How much are you worth ?

How much are you worth? (UK only)

Now there is always a confusion. A British 'billion' was always defined as a 'million million', whereas an America billion has always been a 'thousand million'. (The American idea is more useful, because the British version leaves a thousand million as a 'thousand million - without a specific word for it).

However, what this means is that the trillion, being based on a billion, also suffers from a lack of clarity in its specific size.

A simple Google "UK GDP" returned "UK GDP = 2.13 trillion". Is this the American trillion, or the British trillion? One is a thousand times greater than the other.

A simple Google "UK Population" returned 60,943,912.

So how much is your share worth? Well it is 2.13 trillion divided by 60,943,912.

1) If the 2.13 trillion is being quoted in American units, that's £34,950 per person..

2) If the 2.13 trillion is being quoted in British units (which is more likely, bearing in mind the British source), it is a thousand times the above amount, i.e. £34,950,168 per person (as of January, 2009).

What does this mean? It means that the most valuable thing you possess is your signature. Your unique signature is backed by approximately £34 million in personal assets.

If you could captialise on these assets what could you do?

First of all you could 'sort yourself out'. Permanently. And your family.

But, don't forget, each member of your family is also worth £34 million in their own right.

What could you do with the rest? You could use it for what it was designed for - to benefit your community. Your community as a whole. Clubbing together with others to decide what you want to see in your neighbourhood. (After all, that's what your Government is supposed to be doing with it anyway. The reason why they don't is due to utter corruption on their part).

How do you do this? Some of us are attempting to claim direct ownership of our individual share via the Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right. Claiming the right to hold the share. To become the shareholder. Thus quarterly dividends would be paid to the individual, not the Government. And, furthermore, the individual henceforth has the voting right carried by the share.

At that point a Freeman-on-the-land is no longer be dependant on any form of State Benefits derived from the law-of-the-sea/Statutes. Such an individual becomes totally independent, and able to make sensible, non-corrupt, choices at all times.

Veronica: of the Chapman family

January, 2009

Supplied information

So Whats that all about ?

So what's it all about?

If you've read the rest of the information presented on FMOTL.com you should have the idea that it can all be summed up in one word 'commerce'. Statute 'law' is all about commerce. And contracts. And tricking you into contracts, such that Statutes can be used against you. And to hide/disguise the fact that The Law, the Real Law, Common Law, can protect you.

If you check this link, you will see that a UK citizen is worth (to the Government) about £34 million (+) in financial terms (January, 2009). If you murder someone then Common Law will be used to try you. If found guilty the sentence imposed will be commensurate NOT with the fact that you took another person's life (because 'there's no sentiment in business') - but that you have robbed the Government of £34 million. This is because while the trial will be based on Common Law (you caused harm to another human being), the sentence, the punishment, will reflect the commercial aspects.

Now, there is a hidden problem with Statues. One that very few people realise. If you check, you will find that the Government generally tack on the possibility of a prison sentence for Statute violation. But the courts rarely use it, in practice.

Now the reason why the possibility of a prison sentence is tacked on to the violation is the psychological effect it has. "I could go to prison for that" is great psychology.

The reason why this option is - if at possible - avoided is commercial. It costs money to keep people in prison. It costs money to build them, to staff them, to furnish them, to heat them to light them, etc.

In 1993, during the Poll Tax days, the cost was £2,500 per inmate, per week.

Now you know why, having spent £19 billion to implement it, just a few thousand of us brought it to its knees by going to prison ... and saying we'll continue to go as long as the Poll Tax is on the Statute Books.

Small numbers can move mountains, if they know what they are doing.

Don't ever be afraid to point out, to all and sundry, that there is a serious cost, per inmate, to keeping people in prison. And the 'taxpayer' always has to pick up the tab.

(By the way, 65% of the prison population are there 'on remand'. In other words charged, but not had their day in court)

The majority of people think that their taxes go to fund 'something to do with the name of the tax'. For example that 'Road Tax' funds the roads, and 'Council Tax' funds local infrastructure.

They think that fines (e.g. Parking Fines, Speeding Fines, etc) go to the Government.

This is not true. Not in the sense that these monies 'stay' with the Government.

