Tuesday, November 27, 2012


Published on Nov 27, 2012 by
This video is about lawfully travelling on public roads. You are under no obligation to contract with any private CORPORATION to use the public roads. The public roads are yours. Only slaves ask for permission. You do not have to participate in their private insurance scams. They use your own ignorance against you. Learn law and court procedure. Set yourself free.

We were about 7 Sworn Peace Officers lawfully travelling on the public roads towards Kelowna to support Dean Clifford on November the 21st for a court case. The "CANADA" we commonly know is merely a limited liability foreign corporation operating for profit. Obviously this would mean that every other corporations under "CANADA" does NOT work for the interest of the people. The legal system we have today is a scam with phony court procedures and paid actors. That is why they call their pseudo laws "Acts". The legal system was not meant to uphold the law, but to settle dispute through deception and coercion to have your consent. Please leave any comments or questions. Thank you for your time. Happy travellings! -The men in tuques.

There is a difference between "Canada" the landmass and "CANADA" the limited liability foreign corporation operating for profit. Know the difference.

Same as the difference between the landmass commonly known as "Province Of British Columbia" and "PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA" the limited liability corporation operating for profit which is merely a division of "CANADA" the limited liability foreign corporation operating for profit.

We are the Men In Tuques. We are Sworn Peace Officers. We are NOT Policy Enforcement Officers (Police). We are almost harmless.

Thanks to Jeremy for video editing.

Monday, November 26, 2012




BREAKING NEWS – Sunday 25 November 2012
English: The entrance to the Queensland Univer...
English: The entrance to the Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point campus ( this photograph was taken by Figaro ) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Retired High Court Judge Mary Gaudron has been implicated in a case of fraud involving the alleged misappropriation of her mother’s estate, by allegedly fraudulently changing the will of her mother who I believe lived in a nursing home and who suffered from dementia.  Mary Genevieve Gaudron kept her mother’s condition from her two siblings.
Helen Underwood (Margaret Helen Gaudron) is  bringing a case against her sister, Mary Gaudron in the probate court.  The death, Accident and hospitalization of her mother was kept from Helen by her sister Mary Gaudron. Her brother knew but was disinherited from the will.
Ashamed of her heritage, former High Court Judge Mary Genevieve Gaudron has kept the dark family secret of her aboriginality hidden from public scrutiny, disowning her own bloodline and lineage, she disowned her part aboriginal siblings.  Should Mary Gaudron, retired High Court Judge have recused herself from hearing the Mabo case, due to any interest or bias in the case?
The Mabo case itself is interesting because for all the who-ha in the media, the case did little for aboriginal rights.  The case of Mabo was also very interesting because it set a precedent and was intimately tied to the environment, as it was discussing the ownership and rights to land.
Queensland University of Technology
Queensland University of Technology (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Mabo case was also mentioned on Friday in the Environmental Law Symposium, a seminar hosted by Michelle Maloney, the convenor of Wild Law Alliance held at QUT (Queensland University of Technology), the Nazi hub of venal reptilian satan worshipping bootlickers.  Maloney and all the other lawyers, including Sean Ryan, Senior Solicitor for the EDO (Environmental Defenders Office whose trademark is the owl, a Freemason symbol) all denied any knowledge of United Nations Agenda 21 when asked, but then acknowledged the existence of Agenda 21 in another session on the same day, however that story is for another post.
The Mabo case decisions were made between 1982 and 1992.  Was the Mabo decision affected by the Club of Rome‘s Earth Charter, and was Mary Gaudron’s decision in any way influenced by this Charter?
Mark McMurtrie on said:
I feel the matter of Mabo was unquestionably impaired by Gaudrons’ obvious hatred for anything ‘AB-original – even herself it seems.
It is not improper to suggest that ALL of those who sat the bench on the Mabo case should have recused themselves due to self interest in the form of financial joinder to the Crown – which was, after all, a party to the proceedings in various forms and guises.
There is also the fraud of Native Title which then flowed from those cases, and the fact the Crowns minions have secreted the rights of the Tribes to establish their own separate sovereign States and establish their own political and other structures – protected by International law.
The High Court has demonstrated, and this matter now further exacerbates the evidence of corruption on the bench in respect of the Crowns lack of jurisdiction over Tribal peoples. Not to mention the severe harassment of the people and their families who are standing up to the Crown on these matters by the Crowns’ police and other agents – contrary to UN resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 Oct 1970…..to which the Corporate State of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and its’ States are bound.



