Climate Scientist Danny Hillis Warns of Current Geoengineering At TED Conference Vancouver

Climate Scientist Warns Against Geoengineering At TED Conference Vancouver

By Derrick Broze

The topic of geoengineering the climate continues to break into the mainstream as climate engineers debated the controversial topic at the latest TED talks in Vancouver. 

The annual TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference is designed to facilitate conversation around “ideas worth spreading.” Founded in 1984, the TED organization distributes free talks related to technology, design, science, culture, and academia. The annual TED conference in Vancouver, Canada, TED Global, and regional TEDx events are increasingly celebrated and consumed by a growing portion of the world thanks to the viral spread of popular talks. The topics are occasionally controversial – sometimes leading to them being banned by TED – and this years conference in Vancouver was no exception.

At the 2017 TED talks, several speakers discussed the almost-mainstream idea of geoengineering the planet to combat climate change. Business Insider reported:

On Wednesday morning, computer theorist Danny Hillis got onstage and proposed a series of ideas for what he called a “thermostat to turn down the temperature of the earth.”

Hillis, the founding partner of tech innovation company Applied Invention, rattled off a number of geoengineering concepts that have popped up in recent years, including building giant parasols in space, putting fizzy water into the ocean, and sending chalk into the atmosphere so that it can reflect sunlight and theoretically cool down the earth.

The science of geoengineering has increasingly become a part of the public conversation around climate change and an ever-controversial topic within the scientific community. Geoengineering is a type of weather modification (or climate engineering) which has been researched, but, until recently, has been considered too unpredictable to attempt on a large scale.  According to a 2013 congressional report:

The term ‘geoengineering’ describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.

In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) (or albedo-modification) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface. Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.

Hillis told the audience at TED 2017 that in order to “undo the effects of the CO2 we’ve already released” we would have to put chalk in the sky at a rate of 10 teragrams a year. Once Hillis finished singing the praises of geoengineering, climate scientist Kate Marvel was give a chance to respond. Marvel is an associate research scientist at Columbia University, as well as a Science Fellow at Stanford.

“Danny, you seem so nice, and I hope we can be friends, and you terrify me,” she said.

“Geoengineering, she said, is like going to a doctor who says ‘You have a fever, I know exactly why you have a fever, and we’re not going to treat that,” Business Insider reported. “We’re going to give you ibuprofen, and also your nose is going to fall off.’ It is, Marvel believes, a band-aid for the problem accompanied by consequences we can’t currently imagine.”

Marvel also stated that reducing the amount of sunlight is “problematic” and would not do anything about other environmental dangers, such as ocean acidification. Marvel was followed by another call for geoengineering from University of Oxford researcher Tim Kruger. The King of Global Warming Doomsday Prophecies himself, Al Gore, said that geoengineering could be a possible time in the future, but not as the only solution.

Marvel is correct that the consequences of geoengineering are not currently known. However, there have been a number of studies which have lead to disastrous possibilities. Most recently, in late October 2016, the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity released a report examining the problems of geoengineering and whether or not humanity will be forced to employ the practice in an attempt to halt climate change. The report,  On Climate Geoengineering In relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Potential Impacts and Regulatory Framework, found that geoengineering “would reduce the impacts of climate change on biodiversity at the global level,” but also cause unpredictable rain and temperature distribution on the local level.

The U.N. report states that the effectiveness of geoengineering is “uncertain” and “in reducing the scale of one problem, other new problems would be created. Thus, there would also be risk of the geoengineering action also contributing to other drivers affecting biodiversity loss and ecosystem integrity.” Dr. Phillip Williamson, lead author of the report and scientist with the Natural Environment Research Council in the United Kingdom, says he is skeptical of geoengineering.

