Page 1 of 12 Newsletter Title
August 2008
Volume 1, Issue 3 Flora
Apologies & Thank you
First, let me make my
apologies. It has been a
long time since my last
newsletter.
The talks on the Brigalow
Corporation, myself and
others in the Envirowild
Team have held in QLD,
have been so successful,
with the information going
out to so many people,
that we were
overwhelmed with people
Articles:
sending us DVD’s, their
own research notes,
emails for further
• What is Common Law?
information, phone calls,
• What Governs comments, questions and
Common Law? so on.
Combine that with
• Where does Common
continuing to follow up on
Law come from?
the original research,
• Magna Carta 1215 personal & family matters
and I ran out of time. I
• Bill of Rights 1689 simply wore out for a
while.
• Habeus Corpus Act
1679 The other difficulty was
that much of the
• Maritime Law information we were sent
was so fascinating and so
• The Colour of Law in important that the
Australia research actually
expanded!
• What do we do about
it ? There are some amazing
people who have spent
many years investigating
the theft of our rights and I
am in awe of their
patience and
determination.
So, for anyone who rang
and who might not have
received a return phone
call – please accept my
1
apologies and try again.
I have tried to respond to
every email and call but I
know I missed some.
I currently use Skype, so if
you ring and miss me
please leave a landline,
not a mobile number and I
can ring you back without
any expense to either of
us.
If you have email info to
send, please give me
some details about
yourself, as I am very
cautious about responding
to an email without
knowing who and why it
was sent.
We have received some
very interesting ideas, but
with absolutely no details
of who sent it and I just
cannot reply without
worrying about putting my
computer in jeopardy.
To date, my newsletter
goes out to approx 250
addresses, and I know
that many of them share it
around, print off as many
as 100 copies and pass
them on through meetings
and market stands!
Those people get my
great thanks and
appreciation for their help.
And each day another
person requests a copy to
be sent.
Remember, any
information, unless it
specifically says not to, is
available to be passed
onto others.
Most importantly, please
keep asking questions,
keep stirring up your local
pollies, keep demanding
the return of your rights –
because if YOU don’t,
then no one will.
One of the greatest crimes
of humanity is to see
where a fellow man is
being destroyed and do
nothing about it out of fear
that we will be next.
Because, in truth, if we do
nothing, we WILL be next.
American’s shout
“Remember the Alamo!”
Australians are saying
“We need another
Eureka!”
And one of the greatest
quotes in the world is -
“the pen is mightier than
the sword!”
The governments that
now reign and rule in
Australia, are committed
to removing all your rights
and ultimately enslaving
us in a web of laws,
regulations and public
servant/little hitler control.
Let’s not help them by
hiding in fear.
Let’s not help them by
ignoring the freedom
messages.
Let’s take a stand!
Page
     2 of 12 Newsletter Title
What is Common Law ?
Historically, Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon people of England, but it was well known throughout
the tribes of Europe..
Common Law was the law for the free women and men living on the land. It existed, and controlled and ruled
the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered
Anglo-Saxon England.
In it was the Golden Rule that in the negative form reads: Do not unto others as you would not have others do
unto you.
The positive form, Do unto other as you would have others do unto you deals with Social Justice.
Under Common Law, it is illegal to deprive anyone of his inalienable Rights (“inalienable” means
is illegal to deprive anyone of his inalienable Rights (“inalienable” means"can not be given or taken away").
There is a Legal Maxim that says, "Rights never die", and the first Right of a Free man is the Right to Trial by
Jury.

What Governs Common Law ?

The Biblical expression of the concept of common law can be found at Matthew 22:37-40 - Jesus said unto
him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is
the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
That is a profound request and whether or not we are believers in God, that request is at the heart of all
manner of human rights, can only create human peace, would prevent abuse in families and workplaces,
would give man back his right to live his life in harmony with other souls.
Yet, how can people pretend they live at the common law when they have hired benefactors to take away their
neighbors' goods for their personal benefit?
Other ways of understanding common law is are:
- Women and men have the right to do anything they WILL to do so long as they do not infringe upon the
similar rights of any other woman or man.
-Your freedom ends where my nose begins.
-Show the evidence that I have caused harm to another and then the law gives you the jurisdiction to proceed
within the law against me (this is similar to the old latin phrase habeas corpus or show the body).

