We must get used to expecting service rather than asking for help with things. If we ask for help, we are putting ourselves into subjection, a position of servitude, relinquishing authority. We make requests for service, not assistence or help of any kind. It is appropriate for children to demonstrate subjection to parents, asking them(parents) for help or assistence but it is not apprpriate for adults to ask for help from children. If we ask, "Will you do me a favor?" we are asking "Will you do me this service?" and is a way of getting answers and things without being overbearing yet not putting ourselves into subjection to the one doing the giving, I think. Technicalities, sometimes it is all in the technicalities and so some miner details need to be taken very seriously until we get everything in order and miner slips of the tongue do not invite threat...a day shall come when no such threat exists. Speaking of which, so often we have experienced just the viewing of entertainment as a doorway for spirits to enter. A simple observation must not be mistaken as an invitation. As responsible sovereigns we have every right and obligation to examine the spirit of all things that we may determine their appropriateness to the human experience. We should not dwell in ignorance nor be under threat simply for leaving a state of ignorance.
The next morning I awake slowly, feeling better still but not yet completely healed. I am given the brief vision glimpse of a buck and a doe playing in a field together. Warm joy fills me. As I go about my morning more realizations come to me as I realize God had no right to make promises to Isreal. She had already chosen a land that pleased her: the lush, rich green of the Eastern United States. She had already chosen a people and endowed them with understanding of the pricinciples of Sovereignty; such tribes as the Mohicans. The Constitution is evidence of their influence and what those who appreciated it wanted, however white men did not understand the principles fully, were already in a state and consciousness of servitude and so The United States of Sovereign Peoples did not survivie it's infancy. It is beggining to. She is etrayed by the form He chose to have her dwell in, some of which makes her happy, some of which doesn't. But She is already invested. And while He would prefer other forms, He must take the one which pleases her and She asserts Her Sovereignty over the affairs He created for Himself. He must be in subjection and accept the lesson. It is Her people who will govern the affairs He created. A woman is faithful, just and righteous in her nature if she is empowered. But He must have no emotional investment in the affairs He created or She is forced to bring upon them destruction. They both know this. many things are occuring to me: a husband's duty to honor his wife vs the scriptural right as her lord and master to do so and cause her to suffer should another choose to. Well, if He had been doing an appropriate job of it, another wouldn't be driven to do it or be given the opportunity to sneak in the back door to do it, so to speak. Time to allow things to come rolling in gently, quietly, patiently but assuredly. It is She who stated it would be given to another. That is the trick to "hearing" prophesy that was recorded; hearing the various voices within it. It does not take bigger guns to win a war, but a stronger will than your opponent. It is will that moves the world. Hers is greater and She lends it to Him, that Her will be done, not His.
One must first make the choices of a Sovereign and then they will be treated as a Sovereign.
To be a free Sovereign, one must stand alone as a Sovereign upon principle with confidence and the will to stand upon that principle. It must know when to be still and when to take action, when to speak and when to be quiet, when to retreat and when to strike out. It cannot complain nor base it's rights upon past actions "I did this for you now you must do this for me", this is blackmail, setting a standard of needing to earn worthiness. One must know their worthiness and assert their rights based upon this alone.
Sovereignty does not need to be recognized or affirmed by anyone else-that would make it dependent upon others for it's sovereignty, thus losing it's sovereignty. Sovereignty does not declare it's sovereignty. We recognize sovereignty when we see it but it is not dependent upon our recognition for it to recognize it's own existence. Sovereignty does not imitate it's enemy to prove it's self like them their equal, or it becomes it's own enemy. It does not seek a place at the table because it does not wish to be one of those who sits at the table as a representation of it's right to exist. It does not sit as one of many, it sits as one among many. It sits alone at a table that may also be filled with other people.
The constitution does not give rights, it is simply stating an awareness of rights we have only if we ourselves are aware of these rights. It does not hitch it's wagons to others or join up with them, it simply walks with them for a while.
---------------------------------------------
Good afternoon and thank you for writing.
Please bear with me as I describe my perspective/beliefs to you. Our country's founders, writers of the constitution, wrote that we have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that these rights are God given and inalienable. I believe this to be true. Liberty, or freedom, is only present if responsibilities are appropriately assigned and appropriately taken. How my objections, based upon these principles, apply to my specific situation and the state's child support enforcement agencies follows:
In the State of Maine, I have 4 child-support cases. Two are in reference to my youngest children and involving one man who chose to be their father. This man was abusive and a danger to the children, so his rights have been revoked. The State of Maine, as an entity, however, is persuing a perceived responsibility to financially support these children. I find this imbalanced and a violation of the right to freedom, not only how it applies to him but especially as it applies to myself and my children. This persistence in an erroneous belief that he is responsible for financially supporting these children limits both myself and my children's freedom, safety and over-all well-being. I have a restraining order stating I do not need to notify him of our place of residency. Well, if the State of Maine persists, he will know exactly which state we live in and probably at least which county. This persistence by the state ties me to him if I am in a position needing state services, which also limits my liberty, freedom of movement without question. It endangers our lives, which it has no right to endanger but should instead be protecting. And it absolutely affects our right to happiness which would involve our freedom from association with him and support enforcement. I have every right to life-sustaining government services.