The U.N. concludes that although Solar Radiation Management may possibly slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, but not without “unacceptable climatic impacts elsewhere.” One particular method of SRM involves injecting aerosols into the atmosphere via airplanes. The study found that the use of sulphur aerosols for SRM would be associated with a risk of stratospheric ozone loss. There is also a risk that stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) would have a small impact on climate change but could lead to negative impacts on biodiversity.

The geoengineering TED talks were preceded by a concerning announcement from Harvard related to an upcoming real-world climate engineering experiment. At the recent “Forum on Solar Geoengineering Research,” Harvard engineer (and consistent proponent of climate engineering) David Keith announced his plan for a new project that will assess the risks and benefits of deploying geoengineering on a large public scale. Keith and fellow engineer, Frank Keutsch, will research the benefits and risks by spraying particles such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate from a high-altitude balloon over Arizona during 2018.

David Keith said there will be a multi-phase plan for research and conducting real-world testing within the next 18 months. Keith also called for stratospheric spraying within three years and continuous spraying for at least a century. Technology Review reports that Keith said his team is already in the process of “engineering design work with Arizona test balloon company World View Enterprises,” and discussing the “appropriate governance structure for such an experiment.”

“In terms of governance, they have distributed, there’s more actors involved than we expected there would be,” Keith stated. “There’s more need to understand and to speak openly about the associated risks and what they imply for governance.” The very notion of unilateral geoengineering means that other countries could face potential risks. This creates a need for new governance structures, or possibly, a global government. This makes the Trump administration’s support for geoengineering curious since President Trump has been very outspoken against “globalists.”

Yet again, the U.S. government is planning to enact a possibly dangerous, untested technology on not only the American population, but the entire world. There are realistic solutions that do not involve edicts from states and statists. If the free hearts and minds of this world – the free humans – recognize the opportunity for a radical change in individual behavior we could erase the unsustainable, destructive industries that damage the planet and all life. If we choose to stand by and not change our own habits and communities, we are giving the state the impetus to act. We are sending the message that the people cannot organize and accomplish goals based on mutual aid. It’s time to stand together in defense of the life on this planet.

We need to spread the word about the dangers of geoengineering and the history of weather modification. Please share this article far and wide.

(For more details on the dangers of Geoengineering and the history of weather modification, please read this full article)

Image Credit:

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for and the founder of the Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spiritualityand Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.


Other Danny Hillis TED Talks

Cable TV News exposed as Fake News – Operation Northwood

“[Controlling what people think] is our job” – MSM

Operation Northwoods –
Proof US Government
Could Harm Americans
From William Douglasfindtruth38@hotmail.com12-17-1