So to answer the question – What Governs Common Law?

You do. Each and every individual must use their freely God-given will to ensure that they treat their fellow
man with respect and love.

Where does Common Law come from ?

It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern
Germany "already have the law".

It is suspected that early Phoenician or Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before
Christ Some sources report that Joseph of Arimathea who paid for the burial of Jesus (Greek) a.k.a. Yeshuah
(Hebrew) sailed on a tin trading ship from Israel to Glastonbury in Britain and ministered the law and gospel
to the Celtic people who lived there, and with their help established the first Christian congregation and
church in what later became England.

This ministry in Britain by Joseph happened in the first century A.D., centuries before the formation of the
Roman Catholic Church.

It has been said…

If you want your God-given rights back, take back your God-given responsibilities.
You cannot abandon one and still demand that you have the other

2
Page 3 of 12
Magna Carta 1215 – The Great Charter
King John of England was crowned in the early
13th century.
He needed money for armies, but war losses,
greatly reduced the state income, and a huge tax
would have to be raised in order to attempt to
reclaim these territories. Yet, it was difficult to
raise taxes because of the tradition of keeping
them at the same level.
John relied on clever manipulation of pre-
existing rights which were easily broken and
severely punished. He increased the pre-existing
scutage (feudal payment to an overlord replacing
direct military service) 11 times in his 17 years
as king, as compared to 11 times in twice that
period covering 3 monarchs before him. The last
2 of these increases were double the increase of
their predecessors. He also imposed the first
income tax, which raised what was, at the time,
the extortionate sum of £70,000.
By 1215, some of the most important barons in
England had had enough, and they entered
London in force on June 10, 1215, with the city
showing its sympathy with their cause by
opening its gates to them. They, and many of the
moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King
John to agree to the "Articles of the Barons", to
which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow
at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. In return, the
barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John
on June 19, 1215. A formal document to record
the agreement was created by the royal chancery
on July 15: this was the original Magna Carta.
Although enforced over the King by the Barons,
the 62 clauses protected Common Law rights for
every tier of English society and this document
was truly for the sovereign men and women
throughout Britain.
Simply put it dealt with
• A free English church and freeman rights
forever.
• Protection of inheritance.
• Protection for widows.
• No more seizure of land to pay a debt.
• No usury for borrowing from money
3
Newsletter Title
lenders.
• Cities will keep all their ancient liberties &
customs.
• The right to a Common Law court.
• All trials to have a jury of peers.
• A freeman & a villein shall not lose his
tools of trade to pay a debt.
• No bailiff can take food from another, but
must pay; must not take another’s horse or
cart; must not take another’s wood.
• One measure of weight & length to be used
in the land.
• To be accused there must be witnesses.
• No man can be punished except by the
judgment of his peers & the law of the land.
• No one will sell, refuse or delay, right &
justice.
• All merchants may trade & travel.
• All judiciary to know the law of the
land & honour it.
• All unjust fines to be returned.
• All land illegally removed to be
returned.
• … that the men in our kingdom have
and hold all the aforesaid liberties,
rights, and concessions, well and
peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and
wholly, for themselves and their heirs,
of us and our heirs, in all respects and
in all places forever, as is aforesaid
Do we still have these rights in place?
Aren’t these the very things that are being
removed from us now?
Yet the English Monarchy were sworn to
protect these rights with their lives!
Page 4 of 12 Newsletter Title

