… and set himself ablaze on the steps of the Keene, New Hampshire courthouse. This is not unique in regards to this ongoing national Fathers’ Rights problem, which plagues us all.
It is estimated that throughout the United States, that 24,000 men a year, commit suicide in this nation directly due to the unconstitutional acts and/or omissions and denial of basic human rights applied by our courts.[FN1] On any given day, it is estimated that 250,000 to 400,000 men are falsely and unlawfully placed into debtor’s prisons.[FN2] This is accomplished so that the state can both further enslave those men, and directly profit by and through their unconstitutional incarceration.[FN3]
Indeed, a national Apartheid is being implemented against men in this nation.[FN4] And what Thomas Ball’s pyrrhic act proves—is that finally—we must stand up and do something about it. The time for polite and excusable rhetoric is over. When men commit such an act which is so outrageous and egregious, that it compels us all to recognize that the time has come that we actually must now act…and do something…anything…in which to stop this anti-law madness.
We have a well-defined domestic enemy which now inhabits not only our government, but also our own court systems. They are implementing and maintaining a foreign unlawful and unconstitutional set of laws, which directly extends out from Soviet Article 81 Constitutional model foreign law[FN5] throughout the courts in the several states and federal government. Not only is there no relief within these ultra vires courts—there is the direct treason of implementing alien and illegal foreign law,[FN6] which factually has destroyed men and their families in this country. These courts incipient design is to overturn the natural human rights and liberties of men, and to destroy men as a specific goal in overturning the freedoms and rights of the American civilization. Simply put: it is these courts which are alien Domestic Enemy courts, which have damaged this nation to such an extent, that men are routinely committing suicide as an expression and social toll of state condoned oppression and injustice. Men now routinely see suicide as their only legal remedy to confront these diseased court systems.
Just before his death, Thomas Ball took the time to write an intelligent fifteen page “Last Statement” which he formally mailed to the Keene New Hampshire Sentinel. This document exposes the inner workings of a very intelligent, driven, and insightful man, cataloguing the reasons which supported his act. His eloquence was elucidated by both his words, and in his last act of self-immolation.
My own analysis has reflected Balls’ insights which he reduced to writing. Please note that when he states: “Any one swept up into legal mess is usually astonished at what they see. They cannot believe what the police, prosecutors and judges are doing. It is so blatantly wrong. Well, I can assure you that everything they do is logical and by the[ir] book. The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books-the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols.”
His insights are totally correct…
In this one short paragraph, Mr. Ball not only identifies, but nails the problem facing all men within America. Simply put: the government is acting in direct treason by changing the form of government by changing the laws of government—and by implementing and following an unconstitutional set of ‘new laws,’ which are not American. These ‘new laws’ directly overturn and place an alien foreign governments laws over established American jurisprudence, thereby overturning the natural and constitutional rights of man.
As we can see, Mr. Ball clearly sees that two laws are being implemented by and through the treason being implemented by all three branches of government supporting these illegal Soviet Article 81 Family Courts. These two set of laws are so disparate, as to cause all of the maladies we are now suffering through our society. These contemporary problems we now face, are directly attributable to this Apartheid being enforced against men. Simply put, this Soviet law mindset which these courts have treasonously enforced against men, is the direct causal factor for our national diminution of our manufacturing base; of our demise of our legal base; and the destruction of our economic base.
Oddly, the American public cannot put together these simple identities, because the national media is not publishing these facts, and presenting them for public discussion before the American people. Fathers’ Rights is not for public consumption in this nation. There is a national news blackout in regards what has occurred to Fathers’ over the past half-century, and what is now happening throughout all facets of life throughout the American economy due to this state approved discrimination. Destroy men for any number of years, and yes indeed you will see massive home foreclosures soon following. Destroy men as a national mindset throughout the courts and government, and soon thereafter you will see the collapse of the national economy, high unemployment rates, and the public scratching their heads as to what the real cause of it is.
If you haven’t noticed, this is our current national plight.
If you look at the disparate and anti-law systems which can run a government, on the dark side you shall note that the social archetypes of Socialism, Communism, and Totalitarianism. These are the same exact social systems expressed in these form of governments; but they are merely in but different stages of growth. At the nexus, or root of all these evils you shall find something called “Feminism.” Feminism is the foundational seed of all these forms of tyrannical governments. And it is Feminism which this nation has adopted as a diseased and fetid root of evil of which you will find as the basis of this nation’s current dysfunction.
When you speak of Welfare, you are speaking of war (against the society) and you are speaking only of Feminism supporting such war. The basic and root tenant of Feminism, is the destruction of the American male. In all societies which has adopted this malady as a root of “equality” in which to sustain its rise within such a society—you will find that men are excoriated as a national religious exercise. You shall find that within such societies expounding Feminism, that men are hated, they are denigrated, and there is a national ongoing media campaign to constantly find fault with men, and a government willing to sustain an industry to punish them directly. In such societies: you shall find huge prison populations.
Conversely, when you analyze those societies which are not infested by Feminism, you shall see that men throughout that society are actually venerated. They are respected and loved, and even honored. In those societies, they are not repressed, and they assume their natural stations as the producers and defender’s of that society. In such societies, you shall conversely find small prison populations.
Those enemies of the state supporting Feminism, claim that asserting such female ‘equality’ throughout our American society, advocate it as an advanced social system. They are wrong.
The fact is, that Feminism is a throwback to the earliest social system which existed on the plains of Africa 100,000 years ago. In that ‘natural’ state of affairs, it is the controlling female driven system of Matriarchy was a throwback to the antiquated social archetype which exuded itself out from the social system which also ruled the great apes. In that older social system, as throughout nature—women and children stayed together, with men being driven out of the group. In this natural state, men were only temporary interlopers into the social system of women and children.[FN7] The main (and only) duty of the male in that backwards natural system, was to inseminate the female, and then to be driven off by the collective tribe, and to once again fend for himself alone in the wilderness.[FN8] This state of affairs, was the controlling social archetype over hundreds of thousands of years, of which humankind never evolved.
Mankind was held in stasis, directly due to its adherence to the Feminist Matriarchal social archetype which controlled and excluded the male of the society from being an active part within that society.
When you look at both the whole animal kingdom, and the communist communal social state: you shall also concomitantly find that there is no place within that social system to incorporate the male. When you analyze the complete animal kingdom, from ants, to bees, to whales, apes, dogs, birds, bats, and the like—you shall see that again, within the concomitant natural system, that the male is always driven off, and has no place within the family.
It was only with the advent of Patriarchy, approximately 6,000 years ago, which finally incorporated the male into the Shrewdness[FN9] animal state of humans. This created the modern two-parent nuclear family. Now, for the first time in human history, man was incorporated into the family and both males and females disparate social talents were used to work together for the first time. And directly due to this combining of the disparate entities of male and female into the family social unit—all human civilization thereby ascended from that point onwards. Prior to this—with the human Shrewdness controlling the animal state of man—advanced civilizations never arose. It was only with the incorporation of the male into the human family unit, that advanced civilization arose, of which we have cognizance of at that 6,000 Patriarchal Breakpoint. Prior to this—we virtually know nothing about human-kind, because the archeological record shows virtually nothing during this long Matriarchal period. There is only a void.
Modern socialists and social scientists, claim that the communist state and especially Feminism, is the ‘advanced’ social condition. That if you do not believe in homosexuality, women’s rights, lesbianism, sexual freedom and anarchy—that you are a dolt male throwback of the 1950s. These theorists, feel that the natural condition of incorporating men into the family unit (and society) is old, pastoral and antiquated technology. They believe that their advocacy of Feminism, is the new theocracy what we all must be held hostage to (no matter what its results). These same people, when confronted with the fact, that their theology is a throwback to the base social system which ruled on the plains of Africa 100,000 years ago—get mulct, and do not want to discuss, argue, or confront the point.
For if you recognize that in their system, which again; has no place for the male, you shall find that every despotic government aligning itself to such a Feminist social collectivist archetype, has huge gulag prison systems, as demonstrated and recorded throughout human history (e.g. the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, & etc.). It is within these collective Matriarchal driven systems which develop these huge prison populaces, directly due to the fact, that they are expressing the older Matriarchal natural condition of man, and have no place for the human male within their formal design of government. Such systems, are merely expressing their underlying identity of being Matriarchal collectivist societies. Huge prison systems within such governments are merely expressing the fact that their social system is attendant to the natural (older and backwards Matriarchy).
Again, such systems, like nature, have no real place for the male. This again, extends from the Shrewdness collective social condition. Just as in the animal kingdom, they are destroying men to express their Matriarchal archetype form of repressive government.
Those societies which incorporate the male into the family, however; conversely obtain free and advanced societies. For it is the incorporation of the male into the family unit, which is the impetus for the free enterprise economic system. Please note, that this fact is also expressed and recorded throughout human history, as all such great thinkers, from Plutarch to Freud recognized, that “…[I]n order to have an advanced civilization, you need sexual regulation.”
What is this ‘sexual regulation’ we speak of here? It is factually the state institution of marriage of which the modern Matriarchal Communist state is actively combating against and intentionally destroying. What is the main feature of marriage? It incorporates the male into the family (and society), and it binds both the male and wife into a social contract, for the good of them both, the family, and then ultimately the state.
In such free Patriarchal societies, as in the American society, the state promised, by operation of law to uphold the marriage condition. The state would be the guardian of that institution. First we must note, again, by operation of law, that the state has a third party interest to the marriage relation:
“The state is a party at interest to the marriage contract or status together with the husband and wife.” Duerner v. Duerner, 142 N.J. Eq. 259 (E & A. 1948).
See also: “It has been well said that in the granting of divorces the state, as well as the parties, is interested, and that the public is represented by what is called the ‘the conscience of the court’…” The State is a third party to every divorce proceeding and has exclusive control of the matrimonial status of those domiciled within its borders.” McLean v. Graboswski, 92 N.J. Super. 545, 547-548 (Ch. Div. 1966)
Secondly, we must recognize that there is a fundamental reason that the state has a fundamental interest in the marriage relation…and that was to protect the interests of the institution of marriage itself in order to protect the advanced society itself:
"…As guardian[s] of the interests of the public and persons not parties to the record , it
is our imperative duty to prevent dissolution of the marriage relation by means which the law condemns and expressly forbids. An infant child is the issue of this marriage, and we cannot tolerate that its character shall be sullied and its career clouded by a Judicial conviction of the Father on such evidence of infidelity to the most sacred obligations. Since the "common-law marriages," so called-another name for concubinage-is so obtrusively prevalent in the community, and our calendars are crowded with applications for divorce, it behooves us not to relax the stringency of the rules which, in the interests of good morals and social security, have been prescribed by law for the safeguard of the sanctity and stability of the marriage relation. Daly Ch. J., and Bischoff, J. Concur. Fanning v. Fanning, 2 Misc N.Y. 97
This was also iterated: "Marriage is not a mere contract between two parties but a legal status from which certain rights and obligations arise." DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 31 (2002)
See also: Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 409 (1898) “[O]n marriage, the parties "assume[ ] new relations to each other and to the State". See also French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546 (1935), as the Massachusetts Supreme Court clearly notes—yet, this does not supercede a Civil mandate and union for the parties superior to the Common Law.
“If the parties to a marriage contract were allowed to renounce the ties of wedlock, and to abandon the duties and obligations of the conjugal relation for any cause that seemed reason-able and just to them, or for any cause other than the legal cause for divorce, then indeed would such contract have but little binding force and the sanctity of the marital state
would be destroyed. Suits for divorce, already far too numerous, would overwhelm the courts of chancery. Hence “the interests of society, the happiness of the parties, and the welfare of families demand the rule,” supra, that there shall be no abandonment of the matrimonial relation except for such causes as would constitute grounds for divorce. I Bishop, Mar. Div. & Sep. § 1753. Warfield v. Warfield, 97 Ark. 125, 128. (December 19, 1910)
Currently, we have government, intentionally overturning and destroying the marriage relation by such proactive government protocols, which directly attack marriage and the family—by overtly destroying the Father. These contemporary government programs not only overturn the fundamental law itself, but also fly in the face of ‘we the people’s’ passage of well-settled laws upholding the marriage relation. Anyone seeking protection of ‘the law’ within our nation, as Thomas Ball clearly recognized—is in for a rude awakening. The state has currently abandoned either upholding the fundamental law, or upholding the institution of marriage. The state, in abandoning the legal rights of Fatherhood have abandoned the legal rights of marriage which they were sworn to uphold by operation of law.
Thirdly, we must consider: who are the enemies of marriage? Who are the people whom historically do not want Thomas Ball to be the controlling entity and “Father” within his own home and family? It is the illegal courts, governments and Feminists who have established an unholy tie within government itself, and has established itself as a new Domestic Enemy within all three branches of our government. Please note these facts: Socialist and Feminist writers have denounced marriage in unmeasured terms and in the vilest language. They claim that under the form of matrimony, the wife is made the "sex slave" of her husband, and they advocate their liberation by means of the Freedom of Sex and Economic Independence of Woman, providing that they may be employed and earn wages separate and apart, and without the control of the husband.
They also advocate the dissolution of the marriage relations at the will of either party.
That children of such marriages shall not be subject to the control of either of their parents nor dependent upon them for support or education, but that all children shall be dependent on the State for all necessary things-food, clothing, and education.
The Socialists allege that the Christian monogamistic family was originated as a capitalist scheme, from the fact that parents naturally desire to accumulate private property for the protection of themselves and their children and to be given to their children as an inheritance.
Socialists claim that marriage is an invention of the capitalist class and the priesthood,
for the maintenance of capitalism, and that therefore, marriage and the family are the greatest enemies and obstacles in the development of Socialistic society-where private property shall not exist.
Below are the given quotations from the Communistic Manifesto-the basis of Socialist Propaganda, which makes a candid avowal of Socialist intentions toward the family. Also from the Origin of the Family it is predicted that the foundations of monogamy would disappear, and that the Christian family would cease to exist.
In fact the bolder Socialists advocate Free Love, the control of births, and other practices
which are abhorrent to all persons who have been brought up in a Christian atmosphere:
"Abolition of the family. Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
"On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie."-Communists Manifesto, page 36.
"The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."-Communist Manifesto, page 36. Carl Marx and Frederick Engels, "The Fathers of Socialism."
"We are now approaching a social revolution, in which the old economic foundations of monogamy will disappear just as surely as those of its complement, prostitution.
Monogamy arose through the concentration of considerable wealth in one hand-a man's hand-and from the endeavor to bequeath this wealth to the children of this man to the exclusion of all others. This necessitated monogamy on the woman's but not on man's part.
Hence this monogamy of women in no way hindered open or secret polygamy of men. Now, the impending social revolution will reduce this whole care of inheritance to a minimum by changing at least the overwhelming part of permanent and inheritable wealth-the means of production-into social property. Since monogamy was caused by economic conditions, it will disappear when these causes are abolished."-The Origin of the
Family, page 91, Frederick Engels.
The above, from Fredk. Engels, distinctly avow the aim of Socialism which appears to undermine the economic foundation of marriage, to cause the disappearance of families and the abolition of private wealth, and to prevent the accumulation of property to the bequeathed to children.
All this is to be done through the abolishing the holding of property which is means of production, after which sacramental marriage will disappear when it loses its means of support. With this avowed aim of Socialism the public should be advised.[FN11]
Does this sound familiar? It should, because it is being directly asserted throughout all three branches of both state and federal governments!
My God people. What does it take in order to you to recognize, what is clearly a Domestic Enemy embedded throughout the aegis of our government? During the Vietnam War, there were fundamentalist Buddhist Monks whom were being persecuted (to a lesser degree than we are here, as Fathers’ in America), who self-immolated themselves. Their acts immediately gave inspiration to the national populace to overthrow their own South Vietnam's corrupt Ngô Ðình Di?m regime.[FN12] Recently, in Tunisia, there was a similar event on December 17, 2010 when a 26 year old fruit seller named Mohamed Bouazizi doused himself in gasoline and set himself ablaze merely due to government tyranny and humiliation. His act also toppled the corrupt controlling Tunisian regime by national revolt over his death. Both these incidences sparked national revolutions which overturned their respective corrupt and oppressive regimes. Indeed, both these incidences promulgated immediate reactions from the indigenous populace, against the state oppressions (again, which were minimal to what American Fathers’ currently suffer today).
Today, American Fathers’ are totally civilly murdered within our court systems. They are penalized more than murderers, child rapists, embezzlers, extortionists, even foreign terrorists.[FN13] Both foreign terrorists and illegal aliens unlawfully crossing our boarders, are able to immediately obtain driver’s licenses and bank accounts. A mere Father—especially a poor Father, will never have a driver’s license again. He will never have a bank account again. He can never obtain a passport. Such Fathers’ whom cannot combat this unconstitutional tyranny, lose their professional work licenses; they cannot obtain hunting or fishing licenses; their bank savings are repeatedly seized; their cars (and any other valuable property) are unlawfully, and repeatedly seized. Where murderers and child rapist may obtain some semblance of redress of grievances within the courts; Fathers’ cannot obtain any redress within these Feminized institutions whatsoever. Where the average murderer usually spends on average 5-7 years in jail; Fathers’ are harangued constantly and imprisoned repeatedly and indefinitely…for no crime ever being committed…on the order of decades to over a quarter of a century or more.[FN14] Father’s are civilly murdered eternally—for never committing any crime, other than merely attempting to assert their own rights, or for merely being poor.
Again, we must look at our own American history. Before the advent of the “Child Support” industry of the early 1970s, there was no problem with the institution of marriage. Both marriage and families stayed together. American birth rates were at normal rates, divorce rates were low (approximately 3% at 1900 to 13% by 1955),[FN15] and the American people were relatively happy. America in the 1950s led every social indicator across the planet. The economy was strong, and the wealth was being accrued not by big business nor by big government, but rather; huge amounts of savings were being accrued by the home and family!
…And something saw this, and didn’t like it. There were entities who recognized that the American home and family was accruing great wealth; and those foreign alien entities hated the American society and wanted a more controllable Soviet style obsequious slave-type society instituted. So they went directly after the men and proactively destroyed them through the advent of ‘Soviet Article 81’ Family Law courts, e.g. ‘The Wisconsin Model.’ Those persons supporting this treasonous anti-law system within government—soon moved up into the highest ranks of both state and federal worker positions. Those like Tommy Thompson who helped with the institution of the Wisconsin Model, and those like Vice President Joe Biden, who instituted “Domestic Violence” mythology throughout our courts and government—soon were appointed to the highest posts within our own government.
Please note these supporting facts of how alien anti-American interests proactively destroyed the American home and family, and especially Fatherhood:
"In a later conversation, Rockefeller asked Russo what he thought women's liberation was about.
Russo's response that he thought it was about the right to work and receive equal pay as men, just as they had won the right to vote, caused Rockefeller to laughingly retort, "You're an idiot! Let me tell you what that was about, we the Rockefeller's funded that, we funded women's lib, we're the one's who got all of the newspapers and television – the Rockefeller Foundation."
Rockefeller told Russo of two primary reasons why the elite bankrolled women's lib, one because before women's lib the bankers couldn't tax half the population and two because it allowed them to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model.
This revelation dovetails previous admissions on behalf of feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem (pictured) that the CIA bankrolled Ms. Magazine as part of the same agenda of breaking up traditional family models."
Rockefeller also told Aaron Russo that his family's foundation had created and bankrolled the women's liberation movement in order to destroy the family and that population reduction was a fundamental aim of the global elite…
…Rockefeller told Russo of two primary reasons why the elite bankrolled women's lib, one, because before women's lib the bankers couldn't tax half the population and two because it allowed them to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model.
This revelation dovetails previous admissions on behalf of feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem that the CIA bankrolled Ms. Magazine as part of the same agenda of breaking up traditional family models.
Rockefeller was often keen to stress his idea that "the people have to be ruled" by an elite  and that one of the tools of such power was population reduction, that there were "too many people in the world," and world population numbers should be reduced by at least half.
 Aaron Russo, was an American patriot, businessman, entrepreneur, Hollywood film and TV producer (The Rose, with Bette Midler; Trading Places, with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy; The Teachers, with Nick Nolte) and he was also a documentary film maker, who openly wrote, and published items of grave concern for all Americans. In 2005, he directed and produced one of the greatest documentaries against the IRS, called: From Freedom to Fascism.
Unfortunately, he died Aug. 24, 2007 at the age of 64.
 This is a proof of “Darwinist” social inflection, of an elite upon an unsuspecting middle-class.  Cited from: Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal of Microchipped Population, by Paul Joseph Watson, January 29, 2007, Prison Planet at: http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/rockefeller_
Thomas Ball (as well as myself and a host of other Father’s) was a Vietnam Veteran. As veterans, when we supplicated our own court system to assert our secured rights—the court’s and government should have bent over backwards to grant us our natural born, common law and constitutional rights. This was owed to us due to the fact that we fought for this country with honor and distinction. All we asked for, was a government ‘Republican in form.’ We asked for no special favors…we only asked for what was owed us by operation of law.
Instead, we were brought before a Domestic Enemy who implemented a foreign law against us. This foreign law, not only overturned our law, but it destroyed both our homes and families, and also our own government and society in the process!
Those sick and diseased minds who support this system stating that it is in the ‘Best Interests of the Child,’ are factual liars. For over a decade now, Fathers’ Rights activists have been propounding, what is known as the “Fathers’ Rights Mantra” to both the courts, government and even the media—to the point they do not even contest these facts or issues now. This ‘Mantra’ is well known, and it directly controverts the Feminists approbation that these alien courts instituting feminism against our society, as a necessary good—regardless of what the facts or law says:
THE FATHERS’ RIGHTS MANTRA
According to a new publication called Getting Men Involved: The Newsletter of the Bay
Area Male Involvement Network, Spring 1997:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S.,
Bureau of the Census”
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God’s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co.
Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
(Because only a portion of each age group grew up in a fatherless home,) these statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution
20 times more likely to end up in prison.
There is a litany of abuse more profound than what is stated here, again; all emanating out of the state predictably giving custody to mothers, and not fathers. As sagely stated and recognized by Dr. Daniel Amneus in his watershed work The Case for Father Custody, he quotes a dolt Georgia judge named Robert Noland who is fully indoctrinated into the natural animal state who proudly (and stupidly) proclaimed: “I ain’t never seen a calf following a bull. They always follow the cow. So I always give custody to the mommas.”[FN17] It is very odd how every other judge throughout this nation has adopted the same Noland doctrine supporting the collective animal state which supports the facts and statistics ruining this nation as catalogued within the Fathers’ Rights Mantra noted above. Judges fully know and understand that the institution of marriage and the institution of Fatherhood gives them nothing. They fully know and understand which side the bread is buttered on.
Indeed, Noland’s screed has become the national mindset of the courts—which have ruined this country by ruining men and Fathers’ which has cascaded into all the social failures we witness today. As all the great societies warned us: that if you want an advanced civilization—you give control and custody of the home and family—to the Father and not the Mother. This sounds very contra-intuitive, however; this mandate is the only social system shown within all of Western Civilization.
Lex Angliæ nunquam matris sed semper patris conditionem imitari partum judicat. “The law of England adjudges that the offspring shall follow the condition of the father, not of the mother.” Co. Lit. 123
“The law of England vests the right to the custody of all legitimate children of tender age, without regard to sex, in the father, to the entire exclusion of the mother, who cannot even see them without the father’s consent.”
Let us note (as all judges do); that supporting the lower order animal state, and supporting Single Mothers, does aggrandize their state-run institutions. Every judge who gives custody of children to the mother, fully understands that they are seeding and growing their burgeoning state empire. A judge who routinely gives a child to a mother, thereby denying the Father his natural born, common law and constitutional rights; fully knows and understands that within five to ten years, that the Single Female Headed Household will need approximately two police officers, a counselor, an additional school guidance counselor, one additional bed within the Juvenile Jail, probably an additional bed within the County Jail, perhaps even a bed in State prison; a psychologist, as well as hiring a plethora of other social workers, Feminist Day Care Centers, Women’s Shelters, & etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Conversely, if any intelligent judge recognizes this and starts giving custody to Fathers…then the state gets nothing. In fact, what society gets by the judge assigning custody to the Father, (as history proves), is a family willing to stay together, and solve its own problems. Indeed, let us consider: which legal entity will the state support? Independent and self-reliant families with Fathers’ incorporated into them…or Single Female Headed Household’s, which will add to the largesse of the state?
Both our history and Thomas Ball has proven which entity the court and government will support, and is supporting; and it has been the SFHH, to the direct denigration and criminalization of men.
This scatological Feminist system, being directly supported by the fetid complicity and omission of the males of this nation to justly react—to what other societies clearly have justly reacted in favor of truth and justice—is a national disgrace.
Many within the Fathers’ Rights movement state that they do not condone violence. With Thomas Balls’ demonstrative immolation upon the courthouse steps of Keene, New Hampshire, what else could ever condone violence? Clearly, other nations of the world presented with similar acts of desperation of which Thomas Ball has displayed, acted with a single mind. Those societies actually did something about the tyranny being imposed—even upon special groups other than themselves. All other societies that I have found, did not tolerate such injustice. They didn’t sit on the ass, but rather; they acted.
Please recognize, that neither our courts, nor Legislatures, nor even Executive departments of government are listening to either law or reason. The fundamental right to ‘Redress of Grievances’ has been obliterated. My God, look at what supplications Mr. Ball had to go through on the order of a decade to finally recognize there was no remedy? My God, you have people throughout this country (I know one in Massachusetts), being told they can no longer come to court for ANY kind of remedy! We have diligent men, making arduous application to both the courts, media and even legislative and executive branches of government, being insolently turned away!
And then we wonder why there is approximately 24,000 men committing yearly suicide because of family courts alone? Do you recognize that we have only killed approximately 58,000 to 60,000 in the Vietnam War?[FN19] That 145 died in the 1990/1991 Gulf War?[FN20] That approximately 721 troops have died within the 2004 Iraqi War?[FN21] And approximately 2433 troop deaths in the Afghanistan war?[FN22]
Yet, we are killing far more men in these Feminist court wars, than we are killing in all our foreign wars combined! Yet we don’t want to upset those in power and state that we don’t condone violence?
News flash: Our children have some legal status, and under that legal status as incompetent minors, the law assigns only one person, who owns, and controls that child, for both its safety and comfort, by operation of law. This is the only thing the law states as to that controlling legal fact: The Father, owns the child against the mother, as well as against everyone else…."'The
discretion to be exercised is not an arbitrary one, but, in the absence of any positive
disqualification of the father for the discharge of his parental duties, he has, as it seems
to us, a paramount right to the custody of his infant child, which no court is at liberty
to disregard.” State v. Richardson, 40 NH 272, 277.
That any asseveration that there is ‘equality’ within the legal system can be quickly discounted by any man going into these Feminized court systems and attempting to type in 50%/50% into their computerized Dissomaster[FN23] computer systems to find out what child support percentages are to be awarded. At no time will the court computer accept 50%/50% to be typed in. It always defaults to 49%/51%. Plus, such 50/50 custody fiction is prohibited by the maxims of law which state: “No man can be both lord and tenant over the same property.”[FN24] We must recognize, that the modern Feminist code infected into the contemporary court system, only intimates equality. From that Feminist Equity, the actuality is that Judge Robert Noland doctrine (noted above) of giving children to mothers is the only maxim being followed by the judiciary as a whole.
The real law intimates nothing. It clearly assigns only the Father as the main custodian and protector over his children. This right comes under Article I, Section 1 of your state constitution and under Amendment the Fifth, of the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791 “rights to life, liberty and property.” Your children are something and have some definable legal status; and under well-settled and well-defined law, that ‘something’ is that they are real property. If you do not claim them as such, the state most assuredly will, and the state will act accordingly.[FN25]
I must say, as a favored son of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that I am ashamed of most of the Fathers’ Rights groups there. What acts Thomas Ball was pressured into, by a well-known and well-defined Domestic Enemy; is a known constant; and is constantly repeated throughout this nation to the detriment of men. When you speak of the detriment of men, you are categorically speaking also to the detriment of families, because as I have shown, the institution of marriage and family, requires a man. Without a man in that institution, what you have regressed to is not a family, but an animal Shrewdness, (e.g., only a woman and child). You instantly revert back into the 100,000 year old animal Matriarchal state.
No longer do men expound nor recognize the truth. These courts and governments are in fact, a Domestic Enemy. Have you ever consider that if our currently ‘defined enemies’ ever took over this nation (e.g. the Muslims) that they would treat father’s much better than our own government?!? What this fact shows, is that men are going to war to support anti-law systems which both oppress and destroy them.
Are we in fact, doing that?!??
Or are we following the path and doctrines of freedom that our Massachusetts forefather’s fought and died for during the Revolutionary period of this nation?!??
Have we become an America where men allow unjust courts to promulgate anti-law and then watch as men kill themselves because of the foreign law oppression that we then must suffer? To what end? Do we do this, so we can show even more social pathology failures other than what was clearly visible by what is exposed in the Fathers’ Rights Mantra?!??
The law and our foundational freedoms are on our side.
Please note, that any government or public entity, changing the basic law of the country: is factual grounds for treason.
First, recognize this: “It belongs to [the legislature]… to determine, primarily, what measures are appropriate or needful for the protection of the public morals, the public health, or the public safety…There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go. While every possible presumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of a statute, (Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 718 ,) the courts must obey the constitution rather than the law-making department of government, and must, upon their own responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, these limits have been passed. 'To what purpose,' it was said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 167, 'are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.' The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty, indeed, are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no realor substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution. Cited from: Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 Sup.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205.
Secondly, note our nation’s settled response to the first:
Eli H. Murray a lawyer who rose to the rank of brigadier general in the Civil War
[said]: “The tree of liberty is rich enough in timber to construct scaffolds and coffins
for all those who may treasonably conspire to break down our constitution and violate its written laws.”[FN26]
It is undisputable, that both the government in allowing these courts to overturn our fundamental rights and liberties for the purposes of profit and reward, are in fact, committing Treason. Treason is defined as: TREASON. In Criminal Law. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
4 Bla.Com. 78. In England, treason was divided into high and petite treason. The latter,
originally was of several forms, which by 10 Edw. III, st. 5, c 2, where reduced to three:
the killing by a wife, of her husband; by a servant of his master; and the killing of a
prelate by an ecclesiastic owing obedience to him. These kinds of treason were abolished in 1838.
In America, they were unknown; here treason means high treason.
"Treason it has been said is not felony but a grade of crime by itself.” 29 N.J. L. 458, 464.
The constitution of the United States, art. 3 s. 3, defines treason against the United
States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort. By the same article of the constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
It is “the only crime defined by the constitution….The clause was borrowed from ancient English statute, enacted in the year 1852. Previous to the passage of that statute there was great uncertainty as to what constituted treason. Numerous offences were raise to its grade by arbitrary constructions of the law. The statute was passed to remove this uncertainty and to restrain the power of the crown to oppress the subject by construction of this character.
It comprehends all treason under seven distinct branches.
The framers of our constitution selected one of these branches, and declared that treason against the United States should be restricted to the acts which it designates. “Treason against the United States,’ is the language adopted, ‘shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.’” No other acts can be declared to constitute the offence. Congress can neither extend, nor restrict, nor define the crime. Its power over the subject is limited to prescribing the punishment. Field, J., in 4 Sawy. 465.
By the same article of the constitution, no “attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood except during the life of the person attainted.” Every person owing allegiance to the United States who levies war against them, or adheres to their enemies giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason; R.S. § 5331. The penalty is death, or at the discretion of the court, imprisonment at hard labor for not less than five years and a fine of not less than ten thousand dollars; and every person convicted of treason is rendered incapable of holding any office under the United States;R.S. § 5332.
The term enemies, as sued in the constitution, applies only to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. To constitute a “levying of war” there must be an assemblage of persons with force and arms to overthrow the government or resist the laws.
All who aid in the furtherance of the common object of levying war against the United States, in however minute a degree, or however remote from the scene of the action, are guilty of treason; 4 Sawy, 457.
Treason may be committed against a state; 4 Story 614; 11 Johns. 549.
See, generally, 3 Story, Const. § 1796; Sergeant. Const. c. 30; Cooley, Const. Lim. 380; Rawle, Const.; Bish.Cr. Law; 20 Wall. 92; 16 Id. 147; 92 U.S. 202; 93 Id. 274.
As to the Law of Treason under the Roman Empire, see 22 Law Mag. And Rev. 23; 15 Cr. Law Mag. 191; 46 Alb. Law J. 345.[FN27]
Virtually every state and federal agency, as well as its state Legislatures and concomitant branches of government are routinely committing treason—in the hopes that ‘we the people’ will become confused because of the wide extent of the problem—and thereby just do nothing.[FN28]
"But treason is a crime against an entire community, and it is the highest crime that an individual can commit against a community or a body politic, of which he is a member."
It is therefore, a political offense; and as such, it ever has been and still is to be
Such being the nature and character of treason, from the principles and structure of American Government, its object is, generally, if not always, a change either in the form
of government or the administration of it.”[FN29]
Now there are many whom shall note that in order to have treason, you need the element of ‘making war against them.’ Indeed, this is correct, and if you read the law, you will find the concise definition of what crimes these Domestic Enemies whom are promulgating this war, are legally implementing…and that is of a Mixed War. What is a Mixed War?
MIXED WAR. A mixed war is one which is made on one side by public authority,[FN30] and on the other by mere private persons. People v. McLeod, 1 Hill (N.Y.) 377, 415, 37 Am.Dec. 328.[FN31]
When you have more men killing themselves than all our foreign wars due to the tyranny of Feminism and these corrupt Court systems,[FN32] I state for the record, that we are in a Mixed War. When you have but one Father, radically burn himself on a courthouse steps as his only legal remedy, I again state, that by identity, we are in a Mixed War. When you have a litany of failure as shown by the Fathers’ Rights Mantra, being supported year-after-year by both congress and the state Legislatures providing ever-increasing amounts of money to support Fatherlessness, then; I formally state that we are in a condition of war, and have been for the past half-century.
Merely changing our form of free-American government into the Soviet Constitution Article 81 court system, is an identity of High Treason, of which both Judges and Legislators (and attendant Feminist and other private opportunistic groups and Foundations) must be formally prosecuted, by operation of law:
If any person or persons, at a meeting of the people convened for the purposes aforesaid, or for any other purpose, shall maliciously and advisedly recommend or desire them to erect or form any new government in any part of this state, independent of the present, or shall read to them any new form of a constitution, with design to induce them to adopt the same, as new and independent constitution, every such person or persons, being thereof legally convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of high treason. Read's Dig. 273. 1 Dall. Rep. 37.[FN33]
Unfortunately, these execrate acts and/or omissions committed by both our courts and government occurred on our watch. It would be nice to go out boating, or seeing a movie with our children, but how can we do this, knowing that a good and intelligent man was driven to his death by an illegal and corrupt court system and government? And further knowing that other Fathers, indeed our own children, may be destined to the same fate!? How can we do nothing?!?
The law is on our side. We have the moral high ground with Thomas Ball as our leader. We should go to each and every court and government building across this nation, and boldly paint his black ashes on each and every courthouse steps, indeed both the Legislative and Executive steps, even public buildings and including their homes, until the black soiled indelible stain shames them into recognizing Fathers’ Rights. If our own government and its surrogate courts continue to blacken their hearts with implementing this current Apartheid being leveled against all men in this nation, then their public buildings, their own homes should represent and show that soiled blackness. Thomas Balls’ stain should shock the conscience of the community into finally supporting Fatherhood once again. The American landscape should show the ugliness and horror of what Thomas Ball, and millions of other men are suffering through these diseased court systems. The breadth of this blackness, and soiling should be promulgated to such a point, that our enemies fear and hate going to work or even to their own homes, knowing Ball’s stain will haunt them in the light of day. These incredibly expensive public offices and buildings should show the stain of Thomas Ball in order to represent the true disease and sickness of what they truly are. The media should also suffer this fate, as they had a public duty and charge to inform the American people of this malady, yet refused to do so.[FN34]
The egregious death of Thomas Ball must not be swept under the rug. His death is a clarion call to all Fathers, that it is time to do something. It is time to act.
We should be reading the riot act to those well-known suspects implementing this illegal and unconstitutional Feminist perversion against us. We must follow those judges and District Attorney’s and others who have lined their own pockets with the blood of innocent Father’s, and make them pay. We have a duty to bring them to justice, and to force a plethora of government employees into HIGH TREASON trials. For if this is not the time, then when is?
If what they have done for the past half-century was legal, then; they should be readily willing to face such tribunals to adjudicate their ongoing acts and/or omissions, done in the name of our own children. They should be happy to simply defend themselves against such charges.
From and by this system, our enemies have built, and thrown us into huge prison gulags. It’s time to place them into the same jails that they themselves wilfully built—and force them to face their own laws which have so readily placed against so many innocent men, forcing them into prison—for no crime committed.
A government which arbitrarily criminalizes men for merely being a Father, should not be allowed to succeed. A social system which forces men to walk to the steps of their accusers and their surrogate courts who neither listen to their legal supplications, or motions or laws, should be held to the strict light of scrutiny. Those same courts who by their own inspired injustices of wilful blindness to Father’s plights, forces a man such as Thomas Ball and makes them pour gasoline over himself in a desperate attempt to be heard should not be allowed to survive. We are better than that, and we must recognize an enemy when we see it, and act accordingly. It is the American way…
In the name of Thomas Ball, the time has come to act.
— 30 — — END —
FN1- Cited from: Child Support Tradgedies, from The National Fathers’ Resource Center, Ed Ward, MD.; at: http://www.fathers4kids.com/html/ChildSupport.htm?article_id=71 The low figure for this is 3960 people per year as cited by Augustine J. Kposowa, "Marital Status and suicide in National Longitudinal Mortality Study", Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 54, April 2000, p. 256. Either way, we are killing more men per year due to family courts, than all of our international wars, combined.
FN3- We know this: that the state is fundamentally hiding these figures. We cannot readily obtain current data, as both state and federal governments hide the figures of who and what they are incarcerating for child support. The best we can estimate, that this is an ongoing unlawful enterprise established for the purposes of profit and reward. This obfuscation is calculated to hide their ongoing acts of illegally imprisoning men for a debt, a constitutional prohibition against debtor’s prisons, found in both state and federal constitutions.
FN4- The proof of this comes from the number of men fleeing this nation. There is a national unaccounted exodus of men fleeing this Family Court tyranny, to permanently live on foreign shores. This is an incredible number, that neither state or federal governments are calculating or publishing. Also, this exodus, is proof of a sustained war being applied against men, which has far reaching and direct effects against our national economy. This mass exodus is akin to the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany during WWII.
FN5- Cited from: Child Support Laws Come From Marxist Soviet Family Laws, Child Support Laws State-by-State, at: http://www.child-support-laws-state-by-state.com/child-support-laws-come-from-marxist-soviet-family-laws.html
FN6- Here in California for instance, we have California Government Code § 1027.5 which precludes Soviet law or actions within this state. Please observe:
Gov. Code § 1027.5. The Legislature of the State of California finds that:
(a) There exists a world-wide revolutionary movement to establish a totalitarian dictatorship based upon force and violence rather than upon law.
(b) This world-wide revolutionary movement is predicated upon and it is designed and intended to carry into execution the basic precepts of communism as expounded by Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.
(c) Pursuant to the objectives of the world communism movement, in numerous foreign countries the legally constituted governments have been overthrown and totalitarian dictatorships established therein against the will of the people, and the establishment of similar dictatorships in other countries is imminently threatening. The successful establishment of totalitarian dictatorships has consistently been aided, accompanied, or accomplished by repeated acts of treachery, deceit, teaching of false doctrines, teaching untruth, together with organized confusion, insubordination, and disloyalty, fostered, directed, instigated, or employed by communist organizations and their members in such countries.
(d) Within the boundaries of the State of California there are active disciplined communist organizations presently functioning for the primary purpose of advancing the objectives of the world communism movement, which organizations promulgate, advocate, and adhere to the precepts and the principles and doctrines of the world communism movement. These communist organizations are characterized by Identification of their programs, policies, and objectives with those of the world communism movement, and they regularly and consistently cooperate with and endeavor to carry into execution programs, policies and objectives substantially identical to programs, policies, and objectives of such world communism movement.
(e) One of the objectives of the world communism movement is to place its members in state and local government positions and in state supported educational institutions. If this objective is successful, propaganda can be disseminated by the members of these organizations among pupils and students by those members who would have the opportunity to teach them and to whom, as teachers, they would look for guidance, authority, and leadership. The members of such groups would use their positions to advocate and teach their doctrines and teach the prescribed Communist Party line group dogma or doctrine without regard to truth or free inquiry. This type of propaganda is sufficiently subtle to escape detection.
There is a clear and present danger, which the Legislature of the State of California finds is great and imminent, that in order to advance the program, policies and objectives of the world communism movement, communist organizations in the State of California and their members will engage in concerted effort to hamper, restrict, interfere with, impede, or nullify the efforts of the State and the public agencies of the State to comply with and enforce the laws of the State of California and their members will infiltrate and seek employment by the State and its public agencies FN7- In this social unit which dominated the great apes, the collection of women and children are known as a “Shrewdness” (not family) The modern nuclear family was only invented approximately 6,000 years ago, when men were finally incorporated within the family unit, with specific duties of both men and women. In the state of nature, it is the male who is driven off, and where there is no cognizable place for his incorporation into the family unit.
FN9- Or even killed. If you look at various animals, let’s say the Black Widow spider for instance, that with the completion of the sexual act, the male is killed and eaten. There are other such examples throughout the animal kingdom, but needless to say; within the animal kingdom, there is no real place for the males of that society.
FN9- A woman and child together in the animal natural state, is not a family. The correct technical term for such a condition is a Shrewdness. Those women and children on welfare are not families by definition. They are a Shrewdness, and should be identified as such.
FN10- Cited from: [THE MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF NEW YORK, Book 2, Delehanzy, Judges of the Several Courts Reported During the Period Covered by this Volume, p. 94]
FN11- Cited from: Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism, the Terrible Triplets, Connected by the Same Umbilical Cord, and Fed from the Same Nursing Bottle, by B.V. Hubbard, © 1915, American Publishing Co., 1820 City Hall Square Bld., Chicago, Il., pp. 80-81.
FN12- Reference: Thích Qu?ng Ð?c, cited from: Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c
FN13- The 9/11 terrorists were readily able to obtain driver’s licenses, pilot’s licenses, state issued ID’s and passports—all which are basic rights denied to Father’s in their own country.
FN14- The ‘crime’ of Failure to Provide (e.g. pay the Child Support extortion) is not a crime at all. The charge of “Failure to Provide” or “Pay Child Support” is a civil, not criminal matter. At no time does this civil matter rise to a level of criminality—because there is no actual ‘probable cause.’ The courts constant persecution to invent ‘Child Support’ into a crime are acts of treason. Such courts should be prosecuted unconditionally. What “Child Support” really boils down to, is that it is a theft scam. The state has turned its back on supporting the institution of marriage and it now obtains industry with the destruction of men.
FN15- Divorce rates are now at approximately 63% and 75% for second marriages.
FN16- Cited from: Rockerfeller Reveals 9/11 and Fraud: Happier Abroad Foreign Index, at: http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.
FN17- Cited from: The Case for Father Custody, by Dr. Daniel Amneus, © 1999, Primrose Press, Alhambra, California, p. 4.
FN18- Cited from: ART. VI.—THE INFANT CUSTODY BILL, A Plain Letter to the Lord Chancellor on the Infant Custody Bill. By Pearce Sevenson, Esq., London, 1839 [HeinOnline – 21 Law Mag. Quart. Rev. Juris. 160 (1839)] p. 313.
FN19- 58,202 is claimed at Vietnam War Statistics, at: http://www.veteranshour.com/vietnam_war_statistics.htm
FN20- See: Gulf War, at Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Coalition
FN21- See: Casualties of the Iraq War, at Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Coalition_military_casualties
FN22- See: Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan, at Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan
FN23- A special purpose computer system located at the court which will display what is owed in Child Support once the custody percentages are typed in. At no time can you put in 50/50 custody into these computers. They default to 49% / 51%.
FN24- If you go to corporate law, banking law, probate and etc., you will never find a 50/50 distribution in law. Law is concise as there shall not be two owners, over the same property. (Anarchy then reigns). The law always assigns one owner (for liability and control purposes) over every species of property. This legal fiction promulgated by contemporary Family Courts is as ridiculous as Solomon offering to cut the child equally in two. Oddly, that men can readily understand that parable, but not the impossibility of fiction that the Feminized courts currently advocate with allegations 50/50 custody awards (which do not exist). When any court speaks of 50/50 custody distribution, what they are speaking of is Judge Noland’s mother only custody, with the Father as a temporary visitor and permanent slave.
FN25- Those Fathers’ Rights groups asserting “Shared Parenting” are walking down a fallow path. You are attempting to ‘share’ something with an egregious enemy, which will only subsume your rights. The fallowness of this “Shared Parenting” doctrine, is exemplified by the maxim which states: “The children follow the condition of the father, this is the condition of freemen.” Those who assert shared parenting come under the maxim: “The children follow the condition of the mother, are those of animals and slaves.” See: Partus Sequitur Ventrem. You want your children to assume your condition of being a freeman, then you must claim them. You want the state to put your children into the state of animals and slaves, then proffer shared parenting. If you need any proof of this, look at the generational welfare system which has propagated this state induced Family Law system., and which is now slowly moving up the economic and social ladder, consuming the middle class with this insanity.
FN26- Cited from: Men to Match My Mountains, p. 499.
FN27- Cited from: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Baldwin’s Students Edition, (1934), edited by William Edward Baldwin, D.C.L., Banks-Baldwin Law Publishing Co., Cleveland, pp. 1186-87.
FN28- In other words, sheepishly accepting the fact that our government is too big to overthrow and stop their criminality.
FN29- Cited from: American State Trials, John D. Lawson, LL.D., St. Louis, 1914, F.H. Thomas Law Publishers, © 1914, Vol. II, p. 53. Trial of Patrick Blake, 1816, from: American State Trials, John D. Lawson, LL.D., St. Louis, 1914, F.H. Thomas Law Publishers, © 1914, Vol. II, p. 53. [See also 18 USC § 2381 TREASON, and 18 USC § 2382 Misprision of Treason].
FN30- The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
FN31- Cited from: Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Ed., © 1933, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 1829.
FN32- Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to punish "Offenses against the Law of Nations," of which piracy on the high sea and counterfeiting are a part. See: United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153, 162 (1820); United States v. Arjona, 120 U.S. 479, 484 (1886); Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240, 264 (1891); Treason (Art. III) is also part of federal criminal jurisdiction, if the crime involved a collusion with a foreign or external enemy Since the “Zero Estate” has touched every part of each branch of our government, and subverted and conspired with them into an alien form of government—that all such branches and their agents and/or assigns, are liable for these penalties.
FN33- Cited from: The Justices and Constables ASSISTANT, Being a General Collection of Forms of Practice, Interspersed with various observations and directions–together with a number of adjudged cases, relative to the Offices of Justice of the Peace and Constable, with an Appendix, Containing a Variety of Usefull Forms of CONVEYANCING, by William Graydon, Esq., © 1805, Printed by Hohn Wyeth, Harrisburg, PA., pp. 414.
FN34- I myself (as noted in my book, Suffering Patriarchy II, Deconstructing the Krell Welfare Machine) visited every major mainstream news media in downtown Hollywood (and elsewhere across this country), only to be rebuffed by them all. Indeed, it was at CBS news that I spoke to a News editor named “Rodney” who stated: “Father’s Rights is not news.” That same night, the comedian Phil Hartman, was shot and murdered by his wife. The fundamental issues regarding Phil Hartman and Thomas Ball’s deaths, are indeed; not news and not for public consumption