Could US Leaders Actually Be Capable Of Instigating Attacks Like Those Of 911?
Many people believe that the Bush administration took advantage of 9-11 in order to launch the war and impose repressive measures at home.
In reality Washington did not just take advantage of 9-11. Rather, it instigated 9-11, just as the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed instigating fake attacks on Americans in 1962 – to create a climate where military action seems justified.
As for the campaign of repression at home – with its nightmarish Homeland Security, its assault on legal guarantees, and its star chamber Military Tribunals – this campaign is in part intended to silence the millions of people who suspect that Bush and other top leaders were involved in some way in making 9-11 happen.
Some people ask us: how can you believe that our leaders are capable of such cynicism, murderous cruelty, ruthlessness and dishonesty?
That is why Operation Northwoods is so important. For we now know that in 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed staging phony attacks to destroy U.S. property and killing Cuban refugees and U.S. citizens, in order to create a wave of indignation and rage, to justify an invasion of Cuba that could have killed hundreds of thousands of people and possibly led to nuclear war.
Below are excerpts from and comments on the Joint Chiefs’ Operation Northwoods document. It was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
At the end of this article, we have provided links to the document, which we set up in standard WebPage format (easy to read). You can also read it in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, via a link to the National Security Archive, at George Washington University.
Northwoods is reality.
The Northwoods proposal was authorized and tentatively approved by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. It had a very clear purpose:
“1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request* of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which could provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Cuba.
“2. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that the proposed memorandum be forwarded as a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes.” See Operation Northwoods, page i,
The aim was disinformation, to create the false impression that Cuba had viciously attacked Americans:
“5. The suggested courses of action appended to Enclosure A are based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of heightened US-Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances. World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.” See Operations Northwoods, page 2,
The document argued that Cuba should be attacked within a few months, before it could join the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. Thus the plan was not only deceitful and murderous, including, as we shall see, towards Americans, it was also cowardly:
“6. While the foregoing premise can be utilized at the present time it will continue to hold good only as long as there can be reasonable certainty that US military intervention in Cuba would not directly involve the Soviet Union.” See Operations Northwoods, page 2,
The Northwoods document was to be forwarded to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. McNamara claims he never saw it; but then, he also claims that during the 1960s he was opposed to the Vietnam War. Tell that to the families of the dead GIs whom he exhorted to kill the dead Vietnamese. I wouldn’t believe Robert McNamara if he said it was Monday:
“8. It is recommended that:
“A. Enclosure A together with its attachments should be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense for approval and transmittal to the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project.” See Operations Northwoods, page 3,
Northwoods recognized that the best justification for attacking Cuba was to trick Cuba into attacking U.S. forces first:
“1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate [sic!] provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba, a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 o [this may be a ‘c’] could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.” See Operations Northwoods page 7,
But the document also called for staging phony Cuban attacks on U.S. installations:
“(5) Blow up ammunition inside the [Guantanamo] base; start fires. (6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage). (7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base onto base. Some damage to installations.” See Operations Northwoods page 8,
Some of the proposed attacks could be used to portray the Cubans as heartless monsters:
“It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.’ See Operations Northwoods page 10,
While the plan does not actually call for killing the college students mentioned above – only seeming to kill them – the Joint Chiefs did suggest the possibility of killing some Cuban refugees, or at least wounding them, as long as there was plenty of publicity to make it all worthwhile:
“The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.” See Operations Northwoods page 9,
Or perhaps some U.S. servicemen could be blown up:
“3. A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.” See Operations Northwoods page 8,
Nothing personal, you know. All part of the game.
Note that in #3, above, the Joint Chiefs seem to take it for granted that the sinking of the Maine, which was used to justify the Spanish-American war, was a staged incident. Keep in mind that to this day – over a hundred years after the incident – the U.S. military refuses to publicly acknowledge that the Maine was destroyed in a Northwoods-style provocation, though they privately know this was the case.
Northwoods called for elaborate schemes to create the proper illusions:
“6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.” See Operations Northwoods page 9,
There is a phrase in the text above that could be used to sum up to the morality of Northwoods as a whole: “The only drawback to this scheme appears to be security.” Thus the Joint Chiefs recommended that:
“b. This paper NOT be forwarded to commanders of unified or specified commands. c. This paper NOT be forwarded to US officers assigned to NATO activities. d. This paper NOT be forwarded to the Chairman, US Delegation, United Nations Military Staff Committee.” See Operations Northwoods page 3,
There were additional plans for the staging of violent incidents which are not included in the Northwoods document:
“3. It is understood that the Department of State also is preparing suggested courses of action to develop justification for US military intervention in Cuba.” See Operations Northwoods page 3,
We have prepared the text of Northwoods in WebPage format. Some people find this easier to navigate than the format in which the National Security Archive posted it, which is Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) file.
You may read the document in either format. If you are in doubt, use the WebPage format. It’s easier to navigate.
For WebPage format click here or go to
For George Washington University’s National Security Archive page for Operation Northwoods, click here or go to or go directly to the Adobe Acrobat PDF file at:


US Code Proves All U.S., Inc Child Support Orders are Pre-Paid by the Court

NOW, THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR…. Arbitrators determine remedy in these unconstitutional courts. Not a jury of peers.

