Site hosted by Build your free website today!



"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must also do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority, must more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign."

[James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments §11 (1785, reprinted in Everson v. Board of Education, 330, U.S. 1, 64) Rutledge, J., dissenting].



"It would be sinful for a man to surrender that to man which is to be kept sacred for God", said Baptist leader John Leland in persuading James Madison to sponsor a religious freedom Bill into the Bill of Rights, something we still sorely need today. "Somehow" men, by the guile and misrepresentation of once a trusted government, have been beguiled and fooled into surrendering what is most sacred to them: their own homes and families. Montesquieu wrote about this saying: "There is no more cruel tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of the law, and with the colors of justice." [The Macmillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases, selected and arranged by Burton Stevenson Sixth Printing, ©1948 (Macmillan), The Macmillan Company, New York, p ] Unfortunately, this is the modus operandi of our present Judiciary, and many men and families have been destroyed because of this fraud.

This, is the exact treason by which modern Feminists in conjunction with an immoral Legislature and corrupt Judiciary intend to force fathers to submit to the present "Child Support" and "Child Laws" of this nation—all under "The Best Interests of the Child" Doctrine. All for the communist doctrine of ‘for the best interests of the masses’. They want Fathers to bow to the greater social will of abandoning their home, their children, and their families, to a foreign agency that has coerced this society by outright lies and incessant propaganda; to admit the antithetical admission of Feminist Jurisprudence into all of our lives. This Feminist Jurisprudence, designed by the Socialists, Anarchists and Feminists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is now government policy.

The father who is now disenfranchised, must voluntarily—by modern statutory laws—and the despotism of an out-of-control judiciary, give up his natural born rights bequeathed to him by God: that of being a Father, and a parent. We are men, surrendering to other men or persons (mostly Socialists like Hillary Rodham-Clinton), our sacred rights and proper roles as parents. This is being done, in direct contravention to our laws, the common law, and natural law, all in which to satisfy a ‘larger venue’ of an undefined group of elite who are imposing and using the tyranny of Social Engineering upon Fathers and the Family..."for the greater good" of society...and for possibly for other undocumented reasons (such as to overthrow the American rule of law in the United States or even as a prelude to conditioning the public to accept and abide by "The New World Order"). This elite regime whom are the masters at the control of this Socialist Engineered helm, are harvesting an unsuspecting culture for their own economic benefit, and more importantly—to satisfy their mandates of Social Engineering and Social Control over a supposedly "free" society.

The current political question has been answered in regards of who is the ultimate parent within the American home. Due to the "Feminist Revolution" with the complicit backing and support of Government and the Socialist "Elite" within this nation, under the Doctrine of Parens Patriae the Feminists and Government concur that "government" e.g., The Courts, Police, Social Services, Child Protective Services and a host of other government agencies and enclaves—are in fact the ultimate caretakers of your children. The legal question is more complex however...

First, we must ask the simple most basic questions. For instance: is a man compelled to give up his natural born rights as a father, then; have to pay (or forced) into such an obligation to provide charity for his child?

Not under Law.

MORAL OBLIGATION. A duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfil.

2. These obligations are of two kinds 1st. Those founded on a natural right; as, the obligation to be charitable, which can never be enforced by law. 2d Those which are supported by a good or valuable antecedent consideration; as, where a man owes a debt barred by the act of limitations, this cannot be recovered by law, though it subsists in morality and conscience; but if the debtor promise to pay it, the moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for the promise, and the creditor may maintain an action of assumpsit, to recover the money. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 623

The District Attorney and Judges are ‘forcing’ men into unconscionable contracts to enforce the ‘morality’ imposed by the common law—all the while removing any and all benefits of the common law of which the father, by perfect right, under natural law; enjoys. If the father is disobeyed, if the mother kidnaps the child, if the government seizes the child—the father has NO ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN TO BE FORCED INTO THE ‘MORALITY’ OF SUBSIDIZING HIS CHILD’S CHARITY. In supposedly "The Best Interests of the Child." Here is what the law says is a unconscionable contract:

§ 19.2 What Makes a Contract Unconscionable?

The Code does not define unconscionability nor does its text indicate what elements go into making a contract unconscionable. The official comments suggest,

The basic test is whether, in the light of the general background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract.... The principle is one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise...and not of disturbance of allocation of risks because of superior bargaining power.

This test is followed by a brief discussion of 10 pre-Code cases as examples.

Each Claim of unconscionability, therefore, must be determined on a case by case basis which measures specific facts against a background of common law development.

[Rights and Remedies Under U.C.C. Article 2, by Harold Greenberg, ©1987 Wiley Law Publications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-81283-8, pp. 282-283]

As any rational person can see, the ‘contract’ of which no father is fully informed of, nor can produce this contract (I’ve asked many Fathers to ‘produce’ the contract that has all the draconian terms they suffer through spelled out on it in writing, to date, after asking approximately 50 Fathers Rights activists none, categorically no Father has produced this ‘mythical’ contract; or in the court’s words "special contract" or "special obligation" that fathers are ensnared to, and bound to unmercifully). Again, something which engineering-wise is nothing more than a Chinese Finger Torture for Fatherhood, cannot even remotely pass this test of unconscionability. Again, in regards to the common-law of which the U.C.C. is based, and of which Family Law and American Law propagates from: what we are speaking to here are ‘contracts’ and laws that are not only unconscionable, but transgress the human social condition into those of abject sin.

In my thirteen year effort to gain back the theft of my son, upon recognition that the Court system was completely over-run by an unseen and silent entity which was directly responsible for controverting law, I started an organization called: The Sovereign Patriot Group in 1988. This was a Fathers Rights group dedicated to ‘cracking the code’ of law and injustice that was being perpetrated upon us. We were immediately recognized as ‘Constitutionalists’. I soon had a small core of intelligent and dedicated people who were researching every aspect of the law, and like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy’s tiny little dog peels away the curtain to reveal a small tiny little man in charge of the controls—we found the law was identically the same—not what it appeared to be at all. Just a little old-man frightened at his own controls. What myth’s and outright lies the lawyers, District Attorneys and Judges were ‘advising’ and ‘informing’ us of—was in fact—in direct opposition to the written law. What was most astounding, was that in reviewing and researching the law, we found that courts were proactively ‘modifying’ the law such that base Constitutional Laws, Rights, and Precepts which started out as one thing...became something completely different through the perversion of rulings throughout the years. These perversions looked at historically, had intent, a design. More importantly, if a court case had reviewed a certain former legal decision via case law "precedence" or "stare decisis" decision ruling, it would use the most critical, terse and obtuse reasoning’s in which to make a new ruling, which usually meant the loss of a right. We found that the civilian defendants in these decisions were being annihilated and outright defrauded by some of these court narrow interpretations and rulings. The all important words "In the Light Most Favorable to Government" (usually taken upon ‘silent judicial notice’ by the judges upon any court proceeding) took on a more sadistic meaning and intent when it became applied to law against normal citizens and the American Society as a whole. This of course is contrary to how our courts in America are mandated to work:

"Fiat iustica et ruant coeli."

"Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

[A Decacordon of ten Quodlibeticall Questions Concerning Religion and State, by William Watson, (1602)]

"The whole quotation is; "You go against the general maxim in the laws, which is, ‘Fiat iustica et ruant coeli:" This is the first appearance in English Literature, so far as discovered, of the maxim in the exact form most generally used. It will be noted that it is referred to as already well known. It was used by many writers after 1600, but was given its widest celebrity in 1768 when it was quoted by Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Wilkes. Lord Mansfield used the form, "Iustica fiat, ruat coelum" (Let justice be done though the sky falls). Manningham, in his Diary, 11 April 1603, uses still another form, "Fiat iustica et coelum ruat." The context of Lord Mansfield’s use of the phrase is, "The Constitution does not allow reasons of the state to influence our judgement. God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences, however formidable they might be; if rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say, "Iustica fiat, ruat coelum.’"—William Murray, Earl of Mansfield, Judgement, Rex v. Wilkes, see Burrows reports, Vol. Iv, p. 2562. In this Judgement, Lord Mansfield reversed the sentence of outlawry passed upon John Wilkes for publication of The North Briton." (Underlines for emphasis of issue: RLCII.)

[The Macmillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases, ©1948, Selected and arraigned by Burton Stevenson, Sixth Printing; The Macmillan Company, New York; p.1286.]

