PLANETIZATION and the Human Union

MUJCA-NET's
ENDORSERS

GROWING TRENDS  

Ramadan Reflections

Truth is our Trench

On Dec 11, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Karl-Heintz Eisbrenner wrote:


Aloha Tina and Gina
Friends!
 
Let us take the right direction and speak of "dutiful freedoms".
 
To speak of dutiful freedoms implies speaking of "sharing".  We all, whatever our religion, sex, age, gender, location... share dutiful freedoms.
 
To speak of "rights" invites division - abstraction - deletion - distortion.
 
Julius Caesar proclaimed veni! vidi! vici!  I came!  I saw!  I conquered!
 
Each of these acclamations imply voca!  I speak!
 
"And God spoke..."  "In the beginning was "the word", i.e. speak! = logos.
 
Parliaments, Congress, Senates, Houses of Commons, Legislatures, wherever located speak and by speaking create.  Create what?  "Laws".
 
Ironically, the globe, the global village, shows only lines of latitude and lines of longitude.  Universal location devices, without "division", without "political" boundaries, without "piss-marker-mentalities".
 
A simple glance at the globe shows water + earth + air + lines of latitude + lines of longitude.
 
One mechanism used by the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] and other "power elites" to divide and conquer rests simply on using crayons to write and to draw "political" or "state" or "national" boundaries creating divisions.
 
A simple glance at the roster of United Nations, reveals hundreds of "nations" or "states"... each occupied by so-called "oath takers and law makers", euphemistically described as "public servants".  This phrase draws a distinction between "the private sector" and "the public sector"... creating an unwholesome division and an apartheid.  
 
The United Nations' Charters decry apartheid yet the very phrase United "Nations" provides us with a useful oxymoron. 
 
A simple illustration will suffice.  In my article "... minding your p's and q's : an introduction to the logic of law", I show how a simple period, a dot, functions to create adversaries amongst people, organizations, nations, states, religions and families.
 
Look at any reference in any Court decisions anywhere and you will find the dot.  The period.
 
Let p = the people
Let q = the queen, congress, parliament, legislature, senate, government ministry
 
See how simply and effectively we create adversaries by using the dot, the period:
 
                                          p v. q
 
Replace the letter p with "rights of x" and the letter q with "rights of y" and you see the trap, "the rights of x" v. "the rights of y".  Replace x and y with names of nations, states, governments, public bodies and you see the universal application of the principle "divide and conquer".
 
To speak of "the rights of x" automatically creates "the rights of non-x" - whether we speak of churches, religions, political bodies or nation-states.
 
George Bush and his advisors proclaim a simple principle, I call "the bully-boy effect": 
 
                    either you are with us or you are against us
                                         translated as
                    he who is not with me [us] is against me [us]
 
Notice what happens when we add the dot, the period... what some call the "jot and the tittle":
                                        us v. u.s.
 
Compare this with the principle in The Gospel of Thomas:
 
                        he who is not against me is with me
 
We hear much talk about "global" corporations and "global" power... power and control that crosses so-called national boundaries...
 
Many folks get educated to believing "laws" end where the national boundaries end... giving us ideas such as "the laws of the x" v. "the laws of y", as if Law adopts and abides by political boundary lines... as if Law adopts a "piss-marker-mentality"...  creating the belief-habit that somehow the laws of nation x can be distinguished from the laws of nation y... yielding a so-called discipline called "international law" or "the conflict of laws".
 
In my writings I refer often to the Law and Equity Act of British Columbia... and some people react by saying:
 
1.  well, that's British Columbia law, but I live in x, and we have different laws
 
2.  well, that may be how it is there, but I live in y, and we don't have one of those laws
 
This belief-habit reveals the depth and breadth of propoganda - leading people [i.e. brothers and sisters] to believe somehow the "laws" inside their specific territory, republic, nation, territory, state, country function like "property", as if a nation can control "laws".
 
This mind-set offers plenty of ammunition for "the power elites" to justify invasions, wars, pre-emptive strikes and the latest version of global domination expressed in such documents as:
 
1.  "Rebuilding America's Defences" - The Project for the New American Century
 
2.  "National Security Strategy: 2002"
 
3.  "Vision for 2020" [The U.S. Space Command]... expressing the logo, the motto:  IN YOUR FACE FROM OUTER SPACE
 
Each of these documents espouse "full spectrum dominance"... and proclaim The American Empire run by The Imperial Presidency [see articles by Noam Chomsky and the book by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. using this title].
 
Students of history will be familiar with the phrase pax Romana = The Roman Peace.  MicroSoft Word users need only to pause before creating documents and notice the intriguing headline on their computer screens:
 
                                        TIMES NEW ROMAN   12
 
Brains wired to understand and to appreciate English grammar, will automatically engage in some inner space manouevers.  The phrase Times New Roman hits the eye, hits the brain... and the brain re-orders the words into proper grammatical format : NEW ROMAN TIMES.
 
Now.  Imagine 900 million computer screens, 900 million MicroSoft Word users, turning on their computers to write their latest diatribe against corruption, unaccountability, oppression, dissent...   Their brains will experience what psychologists call subliminal seduction.  The brain will believe the words... will re-order the words... will adopt the truth of the words... creating the belief/thought habit that indeed we all live in New Roman Times...
 
Let it be.  Let it be.  So let it be written so let it be done.  Adherents of Napoleon Hill's precise statement will appreciate the full impact and import of this re-ordering:
 
                  What we can conceive and believe we can achieve!
 
So.  Folks.  Welcome to the New World Order.  The NWO.  Complete with the New Word Order.  Accept it, Folks!  Bill Gates and MicroSoft cannot be wrong!  We do live in NEW ROMAN TIMES.
 
A simple glance at The New Testament and other 1st Century A.D. writings will understand the political climate 2000 years ago.  A multi-faceted, multi-levelled taxation system, where people were subject to paying a) The Temple Tax [to High Priests], b) regional/county taxes [to King Herod and his brothers, and c) federal Roman taxes [to Caesar].
 
These oppressive tax schemes provided fodder for reformers.  The legal structure 2000 years ago does not appear any different than legal structures today.  For example, here is a little story, a brief vignette from The Book of Acts in The New Testament, revealing discussions and disagreements about the word so often tossed about today, like a cork on the water:  jurisdiction:
 
                          And when Gallio was proconsul of Achiaia
                          the Jews made insurrection with one accord
                          against Paul [a.k.a. "Saul"], and they brought
                          him to the judgment seat
 
                          Saying, This fellow persuades men to worship
                          God contrary to the law
 
                          And as Paul was desirous to open his mouth
                          and speak, Gallio said to the Jews, If your
                          accusations were based on something criminal,
                          fraudulent or vicious, I would welcome you
                          properly, O Jews:
 
                          But if they are a mere question of words and
                          names and concerning your law, you can settle
                          it better among yourselves; for I do not wish
                          to be a judge of such matters
 
                          And he drove them from his judgment seat
 
                             [Acts of The Apostles, chpt. 18: 12-16]
 
The refusal to take jurisdiction over questions relating to "words" or "names" sounds familiar to many who have entered Courtrooms asking for redress and recourse...  How many times do you hear judges say... I do not have jurisdiction to decide this matter?  Go elsewhere?  It belongs not in court x but in court y or court z...?
 
Interestingly, a simple read of section 31 of the British North America Act, 1867 reveals exactly the same principle... there, the Constitution for Canada talks about "felonies", "infamous crimes" and "attaintment of treason"... each element includes a) a victim and b) a harm.  Section 31 outlines how Senators, and therefore by definition, any federal officer occupying federal office can lose his or her seat... 
 
Principles of interpretation [i.e. called "hermeneutics" in theological and religious circles], indicate that the word "crime" must be distinguished from the word "misdemeanor" [see the above judgment by Gallio].  A court of law must limit its jurisdiction to crimes and victims of crime, i.e. there cannot be any "crime" called "victimless".
 
Yet.  In Canada, Parliament [i.e. federal Members of Parliament] enacted so-called "crime" laws against the people, by criminalizing the growing and possessing and distribution of hemp.  Readers will do well to read the book and research "Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine" to get an idea about the reasons and the causes and the motives for this illegal legislation.
 
I say "illegal" with good reason.  Readers ought to familiarize themselves with the Reasons for Judgment of Madam Justice Southin, in 2003 BCCA 364 [British Columbia Court of Appeal], where the most senior jurist in that province states categorically that "lawyers" licensed to participate in a "legal money making monopoly" have deceived the people into believing the "words" criminalizing marijuana... have committed crimes in so doing.
 
The same holds for all laws criminalizing marijuana anywhere on the globe... and for all gun registry and gun control laws.
 
Just because politicians turned legislators are given "power to make laws" does not mean they can enact or pass just any law they like.  Courts function and Courts exist for one function only, to engage in judicial review of legislation... Did the governing agency enact a law outside its jurisdiction?  If so, the law can be struck down and the enactors can be held personally liable, responsible, accountable and punishable for doing so.
 
Effectively, any person incarcerated under the "illegal" wordlaw has recourse and redress to sue all those participating in the incarceration... including judges, lawyers, and politicians.
 
I created a vehicle to do just that in a case called Brouwer/Kuiper v. Her Majesty The Queen [i.e. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources] filed on Feb. 12, 1999 in British Columbia Supreme Court, by filing pleadings that a) ask for class certification for an aggrieved group, b) combined with an application for judicial review and c) using Rule 31 of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules [Notice to Admit the Truth of Facts and Authenticity of Documents].
 
Those pleadings gave the Court, any Court anywhere in any common-law jurisdiction no choice, either grant the relief and the recourse asked for under The Law and Equity Act, or by definition, be complicit in the crimes against th elderly, the environment, the California Bighorn Sheep, and all other relations impacted by a Government fraud.
 
The pleadings resulted in the Law Society of British Columbia offering me a bribe... dump your clients, tell them [188 seniors] they got screwed, and you will have a chance to keep your "license" to practice law... I refused.  It cost me a willing sacrifice... my license, my career, my reputation, my finances... such as illustrated in the movie Civil Action with John Travolta.
 
The principle remains, however.  I did not commence a "class action" for that would deprive my people of all available recourse and redress, including holding politicians and legislators personally liable for wrongdoing... based on the principles in the British North America Act, 1867 that make every public officer holding public office, accountable, liable, responsible and punishable for wrongdoing, i.e. for enacting "illegal" legislation.
 
Many readers may oppose this view by arguing the so-called principle of "parliamentary sovereignty" or "executive privilege" or some other such belief that somehow someway, some entities are "above the law", including judges.
 
Indeed, a Superior Court Justice took his pen, and rewrote my indictment against 3 levels of government - editing out names, editing out "causes of action" and editing out "suppression of truth" and editing out obstruction of justice... all so the Liberal Party in British Columbia would not be impacted in the 2001 Provincial Election... an election "rigged" by some power elitists who needed a Liberal Party victory to ensure the 2010 Winter Olympics would yield their true purpose... developing Offshore Natural Gas next to aboriginal Haidi Native lands...
 
The usual argument raised by those engaged in political decision making, those enacting laws to further and to foster "policy"... yields the argument that legislatures can enact whatever laws they want... without any oversight.
 
That principle gets destroyed by my legal argument.  The idea of an Imperial Presidency allowing George Bush to say "the Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper" and "quit throwing the Consitution in my face".  Too bad, George.  So sad...  Guess you did not like my precedent setting pleadings that by the way originated because of events happening on 9/11...
 
A legal argument filed in a common-law Court anywhere in any Courtroom on the globe... has impact everywhere... in any country and in any jurisdiction... once it gets adjudicated it becomes a precedent.
 
Two weeks before 9/11 in September 2001, I faxed a warning to all media about 2 pending explosions south of the border...  The case involving 188 seniors fighting their elected public servants was based on events occurring on 9/11 in the year 1998.
 
Co-incidence?
 
One need only to ask the question... did the pleadings I filed impact the power players and the power elite bankers and politicians holding office in the American Empire?  You bet!  They are not immune from personal liability and punishment!
 
Indeed, any persons saddled with "criminal records" for so-called "pot" crimes, alleged "crimes" for growing, possessing or distributing marijuana, can ask for class certification as a group... and claim monetary redress and recourse for false imprisonment and TREASON against all legislators who adopted or adapted their law making power to create marijuana crime laws...
 
No ifs.  No ands.  No buts.
 
Regards,
 
Karl-Heintz Eisbrenner, M.A. (Oxon.); L.L.B.             


Aloha Darla and Readers
 
You, and others, have my permission to post my writings.
 
Focus = Follow One Course Until Successful.
 
Get Educated!  The Book of Job contains an interesting admonition: "Listen to the earth and the earth shall teach thee".  Teach thee what?
 
I teach
You listen
We learn 
 
s. 33 of the Law and Equity Act, B.C. functions like the hotspot on a magnifying glass.  "In all questions relating to the custody and education of infants the rules of equity prevail".
 
It condenses the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
 
The word "all" means what it says.  Every "question" relates to the custody and education of infants, whether it be a question of Income Tax law, Labor Law, Mortgage Law, Banking Law, Criminal Law...
 
A good starting point = my article in The Advocate, Vol. 56, No. 4, July 1998 "What is the scope of Provincial Court jurisdiction under the Family Relations Act?" 
 
Heather Clarry and others have a copy of the article and can easily scan and distribute it, allowing people to get educated.
 
s. 44 of the Act specifically distinguishes between "rules of common law" and "rules of equity"... declaring and enacting the principle that when "rules of common law" conflict with "rules of equity", the "rules of equity prevail".
 
Every case involving families in any Court in British Columbia = a custody case.  Education of children = the paramount consideration in every court case.  Judges' decisions = educational tools.
 
Too many folks get hung up on questions of "rights" and "ownership", hence disputes about who "owns" the kids, who gets "custody" of kids, arguments over "shared custody", all leading to questions and arguments over control and power over kids.  Too few folks concentrate on the main principles in Law that promote education of  kids as the number one priority.
 
The Legal Profession Act in B.C. and its Law Foundation must make education the number one priority.  Many writers and pundits proclaim an educated putblic makes for the best defense against "government" excesses.
 
Many folks run here and there, to and fro, looking for the "latest research"... fortgetting the word "research" means "to search again", i.e. you did not find it the first time.  Many folks do not take the time to educate themselves, they just mouth the word "rights" and proceed to engage in infighting, i.e. my rights v. your rights, gay rights v. straight rights, government rights v. people rights... 
 
The most powerful divisive tool in legal argument = argumentum divisionis = "divide and conquer".  The word "rights" creates a division as soon as it gets spoken.  Case closed!  You lose!  At the outset.
 
Instead.  Folks must learn to speak of "dutiful freedoms"... an all-encompassing term that binds every person, every politician, every oathtaker and every lawmaker, every mom, dad, and kid.
 
The word "right" comes from the Old English word "rectum" = related to the Teutonic word "recht" and the word "righteous" and "righteousness".  The word "right" has been usurped by those in "power" to control the populace by creating division, abstraction, deletion and distortion... making the word "right" attach to the word "ego"...
 
Politicians shape shift from politics to "legislators" claiming their "right" to enact whatever laws they want, without any control or oversight.  Judges claim the "right" to control the courtroom like it was their property.  The first step in proper education of infants would entail refusing to engage in any discussion of "rights".  The current philosophy, the current belief habits in Western Culture, entails deceiving people into believing the government, or some legislation, endows people with "aboriginal" or "indigenous" rights, versus the general populace.  Creating apartheid simply by using a simple word.
 
The civil codes [Roman, Napoleonic, French] by definition begin with the absolute presupposition that "rights" can be "given" or "taken" from people.  George Bush and his advisors give us the most blatant example:  "Either you are with us, or you are against us...", i.e. either you support us or you support the terrorists.  To insist on your "rights" = to create division = to fall into the trap.  Cleaning up our language use must be the first step toward real reform.
 
The Law and Equity Act must become the focal point and the starting point of any submission in any Court on any issue.  
 
The Act declares its enactments and declarations must be applied in all courts in British Columbia, in all cases.  No ifs.  No ands.  No buts.
 
Sadly.  A lot of people advocating reform, change, accountability and the like do not take the time a) to familiarize and educate themselves with sections 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 33, 44, and 52 of the Act, and b) have not taken time to read and to really understand my article, and c) fail to bring the Act into Court putting the onus on every judge to rule on its provisions.
 
I am happy to address questions and concerns relating to the Act and my article to anyone who asks.
 
Anyone really interested in reform and advocacy, ought to obtain a copy of my submission filed in Penticton Provincial Court on August 26, 2002, in the case R. v. Evans [File 30655-1].
 
Regards,
 
Karl-Heintz Eisbrenner, M.A. (Oxon.); L.L.B.  


Darla <   > wrote:

Very impressive, and interesting writing Mr. Eisbrenner. But I have to agree with Heather. How do we do this? How do we forge change? How do we force accountability?
 
I have found that in my experience, when discussing these issues with others in the community, I get a number of reactions. Many say, "Why bother, you can't change anything", which is a defeatist attitude I have found in many.  Any decent cops are behind their proverbial blue wall. I imagine it’s the same in any “legal community”.
 
Let’s face it. It is very devastating to find out everything you were brought up to believe in is false, fake, meaningless, and nothing short of hypocritical. I am not enjoying being the bearer of bad news to these people, as I know the emotional, and mental anguish I went through when discovering the truth. I am certain that each and every one of us has felt it.
 
How do we convince others of what we say?
 
We all know how it is to hear the “crazy person on the street corner screaming corruption”.
 
I have been on that street corner. I have waved signs in Mississauga. I have stood in front of court buildings handing out flyers and have had lawyers approach me acknowledging the corruption of which we all speak. They say it goes on all the time. (I have handwritten files of CAS’s that prove they kept the children with the abuser rather than allow access to the fathers.
 
How do we pass their need for money to their consciences where they know they need to speak out and stand up for what’s right?
 
I truly believe we are about to enter an era of vigilantes and lawless societies if we continue as we are.
 
Do we want this for our children? I am afraid of it myself, but if it is best for them, then YES. If it is the belief that people will defend them as they grow through their defenseless years and beyond, then yes. It is what they need to believe. Children need to believe they are safe. Not to fear the boogie man, or the shadow outside their bedroom window. It destroys a child to know that officials, and people in the position of authority that are supposed to be there for their protection are, in actuality, their abusers and murderers. And what of those they run to for help? They too, are abusers by returning them to their hell, or worse, sending them early to their heaven.
 
I commend you for speaking out as you have. I commend you all. Those of us that are speaking out may be plentiful, but we need proof.  The more proof we have, it seems, the more money paid in bribes to win votes, or shut people up, or the more people (including children) that disappear.
 
I think we are reaching a lot of people by doing what we are doing. But can it be faster? Can we do it in a way that will open more people’s eyes far more quickly?
 
And… Lastly, I would like permission to post what you wrote directly on my blog.
 
Darla McKinstry