There are so many children harmed in family separations in the UNITED STATES, INC. One of the many harmful aspects is when one parent does not and/or cannot pay for Child Support.  From stories I have heard from friends, these courts tend to PRE-position themselves as the man is “wrong” and “harmful” with a severe anti-masculine bias.

The courts likely do this to stop any direct action that men tend perform as negative to access to their children.  That itself was very disturbing a psychological pattern of the court agents/officers and agencies.

One way that we would put our foot down for the betterment of child, the betterment of our ex’s, the betterment of the situation, and even the betterment of the court, is to READ THIS ONE LAW:

Title 28 U.S. Code §1738B – Full faith and credit.

Full Faith and Credit is a term of art and is underwriting.  Anything that requires the FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES is a debt negotiable instrument worth itself as an accounting line item.

(b)DEFINITIONS.In this section:
  (1)The term “child” means—
    (A) a person under 18 years of age; and
(B) a person 18 or more years of age with respect to whom a child support order has been issued pursuant to the laws of a State.

Clearly, a “child” means a legal “PERSON” -which means an artificial corporate trade name insurance franchise.

Also, We find that Child Support Orders are Issued, as in like negotiable instruments are ORDERED and ISSUED, by U.C.C. Article 3 – Negotiable Instruments § 3-104 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT and § 3-105 ISSUE OF INSTRUMENT.

Compounding, we next see that all these WORDS in the “LEGAL CODE” are UPPER CASE, pointing to DOG LATIN, BASTARDIZED ENGLISH – The Justinian Deception.

(2) The term “child’s State” means the State in which a child resides.

This translates into The Child is Property of the State because they have a LEGAL FICTIONAL PRESENCE that “resides” in the DC Municipal Corporation of THE STATE.  The child is property of the State.  We see how this is true in the full disclosure meaning of a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE.

All the human rights abuses that occur by U.S. Child Protective Services is all the reason to have them completely shut down forever.  Those “agencies” are kidnapping for profit, no joke.

(4)The term “child support” means a payment of money, continuing support, or arrearages or the provision of a benefit (including payment of health insurance, child care, and educational expenses) for the support of a child.

We know that MONEY means LEGAL TENDER via Title 31 U.S.C. §5103, and the Washtenaw County PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND Insurance Coverage Documentation.

(5)The term “child support order”—
  (A) means a judgment, decree, or order of a court requiring the payment of child support in periodic amounts or in a lump sum; and
    (i) a permanent or temporary order; and
    (ii) an initial order or a modification of an order.

Another name for an “Order of a Court” is called a WARRANT.  An “order of a Court” is literally a “Money” Order -by U.C.C. Article 3 -Negotiable Instruments!

According to the State of Washington Department of Treasury:

A warrant — or check — is a legal, negotiable instrument drawn against the state treasury in place of a commercial bank. State agencies disburse funds to vendors or other payees by issuing warrants from the state treasury that bear the State Treasurer’s unique Routing Number and are signed by the State Treasurer.

Because the responsibility for authorizing and producing warrants resides with individual state agencies, inquiries about a payment made by a state agency should be directed to the issuing agency.

The Child Support Order is an order of the Court (the state agency) disbursing funds (child support money order checks) to vendors (contestants/defendants/plaintiffs) by issuing (28 U.S.C. § 1738B) a warrant (the child support order) from the state treasury.  Every Child Support Order has the State Treasurer’s unique Routing Numbers attached.

The authority for issuing debt against the “STATE STATUTORY CITIZENS” and producing warrants (child support money orders) resides with the highly unconstitutional family courtrooms (which are NOT courts; as they are merely administrative bankers offices).

(6)The term “contestant” means—
  (A)a person (including a parent) who—
    (i) claims a right to receive child support;
    (ii) is a party to a proceeding that may result in the issuance of a child support order; or
    (iii)  is under a child support order; and
  (B) a State or political subdivision of a State to which the right to obtain child support has been assigned.

