Thoughts on "US as a plantation" and "the people as slaves"

4 June A.D. 2015

Several have read at least part of the information at the link below, and they wonder as to the legitimacy of the perspective.

As a place to start, an anonymous judge?  Really?  We have no idea even whether that means someone who held office in "this state" or some self-proclaimed individual who wants to have nonsense accepted as credible by purloining the name/title of "judge."  Anonymity is fertile ground for agent provocateur work.

With that in mind, let's review some basics.  We do not now have and have never had a "constitution."  Therefore, what exists in the way of "government" is not created "by law" but rather "by (commercial) declaration."

And, they tell us the legal mechanism of that system in the titles used by the national-level system: "federal."

"Federal," as a term, is best understood by the older dictionaries.  Through time, the term has become corrupted via the (corruption of the) dictionaries.  In Webster's 1828, we get as good an understanding as is possible, and, at the end of the day, "federal" (still) means "federal," no matter what the modern-day dictionaries are corrupted into trying to get us to accept for the meaning of the term. 

We're taught that "federal" means "national," so that we don't even think about "federal" at or for any other level of "government."  We're taught that "federal" means "constitutional," so that we don't question the source of origin of that national system.  But, "federal" means neither of these.  "Federal" means "by agreement."

How does the national system function?  "Federally," as in "by agreement."

And, how does the STATE system function?  "Federally," as in "by agreement."

And, how does a "county" system function?  "Federally," as in "by agreement."

And, how does a municipal (corporation) system function?  How does any "corporation" function?  "Federally," as in "by agreement."

And, how does a PTA or a school board function?  "Federally," as in "by agreement."


To address this concept in this context, what kept this "by agreement" system "in check" for as long as it was "in check?"  The "choice of law" that comes with the use of honest weights and measures.  To use honest weights and measures is to bring God in on the transaction, for it is the Common Law that comes with the use of honest weights and measures, and the origin of the Common Law is, of course, Scripture.  We got away from that inherent limit on ourselves and on our institutions when we got into using this "funny money," which started in earnest circa 1965.  We can put the dark djinni back in that dark bottle, but we really have to want to, because it means changing what we use as our medium of exchange.  This present system is very addicted to our using its "funny money," and our use of that medium of exchange is at the heart of practically everything that vexes us these days.)


What, then, is at the heart of this commercial system that is so cleverly disguised as something "governmental?"  What must be the case for all these agreement-based mechanisms to work successfully?  What has to be the case for this commercial system to function, at all, is that the people have to have the "capacity" to enter into the binding (gotcha) agreements.

What does a slave not have?  Right.  The capacity to enter into any agreement, at all, whatsoever.

Therefore, once we get to that point in our re-study of what we're dealing with, which starts all over again at the very beginning, throwing away everything that we ever though we knew about law and government, that we can accept our present reality that we do not now have and have never had a "constitution," we're not that far away from coming to terms with that which is at the very foundation of our present reality, which is this:  "Federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement."

Once one gets to that point, of realizing that we're dealing with a Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" system, then this next part really is as simple as falling backwards off a wet log.  What must be the case for a commercial, "by agreement" system to function?  We have to have the capacity to shish kabob ourselves on/with all their "gotcha agreements."  If we didn't have that capacity, their "by agreement" system would never get off the ground.

Stated in another way, what this present "federal," "by agreement" system is 100% dependent on is our un-informed exercise of our "right (not) to contract."  That's the traditional label.  Better, so that we don't get lost thinking that all agreements are contracts, which they definitely are not (the "gotcha agreements" largely take us into trust law), is to phrase it this way: "the right (not) to agree." By whatever may be the suitable label, the concept is this. We can never be compelled to agree to anything.  Thus, for example, "choice of law" is exactly that, namely "a choice."  That can never be different. We can never be compelled to use this or that "currency," because that lack of choice is tantamount to an act of war.  That's compulsion, and "this state" can't survive where there's even a any remote tinge of compulsion.

(The Kingdom, itself, is 100% dependent on this very concept.  To compel a "choice of law" is to engage in an act of war.  God is not going to establish His Kingdom by declaring war on His creation.  It's a choice (if there's any choice in the matter -- a topic for another time), and we are led by any number of means into that choice, but we pick Him.  "Choose ye this day."  It's a very conscious and deliberate habit of thought, word, and deed.  We have to pick Him, because He's never going to compel us to make that choice.  It's a choice.  It's one of these fundamental laws that has remained inviolate.  The Kingdom is not and can never be formed or based on compulsion.  That's War, which is a Judgment, and while He definitely Judges us, that's the corrective measures so that we come to realize the differences.  As we realize those differences, we make that choice to pick Him (if there's any choice in the matter).)

