Remember, Remember the 5th of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot, I see no reason
why Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot

Guy Fawkes thumbnail

    ● EP-BC Home About  Issues Testimonials News  Reference   Fun Stuff Members

Issues Area Home

Issues Summaries
Abortion Veto for Dads
Adoption Veto for Dads
Adopted Children Disallowed NPs
Affirmative Action
Age Of Consent
Anti-Depressants, Drug Induced Suicide
Battered Woman Syndrome
BC Vital Statistics Act Misandry
BC Legislature MUST
Big Brother, Micro-Management
Bill C-22
Birth Rate Displacement
"Best interests of the Child" = "Blank Cheque"
Breach of Trust
Carbon Tax funds Global Government
"Case Law" is NOT Law
CCA Wood and Playgrounds
Child Support Tables / SOW Fraud
"Child's Right" or "Parents' Right"
Child & Human Trafficking righs of CBA
Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges
Compulsory Drugging of Children
Corren Agreement
Court Ordered Sexism
Credit Crisis, Currency Replacment
Custody Orders not Enforced
Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Day Care Universal
Deadbeat Dad Propaganda
Disabled parents
DISS = Divorce Initiated Suicide Synd.
Domestic Violence Propaganda
Division of Assets
Enticement Seduction Tort Claims Precluded
Estate Taxes Thieve a Child's Inheritance
EU = European Union:  Nazi Brainchild
Euthanasia, Spousal
Ex Parte Orders
False Accusations
Father Hatred Propaganda
Fatherlessness, State Imposed
Federal Reserve / Fiat Currency
FEMA Camps, Martial Law
Feminism = Socialism = Nazism
Fitness Test for Natural Parents in Divorce
Fitness Test for Students: "Transitions"
FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement
Forgiveness is NOT Compulsory
Franklin Scandal, Conspiracy of Silence
Freedom of Speech
Friendly Parent Rule, Max. Contact
Fundamental Justice
Glass-Steagall Act Repealed
Globalism is Treason
Habeas Corpus Abandoned
"Hate Crime" Speech  Police
HELP = Human Early Learning Partnerships
Homosexual Violence
Homosexual Activism, Gay Manifesto
Homosexual Marriage
"Human Rights” Commissions in Canada
Imputed Income:  Fraudulent CS Orders
Inheritance Theft: Grey & Black Widow
Judicial Accountability, Removal of Judges
Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust
Judicial Falsification of Court Transcripts
Judicial Freemasonry is Racketeering
Judicial Globalization is Treason
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial Racketeering, Law Societies' Rackets
Kinship Families / Grandparents
Lawyers in the Legislatures
Lawyers Lying in Court, Self Regulation Fail
Legal Abuse Syndrome
Letters to MP
Letters to MLA
Letters to Editor
Lisbon Treaty (2007) is Treason
Malicious Mother Syndrome
Malicious Prosecution
Misandry = Hatred of Males
Monetary Crisis:  "Money as Debt"
Move Aways
Natiional Sovreignity
Natural Parents Rights Eliminated, SSM
NAU = North American Union
NDP = "No Dads Party"
Net Neutrality:  Keep Internet Free!!
No Fault Divorce
NCR = Not Criminally Responsible
Oath Keepers
Parliament MUST
Parental Alienation
Parental Authority Usurped by Teachers..
Parental Kidnapping
Parenting Time Presumption
Passport & DL Removal
Paternity Denied, Birth Registration
Paternity Fraud, Birth Registration
Pedophiles Fear Dads New
Pedophiles in Public Service
Poofy Judges
Predatory Pregnancy
Protestant Revolution, BBC
PPP = Public Private Partnerships, Public Assets
QE = Quantitative Easing
Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer
Sex Change Surgery
Shadow Government
Sole Custody is Child Abuse
Special Prosecutors for Homo's & Judges
Star Chamber's Secret Overlords
SOW = Status of Women, KILL IT!!!!
Stockholm Syndrome Paradigm Shift
Straw Man Redemption, Free Man
Supremacy of Parliament
Target Legislation
Teachers displacing Parents
Teachers Seducing Students
Tracts and Flyers
Treasonous Public Officers not Prosecuted
Transcripts & Documents altered by Judges
UNCRC = UN Convention..Rights of the Child
Uptick Rule Repealed 2007
"Women's Shelters" = Lesbian Gulags