This section of the legal code is highly disturbing.  It calls everyone a CONTESTANT, as if the child’s life were some kind of fictional game.

Furthermore, the state has the authority to pay itself for anything it deems reasonable no matter how unreasonable.  There does not seem to be any recourse to criminality in the system designed into the legal code here.  The State seems to be enabling itself to issue unlimited amounts of debt to itself against the “STATUTORY CITIZENS” of the state.

(7)The term “court” means a court or administrative agency of a State that is authorized by State law to establish the amount of child support payable by a contestant or make a modification of a child support order.

A “court” refers to a “real” common law court that simply does not exist in the UNITED STATES, INC.   so “court” was crossed out for clarity purposes.  These “family courtrooms” are ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES!!!  They have no lawful “judicial” jurisdiction.

We move out of DEFINITIONS into other Processes and Arrangements.

(c) Requirements of Child Support Orders.A child support order made by a court of a State is made consistently with this section if—
  (1) a court that makes the order, pursuant to the laws of the State in which the court is located and subsections (e), (f), and (g)—
    (A) has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter and enter such an order; and
    (B) has personal jurisdiction over the contestants; and
  (2) reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given to the contestants.

Court of a State does not have jurisdiction to ENTER such a MONEY ORDER, however, if it does, the court is simply issuing   a debt ON BEHALF OF THE CONTESTANT!!!!   It is the Contestants job to deposit the CHILD SUPPORT MONEY ORDER IN THE BANK…  the funds are literally drawn against the STATE TREASURY DEBT UNDERWRITING FACILITY -as documented by the STATE OF WASHINGTON – TREASURY.

The word PERSONal -is in “PERSONAL JURISDICTION”- refers to the artificial corporation person.  PERSON is another name for an INSURANCE FRANCHISE of operating a HUMAN BEING within their fraudulent legal fictional debt slavery system.


This entire section refers to “ISSUING” warrant money orders against the State Treasury 10 times.

In a proceeding to establish, modify, or enforce a child support order, the forum State’s law shall apply except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).

In interpreting a child support order including the duration of current payments and other obligations of support, a court shall apply the law of the State of the court that issued the order.

In an action to enforce arrears under a child support order, a court shall apply the statute of limitation of the forum State or the State of the court that issued the order, whichever statute provides the longer period of limitation.

First, CHOICE OF LAW refers to the fact that Family Courts are ENTIRELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that using a Family Court is ENTIRELY the choice of the contestants.

Second, IN GENERAL refers to the Family Courtroom as a MILITARY PROCEEDING.  They have Gold Fringed Flags meaning statutory commercial military.

Third, the Family Courtroom is referred to as merely a FORUM for STATE’S “legal code.”  And yes, there you have in folks, in their own words.

Next, “a court shall apply the law of the State of the court that issued the order.”  Here is definitive evidence that the LAW OF STATE OF ISSUANCE OF ORDER is a CHOICE OF LAW.  It is not REQUIRED to be followed…  it can only be followed voluntarily.  Again, they issued these negotiable instruments for out benefit, so we need to use them.

and lastly, “a court shall apply the statute of limitation of the forum State or the State of the court that issued the order…” means that we only have a limited amount of time to collect the state issued warrant to pay for the child support.


If you have an attorney, you may ask and they are required by law to tell you how to do it.  If they don’t and/or they can’t, their legal incompetence is no excuse.  Either Attorneys are knowingly committing these scams or their are criminally negligent of the scam the courts are committing.

Next, Get a copy of the CHILD SUPPORT MONEY ORDER.  It can be tendered with ANY of the following institutions:

  • any Federal Reserve Bank
  • the State Treasury
  • any bill (which they are required to return the over payment).
  • and with the ISSUING FAMILY COURT.

These should be made via U.C.C. Article 3 Negotiable Instruments – §3-501 PRESENTMENT.  This is done the same way as depositing any “check” as every check is a “warrant” if it came from the state!