Bill of Rights 1689

After defeating James II in 5 November 1688 and before they were affirmed as co-rulers of England
and Ireland, William of Orange & Mary accepted a Declaration of Right on 13 February 1689. They
were then crowned as joint monarchs in April 1689. The Declaration of Right was later embodied in
an Act of Parliament, now known as the Bill of Rights, on 16 December 1689.
The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 are:
• All Englishmen (embodied by parliament) had certain immutable civil and political rights
including:
o The King was forbidden to create his own courts or act as judge in order to interfere
with laws
o Royal taxation without agreement by Parliament was forbidden.

o freedom to petition the Monarch

o freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament

o freedom [for Protestants] to have arms for their defence, suitable to their class status
and as allowed by law
o freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign

o the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be

questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern
parliamentary privilege)
o freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail

o freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial

NOTE: It is very important to note that while this document is still in use in many countries,
the Australian government have stated clearly that the Bill of Rights 1688 is no longer relevant
to Australian law. Yet Federal Government used it as late as 1995 to protect any government
minister from being impeached for anything that is said on the floor of Parliament. This was
well after their original statements that it was no longer relevant in Australia.

Senior Citizens Are Valuable:

We are more valuable than any
of the younger generations:
We have silver in our hair.
We have gold in our teeth.
We have stones in our kidneys.
We have lead in our feet and.
We are loaded with natural gas!

Thanks to the Governor for thisgem!

4
Page 5 of 12 Newsletter Title
Habeus Corpus 1679

This is an Act of the Parliament of England passed during the reign of King Charles II to define and strengthen
the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, whereby persons unlawfully detained can be ordered to be
prosecuted before a court of law. Its long name is An Act for the better securing the Liberty of the
Subject, and for Prevention of Imprisonment beyond the Seas

Her Majesty’s Government Coat of

Coat of Arms of Australia
Arms

Maritime Law

Eleanor of Aquitaine, acting as regent for her son,
King Richard the Lionheart, established
Admiralty/Maritime law in England
In England, special admiralty courts handle all
admiralty cases. These courts do not use the common
law of England, but are civil law courts largely based
upon Roman Law.
Littered throughout Law is the concept of
"reasonable belief" (when detaining people or
property) which is based on admiralty law, the law of
the sea where the captain of a ship only needed
reason to believe that his ship was in danger by those
under his command to order that certain things be
done to protect it's commercial goods and goals.
can be charged and sued for negligence. Suing is a
function of the corporate world.
No longer does there need to be an existing flesh and
blood injured party anymore to file a criminal affidavit
to initiate criminal proceedings, just the breaching of a
statute, a de facto corporate statute (breaching the
peace), a by-law or regulation, where the 'injured
party' is the state, or corporate entity.
Today in our law courts, all Commercial contracts that
private parties enter into with each other that are under
Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty:
The reason is the beneficial use and re-circulation of
Federal Reserve Notes makes the federal government
an automatic silent third party to the arrangements.

Everything in admiralty works backwards from due
process common law. Guilty before being proven
innocent.
In Common Law, crimes can only occur if there is
there has been physical damage to someone or to
property, AND if there was intent to hurt someone.
Accidents and "negligence" are not crimes. But we
5
Admiralty jurisdiction has in many respects, “come
ashore”. It currently affects almost every element of
our inland commercial society. Today’s practice of
Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction is found on
the navigable rivers of the United States, as well as
world-wide off-shore oil drilling activity. Admiralty
jurisdiction rules are used to settle claims and
grievances regarding cargo, international conventions,
financing, banking, insurance, legislation, navigation,
Page 6 of 12 Newsletter Title

hazardous substances from nuclear power plants, stevedoring (the unloading of a vessel at a port), and
undersea mining and development, the navigable rivers of the United States, as well as world-wide off-shore
oil drilling activity. Admiralty jurisdiction rules are used to settle claims and grievances regarding cargo,
international conventions, financing, banking, insurance, legislation, navigation, hazardous substances from
nuclear power plants, stevedoring (the unloading of a vessel at a port), and undersea mining and development.

