very simple, INSURANCE. Yes, insurance. You all know that this State and the United States operates as a corporation and only as a corporation. Just go to the county, parish or however the State defines the place where you live, and search the records to see when that place was incorporated. Many towns , as you enter it, will say on a big sign, entering so and so town, incorporated 1816 or some such date. Back in the 1800's the common man had no insurance. He had no life insurance, had no car insurance, had no property insurance. So what gave that particular town jurisdiction? Residency, plain and simple. But that is not the reason for this article so forget about residency in the following and do not attempt to put residency in the mix or any other item but insurance. What about life insurance, property insurance, etc.? These all have a bearing as to why they ( government) control you. Since the State is a corporation they can allow other created corporations to exist by having them register with the Secretary of State to do their business in "this state". You have to remember, in law words take on a different meaning and do not mean what the dictionary makes them out to be. That word, becomes a term and the law givers use term to give that dictionary word a meaning they want it to mean. Hence " this state" is not referring to what people believe it to be. "This state" and "the state" are two separate meanings. One is corporate, the other is not corporate. This can be found on atgpress.

What about car insurance? Some people do not have a car and say that leaves me out of their jurisdiction. How about that house or land you bought? The insurance you have to get to make sure there is no hidden liens on it is all maritime. It's called Title insurance. This state has an interest in it and is a party to ownership through that insurance contract and for the most part I would say 99.99 percent of you people have no clue that this state is a party to that policy. That is the latch, just as the life insurance policy is and that car insurance is. The fact that people today all have some type of insurance is a key latch.

Here is the simple proof that you all need to do further research to prove to yourself that what is written here is true. I take this simple answer from a book called Civil Procedure, by Professor of Law , Roy L. Brooks, who teaches Civil Procedure, Employment discrimination, corporations, corporation finance, security regulations, and other similar complex litigation.

On page 66 of his book a question is asked and an answer is given on "Examination Question on Personal Jurisdiction and Service of Process." Now his answer is really couched in terms of law and not ordinary dictionary words that you are familiar with. This is how closely one must read any legal document or a book of this nature, because it has to use terms such as "this state" and "residency" to be understood in law. Even most patriots overlook this distinction between words and terms in what they read as you will see in reading the examination question. Everyone would read this in standard common everyday words. I will bold those misunderstood writings, because they are terms and you read them as words. Also note the capitalization in some of the key terms or phrases.

 

Direct quote:

Williams, a resident of State B, sued AFC Corporation ("AFC"). A State C corporation with its principle place of business in State D, and Dexter, a resident of State C who owns an office building in State A, in the state trial court of State A for damages. Williams claimed that AFC, aided in the tortious conduct of Dexter, failed to deliver goods under the terms of a contract negotiated in State A. The contract was negotiated by AFC's president during a meeting held in Dexter's office building. The goods were to be delivered to Williams at a storage facility located in State A. AFC has never conducted any business in State A, with the exception of operating a demolition business specializing in the use of explosives in clearing away old buildings. This business lasted for a three month period ending one year ago. Service of process was made on AFC by delivery of the complaint and summons to its president personally in State D and on Dexter by delivery of the complaint and summons to his estranged wife living in State A. The long-arm statute adopted by State A is the following:

(1)      Any person , whether or not a citizen or resident of this State , who in person or through an agent does any of the           acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person , and if an individual, his personal representative, to the           jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any causes of action arising from the doing of any of said acts:

         (a) The transaction of any business within this State ;
         (b) The commission of a tortious act within this State ;
         (c) The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this State ; or
        (d) Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this State at the time of contracting

END of Direct quote

I don't believe that is very hard to digest, especially the last sentence. Just think that this State is a corporation operating strictly in Admiralty jurisdiction from way back in 1603 and even after the feigned Revolutionary war, still operated as the Crown's colonies, now called States and United States , in all admiralty which is international law of maritime. Knowing that all insurances are maritime in nature where ever made on earth, you can see how they have jurisdiction when you obtain life insurance, health insurance, fire insurance, car insurance, and property insurance and that little known insurance when you buy property called Title insurance.

