The document uses a metaphor of two adjacent sports fields, one for rugby and one for soccer, to explain how the legal system operates. It describes how individuals unknowingly agree to contracts that remove inherent human rights in exchange for perceived benefits. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promises inalienable rights, governments establish other rules and systems, like taxes and licenses, that people voluntarily accept without realizing they relinquish legal standing. The document advises rejecting existing contracts to reclaim rights and avoid getting "steamrolled" for trying to use one sport's rules in another's game.
Metanomics is a weekly Web-based show on the serious uses of virtual worlds. This transcript is from a past show.
For this and other videos, visit us at http://metanomics.net.
Watch the following segment from the The Bill of Rights A Livi.docxnealwaters20034
Watch
the following segment from the "
The Bill of Rights: A Living Document
" video.
Interpretation of Right to Privacy
Write 150 word response about the video. What was the video about? What did you think was interesting? What did you learn from the video? Was there anything you agreed with or disagreed with? Explain your thoughts. No title page. Need to cite reference to support yor answer
Citation for video
The Bill of Rights: A living document
[Video file]. (1997). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=18566&xtid=8097
Video Transcript
WHAT OFFENSIVE MUSIC. THAT SHOULD BE BANNED.
ACTUALLY IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE
IT'S PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
WHICH GUARANTEES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES PEOPLE THE RIGHT
TO OFFEND OTHERS?
IT'S A BIT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE FIRM
BELIEVERS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO RIGHT
TO INTERFERE WITH OR INHIBIT AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT
TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT OR PRINT WHAT THEY WANT.
THEY THOUGHT IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT OUR
NEW COUNTRY BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS
THEIR IDEAS AND BELIEFS NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE.
HOWEVER, THEY KNEW THERE WOULD BE TIMES WHEN
CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS WOULD HAVE TO APPLY.
THEY LEFT THE DECISION OF WHEN AND WHAT KIND
OF LIMITATIONS UP TO THE SUPREME COURT.
WELL, ULTIMATELY IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, IN A LEGAL
SENSE, THAT DECIDES WHAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS MEANS.
I GUESS EVEN BEYOND THAT IT'S THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THAT SOONER OR LATER DETERMINE
WHAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS MEANS IN TERMS OF
WHAT THEY'RE PREPARED TO ACCEPT.
BUT THE REASON WHY THE BILL OF RIGHTS
IS SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
IS THAT IT LISTS DIFFERENT RIGHTS
BUT IT DOESN'T DEFINE THEM.
IN 1919, THE COURT DID IN FACT PUT A RESTRICTION
ON THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS.
THEY CAME UP WITH A TEST THAT WOULD SERVE
AS A STANDARD FOR ALL CASES.
THIS WAS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST
WHICH PROTECTED ALL FORMS OF SPEECH
UNLESS IT CLEARLY POSED A THREAT TO SOMEONE.
NOW, OVER TIME, THE TEST HAS BECOME MORE STRINGENT
BECAUSE CLEARLY YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT JUDGES
HAVING DIFFERENT IDEAS AS TO HOW CLEAR SOMETHING IS
OR HOW PRESENT SOMETHING IS.
THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE DANGER
REALLY HAS TO BE EXTREMELY IMMINENT.
DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLY TO HIGH SCHOOL KIDS?
YOU BET.
IN THE CASE TINKER VERSUS DES MOINES INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED
A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT THE RIGHT TO WEAR
A BLACK ARM BAND TO PROTEST THE VIETNAM WAR,
DECLARING THAT STUDENTS ARE ALSO PROTECTED
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
AND THERE'S BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE FROM THE SUPREME
COURT WHICH SAYS THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN
DON'T END AT THE SCHOOLHOUSE GATE,
AND ITS BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE.
WHAT WE'VE SEEN SINCE THAT CASE IS THE SUPREME COURT
HAS NOT BEEN WILLING TO EXTEND MANY OTHER RIGHTS
TO KIDS IN SCHOOL SETTINGS.
UNDER THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, STUDE.
Metanomics is a weekly Web-based show on the serious uses of virtual worlds. This transcript is from a past show.
For this and other videos, visit us at http://metanomics.net.
Watch the following segment from the The Bill of Rights A Livi.docxnealwaters20034
Watch
the following segment from the "
The Bill of Rights: A Living Document
" video.
