Ticket Slayer - The Number One Common Law Default Method That Successfully Beats Traffic Tickets - Based In California

Ticket Slayer - "The 'Number One' Common Law Method to 'Beat' a Traffic Ticket!"

Ticket Slayer's Number One! Common Law Default Method successfully beats traffic tickets.

Our unique common law default methods can Beat Speeding Tickets, Radar Tickets, Seatbelt Tickets, Red Light Camera Tickets, Stop Light Tickets, etc.

Fight your traffic ticket and win using our Number One! Common Law Traffic Ticket Default Method.

"Why Ticket Slayer is the Best at Slaying Traffic Tickets"

* Ticket Slayer is the number one common law method to beat a traffic ticket!

* Our common law default nullifies the state's claim against you!

* Ticket Slayer's method reduces a lot of the stress of fighting a traffic ticket!

* Our default does most of the work for you to get your ticket dismissed!

* With our default method you won't spends hours researching vehicle code!

* Hundreds of Ticket Slayer customers have had their traffic ticket dismissed!

* We guarantee your satisfaction with our default process!

 Ticket Slayer's proven common law default process has been used successfully hundreds of times in traffic court to beat traffic tickets of all kinds, including – red light camera tickets, seat belt tickets, and scores of type other types of traffic tickets. Our common law traffic default process works in all states.

 The Ticket Slayer Common Law Traffic Ticket Default Process is the most successful method of getting traffic tickets dismissed in traffic court that we are aware of. Our Traffic Ticket Default Process has saved people tens of thousands of dollar in traffic fines and added insurance costs over the past few years.

What some of our customers had to say concerning our Ticket Slayer's Common Law Default Process. . .

  Here's what a few Ticket Slayer customers had to say about using Ticket Slayer's common law default process to beat their traffic ticket:

  Bryson in Bakersfield, CA - I drive a delivery truck in downtown Bakersfield, where the cops write traffic tickets like no tomorrow. Ticket Slayer's material successfully got all four of my traffic tickets dismissed that I had gotten over a one year period.

  Chris in Dallas, TX - TICKET SLAYER BEAT MY SPEEDING TICKTET! In traffic court I watched in nervous disbelief and high anxiety as the judge found person after person guilty in their traffic case. I must admit that, by the time the judge finally got around to calling my name I was ready to just change my plea to guilty and ask to attend traffic school.

  Thank goodness I just didn't blurt out that I was giving up because, the judge quickly announced without explanation that, he was dismissing my case. I was in shock... up until now, not a single person had gotten off.

  There were still quite a few people waiting to have their traffic ticket cases heard as I walked out of the courtroom, and they all had their eyes glued on me. I know everyone of them disparately wanted to know, just how I had gotten my ticket dismissed. I was really fighting the urge to shout out as I was leaving... "go to TicketSlayer.com," but I knew most likely the judge would throw me in jail for contempt of court if I did!

How the Ticket Slayer "Common Law Default Process" gets traffic tickets dismissed in traffic court . . .

  Ticket Slayer cuts traffic tickets off at their knees by legally barring the prosecutor from pursuing the charge(s) against the defendant with our unique common law default method. In our common law default process the prosecutor is served by the defendant with a legal document in affidavit form, called an Affidavit of Truth.

  The defendant states a limited number of specific legal claims counter of the prosecutor proving defendant is not subject to the prosecutor's or the state's claim(s) against him.

  Because the defendant's legal claims in his affidavit are so well established in natural and common law, the prosecutor will be unable to truthfully rebut the defendant's legal claims. The common law holds that, the prosecutor must truthfully rebut all factual legal claims made by the defendant in his affidavit, or by default he loses all legal right to pursue a claim against the defendant.

  At the defendant's traffic court trial; the judge, upon reviewing the legal documents establishing the fact that the prosecutor has legally defaulted in this case, is left with no legal option other than, to dismiss the case against the defendant.

  If about now you are asking yourself, why the court must honor the common law default? ...it is because you, like the vast majority of people have not been enlightened about the common law. Quite simply, the answer is; the judge must honor the common law default because, the common law is superior law.

  The Constitution of the United States of America is a common law document and being framed in the common law, the constitution is rightfully considered to be the law of the land. No law passed by a legislative body in our county is valid unless it meets with the requirements of the constitution.

  The common is held to be legally superior law, and for this reason the common law must take legal president over laws passed by acts of a legislative body. The next page contains more information about the common law.

The Common Law - "Much More Powerful than a mere Traffic Ticket!"

Words appearing in Bright Blue Type Face below are 'Clickable Links'

  The common law can be described as; law not initially set down in writing, unlike statutes or constitutions (which are derived from the legislative branch of government). Common laws received their binding power and the force of law, by long immemorial usage, and by their universal reception. Common law predates written law. Much of the foundation of common law is derived from biblical teachings, like the Ten Commandments. Common law is the underlying foundation of our Constitution and the principles of law used by our judicial system today. Common law is the law of the land!

  Who is common law intended for? The answer is; flesh and blood people, or sovereigns. The purpose for legislative law or administrative law, which includes all codes and regulations, are to regulate the actions and behavior of artificial entities, such as corporations, associations, organizations and political & governmental bodies, not flesh and blood people.

Sovereignty - Sovereign or Slave ...which one are you?

  As a sovereign you are not subject to any law besides that of common law. I realize that this idea is totally foreign to most of you, as we have been erroneously taught all of our lives that we are subject to laws passed by the legislature or those in the lesser bodies of government. In United States Supreme Court decision of Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 http://ticketslayer.com/ts.yick_wo.htm in 1886 the Supreme Court agreed with the fact that flesh and blood people are sovereigns in their own right, not subject to legislative or administrative law. This United States Supreme Court decision was handed down before our legal system became nearly as corrupt as it is today in America.

  The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins takes place in the late 1800's and is about Yick Wo, an immigrant Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco who was fined and then jailed for failure to obey a local ordinance passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors requiring all laundry owners to relocate laundries housed in wooden structures to brick or stone structures or to close down their businesses. The case is most often cited as a civil rights case because the all white San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Hopkins selectively enforced the newly passed ordinance along racial lines.

  The white laundry owned laundries were mostly housed in brick or stone structures, and the few white owned laundries located in wooden structures were all given a free pass, while not one of the immigrant Chinese laundry owners were exempted from the ordinance. Most of the immigrant Chinese laundry owners were poor and could not afford to relocate their laundries to brick or stone structures. The Chinese laundry owners, like Yick Wo who continued to operate their laundries located in wooden structures in defiance of the order were fined and then jailed when they didn't pay their fines.

  On August 24, 1885, Yick Wo petitioned the supreme court of California for the writ of habeas corpus, claiming he was illegally deprived of his personal liberty by the defendant Sheriff Hopkins, the sheriff of San Francisco County.

  Justice Matthews states in the U. S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Yick Wo: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."

  Justice Matthews makes a very profound statement in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins; clearly stating that we (you and I) are 'sovereigns', not subject to law. Justice Matthews did not just dream up the concept that we are sovereigns and as a sovereign we are not subject to law. Of course not, he had very sound bases for his profound proclamation, which was based upon his knowledge and belief that God created man and decreed man to be a sovereign. Justice Matthews also based his opinion upon the knowledge and belief that our nation's founding fathers strongly held this same belief and incorporated it into the fabric of our constitution.

  Justice Matthews reminds us; while, yes it is true that our government has sovereignty delegated to it by the people, the people are the creators of the government and of the administrative law and we the creators or sovereigns are not subject to the law as its creators.

  Remember and teach your children well that you and they are the true sovereigns. Your place is above government and never beneath the feet of government. God is the Sovereign Creator of our universe, we serve God and never does God serve His creation; man. Man is the sovereign of his domain and created government to serve him within his domain. An axiom of truth decrees that; the creator never serves his creation. Ask yourself who is serving whom today? How did it get to this point? The true responsibility and blame lies with us and all Americans who preceded us following the Civil War.

  Will you be the master or will you continue to be the slave? The choice of slave has already been made for you and your children unless you have the will and courage to change it.

The Common Law Traffic Ticket Default Process

  The Ticket Slayer common law traffic default method consists of four legal documents. The four documents are filed in three steps with the prosecutor's Office and the Traffic Court Clerk as outlined in our easy to follow instructions. You will need approximately 25 days before the date of your trial to complete the filing process. If you have less than this amount of time before your trial date, then in most cases you can simply call the traffic court clerk and ask for a postponement of your trial. Generally, the court clerk is authorized by the court to allow you a one time postponement of your trial. The court clerk can usually grant a postponement of up to 30 days, and in some cases he is authorized to grant even more time.

  STEP ONE: The common law traffic default process begins when you serve your Declaration of Status upon the prosecutor and filing a copy with the court clerk. The Declaration of Status is your sworn statement declaring who you are. Who you are of course, is a flesh and blood man or woman and not the ALL CAPS person or legal fiction the state is addressing in your traffic case. In the declaration you also state; you have no contract with the county or the state, you say you are a sovereign, a creation of God, and are not subject to administrative law (referencing Yick Wo v. Hopkins). The prosecutor by law has X amount of time (usually ten calendar days to rebut your claims made in your Affidavit of Truth or he is in default.

  STEP TWO: Filing of the Acceptance of Oaths of Office and Constitutions. Every federal and state public office holder is required by the united [sic] States Constitution for America and the every state’s constitution to take an oath of office to uphold the constitution and to file their written signed copy of their Oath of Office with the proper federal or state office.

  The Oath of Office is a contract with We the People that the office holds swears to abide by in upholding the constitution and your rights as protected by the constitution. The law of contracts holds that; there are two basic elements to a binding contract, - the offer and the acceptance. No contract can be held to be legally valid without there first being an offer to contract and then the acceptance of that offer. This is why an Acceptance of Oaths of Office document is included in the default package, it legally binds the prosecutors and the judges to their contact with you, one of We the People.

  STEP THREE: Filing of the Affidavit of Truth. The Affidavit of Truth is also your sworn statement testifying to the fact that; you served the prosecutor with your sworn Declaration of Status and the prosecutor failed to timely rebut the facts in your declaration and is now in default. In the Affidavit of Truth you give the prosecutor X amount of time (usually ten calendar days to rebut your claims stated in your Affidavit of Truth.

  STEP FOUR: Motions to Dismiss. You have to move the court to do what it is you wish the court to do. If you wish for the court to dismiss your case you move the court for dismissal of your case by serving the court with a written motion to dismiss. You can also verbally motion the court for dismissal but, it is often much more desirable to motion for dismissal in writing before your court case. This is especially true with the common law traffic default method. At the time of your trial the judge should already received and read all of your documents. Having a written motion to dismiss before him, provides the judge the opportunity to just state at the time of your trial that, he is dismissing your case without you having to say a word.

  The prosecutor defaults when he fails to rebut your sworn statement of facts, which attests to the fact that you are a sovereign; not subject to laws derived by governmental bodies. This fact is supported biblically, by common law and by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins. Together, these three foundations in support of your claims effectively create a legal claim so strong it becomes an almost certain legal impossibility for the prosecutor to rebut your claims.

  When you arrive in traffic court for your trial, the traffic court judge should have already received and read a copy of all of your documents. The judge seeing that the prosecutor has defaulted, has no choice legally, but to dismiss your case as the prosecutor by law lost all right to prosecute you when he defaulted.

  The Ticket Slayer Common Law Traffic Default package comes with a 'READ ME' file that explains in detail how to prepare, serve and file your legal documents with the prosecutor and the traffic court. The 'READ ME' file also contains information what to do in various situations in court and tips, suggestions, and strategies about how to force the judge to dismiss your case and much more!

  The 'READ ME' file is your survivors guide book on how to get your traffic case dismissed in court. Ticket Slayer provides email and phone support too. If you don't understand something about our documents, our common law traffic ticket default procedure, the courts, or anything else related to your traffic case just ask us.

What your mother never told you about Traffic Court!

"Traffic Court is now in session ...time to place your bets everyone!"

Just what kind of court is Traffic Court anyway?

Words appearing in Bright Blue Type Face below are 'Clickable Links'

  Asking a traffic court judge to inform you about the type of court you are in and about the rules of the court, is like Alice asking the Mad Hatter for the time of day. Just as the Hatter will always leave Alice perplexed about the real time of day, traffic court judges will do the same to anyone who inquires about the rules governing traffic court. Seemingly, traffic courts must reside in the nebulous realm of "Judicial Wonderland."

  All courts, including traffic courts are either civil or criminal and are governed by either, the Rules of Civil Procedure http://ticketslayer.com/ts.def_terms.htm#rcp or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Most states classify minor traffic offenses as infractions. Infractions are legally termed quasi-crimes and are not punishable by jail time. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7ed., legally defines the word Quasi as – Seemingly but not actually; in some sense; resembling; nearly.

  Under the law, what is not criminal is civil. Because infractions by legal definition only resemble a crime, but are not actually, then it stands to reason that infractions fall under the non-criminal or civil category of law adjudicated under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The common law default is a civil procedure and the default process found in every state’s Rules of Civil Procedure is based upon the civil default derived under the common law.

  In a small number of states, such as Texas, the vehicle codes are incorporated into the criminal codes and the traffic courts in Texas are designated as criminal courts and are governed by the Rule of Criminal Procedure.

  Since the common law default is a civil procedure, can it be properly used to default the prosecutor in traffic courts legally designated as criminal courts?

  Please keep in mind that the common law default as we apply it in traffic cases, challenge the legal claim(s) made against you by the prosecutor, who is prosecuting a claim(s) against you on behalf of the state. The authority of the prosecutor is vested unto him by the Constitution, which also limits the jurisdiction of his authority. The Constitution of the United States of America and all state constitutions are common law ‘civil’ instruments.

  Under the provisions of our Constitution, all public office holders and people elected to or appointed to positions of public trust, including prosecutors, must take an oath of office. The oath of office is a contract between the office holder and the people, whereby the office holder swears to uphold the constitution, the law and the duties of his office. All contracts are civil. The prosecutor holds office and derives his power under the provisions of civil instruments, such as the Constitution and his oath of office, and any challenge to the power or jurisdiction of the prosecutor must be made by means of a civil instrument or document. A civil challenge to the authority or jurisdiction of a prosecutor in a criminal court or any other court, is the only legal avenue available to the people in making such a challenge.

 The Court Calls:
.....is "HIS NAME" really "My Name" too?

  Ninety nine percent of the time, the citing officer will spell the person's name cited on the traffic ticket in ALL CAPS http://ticketslayer.com/ts.def_terms.htm#all_caps Even in the rare case where the officer writes the name of the person he is citing in upper and lower case lettering, that person's name always appear in ALL CAPS on the court docket. So, the state will still list your legal fiction or artificial person as the person charged in the case.

  Have you ever noticed that on all official government documents your name is always spelled in ALL CAPS? Your name on your driver's license, your name on your passport, your name on your social security card and your name on your birth certificate are all spelled in ALL CAPS. Does the government just spell your name in ALL CAPS for ease of use, or for clarity, as some claim, or is there more to the why the government uses ALL CAPS to spell your name?

  Now, let's consider the name of "JOHN JACOB JINGLEHEIMER SCHMID" Is "JOHN JACOB JINGLEHEIMER SCHMID" spelled in ALL CAPS the same person as "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmid" spelled in upper and lower case letters? To know the answer we must first know that a corporation is also legally defined as a "person". Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., def. (2): Person http://ticketslayer.com/ts.def_terms.htm#person An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.

  Black in definition (2), states an all telling and troubling fact by informing us that a corporation is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. There is a hugh difference between the so called rights of a corporation, or corporate person and the rights of a living flesh and blood person. We as the flesh and blood creations of God the Father above, have a sacred duty unto our creator to worship and obey Him and a duty unto God to help our fellow man. Corporate persons have no such duties imposed upon them. The corporation person has a duty imposed upon it by the secular state that created it.

  Flesh and blood persons have unalienable rights granted to them by their creator, which can never be sold, given away, or contracted away, whereas corporate persons have only inalienable rights, which may be surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. I purposely digressed from the point of the topic, which is the meaning of your name spelled in ALL CAPS because, this information is so very important for everyone to know.

  Now that you know that legally the word person can mean either a flesh and blood person, or a corporate person, how can one determine if "JOHN JACOB JINGLEHEIMER SCHMID" is the name of a flesh and blood person, or a corporate person or legal fiction? The best place to start is look at how the names of corporate persons are spelled by the states that create them. In every instance the name of corporations or corporate persons are recorded by the state in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS! This is the method the state uses to distinguish a state created legal fiction from a flesh and blood person.

  Almost from the moment of your birth the state created a legal fiction in your name though your birth certificate. Guess what? Your name is spelled in ALL CAPS on your birth certificate. Over your life time, the state proceeds to trap you into other contracts, so it can attach more and more legal obligations to you via your legal fiction. The driver's license, Social Security card, marriage license, this license and that license, all create a contract with your legal fiction, which the state can freely impose legal duties on and apply penalties for any alleged breaches of contract.

  Remember, the legal definition of corporate person tells us that a corporate person has the rights and duties of a human being. Human beings have God given rights or superior rights, so there is no need for any human being to be a corporate person, however it is of great advantage to the state if you are. The state has the legal right to tax and "control" what ever it creates, and so the state has control and authority over corporate persons or legal fictions.

  The state creates the artificial you, or CORPORATE PERSON without your knowledge and consent, and then without disclosing this fact to you, holds you accountable for this CORPORATE PERSON. A Legal maxim holds: “He who does not deny, admits.” Following this legal maxim, the courts commit judicial treason against us sovereigns, by taking silent judicial notice that such a contract exists between the state and our legal fictions, finding us guilty on this bases. How is it possible to deny what you never knew existed in the first place? Any court conspiring to conceal the truth, is a court of great moral turpitude and corruption.

  You have the God given right to travel http://ticketslayer.com/ts.def_terms.htm#right_to_travel and the state has no legal right to restrict or license http://ticketslayer.com/ts.def_terms.htm#license your right to travel, and that means your right to drive a vehicle, except in the exercise of commerce.

