May 30, 2011

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)

Frontline likes making press statements about PBS being hacked. We like defacing said press statements:

by "Lulz Security" [a/k/a "LulzSec"]

As originally posted on: The Lulz Boat (LulzSec) on Twitter
May 30, 2011

The State

Necessary. Evil.

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
May 18, 2011

I don't believe in such a thing as a "necessary evil". If something is evil it can't be necessary.

But there is a different category that sounds the same: Necessary. Evil.

One good example is the "drivers license".

Having one is "necessary" for those of us who wish to travel by personal vehicle, in order for us to avoid being murdered by any enforcers we encounter.

And it is completely and inexcusably evil for The State to require drivers to possess one.


Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)

@LulzSec hacks @PBS compilation for press and newcomers: Wham bam thank you ma'am. Don't fuck with us, #PBS.

by "Lulz Security" [a/k/a "LulzSec"]

As originally posted on: The Lulz Boat (LulzSec) on Twitter
May 30, 2011

May 29, 2011

The Federal Republic of Nigeria

National Assembly Site hacked/defaced.

by "NaijaCyberHactivists"

As originally posted on: NaijaCyberHactivists (NaijaCyberHack) on Twitter
May 29, 2011

The System

Bite The Hand

Song lyrics by Dave Mustaine

Performed by "Megadeth"
Album: Endgame (2009)

They ball-gagged Lady Justice
And blindfolded her so she can't see
The erosion of the peoples' trust
Of what will come to be an FDIC Assisted Suicide

The depression of a depression
Worldwide suicide for the economy
Caused by the dialectic chaos when the
Mob on Wall Street took "We the people" for a ride

When its dog eat dog, you are what you eat
Just like the mad dog that bites the hand that feeds
Like the mad dog that bites the hand that feeds
Just like the mad dog that bites the hand that feeds

They took everything and anything
As long as it once belonged to me
The rats got all the money; the roaches
Licked the cupboards clean of TV dinners and beer

This never-ending nightmare
Of the dreams I'll never, ever get to see
And just one silver-bullet to your head
It will set me free from all the life I wasted trusting you

When its dog eat dog, you are what you eat
Just like the mad dog that bites the hand that feeds
Like the mad dog that bites the hand that feeds
When its dog eat dog, you are what you eat
Like the mad dog that bites the hand that feeds
Just like the mad dog you bite the hand that feeds

May 28, 2011

The System

Judges Are PR Agents

by "FSK"

As originally posted on: FSK's Guide to Reality
April 22, 2011

I saw an interesting explanation. Someone wrote "Judges are PR agents for the State."

A judge's job is to invent a clever excuse for taking away someone's freedom. Politically-motivated trials are "Verdict first, trial afterwards". A prosecutor decides that someone is a criminal. Then, he picks which law will be strictly applied.

For real crime (murder, theft, assault), you don't need a judge inventing clever excuses. Most trials involve "victimless" crime. For those trials, it's important for judges to be professional liars.

Consider this conversation:

Q: Why is X in jail?

A: The prosecutor didn't like him.

That would be obviously unfair.


Q: Why is X in jail?

A: He criticized the government.

Nobody is in prison for "criticizing the government". Prosecutors invent another excuse.

Consider the farce of "justice":

Q: Why is X in jail?

A: There was a fair trial, an impartial judge, and an impartial jury.

Now, it seems fair.

Some lawyers wrote "The actual content of your legal arguments are irrelevant. The reputation of the lawyer matters a lot more than the legal arguments. Judges will bend over backwards, to rule in favor of insiders."

For a pro se defendant or plaintiff, it's even worse. The judge can rule against you. He has a monopoly. It's irrelevant if he's unfair. All he has to do is say "motion denied" or "I'm ruling against you." He doesn't have to provide an explanation.

Superficially, judges are supposed to be fair and impartial. In practice, judges act to protect insiders. A judge's job is to invent clever excuses for justifying State power. A judge's job is provide the illusion of legitimacy, when State thugs take away someone's freedom.

"You and Your Bosses" and "Other Thugs"

Take your "protection" and ...

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
May 10, 2011

I'm having real trouble seeing any real difference between having cops running around town extorting money from people and ordering them around, and having the same done by mafia enforcers.

Even when I mentioned this to someone else, the only objection she could think of was "The mafia will kill you". I mentioned that the cops will, too. So she said "But the mafia will kill you for no reason".

I doubt it. Where's the profit in that? As long as you pay your "protection money" ("taxes"), don't try to resist the shakedown, and don't undermine the organization, you'll probably be left alone. Why kill the cash cow? As long as you do things the way the mafia/cops demand, you'll probably be left alone to enjoy your "freedom".

The enforcers don't make the rules; their bosses do. You have as much say in the rules The State (or city council) imposes on you as you do in setting the mafia's agenda. You have been fooled if you believe otherwise.

The mafia will protect those within their sphere from attacks by other thugs, just as will cops. You can't be a successful parasite if your host dies, and if others drain off some of the money you had planned to steal there is less for you and your bosses.

I don't need cops or mafia goons. Take your "protection" and shove it. I am not impressed by your fancy uniforms or shiny cars (with the flashing lights) bought with stolen money. You are a disgusting parasite and you should be flushed out.


Sony Corporation

We're working on another Sony operation. We've condensed all our excited tweets into this one: this is the beginning of the end for Sony.

by "Lulz Security" [a/k/a "LulzSec"]

As originally posted on: The Lulz Boat (LulzSec) on Twitter
May 27, 2011

May 24, 2011

"The Company"

Hackers: 'Stupid Sony, so very stupid'

by Rosa Golijan

As originally posted on: Technolog
May 24, 2011

On Monday we heard that the official website for Sony BMG Greece was hacked and its databases — which include some user data — were dumped onto the Internet. Today we're hearing that Sony Music Japan suffered the same fate — and that the hackers are rubbing it in Sony's face.

Sophos reports that the attack used on Sony Music Japan was quite similar to the one used on Sony BMG Greece. Hackers were once again able to take advantage of a security vulnerability in an SQL database to access information:

The database information that was published does not contain names, passwords or other personally identifiable information. The attackers noted that there are two other databases on the site that are vulnerable and it remains unclear whether they contain sensitive information.

It isn't clear whether the hackers are able to inject data into the database, or simply access the tables and records it contains. If they are able to alter the records, this could be used to insert malicious code that could be used to compromise people browsing the site.

As with the prior attack, Hacker News seems to have been the first to catch wind of the security breach, but this time the news was also tweeted out by the individuals behind the hack.

We've mentioned before that this sort of attack doesn't require a particularly skillful attacker — much of the hard work can be done using an automated tool — and the hackers behind this security breach are enjoying calling attention to that fact:

The attackers stated in their message "This isn't a 1337 h4x0r, we just want to embarrass Sony some more."

The hackers — a group who goes by the name "LulzSec" — peppered taunts such as "stupid Sony, so very stupid" inside the data they made available online.

Unfortunately this will probably not be the last time we'll hear about a Sony security headache over the next little while.

As the drama builds — there was a massive security breach which forced the company to shut down the PlayStation Network, difficulties in restoring the game service, a security flaw in the PlayStation Network password reset feature, a phishing site hidden on Sony's servers, and ... the list goes on — it becomes increasingly more amusing for hackers to kick the company while it's down.

That sad reality aside, we find ourselves plagued by one very big question, just like Chester Wisniewsk — a senior security adviser at Sophos:

Is Sony taking security seriously or are there simply so many flaws from the past that exist in their public facing sites that it will take them a long time to patch them all?

May 23, 2011

The System

Payback is a bitch. Just wait and see.

by "Em|"

As originally posted on:
Em| (Neolaht) on Twitter
May 9, 2011

"'All' Courts" and "'United States, Inc.'"

Judge wrote me - “all” Courts are by consent.

by Paul John Hansen [a/k/a "Paul John: Hansen"]

As originally posted on: Paul John
April 21, 2011

I Paul Hansen got this letter in response to a blog on state / court authority.


I’m a retired Florida District Judge. I don’t do this stuff anymore and was simply interjecting some guidance. The best I will do for you is point you…..however you must understand some basic principles first:

1] The republic of United States of America still exists. It has been concealed in the closet by your elected officials and replaced with “United States, Inc.” and you and it are being controlled by corporate law, which is called Statutory Law. If you are not a corporation, then these laws are not applicable.

2] All Courts under United States, Inc, which includes all the State Courts are Tribunals and all the Judges are Administrators and not Judges, meaning that no real Courts exist! [The concept of a Court is intended to be a last resort to resolve disputes and therefore you must develop your proof that you are right before you enter. If you can avoid a Court, do so by all means because everything is stacked against you]!

3] Since they are Tribunals, you must agree to be sued and agree to the intervention of the Court to resolve the dispute! Return a summons and a suit using this method. Print this boldly across it with your signature notarized.


Dan 4-21-2011


Police take down German Party servers .. and take down German Police Servers v

by "Anonymous"

As originally posted on: Anonymous (AnonymousRx) on Twitter
May 20, 2011

May 22, 2011

"Government’s Employees - and Their Outside Contractors" and "Government Attorneys and Judges"

Denial of Access to Impartial Courts

by Isidoro Rodriguez

As originally posted on: The Daily Censored News Blog
May 17, 2011

\”Supreme Court refuses to consider \’torture flights\’ case, ending legal battle\”

Some sixteen years ago I argued and won before the U.S.Supreme Court, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (suit against DOJ’s declaring a DEA employee within the scope of employment while driving negligently while drunk and having sex in Barranquilla, Colombia).

This confirmed the common law right of access to an impartial Art. III judiciary, and right to a jury trial for malfeasance which dates back to the Magna Carta.

However, this decision proved to be an anomaly, because my past 40 years of federal litigation against government employees confirmed that a coup d’etat had occurred during secret meetings of the US Judicial Conference, wherein by both judges and D.O.J. employees conspired to promulgate court rules which have all but done away with the limitations and prohibitions on the government under the Rule of Laws under our U.S. Constitutions, and citizens civil rights under the first 10 Amendments. Collusion of Executive Branch with the Judicial Branch.

Because government attorneys and judges have acted outside of their authority and jurisdiction to issue court rules permitting judges to usurp fundamental right, citizens must now act to assure that government’s employees - and their outside contractors - are quickly held accountable for criminal or tortious acts.

We all must be aware that freedom is not free, because, “[t]here is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice,” U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).

May 21, 2011


Atheists: 1 Christians: 0 #Rapture

by "Anonymous Operations"

As originally posted on: Anonymous Operations (Anony_Ops) on Twitter
May 21, 2011

Sony Corporation

Ooops! Now Score is, Sony : 0 | Hackers : 7 Music Indonesia Defaced ..dear jebus rapture

by "Anonymous Operations"

As originally posted on: Anonymous Operations (Anony_Ops) on Twitter
May 21, 2011

The System

Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism

by Larken Rose

As originally posted on: TMDS Blog
May 14, 2011

Something huge--huge and not good--just happened in Indiana, which will be little more than a blip in the propaganda that passes for national news. The Supreme Court of Indiana just ruled that in Indiana, if a police officer decides to ILLEGALLY come into your house, you're not allowed to do anything to stop him. According to "Justice" Steven David, resisting an admittedly "UNLAWFUL police entry into a home" is against "public policy." Got that? If you live in Indiana, and a cop decides to invade your home without a shred of legal justification, it is considered a CRIME for you to do anything to stop him.

Bizarrely, "Justice" David also said that resisting law-breaking cops goes against "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." You see, only judges are wise enough to know that when the Fourth Amendment says you have a right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures," it actually means that the cops have the right to COMMIT "unreasonable searches and seizures," and you have no right to do anything to stop it.

Please allow me to toot my own horn here, by pointing out that in my novel, "The Iron Web" (page 231), I predicted this step occurring. It is an essential, major step towards totalitarianism, for the control freaks to decide that even when they break their own laws, their victims have no right to resist. There is a huge PRINCIPLE at stake here, and what these three Indiana jackass "judges" have just done is guarantee either complete totalitarianism, or a bloody revolution (or both, in that order). Because this ruling means, quite literally, that residence of Indiana have NO RIGHTS AT ALL. What would it possibly mean to say you have a "right" to not have your home illegally invaded by a jackbooted thug, while also saying that you cannot do anything to defend that right?

Never fear, because, according to the Supreme Jackass Court of Indiana, you can always come crawling to your masters, after you've been illegally victimized by one of their jackboots, to beg for some restitution. (Good luck with that.) "Justice" David says that, AFTER you let the cop illegally invade your home, you can always "protest the illegal entry through the court system." That's almost straight out of my novel, where a new (fictional) law would "mak[e] it a crime to forcibly resist any arrest, while also providing legal remedies to those who have been subjected to improper arrest.”

If anyone considers this reasonable, keep in mind that by the exact same "reasoning" (and I use that term extremely loosely), they might as well also rule that if a cop decides to shoot your dog, or steal your car, or rape your wife, you have to quietly stand by and LET HIM DO IT, and then later file a complaint, or a lawsuit. In other words, the jackboots can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE, "legal" or not, and your ONLY recourse is to later whine to the very control freaks that the jackboots work for.

What was the rationale for this? In case all of the above wasn't Orwellian enough, check this out. "Justice" David argued that "allowing resistance [to law-breaking cops] unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved." Why wouldn't this psychotic reasoning (a.k.a. "retroactive tyranny justification") also mean that if ANYONE breaks into your house, or assaults you, or steals your stuff, or otherwise attacks you, you'd better LET HIM DO IT in order to avoid "escalat[ing] the level of violence"? Using DEFENSIVE violence to combat AGGRESSIVE violence is completely justified and righteous, notwithstanding the opinions of the tyranny apologists appointed by the parasite class. If a cop illegally barges into your home, you have every right to escalate the level of violence to any extent necessary to stop him, including blowing the fascist's damn head off.

I'm glad I don't live in Indiana, because if some cop decided to barge into my house without a shred of legal justification, I'd now know that if I tried to hold him back, or push him out, I'd be arrested and prosecuted. So I'd just have to shoot the bastard instead. And since it's tough to do that sort of thing without anyone noticing, I would then be a fugitive, for having DEFENDED my family against an invading CRIMINAL. And if that much happened, and I was forced to become a fugitive, I might feel obliged to go pay a visit to the three stupid, tyrant-loving fascist jackasses on the Indiana Supreme Court who just decided to declare it a CRIME for someone to DEFEND HIMSELF against illegal trespassing, breaking and entering, and assault, if the scumbag attacker happens to have a badge.

Hmmm, I have an idea. If there are any Indiana cops who still respect the Constitution, please do your state a huge favor, and go barge into the home of "Justice" Steven David--during supper would probably be a good time. Barge in, without a warrant, and without any legal justification, guns drawn, and start ordering people around. See if "Justice" David does anything to resist. If he does, lock his fascist ass up for violating his own idiotic legal ruling. In fact, since he just declared it to be illegal for him to resist your illegal invasion of his home, if he lifts a finger to stop you, shoot the bastard, or at least give him a good tasering. (That's exactly what happened in the case where "Justice" David sided with the law-breaking cop.) After all, we can't just let people assault police officers, now can we? If some Indiana cop had the spine to do that, I know several thousand people who would be thrilled beyond words.

Larken Rose

(P.S. Incidentally, in U.S. vs. John Bad Elk, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that resisting an unlawful arrest, even if doing so requires killing the cop, can be legal. Whether this conflict between the Supreme Court and the Indiana Nazi Brigade will be resolved in court remains to be seen. But whatever any black-dress-wearing, wooden-hammer-wielding narcissist says, if someone decides to barge into your home, you have the right to evict him, with a harsh word, a fist, or a 12-gauge--whichever you deem necessary.)

May 20, 2011

"What's Not There"

You can't let go of what's not there. So I can't let you go...

by Thee Gomez

As originally posted on: Gomez (TheeGomez) on Twitter
May 10, 2011


The System

Goodbye and good riddance to Oprah Winfrey, an enemy of reason

by Toby Young

As originally posted on:
May 19, 2011

Thank God Oprah Winfrey has brought her ghastly talk show to an end. So gargantuan is her ego, she announced two years ago that it would end this year. This was supposedly because 2011 was the show’s 25th anniversary. “Twenty-five years feels right in my bones, and it feels right in my spirit – it’s the perfect number, the exact right time,” she said. In truth, it was because the show’s ratings had been steadily declining for the last 10 years, plummeting from a peak of 14 million in 1998 to 7.3 million in 2008.

The final show itself rivalled the Academy Awards for pomposity and self-importance, with fawning A-list celebrities trying to outbid each other in lachrymose praise. Madona called her an “inspiration”, while Jada Pinkett, Will Smith’s wife, compared her to a “goddess”. Incredibly, Barack Obama did not appear via a video link from the White House to thank her for getting him elected President of the United States.

Okay, okay, she isn’t all bad. I will grudgingly concede that she deserves credit for promoting tolerance of lesbians and gays. She’s also one of America’s most generous philanthropists. Oprah’s Angel Network (everything must have her name stamped on it, from O: The Oprah Magazine to the Oprah Television Network) has raised over $80 million.

But the case for the prosecution is overwhelming. The Wall Street Journal coined the phrase “Oprahfication” to describe public confession as a form of therapy, surely one of the most stomach-churning spectacles of our age, particularly when indulged in by errant politicians or disgraced celebrities. Oprah, more than any other individual, is responsible for the hypocritical shame culture of contemporary America whereby no sin is considered so great that it can’t be expiated by a bout of public humiliation. Rosie O’Donnell could be caught snacking on a baby seal, but provided she broke down in tears on Oprah’s couch and linked her crime to some imagined childhood trauma all would be forgiven.

She is also America’s number one snake oil salesman. No self-help philosophy is so crapulous – so spectacularly vacuous – that she won’t enthusiastically promote it to her credulous fans. One of her most ringing endorsements was for a book called The Secret in which a self-help guru called Rhonda Byrne instructs readers on how to use the “Law of Attraction” to get what they want. The “secret” of the book is that if you wish for something hard enough, you’ll get it simply through the act of wishing. Nothing more is required. Byrne claims to have used this “secret” to improve her eyesight so that she no longer needs glasses. Byrne also asserts that food does not make you fat, only the belief that food makes you fat. (Alas, this “spiritual” dieting technique appears to have failed for Oprah.) Needless to say, as soon as Oprah started praising this fatuous collection of New Age gobbledegook on her show, The Secret shot straight to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.

Above all, it is Oprah’s incontinent sentimentality that I find so objectionable, the elevation of ersatz emotion over any critical

thought. For Oprah, the only test of veracity worth the name is whether something “feels” true, as though our initial emotional response to something – whether a prospective lover, a spiritual belief system or a political leader – is a more reliable guide than a careful sifting of the evidence. In a modern democratic society like America, which is crying out for informed public discussion about a whole range of critical issues, Oprah’s constant attempts to undermine reason and rationality make her one of the most destructive figures of our age.


May 19, 2011

The System

Seattle cop free to continue beating the “fucking Mexican piss” out of people

by "Dr. Q"

As originally posted on: Cop Block
May 15, 2011

Last year, Shandy Cobane, a racist thug employed by the Seattle Police Department, assaulted Martin Monetti, Jr. while he was lying on the ground compliantly. “I’m going to beat the fucking Mexican piss out of you, homey. Feel me?” Cobane taunted. Then he and a fellow officer, Mary Woollum, began stomping on Monnetti’s head and arm. Several other officers were present, but none intervened. The stomps left visible marks on Monetti’s forehead.

Shortly after the unprovoked attack on Monetti, the police realized he wasn’t the person they were looking for and allowed him to leave.

Earlier this month, it was announced that Cobane will not lose his job over the incident. Instead he is simply being given a 30 day suspension without pay. No criminal charges will be filed against him.

Cobane insists that he’s learned his lesson and the Seattle Police Department says it will will not tolerate incidents like this in the future, but there is no reason to believe them. The whole message of this affair is that if you’re a cop, you don’t have to worry if you act like a violent, bigoted thug because even if there’s indisputable evidence of your crimes, nothing bad will happen to you. Police brutality cases like this one will not stop until police are held to the same standards as everyone else.

"That Ass"

#anons do whatever anons want to do. y argue? if you kick a beehive, it doesn't matter if you meant to or not, they're coming for that ass.

by "AnonOps"

As originally posted on: AnonOps (Anon_Ops) on Twitter
March 15, 2011

May 18, 2011

"A Movie; with Alot of Bad Actors"

Life is a movie; with alot of bad actors.

by Thee Gomez

As originally posted on: Gomez (TheeGomez) on Twitter
May 10, 2011

The System

IMF Scandal Highlights U.S. As Largest Contributor

As originally posted on: Corruption Chronicles: A Judicial Watch Blog
May 17, 2011

Since U.S. taxpayers are the biggest contributors to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) it’s not unreasonable to wonder how the socialist “public servant” who heads it paid for a $3,000-a-night hotel suite and a first-class transatlantic airfare that runs about $11,000.

After all, the Washington D.C.-based IMF aims to reduce poverty around the world by, among other things “enhancing the voice of low-income countries.” Much like the famously corrupt United Nations, which is also largely funded by Uncle Sam, the IMF pushes to redistribute wealth. With $340 billion in its coffers—18% of it from the U.S. government—the organization “assists” countries in need with handouts from thriving nations.

It may seem like a noble cause, but now that IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn is in a New York jail on sexual assault charges many questions have come up. For instance, how does the French socialist—promoted as a “public servant”— finance his lavish lifestyle? Local news reports reveal that the luxurious Manhattan hotel suite where Strauss-Kahn is accused of sexually assaulting a housekeeper costs $3,000 a night.

When authorities arrested him, he was on a Paris-bound flight at John F. Kennedy International Airport. As he always does, Strauss-Kahn was traveling first class on Air France, which lists the one-way New York-to-Paris fare at a tad over $11,000. As head of the IMF Strauss-Kahn, a former member of the French National Assembly, makes $420,930 a year and an additional $75,350 for expenses.

In France he’s known as a "champagne socialist” because he lives an extravagant lifestyle that includes driving an expensive imported sports car, travel between multi million-dollar homes in the U.S. and Europe and wearing designer suits that cost thousands of dollars each. Technically, U.S. taxpayers are financing some of it while he works to redistribute the wealth of others.

May 17, 2011

"Someone who Will Never Love Them Back"

Everyone you know, without exception, has their heart wrapped around someone who will never love them back.

by Thee Gomez

As originally posted on: Gomez (TheeGomez) on Twitter
April 16, 2011

"The MMF/Inc...MNC/Inc"


by Fortunat Guiboche

As originally posted on: teaching metis
February 2, 2008

Good Day Folks...

When is a Democracy..not a democracy....Folks the answer is simple..

There is no Corporation of any kind.... in any Country in the world to-day ...Operating within the laws of that State!!!!!! that could be described as a DEMOCRACY..!!!!...It Is A Corporation...Not A government......!!!!!!..THE mmf/inc...mnc/inc are not Governments of the metis people as they claim to be!!!!!!!!they are corporations Period..!!!!!...does anyone wish to challenge on this Statement..!!!....

Fortunat Guiboche Feb 2 nd 2008....

The System

Next time when you sing "Happy Birthday" and record it, pay $700 to Warner Chappell. Yup! You need .

by "Anonymous Operations"

As originally posted on: Anonymous Operations (Anony_Ops) on Twitter
March 24, 2011

May 16, 2011

"Our Rulers"

Affaire DSK

by "IOZ"

As originally posted on: Who is IOZ?
May 16, 2011

So it strikes me as somehow ironic that raping an African maid makes a man unfit to be President of the French Republic but invading an African country is completely within your rights. For the record, I do think that insofar as we are cursed to be ruled, it would be better if our rulers were not trashy hotel-maid rapists, but at the same time, I want to point out that, for instance, while neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama has ever to the best of our knowledge raped a maid, they collectively ordered the deaths of thousands and thousands of people. Nicolas Sarkozy has not to the best of my knowledge ever raped a maid; he's just, you know, started a war in Africa and left a bunch of refugees to die in a boat in the Mediterranean. Recall the adage about how criminality is really a matter of scale: kill one man, you're a murderer; kill one thousand, you're a hero. That sort of thing. You know who else never raped a maid? Hitler, that's who. I probably should have posted a "trigger warning" on this one, huh? I just . . . I mean, can we all stop pretending that we are shocked and stupefied that a powerful Western politician is a violent predatory psychopath? It sorta, like, goes with the territory.

"Those who Would Molest Me for Daring to Ignore or Ridicule Their Stupidity and Meddlesomeness"

To dream the impossible dream...

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
April 9, 2011

I'd rather keep fighting than give up. Not fighting against The State, exactly, but fighting to live life as I see fit and resisting those who would molest me for daring to ignore or ridicule their stupidity and meddlesomeness.

Even if it were proven to be impossible to defeat the notion of The State now, or forever, wouldn't it be wrong to just go along? Yes, it would. Because Statism is wrong. Nothing can ever make it right; not popularity, not utility, not preferences, fears, or opinions.

What form that resistance takes will vary between individuals, and even depending on the time that you look at each individual's life. But the resistance will go on.

May 15, 2011

"Your Government"

Dear American citizens, The IRS is illegal You are all being fucked by your government. Good luck being free.

by "Anonymous Operations"

As originally posted on: Anonymous Operations (Anony_Ops) on Twitter
April 16, 2011

The System

The following decision has been edited in terms of its original formatting.

No. 04-00-00277-CR

Leo ITZ,



The STATE of Texas,


From the County Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC8393

Honorable Mark Stroeher, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 25, 2001


Leo Itz was convicted of a third offense of driving without a license and sentenced to a $500.00 fine and fourteen days in jail. He appeals, arguing the conviction and two previous convictions are void and that his right to due process was violated because he was not served with a copy of the information. We disagree and affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Leo Itz was charged by complaint and information with operating a motor vehicle without a drivers license and having two convictions for the same offense within the previous year. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. 521.025(c)(2) (Vernon 1999). The trial court entered a not guilty plea on Itz's behalf, and the case was tried to a jury, which returned a guilty verdict. After the trial court imposed sentence, Itz filed a motion to stay execution on the judgment, alleging "the court .. was acting in total want of ... authority" because the trial judge had not filed the "anti-bribery" oath required by article XVI, section 1(b) of the Texas Constitution with the Secretary of State before taking the oath of office. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, 1(b), (e). The motion was overruled by operation of law. Itz timely appealed.

Validity of the Judgment

In his first point of error, Itz contends the judgment is void because the law enforcement officers, magistrates, prosecutors, clerks, and judges involved in his three arrests and convictions did not comply with the requirements of article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Sections (a) and (c) of that provision require all elected and appointed officers to take an oath of office before entering upon the duties of their offices. Sections (b) and (d) require elected and appointed officers to subscribe to an anti-bribery statement before taking the oath of office. Finally, sections (e) and (f) require elected and appointed officers to "file the signed [anti-bribery] statement ... with the Secretary of State before taking the Oath" of office. Tex. Const. art XVI, 1. Itz has filed in this court certified copies of documents from the Secretary of State and the Gillespie County Clerk's office relating to the signing and filing of these oaths by the officers about which he complains.

Judicial Officers

Itz contends the judges who presided over his three prosecutions for driving without a license failed to comply with the requirements of article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution and thus acted without constitutional authority. The acts of a judge who is constitutionally disqualified are void, and a defendant may challenge such a judge's authority to act for the first time on appeal. See Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Wilson v. State, 977 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Itz's first conviction for driving without a license occurred on March 11, 1999, in the Gillespie County Justice Court; Justice of the Peace Janet E. Barnes presided. The certified documents Itz filed contain Justice Barnes' January 1, 1999 oath and anti-bribery statement. The anti-bribery statement bears a stamp indicating it was filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on January 7, 1999. Itz's second conviction was on November 10, 1999, in the Fredericksburg Municipal Court; Judge Katherine F. Peake presided. Itz's records contain an oath of office signed July 12, 1996 and a certification from the Secretary of State that its office has filings pursuant to article XVI, 1 for Judge Peake dated May 22, 1996 and May 6, 1998. Gillespie County Judge Mark Stroeher presided over the present trial. The records Itz filed contain Judge Stroeher's oath of office and anti-bribery statement, both signed January 1, 1999, and the anti-bribery statement bears a stamp indicating it was filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on January 7, 1999.

The documents filed by Itz affirmatively show that each of the three judges took both constitutionally required oaths and filed the anti-bribery statement with the Secretary of State before acting in Itz's cases. With respect to Judge Peake, Itz has failed to make a prima facie showing of any type of substantive or procedural irregularity. With respect to Justice Barnes and Judge Stroeher, the documents show only that the anti-bribery statements were not marked as filed with the Secretary of State until six days after the oaths of office were taken. We decline to hold this renders the judges constitutionally disqualified from acting as judicial officers. At most, it is a procedural irregularity. The acts of a judge who is qualified and not constitutionally or statutorily disqualified are not void because of procedural irregularities. See Davis, 956 S.W.2d at 559. A defendant who challenges the authority of an otherwise qualified judge because of procedural irregularities must "object pretrial; if he does not, he may not object later or for the first time on appeal." Wilson, 977 S.W.2d at 380. Because Itz did not make this objection before trial, he has waived any complaint.

Other officers

Itz also contends that the various law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and clerks involved in his three arrests and prosecutions failed to comply with the requirements of article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. He argues that because these officers were not acting under valid authority, his arrests were unlawful, all evidence obtained as a result of the arrests was unlawfully admitted, and the prosecutions were unlawful. However, Itz failed to make any of these objections at trial, has offered no evidence these officers did not in fact take oaths of office, and cites no authority for his position that the failure to take or timely file the anti-bribery statements renders their oaths invalid or Itz's convictions void. See Williams v. State, 588 S.W.2d 593, 594-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Ex parte Grundy, 8 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928); Soderman v. State, 915 S.W.2d 605, 611-12 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd untimely filed); Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. LO-96-056 (1996); Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. DM-381 (1996). We therefore deny Itz's motion to arrest judgment and to vacate the prior judgments and overrule his first point of error.


In his second point of error, Itz contends he was denied due process because he was not served with a copy of the information. In a misdemeanor case, the information is not required to be served on the defendant unless he or his attorney demands a copy. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. 25.04 (1989). The record does not reflect such a demand was made. Moreover, the record shows Itz had actual notice of the charge against him. We therefore overrule Itz's second point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish

May 14, 2011

The System

Sometimes the Biggest Lies Are In Plain Sight

by Pete Eyre

As originally posted on:
December 13, 2010

When Ray Johnson, a character in John Ross’s Unintended Consequences, returns to the arbitrary political boundary known as the United States after decades abroad as a big-game safari guide, he was shocked at the level of victim disarmament that had grown in his absence.

Recently, something similar happened to me, but the thing that surprised me was TV.

I watched zero TV when on the road with MHD and LOT and not much between projects, and I didn’t have a TV when I lived alone, so recently, when I sat down and watched TV, I was surprised at the pretty-visible level of nationalism peppered throughout shows and commercials.

The pro-military rhetoric throughout part of the football game I watched, (replete with a segment about how FOX, disturbed that soldiers couldn’t watch professional football games on their base, built a facility where its games could be aired to show their appreciation for their “sacrifice”), was constant. B-roll of waving soldiers (who are killing strangers in the name of “freedom”) were shown. We were told the location of the base was “secret” since it’s used as a staging point for those fighting in the “war on terrorism”.

The biggest lies are in plain sight.

Those soldiers so-appreciated are paid, trained, transported, equipped and provided lifelong benefits through funds confiscated at the barrel of a gun. Still, most argue not against this stolen funding but about how much they should be allowed to steal. The political process and bureaucracy of government depersonalizes the action.

Most folks wouldn’t purposefully lie or hurt others, but if a mind absent of critical thinking is fed misinformation 24/7, fiction becomes fact. 2 + 2 = 5.

Coupled with the pro-State indoctrination peddled in gun-run schools, the mainstream media is the most-powerful vehicle advancing collectivism. So I guess I shouldn’t have been so surprised when I saw the patriot fervor on TV. It is the State that approves their licenses and regulates their content after all. And it’s a classic example of rent-seeking. By playing the game big media companies shelter themselves from competition and the State gets an obedient mouthpiece.

But the rules are changing.

Thanks to the Internet, the long-tail of alternative media options is shattering the grasp of mainstream media and exposing more people to non-State censored news and analysis. People are waking up and seeing that the emperor has no clothes.

Also, as the invasiveness of the regulatory-, police- and nanny-state grow, so too do the number of those who become disillusioned with the Statist Quo. Yet many are still caught in the matrix, unsure of where to turn or what to do. That’s where we each come in. We must be good ambassadors. Live what we preach. Our reputation is all we have.

With the Internet, gatekeepers are bypassed, geographical distances (and arbitrary political boundaries) evaporated and ideas shared. That’s why it’s paramount that it not be censored or regulated no matter how benevolent intentions may be. And why it’s been so damn cool to see our skilled friends online rise to the occasion to back Wikileaks and their simple request of transparency for those who purport to work for us.

The enemy has mischaracterized their arbitrary dictate as “law”. They have one hand in your wallet and the other under the covers on the lap of the Fed. But we have reason, truth and a dynamic, growing community active in-person and online. And we’re having an impact.

Our decentralized-nature is our greatest strength. Let’s point out those lies that are in plain sight. It may seem rough at times but the evolution is ever-upward! Along with that – if you have have any feedback pro or con, about my activism, tone or videos, let me know. I’m always looking to better my skills. Thanks!

The System

Established, Fundamental, Axioms

by "Veronica: Chapman" [a/k/a "Veronica: of the Chapman family"]

As originally posted on:
January 2009

(As simplified as I can make them, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work, tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute fundamentals)

1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.

2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess. Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say "I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily - empowering someone else to do it for me".

3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's 'democracy')

4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself. The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are 'supreme'.

5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.

6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration), etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)

7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless.

8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes 'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable) privileges.

9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else, and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)

10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM. Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.

11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT (although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').

12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total 'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen, NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.

13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If, for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered accomplices, in LAW.

(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)

Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you choose is your choice, and your responsibility.

(If this had been pointed out, during the de Menezes trial, INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS BREACH OF COMMON LAW, a lot of Police personnel - up to, and including the Home Secretary & Prime Minister - could easily have ended up behind bars. The so-called 'legal profession' did a thoroughly abysmal job - as normal. A golden opportunity, tossed into the bin of history, by virtue of plain, common or garden, useless waffle. The police were charged under the Health & Safety Act. What utter rubbish! They should have been charged under Common Law)

Veronica: of the Chapman family
(January, 2009)