Chapter 29: Non-Acceptance and Non-Consent

      If you’ve made it this far, then you have likely acquired a general understanding of sovereignty. Hopefully you understand by now the risks and rewards associated with the personal fight for freedom. It is not easy, and it is not fast. There is a lot of learning to be done, even if you’re already studied in law. If you’re a law student already, you’re LESS likely to understand this material because of the amount of time already spent being brainwashed about the system. Even the smartest in society seldom stumble upon this kind of information, unless someone else close to them is living the experience of being a sovereign. However, there are more and more people studying this material each and every day. That is a good thing. A single sovereign alone will not be very powerful confronting corporate fascism.
     But, thousands of informed people who are “walking the walk,” will be very effective in keeping the police state from coming in full blown and taking everything we have under military rule and foreign troops. Understanding and applying this material is like martial arts in the legal world. People don’t mess with black belts and people don’t mess with legally armed “Jedi Knights.” That is what we need to each become, legally armed Jedi Knights, all in common understanding and working together to keep the corrupt cops, prosecutors, and judges BEHIND THE BAR, where they belong. Someone has to keep the loonies in the asylum. And we all have to make sure the doors stay locked. Whoever allowed the mentally sick children out of the hospital, and allowed them to make rules for the adults? The government representatives, the cops, the attorneys, the judges …ALL WORK FOR US, REMEMBER, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
     So, now that you have made it this far, I can give you the basic keys to the castle. If I gave you the basic keys first, you would never bother learning the rest. It would be like giving Luke a light saber without making sure he knew how to use it. I don’t want to be responsible for allowing Jedi Knights to perish because I didn’t bother to train them well enough. I’m not here to pass out free light sabers to the masses. It would be far too irresponsible. That’s why it’s important to learn all about sovereignty, and not just go out and apply a few copy pasted pages and think you will be free, because it will not work, and you may do a long time in jail learning about patience, responsibility, and the value of study.
     Howard teaches a different version of “commercial law.” Howard is very well taught in law, and very well trained in court process. I have a good deal of respect for Howard, as a fellow freedom fighter. His heart is totally in the sovereignty ideal. Howard’s approach is diametrically opposed to Roger Elvick, Sam Davis, Winston Shrout, and Sam Kennedy. Howard teaches people “DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR OFFERS.” Howard suggests writing across the face of their paperwork when it’s presented to you, “I do not accept this offer.”  The basic fundamental understanding behind this is the idea that everyone who contracts must do so voluntarily. If you are forced into a contract, then it cannot be valid. But at the same time, it’s assumed you are accepting the contract and your intent matters as much as your silent acquiescence. Therefore, you must specifically state your INTENT OF NON-CONSENT, in writing, and filed into the EVIDENCE FILE.
     Your intent of Non-Consent is important because unless you specifically state this, it is assumed you do consent. So, basically, what I’m saying here is that there is one more approach, if you want to “keep things as simple as possible.”  It’s very non-confrontational and appears to be very effective as well. Just as “acceptance” and its implications are largely dependent on your attitude and approach, this would also apply here. Here is a very appropriate passage I agree with wholeheartedly. Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves (Matt. 10:16).
     Unfortunately, I don’t think Howard actually teaches anyone these days. Though his information can be found online.  

     There is another sovereign-minded individual out there who is doing an excellent job teaching things from a basic “Non-Acceptance and Non-Consent” level. His name Robert-Arthur: Menard, at Robert is from Canada, and he teaches things in a way that is very down to earth and peaceful. I really like Robert’s style, and presentation. He has lots to teach and is one of the people who are “walking the walk.” Robert has a great site and has made several really good You tube / Google videos. They are called “The Magnificent Deception,” and “Bursting Bubble of Government Deception.” I think there may be one more.
     Robert discusses the use of a “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right.”  The understanding behind this is simple. Once you lay out your understanding of something, the government has to correct you or stand silent on your understanding. It’s similar to the “affidavit of truth.” Then, your intent is also laid out in express writing. And finally, you claim a right for the purpose that if it is not claimed, it is assumed to be left under “abandonment.” You must claim a right in order to enforce it. Robert claims that in Canada, if you claim a right to kill someone who enters your property, even if it’s done legally with a warrant, but you don’t consent and make your claim, ….then you are warranted to use that gun, and you have no obligation to let the cops in and if they get killed, you are not liable for the actions, because you claimed the right, in the first place. There is a very solid line of logic behind this, and it appears to be very powerful for using it to be free. Think of the implications here.
     Place the county you live in, and the state, on notice that you understand it’s your right to use cannabis and that you claim that right and the right to enforce a judgment against anyone who takes your property, including your cannabis plants or stash. Now, you have a simple Notice of Understanding and Claim of Right to walk around with when you go out in public. Show that to any officer before he arrests you and then he has now been put on actual constructive notice right there on the spot! Anything they do from there on, you have the right to go straight to the lien process and process to take their property as security for their debts to you. The judges and police and prosecutors are leaving lots of people alone in the BC area where Robert teaches. Robert is also cannabis friendly. He is part of the new emergence of “hip sovereigns” taking power for themselves in the last few years.  This is very refreshing to me, since I spend 10 years going to meeting full of old, angry, religious, white men, mostly. Although the roots of sovereignty in the 1980’s that grew out of the farm crises attracted a lot of those kinds of folks, what I see now are lots of African Americans jumping into sovereignty, though they should probably stay away from Moorish Science. It’s no better than the Christian sovereignty material. Not a good idea to mix religion and your understanding of god, with court filings and paperwork.
    I find Robert’s approach very useful because he blends many aspects of “redemption related commercial concepts” into his conceptual teaching. Robert has obviously spent a good deal of time studying Roger Elvick’s principles, either through Elvick’s transcripts or somewhere else. Robert adds some great flavor to the whole approach, when he takes it in reverse of Roger’s direct application. Robert removes the most difficult part of the understanding and uses the same principles basically, but in reverse. Robert takes Howard Griswold’s approach and improves it with new innovation. I have included, as the final Forms and Filings Paperwork, the basic work of Robert’s approach. 
     This Notice has been changed in format to be useful for Americans instead. If I missed something, please don’t forget to change it if you use this template for a filing. Don’t be a “cut and past-er”, like the sheep or mindless masses. You can use templates, but you need to rewrite them, with all important modifications made. For instance, I would not use this exact template, but a severely modified one that is very similar in the most important ways. Say what you want to say, not what someone else wants to say. Someone else’ truth is not your truth, it’s their truth, and you need to state your truth, as you see it, and as it applies to your personal situation.

     If you study a “Claim of Right” you will find some interesting things.  I found this at the following location online:

NOTICE:  If you fail to file this claim, you will be evicted without further hearing.

     Of course, this is interesting, isn’t it? Here, the government admits something very important.  You WILL LOSE if you do not file the Claim of Right, in a Tenants Eviction.  Do you understand that this basic commercial concept applies across the board?
     And here’s a kicker for you doubting folks out there, and evidence for the real legal hacks and truth enthusiasts: 


(N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2c(2))

“In addition to his/her general denial of guilt, the defendant contends that he/she is not guilty of (insert appropriate offenses such as theft or receiving stolen property) because he/she was acting pursuant to a claim of right to the property.

“Our law provides that it is a defense to prosecution (1) for (insert appropriate charge such as theft or receiving stolen property) that the defendant acted under an honest claim of right to the property (or service) involved or that he/she had a right to acquire or dispose of the property as he/she did. An honest claim is one that is genuinely, though not necessarily correctly, believed by the defendant

“This defense, you should note, is not limited to situations in which a defendant believed he/she owned the property. (2) Rather, it includes those situations in which the defendant honestly, although not necessarily correctly, believed that he/she had either the right or the authorization to receive, take, acquire, or dispose of the property.

“As I have mentioned to you, since this is a criminal case the burden of proof is on the State.  The defendant is, therefore, not required to prove that he/she acted pursuant to a claim of right; rather the burden is on the State to prove that the defendant did not act pursuant to a claim of right. Thus, if the State has proven all the elements of (insert offense) beyond a reasonable doubt and has also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not honestly believe that he/she had a right to the property or was authorized to receive, take, acquire, or dispose of the property, then you must find the defendant guilty of (insert offense).

“On the other hand, if the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt one or more elements of (insert offense) or if the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not honestly believe he/she had a right to the property or was authorized to receive, take, acquire, or dispose of the property, then you must find the defendant not guilty.

“1. The statute literally states that a claim of right is an “affirmative defense,” but when the charge is given the term “affirmative” should be deleted in order to avoid any suggestion that the defendant bears the burden of proof. However, since the defense is an affirmative one, the charge should only be given when there is some evidence which would support it. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-13b(1). See State v. Ippolito, 287 N.J. Super. 375 (App. Div. 1996) where the Court found an evidential basis for this charge in the defendant’s testimony that his co-defendant told him that the co-defendants boss had approved his taking of the property. (Id. at 378).

2. State v. Ippolito, supra.

     Now I have to ask, don’t you just love learning about your rights, when you start to understand that the REAL law, is actually on your side?

Pages 382, 383, 384 Not Included in Free Edition – To Order the FULL Version in either Softcover or E-Book, Please Visit the Store.

Chapter 30