Mattis thinks that US military occupation in Syria is legal

Responding to a question on the status of US troops present in Syria, the
US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, declared that his country had a UN
guarantee to chase out the Islamic Emirates (Daesh) from Syria.

And following this, he declared that US troops in Syria would not be
withdrawn until the Geneva Process was complete, the purpose being to avoid
Daesh from returning.

The constitutional government of the Syrian Arab Republic has repeatedly
denounced the illegal presence of US troops in Northern Syria and the
establishment of US forces on the Syrian-Iraqi border and in the South.

Q: You know, Assad says Iran and Russia were invited into his country, you were never invited in; you’re there illegally. What legal standing do you have to — to you know, be in Syria?

SEC. MATTIS: You know, the U.N. said that ISIS — basically we can go after ISIS. And we’re there to take them out. But that doesn’t mean we just walk away and let ISIS 2.0 pop back around? as if we’re surprised either. So we got to get the U.N.-brokered effort in Geneva to take this thing forward.

Source : “Hallway Press Gaggle by Secretary Mattis”, US Department of Defense, November 13, 2017.

Source Article from http://www.voltairenet.org/article198872.html

Pro-Iranian forces in Syria on legal grounds – Lavrov

Pro-Iranian forces are present in Syria on legal grounds, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday. He added that there have been no discussions on the withdrawal of the pro-Iranian forces from Syria at the recent talks with the US, TASS reported. “If we talk about the pro-Iranian forces, then some will be tempted to call the entire Syrian Army pro-Iranian,” the diplomat said. “And then what? Will it have to surrender? This is what they call wishful thinking.”

Source Article from https://www.rt.com/newsline/409823-lavrov-iranian-forces-syria/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

‘Magic Mushrooms’ Could Be Legal In California As Soon As 2018

By  Amanda Froelich Truth Theory

As soon as next year, psilocybin — or “magic mushrooms” — could be legally obtained in the state of California. This is good news for the mentally ill, as research has shown that the fungi has potential to aid those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and might even “reset” the brains of depressed individuals, among other things.

Though the use of psilocybin remains taboo in most societies, the legalization of the fungi seems to be the “next step” for California residents — at least, according to Kevin Saunders. This is because marijuana becomes legal for recreational use starting in January 2018.

Saunders, who is a a dispensary owner and a mayoral candidate in Marina, co-authored the “California Psilocybin Legalization Initiative” which was introduced in August. The legislation seeks to eliminate the criminal penalties associated with the Schedule I controlled substance. Said Saunders, “This initiative exempts adults, 21 and over, from criminal penalties and decriminalizes adult use of psilocybin, according to the filing with the state attorney general. The would-be law modification also exempts adults, 21 and over, from California health and safety codes which otherwise prohibit possession, sale, transport and cultivation of psilocybin.”

Now, activists are one step closer to seeing their vision realized. Last week, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that the group hoping to legalize magic mushrooms in a manner similar to beer and marijuana could begin collecting signatures. To get the measure on the statewide ballot, supporters will have to collect 365,880 valid voter signatures. While this will prove challenging, it’s not impossible.

” +

” +

“;
}
document.getElementById(“sda_1241”).style.display = “block”;
document.getElementById(“sda_1241”).innerHTML = sda_html;
}
function _load_1241() {
var xhrq_1241 = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhrq_1241.open(“GET”, “/ez_aba_load/?aba_id=1241&aba_wid=87C9CA76-2B78-4334-A9C9-B2F171EB1D68&aba_did=dHJ1dGh0aGVvcnkuZXpvaWMuY29t”, true);
xhrq_1241.onload = function (e) {
if (xhrq_1241.readyState === 4) {
if (xhrq_1241.status === 200) {
eval(xhrq_1241.responseText);
}
}
};
xhrq_1241.send(null);
}

if (typeof ez_cra_check === ‘undefined’) {

if (typeof loadbvjhghf === ‘undefined’) {
var xhr_1241 = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr_1241.open(“GET”, “/ezoic/prebid-ad-728×90.js”, true);
xhr_1241.onload = function (e) {
if(xhr_1241.responseText == “”){
var loadbvjhghf = true;
_load_1241();
} else {
eval(xhr_1241.responseText);
}
};
xhr_1241.onerror = function (e) {
var loadbvjhghf = true;
_load_1241();
};
xhr_1241.send(null);
}
else {
_load_1241();
}
}

Decriminalization vs Legalization

Though the word “decriminalization” is strewn throughout the measure,” in reality, psilocybin would only be legalized if the law passed. This means there would be a government-regulated psilocybin market, and the fungi would be taxed. However, this would still make California the first state in the nation to allow people to purchase a psychedelic substance in the same way they do legal inebriates.