The reason why Admiralty jurisdiction is of concern to us is because our government is using jurisdiction
attachment rules applicable to an Admiralty jurisdictional environment to on land based citizens where
Admiralty jurisdiction does not correctly belong.

The only ordinary land based people who should properly be under the government’s in personam Admiralty
jurisdiction are government employees (federal and state), military service personnel, and those who
specifically contract into Admiralty Jurisdiction (such as employees working for a Defense contractor with a
security clearance, and private contractors hired by government to perform law enforcement related work).

So where does this find Australians when it comes to law?

The Colour of Law in Australia

Every Common Law country has been battling
the ever increasing surge of Government
regulations, which have been removing our
ownership rights, personal & civil liberties,
rights of free speech and free will choice, that has
been a key feature of our common law rights as
men and women.
Why?
So, we were manipulated subtly but surely to
agree to contract ourselves to that debt.
How?
By our voluntary agreement to register ourselves
as assets, firstly of the government of Australia,
then more securely under the corporate
government of Australia.

Money. Registering what –

• Our children at birth – for which we are
After the great wars, most countries were made paid a fee (family allowance) to
bankrupt. Australia in 1932. Our country was recognize our role as guardians.
already in massive debt to the international • Starting a bank account
bankers, based in the City of London (a 1 mile • Driver’s licence
square in the centre of London dominated by • Tax file number
banking, insurance companies, trading • Electoral role
companies and the like) – as they had funded
• Marriage certificate
much of the original early colonisation growth.
• Trade licences
The deal was that Australia could continue to • Torrens Title land registration
borrow – without having to ever repay the • Etc, etc
principal – as long as the government met the
interest repayments. At birth, each child is worth $1 million to the
government – the birth certificate is printed on
To to do that they needed assets and the labour of bond paper.
the Australian people was the only asset that
could produce money. At all stages of registration, your value increases
allowing more borrowings.
Yet, we were free will people with the right to
choose whether we would pay off a debt that was In many US state documents, the state is not only
not of our making. listed as a third party to every marriage but as the
6 primary party.
Page 7 of 12 Newsletter Title

This voluntary and ongoing registration enters each of us in a situation where we became contracted to the
government and are “forced” to obey laws that would not apply under Common Law.

Therefore we become subject to speeding fines parking fines, rates, dog registration, child innoculations, etc
and when we protest, we enter the courts as guilty people having to prove their innocence.

Where is our Common Law?

Oh, it is still there, but as we are no longer Common Law people, having voluntarily given ourselves to the
corporation as a chattel, we cannot access it.

And because we still appear to have a Constitution, we can still get a jury trial for murder, we can still appear
to have a Monarch guarding us, we THINK we still have access to our long history of rights, when in fact we
do not.

We have what is called the Colour of Law. Looks right, but is overlaid with something completely different.

And because the only legitimate money in the world is gold and silver, which government took away from us
during the wars, we can only buy and sell with pretend money / fiat money, which ultimately means we have
not really paid for anything properly.

Are we the true parents of our children any more? No, we simply mind them for the government, which is
why they can step in and take them off us.

Do we truly own our cars? No, the manufacturer’s deed of production is held by government, we simply get
to “rent” them yearly.

Do we truly own our land? No, we hold the paper title, but the government holds the primary title through our
registering our land under Torrens title.

And Mr Kerry Shine, Minister for Justice and Member for Toowoomba in QLD stated that in a reply to a
letter from a constituent, published in the Toowoomba Chronicle August 11, when he said “Finally, in
relation to Mr Patch's third enquiry (TC 25/07), Common Law land rights have not applied to Queensland
freehold land since the introduction of the Torrens Land Title system in 1861 or the leasehold lands which are
governed by the Lands Act 1994. The "Brigalow Corporation" simply administers land pursuant to this Act.
This system functions effectively to protect the interest of private landholders in Queensland.”