  There is a big problem with what the state does to attempt to adhere you to the driver's contract by creating a CORPORATE PERSON in your name by spelling your name in ALL CAPS. The problem is, the state never informed you that it had contractually made you responsible for the CORPORATE PERSON it created in your name without your knowledge. So, the driver's license contract is not a legally enforceable contract, because it is clearly based on intentional fraud and deceit.


Memorandum of Law on the Name
[Author Unknown]

Many people are involved in diligent research concerning the use of all capital letters for proper names, e.g., JOHN PAUL JONES as a substitute for John Paul Jones in all court documents, driver's licenses, bank accounts, birth certificates, etc.. Is the use of all capital letters to designate a name some special English grammar rule or style? Is it a contemporary American style of English? Is the use of this form of capitalization recognized by educational authorities? Is this an official judicial or U.S. government rule and/or style of grammar? Why do attorneys, court clerks, prosecutors judges, insurance companies, banks, credit card companies, utility companies, etc. always use all capital letters when writing a proper name?

What English grammar experts say...

One of the foremost authorities on American English grammar, style, composition, and rules is The Chicago Manual of Style. The latest (14th) Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, is internationally known and respected as a major contribution to maintaining and improving the standards of written or printed text. Since we can find no reference in their manual concerning the use of all capitalized letters with a proper name or any other usage, we wrote to the editors and asked this question:

"Is it acceptable, or is there any rule of English grammar, to allow a proper name to be written in all capital letters? For example, if my name was John Paul Jones, can it be written as JOHN PAUL JONES? Is there any rule covering this?"

The Editorial Staff of the University of Chicago answered:

"Writing names in all caps is not conventional; it is not Chicago style to put anything in all caps. For instance, even if 'GONE WITH THE WIND' appears on the title page all in caps, we would properly render it 'Gone with the Wind' in a bibliography. The only reason we can think of to do so is if you are quoting some material where it is important to the narrative to preserve the casing of the letters.

“We're not sure in what context you would like your proper name to appear in all caps, but it is likely to be seen as a bit odd."

Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences. If, for instance, one attempts to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State of a State, if the exact title of the corporation — down to every jot and title— is not exactly the same each and every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State will refuse to file the papers. This is because each time the name of the corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation identifies an entirely different legal person.

It is therefore an eminently valid, and possibly crucial, question as to why governments, governmental courts, and agencies purporting to exist (in some undefined, unproved manner) within the jurisdiction of “this state” insist on always capitalizing every letter in a proper name.

Mary Newton Bruder, Ph.D., also known as The Grammar Lady, who established the Grammar Hotline in the late 1980's for the "Coalition of Adult Literacy," was asked the following question:

"Why do federal and state government agencies and departments, judicial and administrative courts, insurance companies, etc., spell a person's proper name in all capital letters? For example, if my name is John Paul Jones, is it proper at any time to write my name as JOHN PAUL JONES?"

Dr. Bruder's reply was short and to the point: "It must be some kind of internal style. There is no grammar rule about it."

It seemed that these particular grammatical experts had no idea why proper names were written in all caps, so we began to assemble an extensive collection of reference books authored by various publishers, governments, and legal authorities to find the answer.

What English grammar reference books say...

Manual on Usage & Style

One of the reference books obtained was the "Manual on Usage & Style," Eighth Edition, ISBN I-878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. Section D, CAPITALIZATION, paragraph D: 1:1 states:

"Always capitalize proper nouns... [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce)."

Paragraph D: 3:2 of Section D states:

"Capitalize People, State, and any other terms used to refer to the government as a litigant (e.g., the People's case, the State's argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant Manson)."

Either no attorney, judge, or law clerk in Texas has ever read the recognized law style manual that purports to pertain to them, or the act is a deliberate violation of the rules for undisclosed reasons. In either ignorance (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”) or violation (one violating the law he enforces on others is acting under title of nobility and abrogating the principle of equality under the law) of law, they continue to write "Plaintiff,” "Defendant," "THE STATE OF TEXAS" and proper names of parties in all capital letters on every court document.

The Elements of Style

Another well-recognized reference book is "The Elements of Style," Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn & Bacon in 1999. Within this renowned English grammar and style reference book, is found only one reference to capitalization, located within the Glossary at "proper noun," page 94, where it states:

"The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized."

There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.

The American Heritage Book of English Usage

The American Heritage Book of English Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, published in 1996, at Chapter 9, E-Mail, Conventions and Quirks, Informality, states:

"To give a message special emphasis, an E-mailer may write entirely in capital letters, a device E-mailers refer to as screaming. Some of these visual conventions have emerged as away of getting around the constraints on data transmission that now limit many networks".

Here is a reference source, within contemporary — modern — English, that states it is of an informal manner to write every word of — specifically — an electronic message, a.k.a. e-mail, in capital letters. They say it's "screaming" to do so. By standard definition, we presume that is the same as shouting or yelling. Are all judges, as well as their court clerks and attorneys, shouting at us when they corrupt our proper names in this manner? (If so, what happened to the decorum of a court if everyone is yelling?) Is the insurance company screaming at us for paying the increased premium on our Policy? This is doubtful as to any standard generalization, even though specific individual instances may indicate this to be true. It is safe to conclude, however, that it would also be informal to write a proper name in the same way.

Does this also imply that those in the legal profession are writing our Christian names informally on court documents? Are not attorneys and the courts supposed to be specific, formally writing all legal documents to the "letter of the law?" If the law is at once both precise and not precise, what is its significance, credibility, and force and effect?

New Oxford Dictionary of English

"The New Oxford Dictionary of English" is published by the Oxford University Press. Besides being considered the foremost authority on the British English language, this dictionary is also designed to reflect the way language is used today through example sentences and phrases. We submit the following definitions from the 1998 edition:

Proper noun (also proper name). Noun. A name used for an individual person, place, organization, spelled with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam.

Name. Noun 1 A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known,addressed, or referred to: my name is Parsons, John Parsons. Kalkwasser is the German name for limewater. Verb 2 Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man has been named as John Mackintosh. Phrases. 3 In the name of. Bearing or using the name of a specified person or organization: a driving license in the name of William Sanders.

From the "Newbury House Dictionary of American English," published by Monroe Allen Publishers, Inc., (1999):

name n. I [C] a word by which a person, place, or thing is known: Her name is Diane Daniel.

We can find absolutely no example in any recognized reference book that specifies or allows the use of all capitalized names, proper or common. There is no doubt that a proper name, to be grammatically correct, must be written with only the first letter capitalized, with the remainder of the word in a name spelled with lower case letters.

US Government Style Manual

Is the spelling and usage of a proper name defined officially by US Government? Yes. The United States Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.

Chapter 3, "Capitalization," at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names:

"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."

At Chapter 17, "Courtwork, the rules of capitalization," as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated:

"17.1. Courtwork differs in style from other work only as set forth in this section; otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding sections will be followed."

After reading §17 in entirety, I found no other references that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization.

At § 17.9, this same official US Government manual states:

"In the titles of cases the first letter of all principal words are capitalized, but not such terms as defendant and appellee."

This wholly agrees with Texas Law Review's Manual on "Usage & Style" as referenced above.

Examples shown in § 17.12 are also consistent with the aforementioned §17.9 specification: that is, all proper names are to be spelled with capital first letters; the balance of each spelled with lower case letters.

Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (NASA) has publish one of the most concise US Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication SP-7084, "Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization." A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors, was compiled and written by the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At Chapter 4, "Capitalization," they state in 4.1 "Introduction:"

"First we should define terms used when discussing capitalization:

• All caps means that every letter in an expression is capital, LIKE THIS.

• Caps & lc means that the principal words of an expression are capitalized, Like This.

• Caps and small caps refer to a particular font of type containing small capital letters instead of lowercase letters.

Elements in a document such as headings, titles, and captions may be capitalized in either sentence style or headline style:

• Sentence style calls for capitalization of the first letter, and proper nouns of course.

• Headline style calls for capitalization of all principal words (also called caps & lc).

Modern publishers tend toward a down style of capitalization, that is, toward use of fewer capitals, rather than an up style."

Here we see that in headlines, titles, captions, and in sentences, there is no authorized usage of all caps. At 4.4.1. "Capitalization With Acronyms," we find the first authoritative use for all caps:

"Acronyms are always formed with capital letters. Acronyms are often coined for a particular program or study and therefore require definition. The letters of the acronym are not capitalized in the definition unless the acronym stands for a proper name:

Wrong - The best electronic publishing systems combine What You See Is What

You Get (WYSIWYG) features...

Correct - The best electronic publishing systems combine what you see is what

you get (WYSIWYG) features...

But Langley is involved with the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program.”

This cites, by example, that using all caps is allowable in an acronym. "Acronyms" are words formed from the initial letters of successive parts of a term. They never contain periods and are often not standard, so that definition is required. Could this apply to lawful proper Christian names? If that were true, then JOHN SMITH would have to follow a definition of some sort, which it does not. For example, only if JOHN SMITH were defined as 'John Orley Holistic Nutrition of the Smith Medical Institute To Holistics (JOHN SMITH)' would this apply.

The most significant section appears at 4.5., "Administrative Names":

"Official designations of political divisions and of other organized bodies are capitalized:

• Names of political divisions;

• Canada, New York State;

• United States Northwest Territories;

• Virgin Islands, Ontario Province;

• Names of governmental units, US Government Executive Department, US Congress, US Army;

• US Navy.”

According to this official US Government publication, the States are never to be spelled in all caps such as “NEW YORK STATE.” The proper English grammar — and legal — style is “New York State.” This agrees, once again, with Texas Law.

Review's Manual on Usage & Style.

The Use of a Legal Fiction

The Real Life Dictionary of the Law

The authors of "The Real Life Dictionary of the Law," Gerald and Kathleen Hill, are accomplished scholars and writers. Gerald Hill is an experienced attorney, judge, and law instructor. Here is how the term legal fiction is described:

"Legal fiction. n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency orto achieve justice. There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.'

Oran's Dictionary of the Law

From Oran's "Dictionary of the Law," published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of "Fiction" is found:

"A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent ‘John Doe’ off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain."

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

"Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law" 1996 states:

"legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no fractions — Fields V. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658 (1991)."

This is the reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The US and State Governments are deliberately using a legal fiction to "address" the lawful, real, flesh-and-blood man or woman. We say this is deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps. They are deliberately not following their own recognized authorities.

In the same respect, by identifying their own government entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is also intended to be a legal fiction. As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this memorandum, the use of all caps for writing a proper name is an "internal style" for what is apparently a pre-determined usage and, at this point, unknown jurisdiction.

The main key to a legal fiction is assumption as noted in each definition above.

Conclusion: There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of all caps when writing a proper name. To do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed jurisdiction by unknown people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary presumption not based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the deceit.

Assumption of a Legal Fiction

An important issue concerning this entire matter is whether or not a proper name, perverted into an all caps assemblage of letters, can be substituted for a lawful Christian name or any proper name, such as the State of Florida. Is the assertion of all-capital-letter names "legal?" If so, from where does this practice originate and what enforces it?

A legal fiction may be employed when the name of a “person” is not known, and therefore using the fictitious name “John Doe” as a tentative, or interim artifice to surmount the absence of true knowledge until the true name is known. Upon discovering the identity of the fictitious name, the true name replaces it.

In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption of purported fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It is an acceptance with no proof. Simply, to assume is to pretend. Oran's "Dictionary of the Law" says that the word “assume” means:

1. To take up or take responsibility for; to receive; to undertake. See "assumption."

2. To pretend.

3. To accept without proof.

These same basic definitions are used by nearly all of the modern law dictionaries. It should be noted that there is a difference between the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the first. Pretending and accepting without proof are of the same understanding and meaning. However, to take responsibility for and receive, or assumption, does not have the same meaning. Oran's defines “assumption” as:

"Formally transforming someone else's debt into your own debt. Compare with guaranty. The assumption of a mortgage usually involves taking over the seller's 'mortgage debt' when buying a property (often a house)."

Now, what happens if all the meanings for the word "assume" are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meaning of assume would be: The pretended acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt.

Therefore, if we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.

Use of the legal fiction “JOHN P JONES” in place of the proper name “John Paul Jones” implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, unless the assumption is proven wrong it is considered valid.

An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. (“An unrebutted affidavit, claim, or charge stands as the truth in commerce.”) This is in accord with the Uniform Commercial Code, valid in every State and made a part of the Statutes of each State. A name written in all caps — resembling a proper name but grammatically not a proper name — is being held as a debtor for an assumed debt. Did the parties to the Complaint incur that debt? If so, how and when?

Where is the contract of indebtedness that was signed and the proof of default thereon? What happens if the proper name, i.e. “John Paul Jones,” answers for or assumes the fabricated name, i.e. “JOHN P JONES?” The two become one and the same. This is the crux for the use of the all caps names by the US Government and the States. It is the way that they can bring someone into the "de facto" venue and jurisdiction that they have created. By implication of definition, this also is for the purpose of some manner of assumed debt.

Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.

The Legalities of All-Capital-Letters Names

We could go on for hundreds of pages citing the legal basis behind the creation and use of all-capital-letters names. In a nutshell, fabricated legal persons such as “STATE OF TEXAS” can be used to fabricate additional legal persons. "Fictions" arise from the law, not the law from fictions. Bastard legal persons originate from any judicial/governmental actor that whishes to create them, regardless of whether he/she/it is empowered by law to do so. However, a law can never originate from a fictional foundation that doesn't exist.

The generic and original US Constitution was validated by treaty between individual nation states (all of which are artificial, corporate entities since they exist in abstract idea and construct). Contained within it is the required due process of law for all the participating nation states of that treaty. Representatives of the people in each nation state agreed upon and signed it. The federal government is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines of Constitutional due process. Any purported law that does not originate from Constitutional due process is a fictional law without validity. Thus, the true test of any American law is its basis of due process according to the organic US Constitution. Was it created according to the lawful process or created outside of lawful process?

Executive Orders and Directives

For years many have researched the lawful basis for creating all-caps juristic persons and have concluded that there is no such foundation according to valid laws and due process. But what about those purported "laws" that are not valid and have not originated from constitutional due process? There's a very simple answer to the creation of such purported laws that are really not laws at all: "Executive Orders" and "Directives." They are "color of law" without being valid laws of due process. These "Executive Orders" and "Directives" have the appearance of law and look as if they are laws, but according to due process, they are not laws. Rather, they are "laws" based on fictional beginnings and are the inherently defective basis for additional fictional "laws" and other legal fictions. They are "regulated" and "promulgated" by Administrative Code, rules and procedures, not due process. Currently, Executive Orders are enforced through the charade known as the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. Each State has also adopted the same fatally flawed administrative "laws."

Lincoln Establishes Executive Orders

Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or "without day." This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which, according to Robert's Rules of Order, dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there are no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum of the States.

Lincoln's second Executive Order of April 1861 called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority, or lawful due process, of the Constitution. Solely in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the US Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, "Congress" has not met based on lawful due process. The current "Congress" is a legal fiction based on nothing more meritorious than “Yeah, so what are you going to do about it?” Having a monopoly on the currency, “law,” and what passes for “government,” and most of the world’s firepower, the motto of the Powers That Be is: “We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got.”

Legal-fiction "laws," such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were instituted by Lincoln soon thereafter and became the basis for the current "laws" in the US. Every purported "Act" in effect today is "de facto," based on colorable fictitious entities created arbitrarily, out of nothing, without verification, lawful foundation, or lawful due process. All of such “laws” are not law, but rules of rulership by force/conquest, originating from and existing in military, martial law jurisdiction. Military, martial law jurisdiction

= jurisdiction of war

= win/lose interactions consisting of eating or being eaten, living or dying

= food chain

= law of necessity

= suspension of all law other than complete freedom to act in any manner to eat, kill, or destroy or avoid being eaten, killed, or destroyed

= no law

= lawlessness

= complete absence of all lawful basis to create any valid law.

Contractually, being a victim of those acting on the alleged authority granted by the law of necessity,

= no lawful object, valuable consideration, free consent of all involved parties, absence offraud, duress, malice, and undue influence

= no bona fide, enforceable contract

= no valid, enforceable nexus

= absolute right to engage in any action of any kind in self-defense

= complete and total right to disregard any alleged jurisdiction and demands from self-admitted outlaws committing naked criminal aggression without any credibility and right to demand allegiance and compliance from anyone.

Every President of the United States since Lincoln has functioned by Executive Orders issued from a military, martial law jurisdiction with the only “law” being the “law of necessity,” i.e. the War Powers. The War Powers are nothing new. Indeed, they have been operational from the instant the first man thought he would “hide from God,” try to cheat ethical and natural law by over reaching, invade the space and territory of others, covet other people’s land or property, steal the fruits of their labors, and attempt to succeed in life by win/lose games. All existing “authority” in the United States today derives exclusively from the War Powers. Truman’s re-affirmation of operational authority under the War Powers begins: “NOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. 415, as amended (section 5(b) of Appendix to Title 50), and section 4 of the act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 2. ...” Sic transit rights, substance, truth, justice, peace, and freedom in America, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

The Abolition of the English & American Common Law

Here's an interesting quote from the 1973 session of the US Supreme Court:

"The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-l9th century was the pre-existing English common law... It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law." – Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113.

In effect, Lincoln's second Executive Order abolished the recognized English common law in America and replaced it with "laws" based on a fictional legal foundation, i.e., Executive Orders and Directives executed under “authority” of the War Powers. Most States still have a reference to the common laws within their present day statutes. For example, in the Florida Statutes (1999), Title I. Chapter 2, at § 2.01 "Common law and certain statutes declared in force," it states:

"The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. History. -- s. l, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87."

Note that the basis of the common law is an approved Act of the people of Florida by Resolution on November 6, 1829, prior to Lincoln's Civil War. Also note that the subsequent "laws," as a result of Acts of the Florida Legislature and the United States, now take priority over the common law in Florida. In April 1861, the American and English common law was abolished and replaced with legal fiction "laws," a.k.a. Statutes, Rules, and Codes based on Executive Order and not the due process specified within the organic Constitution. Existing and functioning under the law of necessity ab initio, they are all non-law and cannot validly assert jurisdiction, authority, or demand for compliance from anyone. They are entirely “rules of rulership,” i.e. organized piracy, privilege, plunder, and enslavement, invented and enforced by those who would rule over others by legalized violence in the complete absence of moral authority, adequate knowledge, and natural-law mechanics to accomplish any results other than disruption, conflict, damage, and devastation. The established maxim of law applies:

Extra territorium just dicenti non paretur impune. One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory cannot be obeyed with impunity.

