could not set sessions vars
239 /home/abuco/ABU_SHOP/WWW_LIB/functions/shopping/std_cart.php

Close X
Please select a star rating, add your review and submit.
*Your Name
*Your Email
Select a Star Rating
Add Your Comments
If you find any of the following information helpful, please link to this article using of the following code:
<a href="" title="Radiation Refuge">Radiation Refuge</a>
Visitors Rating:  
Number Reviews: 1
Read Reviews Write a Review

Ones rights, inherent and complete at birth, can never be forcibly removed from anyone. At best, the thugs (some say 'powers') that be MUST attain your consent to remove your rights from you

Ones rights inherent and complete at birth can never be forcibly removed from anyone

Man and Woman is NOT subject to man made laws

Every Man is independent of ALL LAWS except those prescribed by nature. He is NOT bound by any institution formed by his fellow Men WITHOUT his consent. Cruden V  Neale ZNC 338 May Term 1796

Re:  The (Perceived) erosion of the rights of the peoples of Australia and the world in general over an extended period of time (many generations), the following can and must be said;

1. One's rights, inherent and complete at birth, can never be forcibly removed from anyone. At best, the thugs (some say 'powers') that be MUST attain your consent to remove your rights from you.

Some claim that people no longer have rights or that they retain only limited rights. If the claimant believe this, then by their own admission the circumstances they complain of is brought about by their own capitulation and negligence in standing to protect the very rights they claim are removed.

2. Inherent rights (superior is 'dominion') are perpetual. All individuals that claim and exercise their rights HAVE THEM!

3.  The reason one's rights can ONLY be LAWFULLY removed is by mutual consent of the parties. Anything else (by the barrel of a gun) is unlawful because it is done WITHOUT the victim's consent and is therefore compelled performance.

4. People regularly VOLUNTARILY permit their rights to be eroded or even given away freely, unconsciously and without knowing it!
This is accomplished when individuals fail, refuse or neglect to answer or rebut a claim, presumption, assumption or offer. By such failure to answer or rebuttals, one's silence is regarded and assumed as one's ASSENT and agreement to give up one's rights.

Where is the evidence to sustain the claims/offers/statements/presentments above?

To identify solutions one must first always ask the right questions.

What law prevails?

As any good book on the subject of 'law' will disclose, there are three prevailing branches of law, actually two plus one 'color' of law.

These are:

Equity Law - (fairness, justice, equitable)
Common Law - (case law precedent over prolonged time - man made law) and
Statute - (machinery of gov - lawyers bills that are assented by gov executives)

Space and time don't permit more thorough clarification and investigation of each group. Suffice to say Equity Law is part of Contract Law, equity being one of the chief components describing a 'contract'.

Recognised Source of authority?

Queensland: Judiciary Act 1876 S5 (11) ‘Generally in all matters not hereinbefore particularly mentioned in which there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter the rules of equity shall prevail’

This same statement is within the Supreme Court Rules of every other state of Australia

So EQUITY, a part of CONTRACT Law prevails! Why does the statement not say '... any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the statute with reference to the same matter the rules of equity shall prevail’?

Statute is NOT a law! It is simply 'color' of law that apply to 'color' of people, being 'persons', citizens', 'residents', 'drivers', 'tax payers', 'rates payers' or any other title and hence legal fiction, = dead things!  It doe NOT apply to men and women PERIOD!

Since people subvert their status to a 'person' and therefore subject to statute, by claiming they are the name on a Birth Certificate and therefore are compelled to 'obey' the 'law' (color of law) = statutes.
If folks do not claim to 'be' the name on a Birth Certificate but rightly state the name on the Birth Certificate (or any other gov ID) is and 'agent in commerce', then they retain their status as a man or woman. The consequences of this issue of 'diversity' between the living (man or woman) and the dead (legal name) is paramount and implicates one's life in all areas.

Imagine NOT being subject to statute! Isn't that peace of mind?
People complain when new 'rules' = statutes are announced and implemented.

People today complain about:

- Patriots Act - giving the gov authority to detain and arrest anybody at anytime. Being an 'Act' consisting of statutes, it can ONLY be used to detain and arrest 'persons' or 'dead things'. It does NOT and can NEVER apply to a man or woman.

- Elimination of 'FEE SIMPLE' title. If one accepts the contention that FEE SIMPLE TITLE has been removed, then the offer by such claim was accepted by you, the accepter, hence forming an agreement (like a contract). IF however, one does NOT accept the offer that FEE SIMPLE TITLE has been removed by statute, then any title you have in your possession RETAINS the FEE SIMPLE  status. NO-ONE can remove such title WITHOUT first attaining the Queen's or Your CONSENT. Fee Simple title was instituted by the Queen to protect the title holder of their equitable rights. No THIRD PARTY can remove it without your consent! Is this concept of Equity = Contract Law prevailing becoming clear, as well as the implications of this concept?

- Legislation - statutes arising that COMPEL persons (but NOT men and women) to be vaccinated, fluoridated, bombed with chemtrail particulates, etc etc. GET IT! Your rights have NEVER been removed. ONLY the rights of persons, citizens, residents, tax & rates payers, drivers etc

- Statutes that state/claim/offer a 'student' or 'child' must be vaxxinated prior to attending school. Again, if one complains about such fictional color of laws, then one assents and agrees to it and validates the statute to apply to themselves. If one says 'NOT for me', or 'sign this statement, Mr Health Minister, confessing you accept liability for all effects of vaccination on my son or daughter, including sickness, ill health, posioning, manslaughter, autism, murder and genocide'. The Health Minister will reply to you stating your child need not be vaccinated and to take the letter with you to the school so as to permit the child's attendance at school. While we;re on that subject do you really want to send your children to a dumbing down institution?

There is NOT ONE statute on the whole earth that discloses within the Act, Statute or Code the word 'man' or 'woman'. Therefore you have retained ALL YOUR RIGHTS INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM, TRAVEL, PEACE, HOUSING, CLEAN FOOD AND WATER ETC

So if you observe some legislation that is detrimental to the rights of society you TAKE BOLD ACTION and write to the Minister and STEAK YOUR CLAIM that it doesn't apply to you, and if they claim it does, PROVIDE EVIDENCE IMMEDIATELY and accept personal liability for the effects of the legislation. You will never be compelled to COMPLY when they fail to provide evidence that any legislation applies to you.

Does this give the reader some peace of mind?

Best Regards

Mark P