Social Services taking one's children

[KaosTheory]

Marc,

This is a hard one. Have you ever helped anyone who actually had Social Services take their children? I'm thinking the same Zen tactics would apply and hopefully convince the agents that what they are doing is simply wrong.

[marc stevens]

It is all usually the same process. In some areas it is a little different in that CPS has been determined to not operate under the constitution of the "state." This may make it easier to expose the scam; excepting physical violence, factually, how did you acquire jurisdiction?

[suijurisfreeman]

Here's a 'story' about my son and his girlfriend who has 3 young children. 'Social Services' workers showed up at the school her children attend and started asking the children questions about how they live, etc. My son and his girlfriend went down to Social Services and asked what was going on. They of course wanted my son's SSN, wanted to know if there were any guns in the house, etc. Apparently her parents had called SS to file a complaint that the children were living in filthy conditions, without running water, etc. The SS workers said that they were coming out to our property, my son told them that they would first need his permission or a signed warrant with the complaining witnesses' sworn affidavit attached before they could enter onto the property. They said that they would bring the Sheriff, my son said that Jerry Gee would also need his permission or a signed warrant with the complaining witnesses sworn affidavit attached before he could enter onto the property.
Eventually my son set up an appointment for them to come out on the following Monday morning at 8:30 am. The SS workers called Jerry Gee, Sheriff on Monroe County, Kentucky that Friday, Jerry told them that he didn't see any problem with either my son or myself. Jerry told them that he had spoken with us numerous times and found us to be reasonable, responsible people. He agreed to escort them out to our property on Monday morning. The Sheriff and 2 SS workers didn't show up until 11 am Monday morning, my son was waiting up at the road (armed with his Glock 23 as is his normal practice). Jerry Gee said hello to my son, asked how I was doing, but remained in his car. My son informed the 2 SS workers that he was allowing them to enter onto the property, but that if at any time he told them to leave that they were expected to comply. They walked the 500 feet down to my son's yurt, quickly looked inside and said that obviously the complaint was false and left.
No violence on my son's part, just firm insistance that 'they' follow his rules - after all it is our property, we make the rules. ;D

[lazerwood]

Marc wrote:

" This may make it easier to expose the scam; excepting physical violence, factually, how did you acquire jurisdiction?

They acquired jurisdiction when their parents asked the STATE for permission to marry and the gave the STATE the TITLE to the child ... (the birth certificate)

Yes, of course, these are "adhesion" contracts. I wrote the above to show how the STATE looks at this issue. I also understand the AiLL approach to the system as Marc teaches on this board . I think it is FAR better to STOP CONTRACTING with them if at all possible, and use the AiLL approach to complement your "arsenal".

[Darren Dirt]

I mentioned that marriage-license theory to someone, who quickly pointed out "what about common-law marriages that produce children"? i.e. the child "protection" "services" 'crats have no problem taking them kiddies too.


The "authority" is in our minds, when we acquiesce to their claimed jurisdiction and power to control (govern) our property, including our bodies... In L Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach" early on there is a good point made: by distinguishing "property rights" from "human rights" i.e. bodily rights, you have given up half the battle.

[lazerwood]

Darren,

The fact that the terrorcrats take common-law children too does not prove that my statements about the "contracts" are incorrect. All it proves is what Marc has been saying...that their "jurisdiction" issues from violence. There is no contradiction between what Marc is saying, and what I am saying. I stand by my remarks. It's best to remove every "prop" and excuse the terrorcrat could use against us, then the terrorcrat has to either capitulate or show all that he has no "legal" grounds for his actions. Isn't this what Marc has made plain that we should do??
It's a fairly easy thing to refuse to contract with the STATE in marriage, and to not have a birth certificate issued on the children. If this is done, the STATE has NO CLAIM on the marriage or it's "fruit"!! Will the STATE just lay down and go away...no! Will they "huff and puff" and act like they still have "jurisdiction" ...YES. It's up to us to defend our stance and put them in their place with the fact that there is NO CONTRACT and the use of Marc's process.

BTW, I have studied this issue at length and have found that a number of good researchers agree on what I stated about jurisdiction over children. I'm sure that you would agree that if you contract with the state by asking them for permission to marry, and that you have a commercial document drawn up on your child, that you had BEST BELIEVE that the STATE has a vested interest in that relationship.

We are only asking for grief if we engage in contracting with the STATE and then trying to "back out of the deal" when we find we don't like their terms.

[NonEntity]

DD and Elwood ;D,

You both have excellent points. That is one reason why the actions of suijurisfreeman are so impressive. I don't know that I would want to make the sacrifices that he has made for the gains that he's received - each has to weight that for him or herself - but there is no doubt it's been a difficult row to hoe. Not the least of which is that you almost assuredly cut yourself off from almost all human contact as virtually everyone will huddle together in mass and proclaim you a nutcase rather than challenge the alpha dog. So which is more important, socializing with spineless idiots and fools, or being alone with your integrity? We ARE social animals. Harrumph!!!

[lazerwood]

>>Not the least of which is that you almost assuredly cut yourself off from almost all human contact as virtually everyone will huddle together in mass and proclaim you a nutcase rather than challenge the alpha dog. So which is more important, socializing with spineless idiots and fools, or being alone with your integrity? We ARE social animals.<<

At this point of my life, I have had enough of people and their evil systems. If a UFO would land in my back yard and open the door, I'd climb in and tell them to take me away from this insanity and I'd never even look out the rear window as the craft lifted off.

[NonEntity]

At this point of my life, I have had enough of people and their evil systems. If a UFO would land in my back yard and open the door, I'd climb in and tell them to take me away from this insanity and I'd never even look out the rear window as the craft lifted off.

Ah yes, another satisfied customer.

My sediments eggxackly, Lazer! But of course your actions speak louder than the quote, as you are here making noise with others in Marc's little place.

It's just plain a part of who we are, like all the rest.

[Winston Ward Johnson]

lazerwood said:

>>Not the least of which is that you almost assuredly cut yourself off from almost all human contact as virtually everyone will huddle together in mass and proclaim you a nutcase rather than challenge the alpha dog. So which is more important, socializing with spineless idiots and fools, or being alone with your integrity? We ARE social animals.<<

At this point of my life, I have had enough of people and their evil systems. If a UFO would land in my back yard and open the door, I'd climb in and tell them to take me away from this insanity and I'd never even look out the rear window as the craft lifted off.

All that's necessary for evil men to prosper is for good men to do nothing!
The 'evil men/women' operating under the desguise of government only exercise 'power over' you if you allow them to. Standing up to these thugs does not require 'violence', the only weapon that I've used in the past 12 years has been my mind. Give yourself permission to live you life as a free Human Being and it will be so!

[lazerwood]

Nonentity and Winston,

You have mis-interpreted my "UFO" statement. You are taking the statement to say that I personally am despondent,defeated, and if I'd just "stand up to them" I'd feel/get victory. TOTALLY WRONG .

It's not "about me". I'm fine. It's that I'm so tired of seeing evil, in all its forms, having sway over so many people. I'm just "sick" of an existence where this is so, and could easily leave it all behind.

[Winston Ward Johnson]

lazerwood said:

Nonentity and Winston,

You have mis-interpreted my "UFO" statement. You are taking the statement to say that I personally am despondent,defeated, and if I'd just "stand up to them" I'd feel/get victory. TOTALLY WRONG .

It's not "about me". I'm fine. It's that I'm so tired of seeing evil, in all its forms, having sway over so many people. I'm just "sick" of an existence where this is so, and could easily leave it all behind.

Evil in all its forms has sway over all those people because they don't stand up to the evil that enslaves them. Hey I'm sick of what I see also, I just attempt to fight the evil in my corner of this world. I've said many times that if I could leave this planet I would. In my opinion the Human species is a disease on planet Earth, we are a cancer. "Evil" hasn't held sway over me for almost 12 years now, I simply won't allow it to. I don't just have an 'existence' I live my life with joy, I look forward to the challenges of the animating contest of freedom each and everyday.
I seem to be stuck here, so I might as well make the best of it! ;D

[lazerwood]

<< I just attempt to fight the evil in my corner of this world. >>

I'm doing the same thing in mine. I don't have the same level of "freedom" that you do. My limits are self-imposed. I do not seek the level that you have at this time because I choose to see that others (loved ones) around me are not negatively affected by my selfish choices. As I stated in another post, all of us have "circumstances" .... personal items that impact us , sometimes not of our choosing.

Clarification ... I am NOT saying any of the above as a "back-handed" comment against you on your situation! The above is strictly "about me", and the unique way I see MY world. I do NOT judge you or your "world".

As stated before by me ... I wish you success!

[Darren Dirt]

lazerwood said:

Darren,

The fact that the terrorcrats take common-law children too does not prove that my statements about the "contracts" are incorrect. All it proves is what Marc has been saying...that their "jurisdiction" issues from violence. There is no contradiction between what Marc is saying, and what I am saying. I stand by my remarks. It's best to remove every "prop" and excuse the terrorcrat could use against us, then the terrorcrat has to either capitulate or show all that he has no "legal" grounds for his actions. Isn't this what Marc has made plain that we should do??
It's a fairly easy thing to refuse to contract with the STATE in marriage, and to not have a birth certificate issued on the children. If this is done, the STATE has NO CLAIM on the marriage or it's "fruit"!! Will the STATE just lay down and go away...no! Will they "huff and puff" and act like they still have "jurisdiction" ...YES. It's up to us to defend our stance and put them in their place with the fact that there is NO CONTRACT and the use of Marc's process.

BTW, I have studied this issue at length and have found that a number of good researchers agree on what I stated about jurisdiction over children. I'm sure that you would agree that if you contract with the state by asking them for permission to marry, and that you have a commercial document drawn up on your child, that you had BEST BELIEVE that the STATE has a vested interest in that relationship.

We are only asking for grief if we engage in contracting with the STATE and then trying to "back out of the deal" when we find we don't like their terms.

Great points, Lazerwood. To almost paraphrase a popular song - satirized by Weird Al a few years ago - "It's all about the violence". Baby.

It is a good idea to remove as many of the "open doors" as you can, but some may be concerned that by "requesting/delcaring void of marriage contract" or the like they might be red-flagged and the harassment will begin.

PS: Anyone have any suggestions where to look re. how to do that kind of "I hereby declare any contracts or claims re. x, y, and z, VOID AND NULLIFIED" or the like?

[KaosTheory]

Darren said:

PS: Anyone have any suggestions where to look re. how to do that kind of "I hereby declare any contracts or claims re. x, y, and z, VOID AND NULLIFIED" or the like?

You could get some affidavit ideas from Suijuris.net but I'm thinking that saying a contract is void is admitting that a contract exists in the first place.....which of course it doesn't exist.

You might be better off just replying to any XYZ agency by sending a conditional acceptance letter that states that any compelled performance implies the existence of a contract currently in force. It then asks the agent to send a copy of said contract or else go pound sand. No contract equals no compelled performance. I have a letter template of it.

I haven't use it for anything yet but Howard Freeman use to send it to the I-R-S whenever they came a callin and said that it was pretty effective at keeping them away.

KT