10 Co. 77; Dig. 2. 1. 20;

Story, Confl. Laws § 539;

Broom, Max. 100, 101.

Applying it all to Current "laws"

An established maxim of law states the importance of the name:

Ad recte docendum oportet, primum inquirere nomina, quia rerum cognitio a nominibusrerum dependet. In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names.

Co. Litt. 68.

Title III, "Pleadings and Motions," Rule 9(a) "Capacity," Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states, in pertinent part:

"When an issue is raised as to the legal existence of a named party, or the party's capacity to be sued, or the authority of a party to be sued, the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include supporting particulars."

At this juncture, it is clear that the existence of a name written with all caps is a necessity-created legal fiction. This is surely an issue to be raised and the supporting particulars are outlined within this memorandum. Use of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement — correction — for all parties of an action of purported "law." However, the current "courts" cannot correct this since they are all based on presumed/assumed fictional law and must use artificial, juristic names. Instead, they expect the lawful Christian man or woman to accept the all-caps name and agree by silence to be treated as if he or she were a fictional entity invented and governed by mortal enemies. They must go to unlimited lengths to deceive and coerce this compliance or the underlying criminal farce would be exposed and a world-wide plunder/enslavement racket that has held all of life on this planet in a vice grip for millennia would crumble and liberate every living thing. At this point the would-be rulers of the world would be required to succeed in life by honest, productive labors the way those upon whom they parasitically feed are forced to conduct their lives.

Oklahoma Statutes

Since the entire game functions on the basis of people’s failure to properly rebut a rebuttable presumption, the issue then becomes how to properly rebut their presumption that you are knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily agreeing to be treated as if you were the all-caps name. One angle of approach is found in the requirement for proper names to be identified in any legal dispute. This includes a mandate to correct the legal paperwork involved when proper names are provided. In regard to criminal prosecution this is clearly set forth in the Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 22, § 403:

"When a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it must be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, referring to the fact of his being charged by the name mentioned in the indictment or information."

American Jurisprudence

In general, it is essential to identify parties to court actions properly. If the alleged parties to an action are not precisely identified, then who is involved with whom or what, and how? If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d, at "Judgments:"

"§ 100 Parties — A judgment should identify the parties for and against whom it is rendered, with such certainty that it may be readily enforced, and a judgment which does not do so may be regarded as void for uncertainty. Such identification may be achieved by naming the persons for and against whom the judgment is rendered. Technical deficiencies in the naming of the persons for and against whom judgment is rendered can be corrected if the parties are not prejudiced. A reference in a judgment to a party plainly liable, followed by an omission of that party's name from the language of the decree, at least gives rise to an ambiguity and calling for an inquiry into the court's real intention as reflected in the entire record and surrounding circumstances." [Footnote numbers and cites are omitted.]

The present situation in America

A legal person = a legal fiction

One of the terms used predominantly by the present civil governments and courts in America is “legal person.” Just what is a legal person? Some definitions are:

[A] legal person: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and especially the capacity to sue and be sued. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996).

Person. I. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). — Oran's "Dictionary of the Law," West Group (1999).

Person. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as acourt finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -- Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

A corporation incorporated under de jure law, i.e. by bona fide express contract between real beings capable of contracting, is a legal fact. Using the juristic artifice of “presumption,” or “assumption” (a device known as a “legal fiction”), implied contract, constructive trusts, another entirely separate entity can be created using the name of the bona fide corporate legal fact (the name of the corporation) by altering the name of the corporation into some other corrupted format, such as ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS or abbreviated words in the name. The corporation exists in law, but has arbitrarily been assigned another NAME. No such corporation (legal fact), nor any valid law, nor even a valid legal fiction, can be created under the “law of necessity,” i.e. under “no law.” Likewise, the arbitrary use of the legal-fiction artifice of “right of presumption” (over unwary, uninformed, and usually blindly trusting people) can be legitimately exercised under “no law.” Anything whatsoever done under alleged authority of naked criminal aggression, i.e. law of necessity, can be rendered legitimate. Maxims of law describing “necessity” include:

• “Necessity has no law.” Plowd. 18, and 15 Vin. Abr. 534; 22 id. 540.

• “In time of war, laws are silent.” Cicero.

Non-existent law, the legal condition that universally prevails in the official systems of the world today, means that no lawful basis exists upon which anything can be created, or be made to transpire, upon which basis allegiance and obedience can be legitimately demanded. Acting under the law of necessity, i.e. lawlessness, allows complete and total right of everyone to disregard any and all alleged assertions of any lawful, verifiable, and legitimate jurisdiction over anything or anyone. Anyone acting against anyone under such non-law is self-confessing to be a naked criminal aggressor, and con man who has forfeited all credibility and right to demand allegiance, obedience, or compliance with any jurisdiction he might assert. If you, as a real being, are in real law and it is impossible for an attorney or judge to recognize or access it, you are not (and cannot be made subject to by them) in their jurisdiction. The crucial issue is then how to notice them of your position and standing.

A person created under de jure law, with the person’s identifying name appearing as prescribed by law and according to the rules of English grammar, is a legal fact. A corrupted “alter ego” version of that name, manufactured under the legal fiction of “right of presumption” will have “credibility” only so long as the presumption remains unchallenged. The rule of the world is that anything and everything skates unless you bust it.

Legal or Lawful?

It is crucial to define the difference between "legal" and "lawful." The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word "legal." Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law (1893):

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal," a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. See "legal." [Bold emphasis added]

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual "Legal" looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and "Lawful" to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is act full in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott's Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]

Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not have to follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This is why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court Petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., “STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.

Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land — the law of the people — and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.

Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

Executive Orders rule the land

The current situation is that legalism has usurped and engulfed the law. The administration of legal rules, codes, and statutes now prevail instead of actual law. This takes place on a Federal as well as State level. Government administrates what it has created through its own purported "laws," which are not lawful, but merely “legal.” They are arbitrary constructs existing only because of the actions of people acting on fictitious (self-created) authority, i.e. no authority; they are authorized and enforced by legal Executive Orders. Executive Orders are not lawful and never have been. As you read the following, be aware of the words "code" and "administration."

Looking at the United States Census 2000 reveals that the legal authority for this census comes from "Office of Management and Budget" (0MB) Approval No. 0607-0856. The 0MB is a part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible for implementing the national census, which is a division of the "Economics and Statistics Administration" of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The USDOC is a department of the Executive Branch. Obviously, Census 2000 is authorized, carried out, controlled, enforced and implemented by the President — the Executive Branch of the Federal Government — functioning as it has been since 1861, in the lawless realm of necessity (which is now even more degenerate than when it commenced under Lincoln).

In fact, the Executive Office of the President controls the entire nation through various departments and agencies effecting justice, communications, health, energy, transportation, education, defense, treasury, labor, agriculture, mails, and much more, through a myriad of Executive Orders, Proclamations, Policies, and Decisions.

Every US President since Lincoln has claimed his 'authority' for these Executive Orders on Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; … He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

In reality, the Congress is completely by-passed. Since the Senate was convened in April, 1861 by Presidential Executive Order No. 2, (not by lawful constitutional due process), there is no United States Congress. The current “Senate” and “House” are, like everything, “colorable” (“color of Senate”) under the direct authority of the Executive Office of the President. The President legally needs neither the consent nor a vote from the Senate simply because the Senate's legal authority to meet exists only by Executive Order. Ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, Federal judges, and all officers of the UNITED STATES are appointed by, and under authority of, the Executive Office of the President.

The Federal Registry is an Executive function

The first official act of every incoming President is to re-affirm the War Powers. He must do so, or he is devoid of power to function in office. The War Powers are set forth in the Trading With The Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (The Banking Relief Act). In the Amendatory Act, every citizen of the United States was made an enemy of the Government, i.e. the Federal Reserve/IMF, et al, Creditors in bankruptcy who have conquered the country by their great paper-money banking swindle.

For the past 65 years, every Presidential Executive Order has become purported "law" simply by its publication in the Federal Register, which is operated by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). In 1935, the OFR was established by the Federal Register Act. The purported authority for the OFR is found within the United States Code, Title 44, at Chapter 15:

"§ 1506. Administrative Committee of the Federal Register; establishment and composition; powers and duties

The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register shall consist of the Archivist of the United States or Acting Archivist, who shall be chairman, an officer of the Department of Justice designated by the Attorney General, and the Public Printer or Acting Public Printer. The Director of the Federal Register shall act as secretary of the committee. The committee shall prescribe, with the approval of the President, regulations for carrying out this chapter."

Notice that the entire Administrative Committee of the Federal Register is comprised of officers of the Federal Government. Who appoints all Federal officers? The President does. This “act” also gives the President the authority to decree all the regulations to carry out the act. By this monopoly the Executive establishes, controls, regulates, and enforces the Federal Government without need for any approval from the Senate or anyone else (other than his undisclosed superiors). He operates without any accountability to the people at all. How can this be considered lawful?

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson couldn't persuade Congress to agree with his desire to arm United States vessels traversing hostile German waters before the United States entered World War I, so Wilson simply invoked the "policy" through a Presidential Executive Order. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941 forcing 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps while all their property was confiscated. Is it any wonder that the Congress, which the President “legally” controls, did not impeach President William Jefferson Clinton when the evidence for impeachment was overwhelming? On that note, why is it that Attorney-Presidents have used Executive Orders the most? Who, but an attorney, would know and understand legal rules the best. Sadly, they enforce what's “legal” and ignore what's lawful. In fact, they have no access to what is lawful since the entirety of their “authority,” which is ethically and existentially specious, derives from the War Powers.

How debt is assumed by legal fictions

We now refer back to the matter of assumption, as already discussed, with its relationship to arbitrarily created juristic persons, e.g. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA” or “JOHN P JONES.” Since an assumption, by definition, implies debt, what debt does a legal fiction assume? Now that we have explored the legal — executive — basis of the current Federal and State governments, it's time to put all this together.

The government use of all caps in place of proper names is absolutely no mistake. It signifies an internal (“legal”) rule and authority. Its foundation is pure artifice and the results have compounded into more deceit in the form of created, promulgated, instituted, administered, and enforced rules, codes, statutes, and policy — i.e. “the laws that appear to be but are not, never were, and never can be.”

Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden. He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage — a privilege is subject to its condition or conditions. -- Bouvier's Maxims of Law (1856).

The Birth Certificate

Since the early 1960's, State governments — themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons signified by all caps — have issued Birth Certificates to "persons" with legal fiction all-caps names. This is not a lawful record of your physical birth, but rather the birth of the juristic, all-caps name. It may appear to be your true name, but since no proper name is ever written in all caps (either lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify who you are. The Birth Certificate is the government’s self-created document of title for its new “property,” i.e. the deed to the juristic-name artificial person whose all-caps name “mirrors” your true name. The Birth Certificate brings the new all-caps name into colorable admiralty/maritime law, the same way a ship (and ship of state) is berthed.

One important area to address, before going any further, is the governmental use of older data storage from the late 1950's until the early 1980's. As a "left over" from various teletype-oriented systems, many government data storage methods used all caps for proper names. The IRS was supposedly still complaining about some of their antiquated storage systems as recent as the early 1980's. At first, this may have been a necessity of the technology at the time, not a deliberate act. Perhaps, when this technology was first being used and implemented into the mainstream of communications, some legal experts saw it as a perfect tool for their perfidious intentions. What better excuse could there be?

However, since local, State, and Federal offices primarily used typewriters during that same time period, and Birth Certificates and other important documents, such as driver's licenses, were produced with typewriters, it's very doubtful that this poses much of an excuse to explain all-caps usage for proper names. The only reasonable usage of the older databank all-caps storage systems would have been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in bulk, including payment checks, which the governments did frequently.

Automated computer systems, with daisy-wheel and pin printers used prevalently in the early 1980's, emulated the IBM electric typewriter Courier or Helvetica fonts in both upper and lower case letters. Shortly thereafter, the introduction of laser and ink-jet printers with multiple fonts became the standard. For the past fifteen years, there is no excuse that the government computers will not accommodate the use of lower case letters unless the older data is still stored in its original form, i.e. all caps, and has not been translated due to the costs of re-entry. But this does not excuse the entry of new data, only "legacy" data. In fact, on many government forms today, proper names are in all caps while other areas of the same computer produced document are in both upper and lower case. One can only conclude that now, more than ever, the use of all caps in substitution the writing a proper name is no mistake.

When a child is born, the hospital sends the original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the "State Bureau of Vital Statistics," sometimes called the "Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services" (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues a Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the baby’s true name, i.e. JAMES WILBER SMITH.

cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French, from Medieval Latinceruficatum. from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3: a document evidencing ownership or debt.-- Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998).

The Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce -- the Executive Office -- specifically through their own sub-agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, which is responsible to register vital statistics from all the States. The word "registered," as it is used within commercial or legal based equity law, does not mean that the all-caps name was merely noted in a book for reference purposes. When a Birth Certificate is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce, it means that the all-caps legal person named thereon has become a surety or guarantor, a condition and obligation that is automatically and unwittingly assumed unless you rebut the presumption by effectively noticing them: “It ain’t me.”

registered. Security, bond. -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996).

Security. I a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to make certain the fulfillment of anobligation. Example: used his property as security for a loan. lb: "surety." 2: Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership. -- Ibid.

Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person undertakes to perform a certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract) . . with the condition that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the person . . to pay a sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money put up by the person or surety. lb: One who acts as a surety. 2: An interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt issued by a government body or corporation that is sometimes secured by a lien on property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need. -- Ibid.

Surety. The person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a certain action if the principal to a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the original contract. -- Duhaime'sLaw Dictionary.

1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking.

2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of another.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety includes a guarantor, and the two terms are generally interchangeable.

Merriam Webster's "Dictionary of Law" (1996).

Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of another, but separately, as part of an independently contract with the obligee of the original contract.

Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

It is not difficult to see that a state-created Birth Certificate, with an all-caps, name is a document evidencing debt the moment it is issued. Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a “purchase money security interest” in the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new “securities.” This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This also means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every “citizen of the United States”/American with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, juristic name of a person.

Dubuque rei potissinia pars prineipium est — The principal part of everything is in the beginning. (“Well begun is half done.”)

Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal, State and local governments via your STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the name of your all-caps person. Birth Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim “exclusive” title to the legal person created thereby. This is further compounded when one voluntarily obtains a Driver’s License or a Social Security Account Number. The state even owns your personal and private life through your STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps names. You have no rights in birth, marriage, or even death. The state holds title to all legal persons the state creates via Birth Certificates until the rightful owner, i.e. you, reclaims/redeems it by becoming the holder in due course of the instrument.

The main problem is that the mother and father, and then the eighteen-year-old man or woman, voluntarily agreed to this contrived system of plunder and slavery by remaining silent — a legal default, latches, and failing to claim one’s own Rights. The maxim of law becomes crucially operative: “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”

The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no court hearing to determine if those rules are correct. Government rules are self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, such "laws" automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed

The various bankruptcies

The legal person known as the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or gold — gold coin or bullion — with which to back any currency. All private held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America was seized via Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Corporation under the terms of the bankruptcy.

Congress — still convening strictly under Executive Order authority — confirmed the bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5, 1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Public Law 73-10. This 1933 public law states, in part:

"... every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy."

The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed “Receiver” for the bankrupt U.S. in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, "Legislative History," page 5967.

Since 1933, the only “assets” used by the UNITED STATES to “pay its debt” to the Fed have been the blood, sweat, and tears of every American unfortunate to be saddled with a Birth Certificate and a Social Security Account Number (the U.S. Government must conceal this fact from the American people at all cost). Their future labor and tax revenues have been “legally” pledged via the new all-caps, juristic-person names appearing on the Birth Certificates, i.e. the securities used as collateral for loans of credit (thin-air belief) to pay daily operational costs, re-organization expenses in bankruptcy, insurance policy premiums required to float the bankrupt government, and interest on the ever-increasing, wholly fraudulent, debt.

All Caps Legal Person vs. The Lawful Being

Just who or what is the all-caps person, i.e. “JOHN PAUL JONES,” “JOHN P JONES,” or some other all capital letter corruption thereof? It is the entity the government created to take the place of the real being, i.e. John Paul Jones. The lawful Christian name of birthright has been replaced with a legal corporate name of deceit and fraud. If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being distinguishes himself/herself as a party other than the legal fiction, the two are separated.

A result of the federal bankruptcy was the creation of the “UNITED STATES,” which was made a part of the legal reorganization. The name of each STATE was also converted to its respective, all-caps legal person, e.g. STATE OF DELAWARE. These new legal persons were then used to create more legal persons, such as corporations, with all-capital letters names, as well. Once this was accomplished, the con began to pick up speed. All areas of government and all alleged “courts of law,” are de facto, “color of law and right” institutions. The “CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY” and the “U.S. DISTRICT COURT” can recognize and deal only with other legal persons. This is why a lawful name is never entered in their records. The all-caps legal person is used instead. Jurisdiction in such sham courts covers only other artificial persons. The proper jurisdiction for a lawful being is a Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue court. Unfortunately, such jurisdiction was “shelved” in 1938 and is no longer available. The only courts today are statutory commercial tribunals collecting tribute (plunder) from the alleged Creditors who think they have conquered the country on their way to ruling the world.


The Ticket Slayer Court Experience

  Having filed all of your Ticket Slayer common law default documents you arrive in traffic court. Generally in larger metropolitan area traffic courts the courtroom will be packed with people there for trial. Relax, you will be there for awhile. Almost always Ticket Slayer customer's cases are the last to be heard, or very close to the last. Do you think maybe the judge doesn't want the herd of 'sheople' anxiously awaiting their turn in traffic court to be sheared to catch on to something? Naw, that couldn't be it ...could it?