This explains why we cannot get Common Law relief in a court of law, why we are constantly told the Bill of
Rights does not apply, why we have our home taken from us, when this is against common law, why
government authorities think they can trespass freely on our land and in our homes.

Here is a Comparison of Common Law vs Civil Law.

Lawful De jure government ...... ..... ……………………………………….………....De facto government

God's Law / Common Law..... ................................................................Admiralty (law of the sea - corporate)
Sovereign authority(people)..................... .........................................................Artificial entities (corporations)
God-given Rights.......... .........................Privileges + civil, natural and political rights (ie: no protected rights)
Unalienable Rights under God........................ ........................................Inalienable civil rights (not protected)
Claim of Right................................... .............................................................................................Color of right
Ownership with fee simple title or contract................................... .............Color of right to possession by 'law'
Full liability for actions............... ............................Limited liability ponzi scheme (Social Insurance/Security)

7
Page 8 ofbased
Government 12 on sovereign authority..Corporate Newsletter Titlepower or pretended authority.
governments of defacto
Organic Constitution................ .........................................Corporate Military Constitution acting on the citizen
State statute that govern how officials uphold the law to protect our God-given rights... ……Federal and State
commercial code that we volunteer ourselves into.
Electors elect independant representatives......................... .......Voting in a two or more party corporate system
Inhabitants............ ......................citizens/residents/persons (corporate entities with diminished political status)
Births are recorded........................................................................ ....................Births are registered (certificate)
Sovereigns breaking God's law, Government officials braking lawful statute.. ..Breaching the peace (breaching
de facto gov.- straw man citizen statutory/commercial contract - basis of thought crime).
People are responsible for themselves and their own protection......... ......'citizens' want government to 'protect
them' on a personal basis
God-given right to own, keep and bear arms............... .......................................licensed privilege to have arms
Intent to hurt or damage is what determines unlawfulness...........accidents or 'negligence' is considered a crime
No conflict of interest in government (prosecutors were private).......... ........Corporate government pays salary
of judge, prosecutor and POLICE.
Courts are Constitutional.................... ...........................All courts are in equity (corporate) acting on corporate
straw men names!!!
Sheriffs and deputies (Citizens on Patrol:COPs).................. ...................... Peace officers (POLICE = POLICy
Enforcer).
Search warrants must be based on affirmation of a verified criminal complaint, based on probable cause by a
judge that a crime was committed and signed by a judge.... ......... Searches based on belief, warrant signed by
clerk only
First hand knowledge of an injured party crime...................... ..................."Probable cause" to believe a 'crime'
committed against corporate statute/by-laws (may or may not be an existing injured party).
It's all about the facts in evidence of violation of rights or harm.............. ............Charges based on allegation or
reason to believe
Habeas corpus can be presented to question nature and cause of charge/arrest/being held..... ….....No Habeas
Corpus
There is always an official court record................ ...................There is often not even an official court record.
Consent not needed to try................ .............. Understanding and consent of accused needed to be prosecuted.
No negotiable instruments................................. ........Informations and Warrants/Prisoner Bonds are negotiable
instruments.
Jury Nullification (juries try validity of the law, and the facts of case).............. ........Juries aren't instructed to
try the law.
Lawyer.................................................... .................................................................................Attorney at BAR.
Judge.................................................. .............................................................................................Quasi-judge.
Judicial................................................... .......................................................................................Quasi-judicial.
Lawsuit questioning law and facts........................ .................................................................."lawsuit" of facts.

And there is more.

8
Page 9 of 12 Newsletter Title
What do we do about it ?

This information explains why the High Court of Australia has been so reluctant to rule over
Fee Simple land ownership in recent cases presented to it.

Why courts constantly tell the defendants, “You are right, but you lose.”

Why our government state that we have given them a “Mandate” at the polling booth to
make laws we did not ask for.

Why they constantly tell us the Australian Constitution is “old hat”.

Why bank get to do what they want at our expense and misery.

Why magistrates tell the defendants, “I am not interested in your defence.”