If you are the spouse, de facto spouse or other direct family member of the deceased, and the deceased died without a will, or the will is declared invalid, then you can apply to the Supreme Court to become the administrator of their estate. Following your application, the Supreme Court will issue a Grant of Letters of Administration in the name of the applicant. The Grant will then authorize and enable you to collect the assets of the deceased and to distribute them according to the State intestacy laws.
When intestacy occurs
When a person dies leaving real property (land or anything attached to it) or personal property of any kind, that property must be distributed.  The deceased can direct, during his or her lifetime, how the estate is to be distributed after death by drawing up a will.  Intestacy occurs when either the whole or part of the deceased’s estate is not disposed of by a will.  Total intestacy occurs when the deceased failed to make a will at all, failed to make a valid will or made a valid will but all the beneficiaries have since died.  Partial intestacy occurs when the deceased made a valid will but the terms of the will do not dispose of the whole of the estate.  This kit is aimed at the situation where the deceased dies without having made a will. 
The distribution of an intestate estate
State law allows for the appointment of an administrator to administrate the deceased’s estate in the absence of a will appointing an executor chosen by the deceased.  This person is given the duty of paying any debts the estate owed and distributing the assets in accordance with the rules of intestacy.  They are given legal authority to act under a court order which is known as the grant of letters of administration.
Who can apply for letters of administration?
The individual State legislation sets out who can be appointed as an administrator.  The State Supreme Court can appoint a spouse (Including de facto), one or more of the next of kin or the spouse together with one or more of the next of kin.  If no such person exists or if, in the opinion of the court, the person concerned is not fit to be trusted with the responsibility, the Court can grant administration to any person it thinks fit.
The role of the administrator
On the grant of administration of the deceased’s estate, all the deceased’s assets become vested with (become the property of) the administrator. For example, if the deceased held shares in a company, upon seeing the grant from the court, the company will register the administrator as the shareholder in place of the deceased.  This will enable the administrator to sell the shares and distribute the proceeds in accordance with the intestacy rules discussed below.  The legal authority of the administrator to deal with the deceased person’s estate has been confirmed by the court.  This will satisfy those institutions who hold the deceased’s assets that the administrator has the authority to deal with those assets and will give the administrator some protection from liability in dealing with the estate.
The purpose of the State rules of intestacy
Intestacy occurs quite frequently in Australia. The aim of the legislation in each state is to put try and produce the same sort of result as if the deceased had made a will.  It identifies the deceased’s closest relatives as the main beneficiaries and assumes that these are the people that the deceased would most want to benefit.  The rules make assumptions about who the deceased is closest to. The rules do not therefore take account of individual circumstances.  The rules are designed to act as a safety net to protect those who have failed for whatever reason to direct what they would like to happen to their assets when they die.
Do I need to obtain letters of administration?
Not necessarily.  The main reason that a grant of letters of administration is required is that some organisations which hold assets of the estate will not release them to the administrator for distribution without sight of a grant of representation from the Supreme Court.  You will need to make a list of everything the deceased owned or was entitled to and then make contact with the financial institutions concerned to establish whether they require a grant.  This will be more relevant for smaller estates.  For larger estates comprising real estate, a grant of representation will almost certainly be required.
Other circumstances where letters of administration may be granted
Where there is a will but the Executors are not able or willing to act
This can be the case where one or more of the named executors have predeceased the testator or are elderly and unwilling or otherwise not available to make the application for Probate. There is provision for an application to be made for LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WITH THE WILL ANNEXED. Any person with an interest in the estate can make this application.
Where the will is found to be invalid
An invalid will is one in which there is a deficiency of one or more of the points made above which define a valid will. Probate cannot be granted in such a case but the Court will give "LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WITH THE WILL ANNEXED" to an executor named in the will so as to enable the administration of the estate of the deceased. The applicant may be the person nominated in the will or document stating a testamentary intention as the executor if that has been done, otherwise any person who has an interest in the affairs of the deceased may make application for Letters of Administration.
Where there is partial intestacy
Partial intestacy occurs where there is a will but it does not deal with all the assets of the estate. In this case an application for a Grant of Probate is made generally by the executor named in the will and the assets which are included in the will are dealt with according to the will and those assets not included are disposed of to the beneficiaries according to the rules of intestacy.
See other pages about probate: NSW probate, VIC probate, QLD probate, SA probate. WA probate, TAS probate, ACT probate, NT probate.

Letters of Administration PLUS service from AussieLegal

If you have been named as an executor, or are a relative of the deceased, and you are required to obtain a grant of letters of administration, you can make a personal application to the Sureme Court rather than make the application through a solicitor or law firm.

AussieLegal is a paralegal company that specialises in probate and letters of administration and has available the Letters of Administration PLUS service where they will do all the hard work and prepare the application to the Supreme Court on your behalf. 

Benefits of the Probate Plus Service:
  • Save time - this is the fastest way to get your Grant of Probate;
  • Save thousands in legal fees; and
  • The price is fixed - no surprises;
This service includes:
  • a review of supporting documentation;
  • the preparation of all probate application forms; and
  • answers to any questions or requisitions from the Supreme Court. 


When a person draws up a will, they need to appoint someone to administer their estate when they die.  This person is known as the executor.  The executor is responsible for carrying out the terms of the will.  The executor will sometimes need to apply for probate.  Probate means the official recognition that a will is legally valid.  The application is made to the Probate Registry of the Supreme Court for a “Grant of Probate”.  The grant is a document certifying that the Supreme Court recognises the authority of the executor(s) to deal with the estate.  This will enable the executor(s) to collect the assets and pay any debts of the deceased person and then to distribute the estate as directed by the will.
Where there is no will, or some part of the will is not valid, the executor(s) or the next of kin may need to apply to the Supreme Court to be the administrator of the estate of the deceased. In this instance, the Court will issue a "Grant of Letters of Administration".
The information in this website is designed to assist people who have been appointed executors, or relatives of recently deceased persons, with understanding what the process of applying for probate (or letters of administration) is all about, and what duties you will be expected to perform.
It is possible, and not uncommon, for executors to make a personal application for a grant of probate or letters of administration, rather than make the application through a solicitor or law firm. There are do-it-yourself kits available for all States and Territories (please see the ‘Do-it-yourself Probate’ section). There are also services available to assist you in this process for considerably less cost than more conventional legal services.
... Not relevant to our needs, if you want to read however the link is at the bottom :)
The information contained herein is not legal advice. The information is provided solely on the basis that readers will be responsible for making their own assessment of it.  We recommend that you obtain independent legal advice from a solicitor if you wish to assess the suitability of the information contained herein.

Thursday, November 22, 2012


Here is some interesting information on notorious American hate group, 'the Southern Poverty Law Association' whom it seems isn't the most honest group going around. 
August 20, 2012 By Rosslyn Smith

Last week's shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC) has placed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) back into the news.  The SPLC recently had placed the FRC on its list of hate groups because the SPLC claims that in its opposition to gay marriage, the FRC defames gays and lesbians. 
It should be noted that the not-for-profit SPLC ostensibly began its mission to help those who had been victimized by civil rights violations by filing suits on their behalf.  In recent years, the SPLC greatly expanded its definition of civil rights and hate groups to the point where any organization that opposes the left's favored causes risks being labeled a hate group by the SPLC.  It has also moved away from suing on behalf of the aggrieved to raising awareness of the presence of "hate groups."  Most of all, for the last 35 years, it has become a real fundraising dynamo.

