There is a big contention today about what is really law for you and I to follow. Here is an article and my comment that might clear some of this up.
A teaser from the article:
For if you have a right to something, then by definition you do not require permission to exercise that right. And more – the state (organized force) has no standing – under natural law – to use force to limit the exercise of that right in any way whatsoever. But the reverse is just as true. By having conceded that you need to beg permission, you become party to a binding legal contract – whether you see it that way or not is immaterial.
And my comment is as follows:
Maybe, but here is the caveat.
The "binding legal contract" is null and void because it was unilateral, and done by fraud and deception, threat, duress, intimidation and coercion. In other words there is no contract and the right stands. In other words, they threaten you if you don't opt to buy into the contract, and in the eyes of the creator of those rights, nobody has the right to threaten anyone into a contract, and the fact that they are applying force and threat NULLIFIES THE CONTRACT ITSELF ON THE FACE OF IT. THERE IS NO CONTRACT when it is unilateral. A person so threatened is allowed under natural law to feign compliance to avoid the threat, and then exercise the right as if there is NO contract. So one can get a concealed carry permit, even though in the eyes of God you have the absolute right to defend yourself without it. You can exercise the right to carry regardless of their Non Laws, as if they didn't exist, even though you have feigned compliance, knowing all along that before God you are NOT complying with their so called "law" because it is not law at all.
Then there is the principle that unconstitutional "laws" are null and void from their inception.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. " An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton Vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
The higher laws always prevail when there is a conflict between them. There never will be a conflict between positive divine law, and natural law. They are.
1. Positive Divine Law
2. Natural Law
3. Human law notice it is on the bottom and the least of all law. This includes all civil and criminal "laws" and even cannon law.
Whenever there is a conflict between any of these, the higher laws are always to prevail in God's eyes and they do.
I remind you of Patrick Henry's famous quote:
"It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. ... Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things, which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. ... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
There are many ways to exercise liberty, and some want to be at liberty from God's laws also.
That is nothing but slavery, for if we want to free ourselves from God's laws, we then place ourselves into slavery to Satan.
The only question is the risk factor of disobeying what corrupt judges regard as law. Many of the so called laws are there for nothing more than to create crimes without victims to raise money for the system, fleecing the public because they won't study or take a stand. But there are some issues that are not worth the effort, time and money to fight. One I can think of is the "drivers license". If you hold that you should go about without one because it would be an abrogation of principle and entering into a contract, then you open yourself up to a fight you can't win and it stops you from fighting something far more important. The same applies to concealed carry and a whole host of other issues. It does me no harm to feign to comply with their non law about concealed carry, not here in the civil law situation, or in the moral law before God almighty.
It's a non law. I know that, God knows that, but the stupid judges who are corrupt and want the money insist that "IT'S THE LAW" so I choose to feign compliance without conceding that it's the law.
I have done this many times on my income tax returns. I have stamped them over the signature.
" Explicitly Reserving all Rights Without Prejudice" and UCC 1-207 or 1-308 or both. Look them up. In effect you have nullified the so called "contract" without effecting any right coming from God, or effecting any other issues in human law. Regarding the instant right you are dealing with, there is no issue because in their eyes you have complied.
Live to fight another day, and to fight the really important issues, WHEN YOU CHOOSE and on your terms rather than their terms and in their corrupt courts.
You will get your chance to prove your metal soon enough, and it will be your life at stake instead of some trumped up charge for some victim less so called "crime".
For further information read my article on "When is it time to fight?" here:
One more thing that is of the utmost importance.
Your jury rights are your most powerful rights. Instead of trying to avoid jury duty, you should be trying to get on every jury you can. That will give you ample opportunity to educate your fellow jurors about their right to nullify bad "laws". It will also get you into a position where you can (all by yourself without another person) nullify bad law by hanging the jury (refusing to apply the so called "law" to the case you are on).
If you don't believe me take a look at this.
LEGAL NOTICE: The Authors specifically invoke the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, without prejudice, on this website. The information posted on this website is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this website may be reproduced unless by written consent. You hereby have written consent to post any individual post on this website containing this copyright to any other blog or email only if you post the whole and unaltered article including this copyright, and give proper credit to the author, and a link back to this blog at http://www.paulstramer.net/. This applies only to articles written by Paul Stramer. ©2005-2009 by Montana Business Communications (PDS) All rights remain in force. Removing this notice forfeits all rights to recourse. Copyright strictly enforced ©
New Human New Earth Communities
Connecting the Dots
Solutions - Actions - Remedy.
Vital Information You Can Apply.
Support Our Research Efforts Subscribe!
Monthly Support Options or One Time Donation.
Did you find this information helpful? Please show your appreciation with a donation.
One Time Donation
You Choose the Amount
Questions for Anna?
Please direct all comments to Anna Von Rietz at
and sign up for Anna's email alerts