If you recall from the 'Long Arm' article, the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. All taxes and fines collected are used to pay off the INTEREST on previous International Monetary Fund/World Bank borrowings. (Note: The interest only ... the original loans can never be paid off. Far too much has been borrowed in the past)

That's why there are so many Statutes. The Government spends its time working out ways to tax you, by fining you for - what can only be considered to be - some of the most paltry things possible. The idea is to tax you as much as practically possible - without you realising that it is just another tax.

For example, it is now a Statute violation to hold an 'unlicenced' concert in a Church Hall. OK. What harm, injury or loss does an 'unlicenced' concert cause, in a Church Hall? A very temporary small amount of noise, maybe? Considered to be 'a breach of the peace', maybe? Well, if we are talking out 'breaches of the peace', what about Police Sirens? Or even Church Bells? Or Jetliners?

The idea is utter rubbish of course. Purely designed to collect money. It is an imprisonable 'offence', but you can be sure that they will fine the organisers, not send them to prison. Fining them collects money - to pay off the IMF INTEREST demands - imprisoning the organisers spends money.

Does this explain why all Governments do the same - or very similar - things once in office? When they never repeal all the legislation passed by any previous Government? The Poll Tax was THE, LAST, ONE BIG, EXCEPTION ... but then, it was so outlandish ... it went totally beyond the pale. The Poll Tax was too big a step for the creeping Totalitarian Tiptoe. They learned from that to keep the steps a lot smaller.

'Ang on! 'Ang on! 'Ang on! Could that be why rapists and paedophiles - people the public would love to see put away for a long, long time - quite often get a sentence that amounts to a 'slap on the wrist'? Although these lowlife have absolutely ruined another human's life, they haven't - generally - robbed the Government of £34 million +! And it costs money to keep them in prison! 

And could this explain why a 'life sentence' doesn't mean life (more often than not), and why parole is so easily on offer?

Steal a loaf of bread because your children are hungry, and the next thing you know there are calls for the introduction of Sharia Law!

Follow the money.

Once a Government gets into office - irrespective of any 'policy' and all Manifesto Pledges - they are faced with finding methods to pay back the IMF INTEREST. Whatever party you vote for, they will face the same problem. And there is only one way to solve the problem (as far as they are concerned) ... and that's to tax you, somehow, in such a way that you'll only bitch about it to your next door neighbour. (Or in on-line 'Commenting', under on-line so-called 'news' articles).

In other words, in such a way that you'll always blame 'the other lot'.

Further reading and research

There are two main schools of thought about all this. The first 'school' says 'stymie/stalemate everything, don't let them even get you into court'. The second says 'all courts are commercial, and by learning the ropes, you can have a lot of fun, and even make some money'.

The first method comes down to 'Freeman-on-the-land'. The second is known as 'Commercial Redemption'. It may be possible to enjoy a mixture of the two, but that is unclear (at least to me) at this time.

Both methods require the basic understanding of the situation, as explained as explained in the 'Long Arm' article. Alternatively you can purchase the book on this subject of FMOTL

However once the idea of the legal fiction PERSON is understood, and how it is used by the Judiciary, what you do about it splits into each method.

I'll try to describe these methods in basic terms, taking them in reverse order.

Commercial Redemption

Major proponents of the Commercial Redemption Method are Mary Croft and Winston Shrout. (There may be others)

Neither of these two people have - in my humble opinion - a clue how to explain anything. (Maybe you can say the same for me, I don't know). But what I do know is that reading Mary's book is very hard going. Similarly watching Winston's seminars is very painful. Due to a number of factors:

1) They don't know how to present. Much of the information is presented in reverse. In other words the roof is described before the foundations. (In one seminar the phrase 'wet signature' was used many times before someone had the commonsense to ask 'just what that meant'. It means handwritten, not rubber-stamped, photocopied, etc). 

2) The accent (e.g. a laid-back Serthern Draaaaawl) is hard to decipher (in Winston's case)

3) It is all about the united States or Canada. Obviously there are United Kingdom equivalents, but what are they? ("So near, yet so far"?)

However, in all cases, stern warnings are always given (by these proponents): "Don't do anything at all until you know exactly what you are doing".

Basically what these people are saying is that you can take control of your legal fiction PERSON. (Actually absolute control) And, if you take control of it, you can utilise it in your favour - by learning the game, and playing the game.

Now Mary's book is free (see link above). And good for her. But all Winston's stuff costs money. So one wonders if he is so good at fleecing the courts with his Commercial Redemption, and (as he says) he enjoys it so much, then why is it not possible to do his brethren a big favour and explain it without attempting to make a fast buck? (Hmmmm)

Take that, plus the stern warnings, and the time one would spend 'knowing exactly what one was doing' and, in my case at least, I think I pass.

Do I really want to spend time going down to courtrooms and watching what goes on, just to learn the ropes? And then go out and deliberately violate Statutes to test my knowledge (some you win, some you lose, but you gain experience). Is that what you want to do with your life? Well, I've got 'better' things to do, so I think I'll pass.

And I'll add something else. Personally speaking, as human being with a soul, I utterly reject the idea that I am associated with an 'fiction'. This is simply playing the utterly corrupt New World Order Commerce 'game'. And I, personally, will have no part of it if I can possibly help it. 

Yes. I pass.

(But good luck if you decide to go down that route)

Freeman-on-the-land

Fundamentally this consists of 'having as little as possible' to do with any of the corrupt New World Order 'game'. Generally by posing unanswerable questions back to robots. This creates a wall between the Freeman and the robot, causing a stalemate. This will create confusion within the robot. I'd rather confuse a robot than extract money from him.

It also satisfies my sensibilities. The robots are, in point of fact, engaged in treason. They just don't realise it. 

Personally speaking I would rather educate these robots back into non-treasonable human beings. Back to stark reality. I don't see how stark reality can be achieved by playing within the surreal of Commerce Law. I can't see how allowing the robots their 'surreality', and going along with it, will ever teach them anything. 

But that's just my twopen'rth. (I guess I was born to rebel)

Veronica: of the Chapman family

January, 2009

Defining and defending yourself

Back to Square 1, defining and defending yourself

Preparation

You have to understand the situation. You have to understand it intimately. You have to be it. Every fibre in your body and soul. If you do that, I believe you can take on the world.And there is only one way. And that is to think clearly.

Clarity of thought is impossible whenever 'religious overtones' are introduced into the equation. Any 'religious overtones', of any kind. As soon as 'faith' enters the equation, 'dogma' rears its head. In that case one is playing someone else's game.

The only way to win is to operate solely by one's own rules.

There is nothing to stop one having personal religious beliefs. That is a personal choice, and each is free to make it, but it must be kept out of the initial equation, otherwise the equation will become subjective, and then won't work in all situations, conditions and contexts. It's the only way. Nothing else will work in all contexts. Therefore, there will always be a context in which you can be defeated.

You think you can rely on 'God', and 'Jesus'? How many billions, throughout history, thought the same thing - only to find out it actually didn't help them in the slightest, because they still died horrible, excruciatingly painful, deaths? It might have helped them spiritually, in order to overcome the pain, but not in any real, practical, terms. (At least none you would ever be able to use in order to convince me, that's for sure). Dead is dead. So they inspired millions? Dead is still dead.

You can, of course, look at it this way: Leave 'God' out, for practical purposes, and then - once practice has been established - insert 'God' back in. For your own satisfaction and peace of mind. That would be fine by me, if that's your choice, because at least you would be thinking clearly in order to establish the initial 'practice'. And that would engender 'good practice'. 'Practice your faith' on top of that, by all means.

For the above reasons you will find that everything I write leaves 'God' out of the equations. This result is equations that only involve living, breathing, human beings with a living soul or spirit, pitched against forces, which may quite possibly derive from Satanism, but are - in practical terms - simply there to be confronted and defeated.

So can we make a start?

What is supreme on Planet Earth? What has not only life but demonstrable, unfettered, imagination? A cat? A dog? A monkey? No - you know the answer to this question.

'Homo sapiens' is Latin, and means 'wise human'.

Human! Use your wisdom! What is supreme on Planet Earth? The living, breathing, homo sapiens with its living soul. Surely this is the only entity that is demonstrably supreme for all practical purposes?

