North Carolina judge knows best

[toowm]

Kids forced into public school in divorce ruling.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91397

 

[MTPorcupine3]

13 March A.D. 2009

>From where comes any STATE's interest in a child that is so strong as to override the parent's "control" over the issue of "education?"

It's called a marriage license.


One is also motivated to ask about such things as the documentation that proves the parents and the location and day of birth, as well as any social security numbering.  But a marriage license exists for the same reason any other license exists:  regulation of commerce.

Why did the Supreme Court strike down the Connecticut statute that made the use of contraceptives illegal? See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).  <http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/479/case.html>.  They use the context of privacy, and it's a good context for this one, but the real lesson arises in the understanding of commerce.  Commerce cannot be compelled.  Thus, Connecticut cannot compel licensed couples to "make babies," which babies, IF they are born to "commercial" families, are "property interests" of STATE (until they reach the age of majority, of course).  So, by making the use of contraceptives illegal, Connecticut compelled commerce, i.e., they compelled licensed couples to "make babies."

Regarding the story below, how do we know there's a marriage license involved?  From this story, we don't know for 100% certainty, but note that the couple is getting divorced.  What is divorce, in the commercial view of things, but a "winding up" of the "commercial family's" activities?!  So, there's even more "direct" control in the judicial power over those kids.

Three ideas, two of which are misdirections in fundamental legal perspective, compel this note.  First, it's nuts to say that there's a "Constitutional right" to homeschool STATE's property.  Those who continue to try to convince us otherwise don't "get it," yet.

Secondly, and it's a very close second, we read about all of the political response to this ruling.  To solve a problem, we must first identify it correctly.  The only problems for which a political solution is competent is a political problem.  There is no political solution to a commercial problem.  No legislative body, or executive body, or judicial body, compels any couple into marriage, much less into licensed marriage.  No legislative body, or executive body, or judicial body, compels any couple, especially a licensed one, to "make babies."  But, once that "property" (the child, as seen by the STATE) exists, STATE has an interest in the "health, education, safety, and welfare" of that child.  Thus, STATE's "moral view" does and will supplant and overrule the "biological parent's" "moral view," which is exactly what we're seeing in this case.  Why and how so?  Because the "licensed" family has commercially consented to STATE's regulations.  That's why, and that's how.


Let's make a connection, in this context, to the "underage consumption" issue raised in a note circulated yesterday.  What gives STATE an interest in that 20-year-old Iraq "war" vet?  Under the alcohol statute, he's still a "minor."  How can a person be a "minor" for some purposes but not others?  Because the people subjected to these flagrant inconsistencies don't yet understand enough about these scams to know what to do about it.  And, the place to start is realizing the scam and commercial nature of these sorts of issues.  To solve a problem, we must first identify it correctly.  Where there's a minor, and where STATE has a "property interest" in that minor, which WILL be the case where the child is born to a "commercial" family, which "commercial" families are self-identified by the existence of a "marriage license," then STATE has a direct interest in that minor's "health, education, safety, and welfare." 

Is this sufficient to justify a Nazi-regime-like home invasion to investigate "suspicion of underage consumption?"  (That's not what happened in that case in Tennessee.  I describe it this way to illustrate where that statutory language leads us if it's not challenged at every turn, starting right now.  If it's illegal, "today," for a minor to consume alcohol, even in the privacy of a residence, then it'll be legal, "tomorrow," to get a search warrant for, or even to exercise "exigent circumstance" justification for a warrantless search of, that very same private residence.) 

The answer is a commercial one.  If STATE is going to pay all the costs, and I mean ALL the costs, food, clothing, shelter, etc., for the entirety of the life of that minor, THEN STATE may actually have a say about what goes on even INSIDE that house.  If STATE is going to BE the parent, in all respects, THEN it may be logical and legal for STATE to control how much, if any, alcohol, STATE's "child" may consume, whether publicly or privately.  Having said that, don't leave out the perspective that if the Nazi-communo-fascists (those who own and control the banks) under the "leadership" of their present puppet, the obama-nation, have their way with this economy, that the result just described may be EXACTLY where we'll end up (for a while, anyway). 


Let's examine into another rather subtle point about "statehood."  What is a "state?"  It's a body politic that groups itself around a particular moral code.  We can call that moral code atheist, or agnostic, or catholic, or protestant, or jewish, or muslim, or hindu, or wiccan, or whatever, but by whatever label, a state is a body politic that congregates around a fundamental moral code.  We know this to be the case logically, for that "state" must have a mechanism by which to evaluate its own laws.  How is it, for example, that "we" used to hang horse thieves, but that "we" don't do that anymore?  And, ages before that, "we" used to draw and quarter people as a form of punishment, but that's not done anymore by any civilized society.  Why?  Because the moral view of that has changed.  How does a society evaluate its own laws?  By application of that "state's" fundamental moral code.