As for the other two cases; The State of Maine is persuing cases against me in violation of my God given rights which are also constitutional. I grew up abused and so logically only understood and got involved in abusive relationships. Two of my abusers, fathers to my children, got an illegally applied restraining order removing my children from my custody. (I have consulted a lawyer who is the one who informed me that the restraining order was illegally applied to my situation. She did not work in the circuit, however, so she herself couldn't help me with the case at the time). Knowing my ex did indeed have political connections, being undermined by my own family (which would only logically happen as they are abusive), and completely struck by PTSD, I gave up on everything. 10 years later I am still not allowed to visit my children as the visitation which is court ordered is not being respected by their fathers. All of my rights have been taken, thus it is my belief based on religious, political and intellectual conviction I absolutely have NO responsibilities concerning these children, most absolutely NOT "child support". And to ask that I pay these men to abuse my children is absolutely absurd, in my opinion. The government's involvement in these cases absolutely deprives me of the right to life (in the form of life-sustaining activities such as producing a livable income), liberty (freedom of movement due to threat of losing a driver's license and freedom to choose how any money I have coming in will be spent) and the pursuit of happiness which would be found in my own freedom and that of my children.
The child support ordered in the secondly mentioned two cases was based upon temporary employment through a temp agency and sum totaled more each week than a person of my employability would even be able to make. The amounts are unreasonable on that fact alone in the least. But add to that the fact that I have never been more than temporarily employed in my entire life due to PTSD, had the PTSD compounded by the manner in which my children were taken and thus I never will be employed gainfully according to this system again. This, however, does not mean I can be deprived of my inalienable rights to life(which would mean all required to sustain it such as food, shelter and clothing), liberty (freedom to travel, freedom from threats of violence and imprisonment, and spend any resources as chosen unhindered) and pursuit of happiness (which might include the right to own property).
Based upon these religious, political, and intellectual convictions, I ask that the State of Maine's Child Support Enforcement Agencies cease any and all activities on behalf of my myself and/or my children, their fathers, and it's self.
------------------------------------------------
Notice I simply note an agreement with the statement the constitution makes rather than a dependency upon it's statement for those rights. The government has claimed ownership of all resources (land and all on it and in it) and asserts those claimed rights with might. To live freely, one must find a way to avail one's self of the resources without provoking the might to be used against it. So one uses the loopholes to avail one's self of resources without sacrificing freedom until the might is taken from the government. This method has so far called off the might from it's uses, removing threat, resulting in freedom. I was guided into these loopholes. And that is the key to first learning subjection, we learn to allow ourselves to be guided where we might not want to go and we must learn to listen to what we are being told rather than what we might think the words are implying. Subtleties, in this game, are vital.
Another key is request without expectation. Expectation makes one dependent upon fulfillment of that expectation. It creates a sense being required to fulfill the expectation, a sense of obligation, being forced to fulfill the expectation. Assuming a request will be fulfilled is also missing the mark and a form of expectation. One must simply feel a assured within themselves that what is desired will be given in one form or another and then one be open to accept the fulfillment of the request in whatever form it has taken. Will includes willingness, not being strong-willed in being stubborn or rebellious because it is will which is the true might, stronger than any muscles, gun or bomb any man might aim at you.
Sovereigns are discerning when it comes to materialism and taking on dependents. Material things in possession require maintenance and can come to own a person more than the person owns them. Dependents or those in need of service/governing also can come to a point of owning a person. The main goal of a sovereign in taking on dependents is to liberate them, train them to become independent sovereigns themselves. Material possessions are also taken on with discernment.
In the end, a sovereign knows it is not obligated to give that which another has no right to take. And a sovereign knows it cannot be held accountable for what another had no right to commit.
--------------------------------------------------
Another letter I sent that needed writing:
May 30, 2013
Attn: (name), counselor
and (to agency where counselor is employed)
To whom it may concern;
In today's counseling session I expressed to Carol Ann my intent to not continue our relationship as client and councilor, stating my reasons for my considering it inappropriate as a responsible parent. Using coercive persuasion (a form of psychological abuse and manipulation to violate my own expressed will and intention) Carol Ann dismissed my request and made me another appointment.
During my intake I was led to understand it took two meetings to come up with a preliminary assessment/ "comp" assessment and a week to complete it. We have had our two sessions. I request a certified or notarized copy of that assessment and diagnosis, which I had previewed today in Carol Ann's office, be sent to me within the week or I WILL be suing for malpractice. I do have a dated document stating my intent to discontinue the relationship, verifying what was my intention to discuss during this very session.
(name)
(address)
Detroit, Me 04929
Added in handwriting:
P.S. and yes, this does mean I am cancelling the next appointment for 6/6/2013
It does occur to me that (counselor's name)'s boasting during our session about how she can play the system, do things her way within it, using the example of being able to influence Child Welfare for or against her clients at her discretion could be construed as an implied threat to me and my children. It also occurs to me that during our first session (counselor) over stepped her bounds, usurping my parental authority, in an incident where she counseled my children without my permission, demonstrating that her presence in our lives is indeed inappropriate, that she is professionally unfit, and that as a "mandated reporter", her perceptions cannot be trusted.
Reminder: The diagnosis was that my PTSD and anxiety are purely physiological; not emotional, mental/intellectual or psychological. The disability is in my body only.
------------------------------------------------
Notice I simply note an agreement with the statement the constitution makes rather than a dependency upon it's statement for those rights. The government has claimed ownership of all resources (land and all on it and in it) and asserts those claimed rights with might. To live freely, one must find a way to avail one's self of the resources without provoking the might to be used against it. So one uses the loopholes to avail one's self of resources without sacrificing freedom until the might is taken from the government. This method has so far called off the might from it's uses, removing threat, resulting in freedom. I was guided into these loopholes. And that is the key to first learning subjection, we learn to allow ourselves to be guided where we might not want to go and we must learn to listen to what we are being told rather than what we might think the words are implying. Subtleties, in this game, are vital.
Another key is request without expectation. Expectation makes one dependent upon fulfillment of that expectation. It creates a sense being required to fulfill the expectation, a sense of obligation, being forced to fulfill the expectation. Assuming a request will be fulfilled is also missing the mark and a form of expectation. One must simply feel a assured within themselves that what is desired will be given in one form or another and then one be open to accept the fulfillment of the request in whatever form it has taken. Will includes willingness, not being strong-willed in being stubborn or rebellious because it is will which is the true might, stronger than any muscles, gun or bomb any man might aim at you.
Sovereigns are discerning when it comes to materialism and taking on dependents. Material things in possession require maintenance and can come to own a person more than the person owns them. Dependents or those in need of service/governing also can come to a point of owning a person. The main goal of a sovereign in taking on dependents is to liberate them, train them to become independent sovereigns themselves. Material possessions are also taken on with discernment.
In the end, a sovereign knows it is not obligated to give that which another has no right to take. And a sovereign knows it cannot be held accountable for what another had no right to commit.
--------------------------------------------------
Another letter I sent that needed writing:
May 30, 2013
Attn: (name), counselor
and (to agency where counselor is employed)
To whom it may concern;
In today's counseling session I expressed to Carol Ann my intent to not continue our relationship as client and councilor, stating my reasons for my considering it inappropriate as a responsible parent. Using coercive persuasion (a form of psychological abuse and manipulation to violate my own expressed will and intention) Carol Ann dismissed my request and made me another appointment.
During my intake I was led to understand it took two meetings to come up with a preliminary assessment/ "comp" assessment and a week to complete it. We have had our two sessions. I request a certified or notarized copy of that assessment and diagnosis, which I had previewed today in Carol Ann's office, be sent to me within the week or I WILL be suing for malpractice. I do have a dated document stating my intent to discontinue the relationship, verifying what was my intention to discuss during this very session.
(name)
(address)
Detroit, Me 04929
Added in handwriting:
P.S. and yes, this does mean I am cancelling the next appointment for 6/6/2013
It does occur to me that (counselor's name)'s boasting during our session about how she can play the system, do things her way within it, using the example of being able to influence Child Welfare for or against her clients at her discretion could be construed as an implied threat to me and my children. It also occurs to me that during our first session (counselor) over stepped her bounds, usurping my parental authority, in an incident where she counseled my children without my permission, demonstrating that her presence in our lives is indeed inappropriate, that she is professionally unfit, and that as a "mandated reporter", her perceptions cannot be trusted.
Reminder: The diagnosis was that my PTSD and anxiety are purely physiological; not emotional, mental/intellectual or psychological. The disability is in my body only.
No comments:
Post a Comment