To deposit a CHILD SUPPORT MONEY ORDER, sign the back:

without prejudice, all rights reserved
by:/s/   (your autograph)©/, in propria persona
(first)-(m.i./middle): (last name), in propria persona, American National, authorized representative U.C.C. 3-402b1

All these autograph additions are important BTW.  If you don’t know them, you should.

“without prejudice” means that the government corporation cannot apply codes that you haven’t explicitly agreed to.

“all rights reserved” means that your basic human rights are not waived for any reason.

“by:/s/” means that you are a living breathing human being.  placing your signature before an “X:” means that one is deceased.

“©” always copyright ones signature as it is the copyrighted artwork that makes debt worth anything, according to law.  and Attorneys use WITH PREJUDICE to steal the signature artwork on WARRANTS such as explicitly as Family Courts do!

“in propria persona” means that one is signing “in our proper human-identity.”

Lawful names are formatted NOT in upper case.  UPPER CASE NAMES are reserved for legal fictions.  so the name JOHN QUINCY DOE would become john-quincy: doe.

Finally “authorized representative U.C.C. 3-402b1” has so much importance in cannot even be described with words.  This means that you -as the human being- are not responsible for the debts of the ARTIFICIAL PERSON CONTESTANT.

Why this is important is that all CHILD SUPPORT ORDER is issued against the ARTIFICIAL PERSON CONTESTANT.  But the warrants-orders are also worth the debt they claim on them.  So, being the authorized representative of the warrant means that the ARTIFICIAL PERSON is liable for “paying it” rather than the Human Authorized Representative.

Put another way, The ARTIFICIAL PERSON CONTESTANT is a second you.  It is a corporation that is designed to Represent you within their LEGAL FICTIONAL game.  They even call people CONTESTANTS like a game.  The second corporate “you” is a trade name.   It acts in DEBT COMMERCE so you don’t have to.  Their ARTIFICIAL PERSON represents you within THEIR legal debt slavery system.

Being AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE means that they court CANNOT hold anything but the ARTIFICIAL PERSON accountable for the DEBT…  and issuing debt is very very easy.  Anyone can issue any amount they want.  Debt is just an accounting line item.

So, call the courtrooms out.  Call the Attorneys out of their scam.  Make a U.C.C. Article 3 § 3-501 Presentment of the CHILD SUPPORT MONEY ORDER to the FORUM of STATE LAW.

The FAMILY COURTROOM FORUM OF STATE LAW created the debt, they are liable for it…   for the benefit of your child.

Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth about Marriage Certificates

The nature of MARRIAGE LICENSES in this article applies to EVERY nation operating as a CORPORATION with BAR Attorneys.

And congratulations to all LGBTQx: we have won the right for non-sexual ARTIFICIAL PERSON CORPORATE TRADE NAMES to now form a business “partner”-ship (of state) together for the benefit of the corporation pretending to be a government.

These “marriage licenses” are merely debt insurance products enabling the STATE CORPORATION to create as much debt-money-tender from the negotiable instrument as possible…  and in the process steal our relationship energies!  That’s why relationship become noticeable more difficult after marriage….  the STATE CORPORATION is draining the relationship energy by being a third party, and acting uncaringly (rehypothecating the debt to near unlimited amounts) -quite literally- against the other two parties to the marriage license contract; parties that are mere artificial person corporations for being UPPER CASE NAMES.

Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth about Marriage Certificates

Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth
by Virgil Cooper

Distributed under Fair Use for documenting what a (Same Sex) MARRIAGE LICENSE is and looks like: a Bank Note

Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau….

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26½ years, filed for divorce. We had seven (7) children: five (5) daughters and two (2) sons. Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five years old. At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.

I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25. I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license. She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona. He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states — but there are differences. One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states. The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of Louisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a “dotted line” they will have to add in their own minds. The state’s marriage license is “strictly secular,” he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a “dotted line” meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other “dotted line.” He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the case in the secular realm of the state’s marriage license contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually “joined” as business partners, not in any religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each other by another “dotted line.”

