To be free, we need to be educated

Oktober 23, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

– Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.

– Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.

Do you know the difference,? If you do not, then you will also never realize why you can never get true justice in a de facto court, nor why government has control over you. If you love freedom and want freedom for your children, educate yourself  a bit, or preferably a lot, on laws, statutes and other regulations that enslave you. Realize who and what you are and make sure that no-one forces you to be something that you were never intended to be.

Blikskottel..was born free and prefer to stay like that.

23 antwoorde op To be free, we need to be educated

  1. Maybe that is why they are letting education slip – an illeterate population is no danger they believe.

  2. STC het gesê op Oktober 23, 2011

    “freedom before education time”…many a school was left to burn…and then it hit them…education makes you free..

  3. Blikskottel are you going to do us some posts to educate us? Huh?

    That would be very kind of you…. 🙂

  4. I was once told that this is why they kept burning down the schools, uneducated people can be manipulated…

  5. You were told rubbish.

  6. Certainly a valid point, Newsy.

  7. I have for a long time been digging and trying to understand why justice is so hard to find…so yes I will be postin some view, not my own always but some that I agree with and some that I do not agree with.

  8. There is no freedom without understanding and education and in the law and legal system that is even more true.

  9. Newsy: In my my mind it is clear: Dumb down is on the cards as it is a sure way to keep the population under control….for a while at least, but at some point even that will not be possible anymore.

  10. Nietzsche: If this information is not correct, please correct me…but the truth is there to see for those who dig to find it.

  11. Thank you kind sir, I shall pay attention.

  12. Wat meer kan enige mens dan nodig het?

  13. benmica het gesê op Oktober 27, 2011

    I live by the Entrepreneurs’ Credo:

    I do not choose to be a common man
    It’s my right to be uncommon – If I can

    I seek opportunity – not security

    I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and
    dulled by having the state look after me.

    I want to take the calculated risk, to dream
    and to build, to fail and to succeed.

    I refuse to barter incentive for a dole;

    I prefer the challenges of life to the
    guaranteed existence,

    The thrill of fulfilment to the stale calm of utopia.

    I will not trade my freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a hand-out.

    I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.

    It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, to enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly.

  14. benmica het gesê op Oktober 27, 2011

    A friend’s son who is studying law spoke to me the other day.
    According to him there are still too many judges with closed minds on the bench. They set presidents for the rest of the people.
    Maybe they must replace all judges longer than 10 years on the bench.
    I myself was even in Bloemfontein and lost there major after winning in Pretoria just reasonably.
    My respect for the Courts are not something to speak to you mother in law about…

  15. I have lost all my trust in the legal suystem and there for I always claim common law jurisdiction. They can never deny me this as I am born with it, a free human being, not a jursitic person.

  16. Good post. My take is that you draw the distinction between common law (unwritten law) and legislation. In theory there is no difference and both have the same value in enforcement. I do not believe that government is above the existing laws be it common or legislation. But if a law does not suit them, they can change it. That was the same in the previous dispensation. There is still justice in the courts, sometimes.

  17. To continue, any government can change the common law through legislation. That then becomes the law. legislation therefor can always overrule common law and change it. Ergo, governments can do what they like. And this is true everywhere.

  18. Common laws are rights that can never be removed and have been around for very long, but legislation only has jurisdiction if concent is given or am I wrong?

    Common law is judicial in nature(thus for natural men), while legislation is ministerial(thus effectively political and commercial) in nature or what?

  19. Thus, they can also overrules and kill or most basic of human rights? i think not and part of the problem is that lawyers are taking sides with the evil, rather than the human being…money talks is the way it looks to me.

  20. Sadly not. Common law can be, and is quite often replaced with legislation. The only way common law can be changed is through legislation or judicial decisions ie judgements by the courts. You must remember, law is not an exact science. It is open for interpretation. The common law relating to the law of contract has been changed many times by the courts. The best example is the BK Tooling case of the seventies I think. Appeal Court Judge Jansen changed the common law dramatically. This is how law evolve and adapt to what society wants and that is why lawyers have jobs. If the law was static and black and white there would be no litigation.

  21. I think you are slightly unfair. Many lawyers act for organisations for human rights and are successful. Lawyers do not take sides. They represent a clients case, not their own.

  22. That is exactly the point , lawyers change the most basic of laws , via statutes to suit their needs and the needs of very evil costomers(basicly the politicians and bankers). If it is true that lawyers represent the people(human beings), will you then in court do the following if you represent me:
    1. Petition the judge(administrator) to read his oath into evidence and swear him in to obey that oath?
    2. petition the judge to swear that he will allow no fraud to take place not do anything fraudulent himself.
    3. Claim my jurisdiction under common law of the land and under my flag of truth, the Bible which only recognize court de jure system..
    4. have yourself sworn in under oath that you will allow no fraud, nor do anything fraudulant yourself and that any evidence you lead will be the truth as far as you know.

    Surely this is the only way you can represent me truthfully in in honor. Please answer each of these question, I am really interested, as to date I have not found one lawyer who would do this.

  23. You said it, you represent orgaizations, not human beings(natural persons). Organizations, by nature exist only because another organization or companies allows it and that company is the “Republic”. Now by the way, we the people are the owners of that ‘republic” and it only operates under consent, not collectively by by each personally. Consent cannot be forced upon an individual by anyone. The constitution even says it that a natural person may remove that consent.

Laat 'n Antwoord

Jou e-posadres sal nie gepubliseer word nie. Vereiste velde word aangedui as *.