So, let's formulate this as our initial 'Understanding':

Whereas it is my understanding that there is nothing in practical terms more supreme than a living, breathing, imaginative human being blessed with a living soul, and

Are we getting somewhere? How about

Whereas it is my understanding that it is impossible to distinguish one soul from any other, and therefore all souls must at all times and in all situations be considered equal in all respects in any fair, just and reasonable situation, and

The next step is our Understanding ? No scope for any argument or objection to the contrary can remain. Otherwise there will be a context in which these understandings fail.

So, we can continue

Whereas it is my understanding that anything and everything must derive from the aforesaid axioms, and

Whereas it is my understanding that any numerical grouping of such souls can be referred to as 'people', and

Whereas it is my understanding that a society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and

As you can see it starts to work towards the goal we want to achieve.

Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society, and

Whereas it is my understanding a legislated rule of a society can be given the force of law to act upon, or lawfully bind, all members of that society, and

Whereas it is my understanding if a living soul chooses by free will not to be a member of any society then statutes created by said society do not bind that soul to said statute law, and

Whereas it is my understanding a living soul who chooses by free will not to be a member of any society can be referred to as a Freeman-on-the-land, and

Whereas it is my understanding a Freeman-on-the-land remains entirely and solely under Common Law jurisdiction, and

Whereas I ___________ am a Freeman-on-the-land, and

A few bells and whistles later, it might be possible to 'salt to religion taste'

Whereas it is my understanding that my Nation is founded on the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and

Whereas it is my understanding that the Number Two position in that hierarchy is not claimed by anyone, and

Whereas it is my understanding that the Governments of this Nation seem to rely on deception in order to gain the power to govern, and

Whereas I am desirous of living my life as a 'Child of God', and

Whereas it is my understanding that the only power able to claim authority over a 'Child of God' is God, and

Whereas it is my understanding that neither the Government, nor its agents nor its representatives are God, or above God, and

Whereas it is my understanding that by legally claiming the Number Two position in said hierarchy I occupy a position above all Governments and their agents and employees and representatives, and

It is actually dripping with fallacies. To my mind too many loopholes remain open to challenge. Being an atheist, I could challenge the whole thing.

Such 'understandings' would only stand up to scrutiny if God were alive (hiding in Argentina?) and could be asked to provide proof s/he were the entity to the satisfaction of the requirements in law. And then those assertions would stand some chance of being verified. Until that becomes a possibility it is pointless making such assertions because they demonstrably nothing more than 'faith'. 'Faith' is not the same as 'understanding'. (That's why they are different words).

Whereas it is my faith ..., and

We will get nowhere if another person has a different faith

Overall Implementation

If you think creating a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right is the hard bit, then think again. You've only just begun, to quote a '60s song by The Carpenters.

No-one said it would be easy (to quote yet another '60s melody).

A journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step - to quote another truism. A Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right is only the first, small, step.

This is because 'The System' will attempt to override or ignore it at every turn.

In order to enforce it - and it can be enforced, that much we know for sure - you will have to side-step all the bricks, 'rockets', 'hand grenades' and 'mortar shells' thrown your way. One thing you/we all have in our favour is 'numbers'. Perhaps that, and the ability to think clearly, are our two best assets.

Consequently the more people doing this, and reporting back 'success' and/or 'failure', the more we will all - eventually - succeed.

Here we have to remember two things:

(a) The Scientific Method, which says that every experience/experiment 'tells you something', and the understanding that 'the trick' is to determine what that 'something' is, and how best to use it, and

(b) To treat success and failure the same. In other words don't get excited about success, or depressed by failure - simply stay completely calm and pass the information around for the benefit of all

These are wise words, I can assure you. ('Experimental failure'? It tells you how NOT to do it. Whatever you tried was wrong. Think of some other way)

Specific Implementation

It is certain that you will end up in situations where you have knowledge of the truth and the other party has no knowledge whatsoever, for example when dealing with a policeman.

In other cases you will be dealing with those who have the knowledge but will not tell you and, indeed, will attempt to pull every 'fast-one in the book', against you - in order to trap/trick you into submission. For example in so-called Courts of Law, which are - in reality - merely Courts of Commerce.
Police 
These have to be dealt with carefully, because they are big and ugly. And by their ingrained nature assume everything goes their way - which is patently untrue of course.