The picture he was trying to “paint” was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a “dotted line” merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.

Marriage License
Secular Contract Diagram
(primary party)
(secondary party) (secondary party) .

He further mentioned that this “religious overtone” is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been “deputized” by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a “privileged business enterprise” various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is “Principles of Community Property,” by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have “borne fruit.”

Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau’s administrative Assistant. He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself – the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is “the privilege to be regulated by statute.” He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes,and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the

marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along – even though the husband and wife didn’t realize that.

My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract.

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed “contract.” Such a contract with the State is said to be a “specific performance” contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this.

He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” – meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the contract bearing fruit,” he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don’t offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children – the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results the contract continues in existence. The “divorce” is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and

conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls “divorce” a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions. He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State.

His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, “You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license.”

I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the marriage license. The marriage license as we know it didn’t come into existence until after the Civil War and didn’t become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages “abrogated.”

Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.

Original message from Virgil Cooper:

Ron Paul Interviews Julian Assange: “Going After Wikileaks Because They Humiliated the CIA”

Wikileaks is being called a NON-STATE Intelligence Service.  Investigative Journalists investigating Human Right Crimes and analyzing it is called JOURNALISM.

By this new definition of “INTELLIGENCE SERVICES” as meaning “FREEDOM OF SPEECH,”  all news -e.g. Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, FOX News, CNN, RT, BBC, Al-Jeezira, etc- are Intelligence Services.

Investigative Journalists publish news publicly and use it for exposing criminal governmental service corporations.

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES keep the news private and use it for their own advantages.

For the reason that these NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, are INCORPORATED within a Parent governmental corporation, e.g. UNITED STATES INC, RUSSIA INC, ENGLAND INC, CHINA INC, etc, then these NEWS ORGANIZATIONS not reporting the full extent of governmental crimes for their own benefit would be thus a STATE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.

Freedom of Speech -as defined by the Constitution- is about human speech.  However, moving from the Lawful system to the STATUTORY CORPORATE LEGAL FICTIONAL SYSTEM (with their own Incorporated Constitution from 1871, and Statutory Constitution from 1938), the Freedom of Speech has been re-defined as the “right to issue debt”, as per CITIZENS UNITED v F.E.C.  Debt is the only “freedom of speech” that there is within the legal system.  Everything is made into DEBT-EQUITY by attorneys world wide, and they simply assume that Corporate Personhood and/or DEBT can/will protect them from the obviousness of the human rights abuses of what debt actually is: SLAVERY.

The Attorneys for the “News Organizations” State Intelligence Services are provenly primarily working for THE STATE CORPORATION.  For this reason, all NEWS ORGANIZATION ATTORNEYS literally refuse to let anything TOO criminal to come out about attorneys lest it expose their position as colluding to keep news from the public.

Ron Paul Interviews Julian Assange: “Going After Wikileaks Because They Humiliated the CIA”

Mac Slavo    April 28th, 2017


Dr. Ron Paul puts things in perspective – the outlaw Julian Assange, and his often-targeted Wikileaks organization, are not a threat against national security, but an embarrassment to its many shady dealings.

via the Ron Paul Institute:

Wikileaks Founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange joins the Liberty Report to discuss the latest push by the Trump Administration to bring charges against him and his organization for publishing US Government documents. How will they get around the First Amendment and the Espionage Act? The US government and the mainstream media — some of which gladly publish Wikileaks documents — are pushing to demonize Assange in the court of public opinion. Wikileaks is registered as a 501(c)3 organization in the US. Find out more about the organization and how you can help:

Julian Assange Speaks Out: The War On The Truth

Read more:

Ron Paul Defends Assange: “Don’t Allow This President To Declare War On the Truth”

The Mystery of Wikileaks’ Cryptic “Vault 7”: Do You Know What This Means?