Interpretation of Right to Privacy
Write 150 word response about the video. What was the video about? What did you think was interesting? What did you learn from the video? Was there anything you agreed with or disagreed with? Explain your thoughts. No title page. Need to cite reference to support yor answer
Citation for video
The Bill of Rights: A living document
[Video file]. (1997). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=18566&xtid=8097
Video Transcript
WHAT OFFENSIVE MUSIC. THAT SHOULD BE BANNED.
ACTUALLY IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE
IT'S PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
WHICH GUARANTEES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES PEOPLE THE RIGHT
TO OFFEND OTHERS?
IT'S A BIT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE FIRM
BELIEVERS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO RIGHT
TO INTERFERE WITH OR INHIBIT AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT
TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT OR PRINT WHAT THEY WANT.
THEY THOUGHT IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT OUR
NEW COUNTRY BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS
THEIR IDEAS AND BELIEFS NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE.
HOWEVER, THEY KNEW THERE WOULD BE TIMES WHEN
CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS WOULD HAVE TO APPLY.
THEY LEFT THE DECISION OF WHEN AND WHAT KIND
OF LIMITATIONS UP TO THE SUPREME COURT.
WELL, ULTIMATELY IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, IN A LEGAL
SENSE, THAT DECIDES WHAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS MEANS.
I GUESS EVEN BEYOND THAT IT'S THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THAT SOONER OR LATER DETERMINE
WHAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS MEANS IN TERMS OF
WHAT THEY'RE PREPARED TO ACCEPT.
BUT THE REASON WHY THE BILL OF RIGHTS
IS SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
IS THAT IT LISTS DIFFERENT RIGHTS
BUT IT DOESN'T DEFINE THEM.
IN 1919, THE COURT DID IN FACT PUT A RESTRICTION
ON THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS.
THEY CAME UP WITH A TEST THAT WOULD SERVE
AS A STANDARD FOR ALL CASES.
THIS WAS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST
WHICH PROTECTED ALL FORMS OF SPEECH
UNLESS IT CLEARLY POSED A THREAT TO SOMEONE.
NOW, OVER TIME, THE TEST HAS BECOME MORE STRINGENT
BECAUSE CLEARLY YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT JUDGES
HAVING DIFFERENT IDEAS AS TO HOW CLEAR SOMETHING IS
OR HOW PRESENT SOMETHING IS.
THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE DANGER
REALLY HAS TO BE EXTREMELY IMMINENT.
DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLY TO HIGH SCHOOL KIDS?
YOU BET.
IN THE CASE TINKER VERSUS DES MOINES INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED
A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT THE RIGHT TO WEAR
A BLACK ARM BAND TO PROTEST THE VIETNAM WAR,
DECLARING THAT STUDENTS ARE ALSO PROTECTED
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
AND THERE'S BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE FROM THE SUPREME
COURT WHICH SAYS THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN
DON'T END AT THE SCHOOLHOUSE GATE,
AND ITS BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE.
WHAT WE'VE SEEN SINCE THAT CASE IS THE SUPREME COURT
HAS NOT BEEN WILLING TO EXTEND MANY OTHER RIGHTS
TO KIDS IN SCHOOL SETTINGS.
UNDER THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, STUDE.
When the United States Inc violates your GOD GIVEN RIGHTS - RELIEF IS MANDATORYSueBozgoz
Americans understand your GOD GIVEN NATURAL RIGHTS AND WHAT Subject Matter Jurisdiction is. SMJ is everything and the UNITED STATE INC's game is - NOT TO ESTABLISH SMJ. Bottom line: They are filling jails as everything in America is about BUSINESS.
Page 74Antonin ScaliaConstitutional InterpretationI am one o.docxalfred4lewis58146
Page 74
Antonin Scalia
Constitutional Interpretation
I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody: judges, professors, lawyers; who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I'm not a strict constructionist, despite the introduction. I don't like the term “strict construction.” I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict.” I do believe, however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.
This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I'm asked when I've given a talk like this a question from the back of the room—“Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?”—as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people—“When did you first start eating human flesh?”
Although it is a minority view now, the reality is that, not very long ago, originalism was orthodoxy. Everybody, at least purported to be an originalist. If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn't think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted.
Or consider the opinions of John Marshall in the Federal Bank case,* where he says, we must not, we must always remember it is a constitution we are expounding. And since it's a constitution, he says, you have to give its provisions expansive meaning so that they will accommodate events that you do not know of which will happen in the future.
Well, if it is a constitution that changes, you wouldn't have to give it an expansive meaning. You can give it whatever meaning you want and when future necessity arises, you simply change the meaning. But anyway, that is no longer the orthodoxy.
Oh, one other example about how not just the judges and scholars believed in originalism, but even the American people. Consider the Nineteenth Amendment, which is the amendment that gave women the vote. It was adopted by the American people in 1920. Why did we adopt a constitutional amendment for that purpose? The Equal Protection Clause existed in 1920; it was adopted right after the Civil War. And you know that if that issue of the franchise for women came up today, we would not have to have a constitutional amendment. Someone would come to the Supreme Court and say, “Your Honors, in a democracy, what could be a greater denial of equal protection than denial of the franchise?” And the Court would say, “Yes! Even though it never meant it before, the Equal Protection Clause means that women have to have the vote.” But that's not how the American people thought in 1920. In 1920, they looked at the Equal Protection Clause and said, “What does it mean?” Well.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
When the United States Inc violates your GOD GIVEN RIGHTS - RELIEF IS MANDATORYSueBozgoz
Americans understand your GOD GIVEN NATURAL RIGHTS AND WHAT Subject Matter Jurisdiction is. SMJ is everything and the UNITED STATE INC's game is - NOT TO ESTABLISH SMJ. Bottom line: They are filling jails as everything in America is about BUSINESS.
Page 74Antonin ScaliaConstitutional InterpretationI am one o.docxalfred4lewis58146
Page 74
Antonin Scalia
Constitutional Interpretation
I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody: judges, professors, lawyers; who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I'm not a strict constructionist, despite the introduction. I don't like the term “strict construction.” I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict.” I do believe, however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.
This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I'm asked when I've given a talk like this a question from the back of the room—“Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?”—as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people—“When did you first start eating human flesh?”
Although it is a minority view now, the reality is that, not very long ago, originalism was orthodoxy. Everybody, at least purported to be an originalist. If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn't think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted.
Or consider the opinions of John Marshall in the Federal Bank case,* where he says, we must not, we must always remember it is a constitution we are expounding. And since it's a constitution, he says, you have to give its provisions expansive meaning so that they will accommodate events that you do not know of which will happen in the future.
Well, if it is a constitution that changes, you wouldn't have to give it an expansive meaning. You can give it whatever meaning you want and when future necessity arises, you simply change the meaning. But anyway, that is no longer the orthodoxy.
Oh, one other example about how not just the judges and scholars believed in originalism, but even the American people. Consider the Nineteenth Amendment, which is the amendment that gave women the vote. It was adopted by the American people in 1920. Why did we adopt a constitutional amendment for that purpose? The Equal Protection Clause existed in 1920; it was adopted right after the Civil War. And you know that if that issue of the franchise for women came up today, we would not have to have a constitutional amendment. Someone would come to the Supreme Court and say, “Your Honors, in a democracy, what could be a greater denial of equal protection than denial of the franchise?” And the Court would say, “Yes! Even though it never meant it before, the Equal Protection Clause means that women have to have the vote.” But that's not how the American people thought in 1920. In 1920, they looked at the Equal Protection Clause and said, “What does it mean?” Well.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
1. The Jurisdiction Argument - For Dummies
by Rob Crombie on Sunday, 14 November 2010 at 04:39
Consider that I've been studying common law for over 3 years.
Consider that I have always improved on my legal writings (notices).
Consider that when I showed one of my notices to a guy who has been teaching common
law for 20 years.......he then pulled my legal notice apart within 15 seconds of looking
at it.
Consider that 3 months of work went into that notice to "fine-tune" it and that I
considered it was very acceptable work.
Consider that I saw my own faults within 5 seconds of exposure to the flaws I had
introduced but never noticed.
OK...stop considering now.....and I will explain what was told to me about Jurisdiction
and how the game is played, only I have created a playful anecdote to help you
understand the problems we all face with jurisdiction and the courts.
There are two fields side by side. On one field, some Humans are playing Rugby whilst
a few Referees keep an eye on things and blow a whistle when someone breaks a rule.
On the other field, a different game is being played, its called Soccer, and if you are
caught holding the ball with your hands a Referee most definately blows his whistle and
calls for a PENALTY.
What isn’t realised is that the boundary line between the two fields is not clearly
identified and whilst you have no idea of where the Soccer Pitch starts and the Rugby
Pitch ends, the REFS DO.
Ok, so as a Human, you start by playing Rugby and you are happy running whilst
holding the ball in your hands, as allowed by the rules of the game. You run a little wide,
and by mistake end up crossing over onto the Soccer Pitch, whilst still holding the ball of
course.
2. Suddenly a REF blows his whistle, calls HAND-BALL and awards a PENALTY
AGAINST YOU !!!
You are not happy with this outcome and you most certainly wish to take it up with the
REF who blew the whistle on you. You are now in conflict and because you want a
good answer as to why he awarded a penalty against you, your path takes you right up to
the REF. You start blurting out a rule from the Rugby Rules Book to show that you
were in fact allowed to handle the ball. The REF screams at you saying he's not going to
allow you to bring an Rugby Rules Book onto a Soccer Pitch where a game called
"Soccer" is being played.
You shout over to the REF on the Rugby Pitch, but he does not answer your call. Oh
sure he can hear you, but chooses to ignore you because you voluntarily left the Rugby
game to go and play Soccer. As far as he is concerned, you no longer enjoy the privileges
and benefits provided by playing that game, because you are now on a different field
where a totally different game with a totally different set of rules is enforced. As far as he
is concerned, DEAL WITH IT. Take the decision made by the Soccer REF <span>and
do it quickly</span> otherwise your situation could worsen and most likely will as
history will show to be true.
Now lets see how this plays out in the REAL WORLD.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 was created by the Powers To Be
(P2B), to show the world (after WWII), that this planet needed a big kick in the ass, that
all humans should have some very powerful an inalienable rights such as Life, Freedom,
and Security of person "without slavery in any of its forms” and without racism and
without political and/or religious conviction.
Have a read:- http://www.udhr.org/UDHR/default.htm
This was an illusion then and it has never changed, it is still an illusion; a euphoric and
idealistic one at that. The truth is, they offered this up with the left hand whilst the right
hand was offering up other legislations which YOU VOLUNTARILY accepted and
contracted with, thus giving up some valuable inalienable rights for some weak-ass
benefits offered by the P2B <span>to lure you over onto the Soccer Field.</span>
Here's how:-
3. 1) They created an illusion that you were required to pay TAX in order to keep your
society running smoothly. Failure to voluntarily register for a tax file number would
enact a penalty TAX at a rate of 50% of all your earnings from the day you start working
until the day you retire. Everyone volunteered to enter into the TAX system by requesting
a Tax File Number (TFN), so they could accurately record how much income you earned;
in order that they could apply a larger taxation levy against you.
2) The P2B created an illusion that you were required to apply for a driving licence to
prove you could drive a car safely and with considerations to other road users. Failing to
comply with the Road Rules they enforced (and that you acquiesced to) would result in
a monetary penalty, but as long as you "obeyed the rules" these penalties would not
apply to you and it would keep the undesirables off the road, so again the illusion was
very easily swallowed and accepted as the “normal way”.
3) The P2B eventually went electronic with the banking, but in any way they created the
illusion that to save was good for you, good for your family and its security and good for
the community. They also created the illusion that to own your own home was to own
your own castle. The mere fact that on your mortgage contract the mortgagee is identified
as theTENANT of the property may have escaped your attention, even the implication
that being named as theTENANT means you couldn't possibly OWN the property, but
either way you'll need a bank account to conduct such transactions. Also remember a
SLAVE can never OWN any property and this includes DEBT SLAVES… so get used to
it, your tax donations are required by the Banksters because they have a big hole in their
ship and it needs plugging.
4) The P2B created the illusion that you were most likley going to need Hospitals and
medical procedures so they created an illusion of a government sponsored health system
to give certain protections to the citizens of this society. Oh yeah, you'll have to
voluntarily apply for a Medicare Card and other similar forms from time to time.
5) Library Cards, Shooters Licences, Heavy Goods Drivers Licences, Fishing Licenses,
Life Insurance and Health Insurance (both illusionary and should be re-named DEATH
INSURANCE and SICKNESS INSURANCE), and the education system must have to
be re-named the Fool System and not School System.
I am sure you get the picture by now as to why they offered up such a beautiful and
euphoric declaration of Human Rights, because they knew in advance that you were
likely to opt for all these wonderful benefits traded for real inalienable rights, which
you, without full disclosure being evident, gave up in order to recieve these wonderful
illusionary benefits.
4. The FACT IS REVEALED:- YOU VOLUNTARILY BECAME A DEBT SLAVE and
whilst you might not like it, you reflect on how well the "system" is looking after you
and when a monetary penalty comes along for not indicating when turning a corner, or
being 5 minutes late with your PARKING CONTRACT...well you obviously grumble,
whinge and complain, but under threat of an even bigger monetary penalty they OFFER
YOU FOR YOUR FAILURE TO HONOUR YOUR FICTIONLAND
OBLIGATIONS, you buckle, fold and pay.
Those of you who have taken up the good cause to keep these bastards honest by learning
common law and writing legal notices are wasting your time. The system has a steam
roller on this soccer field and if you try to introduce your knowledge of Rugby Rules,
and even more so your skills at reading the much bigger 1100 page Annotated Rugby
Rules by Quick and Garran, then again, your pitiful screams can hardly be heard from
underneath the steam roller as your nose is flattened against the mud.
How do they get away with this?......easy.....
If you are not trained in legal practice and have passed the B.A.R. EXAM, then you are
not qualified to give ANY LEGAL OPINION. Even if you quote precedents, High Court
Rulings, Legislation from the past or recent times, how could you, a LAY PERSON
possibly have any COMPREHENSION of legalese and proper arguments. Your legal
writings are practically a waste of time.
They give you a few options to bring your words into court. An AFFIDAVIT and a
STATUTORY DECLARATION. The Affidavit is your truthful opinion of some event or
fact, and you are asked to swear before a JP that your opinion is truthful as far as your
comprehension permits. The STAT DEC comes with an ACT OF PERJURY (enforced if
your version of truth is found to be flawed). PERJURY also comes with a custodial
sentence in some cases, so affidavits are conveniently suggested to better protect your
person. How kind of them.
Affidavits, whilst sworn under oath before a JP are STILL YOUR OPINIONS of events
and because you have no legal training, you can't possibly have full comprehension of
what your are talking about or trying to explain on paper.
5. Stat Decs are something REAL MEN AND WOMEN can make, and I'm not talking
about your FICTIONAL ENTITY, otherwise known as the STRAWMAN here, I'm
talking about the flesh and blood sentient soul. Trouble is it is a known fact that two
things cannot be brought into any Admiralty Court; they are:(1) THE TRUTH..........(2) FACT
Of course they do not inform you that you are a soccer player on a soccer pitch in front
of a soccer REF, and he simply cannot accept either truth or fact into a court. Don't
believe me, then try getting an AMICUS CURIAE onto the bench and watch the robes
fly as the magistrate abandons ship.....lol
This was further explained to me recently with a neat little play on the rules by Bill
Clinton.
Remember he was caught with his trousers down...(literally)…and Monica Lewinsky
later revealed in public that the PRESIDENT was doing the naughty deed and the public
believed her. Clinton was impeached for breach of oath, because he stated that he did
not have sex with Lewinsky and the people believed he was lying; something a
PRESIDENT just wouldn't do… Yeah Right !!!
CLINTON is a lawyer, and he knows how the game is played, so knowing he was going
to be asked about his affairs with Ms Lewinsky, he baited the Prosecutor with questions
to which he already had perfect answers for; most likley planted by Clinton in collusion
with the Attorney General.
Q1. Did you have sex with Monica Lewsinsky?
A1. NO
Q2. Do you know what SEX is?
(This question was asked, because Clinton could not give an accurate answer if he did not
know what sex truly was....so as a matter of fact, this question most clearly ascertains if
he was of knowledge as to what sex is, to further validate his answer).
A2. WHAT IS .........IS.
6. The Judge almost immediatley declared that Clinton had no case to answer and
immediately dismissed the charges...Clinton walked free.....integrity intact.....WTF just
happened?
CLINTON brought a DEFINITIVE TRUTH INTO AN ADMIRALTY COURT. WHAT
IS....IS happens to be a PURE TRUTH and as stated earlier you are not allowed to bring
truth into any Admiralty Court. Once presented the robes had to fly, the Judge had to
escape this evil called truth, but in order not to draw attraction...he let Clinton WALK.....
DO YOU GET IT YET......?.....
As for the Origine People's struggle for recognition of their Sovereign Status, I now
understand why this Sovereignty issue has to be taken to a WORLD PEOPLE’S
COURT..... because the TRUTH is EVIL to the Admiralty Court and simply cannot
be heard, plus how can you ask any Australian Judge to play Russian Roulette (with 6
bullets in the chamber) against his own system of (in)justice?
Now you know the game, do you want to learn the remedy?
It's simple, get back on the Rugby Field.How?..... revoke all existing and time-expired
contracts with the system.Hand back the measly benefits that the P2B offer, and claim
back your valuable and inalienable HUMAN RIGHTS.Enjoy life, enjoy working for your
own existence and put food in your families mouths before you feed the taxman and
government.Do not walk this path with one foot on the Soccer pitch and the other on the
Rugby Pitch. You are either a human being with inalienable rights, or you enjoy the
privileges and benefits of being a debt slave.Remember, you can't walk both paths. You
have to learn how to live as a HUMAN, and after generations of indoctrination you have
to re-wire your thought processes.
