Corrupt Judges Void the (Imaginary Social) Contract

We trade our natural freedoms “IN RETURN” for access to the protection of the law. When that access is denied, then the contract is broken and all bets are off. There is no obligation for one side to fulfil their part when the other refuses to.

Above, I’ve condensed the point of my previous post and this one to it’s essence. There is NO rational argument against it, it would be illogical to try, and to try would mean you were trying it on and not acting rationally.

Buuuutttttt … if you think you have a good one I’d like to hear it.

In my previous post I explained the reason for confirming a judges intention with regard to your having equal access to the Law.

Just to be clear, none of this is my opinion or theory, all is easily verifiable.

This post is a continuation from the last and will explain why it’s important that, for a society to function as it should, judges must act in the prescribed way. One of the results of their failure to act accordingly has been labelled Lawful Rebellion.

The quoted text will refresh your memory as to what the Law is about. I’ll continue where that text leaves off.

The reason for asking a judge for confirmation that he considers himself still bound by his oath of office is to ascertain beforehand, the honesty, fairness and integrity that that stranger “intends” to display during the course of the hearing. Remember, this stranger that holds enough power over you with the potential to disrupt your life and your remove your liberties.

That’s it, plain and simple.

“Am I going to be treated in the prescribed manner by you and, am I getting access to the Law that I’m entitled to by my having given up some natural freedoms?”

To understand why this important you must first understand what you probably haven’t been taught about society and laws and agreements.

In our natural state there are no laws and no rights and as such each and every one of us has the ability to do and act in absolutely any way that we wish. This is all well and good until (taking it to the extreme) some big hairy arse comes along with his mates and does as he wishes and enslaves you or kills you.

So in the past, agreements were made, set in Law and enforced that curb our natural right to do SOME THINGS as we wish. This leaves us to enjoy our individual lives while exercising our remaining unaltered absolute right to live it by doing as we naturally see fit.

I quote William Blackstone … again.

The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the Law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

Once these Laws are made it’s the job of the judge listen to and make judgements when there are disputes and allegations of wrong doings. This position as you would expect requires the holder to be of impeccable character and hold the highest moral standards and unshakeable integrity. There can be no lesser qualifications for a position in society of such importance.

Why is it important?

Well, I’ll tell you why!

Because if it became common knowledge that judges made biased judgements for their own gain then, there isn’t any access to the protection of the Law for those not in the favour of that judge. This then strengthens the case in favour of those that are effectively cast out from beneath the protection of the Law, in that, if they really aren’t protected by the laws of society then, they are not in any way obliged to continue to participate or to contribute to the success of that society!

Think about that, you give up natural freedoms IN RETURN (I can’t stress enough “IN RETURN”!!!) for access to the protection of the Law. If you’re not getting what you traded your freedoms for then, WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION TO CARRY ON AT SUCH A HEAVY LOSS? Aren’t you just as well off not participating in societies mess? Keep your tax money? Keep 100% of what your labour created? Keep your time. Neither protected by nor, beholden to the Law.

(Just to clarify something, the Law DOESN’T stop others stealing and it DOESN’T stop a murderer from murdering … does it! You CANNOT guarantee (and neither can the Law) that tomorrow, one or the other won’t happen to you because you supposedly have the protection of the Law.)

Isn’t this what’s going on right now?

People are experiencing injustices at the hands of the legal system on an almost daily bases with little or no chance of recourse. This leads to the realisation that the Law isn’t protecting them and so they seek out others that the Law also hasn’t protected. As a consequence and quite naturally, sites like,, etc spring up, … but seemingly with no concrete understanding of WHY?

I am a freeman, no I am a free man, well I am a sovereign, my consent, are all saying the same thing. The Law doesn’t protect me so the contract is broken and I’m now back to my natural status within the world, defined (by Blackstone) as being able to enjoy ALL “absolute rights”.

Well when you follow it to what seems like the root, it all boils down to dishonest or at the very least incompetent judges either ignoring or forgetting the fact that people give up natural freedoms in return for access to the protection of the Law. I’m guessing that they know they’ll get away with it because most people have forgotten or haven’t been taught what they actually give up for access to that protection. Pessimistic I know but there you go.

When you don’t need to use the Law, the Law isn’t protecting you because, it doesn’t need to. So you can only know that you’ve received societies lawful justice (and so, their side of the bargain) when, you experience it through a lawful process ie. in front of a judge in a court of Law. This is why Judges must be people of unquestionable character. To deny equal access to the Law voids the agreement.

They’ve only got themselves to blame!

This leaves us with two choices as far as I can tell.

Firstly; to stick with society but insist on a “strict vetting process”, devised by THE PEOPLE (for the sake of honesty and integrity you understand), for choosing who is suitable for this position of responsibility. This will have the bonus of being indicative of what people really value and want protecting as opposed to as it is now, a minority telling the majority what it thinks we need protecting; or secondly, to totally withdraw from society and see where things go from there.

Or we can just carry on suffering under this one sided, unreasonable, illogical, invisible contract of what is essentially SLAVERY …

We trade our natural freedoms “IN RETURN” for access to the protection of the law. When that access is denied, then the contract is broken and all bets are off. There is no obligation for one side to fulfil their part when the other refuses to.


One thought on “Corrupt Judges Void the (Imaginary Social) Contract

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s