Most of these types of decisions presently being implemented by today’s courts were done behind the security and secrecy of ‘closed doors’ with little or feeble representation on the other side, the usually poor or common man. Soon, as in the game: ‘Button, Button, Whose Got the Button?" The original intent and meaning of our American law became a perverse and sadistic imposter of our original law as it was perverted by and through the lucrative influences of Feminist Jurisprudence as well as other special interests with an agenda. Soon, things like: you must have a warrant in which to arrest any American became: you don’t really need any warrant at all. To the Feminists like Ms. Hillary Clinton, the ends justifies the means. Bad law is okay, as long as the government accomplishes its goals—no matter what they might be.

Nonetheless during the exploits of my organization, The Sovereign Patriot Group, we helped many people in regards to a panorama of legal issues and became well known for successfully helping people with traffic ticket’s, small misdemeanors, farmers, Welfare Mothers, and a host of other petty offenses to where the City or County or State or Federal Government was essentially trying to extort money from these poor people. This was the de facto the norm of the present county system, to directly attack abjectly poor and otherwise defenseless citizens, and have the country take as much as it could from these people. (Most Fathers must understand by now, that obtaining a court appointed "Public Defender" is no defense whatsoever—it is only submission). Regardless, in one of our most important cases: The Brady Dayton Cumbuss Butte county Jail death—we met with then Butte County Sheriff/Coroner Mick Grey.

The Father Robert Cumbuss and his Family came to us in which to help them in this matter, we had no prior knowledge of what the conditions of the whole case were, but we soon ramped up and became quite versed in what would be a most formidable opponent: a corrupt local government. We showed up at a scheduled meeting with Sheriff Grey, along with the family and the local media. (To this day I have no idea who called the media or even informed them of this meeting. To be truthful, I was stunned that they were even there). Nonetheless, Sheriff Grey in his affable and gracious manner led us into his office in which to discuss the matter...there were approximately 15 people all crowded into this room...all seeking answers to the inconsolable death and tragedy of a young, 20 year-old black male. (The second death at this notorious facility within a two-week time period). There was great expectations at this meeting and the air was electric with anticipation. As Channel 24 TV News Reporter later said in regards to this incident: "I was so nervous that I forgot to turn on my news camera." To the public, Patriots joining to protect a Black families in their concern for justice and directly challenging a department of the Government, took on the proportions of the historic Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Fraiser fight.

When we challenged Sheriff Grey on the legal issues of this matter, in which to simply allow the Father to make a Citizen’s Arrest in accordance with the law, under a Verified Criminal Complaint, under California Penal Code section 142(a) (the same code mind you, that young Brady-Dayton Cumbuss was arrested under and then sent to jail for), Sheriff Mick Grey came back and shot back us: "What law are you using?!?

This is an important that initially, took us back in surprise. However, the meaning was clear by the time we left his office: they were using "some other" law—that had no semblance to our own. He never arrested any of his Sheriff Deputies that this grieving Father wanted arrested, and which is proper to do under the California Penal Code. This is what is happening in court after court across the American landscape: they are using a different set of laws that the average citizen (and most lawyers), have no comprehension of...they switch laws, even venue and jurisdiction—as long as it serves their purpose and as long as they can get away with it.

The average father (and layman for that matter) has no comprehension of the twisted corpse he is dealing with when engaging with Government or our courts. I contend that they are not American courts at all, but rather; they are ‘undefined’. They have established for themselves an Alice in Wonderland environment where everything works in secret and in the exact opposition to what "We the People" suppose and support those systems to run in a simple, fair and unbiased manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. Justice is nowhere to be found in today’s Americans court system.

In Lawrence H. Tribe’s book Constitutional Law he clearly demarcates seven systems of governance within the American Judicial court system, beginning from the late 1770’s to the present. Most American’s ‘think’ we are in Model I system of governance, which he defines as Separation of Powers. If you speak to the average American, his description of America and how things run and work will most closely follow that model’s attributes...he will have no idea of the other six. In fact, if you describe to him the Seventh Model "Implied Expectations", he might think you are speaking of a Fascist or Marxist nation and not his own...yet this is the present model we are ‘supposed’ to be in. This is the model, our ‘American’ court systems are supposedly running under. While the average layman reads and understands the meaning and understanding of his Constitution under Model I—the courts are running under the sophistry of Model VII...or beyond... My contention is that we are in what I call Model VIII, the New Cannibalistic, Predatory Government Infrastructure, or NCPGI for short. In my analysis of looking from the outside in, rather than from the inside out as Mr. Tribe has documented in his work, NCPGI is a government, whose intent is to proactively (something police and many Agencies say they are doing as the term ‘proactive’ has become a very hot colloquialism within the modern corridors of power), hunt criminals of all types, to harvest these persons into the corporate "Judicial" system, to accrue massive profits from the transfer of wealth of those brought within this system, and to keep those profits for the ever-growing ‘special interest’ Imperial Empires: otherwise known as the Elite regime.

What most citizens don’t know, is that ‘everyone’ is a criminal under this system of law. More precisely, they are slaves under this system of law—and the government under the doctrine of ‘Parens Patriæ’—is only ‘taking care of’ or ‘managing’ the slaves. You, of course, are the slave, and under model VIII of NCPGI, you don’t even know it. To prove this, I ask many people "What can’t government do to you? How can you ‘protect’ yourself from government? "Where does the Constitution protect you?" Every person I’ve presented that question to, cannot answer those simple questions. Indeed, they cannot because of the fact that due to a ever diligent State and Federal Legislatures: everything is a crime. Then, more importantly, when such citizens go into court and try to make ‘law’ or the ‘Constitution’ work—they can’t! Judges just do what they want, abrogate clear legal precedence, and if need be, salaciously declare in open court time and time again: "You don’t have any Constitutional rights!" When people challenge me on this idea of ‘no law’ I ask them to ‘give me a badge’, then let me watch you...then, after I have quickly ticketed them for ‘rolling through a stop sign’ or ‘taking a corner too close’ or even ‘turning your turn-signal indicator on 99 feet and not 100 feet before your turn’ (note: that ticket actually occurred to an individual named "P.J." an engineer that unfortunately...had a beard the CHP officer didn’t like, and therefore stopped him and gave him this ticket...true story...)—they soon realize that any police officer or Code Enforcement Officer can accuse people of any crime at will. This is above and beyond the realization that many of these Police Officers and Code Enforcement Officers are writing tickets and lying about them! This book will not even go into that perversion within this system. But clearly, government has more than enough laws to make everything, including fatherhood, a crime...which has factually been done...fatherhood is this nations greatest crime, ‘just waiting to happen.’

Most people I’ve challenged with this present construct, soon realize the error of their statement when they recognize that upon any infraction, they know I’ll write them up and hand them their imaginary ticket. Unfortunately, Police Officers, Code Enforcement Officers, and District Attorney Investigators do no hand out imaginary tickets like I do only to support my intellectual argument, they instead, hand out the real ones and get paid to do it! Add to the fact that many of these Constitutionally ‘sworn’ officers get mandates from their administration to ‘go after’ citizens and create revenue (commonly known as ‘quotas’). They do this with reckless abandon and are extremely efficient at this part of their work, and take great pride in their ‘professionalism’...

To elucidate this point I must again bring forth an antidote which happened in Chico California. I read the within the local media and found out that the Police Chief of Chico had obtained a grant from the Federal Government in which to obtain two brand new state-of-the-art motorcycles and attendant officers and support personnel. In order to obtain this Federal grant, the "Chief" promised the Federal government that his department would over the next three years raise Drunk Driving Arrests, and Reckless Driving Arrests predetermined percentage points above what was considered to be an already high statistical figure, or Chico’s "norm." Chagrined, I wrote the media and the Police Chief of Chico and demanded to know how he could promise this?

How did he know that Drink Driving was going to increase? Or reckless Driving? That, I contended, would be like saying there would be 10% more murders next year, or that there would be 41% more broken windows! How could you presage something that hasn’t happened yet? Worse yet, what if a massive social change had occurred? Where, for the sake of argument, everyone turned Mormon or Muslim or something and simply stopped drinking—how could the Police Chief increase these crimes when the town in fact, stopped doing the crimes?!?