Now do you see why "this State" claims jurisdiction over you where you had no idea how?

Many, many ways do they obtain jurisdiction and none can be any plainer than what is found in my writings on atgpress. It is so subtle for instance,

http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov046.htm
http://www.atgpress.com/inform/cs027.htm
http://www.atgpress.com/inform/cs032.htm
http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov035.htm

It is this last subtleties in the above cases in the writings, that is shown from the North Carolina description of Counties that will help you decide as to the latches of maritime insurance and the status you hold in this quagmire of "this State", The State, and all other terms they have used to conceal their conquest of the common people. Read this carefully all you "person", "residents" and insurance holders of "this State" in it's corporate chartering of insurance companies.

Source: North Carolina State Library.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT : HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Contents
Early Beginnings
The County as a Body Politic and Corporate
The Board of County Commissioners

The County as a Body Politic and Corporate

A county, as a defined geographic subdivision of the state, serves many purposes. Churches, civic clubs, and other societal institutions use counties as convenient subdivisions for their own purposes. The business world may assign sales territories and franchises to areas composed of one or more counties. The county may play a role in the psychology of people born and raised "in the country" - it serves to establish where they are from and who they are, thus becoming a part of their personal identity. But the county was created in the first instance by the state as a political unit, and this remains its primary purpose.

More than forty years ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court was called upon to define a county from a legal point of view. (In the case, Wake County was a litigant and the court spoke in terms of that county, but what the Court had to say is equally true of the other ninety-nine counties):

Wake County is a body politic and corporate, created by the General Assembly of North Carolina for certain public and political purposes. Its powers as such, both express and implied, are conferred by statutes, enacted from time to time by the General Assembly, and are exercised by its Board of Commissioners .... In the exercise of ordinary government functions, [counties] are simply agencies of the State, constituted for the convenience of local administration in certain portions of the State's territory, and in the exercise of such functions they are subject to almost unlimited legislative control, except when the power is restricted by constitutional provisions.

The language used by the court is important as it established the definition of a county. A county, according to the court, is a "body politic and corporate." A body politic is a civil division of the state for purposes of governmental administration. A body corporate is a legal entity. In private law, a corporation is a legal person. A county is a legal entity or corporation of a special sort and with a public function. As such, it can buy and hold property, sue and be sued, and enter into contracts - all functions necessary to make its work as a body politic effective.

In O'Berry, State Treasurer v. Mecklenburg County, [198 N.C. 357,151 S.E. 880 ( 1930)], the court stated that "the weight of authority is to effect that all the powers and functions of a county bear reference to the general policy of the State, and are in fact an integral portion of the general administration of State policy. Historically, the primary purpose for erecting a county was to serve state purposes and to perform state functions in a given area rather than to serve the purposes of a particular geographic community. (By way of contrast, a city was primarily formed at the request of the people within its jurisdiction to serve the needs of the inhabitants.)

For the Supreme Court to say that "all the powers and functions of a county bear reference to the general policy of the State and are in fact an integral portion of the general administration of State policy" is not as restrictive as might at first reading appear. "State policy" is a very broad frame of reference; it can touch any aspect of local government. Thus, the truly significant nugget in the Supreme Court's definition of the role of counties is its statement that in the exercise of their functions, counties "are subject to almost unlimited legislative control, except when the power is restricted by constitutional provisions." In effect, if the General Assembly can be persuaded to assign counties any given power or responsibility, and, if the Constitution does not prohibit it, that assignment becomes state policy for county administration.

The court's phrases should not be drained of meaning, but they must be read in the light of the freedom the General Assembly has in withholding, assigning, withdrawing, and supervising the specific powers of any agency of government - state, county, municipality, or special district. The development of "state policy" with regard to the allocation of functions among governmental units and agencies is necessarily determined by successive legislatures' changing ideas of what is best calculated to achieve desired results.