The labeling of opposing political views as hate by the SPLC has become so egregious that at the end of a report on a solidarity march in the Swedish city of Malmö by people protesting attacks on Jews by Islamists, William Jacobson of
Legal Insurrection wonders:

Bonus question: Will pointing out the truth about Malmö land me on SPLC's "hate map" along with Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs?
Update:  I just noticed that Danel Greenfields' Sultan Knish also is on SPLC's NY hate map.
A growing consensus on the political right is to consider being labeled a hate group by the SPLC a badge of honor.  I agree that it is, but I take issue with others about what is to be done.  When I look at the entire history of the SPLC, I don't think the recent trend of inflate the hate is as much about political correctness run completely amok in the age of Obama as it is about the greed and self-aggrandizement of the founder of the SPLC and the gullibility of the donor base.
Yes, mock those who increasingly conflate disapproval of policy ideas with hate.  It is a silly idea.  But mock even more those who continue to donate to SPLC as dupes of pious-sounding con men.  Make them doubt their self-image as serious-thinking people by showing that they are being manipulated by a shameless huckster whose principal agenda has always been to become very wealthy.  For if you understand that motivation, it is easy to see why the definition of hate had to be expanded to include groups that were considered very mainstream just a short time ago.
SPLC founder Morris Dees is a lawyer, but he began his career as a direct marketer, hawking everything from cookbooks to tractor seat cushions.  Indeed, the SPLC was a latecomer to the civil rights movement, as many of the biggest legal and legislative battles had been won before the organization was formed in 1971.
Dees' first law partner, Millard Fuller, had this to say of him and their legal and direct marketing business ventures in the 1960s:
Morris and I, from the first days of our partnership, shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money. ... We were not particular about how we did  it. We just wanted to be independently rich.  During the eight years we worked together we never wavered in that resolve.  
By the mid-60s, Morris was rich.  He also became deeply interested in the money side of leftist politics.  The initial donor list of the SPLC consisted of those who had contributed to McGovern's political campaign, because Dees ran that campaign's direct mail operation and had requested the mailing list as his fee.  The Southern-born Dees knew that many of the northern liberals on McGovern's donor list would get a vicarious thrill from sending a check to the Alabama-based SPLC to fight the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists. 
If appealing to some of these rather naive donors meant tarring other Southerners as racist, bigoted hicks, so be it.  Dees also raised money for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and wanted to be attorney general, but he and Carter's people had a falling out.  After Carter left office, spokesman Jody Powell made no bones about his disgust with Dees and the use of appeals in SPLC mailings that were intentionally designed to play up to the stereotypes "ignorant Yankee contributors" had about Southerners.
It should also be noted that Millard Fuller took a different course from his erstwhile partner's.  After he sold out to Dees, Fuller donated the money to charity and went on to found Habitat for Humanity.  As contributions to the SPLC kept increasing, so did Dees' salary.  Within two decades, he was among the most highly compensated of the heads of advocacy groups, earning much more than the heads of more widely known organizations such as the ACLU, the Children's Defense Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.  That something was seriously rotten at SPLC was noted along with the increases in Dees' salary.  While the SPLC promoted its pursuit of lawsuits related to civil rights, especially those challenging the imposition of the death penalty on black offenders, fundraising was pursued even more fervently.  By 1989, an ecumenical guide to charitable giving described the mission of the SPLC as "the aggressive distribution of junk mail, soliciting funds for more junk mail."
A decade later in Harper's magazine, a feature titled "The Church of Morris Dees" noted:
Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. "He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement," renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, "though I don't mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye."
The results of one of the SPLC's most famous cases as detailed in that article certainly might lead even the most credulous donor to think the aim of the SPLC may have shifted a bit from helping victims of hate to greed and self-aggrandizement.   
In 1987, Dees won a $7 million judgment against the United Klans of America on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, whose son was lynched by two Klansmen. The UKA's total assets amounted to a warehouse whose sale netted Mrs. Donald $51,875. According to a groundbreaking series of newspaper stories in the Montgomery Advertiser, the SPLC, meanwhile, made $9 million from fund-raising solicitations featuring the case, including one containing a photo of Michael Donald's corpse.
In what Dees must have seen as icing on the cake, his battles against the fast fading and largely judgment-proof Klan even became the subject of a 1991 made-for-TV movie that depicted him as a huge hero in the civil rights movement.  Again, the movie was used to feed the all-important fundraising beast.   
The year 1998 saw Dees being inducted into the Direct Marketing Association Hall of Fame, a move that also should have alerted the SPLC donor base that just maybe the SPLC was not quite as cash-strapped as it always represented itself in its frequent solicitations.
Dees' reputation has long been beyond tarnished inside much of the civil rights bar.  In 2007, Atlanta civil rights lawyer Stephen Bright was invited by the University of Alabama Law School to present its Morris Dees Justice Award.  Here is what Bright wrote Dean Kenneth C. Randall:

I also received the law school's invitation to the presentation of the "Morris Dees Justice Award," which you also mentioned in your letter as one of the "great things" happening at the law school. I decline that invitation for another reason. Morris Dees is a con man and fraud, as I and others, such as U.S. Circuit Judge Cecil Poole, have observed and as has been documented by John Egerton, Harper's, the Montgomery Advertiser in its "Charity of Riches" series, and others.
The positive contributions Dees has made to justice -- most undertaken based upon calculations as to their publicity and fund raising potential -- are far overshadowed by what Harper's described as his "flagrantly misleading" solicitations for money. He has raised millions upon millions of dollars with various schemes, never mentioning that he does not need the money because he has $175 million and two "poverty palace" buildings in Montgomery. He has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people -- some of moderate or low incomes -- who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation. He has spent most of what they have sent him to raise still more millions, pay high salaries, and promote himself. Because he spends so much on fund raising, his operation spends $30 million a year to accomplish less than what many other organizations accomplish on shoestring budgets.
The award does not recognize the work of others by associating them with Dees; it promotes Dees by associating him with the honorees. Both the law school and Skadden are diminished by being a part of another Dees scam.
None of this has ever seemed to dent the SPLC's ability to raise money by inflating the influence of what it calls hate groups.  But by the late 1980s, a different problem was starting to develop: the Klan was all but dead, and few of the organizations labeled as white supremacists had more than a handful of members.
But this didn't stop SPLC from using such groups for their direct mailing haul of shame.  Still, the original donor base was aging.  So during the Clinton administration, the SPLC found Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh a handy substitute for the Klan in its fundraising, despite failures to link his actions to any of the small militia groups the SPLC had earlier identified as hate groups.  Eventually that appeal also ran its course, so the SPLC needed to "inflate the hate" by identifying another group as the boogieman for a new generation of naive souls eager to depart with their money for a righteous-sounding cause. 
In 2010, Ken Silverstein, the author of the 2000 Harper's article, noted that the SPLC had found a large new target: those immigration reform groups that supported almost anything more restrictive than amnesty and de facto open borders.
For the record, I am totally opposed to CIS's stance on immigration, as I stated at the press conference. I accepted the invitation to speak on the panel because it came from my friend Jerry Kammer, of whom I am a big admirer.
I also agreed to the invitation because, much like CIS, I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as "hate groups." (Which doesn't mean that some of the groups it criticizes aren't reprehensible.) In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.
Silverstein's good friend Kammer had this to say about Dees' manipulative methods as he demolished the SPLC in "Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped Its Donors."
While Dees was raised a Southern Baptist, he suggested to some donors that he had a more diverse background. For example, in a 1985 fundraising pitch for funds to protect SPLC staff from threats of Klan violence, Dees made conspicuous use of his middle name - Seligman, which he received in honor of a family friend. A former SPLC attorney told The Progressive magazine that Dees signed letters with his middle name in mailings to zip codes that had many Jewish residents. The article was titled "How Morris Dees Got Rich Fighting the Klan." A former SPLC employee told the Montgomery Advertiser that the donor base was "anchored by wealthy Jewish contributors on the East and West coasts."

Attorney Tom Turnipseed, a former Dees associate, told Cox News Service, "Morris loves to raise money. Some of his gimmicks are just so transparent, but they're good."

Turnipseed described a fundraising letter whose return envelope carried "about six different stamps." The purpose of the ruse was to present the appearance of an organization struggling to keep going. As Turnipseed noted: "It was like they had to cobble them all together to come up with 35 cents."
After decades of claiming in his mailings that the SPLC was itself on the verge of poverty, Dees raised a few eyebrows in 2010 when a sixty-photo spread of his objets d'art-filled home, complete with guest house, pool, and grounds, ran in his hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser.  As blogger Steve Sailer noted:

This shiny thing-a-mabob with the #20 on it is described as "A poolside rickshaw at the home of Morris Dees and Susan Starr in Montgomery, Ala," because nothing screams Equality! like a fancy rickshaw.
A look at the recent numbers reported by SPLC is highly informative.  With net assets of $238 million as of the close of its last fiscal year, the SPLC is among the wealthiest of civil rights and advocacy organizations.  Despite this endowment, the SPLC often implies that it is on the verge of cutting back operations vital to the quest for equality and civil rights due to lack of funds.  Yet it spends almost 19% of its annual budget on fundraising each year despite the fact its net assets are already an extremely healthy seven times annual expenses.  Note that this 19% figure is under cost allocation rules that allow some solicitations to pass as program expenses because educational material is included with the solicitation. 
Last year, the SPLC generated a surplus of $4.1 million on revenues of $38.7 million.  CEO J. Richard Cohen makes $299K/year, and editor in chief of the SPLC Intelligence Report and Hatewatch blog Mark Potok makes $150K/year.  Chief Trial Counsel Morris Dees, age 74, makes $305K/year.  I wonder how many hours Dees spent on trial preparation compared to fundraising.  The title Dees carries is Chief Trial Counsel, yet his chief bailiwick has always been direct mail marketing.
As the SPLC publicizes the names of ever more hate groups to "raise awareness" of intolerance and to tap into ever new sources of funds, its donors should keep in mind a genuine larger truth.  Heightened awareness has never by itself helped the actual victims of anything, anywhere, at any time.  At best, it is entirely self-referential.  At its worst, it serves as a useful ploy to make a donor who hasn't done much in the way of due diligence about an organization's finances feel good about sending money to what appears to be a righteous cause.
The SPLC has more than mastered the exercise of raising awareness.  In his 2000 article, Silverstein noted that during its then-29 years of existence, the SPLC had carefully adjusted its operations to fit the needs and self-image of its largely urban, white, and often Jewish donor base.  Causes that garnered favorable early media attention but which also risked upsetting some donors, such as filing suits protesting the death penalty, were dropped, even if that meant the mass resignation of staff attorneys.  Images of angry blacks and other minorities never appear in solicitations.  Nor do concrete issues related to race and poverty get much attention in these appeals.  Donors aren't called on to actually fight to improve housing, improve inner-city schools, or end violence at the borders.  Everything is geared to the equal-opportunity and secular sin of being intolerant of those who are different.  According to Silverstein, the payoff is also always the same -- the SPLC is all about making guilty white donors feel good about themselves for being understanding by writing a check to the wealthy and largely white SPLC.  Actual attempts to help the oppressed and downtrodden aren't just optional. They are almost superfluous.
This is done with a tried-and-true formula Dees learned listening to evangelical preachers as well as TV hucksters.  Silverstein writes: 
No faith healing or infomercial would be complete without a moving testimonial. The student from whose tears this white schoolteacher learned her lesson is identified only as a child of color. "Which race," we are assured, "does not matter." Nor apparently does the specific nature of "the racist acts directed at him," nor the race of his schoolyard tormentors. All that matters, in fact, is the race of the teacher and those expiating tears. "I wept with him, feeling for once, the depth of his hurt," she confides. "His tears washed away the film that had distorted my white perspective of the world." Scales fallen from her eyes, what action does this schoolteacher propose? What Gandhi-like disobedience will she undertake in order to "reach real peace in the world"? She doesn't say but instead speaks vaguely of acting out against "the pain." In the age of Oprah and Clinton, empathy -- or the confession thereof -- is an end in itself.
What matters is that the targets feel they will become part of the solution by writing a check to SPLC.  The comparison to Jim and Tammy Faye is really quite apt.  The Bakkers always featured the power of the personal testimonial as panacea.  The SPLC wants the potential donor to identify with the guilty white teacher.  The idea behind Jim Bakker's testimonials was to get potential donors to identify with the one giving the testimony and not dwell on what actual changes must be made in one's life to truly get closer to God.  Solutions were left intentionally quite vague.  And, of course, both the SPLC and the PTL Club offer absolution for sins secular and sacred in nature by means of sinners' dropping a nice fat check in the mail.
While the formula is timeless, the pitch itself was badly in need of upgrading in the case of the SPLC.  It's been two generations since the civil rights battles of the 1950s and '60s.  America elected a black man president, and while few of the truly intractable social problems relating to race have been solved, those problems are for serious people willing to do real work -- not film flam artists writing empty prose for the crowd that prides itself on self-described awareness.
For some time now, the media culture has been suggesting that the battle for gay marriage has its parallels with the civil rights battles.  Promoting gay marriage has certainly become a huge cause among the largely secular, affluent coastal elites who make up much of the donor base of the SPLC.  It seems the perfect newly fashionable cause to adopt to attract a new generation of marks.  Thus, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has followed the history of the SPLC that groups which promote traditional values suddenly find themselves on the SPLC hate map.  I guess it is also not surprising that after so many warnings about its money-grubbing ways, the SPLC still has an audience for its exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright distortions.  As the man said, there is a sucker born every minute.  
Perhaps if you personally know people who swear by the validity of the new SPLC hate map you may want to nicely inform them they are now charter members of the new secular version of the PTL Club and watch the reaction.  If they get angry, remind them that this is not the assessment of the political right.  The most damning quotes about Dees and the SPLC all come from former associates on the political left.



Detectives Kory Flowers and Rob Finch of the Greensboro, N.C., Police Intelligence Squad were both involved in tracking white supremacists when, a couple of years ago, a new threat started to show up on their radar. After receiving phone calls from several officers whose routine traffic duties had brought them into contact with hostile drivers spouting bizarre nonsense about being exempt from U.S. laws, the detectives realized their county had become a destination for “sovereign citizens” — particularly self-proclaimed followers of Noble Drew Ali, a black separatist from the early 20th century whose “Moorish” ideology has been selectively adopted by many sovereigns.
Determined to protect their county against the avalanche of fraudulent property liens and other baseless paperwork (“paper terrorism”) sovereigns were filing against public officials they felt had wronged them, Flowers and Finch developed a comprehensive training system whose purpose was to arm officials with the information they need to combat the problem. The detectives, who have spent hundreds of hours interviewing sovereign ideologues, emphasize that it is not only police that need training, but clerks of court, registrars of deeds, district attorneys, judges, fire inspectors, and other public officials involved in enforcement.
The effort by Flowers and Finch comes as the number of sovereigns expands rapidly along with the larger antigovernment “Patriot” movement. The Southern Poverty Law Center has estimated that there are some 100,000 hardcore sovereigns operating in the United States, along with an estimated 200,000 more people who are dabbling in its bogus legal techniques. The number of Patriot groups, including sovereign organizations, has exploded in the last three years, from 149 in 2008 to 1,274 last year. The ideology, which was birthed by white supremacist groups and originally said only white Americans could be sovereigns, has expanded rapidly in recent years in the black community, typically among the black nationalist so-called Moorish groups, as well as in many other populations.
The Intelligence Report spoke with Flowers and Finch about what they’ve seen, what they teach, and what steps they think are needed to manage the problem.
Was there a specific incident that prompted you to look into the ‘sovereign’ movement?

Greensboro, N.C., detectives Rob Finch (right) and Kory Flowers (left) say police aren't the only ones who need training in dealing with "sovereign" extremists, so do court officials and many others. (Photo by Jennifer Warburg)
KORY FLOWERS: We had two different traffic stops where our guys stopped sovereigns, and then minutes later other sovereigns were showing up and handing them documentation and talking about suing our officers, talking about immunity and aboriginal rights and various things. Our [officers], while they weren’t completely ignorant, were just overwhelmed, and they contacted us in the Intelligence Unit, hoping we had answers for them.ROB FINCH: Then a couple of our guys got sued. We caught two different lawsuits in excess of $70 million each where the sovereign sued the officer, sued the officer’s direct supervisor, the police department, the police chief and the city of Greensboro. That caught the attention of some of our administrators who were beginning to pay attention, and really drove home our resolve to get dialed in on this movement and create some training to keep officers safe.
And you train police officers for the most part?
FINCH: Law enforcement is only one piece of this entire puzzle. If you don’t have the other elements of the criminal justice system or of government as a whole, up to speed, these guys are going to still be effective with their paper terrorism tactics.
So we started training the registrar of deeds, the clerks of court, our district court and Superior Court judges, our assistant district attorneys. We even trained defense attorneys so they would understand, you know, this is not just a crazy person who they are representing, [that] this is actually somebody who believes that the government is illegitimate and this is why they believe that.
We are to the point now where if sovereigns decide they want to file a fraudulent lien against an officer or anybody in law enforcement or the criminal justice system or city government, or file a lawsuit, that information is brought to us immediately. In Guilford County, if a sovereign comes in the registrar of deeds’ office to file any type of sovereign paperwork, whether it’s a lien, lawsuit or an affidavit renouncing their citizenship, we will get that information typically within 20 or 25 minutes of that sovereign leaving the office. And that allows us to be preemptive with the liens and the lawsuits that they are trying to file against judicial officials, our patrol guys, or anybody in the criminal justice system, because then we can take that information to the district attorney’s office [where it’s decided] whether to prosecute, and we can bring it to the city attorneys and make sure they can [seek] summary judgments dismissing those lawsuits. So it’s made the process quicker and it’s allowed us to be proactive instead of being reactive to it.
What do you do when you realize that someone who filed a lien is a sovereign?
FINCH: We go ahead and send them a letter from the Intelligence Squad saying that it’s come to our attention that you recently attempted to file “sovereign” paperwork, and [this is] basically just to advise you that none of that is legitimate.
Do they respond?
FINCH: [Sometimes] we get phone calls from some of these folks that literally were duped. We have actually unconverted a couple of up-and-coming sovereigns, “amateur” sovereigns, I guess you can call them.
Our police attorney is a very proactive guy. He also sends a letter on behalf of the city legal department saying, “Just so you know, if you do ever anticipate filing a lawsuit or false lien on any of our officers, we advise you already we will countersue.” That’s been the position of our police attorney since he came in six months ago or so. It’s been very, very persuasive.
FLOWERS: We insulated our county, I think, as best you can. We train everybody from parking enforcement to meter-reading folk who will see the tags and contact us immediately. We [also] trained our dispatchers to pick up some of these buzzwords so they can then notify the officer to be aware on calls for service or traffic stops, and we’ve trained all levels of our command staff. It’s been a pretty big net we have thrown out, which has been very effective.
How do you collect information about sovereigns?
FLOWERS: We go out after our patrol guys run into [them, or] after we get an E-mail from a parking guy or the registrar of deeds, and we talk to these folks in a very congenial, nonaggressive manner — basically, telling them that we want to understand their political and ideological stance in order to train up our folks. We spend hours sitting down at sovereign kitchen tables and on their couches, in their backyards sipping lemonade. And they’ll just talk to us. A lot of them haven’t had anybody that would spend the time to listen to them. They will tell us everything we need to know in order to predict their behavior the next time they’re run into by officers.
We have infiltrated some of their meetings in an undercover capacity also. But a lot of our best intelligence is just very overt intelligence gathering, just questions and answers.
Can you talk a little more about the nature of the movement in your area?
FINCH: The Washitaw Nation and the Moorish Nation [both predominantly black groups], those are our most prominent and dominant sovereign groups in North Carolina as a whole.
You hear [references to] Timothy Drew [who is also known as Noble Drew Ali]. He started the Moorish Science Temple in New Jersey, but he’s originally from North Carolina. As with any movement, folks always want to flock to the homeland.
How are people getting into the movement to begin with?
FINCH: Kory and I believe that a lot of these black sovereigns are getting indoctrinated in the prison system in New Jersey, and elsewhere, on a very basic level. Because there is such a large contingency of black sovereigns in this area, they can come down here and already have that sovereign support system in place. So there’s a huge influx of New Jersey folks coming to North Carolina — that’s why the movement is growing daily.
FLOWERS: When we identify a new Moorish apartment building a lot of times, we go do surveillance there and we notice there’s an overwhelming number of New Jersey tags. And some of our partners from New Jersey say that they’ve noticed a lot of North Carolina tags amongst the New Jersey Moors. So it’s not coincidental.
Do you have any sense of how many sovereigns are in your area?
FINCH: In just this center part of North Carolina, I would be comfortable with a conservative number of around 300. And I think there’s more. I think that for every one that Kory and I go out and interview and identify, there are probably three or four more that just got indoctrinated and haven’t yet had a law enforcement encounter.
And they’re all active — filing liens, confronting officers and so forth?
FLOWERS: They’re on a continuum. Sixty to 70% of them are not going to be combative. They’re not going to sue officers, they are just going to give us lip service and give the standard paperwork. And then you’ve got the others, 25-30% that are going to actively resist arrest, fight officers, sue officers.
We try to identify the threat level of each one. We try not to just make a blanket statement, “Sovereign equals danger,” [as in] physically dangerous, because a lot of them are not. We hope to dissuade a lot of them before they kind of get to that point.
Has there been any violence?
FINCH: What we have been dealing with is your roadside traffic stop where [individuals] are resisting, they are actively fighting, they are trying to hurt the cop on the side of the road. But we haven’t had any large organized group of sovereigns try to harm anybody.
FLOWERS: We had a couple sovereigns that climbed up on furniture in court and yelled at judges, thrown paperwork toward the judge, to the point where they would have to get tased multiple times, double-restrained and dragged out of court. They just don’t play by the same rules as even our most hardcore, run-of-the-mill criminals. Run-of-the-mill criminals, even if they are real badasses, they don’t yell at the judges, and throw stuff at judges. These guys are just a different breed. Their mindset is totally different.
FINCH: We have had a couple of our white sovereigns and a couple of our black sovereigns threaten district court and Superior Court judges verbally and with letters. Not actually saying, “I’m going to kill you,” but “I don’t respect your authority. You have no authority as a judicial official and harm is going to come to you.” And we have had a couple situations of harassment where they have constantly sent E-mails and letters to a couple of judges’ houses. We have had to go out and investigate and do threat assessments on those folks.
How much of a threat is this to law enforcement and other officials in your area?
FINCH: I don’t think it’s the No. 1 violent threat, but it’s definitely the most intrusive threat to law enforcement, because of paper terrorism and the associated paperwork.
FLOWERS: It’s much more intimidating and corrosive than threats of physical violence. You know, our guys, they aren’t afraid of bullets and knives — but the idea of losing their house, losing their livelihood; it’s propagated because it’s worked. We get calls from officers who are discouraged from stopping sovereigns, because they know of their reputation.
Do you think the movement will fade away eventually?
FLOWERS: We don’t believe that we will ever get rid of it, but we can definitely [affect] it. Word is getting out among the sovereign circles in the Southeast that this is not the place to be. It’s our hope to just move them. And if everybody else would just work to insulate their counties and states, then they will eventually run out of places to be.
We probably trained 5,000 cops or so in the last couple of years. We get calls pretty regularly after a training session [from officers who run into sovereigns], who tell us they handled the encounter safely because of the training. That’s the payoff for us — a big-time payoff.
Does North Carolina have a paper terrorism law?
FLOWERS: It’s a misdemeanor right now to file a false lien, or a lien that has no merit whatsoever. It’s a step above a heavy speeding ticket.
Rob had a meeting in March with the attorney general of North Carolina, just to sit down and talk about this, about what we can do to create more proactive laws to squash a lot of this stuff. [And] we ran a training session for the North Carolina governor’s crime commission in November. They are intrigued and wanting to do something about it. Hopefully, North Carolina will be enacting some cutting edge legislation in the months to come.
Do you have a sense of how many fraudulent liens and other documents have been filed in your area?
FLOWERS: In every training we hold, classes of 40 to 50 guys, there will be eight or nine who are either currently being sued, have been sued or had had a lien put on their property. It’s really thick.
FINCH: In North Carolina, the laws are so lax and there are so many loopholes that they could effectively threaten law enforcement and scare law enforcement away by filing these frivolous liens and lawsuits. And it’s worked to a certain extent, you know, every 100 traffic stops on sovereign citizens, 10 or 15 are going to result in liens and lawsuits. Eventually, word gets around.
What steps should be taken to reverse this trend?
FINCH: The most effective thing to do is train and educate. Don’t just keep the training in-house. Don’t just train law enforcement. You have to train everybody from the courthouse personnel, all the way down to your parking enforcement folks.
FLOWERS: We even trained a bunch of fire inspectors, fire department building inspectors, because these guys are going into houses and running into sovereigns.
FINCH: If our guys feel comfortable and prepared when dealing with these guys then we have done our job, because then they will do their job safely and effectively.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012