  The judge should have by the time you get to trial received the documents you filed with the court clerk. But, that does not necessarily mean that he has read them before coming to court. Your hope is that he has. That way the judge has had time to send word to your citing officer that his testimony is not needed in court today. For the sake of brevity here, we will assume that the judge has received and read your documents before coming to court. The vast majority of times the judge has received and read your documents before coming to court. (We cover what to do if judge hasn't received or read your documents in our info provided to you at time of purchase.)

  The vast majority of our customers will have their cases dismissed without having to utter a word in court. However, when a judge doesn't read though your documents well before court, then he finds himself in a tough position. The officer will be there and so the judge can not easily just tell him to go home, although a couple of judges have done so after traffic court was in session.

  The judge knows that he has a legal duty to dismiss your case because the prosecutor has defaulted, but he can not afford to come right out and admit that he is dismissing your case for this reason. Such an admission would open the state, county, or city to thousands of lawsuits and it would likely bring to an abrupt end to the traffic ticket cash cow machine, and his job.

  Ticket Slayer has developed other successful legal strategies for our customers to use to apply additional pressure on judges to dismiss, in cases they should happen to refuse to legally uphold the default. Ticket Slayer is always working to develop effective backup strategies for traffic court to ensure the highest level of dismissals of our customer's traffic cases.



Amber in Morehead City, NC - Thank you Ticket Slayer your common law default got the prosecutor to ask the judge for dismissal of my traffic ticket. The prosecutor told the judge he was asking for the dismissal because my traffic ticket improperly written.

Bryson in Bakersfield, CA - I drive a delivery truck in downtown Bakersfield, where the cops write traffic tickets like no tomorrow. Ticket Slayer's material successfully got all four of my traffic tickets dismissed that I had gotten over a one year period.

Caprice in Honolulu, Hawaii - A customer told me about Ticket Slayer's money back guaranteed method to get traffic tickets dismissed. I am not quite sure yet why your material works so well, but it certainly did for me.

Jason in San Diego, CA - Your material worked just as you said it would. I got my ticket dismissed without having to say a word in Traffic Court. I had received three traffic tickets in about eighteen months and had two points on my driving record, when I got another traffic ticket. I wasn't eligible for traffic school and I would have lost my driver's license if it had not been for Ticket Slayer. Ticket Slayer you really saved my life.

Mark in San Jose, CA - Thank you Ticket Slayer! You saved me over $500.00 in traffic fines, not to mention how much money you saved me on my insurance rates, which would have gone though the roof had I lost my case. You Common Law Traffic Ticket Default Process worked as promised. I didn't have to say a word in Court. The Judge called my name and said my case was dismissed.

Nikki in Denver, CO - 'You're the Bomb' Ticket Slayer! Your material worked just as you said it would. I got my ticket dismissed without having to say a word in Traffic Court.

Elizabeth in Trenton, NJ - Not having been to traffic court or any other court before, I was very nervous about the prospect of fighting my ticket in traffic court. Just the thought of going to traffic court gave me an anxiety attack so; I had made up my mind to just pay the ticket. I really didn't want to especially because I really didn't deserve the ticket and the cop was such a jerk.

I told Stacie, a co-worker that I was going down to the courthouse on my lunch hour to pay my traffic ticket and asked her if she could cover for me if I were late getting back to work. Stacie told me she had recently gotten a traffic ticket and found this company on the internet called TicketSlayer.com to beat her traffic ticket and because of the way their legal process works she didn't have to say a word in court. Stacie practically insisted that I use Ticket Slayer for my traffic ticket. I am happy to say that I got my ticket dismissed using your legal material without having to say a word in traffic court just like Stacie did.

I can't thank Stacie, my friend and co-worker and Ticket Slayer enough for what you did for me. Not only that, Ticket Slayer you revealed to me the whole fraud behind the system, for which I will be forever grateful to you. I now tell everyone I know about Ticket Slayer.

Steve in Atlanta, GA - When I got to traffic court the citing officer was sitting in back of the courtroom, so I knew there was a good chance that the judge may not have read the legal documents I had filed. Because TicketSlayer had prepared me with what to do in this situation I didn't get all panicky. I just read back over the instruction TicketSlayer provided me with to prepare me with on how to handle the judge in this situation.

When the judge call me and the officer to the stand I immediately asked the judge if he had read my legal document that I had filed with the District Attorney and the Traffic Court Clerk. The judge said he had not. So, I asked him to please take a moment to read through them as they were crucial to my case. He said, OK and took some time to read though them.

After reading the papers the judge looked at me asked me if I how I thought these documents would help my case? I told him the District Attorney failed to answer my Affidavit of Truth citing for one thing the U.S. Supreme court case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins which firmly states that I am a sovereign not subject to the laws passed by the legislature. The law holds that when the District Attorney failed to answer my claim that I was a sovereign not subject to the law, then he is in legal default and must accept my claim as the being true. So, Your Honor, the District Attorney has no legal grounds to prosecute me, since he by legal default has to accept my claim as true. The District Attorney having lost all grounds to prosecute me leaves this court with no legal choice, but to dismiss my case.

The judge sat there with this totally stunned look upon his face without saying a word for what seemed like an eternity. I know he wasn't prepared for the answer I gave him. Finally, the judge says; sir your case is dismissed. I knew he didn't want to pursue the issue with me any further and just wanted me out of his courtroom in a hurry at this point.


Guarantee • Policies & Legal Statements


Ticket Slayer will refund the purchase price you paid for our material from 60 days of purchase, if for any reason you are not fully satisfied with our material or service. Ticket Slayer makes no written or implied guarantee of any kind that, you will will successfully have your traffic case dismissed using our educational materal.


Ticket Slayer promises not to share or release your personal information without your permission. Such private informationwhich includes, but is not limited to your name, address, telephone number(s), financial or banking information and any information regarding your traffic ticket or citation, except if lawfully instructed to do so by court order.


TicketSlayer.com is here after referred to as Ticket Slayer in this legal notice. Ticket Slayer is not a law firm, and the agents and principles of Ticket Slayer are not acting as your attorney. Ticket Slayer does not practice law and does not give legal advice. This site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and purchaser of Ticket Slayer's traffic ticket educational material hereby agrees upon purchase of Ticket Slayer's written material that such material is intended for educational purposes only and that, no attorney-client relationship will be created with Ticket Slayer or the agents and principles of Ticket Slayer. Instead, you are representing yourself in any legal matter you undertake through the use of Ticket Slayer's legal material intended to be used as an educational guide in your legal traffic matter. At no time do we draw legal conclusions, provide legal advice or apply the law to the facts of your particular situation. This website is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.

Furthermore, the legal information on this site is not legal advice and is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or up-to-date. Because the law changes rapidly, Ticket Slayer cannot guarantee that all the information on the site is completely current. The law is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is also subject to interpretation by different courts. The law is a personal matter, and no general information or legal tool like the kind Ticket Slayer provides can fit every circumstance. Therefore, if you need legal advice for your specific problem, or if your specific problem is too complex to be addressed by our tools, you should consult a licensed attorney in your area.

This site and some of the articles on this site contain links to other resources and businesses on the Internet. Those links are provided as citations and aids to help you identify and locate other Internet resources that may be of interest, and are not intended to state or imply that Ticket Slayer sponsors, is affiliated or associated with, or is legally authorized to use any trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol that may be reflected in the links.

Ticket Slayer is not responsible for any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damage related to your use of this site, its written educational material concerning traffic matters or any site linked to this site, whether from errors or omissions in the content of our site or any other linked sites, from the site being down or from any other use of the site. In short, your use of the site is at your own risk.


Yick Wo v. Hopkins


HOPKINS, Sheriff, etc.



HOPKINS, Sheriff, etc.


Filed May 10, 1886.

D.L. Smoot and Hall McAllister, for plaintiff in error and appellant.
H.G. Sieberst, for Hopkins, Sheriff, etc.

[CITE AS: 118 U.S. 356]

These two cases were argued as one, and depend upon precisely the same state of facts; the first coming here upon a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of California, the second on appeal from the circuit court of the United States for that district.

The plaintiff in error, Yick Wo, on August 24, 1885, petitioned the supreme court of California for the writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was illegally deprived of his personal liberty by the defendant as sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco. The sheriff made return to the writ that he held the petitioner in custody by virtue of a sentence of the police judge's court No. 2 of the city and county of San Francisco, whereby he was found guilty of a violation of certain ordinances of the board of supervisors of that county, and adjudged to pay a fine of $10, and, in default of payment, be imprisoned in the county jail at the rate of one day for each dollar of fine until said fine should be satisfied; and a commitment in consequence of non-payment of said fine.

The ordinances for the violation of which he had been found guilty are set out as follows:

Order No. 1,569, passed May 26, 1880, prescribing the kind of buildings in which laundries may be located.

'The people of the city and county of San Francisco do ordain as follows: 'Section 1. It shall be unlawful, from and after the passage of this order, for any person or persons to establish, maintain, or carry on a laundry, within the corporate limits of the city and county of San Francisco, without having first obtained the consent of the board of supervisors, except the same be located in a building constructed either of brick or stone.

'Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, build, or maintain, or cause to be erected, built, or maintained, over or upon the roof of any building now erected, or which may hereafter be erected, within the limits of said city and county, any scaffolding, without first obtaining the written permission of the board of supervisors, which permit shall state fully for what purpose said scaffolding is to be erected and used, and such scaffolding shall not be used for any other purpose than that designated in such permit.

'Sec. 3. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a mis-demeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

Order No. 1,587, passed July 28, 1880, the following section:

'Sec. 68. It shall be unlawful, from and after the passage of this order, for any person or persons to establish, maintain, or carry on a laundry within the corporate limits of the city and county of San Francisco without having first obtained the consent of the board of supervisors, except the same be located in a building constructed either of brick or stone'

The following facts are also admitted on the record:

That petitioner is a native of China, and came to California in 1861, and is still a subject of the emperor of China; that he has been engaged in the laundry business in the same premises and building for 22 years last past; that he had a license from the board of fire-wardens, dated March 3, 1884, from which it appeared 'that the above-described premises have been inspected by the board of fire-wardens, and upon such inspection said board found all proper arrangements for carrying on the business; that the stoves, washing and drying apparatus, and the appliances for heating smoothing-irons, are in good condition, and that their use is not dangerous to the surrounding property from fire, and that all proper precautions have been taken to comply with the provisions of order No. 1,617, defining 'the fire limits of the city and county of San Francisco, and making regulations concerning the erection and use of buildings in said city and county,' and of order No. 1,670, 'prohibiting the kindling, maintenance, and use of open fires in houses;' that he had a certificate from the health officer that the same premises had been inspected by him, and that he found that they were properly and sufficiently drained, and that all proper arrangements for carrying on the business of a laundry, without injury to the sanitary condition of the neighborhood, had been complied with; that the city license of the petitioner was in force, and expired October 1, 1885; and that the petitioner applied to the board of supervisors, June 1, 1885, for consent of said board to maintain and carry on his laundry, but that said board, on July 1, 1885, refused said consent.'

It is also admitted to be true, as alleged in the petition, that on February 24, 1880, 'there were about 320 laundries in the city and county of San Francisco, of which about 240 were owned and conduct-ed by subjects of China, and of the whole number, viz., 320, about 310 were constructed of wood, the same material that constitutes ninetenths of the houses in the city of San Francisco. The capital thus invested by the subjects of China was not less than two hundred thousand dollars, and they paid annually for rent, license, taxes, gas, and water about one hundred and eighty thousand dollars.'

It is alleged in the petition that 'your petitioner, and more than one hundred and fifty of his countrymen, have been arrested upon the charge of carrying on business without having such special consent, while those who are not subjects of China, and who ar conducting eighty odd laundries under similar condi-tions, are left unmolested, and free to enjoy the enhanced trade and profits arising from this hurtful and unfair dis-crimination. The business of your petitioners, and of those of his countrymen similarly situated, is greatly impaired, and in many cases practically ruined, by this system of oppression to one kind of men, and favoritism to all others.'

The statement therein contained as to the arrest, etc., is admitted to be true, with the qualification only that the 80-odd laundries referred to are in wooden buildings without scaffolds on the roofs. It is also admitted 'that petitioner and 200 of his countrymen similarly situated petitioned the board of super-visors for per-mission to continue their business in the various houses which they had been occupying and using for laundries for more than twenty years, and such petitions were denied, and all the petitions of those who were not Chinese, with one exception of Mrs. Mary Meagles, were granted.'

By section 11 of article 11 of the constitution of California it is provided that 'any county, city, town, or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local, police, sanitary, and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.' By section 74 of the act of April 19, 1856, usually known as the 'Consolidation Act,' the board of supervisors is empowered, among other things, 'to provide by regulation for the prevention and summary removal of nuisances to public health, the prevention of contagious diseases; to prohibit the erection of wooden buildings within any fixed limits where the streets shall have been established and graded; * * * to regulate the sale, storage, and use of gunpowder, or other explosive or combustible materials and substances, and make all needful regulations for protection against fire; to make such regulations concerning the erection and use of buildings as may be necessary for the safety of the inhabitants.'

The supreme court of California, in the opinion pronouncing the judgment in this case, said: 'The board of supervisors, under the several statutes conferring authority upon them, has the power to prohibit or regulate all occupations which are against good morals, contrary to public order and decency, or dangerous to the public safety. Clothes-washing is certainly not opposed to good morals, or subversive of public order or decency, but when conducted in given localities it may be highly dangerous to the public safety. Of this fact the supervisors are made the judges, and, having taken action in the premises, we do not find that they have prohibited the establishment of laundries, but they have, as they well might do, regulated the places at which they should be established, the character of the buildings in which they are to be maintained, etc. The process of washing is not prohibited by thus regulating the places at which and the surroundings by which it must be exercised. The order No. 1,569 and section 68 of order No. 1,587 are not in contravention of common right, or unjust, unequal, partial, or oppressive, in such sense as authorizes us in this pro-ceeding to pronounce them invalid.' After answering the position taken in behalf of the petitioner, that the ordinances in question had been repealed, the court adds: 'We have not deemed it necessary to discuss the question in the light of supposed infringement of petitioner's rights under the constitution of the United States, for the reason that we think the principles upon which contention on that head can be based have in effect been set at rest by the cases of Barbier v.Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, and Soon Hing v.Crowley, 113 U. S. 703.' The writ was accordingly discharged, and the prisoner remanded.

In the other case, the appellant, Wo Lee, petitioned for his discharge from an alleged illegal imprisonment, upon a state of facts, shown upon the record, precisely similar to that in the Case of Yick Wo. In disposing of the application, the learned Circuit Judge SAWYER, in his opinion, (26 Fed. Rep. 471,) after quoting the ordinance in question, proceeded at length as follows:

'Thus, in a territory some ten miles wide by fifteen or more miles long, much of it still occupied as mere farming and pasturage lands, and much of it unoccupied sand banks, in many places without a building within a quarter or half a mile of each other, including the isolated and almost wholly unoccupied Goat island, the right to carry on this, when properly guarded, harmless and necessary occupation, in a wooden building, is not made to depend upon any prescribed conditions giving a right to anybody complying with them, but upon the consent or arbitrary will of the board of supervisors. In three-fourths of the territory covered by the ordinance there is no more need of prohibiting or regulating laundries than if they were located in any portion of the farming regions of the state. Hitherto the regulation of laundries has been limited to the thickly-settled portions of the city. Why this unnecessary extension of the limits affected, if not designed to prevent the establishment of laundries, after a compulsory removal from their present locations, within practicable reach of the customers or their proprietors? And the uncontradicted petition shows that all Chinese applications are, in fact, denied, and those of Caucasians granted; thus, in fact, making the discriminations in the administration of the ordinance which its terms permit. The fact that the right to give consent is reserved in the ordinance shows that carrying on the laundry business in wooden buildings is not deemed of itself necessarily dangerous. It must be apparent to every well-informed mind that a fire, properly guarded, for laundry purposes, in a wooden building, is just as necessary, and no more dangerous, than a fire for cooking purposes or for warming a house. If the ordinance under consideration is valid, then the board of supervisors can pass a valid ordinance preventing the maintenance, in a wooden building, of a cooking-stove, heating apparatus, or a restaurant, within the boundaries of the city and county of San Francisco, without the consent of that body, arbitrarily given or withheld, as their prejudices or other motives may dictate. If it is competent for the board of supervisors to pass a valid ordinance prohibiting the inhabitants of San Francisco from following any ordinary, proper, and necessary calling within the limits of the city and county, except at its arbitrary and unregulated discretion and special consent -- and it can do so if this ordinance is valid -- then it seems to us that there has been a wide departure from the principles that have heretofore been supposed to guard and protect the rights, property, and liberties of the American people. And if, by an ordinance general in its terms and form, like the one in question, by reserving an arbitrary discretion in the enacting body to grant or deny permission to engage in a proper and necessary calling, a discrimination against any class can be made in its execution, thereby evading and in effect nullifying the provisions of the national constitution, then the insertion of provisions to guard the rights of every class and person in that instrument was a vain and futile act.

'The effect of the execution of this ordinance in the manner indicated in the record would seem to be necessarily to close up the many Chinese laundries now existing, or compel their owners to pull down their present buildings and reconstruct of brick or stone, or to drive them outside the city and county of San Francisco, to the adjoining counties, beyond the convenient reach of customers, either of which results would be little short of absolute confiscation of the large amount of property shown to be now, and to have been for a long time, invested in these occupations. If this would not be depriving such parties of their property without due process of law, it would be difficult to say what would effect that prohibited result. The necessary tendency, if not the specific purpose, of this ordinance, and of enforcing it in the manner indicated in the record, is to drive out of business all the numerous small laundries, especially those owned by Chinese, and give a monopoly of the business to the large institutions established and carried on by means of large associated Caucasian capital. If the facts appearing on the face of the ordinance, on the petition and return, and admitted in the case, and shown by the notorious public and municipal history of the times, indicate a purpose to drive out the Chinese laundrymen, and not merely to regulate the business for the public safety, does it not disclose a case of violation of the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the national constitution, and of the treaty between the United States and China, in more than one particular?