It is essential, therefore, to remain calm and polite at all times, and use questions. Use questions in response to questions. You will, of course, be told by the officer "I ask the questions ... you provide the answers!

"One of the first things to say (before he does, if possible) is "Officer, have you observed me breaching the peace or causing harm, injury or loss?". If they answer "No", or "Well no, not as such" then you can respond "They why have to stopped me?" 

They will respond "We clocked you at 85 in a 70 limit" (or 'whatever').You can respond "But that is perfectly lawful under Common Law". ("'Lawful", not "legal")You are likely to get "Ooow, I don't know about that. All I know is I'm going to book you".

"How can you book me for something that is perfectly lawful?", is likely to result in "I don't know what you're are talking about ... are you trying to be 'funny' ... what's your name?" (As you know, they will probably know your name from the Registration Number).

"Officer, in no way whatsoever am I trying to be 'funny' as you put it. I'm simply discussing the law. The law of the land. Did you not swear to uphold the law of the land when you entered into service as a policeman?" "Of course I did, what's that got to do with it?" (etc)

"I think officer, with the greatest respect, your Oath of Service has everything to do with it because - if you check - and you surely can - you will discover that you have no right to book me under the law of the land. The law of the land does not preclude travelling at 85 mph The law of the land only precludes me from causing harm, injury or loss to someone else, and you've already admitted that was not the case".

You'll get "Oh! So you are trying to be 'funny' then. We'll see about that!". And so on. You can respond: "Officer, for your own protection, I suggest you make a note of everything I have said. I'll repeat it for you if you wish. You can discover the position on the website FMOTL.com. I suggest that you write that down at the absolute minimum ... you have the Internet, don't you?"

Obviously if you have an established Claim of Right you can point out that they can be charged and could end up having to pay serious financial penalties. And so it behoves them to find out the situation before they detain someone with an established Claim of Right. (Bearing in mind one's visible appearance gives no clue whatsoever, how would they know in advance that they were running into a brick wall?).

Courts 

First and foremost if you breached Common Law, then nothing very much below will help you. You have the right to a defence but - if you did something indefensible - then the best thing to do is 'cop a plea'. The following only applies if you are accused of violating a Statute. (Which is, of course, most of the time)

This is where it gets very nasty. If you attempted to dismiss the original summons as outlined in the 'Long Arm' article, then you are only likely to find yourself in court if you were arrested.

Some of the above arguments may ward that off, but it is unlikely because the police, to all intents and purposes, are simply robots. "Doing my job". Jobsworths. Of course, they are not "Doing their job" at all. Nothing like it. (As fully explained in that article)

Every trick will be played on you. Since one Kangaroo Hearing is different to any other Kangaroo Hearing it is really impossible to give many examples. But there are many things you can try. I include those which - in various circumstances - have led to varying degrees of success.

The most important thing is to be alert, and never to forget that you are surrounded by sharks. Yes, even those who may smile at you. (Never forget "Good cop - bad cop")

These are so many situations. Some examples are given below.

Just remember the basics. 

In a court de jure, a Court of Justice, you could obtain justice under Common Law. In such a court each member of the Jury has a soul to which you can appeal, and therefore you could defend your actions if you considered that you had the right to do them. Explaining the situation, and the position you were in, to a Jury would be your best bet.

But you won't be in a court de jure unless there is a Jury. In the absence of a Jury you will be in a court de facto. A Count of Commerce. A court that has no soul. You are a living soul and cannot obtain justice from such a court, so don't kid yourself. The best thing you could ever achieve is "Case withdrawn!" or "Case dismissed!", generally on technical grounds. So you have to go for the technical grounds, because that is your only hope. 

Technical Grounds 

Contempt of Court 

Whatever you try to do you are likely to be threatened with Contempt of Court. There is even the story of someone who had said nothing at all and was threatened as "I told you to remain silent! If you persist you will be in Contempt of Court". That indicates how desperate the sharks can get.

The appropriate response to such a threat is "Would that be Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt?". The result will be a long pause. (A Bench may even retire to consider). Do not say anything at all until an answer is given. If, eventually, the answer is "Criminal", then the appropriate response is "Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?".