In "this state," we can never be, and have never been, compelled into any of the "gotcha agreements."  Let's take an example that is surely well in mind.  No one may be compelled to sign up for the military.  This whole notion of conscription is total non-sense.  Signing up for the military has always been a 100% voluntary, unilateral act, and the marketing to the contrary is just that: marketing.  The military is literally a separate "church," with its own "choice of law," and no one may be compelled to adopt that different "choice of law."

In this same way, then, we can never be compelled to agree to any of this system's "programs."  If we're in one of those programs, we got there 100% voluntarily, by definition and as a matter of law.  That's the only way this system can function.  It has to be 100% voluntary.  Or else what?  Or else we have no discretion in the matter, which renders the "agreements" "adhesive" in nature, thus unenforceable, generally.

Many feel that the situation is already "adhesive," but that's part and parcel of the "victimhood" we're all taught to accept. For so long as we feel we're compelled to do this or to do that, we won't come to terms with the reality that we're not in any way, shape, manner, or form compelled into anything.  For so long as we feel that we are, "they've" got our minds in the prisons they want our minds in.  The instant we start taking individual responsibility for our situation, we're released from that prison.  Of course, that's a release from the comfort of the prison to the discomfort of having to take care of ourselves, and that's more than the vast majority are interested in.  They'd much rather be comfortable as "allowed" by their handlers than be uncomfortable in the Life of Liberty.

There is absolutely, positively nothing "adhesive" about any "gotcha agreement" that we're induced into.  We have 100% control over every single one of those, and while life may be too different for us to want to get loose from those "deals," that's 100% our choice based 100% on our comfort level of what a Life of Liberty for us, individually, would mean.  A few are ready, willing, and able.  The super-vast majority are simply not.  A great many have been "taken care of" too long still to have that independence of spirit necessary to survive a Life of Liberty.

"Slaves" are property.  "Slaves" have no capacity to enter into any agreement of any type, kind, or nature.  This commercial system can't afford "slaves."  Everyone has to be a "freeman" in order for this commercial mechanism to work.


So, what's the bottom line?  If one is on a plantation, one got there 100% voluntarily.  This author's book, "We, the Posterity: Voluntary Bondage," is not accidentally titled.  There is no compelled plantation.  Not knowing everyone's actual situation, it's not possible to say for 100% blanket coverage that some are not in/on a plantation.  What is 100% certain, though, is that there's only one way that situation could ever exist in this "funny money" system, and that's 100% voluntarily.  The silver lining is that once we get into our minds the reality that we're dealing with a "federal" system, i.e., that whatever vexes us we got into 100% voluntarily, we can also end by that very same means, namely voluntarily.

Yes, this is where it really matters that we have a full and complete working knowledge of the problem so as to have a full and complete working knowledge of the solution.  Today's "Pharaoh" is no more allowing the people "to go" than the Pharaoh in the times of Scripture.  In a word, it's a fight.  It's not for the faint of heart.  It's a fight, and if we don't "get it" in terms of our present legal reality, we're going to get our asses kicked in the "Beast's" judicial system.  It's a fight, and it matters that we know what the rules are so as to prevail in that fight.

We can (and have, and will continue to) prevail in those fights.  To learn the reality is to be leagues and miles ahead of the power-addicted bureaucrats who think that a regulation applies solely because it's in print.  Because they think that way, we're in for a fight.  But, we're up against a bully, and the bully mechanism is bluff.  Call the bluff, and the fight is won.  We simply have to have the confidence and chutzpah to do what it takes to call the bluff.

In general, it's legally impossible for "this state," a/k/a "United States," to be a plantation. 

In general, it's legally impossible for anyone found in "this state," a/k/a "United States," to be a slave. What's the exception?  Someone in jail convicted of a crime may very well be a slave, at least while they're in jail.  There is no other exception.  There simply are no "slaves."

The reason that it's legally impossible for there to be "slaves" is that the "federal" system can't function unless we have the capacity to enter into the "gotcha" agreements.  For this reason, the "federal" system is the greatest protector of our "right (not) to agree."  Slaves cannot be held to any agreements, for slaves are property without the capacity to agree.

As we come to terms with the fact that this right, the "right (not) to contract/agree," is the most active right going these days, we also see that we're not doing so well in the "(not)" department.  We're agreeing left and right, having no clue that's what we're doing.  Once we stop that, then that which feels vexatious to us, by and about and from this present system, will end.  There can't be (vicious, vile, God-hating, America-hating) enforcement against us of an agreement that doesn't exist in the first place.

So, if someone is in a condition of "bondage," that someone got there 100% voluntarily.  That's the problem and the solution at the same time.  What we get into voluntarily, we get right back out of the same way: voluntarily.

May The Lord God Almighty give us sight to see our commercial situation for exactly what it is and the courage to start asserting our "right not to agree."

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe :  legal_reality@earthlink.net




-------- Original Message --------

http://www.theeventchronicle.com/study/anonymous-judge-blows-the-whistle-u-s-is-a-plantation-and-we-the-people-are-slaves/