Topic: The War on Terror! for the first time I got what it theoritically was all about. (Read 339 times)

We in the United States, Canada, the U.K., India, Bangladesh, Australia, and other common law nations are blessed. Why? Because the basic, fundamental law of these countries is the common law even though we have forgotten how to use it. And the common law at its core and base is, we are free to do anything as long as we do not harm or damage anyone else.

One of the strongest Amendments to the Constitution is the 9th Amendment:Basically this means, that simply because the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) spells out some rights of the people, doesn't mean that the people don't have any other rights.

In fact, there is no place in the Constitution or other legal documentation that limits the rights that people had before the United States Government in any form was set in place. The point is, we still have all the rights people always had, including the right to completely defend ourselves in every way against anything government tells us to do.

We may need to defend ourselves in court, but if it is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATE OF XXXXXX, or THE COUNTY OF XXXXXX that is attacking us, we have the right to:
1. stand as a man/woman (in court), present, not represented in any way;
2. require that the plaintiff appear - the man/or woman that is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATE OF XXXXXX, or THE COUNTY OF XXXXXX that is attacking us appear and take the oath or affirmation, and get on the stand so that we can cross examine them;
3. require an impartial witness man/woman against us get on the stand, and under oath or affirmation testify that he/she has first hand knowledge that what the plaintiff is saying is true;
4. provide real and true evidence that connects us to the plaintiff's accusation.

First, because we are standing as a man/woman, present not represented, we have no contract of representation. The office of judge and attorney is a contract of one form or other. Because we are not contracting, the court is required to bring a real man or woman accuser/plaintiff.

Second, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATE OF XXXXXX, or THE COUNTY OF XXXXXX can't take the oath or affirmation and get on the stand and say anything. Why? They are simply pieces of paper/parchment, at best contracts. They can't do anything without a human being activating them. Thus, the human being that tries to appear as them, cannot do so, because the human being is NOT the contract.

Third, because of the way our law is based on common law, there must be harm or injury (injury is really property damage). None of the legal codes apply to us except, possibly, if there is real harm or damage that can be evidenced in court. But maybe not even then.

Fourth, the harm or damage must be clearly shown that it was done by us, through witness and evidence.

Absolutely all the recent (last 50 years) court cases that were won against human beings, have either harm or damage shown, or else there was representation where it was essentially two contracts battling it out. Then, the human being was made to pay when his representation contract lost in court.

http://voidjudgments.com/

http://www.youarelaw.org/common-law-discussion-karl-lentz-billy-thornton/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

In itself there is something absolutely human in the idea of wanting to do war to a strategy (hint: terror is a strategy that may be used, like when the us embassadors theathen a French gov officials to impose gmo on the French food supply (source: wikileaks).

Problem 101: What to do when the last terrorist is the one leading the so called war on terror?

Or repharzed if certain agencies of the us gov become terroristic (ie use violence to impose political will on an asymmetrical basis) will the USMIIC attack them? for example opposing the usage of plant of the creation by a terror group using doj infrastructure and L.E.O. to achieve it, does it constitute an attack of state backed terror? personally I would say YES. I would even say that it has morphed to a systemical use of the treath of force (terrorism) to get their way, which leads to the war on drug.

conclusion: those waging the war on drug are terrorist!

Ex101: where do I get cookies?