The positive to neutralize the negative

A friend just sent this to me by email this evening.  I read the article in question yesterday and just shrugged and went to another article to read..... as I said today, I'm not dwelling on the negative any more and do not plan to spend more time addressing the negative, but the response that was posted was so simply well put that I had to share it.

OPPT or Co-opted? Look Before You Leap

by Zen Gardner

March 7th, 2013

 

http://www.zengardner.com/oppt-or-co-oped-look-before-you-leap/

 

Arend Lammertink on 03/08/2013 at 9:04 AM said:

 

Thanks for sharing your views. I must say that, at first, I didn’t like the idea of some trustees apparently making bold claims and decisions for me in something called a trust. However, I changed my mind.

 

I have done quite some research on the legal system, and wrote an article about the essential difference between Common Law and Roman-type civil law, which is the authority under which the legal system operates. The civil law system is organised top-down and thus you have by definition a ruler. The common law system is organised bottom-up and it derives its authority directly from We, The People:

 

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/TheFascinatingHistoryOfCivilLawVersusDivineCommonLaw

 

Now, my research shows that under current international Roman type Civil Law, virtually ALL Kings or Kingdoms – governments or states in modern language – are operated under the authority c.q. sovereignty of the Pope as the mediator between We, The People and God. So, in order to claim the freedom of all people on the planet, you, most of all, have to circumvent the (ultimate) authority of the Pope, which is a mere mediator between us and God. And, ultimately, the supposed authority of the Pope is a self-appointed authority, which is based on a falsification, the Donation of Constantine.

 

The way I see it, the OPPT, at its very core, invalidated the authority of the Pope and, thus, by extension, of the whole Roman type Civil law system. It claims that we, as a people, have no one to answer to but ourselves and the creator, and are essentially bound to common law, which is exactly the jurisdiction under which, not only the United States, but also the (former) Dutch Batavian and French Republics have been founded, even though the latter two have been overthrown by the defeat of Napoleon. Interestingly, the legal entity “Batavian Republic” still exists. It has essentially been occupied by a foreign entity, the Kingdom of The Netherlands, which derives its authority from the “holy and undivided trinity”, a.k.a. “the Vatican” and/or “The Pope”.

 

So, IMHO, the OPPT is essentially a global declaration of independence and a bill of rights. And since the declarations by the above-mentioned republics were legally valid, I see no reason why this one would not be legally valid. Yes, these republics filed their declarations in a different way, basically by publishing it and/or noticing their previous ruler which would be some king, but that does not mean that the way the OPPT published their declaration is invalid.

 

Now, of course, no one asked for your permission when founding any of the above-mentioned republics. However, none of these take away anything from you, especially regarding your rights. All they do is declare you to be free and answerable only to the creator. What you do with those rights is totally up to you.

 

In other words, the whole thing is most of all an idea. And the idea is that all people are created equal and free.

 

And I believe this is going to work, if only because of what Vicor Hugo said, “Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.”

 

Arend Lammertink on 03/08/2013 at 2:05 PM said:

 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

 

“human rights should be protected by the rule of law”

 

Civil, Roman type law, that is.

 

“no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

 

to which a person belongs….

 

So, I BELONG to to a “country or territory”??

 

“Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”

 

rights GRANTED him by the constitution or by law??

 

Compare this with the Dutch declaration of human rights of 1795, as quoted in my article:

 

1. All Humans are born with equal Rights and these Natural Rights cannot be taken away from them [i.e., are inalienable].

 

We are BORN with equal, natural rights. These are not GRANTED by any kind of ruler, be it a constitution, a government or an international body.

 

THAT is what this (OPPT) is all about. The principle of BEing free instead of having been “granted” our freedom by someone/something that is by definition a ruler; a ruler, which has NO RIGHT to grant us anything which is already ours to begin with. Our BIRTHRIGHTS have been granted to us by our Creator, which indeed is one and the same idea on which the United States has been founded.

 

And, thus, it is indeed nothing new. All that happened is that this idea has been re-worded and re-claimed within a new document and under a new legal entity  which did not exist in the 1700′s.