Thus, what we see is an incremental transformation of the "state's" moral code, which transformation, when exposed, is an alarmingly radical deviation from where this nation started.  It's logically impossible ever in a million years to say that there's a "separation of church and state," for "church" and "state" are one in the same thing.  What is a state?  It's a body politic that congregates around a foundational moral code.  What is a church?  It's a body politic that congregates around a foundational moral code.  The Lord God Almighty didn't just establish the "church" of Isreal at Mt. Sinai.  He also established the "nation" of Israel, which was to be distinguished by its abiding commitment to God's Laws.  (And, there is a massively rampant misunderstanding these days a to who's who in Scripture, which is a topic for another time.  Just always remember the King David was "ruddy" and had red hair, and that Messiah, God manifest in the flesh, was "ruddy" and had strawberry blonde hair.  Adam and Eve were "ruddy," which is a term we need to come to understand, and the sooner the better.  God designed Israel to be a servant nation, not a "slave" nation.  But, we ARE a "slave" nation, and we "got there" purely voluntarily.)  This labeling, "separation of church and state," is simply the cover story for the changing of the foundational moral code, away from Scripture and toward the tradition of man, by whatever label those paganisms may be spun into something not instantly identifiable for what they are.

How do we "buy into" this radical change in moral code?  There are several ways, and one of the most direct is by obtaining a "license" for permission to engage in commercial activity within a "choice of law" of the "place" called "this state."  What is "this state?"  That's the word game scam used to refer to that "place" that provides the "choice of law." Conceptually, "this state" is that border-less, boundary-less "place" in which "funny money" is what circulates as "legal tender."  To give it some tangible context, picture 48 contiguous states, DC, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and the rest of the territories and protectorates.  Now, picture a clear acrylic sheet "hovering" 25 feet above that land.  (There's nothing magic about 25 feet.  It's just that if we're looking at something 25 feet in the air, we're likely looking up, away from the land, which is the entire point when it comes to "choice of law" analysis.)  If you can picture that clear acrylic layer "hovering" above you, then you can "see" "this state."  It's a Constitution-free, maritime, commercial zone, and the only way one gets "there" is purely voluntarily.

To illustrate the "choice of law" concept, let's say that B is in Britain and that G is in Germany.  Let's say that B contracts with G for delivery of 1,000 widgets.  Now, let's say that they agree to have the Law of France govern the agreement.  This is perfectly within the rights of the parties to the deal.

So, a party in California and a party in New York agree on a delivery of 1,000 widgets.  They agree to have the law of "this state" govern the agreement.  This is perfectly within the rights of the parties to the deal.

In the very, very first level of "choice of law" analysis, it's a choice between "Law of the Land" and "Law of the Sea."  Where there is no honest system of weights and measures in general circulation, and where no one is going to jail for running the "funny money" scam, then the foundational, default, presumed "choice of law" is the "Law of the Sea."


There are three ideas that compelled addressing this particular story.  Already covered are (1) the fact that it's nuts on its face to think, much less to say, that a commercially licensed parent has a "Constitutional right" to decide the "education" question for his/her minor children and (2) the fact that "all" we've been "taught" to do in protest of these morally outrageous rulings is to act politically, including rallying, and marching, and organizing to vent our frustrations in the "official name" of this or that organization,  which is the predominant "response" even to this one.  Regarding (1), we obviously have not the first clue what the legal reality is if we're still arguing the Constitution.  Regarding (2), we obviously have no idea at all what the nature of the problem is if our "response" to a commercial problem is a political response. To solve commercial problems, we must pursue a commercial response.  A "license" has no other purpose than to "permit" the engagement of regulated commercial activity.  If you're not engaging in this or that line of commercial activity, why do you have that "license?"

Here's the third idea.  The references to Germany in this story are brilliant!  Let me put this into other terms.  If you want to live under the present Nazi-communo-fascist policies, just keep being a "good Prussian."  What is a "good Prussian."  A "good Prussian" is someone who does exactly as he's told and who doesn't ask questions.  It is on the back of the "good Prussians" that Hitler's regime rose to power.  What was the start of that regime?  Total and complete economic devastation and outrageous, runaway inflation.  Study into the Weimar Republic for more details on this.

What's the point?  The point is that the people running the banks are the same ones destroying this nation, and they are of the same "mental/moral stock" of those who destroyed Germany, which was the breeding ground for what became the Third Reich.  The social policies for the Fourth Reich are already in place, and not just here in America, but also in the European Union, among other British-influenced or -controlled nations and peoples around the globe (to identify those places, look for the "funny money" scam), and one of the "last" steps, according to their model, based on that experience in Germany, is total and complete economic devastation.  So, we are, no doubt, right on schedule for their Nazi-communo-fascist regime plan and time-table. 

The DIFFERENCE this time is that we SEE the commercial mechanism underlying the skulduggery.