BREAKING: Julian Assange Suggests MURDERED DNC STAFFER Seth Rich Was Wikileaks Source: “We Have To Understand How High The Stakes Are In the United States”

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

CPS seizes child after parents challenge ADHD diagnosis

CPS can only “take” children based upon the jurisdiction of the artificial person BIRTH CERTIFICATE.  The child is surety for the JUDGEMENT DEBT ORDER by the Courtroom.

I know attorneys who work in Family Courtrooms.  They say that the Family Courtrooms are the MOST Unconstitutional courts in the Governmental Services Corporation.

Such CPS fraud can only be persisted with the attorney-supported deception/confusion between the ARTIFICIAL PERSON and the human being.

We see here public testimony of the crimes by CPS and why they need to be shuttered immediately for such slavery crimes.

CPS seizes child after parents challenge ADHD diagnosis

Image: CPS seizes child after parents challenge ADHD diagnosis

(Natural News) An Ohio couple, Christian and Katie Maple, lost custody of one of their children after they disagreed with the school’s mental health assessment of their child.

Camden Maple, a seven-year-old boy, has five siblings and enjoys Star Wars, Pokémon, football, video games, and Legos. He loves to write stories and draws comic books. While this sounds like an ordinary, creative, imaginative American little boy who can, according to his mom, be “rambunctious” at times, his school said that he needed mental health help.

While the school diagnosed him with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), his parents, who know him better than anyone else, believe that his “rambunctious” actions stem mostly from boredom and not being challenged in the classroom. Camden has been tested a full grade above his current one and often finishes assignments before the rest of the class. When he spends the extra time doodling, Camden gets punished for his creativity.

Does that make him a disobedient or bad child? According to administrators at the public Bowman Primary School in Lebanon, Ohio, it does. They insisted that Camden is “mentally unstable” and needs professional mental health assistance to deal with his disability.

“We as parents do not have the problems the school claims to have with him, at home. We know how to deal with a rambunctious 7 year old, but the school is content with making him believe that he is a bad child; we disagree,” the Maples said.

CPS seizes little boy after a twisted joke at school

Following an incident at school, Christian and Katie were called to pick up their son. He had been a little disruptive in class and told one of the school counselors that he wanted to “erase himself from the earth” because he was a bad kid.

Instead of seeking professional mental health help, the Maples decided to have an extended conversation with their son first, sorting out the issues on a family level. As reported by his parents, there was no reason for concern. During their long talk, Camden explained that he did not want to hurt himself and just said it because he was upset and wanted to see what the counselor would say. His parents added that before this statement, Camden never said anything about harming himself.

The school thinks he is ADHD; we as parents disagree,” the Maples explained. “We believe that it stems mostly from boredom and not being challenged in the classroom. The school has tried on several occasions to get us to have him diagnosed, so that he can be medicated.”

The Maples made suggestions to his teachers about how to handle Camden. They explained that Camden doodles or becomes restless because he is bored, not because he has ADHD. Their comments and suggestions all got ignored, and the school decided to call Child Protective Services (CPS), accusing them of “health neglect.”

After several visits to their home, eight police officers surrounded the couple’s house on March 3, 2017, and took Camden away based on false accusations and ADHD diagnosis. Rather than addressing the issues – by skipping a grade or giving him extra assignments – the CPS abducted a healthy, little boy from his loving family, stamped him with the label of a mental disease, and put him on damaging ADHD medication and mandatory therapy.

Camden never showed any signs of depression or the intention to hurt himself or others. He is just too smart for his age and bored. Nonetheless, the school called the CPS when the Maples did not comply with their demand to get their child diagnosed with ADHD and medicated.

The Maples are still fighting to get their son back and wonder if they fell victim to a money greedy school that wanted funding by having him diagnosed as a special needs child.

Has the world gone mad? Find more twisted news stories at

Sources include: