Sunday, December 18, 2011

Do You Own Your Children?

Do you know who owns your child?

This might seem like a strange question to most… but the answer is even stranger and more terrifying to comprehend.

When a question like this is posed, we the people often look to our legislature and our constitution for the answers, as esoteric and interpretable as those answers may be. But without the rose-colored glasses, we can actually read with our own eyes what the answer to this question is from the eyes and opinion of our government.

Before you can truly attain the answer to this question though, and comprehend how it applies to you and your children, you must first temporarily suspend your emotion, your idealism, and your beliefs. For when we refer to law, these things do not apply. And when it is a corporation that writes these laws, morals, ethics, and values go out the window.

Anger though, for the purpose of the information you are about to receive, is permitted and requested…

First of all, let’s clarify that what we are about to see is the opinion of the court system. Courts do not offer “judgment”, only “opinion”. The justices (not judges) of the “Supreme Court” as well offer nothing but opinion, which then becomes what the BAR association considers to be “Public Policy” or public opinion. The BAR copyrights these opinions then misleadingly calls it the “law”.

The side effect of being a consenting citizen of the United States (corporation) is that these copyrighted codes are applied to you with what the U.S.CODE itself calls Prima Facie law (law which derives its authority from presumed consent). Therefore, all branches of government technically operate under presumed law, meaning that the consent of the governed is automatically assumed in all legal matters and decisions based on court opinion.

This, unfortunately, applies to all contracts made with or on behalf of the state…

And one of those contracts is called a “Marriage License“.

Yours and your spouses signature on that state-sanctioned and federally registered document signifies a consent-based contract between all three parties – you, your spouse, and the “State“.

But don’t take my word for it… Let’s see what the court system offers in their opinion about this subject?

First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:

Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:

“Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“

Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.


“…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State“

Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).

“The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.“

Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).


“This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family.   The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.   Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.“

Also, this case law states…

“The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.”

Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.


Well now… the courts sure do seem to offer the opinion that your child is owned by the state!

But heck, what should we the people (not People) expect?

When such authority and jurisdiction is just arbitrarily handed over to a bunch of attorneys running around in black moo-moos with little wooden hammers yelling that they rule supreme in their houses of judicial worship simply because the state allows them to presume such authority and jurisdiction… I suppose those people who consent to this charade get just what they deserve – slavery through a bondage contract.

But then, when the President of the country is also a lawyer, along with his wife, and for that mater more than half of all U.S. Presidents, 56/100 Senators, over 35% of Congressmen, both “speakers” of the house, and most of the State Governors in office today are all BAR attorneys/lawyers, I suppose we shouldn’t be at all surprised that the opinion of the BAR Association is the law of the land…

Of course, the above opinion is not just some isolated case. This opinion is quite general in its purview, and quite common in its legal application. In fact, it is the very basis of the criminal racket we call the dreaded “Child Protective Services (CPS)”, which claims its overarching authority from the Federal “Health And Human Services (HHS)” as it legally kidnaps your children.

So where else can we find such blatant power abused so absolutely?

How about in the case of MEADOWS v. MEADOWS, (Aug 2008), in the “Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama”?

“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”

Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

“There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.“

Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).

“The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.“

Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)․

“…we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.“

Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.

“In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.“

Ziegler v. Ziegler, 107 Idaho 527, 691 P.2d 773 (Idaho App.1985) (citing Carlson v. Carlson, 8 Kan.App.2d 564, 661 P.2d 833 (1983)).

**Note: The word “interest”, when it is used by the courts on behalf of “the state”, should be considered here to be defined in layman’s terms as the monetary interest in what the State considers one of its trade-able commodities. For to a for-profit government, people are considered legal “persons”, and their value is not in flesh and blood, but in labor and tax. Persons are the original form of legal tender. -Clint-


“Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”

Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).

“Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ”

Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “

Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’).


Wait a minute, you say. This doesn’t sound very “constitutional” to me…

Oh, you mean that mythical and more importantly interpretable (in court opinion) document that you believe gives you rights? Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids.

In reality, everything that happens is in fact “constitutional” as long as the court (an attorney in a black moo-moo) says it is “constitutional” from within its (his/her) opinion.

In the end, you have only one right. And that right is the right of non-consent. (Consent is the most important legal term that you can possibly ever comprehend.)

But don’t take my word for it… here are a few more instances of “case law” which let you know that the constitution simply does not apply to you in the corporate world of commercial (copyrighted) code…

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.“

Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

**Note: Remember, the word “person” refers to your veil of artificial person-hood; your STRAWMAN if you will. The court will never refer to you in the sense that you are a living, breathing, sentient being with god-given rights that cannot be taken away, but instead relies on your presumed consent as the physical representation of your fiction, your corporate self. “Person” is defined in U.S. CODE as an “individual, association, corporation, group…” etc. It is not defined as “people” unless those people are a group of “persons”, in which case, as in the constitution, the word “people” is capitalized (i.e. We, the People – referring to the men who signed the constitution, and whom were the only men for which that constitution held under “contract” with any authority. The constitution has no authority accept that for which the court passes judgment (opinion) upon. -Clint-

“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act… It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.“

The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: “U.S. v Cruikshank”

Well, there you have it!

Even as the Supreme Court – which has mistakenly translated the word “supreme” to mean that these seven appointed “justices” who pass “opinion” upon the masses of consenting “citizens” are more supreme than even God himself – these men and women; who are not voted into these positions of power in any way by the people, but instead are appointed by the President of the United States (corporation)… these self-imposed deities clearly state here that they are the law of the land, and that that “the natural consequence of citizenship” is for the people to be under their supreme opinion!

Well I for one do not voluntarily submit to the opinions of these megalomaniacs any longer.

And for the record, as a free man with God as my witness…


FYI… Stay tuned, subscribe, or do what ever you need to do to monitor future postings from my blog – for there are BIG things happening and lots of important information coming to you soon, free of charge, from yours truly and my band of merry men.

Stay tuned…

Special thanks to Burt for all that he does to open my eyes. Please visit his YouTube page here:

And keep this future website in your bookmarks, of which I very much plan to be a part of:

–Clint Richardson (
–Friday, December 16, 2011

Crushing the Disinformation Surrounding Indefinite Detention of Americans Under the NDAA

Today Glenn Greenwald, writing for Salon, published a piece which is required reading for anyone who has been keeping up with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Fiscal Year 2012, especially those of us who have been arguing with proponents of the bill and others who do not understand the detainee provisions therein.

 I will be going over Greenwald’s points in this article, as they cannot be emphasized enough and are all based in the ugly reality we see unfolding before us, unlike the claims made by those contending that the bill does not allow indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial.
The indefinite detention sections, contained within the NDAA along with other strange sections like removing the ban on bestiality and sodomy for members of the armed forces, and Obama’s support for it has drawn intense criticism from some somewhat unlikely sources.

For instance, Human Rights Watch called Obama’s refusal to veto the detainee bill “a historic tragedy for rights,” and characterized the NDAA as “ill-conceived.”
Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized Obama for backing down on his veto threat, although as I have previously outlined, it wouldn’t really make a difference even if he did veto it.

If Obama actually followed through and vetoed the bill, the veto could simply be overridden by both chambers and they have far more than the 2/3majority required to override a Presidential veto.

“If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.

We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial,” said the director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, Laura Murphy.

Even the New York Times – hardly a publication known for criticizing the Obama administration and Democrats in general – published a heated editorial in which it is written that Obama’s decision to back down on the hollow veto threat “reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency.”

The editorial rightly points out, “To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary.

Civilian prosecutors and federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists, while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen.”

There are some disturbingly prevalent myths about the NDAA that I see crop up in emails and in the comment section on End the Lie and other places that post my articles, all of which Greenwald strikes down with apparent ease.

The main three falsehoods I see parroted are: “The NDAA doesn’t actually codify indefinite detention”; “The NDAA doesn’t widen the definition of what the ‘War on Terror’ is as was previously outlined in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)”; and “American citizens cannot be detained indefinitely under the NDAA.”

All of these are demonstrably untrue, as I will show in language that anyone can understand. If, after reading this, you still do not understand that we are all in danger of being locked up indefinitely without charge or trial under this bill, please do not hesitate to contact me and substantiate your position.

To first address the codification of indefinite detention, we look to the conference report which accompanied H.R. 1540, specifically the section on detainee provisions, found here.

On page three of the PDF, under Subtitle D – Counterterrorism, Section 1021, which is page 654 of the original document, we read starting on line 19, “The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

How any sane individual could read, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities,” and think that this does not explicitly codify indefinite detention is beyond comprehension.

I’m not sure how they could possibly put it in a more blatant fashion. There is absolutely no arguing that this allows for indefinite detention “until the end of the hostilities” which will likely never happen, as perpetual conflict is what the entire “War on Terror” is about.

“Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision,” Greenwald rightly contends.

I would love to see someone argue this and if you’re that person, please do not hesitate to email me. I very well might publish your rebuttal and my response, if you agree to it.

Greenwald aptly points out that both the Obama and Bush regimes have repeatedly argued that the 2001 AUMF tacitly gives them the power to indefinitely detain and quite unfortunately, “post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view.”

These precedents allow the language to be inserted in the NDAA that says that nothing in the NDAA will expand the 2001 AUMF, which is what proponents often point to in defense of their position that it will not be used to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.

In reality, the interpretations used by the Executive branch and the so-called justice system are “already so much broader than its language provides,” according to Greenwald.

This is exactly the same as the so-called “secret PATRIOT Act” which was exposed by Senator Ron Wyden in late May of this year.

This is not truly a secret PATRIOT Act, but instead is a classified interpretation of the law which “cannot be publicly assessed or challenged,” according to Wired.

What makes proponents of the NDAA think that the government will suddenly change course and begin to interpret the law in a straight-forward manner which we can all understand and scrutinize?

I contend that it is na├»ve, if not outright ignorant, to believe that the NDAA’s interpretation – specifically the detainee provisions – will be interpreted in our favor.

There is simply no indication that this is the case and it would buck the disturbing trend established by the government of the United States of establishing laws and interpreting them in ways which we are not aware of.

The important fact to take home is that this is the first time that indefinite detention has been explicitly codified in a statute since the Internal Security Act of 1950 during the McCarthy “red scare” era.

The next myth is that the NDAA does not expand the definition of the “War on Terror” as previously outlined in the 2001 AUMF and like the other fallacies surrounding this bill, it is easily proven to be false.

Under the 2001 AUMF, the scope of the so-called War on Terror was much smaller than what is outlined in the NDAA and it was much more restricted in who it authorized the use of force on.

Under Section 2 of the 2001 AUMF we read,
“(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

As you can see, the authorization is relatively quite limited compared to the new language which, on top of the guidelines in the AUMF, adds, “(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

The glaring part of this section is that it is wildly ambiguous and leaves the door open to lump a wide range of people under the label of “covered persons” which were previously not (at least explicitly) covered by the AUMF.

A major issue here is that the Pentagon actually considers protesting to be an act of “low-level terrorism,” or at least they did until they were exposed  for having a question on an employee training exam for the Department of Defense which asked, “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?” the correct answer for which was, “Protests.”

Once it became public knowledge that they were demonizing people who exercise their most essential right to free speech, the Department of Defense removed the question, but it does not negate the disturbing fact that they actually included such a question on an official exam.

So, what prevents the government from saying protesters, like those involved in the Occupy movement, are terrorists who can be indefinitely detained without charge or trial?

Unfortunately, absolutely nothing is stopping them.

Another troubling aspect is the term “belligerent” which is similarly ambiguous and flexible and was likely specifically chosen for that reason.

A professor of law at Seton Hill and specialist in detainee law, Jonathan Hafetz, explained just how dangerous the ambiguity of the new language is in an interview with Glenn Greenwald earlier this month:

“One though could imagine some very frightening scenarios. Could the military arrest and detain a person arrested at his home in say Cleveland, Ohio, for writing a $20,000 check to a group that supported AQ? Or a doctor in New Jersey who sent medical supplies to an organization in Ethiopia, for example, that provided humanitarian aid to a group in that country that was deemed to be affiliated with AQ?  The answer is probably yes, under the most aggressive views of the [the new bill].”

If that doesn’t upset you, I don’t know what will.

Now we come to the most important myth of all, the belief that American citizens are wholly protected from the detainee provisions of the NDAA.

Greenwald says that the bill, and specifically the detainee provisions outlined therein, is “purposely muddled” in order to leave plenty of wiggle room in how it can be used.

One of the excerpts often quoted in an attempt to debunk the fact that this can be applied to U.S. citizens is, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

As with the rest of the NDAA, we have to carefully examine the language utilized in this passage.

The section it is referring to is section 1021 which we discussed earlier, and the most important aspect of this excerpt is the stipulation, “Nothing in this section” as it clearly limits it to that section and that section alone.

As I discussed in my previous coverage, this section, part of which is also included in the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, only protects you if you’re an American citizen captured within the United States.

Anywhere else, the protection is null and void, and under the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, all that would be required to nullify that small protection would be an Act of Congress.

Given the fact that they overwhelmingly voted to betray the Constitution and our most essential rights, thus proving that every single person who voted for the NDAA is nothing short of a traitor, I do not believe it is reasonable to think that they would never remove that minuscule protection.

Robert Chesney of Lawfare argues that there is still a lingering ambiguity in the language as to whether Section 1021 (e) applies to citizens, although to me it seems relatively clear.

Now we get to the most problematic and contentious aspect of the NDAA, Section 1022.

This section deals with any individual determined by the President to be “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” that “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

For those who fall into this category, it is required – unless the President issues a waiver – that the person be detained “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.”

The problem here is that the definition of who this section covers does not in fact exclude American citizens or state any requirement that the individual be a foreigner.

This is where many people get confused or mislead by proponents of the bill: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to the citizens of the United States.”

This does not prevent American citizens being held in military custody indefinitely without charge or trial; it only says that it is not required.

There is a massive difference here which cannot be marginalized or ignored. If they meant to make it so no American citizens could be indefinitely detained by the military, they would have made it explicit.

However, they clearly did not and as Greenwald points out, “it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody.”

This cannot be explained away like many are attempting to do, as the language of legislation is very carefully chosen.

If our so-called Representatives truly sought to protect us from being held without charge or trial by the military, they would prohibit it in wholly unambiguous language.

This is clearly not the case and we simply must accept that our government is actively working against the American people and the Constitution of the United States. There is really no way to get around this fact at this point.

I think Greenwald puts it in just about the most straightforward way humanly possible in writing, “or foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optionalThis section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”

It would be nice to think that this means that we are exempt, but it simply is untrue and one would be delusional in assuming such.

As I have done time and time again, Greenwald points to the fact that the amendment proposed by Senator Feinstein which would explicitly exempt American citizens was struck down as evidence that we are not protected by this section.

As I previously mentioned, Senator Lindsey Graham said on the floor of the Senate that this bill does nothing to change the status quo, however, this is explicitly codifying the ability of the military to indefinitely hold Americans without charge or trial – something which hasn’t been done since the heyday of McCarthyist paranoia.
Even the New York Times’ editorial has to point out that the bill includes “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”

This is entrenching the American police state like never more, and as the editorial rightly point out, this is going to be here for the long run.

The questions that remain after assessing all of these disturbing facts are: what’s next? What can we do? How do we stop this and return America to the principles of justice and liberty?

Unfortunately, I don’t have any satisfactory answers to these questions up my sleeve at the moment. I would truly appreciate the input from all of my readers so please do not hesitate to email me at and if you give me permission I might utilize your ideas in an upcoming piece on solutions to this horrific crisis we have found ourselves in.

This article also appeared at End the Lie