Notable Authorities

Albrecht, Katherine :  RFID Spychips
Alexander,  Rachel:  Shared Parenting
Angry Harry
Annett, Kevin: Child Trafficking in BC
Asher, Jeffrey
Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken .. Custody
Beatley, Terry:  UNCRC Vs Parental Rights
Baxter, Dorian: Canada Courtwatch
Beck, Glenn Beck: World Government
Bennett, Richard: Purpose Driven Church
Blick, Edward:  Global Warming & Marxism
Blumner,Court Ordered Sexism
Briffault, Robert: Briffault's Law
Burrows, Lynette: Homo Adoption
Caradori, Gary: Franklin Cover-up Investigator
Carley, Dr. Rebecca: Vaccinations
Carr, William Guy:  Pawns in the Game
Christie, Doug:  Freedom of Speech
Chopra, Dr. Shiv: Health Canada
Clarke, Christine:  BC Conservatives
Clifford Dean:   Freeman
Coulter, Ann: Free Speech
Cools, Senator Anne:  Lying Lawyers
Coffman, Dr. Michael:  Global Warming
Coleman, John:  Global Warming Fraud
Coleman, Dr. John (MI6) Comittee of 300
Coren, Michael:  Islamophobia, Homophobia
Crane, Ian:  Codex Alimentarius Scam
Cromwell, Oliver: Supremacy / Parliament
Cuddy, Dennis L. "Power Elite"
Cumbey, Constance :  New Age Nazism
Cummins, John:  BC Conservative Party
Decamp, John: Franklin Cover-up
Delaney, Chris : "No HST in BC!"
Dioguardi, Joe:  Saving US / Debtors' Prison
Dodd, Norman:  NWO Fabian Socialists
Doomsday Preppers
Duane, James:"Don't Talk to Police"
Dutton, Don:  RADAR, "Rethinking DV"
Estulin, Daniel:  Bilderberg Group
Evans, Stanton: "Blacklisted, Joe McCarthy"
Farage, Nigel:  UKIP, EU Titanic
Farrell, Warren:  Why Men Earn More
Federer, Bill: Endang'd Speeches, Quran
Fischer, Greg:  Family Preservation Festival
Fogal, Connie:  No NAU
Forseth, MP Paul:  FTSOTC Panelist
Fromm, Paul:  Free Speech, CAFE
Gage, Richard: Architects & Engineers 9/11
Gairdner William
Galloway, Roger:   FTSOTC Panelist
Geldof, Sir Bob:  The Love..
Gerrish, Brian:  EU's "Common Purpose"
Griffin, G. Edward:  Fed Reserve
Grignon, Paul:  "Money As Debt"
Gunderson, Ted:  FBI, Protected Pedophiles
Haeck, Lisa:  Sexual Abuse
Haines, Bruce, QC: Justice Review
Hein, Arnie:  "Cross My Heart" EP Trek 2005
Hiebert, MP Russ:  Human Rights Commission
Hill, MP Jay: EP Legislation
Hinton , Betty:  Status of Women's "Hit List"
Holland, Lary: "GET OFF THE BENCH"
Horowitz, David:  Islamofacism, Universites
Howse, Torm
Hunt, Dave:  Woman / Beast
Iserbyt, Charlotte: Dumbing Down
Jones, Alex
Kah, Gary: Obama, Vatican, Globalization
Kay, Barbara, National Post
Kennedy, John F:  Assassination 1963
Kernberg, Dr. Otto: Personality Disorder
Kerkman, Larry :  CRISPE
Keyes, Alan :
Khodeir, Lucien:  Child-Support Guidelines
Knight, Robert: Obama's "Radical Rulers"
Kruk, Edward: Child Custody
Lafantaisie, Michele:  CAS, CCA wood
Leslie, Sarah: "Pied Pipers of Purpose"
Levant, Ezra: HRT, Islam, Freedom of Speech
LInde, Carey: Statutory Ammendments
Lively, Scott:  "Pink Swastika"
Loftus, Elizabeth: Recovered Memories Myth
Luther, Martin: "Sola Scriptura"
Macdonald, Peter: "Taxcap" limits Debt
Machon, Annie:  Ex-MI5
Makow , Henry PhD: "Save the Males"
Man, Woman, & Myth
Matrisciana, Caryl:  Islam Rising, FITNA
Martin, Malachi: Globalization, Occult
McManus, John:  Stopping NAU
McKay, Dr. Marty
McLean, Candis
MacKenzie, Rob:  EP Trek 2006
Menard, Robert: "Bursting Bubbles"
McQuaid, Robert: Fix CAS
Millar, David
Mills, Dennis: MP Targetted by Homsexuals
Monckton, Lord Christopher
Monarchy, David Starkey
Monteith, Dr. Stanley:  Aides / Luciferians
Morris, Dick: G-20 Vs US Sovereignty
Murtari, John:  NCP Hunger Striker
Nash, Dave:  Cross Canada Run
Nazanin:  Persian Beauty for a Free Iran
Neufeld, Gordon: Hold - Kids
Nicholson, Robert:  BC's Protected Pedophiles
Nicolosi, Joseph:  Homosexuality
Norton, Bob:  Family Court Watcher
O'Connor, Matt: Original F4J-UK
PAFE = Planetary Alliance, Fathers in Exile
Palin, Sarah
Paul, Dr. Ron:  Sound Money
Peck, Dr. Scott: "People of the Lie"
Pedersen, Rob: EP Bike Trek US, 2007
Pellman, Adrian, LLB:  Judicial Activism
Perloff, James: Shadows of Power
Phenomenon: The Lost Archives
Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam
Plywood Man, NWT
Protestant Revolution, BBC
Quigley, Carroll: Banking, Globalization
Rhodes, Carol: Child Support
Riplinger, Gail: Luciferian Bibles
Roberts, Carey
Roberts, Elise:  False Allegation of Abuse
Roscoe, Peter:  Judicial Bigotry
Russo, Aaron: NAU, CFR, Rockefellers
Ruppert, Michael C
Saburido, Jacqueline:  Don't Drink
Sacks. Glenn
Secret Files of the Inquisition
Schlafly, Phyllis:  Global Governance
Simons, Frank: Courts From Hell
Schafer, Nancy:  Child Trafficking at CPS
Schiff, Peter:  Currency Crisis, Debt Ceiling
Shafarevich, Igor:  The Socialist Phenomenon
Short, David:  St. John's Anglican
Shrimpton, Michael , QC:  Intelligence
Shrout, Winston: Common Law
Silverman, Earl:  Domestic Abuse against Men
SJCA - FTSOTC 48 Recom's
Simpson, Kari:  Road Kill Radio
Smith, Dr. Helen,  "Men on Strike"
Smith, Ron:  DC Rally, Drugging of Children
Soever, Alar:  SOW's Child Support Fraud
Sodhi, Eeva
Somerville, Margaret:“Same-Sex Marriage”
Still, Bill:  "Money Masters", "Mystery of Oz"
Stopps, Gordon  Vs Just Ladies, BCHRT
Stormer, John:  Betrayed ..  Bench
Story, Christopher:  "Perestroika Dec.
Sutton, Anhony:  Wall Street & Hitler
Taylor, Captain Tony: "Fatherless Day"
Trociuk Darrell, BC Birth Registration
Tyndale, William, "God's Outlaw", RIP 1536
V for Vendetta / Guy Fawkes the Hero
van Gogh, Theo:  Islamic Violence, RIP 2005
Vellacott, MP Maurice
Ventura, Jesse:  Conspiracy Theory
Vieira, Dr. Edwin:  Fiat Empire
Wagener, William
Wallace, Tom:  Sharia Law in UK & US
Warren, Elizabeth: Collapse Middle Class
Watson, Paul:  EU's Nazi  Origins
Wilberforce, William: Slave Trade Act, 1807
William III & Mary II:  "Bill of Rights" 1689
Wooldridge, Nancy:  Canadian Grans
World, Gordon:  Sexualizing BC Children
Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), UVic
Zepezauer, Frank:  Feminist Crusades

Your Articles

Let Ex Husbands Be Fathers
Perception vs Reality
Some Facts...
Both Parents Vital
Broken Homes, Bleak Future
Justice Review
Rights of fathers Ignored?

Petitions, Class Action

Support one of over 50 class-actions against unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights Council

Support one of over 50 class-actions against unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights Council

BC Statutory Amendments

Your Letters to an MP

Your Letters to an MP:  HOME

Letters to MP: I have $104.58 left over after paying child support

Post New Letters to a Member of BC Legislative Assembly (MLA) here

Your Letters to an MLA

Your Letters to MLA: HOME

Post New Letters to a Member of a Legislative Assembly (MLA) here

Your Letters to an Editor

Your Letters to an Editor: HOME

Post your New Letters to an Editor here 

Senator Anne Cools, FTSOTC Chair on False Accusations & Lying Lawyers

Senator Anne Cools, formerly Liberal, now Conservative, on False Accusations &
Law Societies' permitting Lawyers to Lie in Court

"'..  mothers and fathers should have equal rights in the raising of their children, regardless of marital break down"

Anne Cools - Google Search
Anne Cools - Google Video

Canadian Bill s-12, senator cools - Google Search

"Honorable senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the use of FALSE ACCUSATIONS in civil justice.

"This is the mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers, suddenly within the context of divorce and within child custody proceedings falsely accusing the other party, usually fathers, of the sexual abuse of their own children.    ,,,    

"These FALSE ACCUSATIONS are often made with the overt or covert complicity of their lawyers. They are a lethal weapon in the business of parental alienation. They are a tool for achieving sole custody of children and creating fatherlessness."


Senator Anne Cools Runs Away With The Suns's 10 Top Women Poll, Kevin Connor, TO Sun

2004-06-08  Liberal senator < Anne Cools >  goes Conservative

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

Erin PizzeyMore:  Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne
Issues: False Accusations;
Isues Women's Shelters' Scam
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
News:  Cross, Pamela:Feminist Law:  Female Accusers must not be required to face those they accuse of Violence;
Issues:  Domestic Violence Scam & "Women's Studies" Propaganda
Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction Camps
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lying Lawyers;
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
Issuess:  False Accusations;
Issues:  Child Trafficking by Public Officers & Judges

Liberal Irwin Cotler:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Irwin Cotler - Google Search;
Irwin Cotler - Google Video

"Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS....  ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....

"Natural Parents' Rights now  gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"

16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"

FYI, the ideas that the State assigns Rights & Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi Germany.   Under the British system rights are not State-given, but God Given.

Buying into the Court's position that what rights remain are Children's Rights, is buying into the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.

More:  News:  Cotler, Irwin:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS...;
News:  European Union;
Issues:  Paul Watson:  Nazi Origins of European Union;;;
Issues: G. Edward  Griffin ;
Issues: Fabian Socialism;

Liberal Anne McLellan says "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Former Liberal Justice Minister, Deputy Prime Minister

Anne McLellan , MP - Google Search

In "Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform" McLellan warns that <Horrors!> "Provincial Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint Custody... and perpetuate the domination of men over women"  

The Liberal Party and Child Sexual Abuse

More:  News:  McLellan , Liberal Anne "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy

Chapter VII. The English Common Law. Section 57. The Norman Conquest

A beautiy of British  Common Law is that it is STATIC, and NOT DYNAMIC as these Activist Judges would have you think.

Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and they will likely tell you it is "Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say "Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these days"

This is completely FALSE.  The Judges are Agents of the Crown and they BY DEFINITION Judges are WITHOUT CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever.  Since 1649, only PARLIAMENT has the Capacity to make Law.

British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was only observed and documented by individuals sent out by the newly Norman Crown after the Norman Conquest of 1066  to observe and codify the laws and customs of the various peoples of Britain..  This was done with a view to aggregate existing customs which may vary across the land,  into a unified body of Laws.  The Authority quoted by the Commoners in their administration of Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the Bible and principles of Danelaw

The process of documentation took only a couple of hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body of Law which was historical, popular, and has served in the intervening centuries as a Benchmark against which Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".  It does NOT change.

More:   Issues:  Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization is Treason

McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs",
Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...

Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Search;
Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Video

Rob Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Search;
Robert Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Video Equal Parenting Bike Trek's photostream

More:  Issues:  McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs", Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...;
Issues:  Smith, Ron:  DC Family Preservation Rally, Compulsory Drugging of Children;
Issues:  Compulsory Drugging of Children, Thymerisol;

Beware of the "Parental Rights" IMPOSTER!!!!

"Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights"

Be on the lookout for the "Parent's Rights" IMPOSTER.  Insist on "Natural Parents Only", please!

It comes as a big surprise to us that many groups that present themselves as "Parents Rights" groups  REFUSE to defend the  NATURAL PARENT, and  and to demand RESTORATION of Natural Parents Rights taken from Canadians in the Homosexual Marriage legislation.

Instead their position to promote the "rights" of  a "Parent" in the widest sense of the word, making NO distinction  between NATURAL PARENTS and wannaabe Legal Parents.  They have bowed to University of Victoria's  assertion that  the SCC's Trociuk Decision "endorses a Heterosexual View of the Family and must be ignored", legitimizing the ongoing Child Trafficking by the State which views Canadian children as State Property and merchandise for  sale in the lucrative Child Adoption Market  They refuse to be hampered by prior obligations to that pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can Veto an Adoption.

It appears that many "Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United Nations and Liberal Irwin Cotler's assertion that the Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent has "NO RIGHTS", making the State, not the Natural Parents the Protector of the Child..

Without Cause or Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!

More:  About:  Beware of the IMPOSTER!!!!  "Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights";
News:  Lessard, Hester - Heterosexual view of Parenthood must be ignored
News:  Smith, Judge Daphne, BCSC, for Child Trafficking;
Issues:  Trociuk, Darrell;
Issues:  Child Trafficking, Canadian;
Testimonials:  Rick Fredrickson of Saskatoon

Bill Graham, Liberal <Pedophile> Leader & Defense Minister

Bill Graham, mp - Google Search;
Bill Graham, mp - Google Video

Lawrence Metherel - Google Search

2007-06-19  Liberal MP Bill Graham announces resignation

"In spite of credible revelations dating back to April 2002 about Bill Graham, a sex addicted bi-sexual sodomizing a 15 year old male prostitute named Lawrence Metherel, Paul Martin allowed Graham to remain Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - and eventually named him to the portfolio of Minister of Defense.

"On Sept. 28/2005 a vote was held in Parliament to raise the age of consent from 14 (one of the lowest age of consents in the world) to 16 (an age which many still consider too low).

"Bill Graham, Paul Martin, and Anne McLellan, on Sept. 28th, voted against raising the age of consent to 16

More:  News:  Graham, Bill:  Pedophile Parliamentarian, Defense Minister

Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville

On February 14, 2006 Both Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville join together in a landmark interview
"War Against The Family".mp3


"The Family Courts are <generally> a bunch of second rate hangers-on   ...  build each other's businesses through referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining Industry"


"Why isn't "Focus on the Family" working for Equal Parenting?

Stephen Baskerville's Home; American Coal. for Fathers and Children


Habeas Corpus :  "literally, "you may have the body". A Habeas Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid, the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely and without charge."      ..... 

More, Glossary of terms

Skeletons in the Closet, 2001

Skeletons in the Closet

Skeletons in the Closet, a film drawn from the dramatized lives of families living with a protected Pedophile and the mental illness it may create when a loving, faithful, Victim keeps the Secret.  This is shockingly common.  The Secret is their Power - BREAK IT!  (You would be well advised to stay away from the Public Servant.)

Trial By Jury displaced by Activist Judges

Of course Judges and other "Friends of the Court" won't receive capital punishment for Capital Crimes like Treason.

Trial By Jury, Canada - Google Search

Violence and Murder of Men by  Women sanctioned by Courts

FYI, most of what you  hear about Family Violence is a huge fraud because World Health Organization obligates members to:

a)  NOT report results of studies which do not show "expected results", and

b) if "unexpected results do eventually get reported, they may only be reported with "expert" commentary to explain away the deviation from the expected result that "Men are violent" and "Women are their Victims".

The World Health has as a primary Sponsor, the Rockefeller Foundations,  a Fabian Socialist group which has as it's aim the conversion of the West to a Soviet style block which can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.  See Norman Dodd.

What Is Gendercide?

Wages Gleaned at Source

BC ALS victim Art Brown finds FMEP garnishing his disability pension of Child Support for adult Child not living with Mother

Threats of Court  Costs &  Assessments lead Natural Fathers to abandon Custody Rights under Duress

Opponents of Equal Parenting like to tell you that seventy something percent of Custody Cases don't go to Trial, and are awarded as Sole Custody to Mom BY CONSENT. 

What they don't tell you is that in ninety something percent of Custody Cases that do go to Trial Mom gets Sole Custody anyway, and Dad has to pay on top of his Lawyer fees, the Court Costs for having lost his Application.  Faced with these abysmal odds, Dads are commonly told to "Just give her what she wants so you can have a good relationship with her".  Under such Duress many Dads foolishly acquiesce  ....  for a time at least......

We prefer that Natural Parents NOT sign a Consent Order that is not completely Equal with respect to Gender, as the relationship of the divorced couple is greatly destabilized with each injury to the equality of parental powers .

Pedophile Activists: Sexual Enticement of Children

Teacher-Student sex rules being relaxed by BCSC

Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer

Pedophile Activists obviously don't go around telling you what they're up to.  Instead they  call themselves "Mentors", "Social Workers", "Feminists" or "Homosexual Rights Activists".  In Canada, Pedophile Activists  have been successful in getting greater access to children by reducing the Age of Consent to FOURTEEN, and in eliminating a parents "right to know" when the child reaches the age of TWELVE, replacing them with school counselors and Social Workers, and by, of course, eradicating fathers from their children's lives entirely from birth on request by the mother. 

With the recent changes to accommodate homosexual marriage, the right of natural parents to "parent" their natural children will soon be removed entirely.  Through these statutory changes, the term "LEGAL PARENT" is replacing the historic term "NATURAL PARENT" in Canadian statutes.  As a result Natural Parents can no longer automatically claim to be the Legal Parents of their own natural children at birth.  Instead, to accommodate the Homosexual Activists' plan to push Natural Parents aside when it comes to parenting children, the Courts alone now decide who will be the "parents' of all children born in Canada.

Pedophile Activists are often lawyers, school counselors, teachers, Social Workers, Sex Ed teachers, YWCA leaders, pastors, Judges, etc. etc.  They seek positions with access and power over Children & Families, and positions to create social and political change.  The publicly undisclosed prevalence of Pedophile & Homosexual Activists in our civil service has been attributed to their determined politicism in the many groups like ACT UP! , the secrecy of the alliances made in various "secret societies" and sex clubs, and to Sexual Nepotism in the workplace.

Dr. Edwin Vieira:  Original Intent Vs Living Document, Fiat Empire

Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document - Ed Vieira

Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document - Ed Vieira;

Doctrine of Original Intent Vs. Doctrine of the Living Constitution

More:  Issues:  Vieira, Dr. Edwin:  Original Intent Vs Living Document, Fiat Empire;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament
News:  Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge;
Issues:  Cromwell, Oliver: Parliamentary Supremacy;
Issues: Supremacy of Parliament;
Issues: Judicial Globalization is Treason

Edwin Vieira, the Militia and the Constitution

Edwin Vieira, the Militia and the Constitution 1

Edwin Vieira, the Militia and the Constitution 2

Deconstructing America = Judicial Corruption

Deconstructing America = Judicial Corruption Part 1

Deconstructing America = Judicial Corruption Part 2

More:  Testimonials:  Charles Bruce Vs Judicial Racketeers:  Debtors Prison;
News:  Themis Ltd. & Themis Inc.
 News:  Maximus Inc;
Issues:  Imputed Income;
Issues:  Poofy Judges;
Issues:  FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement Program;;
Meetup:  EPT-w28-Denver-CO: Coalition for Equal Parenting, Working EP Roun;
Issues:  North American Union;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization is Treason;
News:  Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge;
Issues:  Cromwell, Oliver: Parliamentary Supremacy;
Issues: Supremacy of Parliament;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;

GATA Washington Conference - Speech by Edwin Vieira

GATA Washington Conference - Speech by Edwin Vieira from Chris Powell on Vimeo.

GATA Washington Conference - Speech by Edwin Vieira

FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution

FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
 edwin vieira - Google Video

Alex Jones Show - 2-24-09 With Edwin Vieira

Dr. Edwin Vieira on Constitutional Homeland Security

Alex welcomes back to the show Dr. Edwin Vieira, the world’s foremost authority on the role of the Constitution as it relates to money. Viera is the author of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary and Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution

Edwin Vieira: Gangster Government

2000-06-29   Edwin Vieira: Gangster Government

[Bob Schulz introduction] Dr. Edwin Vieira is a graduate of Harvard College, the Harvard Graduate School of Arts & Sciences and Harvard Law School. He is an attorney specializing in constitutional law; he is the author of Pieces of Eight, the Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, published in 1983, and a revised version of Pieces of Eight is scheduled for publication later this year. Let's welcome Dr. Edwin Vieira.

(Dr. Vieira) Thank you, Bob, ladies and gentlemen. My pleasure to be here. I'm billed, on your program, with talking about the money issue. But I've been talking about the money issue and writing about the money issue for so long that I'm thoroughly bored with it. And when this book, this revised book comes out, if you pick that up at the library, if I can somehow wangle libraries into putting it on their shelves, and you read it, you'll be mightily bored with the issue too.

So, I'm not going to talk about that, I'm going to talk, in general, about some of the problems that I see from a constitutionalist's perspective with the "16th Amendment" and the wonderful work that Bill Benson has done, and that Larry Becraft and others have followed up on.

Now, one of the things, though, that I would like to raise as an issue, for your consideration, is a peculiarity that I see between the two subject matters; one, the money issue, the Federal Reserve, if you will, on the one hand, and the income tax on the other hand. I've studied the money issue, case law, statutory law, historical descriptions of what went on, from, I don't know, the Middle 1600's in England up until now. And one of the things you discover, or at least I have discovered, going through all of that, is that the powers that be, very systematically changed the laws as they went along, or they wrote the court opinions in such a way as to rationalize, perhaps not justify, but at least to rationalize, what they were doing.

So you can see a kind of logical progression or degeneration in the statutory and case law from the early days, from the Constitution, from 1789, up until the present time. And they really didn't hide any of this. It's there if you're willing to look. Fascinating thing is, most people aren't willing to look. But, it's not a deep, dark secret.

Whereas, in the area of the income tax, there seems to be, at least to my mind, an anomaly. That is, if I were in charge, politically, of this system, and I had a vast mass of people out there believing that they had to pay these taxes and they had to file these forms and keep these records and perform all of these various functions, even if I knew that the "16th Amendment" hadn't been ratified or that there was some other basic constitutional flaws in what I was doing, it really wouldn't bother me too much, to write the tax statutes and regulations consistently with what the masses of people thought those statutes and regulations said. Why would I care? It's all a con game anyway, right? I'm lying left and right. I can lie in this statute as well I lie in that statute. What difference does it make? Why would I not write the tax code and the tax regulations in the way everybody believes the tax code and the tax regulations are already written?

And I leave that with you, because I think that's a fascinating psychological problem.

The more interesting psychological problem, and I think it's a problem also of political philosophy, that I want to talk about today, is why we are even bothering to be here. Why Bill Benson had to bother, trudging all over the country, to collect those, what, 17,000, plus or minus -- probably plus, probably a low estimate -- 17,000 certified pages of public records. It seems to me that, if we're all not embarked on a kind of fool's errand, that, certainly, this group has undertaken a task that, in any kind of free and rational society, it should never have been called upon to start, and certainly shouldn't have to complete.

None of the business that the various speakers this morning have laid on the table before you folks, would be necessary, if all of those foxes in charge of the henhouse in Washington and the state capitols, all of those years since 1913, had been acting according to their legal duties, instead of behaving according to their political natures. Now, I know, just as everyone else here, that I really swoon with patriotic ardor, and swell with party pride, when I hear the revered names of our leaders, past and present.

Nevertheless, it seems to me, that the conclusion to which I come, from history, at least, is that all of them, to the last man and woman, minus one or two exceptions, haven't done their duty, they're not doing their duty, they have no intention of doing their duty, and no reality, no piling up of petitions, or pleas or kowtowing or begging, will ever cause them to do their duty, or to accomplish anything other than aiding their critics to establish a record of their willful and persistent derelictions of duty. Now, some of you may blanch at that, the severity and the sweep of this indictment, for lawyers are good at making indictments. But, I'll let you be the judges.

Now, I just should backtrack once, because I always tell some kind of a story about lawyers, being one, for my sins.

Plane goes down, in the Caribbean. Three survivors. Dr. Kildare, Lawyer Mouthpiece, and Father O'Flaherty. And they swim to this little island. Get there, they're completely dog tired. And there's nothing, just sand and rock. But, across a little lagoon, there's another island, and it has palm trees, and, apparently, fresh water. Well, they have to get to it. And they see that one of the rafts from the plane has washed up on that island. Now that ... but they're too tired to swim, so they say "One of us has got to go and get that raft." But the water is full of sharks. Well, Dr. Kildare, he's really the strongest of the three, says "I'll go." The other two say, "No, Doctor, no, you know if things come, bad comes to worse, we're going to need you." Father O'Flaherty says "Well, it's really my responsibility, my sons, I'll go." They say, "No, Father, if things really come worse to worse, we may need you even more than Dr. Kildare." So that leaves, of course, the lawyer. Nobody can figure out a reason why he shouldn't go. So, he goes off and plunges into the water, and all of a sudden, instead of devouring him, the tiger sharks line up and form a bridge and he can actually walk right across to the other side. And Father O'Flaherty looks at Dr. Kildare and says, "It's a miracle, a miracle." And Dr. Kildare turns back and says, "No, just professional courtesy." (Audience laughter and applause.)

Well, let me be a little shark-like in terms of analyzing this situation, historically. You know, with all deference to Bill, the question of the invalidity of the "16th Amendment" wasn't broached yesterday, it wasn't even broached in 1985, really. Because all of the primary evidence has been a matter of public record since 1913. 1913, until the early 1980's, well before Bill Benson and Red Beckman ever started out on their trek, it was there. Now, Bill published that book, The Law That Never Was, 1985, (Bill, in background saying "April 4th") okay, April 4th, 1985, 15 years ago. The evidence that was catalogued and reproduced in The Law That Never Was was filed and the argument against the "16th Amendment" was presented in numerous Federal court income tax cases, or at least they tried to present it. I remember one of those was in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I was there testifying on another subject, on the money issue. Bill was there, Larry Becraft was there, and there was Judge Enslen, who was the ringmaster in that little circus. And what was interesting in that case, just as an aside, they were so afraid of having the money issue, forget the "16th Amendment", they were so afraid of having the money issue presented to the jury, that they had to have my testimony off the record, at night, in the court house, with no one present, other than the lawyers, and the court clerk and the judge, and the poor witness. That was Judge Enslen. Fine example.

Bill Benson and Larry Becraft, as I understand, sent copies of The Law That Never Was to every member of Congress. (In the background, Bill said "I did.") You did, okay, and that was when, the middle 1980's? (Bill in background "'87, and their names were embossed on the bottom of the book in gold, just like the book is [couldn't understand Bill's last word here]") Okay, 1980, 1987. And subsequently, and even to this very day, the charge that the "16th Amendment" is invalid has appeared in all sorts of publications, and you can find it spread in the global village on the Internet. People in Bangladesh know this. Alright. And of course, very recently, this group, Bob Schulz, presented the issue to the White House, right, with the results that you all know. But nothing has been done, in all these years, by all of these people in authority. And, there is the interesting question, "Why not?".

Well, to answer that question, I think you first have to investigate how these people have shirked their duties and failed their country, and, if Shakespeare's ghost will forgive me, I would ask the question, "How do I fault thee? Let me count the ways."

First, the judiciary. Ah, the judiciary. The inferior Federal courts, I'm not saying that to be derogatory, that's the constitutional term, right? The inferior courts ... say that the invalidity of the "16th Amendment" raises a "political question" which is not justiciable, but belongs exclusively to Congress. Well, that's rather a highly questionable, you know, or even question-begging conclusion. As many as you probably know, the term "political question", or even any words or phrases that intimate that kind of a doctrine, do not appear in the Constitution. The doctrine of political questions is another of those rather imaginative patterns that the courts have cut from whole cloth in order to avoid being confronted with issues that they would rather not hear.

Now, in some very narrow context, that idea may serve a practical purpose. But in this particular context, it makes no sense at all. If you recall, the theory of judicial review, which is the basis for the Supreme Court and the other courts deciding on the constitutional questions of statutes that come before them, that was first excogitated in the case of Marbury v. Madison by John Marshall, long, long, ago [5 U.S. 137, 173, 176 (1803)], and it says that because of their oaths or affirmations of office to support this Constitution, in any case or controversy that comes before the judges, they must put the Constitution ahead of any mere statute or other action by public officials.

So, no matter what Congress or the President or the States may say some provision of the Constitution means to them, the judges must decide the matter for themselves. In fact, they have a saying, which is attributed usually to Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that encapsulates this sort of unbridled power that they have: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." Well, of course, that's nonsense! But let's take them at their word, and see where that leads. If the judges' oaths or affirmations require them to decide for themselves what some provision of the Constitution means, why then do those same oaths or affirmations not equally compel them to decide the even more consequential matter of whether some alleged provision of the Constitution actually exists? Alright? Existence usually precedes meaning, one would hope. No matter what Congress or the Secretary of State or the President or the States may say, or not say.

Are we supposed to believe that this doctrine of judicial review is so inconsistent in its logic, and so porous in its coverage, that, on the one hand, the courts will not suffer Congress, the President or the States, to make the least little mistake about some provision or amendment of the Constitution, what those mean, let alone to lie about it? But, on the other hand, the courts will allow Congress, the Secretary of the State, the President, the States, whomever, to lie or to make glaring mistakes about whether a particular amendment actually exists? -- is rather implausible theory.

Are we further to believe that the courts will not allow Congress to lie or to make a glaring mistake about whether an Amendment actually exists, but then will also suffer themselves to be perverted as willing tools to convict, fine, or incarcerate people, who, if the Amendment doesn't exist, are innocent of any crime? That strikes me as even less likely.

Now, it's possible that judges with straight faces, and maybe quiet consciences, might refuse to hear the argument that the "16th Amendment" was not validly ratified. If Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, and the States that supposedly ratified the Amendment, had all affirmatively passed on that question in light of the evidence that has now been exposed through Bill Benson's work. But as every judge in this country knows, neither Congress, nor the Secretary of State, nor the President, nor any of the States that supposedly ratified that Amendment, have, in fact, passed on the deficiencies that Bill has cataloged. And these deficiencies quite glaringly show that the Secretary of State and the state legislatures that supposedly ratified the Amendment knew, or should have known, from the very beginning, that those ratifications were highly questionable. But they did nothing.

So, it strikes me that no judge can honestly say that this is a matter that Congress or other political branches of the government, national or state, have somehow put to rest. Neither can any judge say that this is a matter that only Congress can or should put to rest. Or at least no judge can say this, when a defendant stands before him charged with some criminal violation of a statute, the validity of which depends on the existence of the Amendment. Self-evidently, if Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, and the States, refuse to come to grips with the issue, the obligation to decide the invalidity of the "16th Amendment" necessarily falls back on each individual judge, in each case that comes before him, perforce of Marbury v. Madison. Their own Supreme Court is telling them to do this.

Now, whether the ratification of the "16th Amendment" arose out of a fraud perpetrated by Philander Knox, at least in my view, is not the controlling issue in this kind of analysis. Although, obviously, a charge of fraud renders the matter that much more serious. The Amendment would be unconstitutional even if Knox's certification of its supposed ratification, had resulted from his merely honest stupidity, insouciance, or blunders. Either the Amendment was ratified in the form required by law in 1913, or it was not. If it was not so ratified, it did not then become, and is not now, and cannot be, part of the Constitution, no matter how many mistakes office holders may have made in good faith in saying the opposite.

We the People's lives, liberty, and property cannot be held hostage to our representative's negligence. And any judicial doctrine that holds otherwise, is itself such a [sound interrupted for approximately 7 seconds ]. But I don't believe an honest mistake explains why judges so readily employ their doctrine of political questions. [sound interrupted for 13 seconds] alleged Amendment, and its invalidity would be a political question if it dealt, not with the income tax, which is a cornerstone of the modern administrative state, but with some other matter that threatened the establishment's power.

Imagine, for instance, that for ... as they used to say in Camelot, a single shining moment occurred, and We the People actually gained control of Congress and the state Legislatures and pushed through a new amendment. A new patriotic amendment, that cut back on the, for instance, the judiciary's wild misinterpretations of the First Amendment. An amendment that allowed states and localities to ban pornographic writings, theatrical performances, movies, lewd displays, whatever. I don't have to specify any more. All the elements of the sexually degenerate cutting edge of the cultural revolution that the Establishment is waging against this country. Would the courts interpose the doctrine of political questions to prevent the peddlers of smut from stripping that Amendment of its validity if they had the evidence that Bill Benson produced against the "16th Amendment"?

Or imagine that this new Amendment allowed or even required the states to ban abortion. Uh! God forbid! Would the courts energize the doctrine of political questions to suction the abortions out of the courtroom doors?

Or imagine this new Amendment prohibited the national government from owning any wilderness areas, parks, or other lands or facilities, other than those specified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution, and required the government to sell what it holds to the private sector. Would the courts snarl at the radical environmentalists to stop badgering the judges and instead hunt for relief from Congress?

Or imagine that this Amendment reaffirms, in utterly clear terms, that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees and protects the private ownership of all types of firearms suitable for people's militia, from handguns to fully automatic rifles and submachine guns. Would the courts unholster the doctrine of political questions to shoot down the lawsuits of the gun control fanatics? Would Rosie O'Donnell be told to go to Congress, or some other place where she ought to go? [Audience laughter and applause]

Could anyone here believe for one minute, for one second, that in each of these situations, the Establishment's courts would not leap into the legal fray and declare any of these supposed Amendments invalid, notwithstanding all the arguments about political questions that the proponents of the Amendments might make? Well, I leave that you, that's rather self-evident.

Now, let's look at the Department of Justice, so-called. If judges are responsible for whatever injustices are being perpetrated under the "16th Amendment" because the courts serve as the venues for prosecutions, certain people of the Department of Justice, perhaps are even more culpable, because they bring those prosecutions in the first instance. Now, doubtlessly, the government attorneys involved in the initial cases in which was introduced evidence from The Law That Never Was, reported all of this back to their superiors. Then what did they, their colleagues, and their superiors do? Well, there's a division in the Department of Justice that decides whether or not to pursue each and every income tax prosecution, at least that used to be the law. In making those decisions in the cases that followed publication of The Law That Never Was, did the responsible officials or the prosecuting attorneys or anyone else in that bureaucratic rabbit warren investigate the invalidity of the "16th Amendment"? Did the Attorney General, who is ultimately responsible for everything that transpires in the Department of Justice, do anything?

If they did, what did they do? What did they discover? What did they determine? If it was that the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified, why has someone at the Department of Justice not communicated this conclusion in eighteen point type to the American people, so the matter could finally be closed? What would cause the people in that department to keep such a congenial conclusion secret? Surely not their personal self-interests, or the self-interests of the political machinery in which they are the cogs. On the other hand, if they did not investigate, why not? Did they act then? Are they acting now, in reckless disregard of what an investigation would prove? Well now, you know most of these machinskies are attorneys. They're members of the bar, and officers of the courts. As such, they have certain ethical -- believe it or not -- they have certain ethical obligations, in addition to the legal responsibilities that their bureaucratic positions impose on them.

Now, those of you who are attorneys or might have had the misfortune to deal with attorneys, should ponder the following little scenario that I've drawn up, and the questions that might be used at what we lawyers call "a continuing legal education seminar on lawyers' ethics." And here's the scenario: Attorney Shyster represents a major corporation that has a number of lawsuits being threatened and prosecuted against it. During the first of these cases that goes to trial, the CEO of Shyster's client provides him with a document that, the CEO says, will win the case. Well, dutifully Shyster introduces the document as evidence. Over the opposing party's objection, Judge Goofball accepts it. On the basis of this evidence, Shyster's client prevails. Later, information comes to Shyster showing that the supposed evidence is, or very well may be, in fact, false, and perhaps even fraudulent.

Question. Does Shyster have an ethical obligation to investigate the matter?

Question. Until that investigation is completed, has been completed, may Shyster ethically introduce the document in other trials, simply because Judge Goofball was possibly deceived in the first trial by Shyster himself?

Question. What if the CEO of Shyster's client orders Shyster not to investigate, but to cover up the whole matter, and to continue to use the phony evidence in other trials? Should Shyster refuse or merely raise his fee? [Audience laughter]

Question. Would your answer to the preceding question be different if the CEO also promises to use his political influence to see that Shyster is appointed to a Federal judgeship?

Well, one need not be an expert in legal ethics or even a lawyer to know how to answer these questions, especially the last one. But the question is really, which way should they be answered?

Well now, let's take a look at Congress. Congress's responsibility for this state of affairs is multi-fold.

Number one. Congress originally accepted Philander Knox's certification that the "16th Amendment" had been validly ratified, without, as far as we know, any legislative investigation of the accuracy or good-faith of his certification. Correct? Didn't even look at it! Well if this was culpable negligence, at that time, is open to debate. No longer arguable is that such uncritical acceptance today sinks to a level far below mere negligence.

Second. Based on its original uncritical acceptance of the "16th Amendment", since 1913 Congress has enacted numerous income tax statutes and licensed the IRS to promulgate countless regulations under color of which trillions of dollars of wealth have been extracted from the American people, and who can say how many individuals have been fined, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized and punished for violating various code provisions or regulations. This looting and persecution continues unabated, not only within Congress's view, and not only to its financial benefit, but also with its acquiescence, approval, and no less than aid and comfort.

For point three, Congress has always enjoined the constitutional power, and faced with the documentation that the "16th Amendment" was not lawfully ratified, has the constitutional duty to initiate an inquiry into the legal basis for the present income tax statutes and regulations. It doesn't need Bill Benson to petition it. Doesn't need this group of people to meet here. It's always had that responsibility and that power. And not in some vaguely theoretical way either. Because court after court, in the last few years, has actually held, not merely suggested, that whether the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified, is a political question for Congress alone to decide. So the judiciary has officially dumped this issue in the Legislature's lap. And every American knows how punctilious and scrupulous Congress is in following judicial decisions.

Which brings me to point four. If Congress would've determined that officials in the Judicial and Executive branches of the government have convicted and imprisoned innocent individuals under color of tax statutes, notwithstanding that those officials were on notice, and knew, or should have known, of the invalidity of the "16th Amendment", then it seems that Congress would be at least morally required to impeach and remove from office each and every one of those officials, preliminary to the imposition of more drastic punishments.

Well, Congress has done none of those things either. That brings us to the Secretary of State. Now the present Secretary of State ... and I should backtrack one step. The law has changed. The Secretary of State no longer certifies the ratification of constitutional amendments. But, in this particular case, I believe the present Secretary of State, the sitting Secretary of State, retains responsibility because her predecessor, Philander Knox, certified the "16th Amendment" had been validly ratified. And if Knox's act under color of his position of Secretary was erroneous, or worse yet, fraudulent, it would appear legally incumbent, as well as morally compulsive, upon Knox's successor in office, to correct the error or expose the fraud, because that really was an error of the Department of State. Of course, nothing's being done there now, the present Secretary of State is more interested in bombing wogs and fuzzy wuzzys in foreign countries than in dealing with issues of freedom of the American people.

Well, that brings us to the President, or as they like to say, this President [audience laughter], to distinguish him from all the other Presidents [more laughter], for whatever reason may strike your fancy, this President.

On entering his office, even this President swore or affirmed that he, quote "will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," and it may be true that he's doing it to the best of his ability [audience laughter and applause]. Because if Congress won't call him a perjurer, I certainly don't want to. And among this President's duties is the requirement that, quote, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." No doubt depending on what he thinks "faithfully" means [audience laughter], because we know how he interprets that word in other contexts [more laughter].

How can anyone fulfill these mandates who does not know, or worse yet, does not care, what the Constitution actually prescribes? So, now that the President does know, along with everyone else in the global village, for which we can thank Al Gore, right? [audience laughter]. As long as he knows that the ratification of the "16th Amendment" may have been false or fraudulent, his duties should be diligently to inquire into the matter so that he could be sure of what the laws are, that he must take care to faithfully execute. And while the investigation proceeds, he could also order the Department of Justice not to prosecute any more criminal income tax cases, let them be put on hold, for heaven's sakes. And he could even pardon those people who were convicted while the courts and everyone else in positions of authority in the Federal apparatus refused to address this issue. He could, but he isn't, and he hasn't, and he won't.

Well, that brings us to the states. Glory be, the 10th Amendment, the states. The states that claimed to Secretary of State Knox that they had ratified the "16th Amendment" obviously share an especially weighty responsibility for everything that has transpired since 1913. Partly because they, perhaps more than anyone else, are, or should be, aware of the many manifest and arguably fatal deficiencies of their supposed ratifications. So now that this question has been squarely presented, the Legislatures of those states should conduct their own investigations into the sufficiency of their ratifications. And perhaps their courts should entertain lawsuits to test that sufficiency. Moreover, what about those three solitary states, the three musketeers of constitutionalism, that refused to ratify the 16th Amendment? Connecticut, the Constitution state. Rhode Island, where they had the first incendiary tax protest, they burned the Gatsby, British tax schooner. And Utah. Those states could bring an action in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, attacking the faulty ratification of the Amendment. And this would have the inestimable value of forcing the "gang of nine" to take a public position, that they will obviously never do because they will always deny writs of certiorari in any of these tax cases that come up through the lower courts.

So, in sum, much could be done by many doers with legal and moral responsibility for doing something, who all have some power to do it. But, in fact, nothing has been done by the Judiciary, except to dodge the issue as a "political question". And nothing has been done in any way, shape, or form, by Congress, the Department of Justice, Secretary of the State, the President, or the states. Now were this a matter, not of constitutional law, which is one of my areas of interest, but of labor law, which is another of my areas of interest, I might draw the conclusion that I would have to identify all of these political deadbeats as charter members of Local Number One of the Shirkers, Snivelers, Shovel-Leaners, and Standers-By International Union [audience laughter and applause]. Any of you who have teen-age or near teen-age children know about that union because I think children sign up for that at birth, alright. Try to get them to do anything around the house.

Or, if this were a matter of criminal law, which in the fulness of time it may yet become, the conclusion would be that as government officials, these people knowingly, intentionally and wilfully have enforced an arguably invalid Amendment with reckless disregard of its invalidity and therefore should be held criminally liable as violators of American civil rights [audience applause]. Title 18, United States Code, section 241, seems to have been written with them in mind. Perhaps more interestingly, though, to me at least, is to view this spectacle through the lense of political science, or political philosophy. I don't think this is much a matter of legal craft as it is of soul craft, if you know my meaning.

The failure to act on the part of all of these individuals in high office for so many decades, and especially during the last fifteen years, during which they have been on repeated notice of the documentation compiled in The Law That Never Was, must have had some reason other than mere sloth. For, according to their own press releases, and their political propaganda, these people are the very best and the brightest of all Americans. They are uniquely qualified by their intellects, their experiences, their motivations, their qualities of leadership, ad nauseam, to fill the highest offices of the land. That's why they run for office, for heaven's sakes! And surely, political psychology tells us that the most plausible reason for the inactivity of such men and women must be their own self-interest, which, no doubt, they know better than anything else.

Now, the American people must ask themselves, "What is the self-interest of political officials sworn to support this Constitution, to preserve and protect the Constitution, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, what is the self-interest of those individuals who would maintain this country in subservience to an 'income tax amendment' they know, should know, and have every good reason to know, was never ratified, and is therefore not part of the Constitution, and not a law, to be faithfully executed or even to be executed in any way, shape or form?"

Clearly, it is not the self-interest of true and honest agents of average American men and women. For in no rational sense could such deceitful and disloyal officials, behaving in such a lawless manner, be considered the people's representatives. Then who or what have they been representing all of these years? And more to the present purpose, who or what are they representing now?

Realistic political science teaches that there are two, and only two, kinds of government. One, is what the ancient Romans called, a res publica, a "public thing", a government for the people. Not necessarily a democracy, because ancient Rome was not a democracy. And not necessarily a republic, because the ancient Romans from time to time appointed dictators, with good reason. And one can even imagine an aristocracy or a monarchy that would put the public interest, the general welfare, the common good of every citizen, ahead of all narrow special interests. Well that's one form of government.

The other is a government of, by, and for a self-selected, self-perpetuating, crew of elitists. This is not a res publica, a public thing. It is La Cosa Nostra, "our thing." [audience laughter and applause]. That is, gangster government. And such is precisely the nature of what passes for the government today in Washington. And in the states, and the counties, and the cities. It's just a different "family", depending on where you are.

This explains what is going on with the "16th Amendment" far better than any legal mumbo jumbo such as the doctrine of "political questions". America's gangster government does not give a rotten fig what the law actually is. Because law is just a camouflage, or a cover story, for the gang's looting and oppression of the rest of society [audience applause]. America's gangster government operates under what it's legal mouthpieces called a "living Constitution." That is, a Constitution, the meaning of which depends on the interests of the big shots who happen to be living [audience laughter], and who pull the legislative and judicial strings.

So, America's gangster government can function perfectly well under Constitutional Amendments that were never ratified. Because whether an amendment was ratified is far less important than whether it can be enforced. And I remind you of the wisdom ... the man was not a Sicilian, he was a Neopolitan, but he had tremendous wisdom in this area ... Alphonse Capone, one of the great political philosophers in American history [audience laughter]. He said "You can go a long way in life with a smile, but you can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun." [audience laughter]. It's what you can enforce.

Now, what is the point, I might even ask what is the rationality of asking a gangster government, or particular gangsters in the government, to investigate and pass judgment on their own wrongdoing? Do you not already know what they will say? And whatever they say, will you believe them? Do you believe what they have told you about the Oklahoma City bombing? Do you believe what they've told you about Waco? About TWA flight 800? About Mena, Miny, and Mo? [audience laughter]. Well, that raises another question, though. What can common Americans do about this gangster government? After all, it is the government! And it's much more dangerous precisely because it's composed of gangsters.

Well, that's true. But also, this is a government around which hangs the smell of the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes trials, which set the precedent for prosecution of gangster governments. Looting a whole country for generations under color of an unratified constitutional amendment, constitutes a crime against the people, if anything does. That this crime is being committed by individuals who happen to hold official positions in the government, Nuremburg and Tokyo tell us, does not attenuate its criminality or immunize its perpetrators. But with all due deference to Dostoevsky, crime is one thing, and punishment is another. And these criminals will never be punished until they are first pulled from office by an educated, disgusted, and incensed electorate [audience applause]. But to strip them of their offices, they must first be tried, and that in the court of public opinion, which is the only tribunal now sitting that will give these charges a fair hearing.

So, in what I call "the program of the four I's," Investigate, Inculpate, Indict, Incarcerate, [audience laughter] the first and most important step must be investigation. The machinery of investigation should center around a Citizen's Constitutional Investigatory Commission, composed of legal scholars, historians, other qualified individuals who are capable of assessing and arriving at correct conclusions from pertinent evidence. This Commission, however, must not seek any governmental direction, assistance, or other involvement. Public officials may appear before it as witnesses, and indeed many should be summoned to testify and to submit documentary evidence. But otherwise, no public official should be allowed to participate in such a Commission's work, as any such connection would raise insoluble conflicts of interest.

The Commission should be empowered to investigate at least four issues.

First, whether the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified in 1913. That will require an in-depth analysis of all the materials that have been collected in The Law That Never Was and whatever else can be assembled and all of the circumstances that led to the generation of those materials.

Second, if the Commission determines that the alleged "16th Amendment" was not validly ratified, the Commission should then determine whether a tax on incomes from individual's labor, professions, wages, and salaries, is a direct tax or an excise tax, as those terms are used in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, of the Constitution. That's because, as one of the speakers pointed out earlier today, there is some dispute among the government, and also among constitutional scholars, as to what kind of tax an income tax is. And we're going to cover all the bases, or this Commission should cover all the bases. So such an investigation will entail an in-depth analysis of direct and indirect taxes in English and American Colonial law in the century or so preceding the War of Independence and ratification of the Constitution. Because we want to know what those words meant in 1789, not what they mean today to somebody in the Department of Justice or the Internal Revenue Service.

Third, if a tax on individual income from labor is held to be an excise by the Commission, then the Commission should determine an issue that was also broached earlier this morning, whether such a tax constitutes a badge or incidence of slavery or involuntary servitude, and is therefore unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment. I won't go into this in great detail, but you figure it out. The premise of this tax is that the tax is generated by labor, labor creates this tax. And the tax is taken, in principle, directly from the labor. Which, of course, to the government, has no value except in so far as it produces the wealth that can expropriated. This is precisely the master-slave theory of wealth generation. And I think if one went back to the antebellum American and Colonial literature, you would find a great deal of information on that subject which would verify that interpretation. In any event, that particular issue has to be settled.

And, finally, if the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified, if a tax on incomes from individual labor is a direct tax, or if such a tax is a badge or incident of slavery, then the Commission should determine why officials in all branches of the national government have enforced this tax since 1913, and in particular, why they have done so since publication of The Law That Never Was and all the litigation on the findings in that book brought in public view this issue.

One important aspect of such a Commission's work, would be a comprehensive search for documentary evidence, Federal and state Freedom of Information Acts could be used, national archives, state archives, Presidential libraries, compilations of papers of public figures that are maintained in universities, and so forth and so on, all of those need to be searched.

Another important aspect of the work must be public hearings, hopefully to be held in various places throughout the country, during which testimony will be taken and documentary evidence submitted. This, not only for the Commission's immediate work, but for the purpose of educating people in the various locales about what's going on and what these issues are.

And eventually the Commission should publish its findings, together with all testimony and documentary evidence suitably printed and bound, what, forty, fifty, sixty, a hundred, volumes, right? Reminds me of that wonderful work that was produced in 1945-46, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, we could almost use that title. These materials then should be presented immediately to Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Legislatures of the several states that were involved in the ratification of the "16th Amendment". If the Commission's findings establish the tax on individual income from labor is unconstitutional, each of these governmental recipients should be instructed to take appropriate action. Now, you note that the word I use is "instructed." Not, asked, petitioned, begged, or implored. For, faced with findings that the income tax is unconstitutional, theirs will be the constitutional duty to act. I presume, however, being something of a cynic, ... you know people often call me a pessimist. And I like to ask them, you know, what's the definition of a pessimist? A pessimist is an optimist who knows the facts [audience laughter]. I've been in this business a while. And it gets dirtier the deeper you dig. So, I presume, that no matter what findings are presented to these public officials, they will not disestablish the individual income tax on their own, anymore than they would disestablish the Federal Reserve system, simply because someone such as myself proves that the constitutional dollar is a silver coin, not a piece of paper [audience applause]. Or any more than they will give up their fantastic dreams for a New World Order simply because the Declaration of Independence establishes the United States as a nation among nations, not as a satrapy of some global empire [audience applause].

Rather, I anticipate that they will do everything within their power to obstruct, obfuscate, and delay, if not derail entirely, the Commission's investigation, and then to criticize, belittle, and ridicule the Commission's findings. Because, let's face the facts, the income tax is one of the major props of the power structure. Enough said! At that point, though, finally armed with the whole truth on one side, and face to face with the political classes' intransigence on the other, the American people will be forced to decide whether they are sheep or men, whether they can mount a grass-roots political movement to throw these elitists out of office once and for all and reassert self-government in this country, or accept the other alternative.

It will be very interesting to see what happens. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen [audience applause].



Dr. Edwin Vieira:  Original Intent Vs Living Document, Fiat Empire

Edwin Vieira - Google Search;
Edwin Vieira - Google Video

More:  Issues:  Vieira, Dr. Edwin:  Original Intent Vs Living Document, Fiat Empire;;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament
News:  Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge;
Issues:  Cromwell, Oliver: Parliamentary Supremacy;
Issues: Supremacy of Parliament;
Issues: Judicial Globalization is Treason

Robert Menard: "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception"

Robert Menard - Google Search ;
Robert Menard - Google Video

More:  Issues:  Menard, Robert: "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception";
Issues:  Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization is Treason

Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy

Chapter VII. The English Common Law. Section 57. The Norman Conquest

A beautiy of British  Common Law is that it is STATIC, and NOT DYNAMIC as these Activist Judges would have you think.

Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and they will likely tell you it is "Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say "Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these days"

This is completely FALSE.  The Judges are Agents of the Crown and they BY DEFINITION Judges are WITHOUT CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever.  Since 1649, only PARLIAMENT has the Capacity to make Law.

British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was only observed and documented by individuals sent out by the newly Norman Crown after the Norman Conquest of 1066  to observe and codify the laws and customs of the various peoples of Britain..  This was done with a view to aggregate existing customs which may vary across the land,  into a unified body of Laws.  The Authority quoted by the Commoners in their administration of Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the Bible and principles of Danelaw

The process of documentation took only a couple of hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body of Law which was historical, popular, and has served in the intervening centuries as a Benchmark against which Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".  It does NOT change.

More:   Issues:  Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization is Treason

Paul Grignon:  "Money As Debt"

Paul Grignon - Google Search

Paul Grignon - Google Video

Money As Debt

More:  Isssues:  Money as Debt / Money Masters;
Issues:  Grignon, Paul: "Money As Debt"
Issues: Griffin, G. Edward, Jeckle Island;
Issues:  North American Union, NAU

G. Edward Griffin, "The Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve"

G. Edward Griffin - Google Search ;
G. Edward Griffin - Google Videos

More: Issues:  Griffin, G. Edward, Federal Reserve / Jekyll Island;
Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Congressional Investigator & former Banker;
Issues:  Russo, Aaron:  Freedom to Facism;
Issues:  Quigley,  Carrol;

Bill Still: 
"Money Masters",
"The Secret of Oz"

Bill Still - Google Search;
Bill Still - Google Video

Money Masters - Google Search

More: Issues:  Still, Bill:  "Money Masters", "Secret of Oz";
Issues:  Grignon, Paul: "Money As Debt"
Issues: Griffin, G. Edward, Jeckle Island;
Issues:  North American Union, NAU

Norman Dodd, Congressional Investigator, Banker:  Hidden Agenda of Tax Exempt Foundations for World Government

Norman Dodd - Google Search
Norman Dodd - Google Videos 

Norman Dodd was a Banker and an eye-witness to the Crash of 1929.  Later he was a Congressional Investigator of Tax Exempt Foundations during the Reese Committee, 1959.

This interview outlines Dodd's discovery that some of the largest Tax Exempt Foundations of the US are Fabian Socialists having among their objectives the assimilation of the West into a single Socialist block.

To this end, many of the largest Tax Exempt Foundations are through "Education", quietly reconfiguring the American psyche, preparing Americans to be "comfortably merged with the Soviet Union"

More:  Issues:  Quigley,  Carroll...  "Tragedy & Hope";
Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Congressional Investigator & former Banker;
Issues:  Griffin, G. Edward:  Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve;
Issues:  Russo, Aaron:  "America, Freedom to Fascism"

Morgan, JP:  Founding Member of Federal Reserve Corporation

Morgan decided Tesla had to be crushed when he found Tesla was working on the wireless transmission of FREE power.  Morgan may be the most obvious Beneficiary of the Govt. selloffs & Banking "Bailouts" of 2009 ff, thanks to Henry Paulson.

JP Morgan - Google Search;
JP Morgan - Google Video

Phenomenon: The Lost Archives - Monopoly Men

More:  News:  Morgan, JP:  Founding Member of Federal Reserve Corporation;
Funstuff:  Tesla, Nikola: The Missing Secrets;
 Issues:  Phenomenon: The Lost Archives
Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Fabian Socialism

Clyde Hertzman, MD:  World Bank Consultant, Human Early Learning Partnerships

Clyde Hertzman, World Bank - Google Search;
Clyde Hertzman - Google Video

Clyde Hertzman wants to know everything he can about about your family and children.  He and his Human Early Learning Partnerships program has been successful in subverting  our privacy laws to legalize his collection, analysis, and reporting of  your family's personal information to global policy makers.

Human Early Learning Partnerships - Google Search;
Human Early Learning Partnerships - Google Video

More:  News:  Hertzman, Clyde: World Bank Consultant;
News:  OECD = Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, Global Prosperity Shared Globally

Brian Gerrish:  EU's "Common Purpose", Tyranny by Pedophiles

Brian Gerrish - Google Search;
Brian Gerrish - Google Video

Common Purpose - Google Search;
Common Purpose - Google Video 

More:  Issues:  Gerrish, Brian:  EU's "Common Purpose", Tyranny by Pedophiles;
 Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Congressional Investigator & former Banker;
Issues:  Judicial Freemasonry
Issues:  Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer
Issues:  Russo, Aaron:  "America, Freedom to Fascism"
Issues:  Judicial Activism;
Issues:  Poofy Judges;
News:  Crowley, Aleister:  Luciferian Freemasonry, Homosexual Pedophilia & Pederasty;
News:  Pike, Albert: Luciferian Freemasonry;

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of Parliamentary Supremacy, 1649

Oliver Cromwell - Google Search:
Oliver Cromwell, Richard Harris, 1970 - Google Videos

British Civil War's Achievements: 

1)  Crown's Irrevocable Settlement of Absolute Powers of Legislation to Parliament as Monarch's Trustees

2)  Crown remains as PROTECTOR of that Settlement of Trust.  (Cromwell refused to be made "King", but instead took the title "Lord Protector".)

3)  Crown retains Powers of Appointment with which to dissolve Parliament and call an Election upon Appeal by the Electorate.  Upon demonstration of a fair election, the Crown as PROTECTOR exercises her Powers of Appointment to assign to the new Government her settled Powers of Legislation.

4)  Crown's role as PROTECTOR of the settled Powers, and Assets (called "The  Common Wealth")  for the exclusive benefit of the Beneficiaries (British Subjects) is delegated in Canada by Appointment to the Canadian Governor General, and Provincial Lieutenant Governors to perform in her absence. 

More:  Issues:  Cromwell, Oliver:  Lord Protector of Parliamentary Supremacy:
News: Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge;:
Issues: Supremacy of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Interpretation;
Issues: Judicial Globalization is Treason

Scott Lively,
"Pink Swastika", Homosexuality and the Nazi Party

Scott Lively - Google Search
Scott Lively - Google Videos

More:  Issues:  Lively, Scott:  "Pink Swastika", Homosexuality and the Nazi Party;
Issues:  Lynette Burrows, Psychologist warns on Pedophiles
Issues:  Homosexual Activism;
Issues:  Judicial Activism;
Issues:  Poofy Judges

Copyright 2002 


        Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages  exercising democratic rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.