If this means prohibition of the occupation, and a destruction of the business and property, of the Chinese laundrymen in San Francisco,--as it seems to us this must be the effect of executing the ordinance,--and not merely the proper regulation of the business, then there is discrimination, and a violation of other highly important rights secured by the fourteenth amendment and the treaty. That it does mean prohibition, as to the Chinese, it seems to us must be apparent to every citizen of San Francisco who has been here long enough to be familiar with the course of an active and aggressive branch of public opinion and of public notorious events. Can a court be blind to what must be necessarily known to every intelligent person in the state? See Ah Kow v. Nunan, 5 Sawy. 560; Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 104; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 42.'

But, in deference to the decision of the supreme court of California in the Case of Yick Wo, and contrary to his own opinion as thus expressed, the circuit judge discharged the writ and remanded the prisoner.

Justice, Matthews:

In the case of the petitioner, brought here by writ of error to the supreme court of California, our jurisdiction is limited to the question whether the plaintiff in error has been denied a right in violation of the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The question whether his imprisonment is illegal, under the constitution and laws of the state, is not open to us.

And although that question might have been considered in the circuit court in the application made to it, and by this court on appeal from its order, yet judicial propriety is best consulted by accepting the
judgment of the state court upon the points involved in that inquiry. That, however, does not preclude this court from putting upon the ordinances of the supervisors of the county and city of San Francisco an independent construction; for the determination of the question whether the proceedings under these ordinances, and in enforcement of them, are in conflict with the constitution and laws of the United States, necessarily involves the meaning of the ordinances, which, for that purpose, we are required to ascertain and adjudge.

We are consequently constrained, at the outset, to differ from the supreme court of California upon the real meaning of the ordinances in question. That court considered these ordinances as vesting in the board of supervisors a not unusual discretion in granting or withholding their assent to the use of wooden buildings as laundries, to be exercised in reference to the circumstances of each case, with a view to the protection of the public against the dangers of fire. We are not able to concur in that interpretation of the power conferred upon the supervisors. There is nothing in the ordinances which points to such a regulation of the business of keeping and conducting laundries. They seem intended to confer, and actually to confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent, not only as to places, but as to persons; so that, if an applicant for such consent, being in every way a competent and qualified person, and having complied with every reasonable condition demanded by any public interest, should, failing to obtain the requisite consent of the supervisors to the prosecution of his business, apply for redress by the judicial process of mandamus to require the supervisors to consider and act upon his case, it would be a sufficient answer for them to say that the law had conferred upon them authority to withhold their assent, without reason and without responsibility. The power given to them is not confided to their discretion in the legal sense of that term, but is granted to their mere will. It is purely arbitrary, and acknowledges neither guidance nor restraint.

This erroneous view of the ordinances in question led the supreme court of California into the further error of holding that they were justified by the decisions of this court in the cases of Barbier v. Connelly,113 U. S. 27, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357, and Soon Hing v.Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730. In both of these cases the ordinance involved was simply a prohibition to carry on the washing and ironing of clothes in public laundries and wash houses, within certain prescribed limits of the city and county of San Francisco, from 10 o'clock at night until 6 o'clock in the morning of the following day. This provision was held to be purely a police regulation, within the competency of any municipality possessed of the ordinary powers belonging to such bodies,--a necessary measure of precaution in a city composed largely of wooden buildings, like San Francisco, in the application of which there was no invidious discrimination against any one within the prescribed limits; all persons engaged in the same business being treated alike, and subject to the same restrictions, and entitled to the same privileges, under similar conditions. For these reasons that ordinance was adjudged not to be within the prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, which, it was said in the first case cited, 'undoubtedly intended, not only that there should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property, but that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness, and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition; and that, in the administration of criminal justice, no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon one than such as is prescribed to all for like offenses.

Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited; but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if, within the sphere of its operation, it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment.' The ordinance drawn in question in the present case is of a very different character. It does not prescribe a rule and conditions, for the regulation of the use of property for laundry purposes, to which all similarly situated may conform. It allows, without restriction, the use for such purposes of buildings of brick or stone; but, as to wooden buildings, constitut-ing nearly all those in previous use, it divides the owners or occupiers into two classes, not having respect to their personal character and qualifications for the business, nor the situation and nature and adaptation of the buildings themselves, but merely by an arbitrary line, on one side of which are those who are permitted to pursue their industry by the mere will and consent of the supervisors, and on the other those from whom that consent is withheld, at their mere will and pleasure. And both classes are alike only in this: that they are tenants at will, under the supervisors, of their means of living. The ordinance, therefore, also differs from the not unusual case where discretion is lodged by law in public officers or bodies to grant or withhold licenses to keep taverns, or places for the sale of spirituous liquors, and the like, when one of the conditions is that the applicant shall be a fit person for the exercise of the privilege, because in such cases the fact of fitness is submitted to the judgment of the officer, and calls for the exercise of a discretion of a judicial nature.

The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. By the third article of the treaty between this government and that of China, concluded November 17, 1880, (22 St. 827), it is stipulated: 'If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the government of the United States will exert all its powers to devise measures for their protection, and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.' The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equalprotection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by section 1977 of the Revised Statutes that 'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.' The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

It is contended on the part of the petitioners that the ordinances for violations of which they are severally sentenced to imprisonment are void on their face, as being within the prohibitions of the fourteenth amend-ment, and, in the alternative, if not so, that they are void by reason of their administration, operating unequally, so as to punish in the present petitioners what is permitted to others as lawful, without any distinction of circumstances,--an unjust and illegal discrimination, it is claimed, which, though not made expressly by the ordinances, is made possible by them.

When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

There are many illustrations that might be given of this truth, which would make manifest that it was self-evident in the light of our system of jurisprudence. The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society, according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political
right, because preservative of all rights.

In reference to that right, it was declared by the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, in Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485, 488, in the words of Chief Justice SHAW, 'that in all cases where the constitution has conferred a political right or privilege, and where the constitution has not particularly designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised, it is clearly within the just and constitutional limits of the legislative power to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations, in regard to the time and mode of exercising that right, which are designed to secure and facilitate the exercise of such right in a prompt, orderly, and convenient manner;' nevertheless, 'such a construction would afford no warrant for such an exercise of legislative power as, under the pretense and color of regulating, should subvert or injuriously restrain, the right itself.' It has accordingly been held generally in the states that whether the particular provisions of an act of legislation establishing means for ascertaining the qualifications of those entitled to vote, and making previous registration in lists of such, a condition precedent to the exercise of the right, were or were not reasonable regulations, and accordingly valid or void, was always open to inquiry, as a judicial question. See Daggett v. Hudson, 3 N. E. Rep. 538, decided by the supreme court of Ohio, where many of the cases are collected; Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 666.

The same principle has been more freely extended to the quasi legislative acts of inferior municipal bodies, in respect to which it is an ancient jurisdiction of judicial tribunals to pronounce upon the reasonableness and consequent validity of their by-laws. In respect to these it was the doctrine that every by-law must be reasonable, not inconsistent with the charter of the corporation, nor with any statute of parliament, nor with the general principles of the common law of the land, particularly those having relation to the liberty of the subject, or the rights of private property. Dill. Mun. Corp. (3d Ed.) s 319, and cases cited in notes. Accordingly, in the case of State v.Cincinnati as-light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262, 300, an ordinance of the city council purporting to fix the price to be charged for gas, under an authority of law giving discretionary power to do so, was held to be bad, if passed in bad faith, fixing an unreasonable price, for the fraudulent purpose of compelling the gas company to submit to an unfair appraisement of their works. And a similar question, very pertinent to the one in the present cases, was decided by the court of appeals of Maryland in the case of City of Baltimore v. Radecke, 49 Md. 217. In that case the defendant had erected and used a steam-engine, in the prosecution of his business as a carpenter and box-maker in the city of Baltimore, under a permit from the mayor and city council, which contained a condition that the engine was 'to be removed after six months' notice to that effect from the mayor.' After such notice, and refusal to conform to it, a suit was instituted to recover the penalty provided by the ordinance, to restrain the prosecution of which a bill in equity was filed. The court holding the opinion that 'there may be a case in which an ordinance, passed under grants of power like those we have cited, is so clearly unreasonable, so arbitrary, oppressive, or partial, as to raise the presumption that the legislature never intended to confer the power to pass it, and to justify the courts in interfering and setting it aside as a plain abuse of authority,' it proceeds to speak, with regard to the ordinance in question, in relation to the use of steam-engines, as follows: 'It does not profess to prescribe regulations for their construction, location, or use; nor require such precautions and safeguards to be provided by those who own and use them as are best calculated to render them less dangerous to life and property; nor does it restrain their use in box factories and other similar establishments within certain defined limits; not in any other way attempt to promote their safety and security without destroying their usefulness. But it commits to the unrestrained will of a single public officer the power to notify every person who now employs a steamengine in the prosecution of any business in the city of Baltimore to cease to do so, and, by providing compulsory fines for every day's disobedience of such notice and order of removal, renders his power over the use of steam in that city practically absolute, so that he may prohibit its use altogether. But if he should not choose to do this, but only to act in particular cases, there is nothing in the ordinance to guide or control his action. It lays down no rules by which its impartial execution can be secured, or partiality and oppression prevented. It is clear that giving and enforcing these notices may, and quite likely will, bring ruin to the business of those against whom they are directed, while others, from whom they are withheld, may be actually benefited by what is thus done to their neighbors; and, when we remember that this action of non-action may proceed from enmity or prejudice, from partisan zeal or animosity, from favoritism and other improper influences and motives easy of concealment, and difficult to be detected and exposed, it becomes unnecessary to suggest or comment upon the injustice capable of being wrought under cover of such a power, for that becomes apparent to every one who gives to the subject a moment's consideration. In fact, an ordinance which clothes a single individual with such power hardly falls within the domain of law, and we are constrained to pronounce it inoperative and void.' This conclusion, and the reasoning on which it is based, are deductions from the face of the ordinance, as to its necessary pendency and ultimate actual operation.

In the present cases, we are not obliged to reason from the probable to the actual, and pass upon the validity of the ordinances complained of, as tried merely by the opportunities which their terms afford, of unequal and unjust discrimination in their administration; for the cases present the ordinances in actual operation, and the facts shown establish an administration directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons as to warrant and require the conclusion that, whatever may have been the intent of the ordinances as adopted, they are applied by the public authorities charged with their administration, and thus representing the state itself, with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the state of that equal protection of the laws which is secured to the petitioners, as to all other persons, by the broad and benign provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal dis-criminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v.Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Chy Luny v.Freeman, 92 U. S. 275;Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Neal v.Delaware, 103 U.S. 370; and Soon Hing v.Crowley, 113 U. S. 703.

The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite deemed by the law, or by the public officers charged with its administration, necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire, or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for alivelihood; and while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them, and from 200 others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, 80 others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which, in the eye of the law, is not justified. The discrimination is therefore illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is therefore illegal, and they must be discharged. To this end the judgment of the supreme court of California in the Case of Yick Wo, and that of the circuit court of the United States for the district of California in the Case of Wo Lee, are severally reversed, and the cases remanded, each to the proper court, with directions to discharge the petitioners from custody and imprisonment.


The Covenants of the gods: http://www.hisholychurch.net/study/gods/lvl.htm#R4

The contractual nature of governments of the world

From the book The Covenants of the gods: http://www.hisholychurch.net/order/materialscovenants.html

LAWLaw (The legal system of God)


Legal (The lawful system of man)

To investigate is the way to know what things are really lawful.43

“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.”44

In the above statement the Supreme court talks of “what only appears to be law” “on the surface.” What are we so ignorant of, that we would mistake something for law that is not law? We have grown up hearing phrases like, “The law is the law,” and “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” What is law and what makes something law?

Since, “The origin of a thing ought to be inquired into,”45 then it would follow that we should look into the origin of the word “law” to give us some idea of its meaning today.

Unlike many of the terms used in the legal system of the United States, the word “law” does not come from the Latin but from the Anglo-Saxon word lagu and the Middle English lawe, laghe meaning just, right and fair. In Latin “law” would be translated jus (juris) from which we take the word justice. The Romans had another word, lex (legis), from which we get the word legal meaning “statute, bill, principle, rule; contract, condition…” What is legal (connected by contract) becomes lawful (just) by consent.

The legal system based upon freedom has no lawful power to “command” until an individual binds himself to it “for lex (law) is derived from ligare (to bind), because it binds one to act.”46

“All government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery!”47

If the Romans, from whom we take much of the principles upon which the present legal system relies, saw fit and necessary to use two separate and distinct words, one lex and the other jus then why do we often use them interchangeably. It is in the distinction between these two words that much of our honest confusion lies.

“That which bars those who have contracted will bar their successors also.”48

While, “The law (jus) is the rule of right; and whatever is contrary to the rule of right is an injury,”49 we find that “human laws (lex, leges) are born, live, and die.”50 “That which bars those who have contracted will bar their successors also.”51 Therefore, “The contract makes the law”52 for our children as well as for ourselves.

“We shall have world government whether or not we like it.

The question is, whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”53

In the maxim “Consent makes the law,” it is evident that it is our authorization that makes a man made rule, such as a statute, law. It is not the arbitrary proclamation of a remote group of men, be it parliament or congress that binds men to obedience and subjection. Could this mean that a person can simply disregard all legislation that he himself arbitrarily disagrees with for one reason or another? No, can only be the answer else all government would be anarchy.

A contract is law between the parties having received their consent.54

How does government receive consent? When does an act of consent truly become binding? “In every contract, whether nominate or innominate, there is implied an exchange, i.e. a consideration.”55 Nodding the head, raising your right hand, or signing a piece of paper are all evidence that you have given consent but the taking of “sufficient consideration” is an act that adds force and authority to consent, for either you have consented to an exchange of consideration or you are a thief. A contract is “an agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing.”56 What is the consideration between government and its citizens?

Nothing is so contrary to consent as force and fear.57

There are countless ways in which the state works its craft of expanding its power and presence in the world but one way is by consent. It should be realized that even though coercion through force and fear are often used the only real binding and lawful consent is voluntary.

What is mine cannot be taken away without consent.58

If it is consent that makes the legal system a lawful system then it is at the point of our consent that we become bound to obey a legal rule. It does not matter that those legal rules are changed regularly, as long as those rules are changed in accordance with the system that was set down at the origin of the legal system and the individual’s assent. All this, despite the fact that consent maybe acquired by appealing to the slothful greed and coveting selfishness of the individual.

The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute. (Pr 12:24)

“The laws of England are threefold: common law, customs, and decrees of parliament.”59 There was law in England long before a parliament was convened. Then “new states of facts arising out of changed economic and social conditions” brought the desire for, if not a need for, a strong central government.

"Pacta sunt servanda.”60 “Non Pacta, non servanda”

“Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066 the people were the fountainhead of justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen and the law which they administered, was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these non professional courts the Norman king, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers who devoted most of their time and energy to the administration of justice, and the courts over which they presided were so efficient that they gradually all but displaced the popular, nonprofessional courts.”61

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. (1 Samuel 8:6)

William of Normandy came to England to collect a disputed debt owed to him by Harold. He did not conquer and seize all of England but only Harold and his properties, duties and obligations (and those hereditaments of the freemen who had fought along side Harold in his attempt to avoid payment to William). Also from his assumed position, William “insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice” and began to consolidate and expand his position and authority by waging war against all who opposed his claim to Harold’s limited kingly dominion.62 Many changes were brought about as a result of Williams strong presence. He opened the door to customs and forms of law that had no foothold in the land of the Anglos since the fall of the Roman Empire. He instituted a survey of all the land that fell under his sword by right of trial by conquest. This was done for the purpose of collecting an excise or tribute tax on the land of those who were forced in defeat to take an oath of fealty and bind their allegiance and lands to William. The people of England called the book that included these subject lands the “Doomsday Book” and it is still called that to this day.

Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land? (Ezekiel 33:25)

With this growing loss of freehold titles in land, the “large numbers of freemen” who were so necessary for the administration of the Common Law of Land were no longer available.

Ye stand upon your sword, ye work abomination, and ye defile every one his neighbour’s wife: and shall ye possess the land? (Ezekiel 33:26)

A legal title is not a freehold, lawful or a fee simple title. Were the remaining freehold titles in land lost by conquest or by other means?

“Towns and boroughs act as if persons.”63

Many followed William, establishing the concepts of towns and cities, which had been traditionally shunned by the Anglos, along with other customs of business and a loyalty to their homeland that opened a freer avenue for the establishment of commerce.

...they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (Ge. 11:4)

And as for the people, he removed them to cities from [one] end of the borders of Egypt even to the end thereof. (Ge. 47:21)

The law of the Anglo-Saxons still remained intact but not for those who fell subject to William and his successors. The two systems lived side by side in a manner similar to the two jurisdictional systems of law used in the Roman Empire following their own Roman civil war.

The “common law” is “distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures,” and it “comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity…” And “as concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution”64

Liberi. In Saxon Law - Freeman; the possessors of allodial lands.65

The common law is dependent upon “large numbers of freemen” who can decide both fact and law as distinguished from the jurors of the United States today which have lost their allodial land through neglect and ignorance. Today’s jurors as U.S. citizens are subject to the administration of government. They are almost always sworn to abide by the decrees of the legislature before they take to their seat as jurors, which allows them to judge only the facts of a case, leaving the determination of law in the hands of the legislature and the administering professional judges. Is this the way it was in the beginning?

Liber homo. A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to act as juror.66 An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudatory.67

The original settlers and founders of this republic called the Americas, had come here fleeing the king’s justice saying, ‘Farewell, Rome. Farewell, Babylon’. Here the individual had access to a free-dominion by the relinquishment, in charter, of the right of the king to make law without consent. In the case of the American colonies, which were republics and were guaranteed by contract with the king that no law could be made “except by the consent of the freeman,” there was a clear consideration as there was with Harold the last Anglo-Saxon king in England. The king of England was to give the colonies the benefit of his protection from “foreign invasion” and in exchange he could impose only excise (use) taxes and tariffs (taxes on foreign trade) as well as regulate the equitable practice of business for which there were no remedies at the common law.

The extent of the legal authority of the king of Britain in the Americas was limited. It was his usurpation (seizing a use) of rights that were not his that led to the Declaration of Independence, where by the colonial governments became totally independent states at any dissolution of the charter. A dissolution caused by the king’s breaking the contract and violating the terms of the agreement. The limited authority and responsibility of the king was then assumed by the colonial governments who eventually bound themselves together by Articles of Confederation, and later by a constitution which created a legal society with certain limited obligations and privileges to the general populus of the republics.