Why is that so different?  Here's the difference.  A people pursing a political solution are waiting on and depending on the political decision-makers.  In general, that's a hopeless and helpless situation.  The people effectively have "no control" over anything.  (Are we beginning to "see" WHY the only "response" we are "taught" is the "political" response?  To the tyrant, the "political" response is nothing but idle wind.  It changes nothing, for the people have been removed from the "political" decision-making process.  What controls the decisions?  Money from Washington or from the statehouse, NOT the will of the people.) 

Those who are depending on a political solution self-identify themselves all the time.  These are the ones constantly admonishing us to "wake up," and to "call our congressman," and to participate in this or that political organization or activity.  Been there, done that.  And, rest assured that there are certain issues for which I will always participate in the political activities (as time, "money," and energy permit).  Case in point:  What purpose does this note serve?  Is it not a direct participation in the "political" side of the house?  So, I'm not saying that those who are so inclined shouldn't engage in those activities.  What I'm saying is that we've got to come to terms with the fact that if this is ALL we do, we'll continue to accomplish a very small fraction of the goals.  If all we do is apply political solutions to the commercial problems, nothing will change.  Nothing.

To pull numbers out of thin air to illustrate the alternative, a people pursing commercial solutions will invest 10% of that time, "money," and energy, and obtain a thousand-fold the results.  Those pursuing the commercial solutions are waiting on no one but themselves and are limited by no one but themselves.  These people effectively have "100% control" over everything that vexes them, for that which vexes us exists as a result of private obligations entered into by our very own signature.

We don't have to enter into those scams.  Once we realize we're being scammed, and not only scammed, but also scammed in and by the name of "government," we realize all the more how "voluntary" all of that commercial activity is.  (Are we beginning to "see" WHY the only "response" we are "taught" is the "political" response?  It greatly encourages us to keep out of the law libraries and to keep our minds away from the legal reality.)

The "dependent" people will look to the political process for the solutions, for they know not what else to do.  (See how effective the Prussian school theories work?!)  These are also the people who have to blame someone else for their problems.  To blame someone else is to say that someone else is the cause of the problem, which is then also to say that someone else is also the solution.  Where someone else is the solution, and where that someone else exists to be the problem, what changes?  Nothing.  Reflect, then, on why we're so heavily inundated with "victim-hood" thinking.  Victims are dependent on someone else for the solution to their problems.  (Political solution)

The people who are ready, willing, and able to take personal responsibility are the ones in a position to learn, and then apply, the commercial solutions to the commercial problems.  They don't need to wait on anyone, for they realize that they are both the cause of and the solution for their own problems. (Commercial solution)


So, for a little contemporary "Common Sense," to remember Thomas Paine, given that we have a virtually identical legal setting to his (British-bank controlled choice of law in a Constitution-free, maritime, commercial zone),  to solve a problem, we must first identify it correctly.  Political problems have political solutions.  BUT, commercial problems require commercial solutions.

"Licenses" exist for one and only one purpose:  commerce.  And, not only commerce, but also commerce within a particular "choice of law."  The entities doing the regulating these days exist within one and only one "place;" hence, within one and only one "choice of law."  That "place" is "this state," and that "choice of law" is the "law" of the place called "this state."  The "place" called "this state" is a Constitution-free, maritime, commercial zone.  It operates "federally."  What does "federal" mean?  At the level of state, i.e., a body politic organized around a foundational moral code, "federal" means "by compact," or "by treaty."  At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation."  (Private obligations come in two generic types:  contracts and trusts.  One cannot go to jail for mere breach of contract.  But, one MAY risk going to jail for mere breach of trust.)


Those who prefer to homeschool their children need seriously to investigate the consequences of becoming a "commercial" (licensed) family.  Those who prefer to homeschool their children need seriously to consider how their non-human property interests are owned, whether in full title or in trust where STATE is a beneficiary, because if it takes a commercial forum to divide the commercial property (human and non-human) of the commercial family, then the court, not the human parents, but the STATE, according to STATE's foundational moral code, will determine where and how and when the children will be educated.

There's a reason I titled my first book, "We, The Posterity: Voluntary Bondage."

There are a lot of commercial solutions, but the best one is prevention, as in not getting into the agreement in the first place.  Fortunately, there are millions among us who have had the foresight NOT to attach the tentacles of "this state" to their children.  We at Legal Reality salute you for applying the commercial solution, of prevention and of non-participation, to this commercial problem. 

Keep up the good work.  You are the example of the commonsense application of the legal reality.  For this particular issue, there is no relevance in voting for someone who will be bought and paid for within six months by special interest groups.  For this particular issue, there is no relevance in calling this or that legislator on this or that issue.  For this particular issue, there is no relevance in participating in this or that political activity, or gathering, or march.  For this particular issue, there is nothing but a tremendous waste of money "financing" this or that political group raising the voices of those who have commercial agreements and who are being hosed over by the existence of such, but who refuse to address the problem at its source (which greatly prolongs the existence of the apparent "need" of the political-voice group, and its ever-increasing need for money to continue to throw a political solution at the commercial problem).  Why?  Because, for this issue, there is no relevance to the political activity/solution to the commercial problem that has already been solved via prevention.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas