Did you know that during this lockdown coronavirus emergency we have twenty-five super mayors who are no longer controlled by the City Council? So they have a kind of dictatorial power over the so-called security regions. Only the second chamber is still watching, but they don't have much to say during an emergency ordinance either.
That municipal law explicitly states that emergency ordinances in times of crisis may restrict all rights except those enshrined in the Constitution. So which rights are enshrined in that Constitution and which ones are being un-legitimately violated during this corona crisis? Let's take a look at that.
Unconstitutional
The first law that is unconstitutional is the one and a half social distancing. The Constitution states that you have a right to association. So you are allowed to gather together. That means you are also allowed to demonstrate, and also that whole one-and-a-half-meter distancing is simply contrary to the Constitution.
The entire lockdown and compulsory sitting at home is contrary to the constitutional right to association. The lockdown is unconstitutional.
The other thing the police just do is raid houses. And even though the media focus your attention on overloaded ICs and numbers and Robert Jensen focuses your attention only on that too, but then says it's not all that bad, there is no one to point out that you are violating the Constitution.
So the super mayors "have" the right to have police raid homes or businesses. The media don't show us that. They only show us that the parks and roads are beginning to fill up again. The suffering in society is kept out of the picture. So why do we still know this is happening? Well, then we have to read between the lines. Like in this article from Trouw:
Professors of constitutional law Jan Brouwer (University of Groningen) and Jon Schilder (Free University) note that lawyers as well as enforcers are beginning to feel uncomfortable with the hastily written texts of the emergency ordinance.
"That is explicitly named. So what is happening in this crisis is illegal," Painter said. "Entering homes and business premises violates the fundamental right to privacy and the right to housing. Should you want this to be possible, parliament should amend the law."
Now not only is the constitution being violated during this coronacrisis lockdown emergency ordinance, but also with the Mandatory Health Care Act (the WvGGZ) that went into effect on January 1, 2020, the state has usurped the right to remove people from their homes because they feel they need mental or physical health care. This, too, is unconstitutional.
In fact, you have the constitutional right to privacy in all of the above cases, and it is violated in all of them.
So in practice, it may happen to you that if, for example, you adhere to certain ideas that the state now feels are a threat to your environment, you may be taken away.
So suppose you believe that the corona crisis is a hoax or a PsyOp, the state may soon decide that this means you pose a threat to others because you may not be in danger of not complying with the one-and-a-half-meter "rule" (which is unconstitutional). This may also mean that if the state finds that you may be suffering from coronavirus, but you do not wish to cooperate with a test or do not use the upcoming mandatory apps, you likewise pose a danger to those around you and could thus have "mandatory care" imposed on you.
Law change
And so there needs to be a legislative amendment soon, before the rabble finds out that the mayors and their squires have no legal basis. Presumably, this will be a constitutional amendment or a vague definition in the form of a new law that attempts to sidestep or circumvent the Constitution through vague definitions.
Do you now understand why the courts had to close? With closed courts and judgments handled by telephone, anyone who objects has little to no chance of a rebuttal. The Volkskrant, for example, reports:
'There are cases that have been waiting for a judgment for some time. Those are now being disposed of rapidly.'
It is important to know what your fundamental rights are, and it is important to know how they are being trampled on with seven-mile boots. But far more important is to begin to realize that the laws and regulations, including too Constitution, do not apply to you. The biggest programming lie instilled in you from the cradle is that there is someone who has authority over you. There is no one who has authority over you. Here's the thing:
We have laws in the Netherlands (as in every country) and these laws are signed by 'the crown'. It is called 'the crown' because in the Netherlands this is two people: King Willem Alexander and Queen Maxima. That crown is the actual power. They hide behind political puppets who have been trained from an early age to paint the illusion of democracy to the people through various political flavors.
However, all these politicians swear allegiance to the crown. That is, every law only comes about if the crown signs it. You may not be able to believe that right away, because you have been programmed from childhood to believe in the appearance of democracy, but just take a look at the text with which every law change begins:
We Willem-Alexander, by the grace of God, King of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, etc. etc. etc. etc. All, who shall see or hear these read, salute! do know:
Whereas We have taken into consideration that it is desirable ... and then follows the description of the change in the law
It is very difficult to transcend your programming and Robert Jensen will never point this out to you because he uses the "Soldier of Orange" tune every broadcast. That's what you have with controlled opposition pawns. They have to catch you off guard by channeling your criticism to make sure you feel that things will be taken care of for you. No, you must do it yourself and you must not be kept stupid and passive. You must drill completely through your programming! To the bottom!
And then what is that programming? Read again what that law begins with: We Willem-Alexander, by the grace of God, King of the Netherlands.
Why "we? This refers to "the crown. But what is much more important to take a moment to realize is the following:
Not only are emergency ordinance laws unconstitutional, the entire principle of laws and constitutions is unconstitutional.
It is based on a lie. It is based on the biggest popular lie of all time. I know, that presumably leads to cognitive dissonance in your brain and you actually simply cannot believe. After all, everyone else believes it. Yes, everyone around you is just as deeply programmed as you are! But I repeat it again: All laws are based on a lie.
Unfounded
The entire power block of governments, judges lawyers, judiciary and police is built around that same lie. They all swear allegiance to the crown and enforce those laws on behalf of the crown. But what is this power base of the crown based on? On the unprovable idea of "the grace of God. It just says so right there. Read it again, "We Willem-Alexander, by the grace of God, King of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, etc. etc. etc."
You are therefore free! No one has the right to deprive you of your freedom in any way. That yet there are certain people in uniform who think they have the right to do so; who arm themselves and think they have the right to deprive you of your freedom; that yet there are judges who impose something on you because they all swear allegiance to the crown, is completely unconstitutional.
I deliberately do not use the word unconstitutional, but: unconstitutional.
It is your true right as a human being to invoke your sovereign fundamental right. All you have to say to the squires of the crown (the uniform wearers) is the following:
"Show me the document and the signature of God, showing the grace of God on which the crown bases its power and its laws that you enforce. Your enforcement and your laws are baseless and do not apply to me."
Let the above penetrate you carefully. Read it a few more times and also read my book to discover how reality as we think we perceive it is completely colored: from cradle to grave. Discover all the layers of programming, including the master script that is now unfolding at lightning speed before your eyes.
Source link entries: wikipedia.org, trouw.nl, das.nl, binnenlandsbestuur.nl, volkskrant.nl
17 Comments
Emergency law for emergency measures in the works
The cabinet is working on an emergency law to give measures against the spread of the coronavirus a firmer legal basis. Within weeks, this law should replace the emergency ordinances in which the measures are currently laid down. This is what sources in The Hague report to NRC.
The new law should put an end to what legal experts say are "untenable," "undemocratic" and "unconstitutional" emergency ordinances. Measures laid down in them, such as prohibiting group formation without keeping a distance of one and a half meters, affect the constitutionally established freedom of association, religion and education. And for the police to enter overcrowded homes violates the right to privacy.
These rights are enshrined in the Constitution. Going against this is only allowed when it is enshrined in law. This is not the case with emergency ordinances. The new law should regulate this better, allowing civil rights to be (temporarily) curtailed.
The law should also provide better democratic underpinnings. Ordinances cannot be debated and voted on by politicians. That is possible with the emergency law, which is expected to last until Sept. 30.
Source:
https://nos.nl/liveblog/2331851-johnson-weer-aan-het-werk-nieuw-zeeland-heeft-virus-een-halt-toegeroepen.html
Link does not run well because it leads to a lifeblog. Direct link to the quoted NOS article: https://nos.nl/artikel/2331870-kabinet-werkt-aan-spoedwet-nu-noodmaatregelen-langer-gaan-duren.html
When you read posts like this one about a German lawyer (Beate Bahner) who was incarcerated in a psychiatric clinic because his fought the unconstitutionality of the coronavirus measures, keep in mind that that is a PsyOp that is supposed to scare you into thinking that you are not in your right after all:
https://detheorist.nl/nieuws/duitse-advocaat-opgesloten-in-psychiatrische-afdeling-nadat-ze-had-opgeroepen-tot-verzet-tegen-ongrondwettelijke-covid-19-lockdown
YOU STAND IN YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT SO DO NOT BE DETERRED
That could very well be the case. She was in court a day later and was acquitted.
I always say that the children are the masters of themselves.
What do you need, who do you want to be?
If someone oversteps your boundaries you may say Something about this (without guilt!).
But how I raise the and let them make their own choices may yet be used against me....
OMG!