Why we have 2 Queens in Australia – the one who approves the unconstitutional
Governors and Governor-Generals and the one we know as Elizabeth I.

Why Queensland has been able to claim ownership to every person’s home, land and other
possessions.

Why many government ministers, who were on charges of treason, completely ignored
them and ran for office in the last elections, including our illustrious Prime Minister and the
thinking man’s sex symbol Julia G!

Why the police in the US can tase their citizens without punishment – coming soon to our
shores.

Why immigrants are welcomed more than we are – because they bring large families
perhaps? And know nothing about common law, so don’t complain as well, I would bet.

1. We learn and we learn fast.

2. Google Honour Dishonour law, Commercial Redemption law, Contract law.

3. We use the government’s laws to protect ourselves first.

4. The answers are there.

5. Find an Honour Dishonour group and class in your area.

6. Help each other.

7. Watch out for each other. We are all we have.

8. Think twice about simply agreeing to do as the government tells you. Often it if bluff, and they want you to think
you have to obey, when in fact, you have a choice.

9. Ask them questions like “show me the law that gives you that right”.

10. Learn who you are as a Free Common Law man.

11. God gave us these rights – do you know Him at all? He is not who the media have told you he is and maybe
9
Page 10
afterof
this12 Newsletter
document you may understand why we are Title
told lies about Him.

Stop Press

Under Common Law, which normally governs murder, Dr Patel would undergo a Trial by Jury.

As I pointed out in the earlier parts of this newsletter, government have pushed Common Law
UNDER the Civil law that now governs our lives.

Common Law is now clearly being dismantled in QLD and has obviously gone in WA. Kerry Shine
is the Minister for Justice in QLD – whose justice should be the next question – because it certainly
is not justice for the families of those who were apparently murdered.

--------------------------------------------------
Patel may not have to face trial by jury August 19, 2008 12:00AM News.com.au
FORMER surgeon Jayant Patel could be one of the first defendants to have the option of a trial
heard by a judge but without a jury. (A Civil law case in other words)

Landmark legal changes will allow extremely complex cases or those involving an accused
considered too notorious to be tried by a jury to have a "judge only" trial. (In other words, we the
People can’t be trusted to get it right.)

The Queensland Government will also introduce "majority verdicts" for juries in all but the most
serious crimes, preventing a single juror from causing a hung jury. (A hung jury is still Common
Law justice. No jury is NOT)

The Government will fast-track the laws through State Parliament by introducing them next week
and debating them a fortnight later. (The QLD Govt gives their ministers 2 days to debate a new
law now.)

Premier Anna Bligh and Attorney-General Kerry Shine yesterday denied the laws were aimed at a
specific individual but acknowledged that several high-profile cases had prompted a rethink.

"Clearly there has been recent debate about the jury system here in Queensland arising out of a
couple of cases," Ms Bligh said. (Debate designed to persuade us juries don’t work!)

"While these amendments have not been designed with any particular case in mind, they will apply
to any case where an application is heard from the time that the amendments become law."

Mr Shine said the "judge only" trials would give defendants an "additional option" for having their
case heard. (Defendants are still safer with a jury – they will always lose something with a judge.)

The trials have been modelled on West Australian laws and will be able to take place only after an
application by the prosecution or defence.

Applications from the prosecution would require an accused's consent, but a judge would
have to assess the merits of either type of application. (What, the accused gets to veto the
Prosecution???)

………………………….14 charges including 3 of manslaughter, grievous bodily harm and fraud

………..(and the families don’t get a say under their ancient Common Law rights )

Chief Justice Paul de Jersey (Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia – defender of our
Constitution and Separation of Powers) welcomed the reforms. He said that in other Australian
jurisdictions, majority verdicts had not led to adverse consequences and they would overcome the
"intolerable prospect of retrials in situations where one intransigent juror had refused to do his or her

10
Page
duty in11 of 12 with the law". (Intransigent means
accordance Newsletter
these good Title
people would not compromise
justice for a verdict they could not believe in, propbably the verdict the judge was pushing for.)

Web Sites to help

…………………….. Shame QLD,Shame WA & Shame Chief Justice Paul de Jersey.

http://www.svpvril.com/co http://www.scribd.com/sea http://www.sweetliberty.or

mcivlaw.html rch/search?
Common Law & Civil Law query=presentation&com
mit=search&adult=0&unca
http://www.suijuris.net/ p=0
Sui Juris group Documents various
http://www.natural- http://www.ecclesia.org/for
person.ca/index.html um/forum.asp?
Natural Person FORUM_ID=18 Various
http://www.angelfire.com/ http://freedom-
az/sthurston/tom_hyland_ school.com/travel/
story.html Travel
Tom Hyland Story
http://freedom-
http://www.duhaime.org/L school.com/
egalResources/Contracts. Mary Elizabeth:Croft
aspx Contract info
http://www.detaxcanada.o
http://www.tapesite.com/in rg/index.htm
dex10.htm The Banker Detax Canada
http://www.worldslaves.cit http://www.citizensofthea
ymax.com/page/page/195 mericanconstitution.org/ho
600.htm World slaves mepage.htm
Citizens of the American
http://stores.lulu.com/Thin Constitution
kFREE Robert: Menard
http://www.buildfreedom.c
http://realityzone.stores.ya om/what/interview.html
hoo.net/freedom.html Build Freedom
Freedom Issues
http://www.detaxcanada.o
rg/cmlawintro.htm
Eldon G Warmen
g/index.shtml
Jackie Patru
http://www.wtv-
zone.com/Mary/BIGGEST
SCAMINHISTORY.HTML
Reserve Bank Scam
http://nomoretyranny.org/i
ndex.html
Reclaim your Sovereignty
http://db.georgegordon.co
m/index_by_title.php
Dr George Gordon
http://www.stewards.us/ho
me.htm
Hage Family
http://www.members.west
net.com.au/unrealneil/
Australia, the Concealed
Colony
http://www.toolsforfreedo
m.com/
Tools for Freedom
http://www.geocities.com/
CapitolHill/Lobby/5804/
I’ve Still got My Guns

Editor: Sue Maynes

BHITW: Sam Maynes

“Berkeley”
Flora
Woodstock NSW 2793
Without
PHONE:
02 63451254 Prejudice
UCC 1-207
E-MAIL:
11
sue.maynes@bigpond.com
 Interesting End Thoughts
The Right to Free Travel: The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right
to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using
ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people,
because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The
driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade,
commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use
extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the
highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his
property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere
privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has
under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added]
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Tax or no Tax: It would appear that taxes can only be claimed on the PROFIT of
a man’s wage. As your wage does not generate a profit unless you take part of it,
purchase something, such as an investment, then on sell it, thereby making a profit –
how then is our wage taxed? Well, the earliest form of wage earning was daily pay
for daily work – remember, give me my daily bread? Finish the day, get paid, return
the next day, finish that day, get paid. No profit involved, therefore no tax
whatsoever. Now,we loan the boss our week’s wage. We get paid weekly, or
fortnightly, therefore the tax department can conclude that each day is a profit on
the one before. And so tax us.
. I made it (America: Freedom to Fascism) because the I.R.S. is putting people in jail
for now reason, no law. I discovered that there is no law. In 1894 the Congress tried
to pass a law, but the Supreme Court shot it down. In 1916 the Supreme Court and in
eight subsequent decisions said that the U.S. government did not have the authority
to tax the labour of the people. Income as a corporate gain is taxable; it doesn't
mean your labour is taxable. Each person owns their own life, and their own labour."
* Aaron Russo

Or do they. If we are corporate assets, is our wage now a corporate gain?

The Rightful Order: God the Creator

Man the Created
Government, Banks, Corporations, etc – the made.
How come the made gets to tell the makers how to live their lives?
Because we let them. Stop it. Now.