“The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”68

The United States Federal government, that exists within the given jurisdiction of the original republics, is a limited jurisdiction within itself. It grew not by decree but by government offers and individual acceptance. In other words the limited authority of government expanded by expanding the offer of benefits and obligations to the individual citizens in the republic including membership in the Government itself. The more desired, the more offered and the more that was accepted, all the more was required. A guarantee of an entitlement grants a reciprocating entitlement to the Benefactor.

The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour.
(Proverbs 21:25)

These benefits were not part of the original obligations of the state governments or the United States Federal government. The average citizen cannot in justice accept them without offering at least some seemingly equal consideration.

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent not. (Proverbs 1, 10)

Each time we accept or apply for new bounties, donations and benefits we are consenting by deed or word to the legal authority of that government or body politic. We grant power.

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with [his] hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Ephesians 4:28)

To take what is not a gift and is not owed, with no intention of returning equal consideration, is the essence of stealing. To accept without consenting to pay the price is the essence of theft. Ignorance of this fundamental principle is the “ignorance of law”. That the law does not excuse.

I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding;… I looked upon [it, and] received instruction. Then I saw, [and] considered [it] well: I looked upon [it, and] received instruction. [Yet] a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come [as] one that travelleth; and thy want as an armed man. (Pr. 24:30, 34)

“In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law.” Positive Law is, “Law actually ordained or established, under human sanctions, as distinguished from the law of nature or natural law, which comprises those considerations of justice, right, and universal expediency that are announced by the voice of reason or of revelation…69

“Law governs men and reason the law.” 70

Natural Law or the law of nature is, “The divine will, or the dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity that there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Sometimes used of the law of human reason, in contradistinction to the revealed law, and sometimes of both, in contradistinction to positive law.”

The Natural Law is divine will not merely the will of men who by their own reason have determined it. If the reason is not right reason then the law or rule is not truly Natural Law. Natural law as a term may have several uses and should be clarified when ever it is used.

“They [natural laws] are independent of any artificial connections, and differ from mere presumptions of law in this essential respect, that the latter depend on and are a branch of the peculiar system of jurisprudence to which they belong; but mere natural presumptions are derived wholly by means of the common experience of mankind, without the aid or control of any particular rule of law, but simply from the course of nature and the habits of society. These presumptions fall within the exclusive province of the jury, who are to pass upon the facts.”71

Jury Nullification “...jury shall be judges of the law and the facts.”72

The natural law being ‘divine will’ and ‘right reason’ are not connected to mere ‘presumptions of law’. Presumptions of law are dependent upon ‘peculiar systems of jurisprudence’.

Jurisprudence ‘is but the philosophy of law or the science which treats of the principles of positive law and legal relationships’. The term, jurisprudence, ‘is wrongly applied to actual systems of law’.73

To say that these presumption fall within the exclusive province of the jury, who are to pass upon the facts, does not mean that the jury is to pass upon the facts of the case and not the law. It means that a jury is to decide upon the presumption of law based on their own common experience and God given conscience.

“Nothing against reason is lawful.”74

The word legal itself is defined in Black’s 3rd as:

1. Conforming to law; according to law; required or permitted by law…

2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by law; cognizable in the courts…

3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law…

4. Posited [assumed] by courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof.

5. Created by law.

Legal systems may ‘conform to law’, they may be ‘permitted by law’, they may even be created by law but they are not law in themselves. They may become law by consent and constructions of law. What is legal is ‘cognizable in courts of law; as distinguished from courts of equity’ which are not ‘governed by rules of law’.

It should be clear that any legal system is subject to the prior and essential principles of law. Law that is basic, fundamental and well established over thousands of years of recorded history. It must be understood that it is consent that makes what is only legally proclaimed, lawfully established. Also it should be apparent that to bind oneself to a legal system that is constantly under the process of change is at least dangerous if not inevitably disastrous.

And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.75

He was a mighty provider before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty provider before the LORD. (Genesis 10:9)

“The jurisdiction of equity court, gradually developed by the chancellor, was limited only by the chancellor himself. There were two important limitations, both adopted to avoid any clash with the common-law courts. One was that equity would not interfere where there was an adequate remedy at common law; the other was that equity would act merely against the person of the common law plaintiff or defendant and therefore affect the legal right only in that indirect fashion.”76 Equity was dealing with legal rights of a person not lawful rights of an individual freeman. Equity’s courts administered the king’s justice, in the king’s dominion.

“A person is a man considered in reference to a certain status.”77

So, when the term common law is used, there is the common law of the individual freeman and the common-law of the legislature. The courts of equity were used to fulfill a need for remedies that the common law by tradition and custom did not provide for, acts outside the realm of its reasoning jurisdiction, as in the case of “trusts and uses.”

“Law, as distinguished from equity, denotes the doctrine and the procedure of the common law of England and America, from which equity is a departure.” 78

Equity is a “body of rules existing by the side of the original civil law, founded on distinct principles, and claiming incidentally to supersede the civil law in virtue of a superior sanctity inherent in those principles.”79

First, equity is not law in itself but it only exists “by the side of” the law and the civil law at that. The “‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.”80 Second, it should be noted that it only claims to supersede the civil law.

“As old rules become too narrow, or are felt to be out of harmony with advancing civilization, a machinery is needed for their gradual enlargement and adaptation to new views of society. One mode of accomplishing this object on a large scale, without appearing to disregard existing law, is the introduction, by the prerogative of some high functionary, of a more perfect body of rules, discoverable in his judicial conscience, which is to stand side by side with the law of the land, overriding it in case of conflict, as on some title of inherent superiority, but not purporting to repeal it. Such a body of rules has been called Equity.”81

America was settled by men who came to this new land to escape the arbitrary bonds of civil and equitable systems that were often no more than the will of despotic tyrants and sought to be at least in principle ruled by Divine will.

The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts.82

Even the United States government in establishing its own legal system was forced by custom and reason “that suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law.”83

Equity is not law either in the sense of the common law or the civil legal system. Equity is designed and used to enlarge the system of laws without appearing to disregard the laws themselves, overriding them but not repealing them. It is that “part of the law which, having power to enforce discovery, (1) administers trusts, mortgages, and other fiduciary obligations; (2) administers and adjusts common-law rights where the courts of common law have no machinery; (3) supplies a specific and preventive remedy for common law wrongs where courts of common law only give subsequent damages.”84

Equity is important because, in a civil society such as the one created by the Constitution, it is the instrument used to remedy conflicts that arise from certain relations where plain, adequate, and complete remedy may not be had at law. Equity is used to administer trusts and uses.

The phrase ‘legal tender’ is found on the paper currencies of the world including those used by the United States. Blue sealed certificates, red sealed United States notes, or green sealed Federal Reserve notes all state that they are “legal tender for all debts public and private.” For decades these notes also stated that they were “redeemable in lawful money.” If they were redeemable in lawful money then it should be clear that they are not lawful money. Gold and silver are lawful money, which is used as “payment of debt.”85 Legal tender is a legal offer in place of payment of debt and does not lawfully pay a debt. Although it may legally discharge debt, the tender or offer does not pay the debt at law. “There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist…” 86

Where does this debt continue?

It goes on to say, “…which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment.”87

“The first farmer was the first man, and all historic nobility

rests on possession and use of land.” Emerson.

A “legal title” is “one cognizable… in a court of law.”88 “Judicial cognizance” being “judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence.”89 Even more important a legal title is “one which is complete and perfect so far as regards the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of ‘equitable title.’90

And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: (II Pe. 2, 2-3.)

First, we see that a legal title although it may appear to be a “right of ownership” it “carries no beneficial interest.” If a legal title does not include a right to the beneficial interest then it does not include a right to the “profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract,” nor does it include “the ownership of an estate.” After all, a beneficial interest is “distinct from the legal ownership.”91 In the simplest of terms a legal title only appears to be a right to ownership but it is not the “ownership of an estate.”

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: (Exodus 34, 12.)

By definition, a legal title is the opposite or at least the antithesis of an “equitable title.” An equitable title as opposed to a legal title “is a right in the party” rather than only appearing to be a right. More important it is “the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another.”92

Even though you may discharge a debt and obtain legal titles you still do not have clear and good titles, which “are synonymous; ‘clear title’ meaning that the land is free from incumbrances, ‘good title’ being one free from litigation, palpable defects, and grave doubts, comprising both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record.”93

Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good [things] in possession. (Proverbs 28:10)

This division of true title into a legal title on one hand verses an equitable title on the other is called equitable conversion. equitable conversion is a “Constructive conversion.”

CONVERSION is an, "alteration, interchange, metamorphosis, passage, reconstruction....”94

BENEFICIAL INTEREST is the, “Profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract, or the ownership of an estate as distinct from the legal ownership or control.”95

BENEFICIAL USE is, “the right to use and enjoy property according to one’s own liking or so as to derive a profit or benefit from it…96

Is it any wonder that you are required to get a permit to build on what you think is your land? You have to get permission, a license, to operate what you believe is your car. If you do not pay the use, tribute or excise tax on your land, auto or labor you will loose them all. Haven’t you lost them already if you do not own them, the use of them? If you lack the right to the benefit or profit of a thing can you say you own it at all? Does anyone have a lawful title? And who has the true title and for what purpose do they have it?

You have a legal right to work only if you have applied for and obtained an employee identification number and labor for an employer with an employer identification number.

The word legal originates in the idea of being connected to a legal system by contract. The connection is most often created by consent and acceptance. What is to be legal becomes law by that consent and one of the essential ingredient of that consent is mutual consideration whether by application or indulgence. Therefore upon entering into a legal society a person waives certain rights naturally inherent in an individual and becomes obligated to abide by the administration of the legally established laws and rules of that civil society. Those rules can include such systems as Equity as well as general constructions of law. In Equity the extent of contractual participation may vary.

It is by an indulging consent that these mere constructions of law divide a clear and good title into a legal title on one hand and the equitable title on the other.

A legal title may appear to be a right of ownership but it is not. Legal title provides no beneficial interest and therefore no right to the profit, benefit, or advantage in the property. If you do not pay the legally prescribed use tax, they, the administers of the trust holding the equitable title, may summarily take the property away from you. Somewhere, someone or something holding the equitable title is the actual owner in the eyes of the Natural law, of your land, your home, your car, your cattle, your legal right to work and much, much more. You have no right since your conversion, alteration or rebirth. You have no right to the profit, benefit, or advantage of such things but only an apparent legal ownership.

If things have been equitably converted can they be equitably reconverted? Can things be turned around from what they have become? Can you make a legal title a lawful, good and complete title again?97

Can you now apply this idea that someone else may hold the true and lawful title to everything that you only appear to own but do not? Has it been kept a secret, a mystery how everything that the LORD, God, has given you is owned by another whom the law considers the true owner of the property?

Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen,… and wheat, and beasts… and slaves, and souls of men. (Revelation 18:10, 13)

Have you been seduced with vain offers and the seduction of a covetous heart or is it through ignorance and lack of knowledge that you have been sold into slavery, yoked with unbelievers and entangled by contractual relationships?

For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollution’s of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (2 Peter 2:18, 22)

If we have followed the ways of men can we return to the ways of the LORD? Who has deceived us? Who has devised this plan of confusion and deceit?

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Lu 11:52)

Who shall we seek to know the truth? Who shall we cry out to, man or the LORD God? The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he [is] the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law. Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? (Malachi 2:6, 10)


The book The Covenants of the gods is an iconoclastic explication that shatters the delusions of a deceived world. History, law and the Bible are melded together in a unique eye opening exegesis that answers the burning question that has haunted men since the beginning of time.

"...Are men free souls under God?" Order this Book: http://www.hisholychurch.net/order/materialscovenants.html

Here are descriptions of the contents of each chapters.

It is recommended that you study them in order.

* Holy Matrimony vs. Marriage discuses the difference between Holy Matrimony, an Ecclesiastical ceremony with no legal significance, and that legally binding covenant with the state called Marriage that is in opposition to the God given relationship of man and woman as Husband and Wife.

* Law vs. Legal touches on some of the fundamental opposing principles of these two different sources of righteous authority, bondage and jurisdiction in past and present established societies.

* Citizen vs. Citizen discusses at least two distinct and different types of citizenship in America today.

* Employ vs. Enslave explains the fundamental differences between man's inalienable right to the sweat of his brow granted him by his Creator and his legal right to labor for another master, ruler or god.

* God vs. Government speaks of the principle conflict between God's way and man's foolishness.

* Heaven vs. Heaven discusses the nature of God's Kingdom in Heaven and on Earth.

* Republic vs. Democracy talks of the differences between these dissimilar and opposing forms of government.

* Democracy vs. Demagogue touches on the fallacies, foolishness and dangers of democracy.

* The System vs. The System references the system established by man in opposition to the system established by God the Father.

* Conversion vs. Reconversion discusses the significance of equitable conversion, being born again, in reference to land and labor and living in God's Kingdom.

* Money vs. Mammon references the fallacies and foolishness and the fiat character of the present money systems as well as its origins and nature and why it has delivered you into destitution and bondage.

* Trust vs. Faith expresses the importance of faith in The LORD God and the traps, seductions and dangers of trusting in lesser gods.

* Deported vs. Departed references excommunication from the world systems and why it has been desired throughout history even unto this day.

* The Charagma vs. The Card touches on the concepts of the beast and the image of the beast as well as the so called mark of the beast as it was used then and now. [What is the mark and why you have it].

* The Body of Christ Vs. The Body of the State looks at the Church, the State established by Jesus the Christ, manditorially exempt from the control of man's government and churches established under the State with strict operational restrictions.

* This information was condensed from the book Covenants of the gods: http://www.hisholychurch.net/order/materialscovenants.html

Information about Setting a record that you are married at Holy Matrimony

Get the Book "the covenants of the gods": http://www.hisholychurch.net/order/materialscovenants.html

To read more information please go to: http://www.hisholychurch.net/study/gods/lvl.htm#R4


INDEX - GENERAL KNOWLEDGE - http://ticketslayer.com/ts.common_law_&_sovereignty.htm

The Common Law & Sovereignty: http://ticketslayer.com/ts.common_law_&_sovereignty.htm

The Common Law Default Process: http://ticketslayer.com/ts.com_law_default_process.htm

Your Name in ALL CAPS: Does this really make me a corporate person?: http://ticketslayer.com/ts.name_all_caps.htm

Yick Wo v. Hopkins - The U.S. Supreme Court Says flesh and blood people are not subject to the law, but who's law, or what law is the court speaking of?: http://ticketslayer.com/ts.yick_wo.htm

Law vs. Legal - Law, The legal system of God - Legal, The lawful system of man Definitions & Terms: http://www.hisholychurch.net/study/gods/lvl.htm#R4


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: ttp://www.lawresearch.com/v2/caserulc.htm

Lectric Law Library: http://www.lectlaw.com/rotu.html

NetLaw Libraries: http://www.netlawlibraries.com/home1a.htm

Versus Law: http://versuslaw.com

California Codes: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html


Family Guardian: A clearing-house of vital information for sovereigns like you and me! - http://famguardian.org

Police Crimes: Crimes committed by Police Officers - http://policecrimes.com

Link to this website: http://ticketslayer.com

Support The Love For Life Campaign, Kindom & The Cristian Family

Supporting The Love For Life Website, The Cristian Family and The Living Dream Of Kindom (Creation Of Do No Harm Communities) - The Love for Life website is produced for free without a fee (no contract or conditions attached) as a gift of love for the benefit of others. If you feel you have gained something from visiting it, feel inspired, and would like to reciprocate as an equal exchange in substance and support (value), you are most welcome to make a gift of love to keep it and the dream of Kindom going. As always, we thank you for your gifts of love.

Additional Options

Account name:
Account number:
Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ)
Fiona Caroline Cristian
012 547
5576 81376


Go To Your Pay Pal Account To Send Gifts To action @ loveforlife.com.au
Additional Options


The Cristian Family November 2006

We Stand For NO SYSTEM

Kindom (Do No Harm Communities) is the dream for freedom, but it is the dream for the freedom of those around us who also live the dream of freedom, because it is in living for the freedom of others that we get our freedom. When we live for the dreams of Kindom of those around us, we live life as a gift because we live for (dedicate our lives to) their dream of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance, etc, just as they live for our Kindom dreams too. This is true co-creation (cooperation) with no attack on the uniqueness of each of us. When we live this way, we have no need for any man-made system - everything/everyone has already been taken care of by our love for life.

Just as we do not have to jump 10 feet across the room to grab our next breath, neither do we have to worry about food, water and shelter because it has all been taken care of as we each co-create Kindoms/Kin-Domains for everyone. Now everybody and everything of the dream of life that is Kindom/Paradise is free (has been set free once again). The issue is greed and selfishness, power and control trips, arrogance, ignorance, being fed many many lies and being traumatised. The issue is not overpopulation - there is more than enough land available for every family to have a hectare (2.5 acres Kin-Domain) to care for. The land of Australia can provide a Kin-Domain for every family across Earth, each with a food forest, clean fresh drinking water and plenty of space for building natural do no harm habitats and with plenty of land left over.

Everyone must have the freedom to take full-responsibility for their lives, for the water they drink, the food they eat and for their shelter. Currently, "The System" forces everyone to give up taking full-responsibility so that we become grown up children accustomed to sucking on the nipples of "The System" corporations for everything, having to use money to get by and to follow the rules of money because we are not co-creating freedom, peace, truth, joy and abundance for each other. Money only leads to haves and have nots and all the abuse, manipulation and distractions that we are subjected to as slaves to money.

When we give up living for other's Kindom dreams, we start creating hell ("The System") all around us because we become self-centred - now it's all about "my freedom","my money", "my land", "my belief", "my saviour", "mine", "mine","mine", "i","i", "i", "own", "own", "own", etc. To protect what we claim we own requires a man-made system with FORCE to protect those self-centred claims. This is ALL trauma based and all story-telling (brainwashing/braindirtying).

NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES photo Kindom_zpsa6d24e8a.jpg

Our true freedom comes when we set our thoughts of freedom into motion so that we live freedom rather than just talking and thinking about it while we still slave for "The System". Kindom will not happen while we meditate for hours in the bush or do yoga retreats or wait for Jesus or follow the processes of the OPPT (One People's Public Trust now called One People). This is not freedom because we are not living freedom because we are living the story-telling of Jesus or Zeitgeist or The Secret or Thrive or One Earth/Consciousness/People.

Living Kindom is very, very hard work as we set about repairing the damage to MAN/Earth/Nature that we are ALL responsible for but the burden becomes lighter the more of us put our life-energy into the dream of returning Earth to Paradise. Day-after-day, we all have to work our arses off until Kindom is all around us (MAN) once again. This is the price we pay to set each other free on a piece of land (Kin-Domain), so that no one is under the image-power (education/brainwashing/story-telling) of another MAN anymore and so that everyone can have their space of love to create and live their unique, do no harm dreams. This only happens once we have the Kindoms set up so that everyone is provided for.

Once we re-create the food forests, whether on land or in the suburbs, we can re-claim our freedom, breaking the strangle-hold of "The System" because we are no longer reliant on its services and benefits and no longer turning each other into slaves of "The System", cogs in the wheels of "The System" machine. If we don't put the effort in to set everyone and everything free all around us then we still live in HELL ("The System"). The key is to live for everyone else's freedom so that we can have it too.

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two A
5th November 2014

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two B
Coming Shortly

We live for NO SYSTEM. We do not lose anything by not having a man-made system and, in fact, we gain. We gain our freedom and we gain abundance. Let go of the fear.

The Cristian Family November 2006

A Collection Of Various Love For Life Posts
Providing The Big Picture We See

Sequential Order

We ask you to NOT believe anything we say/share and instead use scrutiny like an intense blow torch and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you. This is very, very important. Put everything you believe up to the test of scrutiny to see how it stacks up. If you are true to your heart/senses and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you will find that NO belief, etc, will stand up to the test of scrutiny. They just do not stack up because they are lies/fraud.

After you have watched and read all the material and any questions are left unanswered, send us your landline number and we will use the internet phone as a free unlimited call. We are on Sydney NSW Australia time. Best times for us to chat are between 11.00am and 6.00pm.

It is critical that you fully comprehend Image Power, "Spelling", Trauma, Reaction To Trauma, Curses, Processing Curses, Full-Responsibility/Liability, Limited Liability/Responsibility (passing-the-back), Slavery, Senses/Sense vs Non-Sense/Senses, Re-Presenting Intellectual Property such as but not limited to "Name", Storytelling/Storytellers, Duality, Black-Magic, Belief, Lies, "i", All Seeing "i" (eye), etc..... These themes and others are covered over and over and over again.

If you do not comprehend these insights and are unable to use your senses to sense your way through all the non-sense/non-sensory-images that enslave MAN under their image power (darkness = "The System" = Hell), men and women will remain deeply trapped under a terrible state of trauma. Our intention is to inspire you to remedy by showing you how to move away from reacting to trauma in all its nefarious and devious forms.

Superb Diamond Range Interviewing
Arthur & Fiona Cristian 4th February 2014

His-Story/Her-Story (History)
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
2005-2007 - Re-posted July 2014

The Dream Of Life Part 6
Under The Spell Of Intellectual Property

Arthur Cristian - 51 Minutes 52 Seconds

Trauma Induced Fantasy
July 2013 Interview With
Jeanice Barcelo And Arthur & Fiona Cristian

The Dark Side Of The Moon
The Background To "The System"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Interviewed By
Jahnick Leaunier, The Tru-Mon Show
24th August 2016
Love For Life - 142 Minutes

Eric Dubay's Flat Earth Is A Cult
The Background To The System Part Two

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 31st August 2016
154 Minutes

Eclipse Of The Sun - Video (Arthur swears in this video)
The Background To The System Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 25th October 2016

The "Name" Is The Mark Of The Beast
The Strawman Identifying
Your Slave Status In "The System"

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
5th February 2012 - 56 Minutes 25 Seconds

The Satanic Craft Of Inculcation In Practice
Fiona's ACT Supreme Court Affidavit Explaining Inculcation & Illumination
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
4th March 2016

The Spinning Top
Full Bloom Inculcation

Arthur And Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Facebook Discussions Between The
8th December 2016
26th January 2017
Link: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/16/03/04/satanic-craft-inculcation-pra...

The Shit Of Death
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
28th January 2017
Link: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/16/03/04/satanic-craft-inculcation-pra...

The Selfie Of Freakenstein
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th March 2017

Three Sets Of Fiona Cristian Documents Filed With ACAT
Merged Into One Document For Downloading

Fiona Cristian Affidavit
ACT Supreme Court / Court Of Appeal


Dancing With Magic (Lies)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Videos, Articles, Comments
And Pending E-Book
Love Fort Life
September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part One
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
5th September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part Two
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
12th September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
13th September 2015

Dancing With Magic (Lies) Part Four:
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
16th September 2015

Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
6th March 2015

To Be Educated Is To Have No Soul
The System Is Soul Destroying

Frederick Malouf & Michael Tellinger's
Contrived Gifting
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
1st September 2016

Illumination IS Definition
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th to 29th January 2016

The Nefarious Tactics Used
To Disguise Truth And Distract Us
From Remedy

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2014
This post contains many recent Facebook comments
and email replies which collectively provides a big picture
into exposing the deception behind IMAGE POWER.

The Pull Of E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
8th February 2014

Processing Curses
A Lie Is A Curse
Liars Process Curses

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th February 2014

How The System Is Really Constructed
Bouncing Back Curses Upon Curse Makers
To Stop Harm Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th February 2014

Slave To A Name
Parts One, Two, Three, Four,
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd to 6th March 2014

Educated Slaves
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
20th March 2014

The Only Path To Freedom
Beware The False Steps

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 2nd April 2014

Free-Dumb For All
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 5th April 2014

Revoking The Ego
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 8th April 2014

How MAN Commits Spiritual Suicide
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life - 3rd April 2014

How To Detect Intel Operatives Working
For The New World Order Agenda
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 10th April 2014

How The Psyop Program & Intel Networks
Are Messing With Your Head +

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - April 2014

Godzilla Through The Looking Glass
Destroyed By Name"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 20th April 2014

What It's Going To Take
To Co-Create Freedom Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd April 2014

Falling For Fairy Stories
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 24th April 2014

A Disassociation From The Work
Of Kate of Gaia

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 17th May 2014

Separating The Wheat From The Chaff
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd May 2014

Revolution Or Revolution
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 25th May 2014

Routing Out Psyop Programs
Routs Out Intel Operatives
Exposing Max Igan's Psyop Program

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 31st May 2014

The Psyop Program Scam
Behind Religion Belief Faith
& Associated Opinion

Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014

Another Delusion
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014

A World Of Words Is A World Of Lies
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
13th June 2014

The Name Of The Beast Is MAN

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 9th May 2014
Includes Mountain MAN Arrested
Facebook Discussion About "Name"
Uploaded 25th June 2014

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 13th August 2014

Discussion With Brother Gregory
Clearly Demonstrating Christianity
Is Part Of The Problem
And Not The Solution

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Between the 12th May 2014 and 30th August 2014

The Psyop Program Behind Free Food
And Permaculture

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
29th October 2014
Facebook Discussion With Unconditional Love Moon

Head So Strong
Music and Vocals Arthur Cristian
Backing Vocals and Vocal Effects Arthur Cristian & Hannah Wood
Lyrics Fiona and Arthur Cristian
Written during our spare time between Aug & Oct 2014

The Time Of Trauma That Destroys Us
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
9th November 2014

The Most Powerful Video On Spirituality
And Happiness FOR SLAVES
How To Accept Slavery And Be Happy About It

Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
6th August 2014
Facebook Discussion About The Work Of Eckhart Tolle

What Can We Do What Can We See
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
A series of Arthur Cristian Facebook
posts and discussions
between 17th and 21st November 2014

The Misuse Of Love By Intel Networks
To Create Doubt And Uncertainty
With The Intention To Destroy Love
And Therefore Destroy MAN
(True Freedom, Peace, Joy, Abundance And Truth
For Everyone)

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
26th November 2014

The Void Of E-GO That Is Spiritual Suicide
The Justification Of Laziness
That Perpetuates System Creature Comforts
Ensuring Our Fall

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
13th December 2014
Massive Update Occurred 14th Dec 2014 3.10pm Sydney Aust time

Darkness Visible Part One A, B, C, D
The Freemasonic World In Plain Sight
Decoding George Washington Lithographs

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014
Part One A http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8557
Part One B http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8567
Part One C http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8568
Part One D http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8569

Darkness Visible Part Two
Yin And Yang, Duality, Spiritual Suicide
And Frank O'Collins UCADIA / One Heaven

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014

Darkness Visible Part Three
How The Word Sausage
Re-Presents The New World Order
Boiling Point & Out To Get Us

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th December 2014

Darkness Visible Part Four
Aleister Crowley - Thelema - OTO
And The Black Magic Psychedelia Of The Intellect

Facebook Discussion
4th to 10th January 2015

Darkness Visible Part Five
Living MAN Fiona Cristian's Standing
+ Decoding Judeo/Judaism

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2015

Darkness Visible Part Six
The Many Fingers Of The Hidden Hand Appearing
YouTube Community Flagged A Video
Posted To The ArthurLoveForLife YouTube Channel
As Being "Hate Speech"

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
4th February 2015

Darkness Visible Part Seven
The Full Responsibility For Setting
True Freedom For All Into Motion
In Present-Sense Forevermore

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
10th February 2015

Who We Really Are Does Not End
At The Surface Of Our Skin

Arthur Cristian & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd February 2015

Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
6th March 2015

The Rot Parts One, Two, Three
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
5th June 2015

"The Good Guys" And The "Bad Guys"
Working Together To Bring In
The New World Order

Arthur Cristian - 18th July 2015

Can You Spot The Ego?
Where's Wally? Part One

Compilation of Facebook & Youtube
Insight Posts During Aug/Sept 2015
By Arthur Cristian

Can You Spot The Ego?
Where's Wally? Part Two

Compilation of Facebook & Youtube
Insight Posts During Aug/Sept 2015
By Arthur Cristian

Dancing With Magic (Lies)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Videos, Articles, Comments
And Pending E-Book
Love Fort Life
September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part One
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
5th September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part Two
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
12th September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
13th September 2015

Dancing With Magic (Lies) Part Four:
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
16th September 2015

Illumination IS Definition
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th to 29th January 2016

The Satanic Craft Of Inculcation In Practice
Fiona's ACT Supreme Court Affidavit Explaining Inculcation & Illumination
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
4th March 2016

The Dark Side Of The Moon
The Background To "The System" Part One

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 24th August 2016

Eric Dubay's Flat Earth Is A Cult
The Background To The System Part Two

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 31st August 2016

To Be Educated Is To Have No Soul
The System Is Soul Destroying
Frederick Malouf & Michael Tellinger's
Contrived Gifting

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
1st September 2016

New Love For Life Kindom Facebook Group
Started March 2015
Includes 63 Minute
Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Facebook Kindom Group Guidelines
The Love For Life website home-page provides
the bigger-picture background to the themes
touched on in this video: http://loveforlife.com.au

Crop Circles Are A Massive Hoax
Facebook Discussion On Simon Kawai's Wall
Involving Arthur & Fiona Cristian
31st August 2013

OPPT & Slavery Through Intellectual Conscription By Deceit
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
27th February 2013 onwards...
Part One: http://youtu.be/Qjp_9nlrBao
Part Two: http://youtu.be/tbybeOWZ-Bc
Part Three: http://youtu.be/yOWoxH-HbVw

Water Is The Life Of MANS Consciousness (Breath)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life - 8th February 2013
Part One: http://youtu.be/4ze66_33wxM - 70 Minutes 5 Seconds
Part Two: http://youtu.be/43gIi-sjxJc - 81 Minutes 13 Seconds
Part Three: http://youtu.be/oooY6W63K-M - 70 Minutes 18 Seconds

What Do You Believe On Origins?
Who Said There Was A Beginning?
Who's Truth Do You Accept?
Belief Is A Strange Idea.

Discussion Lyndell, Scott and Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Between March and April 2013
Posted 29th October 2013

So You Want The Good Bits Of "The System"
But Not The Bad Bits?

By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 12th August 2013

Turning Away From The Reflection
Of MANS Looking Glass

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
30th April 2013


From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two
5th November 2014

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Three
7th March 2016
60 Minutes

Love For Life Food Forest & Native Garden March 2016
Extension Of The Love For Life Food Forest And Establishment
Of A New Native Garden At The Front Of The Rental Property
In East Bowral - 24th October 2015 to Mid February 2016.
15 Minutes

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)

The Divine Spark
Facebook Discussion With Raymond Karczewski
Arthur & Fiona Cristian & Others
2nd October 2013

Capturing Another MANS Uniqueness
A Facebook Debate With
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
And Raymond Karczewski
Starting 13th May 2013

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013

The Steps Of Kindom
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life 2006/2007

To explore these themes in greater detail go here where you can find links to all our Love For Life comments, articles, debates, discussions, videos, podcasts, etc: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385

All the best
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email : action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile : 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Snail Mail: PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia
Facebook Arthur Cristian : http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian : http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife

Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

Facebook Group Why Aren't We Free Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Group Kindom/Do No Harm Community Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925

Links below will kick in when the professionally recorded Love For Life music is released.

SoundCloud : http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music : http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter : https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music : http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
YouTube Love For Life Music : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian : https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090

Peaceful Transition Through Sacrifice And Service

We feel there is an essential peaceful do no harm transition required to get all of MAN back to standing on MANS feet without reliance upon another MAN for water, food, shelter. As it stands everyone in "The System" are highly dependent and reliant on the "group mind-set" that forms "The System" of slaves providing services and benefits for the emotionally addicted slaves to "The System" (and you can put us in the same basket too). The transition is to get MAN back to relying ONLY on nature without 3rd party interlopers, intermeddlers, interceders getting in the way. The transition is a team effort with the foresight for setting all of MAN free down-the-line so that MAN is no longer dependent on slaves and masters providing services, benefits, privileges and exclusivity while being bound to contracts, rituals, procedures, conditions, rules & regulations which compromises MAN severely.

This transition is all about shifting from limited liability/responsibility to full liability/responsibility. This full responsibility is all about caring for our health, nature all around us, clean uncorrupted (pure) water and food, partner/co-creator, children, shelter, animal-friends in partnership, etc. In "The System", we are already together destroying each other - we have to come together to create peace together so that we can all have peace. We cannot live peacefully when we are islands, not taking full responsibility for the lives of those around us until EVERYONE can take full responsibility for their life, which means that EVERYONE is healed of system trauma. In "The System", we all come together to make slaves of each other - now is the moment to come together to set each other free, to live for each other's freedom, peace, joy and abundance. Once we have set each other free, we are free.

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013

"The Steps Of Kindom"


Once we fix these issues, we or our children or our descendants to come, can start focusing on the even bigger picture of getting back to where our ancestors were, as breatharyan's, before they fell into non-sense images to be enslaved by them.

All the best to you and your family
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

The Cristian Family November 2006

The Cristian Family Declaration

The Cristian family and The Love for Life Campaign are apolitical, non-religious, non-violent, anti weapons, anti drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and anti any ideology that denies the existence of Do No Harm Communities (Kindoms) and suppresses the uniqueness and freedom of all men, women and children.

The Cristian family and our Love For Life work is unaligned to any big business corporation, intelligence agency, government body, "system" law, "system" think tanks, "system" green or environmental movements, religion, cult, sect, society (fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, order, club, etc,) secret or not, hidden agenda, law or sovereignty group, occult, esoteric, New Age or Old Age.

The Cristian family supports and promotes the remedy that brings an everlasting peace, freedom, truth, joy, abundance and do no harm for all of life without causing loss of uniqueness or the need for having slaves and rulers. We are not into following the one in front or being shepherds for sheeple. Most importantly, we take full-responsibility for everything we think, feel and do.

The Cristian family are not Christians.

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

December 2006

The Cristian Family November 2006


Being of clear brain, heart and intention, we each declare the following to be true:

• We have no intention of ending our own lives.

• We will not tolerate suppression of truth, ideas, freedom, or our work. We stand for freedom of speech.

• We stand together to support others in the expression of truths and freedom to speak out no matter how radical those ideas may seem.

• Standing for freedom takes courage; together we shall be strong in the face of all odds.

• If it is ever claimed that we have committed suicide, encountered an unfortunate accident, died of sickness/disease, disappeared, been institutionalized, or sold out financially or in any other way to self-interested factions, we declare those claims false and fabricated.

• We testify, assert and affirm without reservation, on behalf of all those who have dedicated their lives to the ending of secrecy and the promotion of freedom of thought, ideas and expression that we shall prevail.

• We Do Not Have Multiple Personality Disorders

Arthur Cristian
Fiona Cristian
Jasmin Lily Cristian
Emma Rose Cristian
Frances Hannah Cristian
Xanthe Jane Cristian

15th December 2006 (Edited/Updated 18th September 2011)

The Cristian Family November 2006

Update Regarding The Love For Life
Home Page And Quick User Guide

We are turning the Love for Life Quick User Guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 into a blog of all the main insights of our work since March 2005, whether through articles, videos, podcasts or discussions/debates.

As we do not have the time to compile everything we have written into a book, as many have suggested we do, compiling all our most important work into one area of the website is a way of providing easy access to this work so those interested are able to fully comprehend the big picture.

Instead of having to find our different articles, videos, etc, in various parts of the website, it will all be accessible here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385.

Love For Life Videos

As amateurs and posted in the Quick User Guide below the Facebook links, we're currently creating and posting a series of videos called "The Dream Of Life" which covers the ground of all the Love For Life insights. We plan to have the videos completed by December 31st 2012. Once this is behind us, our intention is to create a 2 hour or so video covering the body of this work. All videos are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and uploaded in Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife.

Love For Life Music

We have started recording songs, with others, that express the themes of Love For Life. They are now being posted on Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife and are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608. We have over 100 songs to record. A few rough demos have already been used as the soundtrack on the first "Dream of Life" video.