This is the paradox of modern law enforcement. Under this Model VIII NCPGI—you don’t need crimes anymore, all you need are police officers going out and ‘proactively’ hunting the mass of the population and meeting their ‘quotas’. Some have called this system of inventing criminals ‘lottery taxation’ where when an officer chooses a citizen, that citizen has won that day’s lottery of being taxed by having been ‘invented’ into a criminal. "Sir, you didn’t turn your turn signal exactly 100 feet before your turn here, you turned it on at 99 feet." (P.J., unfortunately, paid the ticket—because he recognizes the uselessness of fighting the present court systems. Unfortunately, he worked for a living and could not sustain the drain on his life). Paying the ticket is easier than suffering through the black-hole of interfacing with this twisted and perverse regime which produces: NOTHING. This is the key to the Modern NCPGI and those within this system know its futility, and market and directly benefit from its flaccid results of tyranny...its cannibalism on a national scale.

However if you research NCPGI’s noble catalogue of laws, supposedly under the American Judicial system, in order for any citizen to commit a crime he or she must complete all three elements of doing the crime:

    1. A Mens Rea: This is the KNOWLEDGE or ‘INTENT’ to do a crime. A person who is insane, or who inadvertently has an accident or suffers a mistake is not held as having committed a crime under our form of law.
    2. An Actus Rea: This is the ACT of the crime. I punched you, or I picked up a rock to break your window.
    3. The Corpus Delecti: This is the BODY of the crime, i.e., "The broken nose" or "the smashed windows" in the examples mentioned above.

We have several standing armies during a time of peace who are dedicated to arrest people in order to fill these quota grants and NOT adhere to proving a crime under the three elements listed above. This is most exacerbated by power, greed and the fact that many counties must criminalize people in which to not only maintain, but to expand their Government Infrastructures and Budgets.

This perversion was exemplified the News story in the Sacramento Bee of the Sacramento District Attorney’s office of Family Support Division in 1998. In that story the Federal Government had contacted the Sacramento District Attorney and said that the county was going to lose all its grant money because it did not fill or meet the Federal Quota’s it had contracted with in regards to Child Support collections in which it promised it would meet. Within a few short weeks after the Sacramento Bee ran the story, the District Attorneys office, by a flurry of new arrests, had indeed met their Federal Quota demands! They did it upon the backs of what most certainly were many poor and innocent men who were placed into jail or ‘invented into criminals’ in order to meet the required quota but under Model VIII of NCPGI: Who cares about these poor men anyway’s? They are just disenfranchised, poor and powerless men. Ms. Hillary Rodham-Clinton doesn’t, most certainly—she sees these men as a blight. So who cares? They are best warehoused and from their useless incarceration—they produce money for Sacramento county by that jail obtaining Federal Grants to warehouse these "criminals."

Another issue in regards to crimes must be discussed under this system. In criminal law there are two sets of crimes that can be violated, one is malum in se, and malum prohibitum. Simply put, malum in se crimes are real crimes, meaning the acts are "evil in itself" or "naturally evil". Murder, theft or sodomizing a donkey are examples of malum in se crimes.

Malum prohibitum crimes however...are the ones we are speaking of here in regards to Model VIII NCPGI and the crimes government place’s against Fathers in regards to custody and child support. These ‘crimes’ are crimes only due to the fact that they are "wrong because they are prohibited." Ergo, the government itself simply declares it to be a crime. These are the crimes made unlawful just because the State Legislature (or any other Government Agency) says they are. For instance, if they say that it is illegal for a black man to drink at a ‘whites only’ water fountain...then...the illustrious Police and Code Enforcement officers will run out and fall over themselves trying to arrest you if you are Black and drinking at a "whites only" water fountain. These Police and Code Enforcement Officers and District Attorneys and Judges—exactly like those Judges and Officers of the German Weimar Republic previously mentioned in Chapter 3—will say to you with a straight face that ‘they are only upholding the law’. "I’m only doing my job..." However, if you are a Jew or a Father—and the ‘law’ says we must arrest you for ‘committing’ your crime the Legislature has determined to be a are in the same exact position as the Black drinking from a whites only drinking fountain in 1952...

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one *makes* them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law-breakers-and then you cash in on the guilt."

[Ann Raynd, Atlas Shrugged]

Clearly we can see from this passage, the real reason behind NCPGI. As this book catalogues, the Feminist movement that is presently intentionally destroying Fatherhood and Families is doing so in which to gain a foothold ‘to rule over men’. This is most easily accomplished by subverting the male by using ‘altruism’ "In the Best Interests of the Child". Factually, there is no way any father can combat this sophistry due to the fact that he is fighting a system that is imposing a malum prohibitum crime: a crime the State Legislature invented that was the intrinsic converse of this nations laws. In other words, they implemented an Anti-American, Anti-Father, Anti-Family and Anti-Child set of Legislation all in "the Best Interests of the Child". It is as much as a crime as Blacks drinking from segregated White drinking fountains. In that case the white elite’s made laws stating that they owned those drinking our case the Socialist and Government Elite are making laws stating that our children are their children under the doctrine of Parens Patriæ, and that the Village determines whether our kids are in jeopardy, and who will go with them and how they will be distributed and who will go to jail for it all. The fact is, that the modern Fathers Rights Patriarchal movement offers nothing for government, except strong secure families raising free and robust children. This brings in no money or Government Grants to Cities, Counties and States.

Patriarchy is unacceptable to the Village Model and those who support it or directly benefit from it. However, how does any citizen answer Sheriff Mick Grey’s interrogatory to us all "Which law are we using?" which is powering this whole perversion?!?


"We the Congress, adopt the common law not as the common law, but as the law of the highest reason."

[John Adams, Notes on the First Continental Congress]

That noble statement forged a unity of intent for a nation in regards to the rule of law and procedure in regards of what they expected in which to use as a dialogue in which to attain redress from their government. Why the common law? Why is this the law of the highest reason? Why aren’t our modern courts, the ones which declare such a lofty standard’s and ideal’s when the Constitution, our laws, our history mandate its inclusion? In fact, a better question is: "Why do these present courts hate the common law if it is in fact, 'the law of the highest reason?’"

From the inception of societies and civilizations, men have had to collectively join and resolve disputes. To this end they contracted with superior powers, or even fiduciary arbitrators in which to obtain some semblance of reason, or justice to provide amity and justice for all. Anyone casually observing the performance of our contemporary courts would see that clearly, the disposition of easily, and justly or fairly resolving legal difficulties has been totally lost. What we observe in the insanity of injustice and litigation of our present court systems leave much to be desired from the mandates of what John Adams and the First Continental Congress established above. Indeed, from the performance of our present system, many can conclude that it is infinitely closer to the Courts of the Weimar and Nazi Regimes noted in Chapter 3 than it is to anything we imagine of American Jurisprudence.

The Constitution for the united States of America directs us to the original intent as that blueprint Mr. Adams and Congress suggests is forged within that document. It is patently clear of what the rule of law must be in congruence with Mr. Adams statement above:

Section 4 – Protection of the States Guaranteed

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

[Constitution for the United States (1787-1789), Article IV, Section 4]

What does the common law, "the law of the highest reason" have to do with a Republican Form of Government?

Well, republican form means that the interests, practices, policies and procedures of the Government are as identical and close with "We the People" as humanly possible. This means that Government’s interests are the same as ours. This could be expressed as a symbiotic relationship between a government and man that ‘we are both moving to the same ends’. When John Adams wrote that the common law was the "law of the highest reason" he was stating that Congress adopts the law to be as "We the People" demand it to be, so that we can recognize it...and more importantly; understand it; and thereby, our actions and interests will be the same as government. In simple terms, our forefathers wanted ‘law that was reasonable,’ that ‘any man could understand and obey.’ This is a concomitant relationship, one of mutual endeavors towards the same ends. Having a nation of prisons, clearly shows us that this is no longer a government of Republican form. The people no longer have any idea what laws government might throw down their throats. In fact, nobody really understands law any longer—most certainly those within the present Feminized system. But this was not how it always was:

Influential as was the work of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in fortifying republican government, their work was only one phase of the transition from monarchy to the republican way of life. To the new order was brought the support of intellectual and artistic talents among the citizens, made manifest in forms of written and oral expression such as books and dramas, and in visible symbols, such as paintings and engravings. Through the press, the theater, and popular education—format and informal—the results of these activities became known and appreciated among multitudes of people upon whose thought, aspirations, labors, and character the republican experiment intimately depended for its success.

By the intellectual and artistic activities of private citizens the doctrine was formulated that the Revolution and the Republic were worthy of the highest esteem in themselves, and admirable in the history of humanity. By the same processes were widened and deepened knowledge and thought respecting the new nation whose fortunes were involved in the republican way of life, with all that it signified in terms of civilization. With increasing interest in society, economy, and the people went inquiries, ever more microscopic, into the physical geography and the natural resources of the continental domain as expansion and settlement proceeded—the material setting in which the republican experiment was being carried on.

[The Beard’s Basic History of the United States, by Charles A. Beard and Mary A. Beard, © 1944; Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 14 West Forty-ninth Street, New York, NY, pp. 148-149.]

Factually, today; neither Fathers nor the American public have any comprehension of what "Republican form" of governance is, nor do they have any idea why the Founding Fathers as well as the great sages throughout history mandated and wanted this blueprint in government. We have a society, generationally, which has become totally ignorant to the true foundational design of their own nation...but strangely...these same people are willing to undergo the great radical "Redesign of Humanity" in which Ms. Clinton and her elite consorts are more than willing to perpetrate upon us all.

5000 years ago, the lawgiver Hammurabi understood this precept, of men having to know the blueprint of their own nation, and thereby publicly placed all his laws on a great tablet, he placed them in a square for all to see, to read and understand. Even today, many of those laws are easily recognizable and understood. Can we say this of the modern codes? Of Lawrence H. Tribes "Model VII" system of governance or what I consider to have mutated into Model VIII NCPGI? Or the practices, policies and procedure’s of the plenary of Alphabet Soup of Government agencies? Do we know that congress and the State Legislatures pass approximately 10,000 laws per year? Do we even know what these laws are? Or better yet—do we even know what their true effect is or even comprehend their true design? Do we understand what is going on when Congress attaches anti-gun legislation as a trailer on a school lunch bill? Do citizens truly understand the law, such as they did in Hammurabi’s time—when contemporary legislation is now committed behind closed doors, in the depths of volumes of legislation and procedure—that such laws suddenly make one a felon for having a 30 round clip on his rifle that has been sitting in his closet for the past twelve years? Do we really understand what is going on? Does anyone? Or for the cause of ‘simplicity’ are we entrusting this government to those with more ulterior motives for convenience? Those who stand up and scream that we must have a "Democracy" of which our founders vituperatively warned us against:

It was the theory of the Framers that a republican form of government, not a democracy, was preferable. "In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise their person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on come favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter."

[The Anatomy of Liberty, The Rights of Man Without Force, by William O. Douglas, ©1963, A Trident Press Book, U.S. and Canada; Lib. Of Cong. Cat. Card No. 63-12572.]

Clearly, as with the Fathers Rights movement—no one had any ‘notice’ or forewarning that an unseen Elite Regime would be changing basic foundational American law to meet their own purposes of Social Engineering and to go against our very form of established government, that would directly go against the "character" of the American nation. No father that I have spoken to understands how he, as Ann Raynd noted earlier: was "invented" into a criminal. No father I know can ‘produce the contract’ that binds him into this insanity. I know that many fathers have no idea that they’ve somehow been induced into a ‘special obligation’—and they can bring forth no document with the words: "special obligation" boldly plastered across it. Yet, this is how government is inventing these criminals, through a ‘special obligation’ or ‘special debt’ or even a ‘sealed contract.’ They know nothing about this, and no person can bring forwards the contract that shows all these terms and special contracts, for a consideration. Indeed, with just this fact alone, we can see the whole system is a fraud. There is no consideration in this "special" contract that enslaves fathers—thereby; upon basic contractual law, this "contract" is flawed—and null and void.

Clearly, the wants, needs and hopes of "We the People" have changed disparately and drastically between we and government. When you talk to those embedded within the corridors of power, they admit: "Well, sure you don’t understand it—but it is the best system we’ve got..." Perhaps they might agree with you that this is all evil, then in the next breath say: "But I’m only doing my job."

The First thing is that, no, it is not "the best system we’ve got" and secondly, no, they are not doing their job. This contemporary cannibalistic "Model VIII" NCPGI is a perversion of law, and they know it. It is the law of regimes, the law of convenience, the law of is the law in which every despot and tyrant throughout history has used against either an unwilling or unsuspecting plebiscite.

Clearly, as history has show us, as John Adams and the founding fathers have shown us, this nation as well as much of modern civilization as a whole chose and selected Patriarchy as the vehicle to best protect Fathers, Families and children. Without warning or cause, a sublime select Elite Regime changed the social structure of this nation into something else without a popular mandate or reason. As we have demonstrated in Chapter 3, the elite have intentionally fulminated the present changes that we now all suffer through—for ‘their’ purposes and ultimate design. That change has not only controverted our heritage, but it also has perverted and usurped our law. Both society and law were changed for the worse, without "We the People’s" knowledge or consent. More importantly, they were changed to satisfy an unseen Socialist coalition within the power of government, who used their abilities, to quietly without public recognition, to change the form of government. Simply put: an unseen elite regime implemented this disaster without our knowledge and more importantly, not for our safety, happiness or security...this whole perversion has been designed for their benefit...and not ours....

This is not Republican form...and they know and understand this.

The principal aim of this book has been to make known the laws of the United States; if this purpose has been accomplished, the reader is already enabled to judge for himself which are the laws that really tend to maintain the democratic republic, and which endanger its existence... It is not my intention to retrace the path I have already pursued, and a very few lines will suffice to recapitulate what I have previously explained.

Three circumstances seem to me to contribute most powerfully to the maintenance of the democratic republic in the United States.

The first is that Federal form of Government which the American’s have adopted, and which enables the Union to combine the power of a great empire with the security of a small State.

The second consists in those municipal institutions which limit the despotism of the majority, and at the same time impart a taste for freedom and a knowledge of the art of being free to the people.

The third is to be met with in the constitution of the judicial power. I have shown in what manner the courts of justice serve to repress the excesses of democracy, and how they check and direct the impulses of the majority without stopping its activity.

[Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville, ©1946, Oxford University Press, New York & London, p. 194.]

This ‘other’ system that those in power feel is not the best system, and which they do not want "We the People" to have is openly publicized in our Constitution:


In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The common law it says.

Strangely, those within the system clamoring about and using their de facto "the best system we have" in 1998 took one Dr. Jack Kevorkian to trial because somehow as a surprise to them, their ‘best system we have’ didn’t work for them as Kevorkian had escaped three attempts under de facto court rules that intensely tried to, but couldn’t convict him. The trials concerned the doctor assisting others in suicide, so that they might not suffer any further debilitating effects of diseases which made them suffer. After several tries using the de facto court systems under statutory law (read: "the best system we’ve got") the District Attorney frustrated at his previous failures decided to use the ‘other’ system. That of the common law. In essence, after the DA threw every thing including the kitchen sink at Kevorkian—he finally went to use something even better, and as a last resort...more superior...and that was, the common law.

On January, 10, 1998 in Wade County Michigan, District Attorney Jack Crack prosecuted Dr. Kevorkian under the common law. After a short trial lasting 7 days, the jury in that case returned a "not guilty" plea and released Dr. Kevorkian from the charges.

Strange, but "the best system" much advertised by those embedded within the system of government and used consistently with great effects against unsuspecting fathers—wasn’t good enough for Wade County prosecutor Jack Crack in the final analysis. Indeed. We have witnessed many incidences to where the constitution and the common law isn’t allowed by prosecuting attorney’s or criminal Judges, who defy and even refute that system of law...until they themselves need it.

When they are in trouble; it is they who immediately gravitate to its broad protections. It is at that time that they want "the law of highest reason" for their trial. What they will not let fathers have in trial as a secured liberty catalogued above under the Sixth Amendment, they most certainly demand for themselves when their time comes for justice.

In 1995 Judge Clarence Thomas clearly invoked the common law when Anita Hill, a Feminist who made claims against the Judge upon his confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice invoked its protection. On national television, Mr. Thomas claimed "natural law" rights several times to seek its protections under a cloud of questionable, unsubstantiated, malicious accusations. By his pleadings upon that inquiry—he was able to secure his post to the Supreme Court of the United States.