EXACTLY What Is Native Title, and what will those signing off on Native Title Be Getting From The Crown In Return for their signature ? Are the Tribes being told they will get one standard of rights and ownership of 'Traditional' lands whilst being delivered a completely different standard ? Is the Crown being open and fair in its' Native title dealings with the Tribes ? Are the solicitors and others who 'legally' represent the PBCs aware of what they are doing ? Are the Crowns' courts that hear these matters even competent to do so - or are they disqualified due to a blatant conflict of interest because the people sitting on the benches being paid by one party to the argument ? Does the Crown own Tribal lands ? Are Tribal lands the Crowns' to 'give' back to the Tribes or are they the Tribes' to give away under the Crowns' scam of Native title ?
In order to 'claim' Native Title a 'claimant group (not a Tribe) must make an application as a 'Traditional' Owner of the concerned lands. The term 'Traditional' (in a legal context - and after all we are talking in a legal context when we talk about the legal process of Native title) comes from the following legal term/s: (from Black s Law Dictionary - HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M.A.ST. PAUL, MINN. WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1910).

TRADITION: Delivery. (the word is) A close translation or formation from the Latin "traditio." 2 Bl. Comm. 307. - The tradition or delivery is the transferring of the thing sold into the power and possession of the buyer. Civ. Code La. art. 2477.
TRADITIO: - (this is the word that the English word Tradition comes from) it is from the Latin In the civil law. It means the delivery; or transfer of possession; a derivative mode of acquiring, by which the owner of a corporeal thing, having the right and the will of aliening it, transfers it for a lawful consideration to the receiver. Heinecc. Elem. lib. 2, tit. 1, § 380.
CORPOREAL: A term descriptive of such things as have an objective, material existence; perceptible by the senses of sight and touch; possessing a real body. Opposed to incorporeal and spiritual. Civ. Code La. 1900, a r t 460; Sullivan v. Richardson, 33 Fla. 1, 14 South. 692.
So...if you are a 'TRADITIO-nal' Owner....you are someone who has traded your land to someone else. The first part of the con job.
Accordingly, and logically, if you are asking the Crown for some of that land 'back' under NATIVE title you are now asking for some of the lands you apparently 'sold' to the Crown, back from the Crown, under the terms of the Crowns' registered Native Title.
So; lets have a look at that word 'Native' and its' true LEGAL meaning.
NATIVE: (From the Latin word NATIVUS) A natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile (right to have a home) or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. (EG: the Crowns' Corporate State of Australia)
NATIVUS: Lat In old English law, a native; specifically, one born into a condition of servitude (a slave); a born serf or villain (a Criminal).

Then, also consider that under the Crowns' Native (Slaves) Title, the lands DO NOT get returned to the Tribes' people...they are merely 'vested' in a PBC - a Prescribed Body Corporate, which is a corporation registered to the Crowns Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) - and when the Crown is ready...its' Registrar will appoint an administrator who will then sell those lands out from under the Tribes via the PBC, and, HEY ! PRESTO !, the land laundering is complete.
Have you ever wondered why the two legal terms that all the Native Title legislation relies on, 'Traditional' and 'Native', are not defined in Part 15 of the Native Title Act (where everything else is 'defined') ?
Maybe it is because the Crown is committing extrinsic fraud and extortion, amongst other crimes, against the Tribes using these legal terms and don't want us to know about it ?
The reason the Crown insists upon the Tribes negotiating via its' Native Title scam is clear. Without the Tribes signing an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (think about the name for a second) there is no agreement between the tribe/s and the Crown as to ownership and occupation rights/costs of the Tribes lands. The Crown needs its' fraudulent Native Title process to coerce Tribes into giving rights over a Tribes' lands to the Crown for the consideration of 'Native' or 'Slaves' Title over a small portion of that Tribes' lands.
Why do the tribes need to give consent via the 'Native Title' process to the 'Indigenous Land Use' Agreement (ILUA) if the Tribe isn't the owner of the concerned lands to be 'used' ?
The Crown knows this. According to advice given by Dr Stephen Davis (Samuel Griffith Society Volume 9 Chapter Eleven), the issue of Sovereignty over this continent is open for contention and it the Crowns' domestic courts do not have a right to determine the arguement. The issue of 'Royalties' or, to put it simply - 'payment', for minerals etc removed from our lands, both in the past AND in the future, is one thing that needs addressing.
Have you ever wondered why one of the first things that 'Native' Title applicants are required to do, is sign off, at Point 'Q' of the 'Native' Title Application Form, and grant ownership of OUR mineral and other resources to the Crown ?
There is no part of the Native Title process which provides an advantage to the Tribes in any form.
The whole Native Title process has been designed to 'legally thieve' ownership of Tribal lands from the Tribes and hand it to the Crown. What is meant by 'legally thieve' is that this is done according to the Crowns' corporate legislation/statutes which have only ever applied to Her Majesties subjects - something the Tribes have never been.
The only claim ever put forward by the Crown in respect of Tribal lands was founded in the ancient Roman concept called 'Terra Nullius'. This particular rort was debunked as a myth by the Crowns' own High Court in Mabo (2). The Crown had to accept that its' assertion of Sovereignty, based upon a fraudulent claim that this land was unoccupied and or waste, was baseless in fact and just plain incorrect at law.
Now, let's open the legal position of the Crown up to analogy. Just imagine you get pinched for driving without a licence. You go to court and tell the court you didn't think you needed a licence because of your Sovereignty. The magistrate then decides that you are wrong and finds you guilty.
Wouldn't it be amazing if you were allowed to just walk from that court and continue to do as you did before the hearing without ANY need for restitution for your illegal actions to date AND the self-proclaimed right to bash anyone who properly questioned your right to continue in your criminal ways.
Well, that's EXACTLY what the Crown did after Mabo !!!
It just ignored the umpires' decision (even though the Crown owned the umpire that found against the Crown) and continued to 'drive without a licence', so to speak, in respect of Sovereignty on this continent.
In 1970, the UN passed Resolution 2625 (XXV), that requires:
Every [UN Member] State (eg: Australia) has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of Equal Rights and Self-Determination (ER&SD) of [Tribal] peoples, in accord with the provisions of the [UN] charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the Principle, in order:
(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and
(b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples [Tribe] concerned.
and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples [Tribes] to alien [Crown] subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle [of ER&SD], as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the [UN] Charter.........
........The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, [or] the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people [Tribe] constitute modes of implementing the right to self-determination by that people [Tribe].
The reason the Crown forces us to go down the road of Native Title is because THAT is the option which leads the Tribes to the point of '... free association or integration with an independent State' : in this case 'Australia'.
We also have the right to establish our own independent SOVEREIGN State. But the Crown hasn't told Us that - has it ? Those who the Crown has selected to talk for us at the UN won't say much about it either. No need to wonder why.
Gunham Badi Jakamarra
Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF)

Tuesday, November 20, 2012


The State Of Victoria-Department of Justice has been a busy little beaver in 2012. Earlier in the year, we noticed that they introduced some new trading names, namely, "Love Thyself", "Carbon Monoxide" and "Shearwater Productions". Earlier this afternoon, Mikiverse Law noticed that a two of the trading names, "Love Thyself" & "Carbon Monoxide" has disappeared, so I decided to take some screen shots for posterity. Oh and there is a new trading name called "RTM Solutions". We'll do another post on that new development.

Feel free to add to this bank of knowledge in the comments section below.

Monday, November 19, 2012



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Common law offences are crimes under English criminal law and the related criminal law of Commonwealth of Nations countries. These are offences of the common law which are developed entirely by the courts over the years, and for which there is no actual legislation.
The various common law offences are developed using the concept of malum in se.[1]



In Australia Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) abolished all common law federal offences.[2] The Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia have also abolished common law State offences. Common law State offences still apply in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria


In Canada, the 1953 consolidation of criminal law abolished all common law offences, except Contempt of Court under section 9 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

England and Wales

In England and Wales, the Law Commission's programme of codification of the criminal law had the eventual aim to abolish all the remaining common law offences and replace them, where appropriate, with offences precisely defined by statute. The common law offences were seen as unacceptably vague and open to development by the courts in silly ways which might offend the principle of certainty. However, they still exist under English law. In England and Wales, common law offences are punishable by unlimited fines and unlimited imprisonment.
Extant common law offences are listed at English criminal law#Common law offences and abolished etc. offences are listed at History of English criminal law#Common law offences.

List of offences under the common law of England

This list includes offences that have been abolished or codified in one or more or all jurisdictions:
See also criminal libel

New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Crimes Act 1961 abolished common law offences, except for contempt of court and for courts martial.[3]

United States

Common law offences no longer exist at the federal level, as per the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). At the state level, the situation varies. Some states, such as New Jersey, have abolished common law crimes (see State v. Palendrano), while others, such as Kentucky, have chosen to continue to recognize them (see Commonwealth v. Donoghue).

See also


  1. ^ Canadian Law Dictionary, John A. Yogis, Q.C., Barrons: 2003
  2. ^ History of Australian Criminal Law, Parliament of Australia Library
  3. ^ Crimes Act 1961, Part 1, sec. 9                                                                               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_offence