About Us - Love For Life & The Cristian Family

Also, everything we, the Cristian family, have gone through, from bank fraud and the theft of the family home to death threats and attempts on Arthur's life, is documented in the Quick User Guide too. If you, the reader, are prepared to put the effort in, you will comprehend the extent to which we have all been tricked into becoming slaves, giving up our uniqueness and our full-responsibility for life and destroying everything of life to the point where life is in danger of dying out completely. You will also comprehend the remedy to all this chaos; a remedy that requires only love for life and the determination to do what needs to be done. Though our focus is very strongly on the remedy that creates a world of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance and Do No Harm for all of life without loss of uniqueness or the need for slaves and rulers, we realise that it is vital to comprehend how to get there and what stops us from getting there. This is why there is so much information on the hows and whys of everything going wrong in the world today. We are not into peddling conspiracy theories, we are into routing out all forms of organised crime.

Saturday 26th November 2011

Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email: action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile: 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Facebook Arthur Cristian: http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian: http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife
SoundCloud: http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music: http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter: https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music: http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
Facebook Why Aren't We Free Discussion: http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Do No Harm Community: http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925
YouTube Love For Life Music: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian: https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090
Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

1. For The Body Of The Love For Life Work by Arthur and Fiona Cristian

Which Unravels The Reasons For The Chaos, Mayhem and Confusion Being Experienced In The World Today, Explains The Need For "Community Immunity" and Responsibility, and Focuses On The Creation Of Kindoms - Do No Harm, Life-Sustainable Communities (As The Remedy That Heals All Mans Woes) - And How We Can Co-Create Them. For Comments, Articles And Discussions, Go Here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - Also Go Here To See Podcasts And Videos Posted by Arthur & Fiona Cristian: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7309 - The Information Shared Comes From Inspiration, Intuition, Heartfelt-Logic And Information Gathered From Nature And Many Amazing Men And Women Along The Way. It Is Not Found In Any Books Or Channellings, Or Talked About By "Experts". Go Here To Read A Brief Synopsis Of Why We Started Love For Life: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8182

2. For Information About The Ringing Cedars of Russia Series

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 and for more on Eco Homes, Villages, Organic and Permaculture Gardening and Life-Sustainability, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1985 and Mikhail Petrovich Shchetinin - Kin's School - Lycee School at Tekos: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5173

3. For How To Eat A Raw, Living Food Diet,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5068 - LIFE is information. When we distort LIFE and then eat, drink, absorb, think, feel, hear, see, touch, taste, smell and perform these distortions, the information of LIFE, your LIFE, our LIFE, our children's lives, everyone's LIFE, is distorted.

4. To Find A Menu For The Extensive Research Library (over 8,000 items posted embodying over 11,000 documents, pdf's, videos, podcasts, etc)

Which Covers Topics From Health to Chemtrails/Haarp to Brain Control to Archaeology to Astronomy Geocentricity Heliocentricity to Pandemics Bird Flu Swine Flu to Fluoride to Cancer to Free Energy to Global Warming, 9/11, Bali Bombings, Aspartame, MSG, Vaccinations, Aids/HIV, Mercury, New World Order, Satanism, Religions, Cults, Sects, Symbolism, etc, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82

5. If You Would Like To Read About The Cristian Family NSW Supreme Court Case

(Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges, Registrars, Barristers, Lawyers, Politicians, Public Servants, Bureaucrats, Big Business and Media Representatives - A Crime Syndicate/Terrorist Organisation) Which Prompted The Creation Of This Love For Life Website December 2006, And The Shooting And Torture Of Supporters Who Assisted Us In Reclaiming The Family Home, Joe Bryant And His Wife, Both In Their Late 70's, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 And Read Some Of Our Email Correspondence With Lawyer Paul Kean - Macedone Christie Willis Solari Partners - Miranda Sydney May 17th-June 27th 2006: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7300

6. For The Stories Of Other Victims Of The System,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/australian_stories (If you have a story you would like us to put up, we would love to here from you:
action @ loveforlife.com.au)

7. For Documentation Of Harm Done By The Powers-That-Be And Their Representatives,

Evidence Revealing How Victims Did Not Break The Peace, Caused No Crime or Harm, There Were No Injured Parties. Documenting Incontrovertible Evidence Demonstrating How The Powers That Be (PTB) And Their Lackeys Will Break All The Laws They Are Supposed To Uphold. They Will Kidnap, Intimidate, Terrorise, Rape, Pillage, Plunder And Lie And Take Responsibility For None Of It. All Part Of Their Tactics Of Using Fear And Trauma To Keep Us In Our Place. Relatives Of Those Under Their Radar Are Also Not Safe From Attack And Intimidation. All Starting From A $25 Fine For Not Voting And A $65 Fine For Not Changing A Dog Registration. We Do Not Have Freedom And Can Only Appear To Have Freedom If We Comply. Regardless How Small The Matter The PTB Throw Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Away To Enforce Their Will.... Go Here:
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office - Part One to Part Ten - From 17th October 2008 And Still Continuing:
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6319 or
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office
Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5742 - From 17th October 2008
Part Two: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6135 - From 18th December 2008
Part Three: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6295 - From 9th January 2009
Part Four: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6296 - From 14th January 2009
Part Five: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6375 - The Sick Puppy - From 20th February 2009
Part Six: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6390 - Police Officers, Sheriff’s Officers, Tow Truck Driver and State Debt Recovery Office Blatantly Ignore the Law To Rape, Pillage and Plunder The Private Property Of Fiona Cristian - From 11th March 2009
Part Seven: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6445 - Affidavit Of Truth - Letter To The Queen + Australia: Fascism is Corporatism - From 30th March 2009
Part Eight: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6652 - The Pirates Auction And The Ghost Of VSL386 - From 4th April 2009
Part Nine: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7073 - Arthur Cristian's Letter To Pru Goward MP - From 15th December 2009
Part Ten: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7500 - Should We Be In Fear Of Those Who Claim To Protect Us? "Roman Cult" Canon Law - Ecclesiastical Deed Poll - The Work Of Frank O'Collins - From 13th October 2010

8. If You Are Interested In Information On Freedom From Statutes, Rule-Of-Law, Free Man/Free Woman, Strawman, "Person" and Admiralty Law (The Law Of Commerce),

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/895 - For Common Law, Democracy, Constitution, Trial By Jury, Fee Simple, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/category/main/law-articles-documents

9. If You Are Interested In Banking and Money Created (Fiat/Credit/Debt/Mortgage/Loan/Overdraft etc) Out-Of-Thin-Air, How Banks Counterfeit Money,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/banks

10. For A List Of All The Latest Posts In The Love For Life Website,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/tracker

11. For Links To Many Hundreds Of Videos, DVDs And Podcasts

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/video_dvd

12. To See The Cristian Family Pledge, Legal and other Disclaimers

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/06/12/05/love-life-legal-disclaimer

13. To Read About How A Representative Of The NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies Had Threatened To Shut Down The Love For Life Website

go here: Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 Part Two: THE STEVE JOHNSON REPORT AND VIDEO: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 and Part Three: Latest Update On James Von Brunn: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6673

Conscious Love Always
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
action @ loveforlife.com.au
0418 203204 (int: 0011 61 418 203204)
PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia

Arthur Cristian

Create Your Badge

Love For Life Discussions - Why Aren't We Free? How Can We Be Free?

Promote your Page too

The Cristian Family November 2006

Love For Life Legal Disclaimer

The information contained on this world wide web site (the web site and all information herein shall be collectively referred to as "Web Site Information"), under the registered url name, loveforlife.com.au, resides on a host server environment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203, United States of America.

The Web Site Information has been prepared to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute or be construed as providing substantive professional advice or opinion on any facts or circumstances. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, nor does its receipt give rise to, a professional-client relationship between 'Love for Life' and the receiver.

While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information prepared and/or reported on this site, 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the Web Site Information not being up to date. The Web Site Information may not reflect the most current developments.

The impact of the law, policy and/or procedure for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers should not act upon any Web Site Information without seeking professional advice. 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action taken in reliance on any Web Site Information herein.

'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action you or others take which relies on information in this website and/or responses thereto. 'Love for Life' disclaim all responsibility and liability for loss or damage suffered by any person relying, directly or indirectly, on the Web Site Information, including in relation to negligence or any other default.

'Love for Life' does not warrant, represent or hold out that any Web Site Information will not cause damage, or is free from any computer virus, defect(s) or error(s). 'Love for Life' is not liable to users for any loss or damage however caused resulting from the use of material found on its web site.

'Love for Life' does not necessarily endorse or approve of any Web Site Information linked to and contained on other web sites linked herein and makes no warranties or representations regarding the merchantability or fitness for purpose, accuracy and quality, of any such information.

The sending of information by you, and the receipt of it by 'Love for Life', is not intended to, and does not, create a professional-client relationship.

All Web Site Information is considered correct at the time of the web site's most recent revision.



The Cristian Family November 2006

Posted Wednesday 17th June 2009
Updated September 2011

NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies
Has Threatened To Shut Down
The Love For Life Website

No Freedom Of Speech - No Freedom Of Thought

Love For Life does not support harm doing in any shape or form. However, we are supporters of free speech and post articles, documentaries, etc, that represent a wide cross section of ideas. See the Love For Life extensive research library where over 6000 documents, articles and videos are posted: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82. We clearly see the evidence of the destruction to MAN and the earth that has been caused by ALL religions over the centuries and are therefore not supporters of religions, cults, sects or any group that demands conformity of thought, speech or action, or has rules, regulations or rituals that must be followed. Religions, nationalities and cultural "identities" are formed as a result of the brainwashing we receive from childhood. They are part of the tactics the Establishment uses to keep us all divided from one another and fighting one another.

All religions promote discrimination and division, leading to hatred and even violence and murder. None of them have yet to produce a remedy to all the suffering, poverty, unhappiness and discrimination in the world. If any religion truly had the remedy to all the suffering on earth, there would no longer be any suffering. What have Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism and the New Age done to end the suffering in the world?

Since December 2006, there have been many attempts to take down the Love For Life website. Any attempts have been thwarted by Love For Life supporters inundating the harm-doers with emails, etc, objecting to them taking down the website for a variety of reasons. The trouble makers usually back off when they realise that they can post all their views, arguments, beliefs, etc, in the Love For Life website without censorship or restriction imposed. They get to see that even the Queen, Pope, Prime Minister, President of America, etc, can post all their views without hindrance or sabotage and that we support freedom of speech/thought which means we support the right of all sides to express their views.

Of note, there is a vast amount of information posted in the Love For Life website which we do not agree with but we leave it all up because we refuse to be biased, opinionated or self-centered/self-serving. Of the many thousands of comments posted over the years we have only removed posts containing secret links to commercial advertisements, terrible foul language, threats of violence and death, etc, and attacks on other people's characters that avoid the subject/debate at hand. Besides links to advertisements, we have taken down less than six comments due to the above. We usually leave everything up, all warts and all, even those posts threatening to do terrible things to Fiona, our children, our dogs, our friends, family & supporters, etc.

The Love For Life website has information from all sides on many subjects, whether about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Law, health, psychology, mind control, vaccination, aspartame, MSG, Chemtrails etc. There are over 11,000 articles, documentaries etc on the website and they are so diverse that we are sure that everyone would be able to find something they loved and something they hated, if they took the time to search. If we removed all the articles hated by everyone, there would probably be nothing left! We are not anti anyone but freedom of speech is freedom of speech and no one should condemn the work of another without taking the time to research the subject themselves. Yes, there are articles by those who have a less-than-rosy-viewpoint of Judaism, but there are also articles on the dark side of Tibetan Buddhism (and it is very dark) for those who are interested in the truth: Tibet - Buddhism - Dalai Lama: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6271 Should the authors of these articles be abused and imprisoned for daring to challenge the widely conceived reputation of Buddhism as being the religion of peace and love and that of the Dalai Lama as a saint, or should those interested be allowed to study the work and come to their own conclusions? The same applies to all the articles, documentaries, etc, about Christianity, Islam, Freemasonry, New World Order, etc.

The Love for Life website also shows how the Rule of Law, the Bar, the Government, the Monarchy, the system of commerce, the local, national and multi/trans-national private corporations, all the courses and careers on offer from our universities, all the educators, scientists, academics and experts, the aristocrats and the Establishment bloodlines have also done NOTHING to end the suffering in the world. The website maps the insanity of a world where there is no help for those in need, just as there was no help available for us when we were victims of terrible bank fraud: "NSW Supreme Court Case - Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited vs Fiona Cristian - Victims Of Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges" http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 (orchestrated, condoned and protected by an international crime syndicate/terrorist organisation of judges, barristers, registrars, lawyers, politicians, banksters, big business representatives, media moguls and other lackeys who, all together, put up a wall of silence despite our trying many, many avenues. After the family home was stolen and business destroyed we were left close to poverty and destitution caring for 4 young daughters. Three years later not much has changed regardless of all our efforts. Where were all the followers of all the religions to help us? Or do we have to be members of those religions to receive help from others involved in them?

The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies accused us of being anti - Jewish, see: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 and http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 because we had posted an excerpt from James von Brun's book: Kill the Best Gentiles: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 in which he blames Jews for the problems of the world. Obviously this is not our view because of what we have stated above. We do not hate anyone, whatever religion they follow. We are always open to talk to any religious leader or politician and meet with any judge, member of the Bar, experts, academics, educators etc to share the remedy we offer that heals all the divisions between MAN and MAN, and MAN and the EARTH.

Today, a representative of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies is threatening to close the website down, because they have decided it is anti - Jewish and that we promote racism. What has the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies done to end the suffering in the world? Can they show that they are concerned with the suffering of ALL men, women and children AND ARE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT or are they only concerned with Jewish affairs? If so, they, along with all the other religions that only care for their own, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The man who rang Arthur today was only concerned with Jewish affairs; he was not interested in our intentions or in anybody else, just as most Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, etc, are only interested in their own. While we separate ourselves into groups, dividing ourselves from others with rules, regulations, rituals, procedures and conditions, we will never solve our problems.

No matter what we in the Western World Civilisation of Commerce have been promised by our politicians, religious leaders, scientists, educators, philosophers, etc, for the past two hundred years, all we have seen is ever-increasing destruction of men, women and children and the earth. None of the so-called experts and leaders we have been taught to rely on are coming up with a solution and none of them are taking full-responsibility for the fact that they can't handle the problem. All religious books talk about end times full of destruction and suffering but why do we have to follow this program when there is an alternative to hatred, mayhem and death? Why are our leaders following the program of destruction and death rather than exploring the alternatives? It seems that any mainstream politician, priest or academic are only interested in supporting the RULES OF THE DIVIDE, that maintain the haves and the have nots. For 200+ years, 99% of the world population have been so trained to pass on their responsibility for themselves, others and the earth, that the 1% of the population that make up the leaders of the rest of us are making all the decisions leading to the destruction of all of us and the earth. Let's not forget the education system that brainwashes the 99% of the population that we are free and have equal rights while, in fact, we are feathering the nests of those at the top.

At the root of all our problems is self-centredness, an unwillingness nurtured by the Establishment that keeps us concerned only with our own needs rather than the needs of others around us and the Earth. Instead of creating and releasing acts of love for those around us as gifts to benefit them and the earth, we take, take and take, until there is nothing left. The whole point of the Love for Life website is to show people the root of all our problems and to share the remedy. The extensive research library is there to attract browsers and to provide access to information not available through mainstream channels. If the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies can, after careful examination of our work, prove that anything we are saying is wrong, we will be happy to accept their proof. If they cannot, and they are still insistent on closing the website down, they will be showing themselves to be traitors to MAN because they are not interested in pursuing any avenue that can end the suffering in the world.

All religions, corporations and organisations that support and maintain the Western World Civilisation of Commerce are part of the problem because our civilisation is a world of haves and have nots, racism, violence, hatred, poverty, sickness, discrimination, abuse, starvation, homelessness, corruption, collusion, vindictiveness, social unrest, arrogance, ignorance, fear, war and chaos. While we support civilisation, we support death and destruction because ALL civilisations that have ever existed are apocalyptic by design.

If we truly want peace on earth and freedom for all, we have to let go of all that which keeps us divided, and come together as MAN, conscious living co-creators of creation. The Love For Life website offers a remedy to the problems we all face in the form of DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 For more details see here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6511 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - We also highly recommend that everyone read the brilliant Russian books called The Ringing Cedars: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 - The Love For Life Website Homepage also provides lots of inspiring remedy based information: http://loveforlife.com.au - If you want to be kept up to date with our work please register to the Love For Life Mailing List here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list. We usually send two postings per month. Presently (September 2011) there are over 7000 registrations reaching over 500,000 readers across Earth. The website now (September 2011) receives up to 12 million hits per month. Since December 2006, over 100 million people have visited the Love For Life website.

Conscious Love Always
Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th June 2009

The Cristian Family November 2006

Clarification Regarding Our Intentions
Behind The Use Of Donations

The Love For Life website is offered for free without a fee and without any conditions attached. If people are inspired to donate money, then we accept their gift and have provided an avenue for them to support the work we do through Fiona's Paypal or ANZ bank account http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8515. There is no obligation whatsoever to donate and all are equally welcome to our work and to our "time", whether they donate or not. Over the last 9 years, all the Love For Life work has been put out for free and it has often been donations from supporters that have enabled us to renew the domain name, etc, to keep the website going. While some complain that we have an avenue for donations, others complained when we didn't! Either use it or don't - the choice is yours.

Since Love For Life started March 2005 and website December 2006, Arthur has worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week unpaid for much of this period, putting together the website and sharing insights to wake people up to what has been done to them, whether through the 11,500+ individual articles, videos, podcasts, debates, discussions, pdf's, research documents, etc, found amongst the 8,500+ posts, as well as helping many, many men and women over the phone, and through email, website correspondence, Facebook and YouTube, and creating the Love For Life food forest vege garden and Love For Life music recording studio. This is our life is a gift commitment to serve MAN/Nature/Earth but we are still severely compromised by "The System" and still have to give to Caesar what is claimed to belong to Caesar, which is where the donations help us.

Fiona & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
21st July 2014