What we see here is that the Elite, when push comes to shove—moves to the venue of the common law as quickly as they possibly can in order to obtain ‘justice’. Indeed, unbeknownst to millions of American’s, during the O.J. Simpson trial which was televised nationally, I had noticed that during the arraignment in the early part of the trial, the flag behind Judge Lance Ito, was the common law flag of peace (not the Gold Fringe Flag normally found in all courts—the exact flag you’ll get when you enter court.) As the history of that trial shows, ‘something different’ occurred in that trial that wouldn’t happen to 99.999% of the rest of the public if they had been charged with the same crime: he was acquitted and found "not guilty." (After the arraignment, the flag then appeared with the gold fringe again).

We have catalogued that during the mid-nineteen seventies, the flags of peace were silently withdrawn from our nations courts ( probably because Model VIII, NCPGI was replacing those ‘old’ courts) and were replaced with flags of the Gold Fringe. This flag is described under USCA Title 4 as being "The President’s Own". It is the executive’s flag of the United States President. In 1982 we know that the Supreme Court merged Law and Equity, changing our courts once again. Clearly, what we can see here is a resultant Model VIII NCPGI court with a new Military countenance. No longer are these ‘Courts of Law’. They are either Military, Administrative or "undefined" courts working in their own interests. This we feel is why when the Judge arrogantly declares: "You don’t have any Constitutional Rights" that he is factually stating the truth. He should be saying, "In these Military courts, you don’t have any Constitutional Rights." But that would be telling the truth, and stripping these Judges of the cloak of secrecy they use against all Americans.

The nature of the forum defines the law of the forum. Under these forum’s of ‘the Law Martial’ flags, the forum is telling you of the nature of the law in regards to the proceedings. This we feel, is why the modern layman’s concept of law as we all know as "Constitutional" in nature and form, has been patently overthrown by the modern Judiciary because of the flags they fly within their courts. These forum’s are displaying their military and Executive mandates, and we as an unsuspecting public have been destroyed because of them because we ‘assume’ these flags just mean something else—that they are "Constitutional". They are ‘pretty’ flags, they don’t mean anything. Silently, the Judges are ‘only doing what we are covertly showing you’—that we are Military tribunals by the forum of the flags we display openly in court. At best conjecture, these are hybrid courts undefined in nature...but they are doing insidious acts of despotism for altruistic causes that are unknown to us all.

We have tried by law and motion, to change these flags within a court room. Kevin Haddock in 1998 in the Kasakov Medical Marijuana case tried in a hearing before Judge Reginald Gilbert in Oroville Superior court in Oroville California. The Assistant District Attorney at that time, chided our efforts. "These flags mean nothing," he adamantly decided. "You are wasting our time..." "It’s not an issue," he boldly asserted.

Kevin who argued the motion to remove the case made an eloquent and reasonable plea for their removal. "Simply," he said, "we feel these flags have meaning and intent within this tribunal. We recognize, that they may mean nothing," he said allowing this as an issue which the Judge could voluntarily respond and address the fact "that the ‘Gold Fringe Flags’ didn’t mean anything." "Even in this," he continued, "we feel it is eminently reasonable, ‘even if in the light that they are of no consequence’, to have their removal from this court, and in their place, have them replaced with our American Flag of Peace with no gold fringe."

Judge Gilbert who was smiling coquettishly like a Madonna replied: "Like Burger King, you get what you order...I decline your offer of removal of these flags at this time." And he quickly ended the proceeding.

We looked over at the Assistant District Attorney who was so belligerent just moment’s before, and now whose mouth was wide-open in disbelief. He couldn’t believe what had just transpired and we could see that the Judge’s actions in regards to this flag decision crushed his belief in what he felt he knew was the law—for certain—he know that the law of the flag’s ‘was an issue’, which he had denied and thought inconsequential before, and in fact like most lawyers; thought frivolous. His previous assertion (and whole psychology) was overturned. He had, as most American laymen ‘assumed’ that the flag’s meant nothing, and unlike John Adams and the First Continental Congress who wanted law that was open and reasonable and logical within the courts—what had just occurred before him was confusing, and disarming. We know of no way to remove these flags within these tribunals. "Somehow" either by accident or mistake, or erudite legal motion—that O.J. had somehow obtained what we cannot. Yet—the nature of the forum controls the law of the forum. So what these courts are telling us is that there forum is Military or ‘undefined’ and that the law will be Military or ‘undefined.’ One thing is most certain, the common law, or the rules of common law cannot be accessed by these present tribunal’s. And one other thing is most glaring about what happened here; and which is very important to the Fathers Rights movement, and that is that these "courts" are not identifying themselves. They are not telling us what they are, for instance, if they are in fact Constitutional "Article III" courts. They are not telling us who the players are, for instance—is the "Judge" before you really a constitutional Judge? So, from the first instant Fathers engage with these courts without answering these eminently important questions, Fathers have absolutely no idea, what they are dealing with.

"I have already observed that the principle of the sovereignty of the people governs the whole political system of the Anglo-Americans. Every page of this book will afford new instances of the same doctrine. In the nations by which the sovereignty of the people is recognized, every individual possesses an equal share of power, and participates alike in the government of the State. Every individual is, therefore, supposed to be as well informed, as virtuous, and as strong as any of his fellow citizens. He obeys the government not because he is inferior to the authorities which conduct it, or that he is less capable than his neighbor of governing himself, but because he acknowledges the utility of an association with his fellowmen, and because he knows that no such association can exist without a regulating force. If he be a subject in all that concerns the mutual relations of citizen, he is free and responsible to God alone for all that concerns himself. Hence arises the maxim that every one is the best and sole judge of his own private interest, and that society has no right to control a man’s actions, unless they are prejudicial to the common weal, or unless the common weal demands his cooperation."

[Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville, ©1946, Oxford University Press, New York, Inc., p. 56.]

These well recognized truths of the just compact between the sovereign citizen and his community, through and by an allegiance of a mutual government, assured our society that individual freedom would reign supreme. That a man would and could not traverse his fellow citizens rights blindly, or without just reason and cause. And he most certainly could not traverse the boundaries of his own sacred home. The citizen was the true judge of his own home, and his own family—his own "private interests" which were vested and sacred. Yet presently, government is tearing these laws, and truths down to arrogantly fulfill their own selfish and criminal needs, which of course supercede law itself. [PLACE CITE HERE ABOUT NOT GIVING UP FREEDOM—THAT WE COLLECTIVELY GET TOGETHER TO PRESERVE LIBERTIES—NOT TO GIVE THEM UP.]

The common law, however was not like this. It was not corrupted like our contemporary laws are. It was exemplified by Hammurabi, who 5000BC openly placed all the laws of the society on a tablet within an open square for all to read and understand. Clearly, the nature and cause of our present "Judicial" tribunal’s are anything but open and understandable. These courts are of a hidden secular order with an unknown hidden agenda. To say they are un-American would be exactly the truth. This is why no father can win in the present court system. Most laymen have no idea that they are dealing with ‘Military’ or ‘undefined’ tribunals that are their direct enemy. They are trying to obtain Constitutional justice from a forum that well could be described as Fascist/Socialist. These tribunals in turn, are harvesting millions of men, destroying millions of families and peeling open the wealth of America in open view of the public, yet; totally hidden from the public. What they are doing defines the perfect crime, and it is something of the highest treason ever committed in any nation upon earth for it has silently burdened this nation with a needless conflagration upon the American experience that has oppressed and outright destroyed: generations.

The common law, however; is the law of the highest reason. It is open, and public. When a Judge admonishes an unsuspecting litigant: "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" (a held maxim of law, by the way—even under the common law); you should instantly respond exactly like what Sheriff Mick Grey did to us: "What law are you talking about?!?"

Indeed yes, men should know the law...and under our form of government the common law is the law of the land as mandated in the Constitution and many State Constitutions. However—how about the Penal Code? Is that law? Or how about the other codes, such as the Family Code? How about all the Federal Statutes? How about the United States Code and its 63 Titles all contained within hundreds of Thousands of volumes? How about the Law Merchant? Admiralty Law? Ecclesiastical Law?? Are we responsible to know those law too??? Does he know all those laws??

No...we are not, and he does not--and the Judge knows this. We are only supposed to know the common law, "the unwritten law, the law of antiquity that is written in the hearts and minds of men everywhere". We are supposed to know and understand reason. This means what when you go out for milk, the law that is in your heart and mind is that of travelling down the road to get milk. Not to "roll through a stop sign", to ‘weave’ in the road, to ‘take a corner too closely’ or the heinous ‘not turning your turn signal on exactly 100 feet before the turn—you turned it on at 99 feet’... These are all malum prohibitum crimes...or otherwise known as "Victimless" or Consensual crimes explained of earlier. And there is no humanly way possible for anyone to obey all these malum prohibitum dictates from and by government!

As stated earlier the common law rules here, IF any controversy becomes of "the crime" and that controversy of "the crime" is over $20.00; we are supposed to be able to obtain "the Common Law". However, in this example; all you wanted to do is to get milk! The Judges and Police are mandating that you have to know about the infinite panorama of laws and Codes that range throughout their universe!! It can’t be done!!!! It is a physical impossibility for any human to know all these hidden malum prohibitum crimes! But...conversely...we all do know the common law...because it is the simple law that ‘makes sense’. The law of logic. The law of the highest reason.

So, when the Judge asks you this "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse", you should act exactly like Sheriff Mick Grey did: "What law are you talking about?!?" If the Judge answers you must know the Penal Code, tell him he is lying to you. First that it is impossible for any human to know all the penal code (if he says "no it is not" then; have him prove it, by having a separate hearing where you will test him on the Penal which he must pass 100%). Secondly, politely inform the errant Judge, that the Penal Code is Private Law...and what brings you under that Private Law?

What do we mean by Private Law?!?

Well, when IBM passes a law in their corporation, lets say for instance, a dress code: does that dress code apply to you travelling down the road to get milk? No!! Of course not! You are comfortably in shorts and wearing sandals in a T-Shirt driving down the road to get milk for your family. If a Police Officer pulls you over for turning your turn-signal 99 and not 100 feet before the turn, he is holding you to a PRIVATE LAW of a CONSENTUAL "VICTIMLESS" CRIME passed by the State Legislature that is working not in the common law, but the CORPORATE venue of THE STATE OF ______________ ß -- You fill in the Blank. As the Officer writes you a ticket for one Corporation, "The State of _________" or most likely it will be the smaller corporation of "County of __________" or "The City of _________"...but strangely, he is not writing you up for a ticket from the other Corporation IBM!!! All these blank corporations are private entities exactly like IBM. They are NOT the PUBLIC CONSTITUTIONAL entities of "We the People" being "______________ State" or "__________ County" or "__________ City". These small grammatical changes ‘appear’ to mean nothing, but in lawthey are crucial to identifying the venue and jurisdiction of the law ‘they’ are charging you with. (i.e.: "The Forum.) This appears insane: but in the world of the legal mind—it is sadly, all too true. The United States, is not the same legal entity as the united States of America, they are two disparate venues in two disparate jurisdictions...but they both exist.

This logic of the twin-opposite names is insanity! Yet note these two case cites and read the highlighted proper names of the courts:

"The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a "District Court of the United States."

[Mookini v. United States (1938) 58 S.Ct. 543, 303 U.S. 201,82 LEd. 748, at p. 205]


"The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial powers of the United States therein conveyed. It is created in virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, § 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."

[Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922) 42 S.Ct. 343, 258 U.S. 298,66 L.Ed. 627, at 258 U.S. 312.] (Underlines by Author to enforce point. RLCII).

Now, which court do you think they are using against you as an unsuspecting American public?!?? Most certainly, you are being pushed into (or ‘volunteering’) for the despotic United States District Court, and not the article III constitutional venue which you should be in as cited above in [Mookini v. United States (1938)]. I pose a question to the whole Fathers Rights community: Do you even know what court you are in? Bigger question is: why two courts? Why is one District Court of the United States and the other United States District Court? Nobody can answer this. But we have to know—because what if you are in the wrong court?

What ‘someone’ has established here is a fraud beyond the proportions of all reason and legality. Unlike Hammurabi, this is all being done via the ‘magic’ of a corrupt Legislature and Judiciary through a mountain of law which nobody can comprehend. No citizen realizes or recognizes what has happened to our systems of government whom are by law, supposed to be our ‘public servants’ but whom in reality are our masters through the veil of an unrecognizable sophistry. This is why no citizen recognizes their court system any longer. This is why no Father (or American) can enter these courts, because they are courts of thieves. The fact is that it is not our court nor our system. It is the direct antithetical to the American construction of law and common law. It is ‘something else’; it is ‘undefined’; and it most certainly is secret, operated by secret societies and secular orders masking themselves as and through corporations acting in the ‘public’ interests...when the fact is that they are acting in a ‘private’ secret venue to destroy or at least ruin the other system of free governance upholding Liberty and Freedom.

The common law as this nation inherited it by right and conquest from Great Britain, is the law in this nation and is the one that rules and protects the home and family. They are laws of time immemorial, adapted from civilization to civilization which used them for ages and which have direct lineage to the laws of Moses and the Bible.

"The Bible was long held to contain the worlds earliest laws, comprising not only the decalogue but also a large collection of other laws attributed to Moses. These laws take one of two forms, called respectively, apodictic and casuistic. Apodictic laws are absolute prohibitions, such as ‘thou shall not kill’. Casuistic laws are those of a type ‘if a man delivers to this neighbor money or goods to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double." (Exodus 22:7)

[Civilizations Before Greece, H.W.F. Saggs, Yale University Press, New Haven, London, p. 156]


What we can see here is the earliest machinations of malum in se laws compared to malum prohibitum. Yet, within the construct of the common law, we can see the formation that malum in se was well constructed and represented through religion, faith, and doing what was right.

With no one to impose punishment, without any laws, men kept faith and did what was right...the peoples passed their lives in security and peace, without the need for armies.

[Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.89-100.]

We can easily see that the formation of Patriarchy was clearly defined by the Hammurabi, which later was the common law. Even today we can recognize what the intent of these laws were so long ago:

§24: If a woman whom a man took as a secondary wife bore him children, the dowry which she brought from her fathers house belongs to her children, but the children of the (1st primary) wife and the children of the second wife shall share equally in the property of their father.

§25: If a man married a wife and she bore him children and these children are living, and a slave-girl also bore children for her master, (even if) the father granted freedom to the slave-girl, any of her children, the slave-girl’s children shall not share the estate with the children of their master.

§26: If the wife died, and after her death the man took his slave-girl as wife, the children of the (first) wife and (still) the heirs. The children which the slave-girl bore her master shall...(last transcription lost)

§27: If a man’s wife has not borne him children, but a prostitute from the streets has borne him children, he shall provide grain, oil and clothing for the prostitute. The children which the prostitute has borne him, shall be his heirs, but as long as his wife lives, the prostitute shall not live in the house with his wife.

§28: If a man has turned his face away from his wife...but she has not gone away...and his married a woman as a secondary wife, she shall continue to support his wife.

[ pg 160 Civilizations before Greece]

Clearly, we can observe from analysis of these ancient laws that the father ruled in the home through the Legal support of the laws. However, the women were supported, and protected as well as the children. We see in these sections the laws and protections of the laws of Morte Main and Descent which Jefferson was so concerned over. In section §25 we see the concept of illegitimacy as defined in California Civil Code section §7004(a), or that the inheritance of an errant ‘illegitimate’ pregnancy, that the wealth stays with the ‘legal’ heirs. This clearly supported Patriarchy and made the institution of ‘illegitimacy’ a non-profitable endeavor. This in turn supported marriage, and lowered divorce as history shows us.

Section §26 above clearly also supports laws of descent as clearly as the Maxim’s of law’s indicate "the child knows his fathers bed the best." Which is to say that the original marriage had great meaning upon the system of Patriarchy, ergo: the contract of marriage was a sacred contract and upheld by law and held in great esteem. Today, the marriage contract is deliberately undermined by our present Judicial system as the original "sacred" matrimonial contract vowed in Churches as well as ‘Contract in Law’ Prenuptial agreements are the easiest contracts within this nation or Contract Law in which to abrogate. Indeed, such flaccid backing is given to these ‘contracts’ as to render them almost meaningless...

Section §27 demonstrates ancient laws which kept welfare within the home in accordance will allowing the Father to control that welfare and in which to allow the concept of some semblance of honor accorded to a wife of a husband. If a similar predicament befell lets say a blue-collar worker who was married, the District Attorney’s Office through their Child Welfare and Child Support laws would ruin that man’s original family, and would indiscriminately steal from him and his family in order to provide for the prostitute’s child, all under the "Best Interests of the Child". The Blue Collar workers children he had with his first wife would be either greatly inhibited by such actions or worse yet outright destroyed. What is most glaring in all these sections, is the fact that nowhere does it provide any payments or benefits (other than the ability to rule over their subject and to provide law and order) to government or the court systems. Again, in our present system, the ‘system’ benefits greatly.

Section §28 establishes the legal doctrine of providing for the first wife upon separation or divorce, again; clearly holding the first legitimate marriage in high regard.

Clearly, such early laws, which most features were later incorporated into the common law, benefited, and supported marriage and the children that developed from those unions.

§6:--§8: Payments t a divorced wife [if a man divorces his wife he shall pay her one mina of silver. If it is a former widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her ½ mina of silver. If the man cohabited with the widow without a marriage contract, he need not pay her any silver.

[pg. 162. Civilizations Before Greece.]

We must analyze these ancient laws supporting Patriarchy and the family in the light of Civilization itself, which we have shown; at about the time prior to these laws were Matriarchal in nature. These laws were clearly a demarcation of the establishment of the Patriarchal revolution, and the new formed idea of supporting the ability of the family to stay together by the support of Government supporting it’s weakest link: the Father. There can be no disputing that these Ancient laws, along with the common law, helped the institution of marriage, and Families. There can be no disputing of the facts, that under the present Feminist/Socialist regime, that Feminist Jurisprudence is directly attacking the Father, intruding upon, and usurping the sovereign authority of all homes, and thereby is dismantling and damaging the Family unit, and thereby—greatly contributing to the destruction of our children; generationally. The reign of Patriarchy has reigned from about 5000BC until approximately 1920 when the first fusillade of feminist sponsored attacks began on the American Family as an institution. Their direct target: the common law as guaranteed by the first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth and tenth Amendment’s, and Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution for the united States of America (1787-1789).

Ancient societies jealously guarded both the Family and Fathers Rights by law. This was a practice so pronounced, that in Greece, and Rome, it was undisputed that the Father was the ultimate authority within the home, having ultimate power over his wife and children...even that of life or death if he wished. Assyrian Laws clearly allowed men to control their own homes:

"Apart from the penalties for married women which are written on the table, a man my flog his wife, he may pull out her hair, he may damage and split her ears. There is nothing wrong in this."

[Civilizations Before Greece—p. 169.]

These laws still persist throughout the middle east, and are under attack internationally by the Feminist movement worldwide. Feminists such as Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer reporting on ABC’s News Magazine program 20/20, condemn the practice in its most worst light—the blatant public killing of immoral women who refuse to obey their laws. Clearly Ms.’s Walters and Sawyer intend to have their feminist avocation imposed upon the Countries whom are still adhering to these laws. Conversely, Ms.’s Walters and Sawyer would be quite apopyletic if those countries impose their custom’s and laws upon them—but in the safety of a eminently biased media system, we can only see one side: theirs. Clearly, they do not inform us of any benefits of these customs which have been in place in such societies on the order of 8000 years. Clearly, we do not see the prevalent Social Pathologies that their Feminist system has plagued this nation (and other Socialist/Feminist nations whom have embraced the Welfare State) imbued upon their societies-—but nowhere in their report is that issue reported.

"Traditional cultures believe that the acts of the woman reflect on the families," the story begins. They bring out several women, mostly imprisoned in Jail (for their safety against being beaten or killed by their husbands, fathers and even other family members who will beat or kill them if they are let out). Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer are using these women as "mutilated beggar’s" in which to gain support and sympathy from an American audience in which itself is being converted from Patriarchy to the Matriarchal model via the mainstream media. Using the highest forms of propaganda, open ended and leading questions, shock photographs, highly stylized video impact, their story is a clear form of propaganda, only portraying for the greatest part, the Feminist/Government position of Matriarchy. In one powerful scene, a woman who has been ‘shacking up’ with another man, is brutally killed by her brother because of her immoral acts. Of course he cannot marry, and he along with the family are humiliated and shunned throughout the society. Upon bringing her body to the hospital, 20/20 documents how the whole town is gathered around the car, clapping for joy.

Clearly, in juxtaposition to what ABC 20/20 is showing us, the town is in a state of joy, or release—of finally being rid of something they deem terrible. This is much different than what we saw in Nazi Germany during WWII against the Jews. Clearly these societies know the threat and breakdown of Matriarchy. By their religion and their teachings, they have been inculcated generationally to defend against this danger. What we see here is not the Autocratic function of a malicious state using plenary reasoning to a certain ends, rather; what we see in this report, is a town sighing with relief over the denigration and perversion that it is being threatened with. They allow the FAMILY to impose social regulation at a lenient price. This follows the maxim of law "The Father who does not rule too harshly, must be obeyed."

However I use this 20/20 story not too bring out any sadistic intent to kill or destroy women. No. The point I am making here goes to the exact root of the American experience. For in this ‘documentation’ which was nothing more than a Feminist hate piece against another foreign society; Ms’s Walters and Sawyer are making the assumption that these people, cannot independently rule within their own nation. That they need the egalitarian support and help of Feminism, which has created such a panoply of problems and fears here; that somehow, their political mindset is good for these peoples. This is the exact arrogance with prohibits any American male from ruling within their own home. Not only can’t men make decisions within their own private homes, but neither can supposedly ‘sovereign’ nations! All now, must bow to the will of Matriarchy, as seen through the eyes of radical feminists.

One only has to go as far as the morning paper or Television news report to see what they Muslim societies fearing. Rape, perversion, gun use, gangs, teenage suicides, gay and lesbianism perversions and lifestyles are all virtually non-existant in these cultures.

At what price, does one ask?

Well, in this nation you can’t ask. And that is why the media is presently controlled by Gay, Lesbian and Feminist extremists, who will never allow male causes to be shown in their proper light. At all costs, there are cogent efforts to circumspect any true information from being disseminated by mainstream media institutions.

A couple of years ago I received a call from a TV producer. She said a well-known anchorwoman was putting together a special on "Programs that Work" for children in the so-called underclass. Specifically, she referred to a case in Chicago in which a ten-year-old and an eleven-year-old threw a five-year-old out of the fourteenth-story window of a housing project because the five-year-old wouldn’t steal candy for them. Could I tell her what programs work for kids like those who tossed the five-year-old boy out the window? I answered that I knew of no programs that would help them. After a brief silence, she thanked me and hung up.

[Wasted, The Plight of America’s Unwanted Children, by Patrick T. Murphy, ©1997, Ivan R. Dee, Inc., 1332 North Halsted Street, Chicago 60622, ISBN 1-56663-163-7; p. 16.]

This same exact scenario happened to us, several times. In once most memorable incident down in Los Angeles, just before Father’s Day in 1998, we had sent out most certainly, 100 press flyers to various mainstream media organizations about our platform in the Fathers Rights community. We had intentionally placed our agenda that no father should pay Child Support on this document, so that the Media could tell exactly what we were really about and plan accordingly.

We got one call from an angry female reporter from Santa Monica, who tersely said that she’d never run a story like this. Of course I asked how the public was to be properly informed as to make correct decisions upon this subject. I asked her: "How will they ever be able to determine if we are correct or not?"

After again, a brief silence, she didn’t even say goodbye. She just hung up on me.

In this 20/20 report we can see a similar blackened mindset. They interviewed the family whose son, now in prison; which had killed their promiscuous daughter, each Mothers and sister within that family concurred totally with the abolition of the Matriarchal feminist model within their communities and cultures and condoned their daughters death. This is clearly a shock to the feminist biased reporters of Ms.’s Walters and Sawyer combined. Clearly, in these cultures the family has meaning, and protections: most of the men shown having committed these "Honor Killing’s" have been given lenient sentences by the Judiciary whom are clearly supporting Patriarchy by doing so. More importantly, the family’s well being is linked to the societies well-being also—this cannot be disputed. In this light, therefore, do these cultures have the right to defend against such immorality? Apparently, they say yes; and from their actions they control morality through the home and family. Not from an eclectic cultural elitists such as Ms.’s Walters and Sawyers.

Here in the United States however; parents dare not spank or raise a hand to their own children because of the social terrorism of which the Feminists and cultural elite will level upon such people, who: "dare to think and rule for themselves." In a story that harks of malevolent autocracy, we can clearly document this point of what such denial to rule in ones own home brings:

The story involved on Skip Frisbee, a middle aged father who like most fathers had lost his daughter years earlier in a custody dispute to an errant and clearly immoral mother. The mother, who used Skip only as a random member to "her" family in regards to their one child a daughter aged 14; finally in the middle of the night she showed up at his door with their 14 year old daughter and dumped her on his doorstep to ‘take care of her’. Apparently, she had found a biker that she wanted to travel with, so; she dumped the responsibility on Skip.

Initially, this was a godsend for Mr. Frisbee, as he initially wanted his daughter, but, through the actions of a clearly Feminist/Socialist court system—lost custody to the mother. The mother over the years, lived an ‘open’ lifestyle, giving the daughter, little if any moral values or core instruction on how to behave or what was right or wrong. The mother also intentionally kept the daughter away from Skip, just because she could. Nonetheless, now that Skip finally had his daughter after so many years, at least they could live a modicum of some family life.

This hope was short-lived, for upon the first weekend, the 14 year-old daughter, already lost to the Feminist system, (she had been in trouble with the law several times), arrogantly informed the Father that she was going away for the weekend to ‘do what she wanted.’

Skip of course, was lost in the ignorant backward sensibilities that many of these ‘backward traditional cultures’ suffered through—Patriarchy--tried to lay down the law as the Father to his own daughter, telling her that in no uncertain terms was she going to live an open lifestyle, that she would study, go to school, have a regular schedule, be responsible, etc. The daughter flew off the handle, so the father grounded her and sent her to her room.

She belligerently defied him, warning that if he did, he would pay.

He was not moved, and stood by his decision..

So, she—being grounded—called the Police on him and claimed that Skip (her own biological father) sexually molested her. In routine order the police showed up, they arrested him, and summarily put him in jail. She of course was now placed in a foster home, free to party, which she did. After it was all said and done, the daughter ran away from that home, and he was left embittered not only by the betrayal, but at the system that had propagated this plague against him...the courts and his own government.

What does the American society get from this madness? Clearly ABC’s 20/20 is backing the ‘open’ and 'free’ lifestyle choice of Feminism. However; in millions upon millions of homes exactly like Skip Frisbee’s—this feminist anarchy has not only obliterated any semblance of what the ‘assumed’ was the right thing to do, they have categorically come to the conclusion that those who are imposing any form of punishment against children or women, are in fact; criminals. As we have is the Feminists, the Government, and an elite cadre of Socialists who impose this diametrically opposed system against Fathers and Families. In the final analysis, we breed women like Skip’s daughter Susie, who in turn; will most assuredly propagate several generations of an underclass linked to Welfare, the War on Drugs, Prisons and many other social pathologies solidly linked to this perversion..

But I also expected that by the mid-eighties family preservation would have made a difference, that a lot more kids would be staying home, I was right on both counts. Family preservation had made a major difference, and the kids were staying home. But the difference was not an improvement.

Gradually over the next several years my view on family preservation and reunification changed. Preserving families is a good idea in a "proper" case, but such cases are unfortunately not as common as they used to be. And Father Flanagan’s dictum about "no such thing as a bad boy" had been modified by many child welfare workers into "no parents are bad parents." But the kids and parents coming into the big-city courts are different from a generation ago. The files I kept seeing and the cases I kept trying, and those the lawyers I supervise brought to my attention, altered my view.


[Wasted, The Plight of America’s Unwanted Children, by Patrick t. Murphy, ©1997, Ivan R. Dee, Inc., 1332 North Halsted Street, Chicago, IL 60622, ISBN 1-56663-163-7; p. 69.]

Taking a cold hearted scientific view of this, one can only come to the conclusion; that perhaps, the more traditional cultures like the Muslim’s are more enlightened than the new ‘emancipated’ regimes that have enjoined and applied Feminist Tribalism against their respective societies. This application is the exact plague the modern Fathers Rights Movement is fighting. We are not only saving ourselves (a noble endeavor), but our homes and our children—and as the ‘traditional cultures’ show: we are also saving society as well from this disaster.


If you ask any lawyer or Judge what the common law is, they will try and say that it is "Judge made law". When you start to speak to them in the analysis of their statement, you will find them adamant, until you start bringing up certain elements of its function. If you ask them if it is unwritten, they might agree. If you ask them if it is the ancient law, they will agree to this also. However, if you ask them if it is the law that "lives in the hearts and mind’s of men everywhere", they will begin to vacillate. Clearly, they want title to that law as they know its breadth and power, just as District Attorney Jack Crack did when he tried to prosecute Dr. Jack Kevorkian under it in 1998. However, note the following passage:

"Common law." The law of England is divided, as hath beene said before, into three parts; 1, the common law, which is the most generall and ancient law of the realme, of part whereof Littleton wrote; 2, statutes or acts of parliament; and 3, particular customes (whereof Littleton also maketh some mention). I say particular, for if it be the generall custome of the realme, it is part of the common law. The common law has no controler in any part of it, but the high court of parliament; and if it be not abrogated or altered by parliament, it remains still, as Littleton here saith. The common law appeareth in the statute of Magna Charta and other statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law) in the original writs, in judiciall records, and in our bookes of termes and yeares. Section 115b.

Clearly Judges are not the makers of the common law as the cite makes clear: "The common law has no controller in any part of it, but the high court of parliament" The "Parliament" only interprets it from the customs and usage’s of any given area. It is ‘the ancient’ law, going back before the time of Hammurabi, Assyrian or any other law. In fact, the common law goes back before the time there were any Judges.

The ancient customs and usage’s of an area dictate what the common law is. For instance, in Scotland, there is a common law right that anyone has the right to cross your property, as long as they do so unobtrusively, and when they get to and from the other side of the property they close both the gates upon entering and leaving. However; in the united States, upon that identical common law right to travel, there is a higher common law right of privacy of property, and the rights of the individual; and you can be shot by the owner for trespassing. How can Judges rule on the common law when it is so disparate in two areas upon the same common law right?

It is because they don’t. They only rule on the custom’s and usage’s of that particular community which have already established that custom for themselves. So that, we can see from society to society, slight variances in the common law, yet; on the whole; more stability within the law than in any other system. The reason? It is because the common law is the law of the highest reason. Laws under common law scrutiny have to pass the test of time immemorial. This is why, laws such as killing immoral and dishonorable women have lasted for so long in ancient ‘traditional’ cultures. From this ‘ancient’ law muster, societies under the common law can depend in stability of the law. This is supposed to happen under the de facto system of law, such as those laws passed by the State Legislatures of this nation, but; because those laws are plied by incredibly powerful special interests—we have laws that now not only controvert the common law, but the Constitution itself!

In fact, our society has been so bludgeoned by these laws and special interest Legislation, that now, we have just become desensitized to it all. The mass of voters no longer participate in voting because of the inherent corruption is lost to them, and upon the Legislature’s passing more and more Draconian laws; all the Average American can do now-a-day’s is just to sigh and shrug, then try and become invisible within the masses.

Law’s are being passed such as those for ‘car seizure’ for just being charged with a DUI or DWI. This clearly is a violation of the 5th Amendment right against double jeopardy and the doctrine of the presumption of innocence before trial. Under American law you are ‘supposed’ to be presumed innocent, and thereby; you can’t suffer any penalty until after you have been found guilty by and through due process of the law. If you are found guilty—you are only supposed to suffer 1 penalty for 1 crime.

What is most tragic in the final analysis, is that the common law is a resilient law that has lasted millenium across the domain of several civilizations in which it served them quite well. It provides clear remedy against real crime, and it also provides real protection in the law, because again; it is based upon the law of the highest reason.

The common law has been catalogued through the maxim’s of law. The maxims, are theorems and doctrines of truisms that were found out over the historical extent of humanity extending back more than 5000 years. Judges, in order to become Judges at one time only learned Legal Procedure and the Maxim’s of law. This is how powerful these maxim’s are.

Clearly, one who reads these maxim’s cannot argue with their irrefutable logic, nor their elegant simplicity. They cover the range of the human experience, and are deeply imbedded in true law and order.

For instance, the maxim, "The child knows his fathers bed the best." succinctly shows that the Father was responsible for the child’s heritage, and more than that; the child’s most protected form of being raised by. Again, the maxim’s are clearly based upon a Patriarchal solution as they again show not only Civilization’s predisposition for the Father, but also the Judiciary’s once held such predisposition. This predisposition empowered the courts to protect the Father and thereby the family through decisions such as Fanning v. Fanning, discussed earlier. Unfortunately, due to the modern corruption of our modern court systems, they have turned not only away from their maxim’s and thereby the law, but also the logic of why these ‘truisms’ were established in the first place. The extent of human society and America has paid a dear price for their transgression of the common law and the maxim’s of law.