Watch, Listen, Learn, then engage brain.Take heed, only the truly motivated should
follow these guidelines and in any case, the author of this writing has no legal training
what so-ever and this advice can only be construed to be thought provoking and
educational fun. If you want to get serious, then you had better start learning how to
defend yourself; in court or out of court, because no lawyer can help you as a HUMAN,
get used to that very clear fact.
7. Written by Rob Crombie … Truth Seeker
LikeUnlike · Comment · Share
• Stone Ozzy Sovereign, Joanna Ele Baigent and 5 others like this.
•
o
Dave Eden Enjoy words of wisdom in the radio...
10 November at 10:19 · LikeUnlike
o
Rob Crombie www.skidrow.com.au streaming live on the internet. Tune in
for thought provoking discussions every Mon, Tues & Wed mornings, the
Brekkie spot with a difference. You'll not hear this stuff on mainstream
news, thats for sure. My segment is 7.30am to 8am, tune in and learn
10 November at 10:55 · LikeUnlike
o
Rob Crombie You'll hear Dave phone in most mornings, and he usually
hits a raw nerve with a statement of truth or two. He calls at random from
6.30'ish, make a phone call yourself and ask your own questions
10 November at 10:57 · LikeUnlike
o
Vivian Moore Im a debt slave! they have a good and proper hold of me. I
know we must revoke all existing and time-expired contracts with the
system, but it aint that easy from my patch.. before i realised what was
going on here I dug myself a big hole..lol.. Im onto to it though Im
working on it now! I will remain positive and and know I am truly blessed
and as the veils get lifted the closer we are to making it right again.
10 November at 10:58 · LikeUnlike
8. o
Rob Crombie I still have not made the full transition either, but I am
working towards that. I am studying how best to handle the situations that
might arise in the not so distant future. To be human, you have to be
completely naked. That doesnt require clothes to be taken off, just the
labels and implied contracts. There are those paving the way for us to
follow, making our journeys easier, until then, enjoy paying taxes with a
smile hahahahaha
10 November at 11:03 · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...
o
Joanna Ele Baigent Lol thanks Rob, this is blooming terrific, good on you
for sharing this excellent valuable info, you deserve a medal :))
11 November at 12:13 · LikeUnlike
o
Rob Crombie
Too many people are running around studying common law and rights and
no-one is looking at the game plan, and those who make the rules up as
they go. Freemen ...... ha.....we're stuck in a pot of soup and they just keep
turning the heat up....
The world's absolutely bankrupt and the US cdollar is not far from
collapsing, for good. There will be an economic crash like no other, and
when that happens the banklster, lawyers and judges will all meet their
destiny. Time to start saving some seed to grow food, stock up on rice,
salt, tea, sugar, flour, batteries, water...etc etc... don't go silly, just start
thinking about the situation and buy extra in your shopping. The whole
world is about to do a back-flip and all the wrongs will be corrected, the
have-nots will take back their power and balance the equation. There are
people in place as we speak to make sure the transition runs smoothly. Not
trying to scare you here, but now that you are awake, best you know what
is happening in the worldSee more
11 November at 12:24 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...
9. o
Joanna Ele Baigent well thank you Rob for helping us see a bit more
clearly :)
11 November at 12:27 · LikeUnlike
o
Rob Crombie TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO READ THIS....THOSE IN
CONFLICT....THOSE SUFFERING ....at least they will begin to
understand why, especially if they read my note on the Great Fire of
london 1666 and what that was all about, yes we have to go back to the
1600's to know what is happening 400 years later. In fact the problem goes
way back further, but gets muddy. This is a simple start, because it was
such a significant change in control of the masses....all here in 1666
11 November at 20:15 · LikeUnlike
•
Comment
10. o
Joanna Ele Baigent well thank you Rob for helping us see a bit more
clearly :)
11 November at 12:27 · LikeUnlike
o
Rob Crombie TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO READ THIS....THOSE IN
CONFLICT....THOSE SUFFERING ....at least they will begin to
understand why, especially if they read my note on the Great Fire of
london 1666 and what that was all about, yes we have to go back to the
1600's to know what is happening 400 years later. In fact the problem goes
way back further, but gets muddy. This is a simple start, because it was
such a significant change in control of the masses....all here in 1666
11 November at 20:15 · LikeUnlike
•
Comment