Then wait again, saying nothing else. There is no answer to that one. The Recorder on the Bench, or the Judge, might make the CLAIM, but the remainder of the question is fundamentally unanswerable. They may say (in the United Kingdom, for example) "The Crown", or "The Ministry of Justice", or whatever. This is rant. The response is "You know only a HUMAN can make a CLAIM, so where is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?

"If, on the other hand, the answer is "Civil", then the appropriate response is "Where is the CONTRACT between myself and yourselves? I do not agree to any CONTRACT. I would not agree to any CONTRACT between myself and yourselves for many reasons, not least of which you have not provided FULL DISCLOSURE, you have not offered any CONSIDERATION, and have shown no intent to provide a LAWFUL SIGNATURE as a party to one" ('Consideration' in this context, means 'something of value', for example an  amount of money, or an object of value)

At this point you have them acting CRIMINALLY outside any lawful jurisdiction, and outside of IMMUNITY in their own courtroom. It is only lawful for HUMANS to make a contract, so a 'court' has no power to do that, because a 'court' is not a human being. Sure, an 'officer' could sign on behalf of the 'court', but they would NEVER do that because they know the ramifications of the LIABILITY that would entail. There will NEVER be 'Full Disclosure' (quite the opposite!) and they have nothing of value to offer.

When you say "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" the Bench will know they do not have a contract with you, and if you have committed no crime they have no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing - they are OUT of their lawful jurisdiction and OUT of their IMMUNITY the result will be a long bout of silence from the Bench or any Judge. 

Harassment on making your points 

One of the tricks is to silence you as much as possible, such that you are suppressed from obtaining dismissals on technical grounds.This can be combatted by the statement "I am going to make an OFFER OF PROOF" or "I am going to OFFER INTO EVIDENCE". This would allow you to state any relevant facts for the Court Record. 

Finally there is "Rush to judgment", as in "Are you trying to RUSH ME TO JUDGMENT?" These have all been shown to work extremely well. More explanations are in the book Sui Juris (meaning 'in my own jurisdiction') 

Miscellaneous points 

Really only applicable once you've 'found your feet' First of all: How do you know your name? Your parents told you. And, of course, you believed that. No doubt they showed you a Birth Certificate ... but how do you - actually - know that is you? How do you know that the Certificate you think is yours is not that of a twin? Or a previously birthed person who died? Yes, of course it is unlikely. But 'likely' is not the point. There is no such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' evidence. There is only evidence ... or not.

How can you swear on oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when you are relying on HEARSAY.And no established court de jure allows hearsay evidence.Knowledge of your name is hearsay. Knowledge of your date of birth is hearsay. Yes, you were around at the time you left the womb, but you really couldn't state, for certainty, precisely what date that was. 

Then the next thing is that if you were to ask the following question "Is it true that only those with a licence are able to practice law?", the answer would always be "Yes!". To which you could respond "But I do not have a licence, does this mean I cannot defend myself in a court of law?".  If you wanted to tie the court in knots, this would be a good tack. Of course they would pretty soon roll out the "Contempt of Court" business.

In Summary

It is a risky business. One is up against robots and sharks.

What alternative do we have?

The only one I can see is to 'sit back and take it'.

There will be 'casualties'.

There have already been 'casualties'.

However there are people out there trying their best for you and I.

Do we let them down?

Personally I think the absolute minimum we can do - at the very least - is to provide support.

Oh! And by the way! Need I remind you? Most (if not all) of us have forefathers and ancestors who gave their lives so that we would remain free of all but the absolute most essential restrictions. All we have to do is to pick up where they left off. With that behind us, is it right to hand despotism and thorough corruption (Thatcher-Major-BLiar-Brown-Cameron-Clinton-Bush-Obama style i.e. Bilderberger style) to our children & grandchildren - who will have the face the full force of it?

Remember: The job of any Government is to (a) Ward off invaders (i.e. ATTACK them, not COLLUDE with them, however subtle ... yes I'm talking 'EU' & 'NAU', etc), and (b) PROTECT our freedoms, not ERODE them.

And that's their job, in total. Nothing else.

It is certainly not their right to DECEIVE us from cradle to grave.  

What's it all about?