Sunday, September 13, 2009

Internet input into Bud the Oracle's situation

by Robert Menard » Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:26 pm Reposted here by Bud the Oracle who appreciates any and all constructive input and will evaluate it and use whatever i can in my situation.

Hi all, Don't know if you know who Bud Oracle is, but he claims Freeman status and is charged with selling herb. I have looked at what he is facing, and although I would not have done the same things, and would have prepared myself much better, I do applaud his courage and drive and think he deserves our support and assistance. Tio that end I have developed the following, and will be posting it on various forums he is known to visit, and if he takes the suggestions he may come out of this well on top.

Buds Defence

They will try to get you to argue about what your rights are and are not. Do not go there. It is not up for debate and can get you tied up endlessly. The argument you can win and which they do not want to fight is the one concerning the colour of right.

Did you honestly believe you had the right and was it a result not of negligence but of due diligence? Was that belief reasonable to an average man, with the same information?

You must realize that this fight is about perception and control, and the perception of control of the control of perception. You will win by fighting their control of the perception of control, if that makes any sense. By changing the publics perception of governmental control, you win. The good news is you can do things those in the government cannot, such as your WebTV and blogs and public actions.

You must find the door they do not want opened and then demand it be opened for your defense. There is something they are fearful of, and it is easy to see if you look at what they use to try and make you feel fear, anger or shame. They will try to get you to agree to argue about what your rights are and you will lose if you allow any man that power. It should not be up to debate in that court, as if the judge rules on what your rights are, and you did not grant him that power, you have lost your power to determine your own rights. It will be very tempting to argue about what your rights are and are not, but only ego will speak there and you will lose. You can't go through them, you need to deek them out, and be wise and gentle, not loud and pokey.

If you argue about what your rights are they will have you on the ropes.
If you argue about what you thought your rights were, you can dance around them.

The defence you must aim for is called 'colour of right'.
You will have to establish three things.
1- You honestly believed you had the right to do what you were doing.
2- This belief is not a result of negligence, but of diligence and positive action.
3- It is reasonable.

This is where the process will come in very handy. If you have done it properly, you will have a Courtesy Letter and the NUI and COR along with evidence of service and lack of response on their part.

These provide proof of your beliefs, that you expressed them, invited discussion and negotiation and was refused and then acted accordingly. This is all lawful and just. It also demonstrates action on your part, and not negligence. Thus the first two are established and it is the third that will send them running. Is it reasonable.

Now there are naysayers who will refuse to examine that aspect, and rely instead on a judges interpretation. However it will not be their opinion that matters, nor will you leave it up to the judge to decide if your beliefs are reasonable. You can bring witnesses to explain these beliefs, and if asked I would consider it a duty to stand and speak the truth.

You will rely on your community of Freemen and your fellow Canadians.

At this point you can ask they open the door they really want kept closed. Ask how many people have in fact made the same claims. On the record demand the government disclose just how many people out there feel as you do and have served NUI and CORs on the government. Hundreds? Thousands? How many is required for it to be deemed reasonable, and would that number grow if others knew of its existence?

Open that door and the public becomes aware of its existence, and the flood begins. They do not want that information disclosed. Their action against you is in part to silence you and discredit the movement, not only to enforce what they see as just law. If you argue your rights, you will end up in endless and unprofitable conflict and you may end up granting the power to decide your rights to another. Do not do that. Arguing about what you honestly thought your rights are, without arguing what your rights are, will bring you to the place where you can claim colour of right, if you establish that you acted diligently and your beliefs are reasonable to others in your community. This is where you can open that door they so dearly want kept closed and ignored. Force them to reveal just how many have made similar claims, and your actions and beliefs become reasonable and righteous and defended by colour of right.

This however will not alone ensure your success. You will also have to show spiritual and emotional growth. Imagine this was a computer game. Remember how when you met the Judge you felt they had acted with honour and respect? Imagine they gave you a small seed. If when you return you do not have that you will lose. What you should do is plant it, grow it, get more and when you return, you should have grown a field, collected a bushel and made a cake for them. What he did was simply grant you dignity as one human being to another. Felt good eh? Now do that with all the cops you meet, the people you talk to, even your detractors, bring that energy to bear in your interactions, and correspondence.

Also, you cannot never ever corner your opponent. And that is just what you have done. You must leave them an out, and allow them to save face. Your goal should not be their destruction, but their agreement, with their destruction assured if they fail to agree. You will have to find a path that allows all that, and it may seem like you are backing down, but all you are doing is demonstrating reasonableness and a desire for peaceful coexistence. You could agree for instance to not sell publicly anymore, and to do so only from the privacy of an office or cafe established for that purpose. I am willing to bet, that if you win the court battle by establishing you acted with colour of right, you would have little difficulty finding investors for your cafe. take careful steps, freeman bernard: clan mcmahon
god is my judge