Experience plays a major role in the determination of state policy. Frequently financial emergency and stress have produced a climate favorable to reexamination of the allocation of governmental responsibilities. Until Governor McLean's administration, the state allowed counties, cities, and other local units almost unlimited freedom in borrowing money and issuing bonds. With no one to advise or warn them in marketing their securities, many counties overextended their obligations and saw their credit ratings drop to the point where they had to pay crippling rates of interest. Eventually, some faced bankruptcy. In 1927, on the basis of this experience, and recognizing a statewide concern, the legislature established the County Government Advisory Commission and gave it the supervisory powers necessary to correct the situation. This commission effected a reversal in local government financing, and its successor, the Local Government Commission remains one of the bulwarks of North Carolina government today.

Experience with various local arrangements for road building and maintenance had a comparable effect on state policy. It is not accidental that North Carolina counties are no longer responsible for this work. Reflecting the concern of the people of the state, the legislature recognized a community of interest in roads wider than the single county and defined state policy on roads accordingly. Comparable re-definitions of the area of concern have affected governmental responsibility for operating schools, conducting elections, housing the state's system of lower courts and their records, maintaining property ownership and mortgage records, enforcing much of the state's criminal law, administering public health and public welfare programs, and carrying on state programs designed to promote the development of agriculture. Some of these functions are the responsibility of the boards of county commissioners, and some are assigned to other boards with varying relationships to the board of county commissioners. Thus, apart from the role played by the commissioners in any of these fields, it is the policy of the state to make extensive use of its counties in carrying out a large number of essential governmental operations.

From the beginning, the county has been used as the basic local unit in the judicial system and for law enforcement - there one finds the court, the courthouse, the sheriff, the jail, the clerk, and the court records. But the court is not a county court; it is a unit of the state's judicial system. The judge, the solicitor, the clerk, and the magistrates are state officials who administer state law, not county law.

The General Assembly expresses and codifies its state policy decisions by enacting statutes. In assigning duties and powers to counties, the legislature sometimes speaks in terms of mandate or command and sometimes in terms of permission and discretion. Thus, for example, counties are required to provide adequate housing for public schools, while they are given discretionary authority to exercise planning and zoning powers.

The General Assembly makes two kinds of laws--it enacts general statutes that apply statewide, but it also enacts local or special laws that apply exclusively within named counties or cities. Our State Constitution contains limitations on legislative authority to enact local laws dealing with a substantial list of topics, but in the absence of constitutional restriction, the legislative is free to permit local variety and experiment, a freedom once denounced by students of government but now seen as a useful device for demonstrating new ideas and approaches to governmental problems. Given this legislative freedom, any discussion of county powers and responsibilities must always be prefaced with a caution that what is being said about counties in general may not be true for a particular county.

END of QUOTE

The Informer 11/1/2006

[targa2]

They are not my definitions Jackie. They are from dictionaries. Read them again.

I do not doubt your sincerity in what you believe.  I was a tax protestor who could not follow though with my defense and ended up in bankruptcy. You tend to not be so sure of what you believe as "legal truth " so quickly once you have been face to face with the gremlins .

Do you still have a bank account, physical address, social ins #, etc ?  Do you use bills ,checks, drafts bank notes?  If so, you have an adhesion contract with the state by deriving benefits.  You will lose in a courtroom setting.  Have you faced a judge yet?

Have you read George Merciers  " Invisible Contracts ", or " Dispatch of Merchants ".

[targa2]

I have read lots of The Informers stuff.  He is very correct but I have yet to see him bring forth a solution. If he has a solution or partial solution, please point it out to me.

[Anonymous]

I am coming up for my 12 th time in court.
The cops claim I have IMMUNITY TO PROSECUTION AND  i CAN BACK HIS CLAIM SO i SHOULD BE OKAY