This bill introduces a new form of custody of a minor, partial custody. The partial custodian is given the power and responsibility to make day-to-day decisions with the custodial parents and guardians regarding the care and upbringing of a child. For the child, partial custody provides greater clarity about the role of this third party and safeguards for maintaining contact with this person or persons.
https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/deelgezag
They ram a few laws through at lightning speed during this "state of emergency." Everything seems to be allowed and of course no lawyer (swears allegiance to the crown) opposes it. All toga priests of the Temple of Solomon.
It is important to see through that the controlled alternative media always avoid or silence the most important topics so that you, the reader, think "Well, if that Vrijland is the only one writing that, it must not be true."
Take away people's toys and they do bow. No it is not a criminal offense under the Constitution, but above all, any action is unconstitutional.
https://m.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/wie-coronamaatregelen-niet-respecteert-riskeert-smartphone-kwijt-te-spelen~a011809e/
I can totally relate to the last part of your article: no one has authority over anyone!
And those who think the Constitution will protect them:
"Article 8: Freedom of association.
The right of association is recognized. By law this right may be limited in the interest of public order."
That last addition, "...in the interest of public order." says it all. What is public "order"? Who determines what "order" is? With such a definition, that same "right" can always be taken away from you.
What does that UN say about it
The rights according to the (new WW/oldOrder) UN
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Art 10: Squires may drag you before the "impartial tribunal"
but who chooses that impartial tribunal?
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
We do not need a UN to determine for us that we are born free and independent. We are free and independent.
There is no institution personally elected by you to impose laws on your behalf.
Unless, of course, you go to the polls. That's why you shouldn't vote, because then you give legitimacy to your own prison.
But anyway, in the Netherlands you then only elect a cabinet and that cabinet does not swear allegiance to the people, but swears allegiance to the crown and that crown is "appointed by God." However, the latter cannot be proven and so the following still applies:
"Show me the document and the signature of God, showing the grace of God on which the crown bases its power and its laws that you enforce. Your enforcement and your laws are baseless and do not apply to me."
Still, a weak copy of the 1789 rights: From birth, people are and remain free and equal in law.
Art.2.(1789): The object of every political association is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man; these rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.
Little of it reflected in the uvrm.
So if you have been fined for not adhering to the lockdown (staying inside) or the one-and-a-half meters, then it is still unconstitutional and so you can file an appeal and just not pay.
Of course people will try to counteract that, but until the new law that wants to put the constitution bjuituit game is in place, it can be done
The media colors our image of (false) reality and makes us believe in our programming, but you can really just say it:
"Show me the document and the signature of God, showing the grace of God on which the crown bases its power and its laws that you enforce. Your enforcement and your laws are baseless and do not apply to me."
Dear Martin,
I understand that legally this is all set up so that what one does is not allowed. But again, the principle that is hidden behind the saying "swearing doesn't hurt", or the clearer English version "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" applies here. Namely, that like laws, words cannot hurt. And therein lies the problem, because the enforcers do not use laws and words, but their monopoly of force.
What I mean to say by this is that it is quite likely that if you find yourself in a situation where you are confronted with this unconstitutional action by enforcers, asking for the demonstration of God's signature will be met with jeers rather than respect and recoil. Those words may be true, but have absolutely no physical force or power.
Don't get me wrong, I am not afraid but I am realistic. Given the ever decreasing intelligence requirements of enforcers such as police and military, I don't think you will get very far with those words. Rather, they will handcuff you and dispose of you with the necessary force....
Being right is different from being right. If you get busted for not paying your fine and are in front of a judge who dismisses your rights, it doesn't really matter that they can't show a signature from God and the laws are actually null and void, because if they act according to their own laws anyway then you have little choice....
Nevertheless, thank you for sharing this knowledge. I sincerely hope that as few of us as possible will find ourselves in a situation where this information must be used....
Greetings,
Willem
I understand the skepticism and I understand everyone's doubts.
Yet, in practice, I have dismissed many a case this way.
So I would say: try it. Don't try it: do it!
Yes, they will try to scare you. But they may not do anything to you if you invoke that.
And we're 2 years down the road and it turns out Vrijland was kind of right after all.
And everyone keeps saying
It won't go that far, Oh no????
Today Aug. 8, 2022
https://www.parool.nl/nederland/veel-kritiek-op-nieuwe-permanente-coronawet-die-kabinet-wil-invoeren~b6f31776/