” +

” +

“;
}
document.getElementById(“sda_1242”).style.display = “block”;
document.getElementById(“sda_1242”).innerHTML = sda_html;
}
function _load_1242() {
var xhrq_1242 = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhrq_1242.open(“GET”, “/ez_aba_load/?aba_id=1242&aba_wid=82EA05C7-AE81-4886-BDF9-DE385286EE65&aba_did=dHJ1dGh0aGVvcnkuZXpvaWMuY29t”, true);
xhrq_1242.onload = function (e) {
if (xhrq_1242.readyState === 4) {
if (xhrq_1242.status === 200) {
eval(xhrq_1242.responseText);
}
}
};
xhrq_1242.send(null);
}

if (typeof ez_cra_check === ‘undefined’) {

if (typeof loadbvjhghf === ‘undefined’) {
var xhr_1242 = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr_1242.open(“GET”, “/ezoic/prebid-ad-728×90.js”, true);
xhr_1242.onload = function (e) {
if(xhr_1242.responseText == “”){
var loadbvjhghf = true;
_load_1242();
} else {
eval(xhr_1242.responseText);
}
};
xhr_1242.onerror = function (e) {
var loadbvjhghf = true;
_load_1242();
};
xhr_1242.send(null);
}
else {
_load_1242();
}
}

Benefits to the Community

Believe it or not, research supports the notion that legalizing magic mushrooms would positively affect communities — specifically, in the reduction of violent crimes. High Times reports that a team of researchers at the University of Alabama in Birmingham used data from the U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health to deduce that psychedelic drugs “significantly decreases the chances of a person committing acts of violence.” Alcohol, on the other hand, seems to inspire rage and self-destruction.

The study was published in the latest Journal of Psychopharmacology. The researchers concluded that people who used psychedelic substances in their lifetimes were around 18 percent less likely to be arrested for a violent crime. They took into account data from nearly 500,000 respondents to come to this conclusion.

Said lead researcher Peter Hendricks, “These findings are consistent with a growing body of research suggesting classic psychedelics confer enduring psychological and prosocial benefits.”

Going Forward

To get the measure on the ballot, Saunders and volunteers will be reaching out to “power players” in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Reportedly, the entrepreneur is optimistic about the campaign. “We will get the required signatures and this will go straight to the voters,” Saunders said. “We are confident we can put together a coalition to push us over 51 percent. This is the hard part; the campaign will be the easy part.”

“We expect this campaign to rely heavily on volunteers, those who are well versed in where to harvest these signatures,” he added. “We plan to be very visible at this year’s Emerald Cup, on various college and university campuses, gay pride parades and Burning Man affiliated parties and get-togethers.”

According to a YouGov survey, 63 percent of the American population now supports the concept of psilocybin (and other psychedelic substances, including marijuana, LSD and MDMA) being used in modern medicine. Still, gathering enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, then ensuring a high enough voter turnout may prove difficult.

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!

Via High Times

I am Luke Miller, content manager at Truth Theory and creator of Potential For Change. I like to blend psychology and spirituality to help you create more happiness in your life.Grab a copy of my free 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control Here

Quantcast

Source Article from https://truththeory.com/2017/11/08/magic-mushrooms-legal-california-soon-2018/

Major Study Shows Legal Weed REVERSED a Decade of Rising Opioid Deaths in Colorado

opioidopioid

As states across the country struggle to combat the alarming death toll resulting from the opioid epidemic, a new study is showing that the percentage of opioid-related deaths actually decreased in one state, after it legalized cannabis.

In a recently published research study in a peer-reviewed journal, Melvin D. Livingston, Tracey E. Barnett, Chris Delcher, and Alexander C. Wagenaar, set out to see if any association existed between Colorado’s legalization of marijuana and opioid-related deaths in the state.

The researchers looked at all of the available data from the year 2000 to the year 2015. What they discovered may come as a shock to many. While the rest of the nation struggles with a burgeoning fatal opioid and heroin overdose crisis, the State of Colorado saw opioid deaths reduced while its population exploded.

It has long been stated that cannabis is a “gateway” drug, which leads users to experiment with other drugs, leading up to the most deadly, such as heroin. But the researchers in the study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the availability of safe and legal cannabis actually reduced opiate deaths:

“Colorado’s legalization of recreational cannabis sales and use resulted in a 0.7 deaths per month…reduction in opioid-related deaths. This reduction represents a reversal of the upward trend in opioid-related deaths in Colorado.”

The researchers concluded, “Legalization of cannabis in Colorado was associated with short-term reductions in opioid-related deaths.”

There was a significant statistical decrease in opiate deaths in the two years immediately following the state’s decision to legalize marijuana for recreational use in the year 2012.

“After Colorado’s legalization of recreational cannabis sale and use, opioid-related deaths decreased more than 6% in the following 2 years.”

The study’s authors admit their research is made weaker by the fact that recreational cannabis is not legal nationwide. If it was, their methods and conclusions could be compared with research from other states where cannabis is legal.

They also admit that while cannabis has been legalized for recreational use in eight states and the District of Columbia, consuming cannabis does come with some risks as well, which must be studied. But the contribution to the discussion of whether or not cannabis should be legalized in all 50 states has been made and the researchers are confident in their methods of data collection as well as the results and conclusions they’ve drawn.

“Although we found an apparent public health benefit in a reduction in opioid-related deaths following recreational cannabis legalization in Colorado, we note that expanded legalized cannabis use is also associated with significant potential harms.”

In other words, there are side effects with any drug consumed, both natural and chemical. However, as The Free Thought Project has reported on numerous occasions, cannabis is statistically, exponentially safer than any available opiate on the market. There was a 21 percent increase in drug-related deaths in 2016. Out of the nearly 65,000 Americans who died—more than the number of casualties from the Vietnam War—75 percent were opioid-related deaths and 0 percent were cannabis-related deaths.

Last week, we brought you the story CBS’ 60 Minutes aired that revealed high-ranking DEA officials blew the whistle on the pain-killer pipeline of manufacturers and distributors, who illegally and unscrupulously distributed the dangerous and deadly prescription drugs to millions of Americans without repercussions. Instead of complying with the law, the drug companies simply recruited the DEA’s top lawyers to help craft legislation that would effectively tie the hands of the DEA’s enforcement division known as the “Diversion” unit.

When that happened, the DEA no longer had the power to financially fine the distributors for sending truckloads of opiates to counties with very few inhabitants. In other words, the distributors were supplying street-level dealers via a “legal” pipeline.

This week, President Trump announced that he would be declaring the opiate death dilemma a “national emergency.” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was tapped by Trump earlier this year to explore ways to curb opioid abuse and overdoses. His committee’s first recommendation was to declare the phenomena a “national emergency,” but Trump’s cabinet and opiate commission have made troubling statements indicating that not only do they believe there is a pharmaceutical and monetary answer to the problem of opiate deaths, but there is a need for law enforcement to carry on its failed “War on Drugs.”

Christie’s commission concluded government healthcare programs should pay for opiate treatment (such as methadone clinics) and make Naloxone (Narcan) available to families across the country. Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions believes police can manage the crisis. His head-in-the-sand type statements lead many to believe he is just going to carry on with business as usual. He’s recently made the following statements:

“Robust enforcement of our laws helps keep drugs out of our country, decreases their availability, drives up their price, and reduces their purity,” Sessions said.

President Trump later echoed Sessions’ sentiments earlier this years. “Strong law enforcement is absolutely vital to having a drug-free society,” he said. “I’m confident that by working with our health care and law enforcement experts we will fight this deadly epidemic and the United States will win.”

However, those baseless statements are a reminder that nothing the federal government is planning to do to end the opioid crisis will actually work. While Sessions and Trump may not be ready to acknowledge it, the times are changing. Even Dr. Oz admitted, “medical marijuana might offer an option to help prevent you from ever getting opioids in the first place, and maybe help in getting you off of them.”

As TFTP reported in August, a first of its kind study was published that shows undeniable evidence of the ability of cannabis to treat opioid addiction by actively working to block the opioid reward in the brain.

If cannabis can reduce opioid-related deaths in Colorado by nearly 7 percent, at a time when the state’s population was rapidly increasing, then other states should start paying attention to the indications from research and should consider legalizing cannabis as an option to combat the ongoing opioid epidemic.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/opioid-deaths-decreased-cannabis-legalization/

Trump Offers $430,000 Of His Own Money For Aides' Legal Fees In Russian Probe

Donald Trump is offering at least $430,000 of his own funds to help defray the legal costs of aides amid federal probes into Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump pledged the funds after news surfaced that the Republican National Committee has paid approximately the same amount in legal fees for Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., Axios and The Washington Post reported.

Trump’s money won’t likely be used to reimburse the committee, the Post reported. Money will “defray the costs of legal fees for his associates, including former and current White House aides,” sources told Axios.

Few details are yet known about Trump’s move, such as which staffers’ costs may be covered. None of the money will be used to pay legal costs for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign after less than a month in his post. He is refusing to accept any funds from Trump or the RNC, sources told Axios. The New Yorker reported last month that two of Flynn’s siblings had launched a legal defense fund for him.

In March, Flynn’s lawyer said he would testify before federal investigators in exchange for immunity, and that he “has a story to tell.” 

Trump’s payment plan raises ethical questions. For one, an aide who accepted the money would be in a difficult position if he or she had pertinent information to share with a federal investigator about Trump or his son.

Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell questioned Trump’s motives.

“Maybe he feels guilty that his associates and aides are now having to bear the burdens of these bills,” she told MSNBC. “Whether or not it’s his motivation, this would be a very effective way to keep them in line and keep them in hock to him.”

She added: ’If he doesn’t want people who know where the bodies are buried — if there’s bodies — to flip on him and disclose that information … offering to pay legal bills is an effective way to keep pulling the strings.”

Walter Shaub, the former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, also underscored in a tweet the complicated conflicts such payments could trigger.

It’s unclear if the president will begin paying his own legal fees and those of his son, or will continue relying on funds from the RNC.

  • This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-offers-430-000-own-051702417.html

Harvey Weinstein donated $10K to Bill Clinton's legal fund during Lewinsky sex scandal

It’s been 20 years since the sex scandal between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky rocked the White House and the nation. 

Now it turns out the man in the center of another scandal, movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, reportedly tried to help Clinton back then. 

RELATED: Harvey Weinstein with Clinton, Obama and other top Democrats

According to a recently uncovered 1998 story in the Washington Post, Weinstein, who now faces dozens of sexual harassment allegations from numerous women, donated the maximum of $10,000 to Clinton’s legal defense fund.

The former president used the money to fight off sexual harassment allegations from Paula Jones in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. 

The Clintons and Weinstein have reportedly helped each other for decades, from movie premiers to Hillary Clinton’s presidential race. 

SEE ALSO: Hillary Clinton calls President Trump a ‘sexual assaulter,’ says Bill Clinton’s behavior ‘in the past’

Clinton also waited a week to weigh in on Weinstein scandal after it came to light.

She released the following statement: “I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein… The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated.” 

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/harvey-weinstein-donated-10k-bill-153009993.html

They’re All In It Together – Weinstein Paid for Bill Clinton’s Legal Fees During His Sex Abuse Scandal

weinsteinweinstein

When Bill Clinton was at the height of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, Hollywood was by his side, offering donations for his legal fees, and one significant donor was a man who is now going through his own sex scandal—Harvey Weinstein.

More than 20 women have publicly accused Weinstein of sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape. After the New York Times and the New Yorker published in-depth stories detailing the testimonies of women who have been abused by Weinstein—and in many cases, paid off with airtight non-disclosure agreements—the stories have continued to come to light.

Former President Bill Clinton is no stranger to sex scandals. The scandal that received the most media attention came about in the late 1990s after former Arkansas state employee Paul Jones filed a civil lawsuit against him for sexual harassment when he was the state’s governor. During the discovery phase of the case, in which Jones’ legal team was searching for Clinton’s inappropriate relationships, the name of a White House intern surfaced: Monica Lewinsky.

In August 1998, a report from the Washington Post noted that Clinton was being accused of perjury and obstruction of justice regarding his testimony about his conduct with Lewinsky. At the same time, influential members of Hollywood were coming to Clinton’s defense.

The report noted that according to Clinton’s legal defense fund, a total of more than $2.2 million was raised in six months, which was notably more than was collected in funding during the previous four years of his presidency—combined.

Hollywood was quick to come to the president’s aid. Among the 62 donors giving the maximum $10,000 were performers and directors such as Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand, Michael Douglas, Ron Howard, Norman Lear, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw-Spielberg as well as studio executives Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, Harvey Weinstein and Bud Yorkin.”

The fact that more than 60 members of the Hollywood elite were willing to donate both thousands of dollars and their public support to Bill Clinton is notable because the stories of Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky were not his only accusations of rape, sexual harassment or inappropriate relationships with his employees.

Jones returned to the spotlight in October 2016, when she arrived at a press conference with then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, and along with two other women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.

Clinton’s name was also linked to sexual predator and wealthy Wall Street hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein spent just 13 months in prison and home detention for conviction of solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. That sentence is absolutely ludicrous, considering the fact that he was found sex-trafficking girls as young as 12 years old to facilitate rape parties with his wealthy friends on a private island.

Epstein’s private jet, which transported his friends to Little St. James Island, was nicknamed “Lolita Express.” Initial records claimed that Bill Clinton was listed as a passenger on the jet at least 11 times between 2001 and 2003. That number was then changed to more than double with 26 trips, showing that Clinton flew on the plane at least once a month during the two-year period.

Harvey Weinstein was a big-time Hollywood producer, a major Democratic donor and a notable close friend of the Clintons. While it is not clearly whether Weinstein was one of the wealthy men who also was connected to Epstein and used his access to rape underage girls, it is clear that there seems to be a trend among ultra-wealthy sexual predators where they lend money to one another when they are caught.

Hillary Clinton waited nearly a week to release a statement on the scandal, and when she did, she focused more on standing up for the victims than on condemning the criminal actions of her close friend. Bill Clinton has yet to make a statement, which raises questions about whether he is concerned that an investigation into Weinstein’s past could bring even more of the Clintons’ dirty laundry to light.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/harvey-weinstein-contributed-bill-clinton-legal-fees/

State Supreme Court Rules Having Sex With Minors is Legal But Sexting Them is Illegal

Indiana high school teacher Sameer Thakar faces three years in prison for sending nude photographs to a 16-year old girl after the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week to reverse a lower court’s decision to throw out the case.

Thakar began texting the teenager in 2014, when he was 38. After a short period in which the girl told him she was underage, he then sent her images of his erect penis, court documents reveal.

The State charged then-38-year-old Sameer Girish Thakar with Class D felony dissemination of matter harmful to minors under Indiana Code section 35-49-3-3(a)(1) (2008) (“the Dissemination Statute”), after Thakar sent a photograph of his erect penis to a 16-year-old girl. The trial court dismissed the charges, relying upon Salter v. State, 906 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. not sought, which found the Dissemination Statute void for vagueness as applied, because the intended recipient met Indiana’s age of consent to sexual activity. We now overrule Salter, hold that the Dissemination Statute is not unconstitutionally vague, and reverse.

He was charged with one count of felony dissemination of matter harmful to minors, but argued in court that the charge doesn’t make sense.

In Indiana, it is legal for adults to have consensual sex with 16 year olds. It is illegal, however, for a person to knowingly send sexually explicit photographs to someone under 18, which is classed as disseminating material harmful to minors.

The court originally threw out the charges, explaining it was “patently illogical” that a man could have sex with a teenager, but not send them images. The case was appealed and ended up in Indiana’s Supreme Court.

Believing that it was patently illogical that an adult man could legally show his penis to a 16-year-old through consensual activity in person, but not through photography, the Salter court held the statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied because the activity in question would not be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence as “‘patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable matter for or performance before minors,’” which is a necessary element of the statutory definition of “harmful to minors” contained in Indiana Code section 35-49-2-2 (2008).

The Supreme Court found the charges should be upheld, despite the “inconsistent” law. It found no conflict between the two rules, as both can be complied with at the same time.

“With respect to a 16-year-old, consensual sexual activity in person is permitted, the dissemination of a sexually explicit photograph (consensually or otherwise) is not,” Justice Mark Massa wrote.

Massa said the court interprets the text of the law, and that it’s up to state lawmakers to sort out the inconsistency.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/indiana-court-rules-sex-minors-legal-sexting-illegal/

The Greatest Con: Your Legal Name

The legal name game is one of the greatest “con games” that the Dark Forces invented to enslave your soul. The Controllers of the New World Order (NWO), which are the minions of the Dark Forces, like to use the legal name to trick you to agree to unknowingly give your natural rights away to them. Once you do this, everything that you have purchased or owned under that legal name legally belongs to the federal government.

In other words, your kids, cars, house, and anything that you have purchased or owned using your legal name legally belong to the federal government. The good news is that they did not do this lawfully and therefore they have no lawful standing. If you want to learn how to defend your rights effectively, you need to know the difference between the word legal and lawful.

From FamGuardian.org.

It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful. The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893:

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See legal. [Bold emphasis added]

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual

“Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]

In simple terms, something that is lawful is above something that is legal. If something is legal, it does not necessary mean that it is lawful. For example, killing someone is unlawful but can be legal. Lawful is more about natural rights and legal is more about rights given by man or the government.

The government document that they used to forge your name, bond your soul, and trick you to give up your natural rights is the birth certificate, which is actually a bond and a contract. This is why they trade your birth certificate on the stock market.

Some spiritual teachers have said that the legal name is the “mark of the beast”. In my opinion, the “mark of the beast” can mean a few different things associated with a mark of spiritual slavery. The legal name is one of them.

What is the Legal Name?

The legal name is not the name given to you by your parents; instead it is a forgery name created by the government to trick you to do business with it. To be more specific, your real name is an appellation. Only “things” have names. Furthermore, living and breathing people have autographs, not signatures. A signature is used by a corporate officer to do business with a corporation.

In the legal system, when a person’s name is written in all lower case (i.e., john quincy adams) it is referring to a natural and living person. Furthermore, when a person is described as “John Quincy of the House Adams”, it is referring to a natural and living person.

When a name is NOT written like the two examples above, 99 percent of the time it is referring to an artificial person, also known as a corporation. It is important to know that in the legal system the word person can mean many things, such as a corporation, legal name, legal person, artificial person, or natural person.

Most of the time when you receive a letter or document from a bank, a court, or a government agency, your name is written in ALL CAPITAL letters. This all caps name tells lawyers, attorneys, and judges that it is a legal name of a corporation or a dead man’s estate. If the legal name is written in all capital letters and the letters are italicized, it is the name of a ship.

As described on AntiCorruptionSociety.WordPress.com.

john –quincy: adams = a living American endowed with all his natural
rights

John Quincy Adams = a foreign situs trust used in commercial shipping

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS = a foreign estate trust

John Q. Adams = a public transmitting utility company

John q. Adams = a public foundation

JOHN Q. Adams = a cooperative

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS = a boat or ship used in public commerce [Note: According to the book titled You Know Something Is Wrong When….. “An American Affidavit of Probable Cause”, this name is supposed to be italicized (JOHN QUINCY ADAMS).]

JOHN QUINCY Adams = a commonwealth trust

J. QUINCY Adams = a slave owned by Exxon Corporation

J.Q. Adams = a foreign pauper forbidden to own land

Adams, John Q. = a taxpayer

ADAMS, JOHN Q. = a soldier

adams, john q. = a slave

There are dozens of different potential meanings that can be arbitrarily assigned to anyone’s name and used to “represent” radically different entities. In a verbal conversation we can talk all day long about someone or something named “John Quincy Adams” and which john quincy adams or what kind of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS will never be known, except from the context of the conversation — but on paper the use of such a system instantly defines what or whom is being talked about — if you know the system.

This is what the lawyers, bankers, and politicians have used to enslave you. It is a crime known as “personage”. By arbitrarily creating an Estate trust named after you and claiming to own this thing they created, they have falsely claimed to own you and your assets and to literally buy and sell “you” on stock exchanges, ship “you” out of ports, and tax “you” for doing things you’ve never done. After all, there is no law against enslaving an ESTATE trust, is there? Or arresting a slave? Or charging a tax on importing revenue to Puerto Rico?

The Main Role of the Legal Name

Here is an excerpt from my second seminar that explains in details about the main role of the legal name:

The government can only operate in a fictional world because it is a corporation. According to Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, a corporation is “an artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.” Because the government is a corporation (artificial person), it is a fictitious entity that has no natural rights and power. Its main source of power comes from feeding on the energy of the people.

Since a corporation is a fictitious person, it cannot think, speak, see, touch, smell, or do anything that a living person can do. In other words, a corporation cannot, by itself, functionin the real world. To function in the real reality, it needs a conduit or a liaison of some sort to connect it, and the fictional world in which it exists, to the real reality.

As living, breathing people, we exist in the real world, not a fictional world. But government exists in a fictional reality, so it can only deal directly with other fictional persons, such as corporations, agencies, and states.

This is why the name of the place that you go to for a trial is called a “court-room.” Do you remember what I said earlier about why the court is a place where people go to when they want to play a game? When it comes to the government, the court has to operate as a game, because it is dealing with a fictional thing. This is why the court system is all based on presumption when it is dealing with the government and the legal person.

Because the government cannot deal directly with the real you, it needs to trick you to agree to be a conduit or a liaison, so that it can connect you to the fictional government. This conduit is the legal person (legal name), which is the name written in all caps. This legal person is not you, but is a fictitious entity used by the government to do businesswith you.

The moment you agree to be the legal person (legal name), you create a contract that connects you to the legal person. This allows the government to do business with you. It also allows the government and the court to have jurisdiction over you. However, you can void the contract anytime you want.

Here is a great article from Privatis.me that exposes the fraud of the legal system at a deeper level. If you are having trouble reading the article, click here to go to the PDF file.

The articles below were written by Kate of Gaia. These two articles have excellent information about the legal name game. Highly recommended! If you are having trouble reading the articles, visit this link and this link to go to the PDF files.

Copyright Information: This article was reprinted with permission from omnithought.org Please contact the author directly for republishing information.

Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/2017/10/the-greatest-con-your-legal-name/

Las Vegas Shooting: Gunman Stephan Paddock Used Legal ‘Bump Stock’ To Let Him Fire So Quickly For So Long

The gunman who launched heavy gunfire at people at a Las Vegas concert appears to have done so using a legal trick that almost anyone can buy.

Many had wondered how Stephen Paddock managed to fire for so long and so quickly as he rained down bullets for around 15 minutes on the country music festival. The numerous weapons he fired from his hotel room allowed him to kill at least 59 people and injure hundreds more.

The speed of that shooting led some to suggest that Paddock was using automatic weapons. But automatic rifles are heavily regulated and difficult to buy in the US.

nstead, he used a “bump stock” on at least two of the weapons, officials said. That legal trick is an attachment for the weapon that technically allows it to count as semi-automatic, despite the fact that it can be used to fire like an automatic rifle.

The devices have attracted scrutiny in recent years from authorities. But they are entirely legal and regularly available in many states.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein has long railed against them. Several years ago, she told The Associated Press she was concerned about the emergence of new technologies that could retrofit firearms to make them fully automatic.

“This replacement shoulder stock turns a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of 400 to 800 rounds per minute,” she said.

A semi-automatic weapon requires one trigger pull for each round fired. With a fully automatic firearm, one trigger pull can unleash continuous rounds until the magazine is empty.

The purchasing of fully automatic weapons has been significantly restricted in the U.S. since the 1930s.

In 1986, the federal National Firearms Act was amended further to prohibit the transfer or possession of machine guns by civilians, with an exception for those previously manufactured and registered.

Numerous attempts to design retrofits failed until recent years when bump stocks came on the market.

The device basically replaces the gun’s shoulder rest, with a “support step” that covers the trigger opening. By holding the pistol grip with one hand and pushing forward on the barrel with the other, the shooter’s finger comes in contact with the trigger. The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, “bumping” the trigger.

Technically, that means the finger is pulling the trigger for each round fired, keeping the weapon a legal semi-automatic.

Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock had 23 guns in his hotel room.

Two officials familiar with the investigation told the AP that Paddock had bump stocks attached to two semi-automatic guns. The U.S. officials were briefed by law enforcement and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Paddock killed 59 people and wounded hundreds more at a country music festival near his hotel. Police stormed his 32nd floor hotel room and found that he had killed himself after committing the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Source:

independent.co.uk

Source Article from https://worldtruth.tv/las-vegas-shooting-gunman-stephan-paddock-used-legal-bump-stock-to-let-him-fire-so-quickly-for-so-long/