Suing the Tyrants – #SolutionsWatch

by | Apr 17, 2024 | Solutions Watch, Videos | 96 comments

You’ve tried protesting, you’ve tried boycotting, what else is there to do? Well, how about filing a lawsuit? Join James for this week’s edition of #SolutionsWatch where he weighs the pros and cons of suing the tyrants and considers the potential utility of Notices of Liability in holding government officials personally accountable for their behaviour.

Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!



Suing the National Park Service for Not Accepting Cash

FBI Has To Face Lawsuit Over ‘No-Fly List:’ Supreme Court

Man Sues Govt for Not Protecting Him from Sea Rise

Swiss government violated women’s human rights by climate change inaction, ECHR rules

Alex Jones To Sue CIA After Undercover Report Claims Agency “Went After Him Hardcore”

Update on Derrick Broze’s Lawsuit Against Texas (April 2024)

Derrick Broze sues Texas to challenge the election law that kept him from running for mayor of Houston

Make Americans Free Again – Litigation

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Public Can Sue Officials Who Block Them on Social Media in Some Circumstances

InPower – FAQ

Sending This Notice of Liability To Your Doctors May Wake Them Up And Stop Them Causing More Harm



    • 😉
      You got my “thumbs up vote”!

    • JCh129 says:
      “Interestingly the media has been completely silent on it.”

      No one but me will ever know how many hundreds and hundreds of butt-blistering, sleepless, stressful hours I had spent on trying to get some Mainstream Press on this Fluoride topic.
      I pitched countless stories to countless publications / TV networks countless number of times…that I lost count on all the approaches. I tried all kinds of things.

      I even wrote a bunch of OpEds and Letters-to-the-Editor and submitted them virtually all over the nation.
      With that NWNW sigh, I finally resigned myself to the idea that I was impotent, just shooting blanks.

      Quite by accident, weeks after submission, I discovered that one of my OpEds was published…and then another.
      I was surprised! I felt competent again, and felt some pride that I actually had achieved something which I had set out to do.

      Opinion: A Black Dallas School Teacher Opened the Door to Fluoride’s History

      Opinion: The Value of a Child’s Fragile Developing Brain

      Anecdote Moral
      The moral of this here anecdote is that sometimes in life, ya just spin your wheels and go nowhere.
      But if your wheels aren’t spinning, ya sure ain’t gonna move.

    • I’m in SC, USA and can not find a lawyer to represent me against the school board. Any suggestions appreciated…

      • douggl

        I dont know any lawyers to suggest…..but if you can get some buddies maybe you could contest some of their seats? According to the article linked below Voter turn out for those elections is even lower then I thought it was and you can probably at the very least put enough fear in the board that they have to adjust their attitude.

        Think about all the conservative areas with tranny porn in their school libraries because some implant from another state cared enough to run for office…… some towns only have 5 or 15 % of the voters turn out! Thats maybe a few thousand people….a couple of hundred can shake things up.

      • douggl,
        I don’t know what your situation is.
        Your State Bar should have lists of attorneys.
        There are a lot of attorneys.
        Some work on the cheap, because work might be tough. I once had an attorney selling stuff door-to-door in my crew more than 40 years ago.

        Figure out your phone patter and make lots of calls.

        • Below Corbett Member “mkey”s comment further south, you will see mine where I mention…
          Fighting Vaccine Mandates – #SolutionsWatch

          It contained an arsenal of information. Among the measures was…
          — LIST of Legal Resources – Vaccines

          From that resource, I found three listed attorneys in South Carolina

          [Check the other resources on the list and Corbett’s Solutionwatch.]

      • Check out Attorney Michael Connett, Esq from the link I posted above.

        • Paul,
          Thanks for mentioning it.
          Yes, definitely, I saw that Highwire interview with Michael.

          Just so ya know, I am deeply involved with Fluoride Activism and have been for a decade. I have been following every piece of news on the topic, and this past year has been busy as hell for me. If you hit the links in some of my OpEds, you will catch the drift.

          Michael Connett is mentioned here on this Thread…

          There is a “coincidental tie-in” at that comment.

    • TV NEWS Mar 6, 2014 – City of Prince George, British Columbia – Canada
      City Facing Class Action Lawsuit On Fluoride
      (3 minutes news clip)

      The Prince George Citizen | April 15th, 2015 | By Mark Nielsen
      Prince George: Fluoride lawsuit against city withdrawn
      A lawsuit challenging the city’s practice of fluoridating the water supply has been withdrawn.
      Kevin Millership, a Kootenay resident who first launched the action in March 2014, said Tuesday that he has signed a consent dismissal order and has mailed it to the city’s lawyer.
      Millership said the order dismisses his claim against the city without costs and “forever releases the city from being sued by me again in the future in regards to water fluoridation past or future in Prince George.”

      Millership said he discontinued his claim because the city is in the process of removing the equipment used to fluoridate the water in response to the referendum result from November. The No side came away with a 53.7 per cent majority.
      “I salute the people of Prince George that eliminated this needless poison from their water supply via referendum and forgive the City of Prince George for poisoning people in Prince George for decades with water fluoridation out of pure and simple ignorance and arrogance,” Millership said in an e-mail….

      Prince George Citizen | March 12th, 2014 | By Mark Nielsen
      P.G. fight in fluoridation lawsuit still on
      The man who launched a class action lawsuit against the City of Prince George last week alleging damages from fluoridated water says he has reached a settlement with the City of Cranbrook over a similar action.

      A consent dismissal order was filed Friday at the B.C. Supreme Court’s Cranbrook registry ending the lawsuit Kevin Millership initiated against that city in July 2013.

      “They offered me a number of things so I would drop my case and I agreed,” Millership said.
      He declined to provide further detail other than that the City of Cranbrook has agreed to hold a referendum on the issue in November as part of the agreement.
      “They want the settlement agreement to stay confidential for now,” Millership said Tuesday.

      A referendum is also set for November in Prince George on whether to continue fluoridating the water.

      Just five other B.C. communities still add fluoride to their water…
      …Reached Tuesday, City of Cranbrook spokesman Chris Zettel said the matter remains confidential when asked why it was dismissed….

      By Kevin James Millership
      Canadian Fluoridation Class Action Lawsuit
      “Why I’m suing Canada over public water fluoridation”

    • FLUORIDE – Pissed off Grandma Sues 13 Elected Officials
      [I can tell ya this…being personally sued definitely distressed some of these officials. It had an impact.]

      March 25, 2015
      Regina Sues Dallas City Council
      3:38 minutes – [ DO NOT MISS THIS! ]
      “…Now, as we speak right now, on Monday I did something very different. I mean I never did this before. I sued the thirteen of you personally that voted to put the fluoride in the water.
      (Adam) Medrano and (Sheffie) Kadane did not get that.
      [They voted against water fluoridation.]
      Okay you all have folders I handed out. I was going to hand you a copy because I made copies of them – not officially serving you but just so you could get to read it ahead. I met the Process Server in the parking lot this morning. I didn’t go through the court one, because it was eighty dollars a person. And I had to find a better deal. So I got a guy that would serve you all for $250, okay. He has given the information to the city lawyer, okay. ‘Attorney’, I guess you call it.” (Applause from Audience!)….
      [At end of video mucho grande applause and cheering!]

      Trying to describe everything about the lawsuit gets complicated. Parts of the lawsuit get complicated, especially when it comes to technical and government code standards.
      E.g. Public water systems must conform to American National Standards Institute/National Sanitation Foundation (ANSI/NSF) Standard 60 for direct additives and ANSI/NSF Standard 61 for indirect additives… … Texas Rule §290.42(j).
      In the end, the Judge threw out Regina’s lawsuit. I think, but am not sure, that the Judge said that it had no standing.
      But, when looking at the REAL code violations, the lawsuit had a firm basis.
      In fact, for the Fluoride Trial, Attorney Michael Connett deposed an NSF official…
      NSF Unable To Vouch For The Safety Of Fluoridation Chemicals
      2 ½ minutes

      By scrolling midway down this WEBPAGE to where you see the red print “APRIL 15TH 2015 – Brief update”, you will start to see aspects of the lawsuit. Further down, you will also see IMAGES of Council Members and their lack of decorum.


    • Hardy Limeback is a top-dog, well-respected, Dental Researcher.
      Hardy says,
      ”…possibly even legally. If there’s enough evidence of damage, we may be in a situation to encourage people to speak out and use legal means to stop fluoridation. Because if they’re being damaged without informed consent, without providing informed consent, they have a good legal basis to start a Class-Action Lawsuit….”
      — Dr. Hardy Limeback interviewed by Dr. Paul Connett about water fluoridation concerns in May 2000
      QUEUED to 26:43
      Video Description
      Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head of the School of Preventive Dentistry at University of Toronto, speaks to Dr. Paul Connett about water fluoridation dental and health concerns. This interview took place in May 2000.

  1. Has anyone used the notice of liability against proposed wind turbine farms going up on land that is close to where you live? We have a company (AES) that is planning on a wind farm here in our little county in eastern Montana and we don’t know how to fight it.

  2. The no cash accepted policy for entry and use of Parks and Recreation venues was enacted by the City of Tulsa, Ok for several reasons. Here is but two, that have been expressed in conversations with management.
    The Bank of Oklahoma has a monopoly on fees and services for cashless transactions service .
    The quality and integrity of the City of Tulsa employees could not be trusted with the handling of cash in the daily operations.
    The hypocrisy of Public Parks and private interests in this corrupt town is over the top. It’s best expressed by no cash for venue or food and drink concessions ,however all transaction POS locations have large tip jars for cash tips. Tips are considered wages and must be accounted for by statue in calculated Federal and State taxes on income.
    Nothing to see here, move along.

  3. If going against gubment/some agency, you need to know some (many) things:

    – always be aware of the jurisdiction in which you are finding yourself and know which jurisdiction you need to be in.
    – even winning can be a major loss in the courts. See Tim vs (shameful) Mann
    – many courts are kangaroo courts. See Steyn vs (reprehensible) Mann
    – when you find yourself in the court with 2+ lawyers and something that passes for a judge, you have to be aware that all the lawyer,s and possibly even the judge, are part of the same lodge. It’s a big club and you are not in it. All of them are there to extract funny money from you.
    – courts are choke full of incompetent, uneducated, immoral scum
    – the process has bankrupted many people, and this is so by design. See: doctor who was sued for 508 billion by the gubmnet.

    If you think that is something you can pull off on your own, without a lawyer, seek Alphonse Faggiolo telegram group. There’s a group of people who are ready to assists and who have quite unorthodox views on the law.

    Another option is the Rule of Law radio show, hosted by Randy Kelton/Eddie Craig. These guys are quite more orthodox in their treatment of the law and they don’t question much of it.

    • mkey

      The issue is that most of the money and lawyers work for the other side. You really do need scumbag lawyers to fight scumbag lawyers effectively.

    • mkey says:
      If going against gubment/some agency, you need to know some (many) things…
      …– the process has bankrupted many people, and this is so by design.
      See: doctor who was sued for 508 billion by the gubmnet….

      POSTED: December 1, 2023
      Chiropractor & Functional Medicine Doctor, Eric Nepute, DC, DNM, joins Del with a harrowing story of his 3 year, $500 billion legal battle against the government for going against mainstream COVID-19 protocols and the incredible sacrifices he’s made to save his integrity. Hear how he successfully treated thousands of people for COVID-19 without any fatalities.

      The Federal Government has the entire DOJ (Dept of Justice) army of lawyers to fight lawsuits for any agency. All local governments will employ attorneys.

      It is extremely tough to fight The Feds.
      I think that Aaron Siri, Esquire and some of the State Attorney Generals do a pretty good job of pushback and FOIA against the Fed Monster.

      • In a RELATED LEGAL, but positive note…

        On Sep 22, 2021, James Corbett had
        Fighting Vaccine Mandates – #SolutionsWatch

        It contained an arsenal of information. Among the measures was…
        — LIST of Legal Resources – Vaccines

      • The modicum of success some had was mostly thanks to siccing the feds at the state gubment. Politics always has to be leveraged to stack the odds in pleb’s favor.

        Is there an election coming soon? Use it put pressure on them and make them want to forget all about you and your settlement. They don’t want some loud rednecks to make noise during the campaign.

        An election ended recently and there are some new people in the office? They may be very interested in starting a little fire under the opposition’s feet, in hopes of vindication.

        Maybe the old guy is now in the position to break the replacement guy’s balls over something, and you may be the one to supply the fuel.

    • Bump

      (Thx for the referral i was going to give)

  4. Lawfare has proved pretty effective at shaping the situation to benefit certain actors- but it should be noted that it is MOST effective when its done with the support of those who already have political power.

    The main example of this kind of Lawfare are the Civil Rights rulings that de-segregated the USA (over massive public resistance, even in the North) and destroyed the ability of communities to control who moved into them with Covenants.

    However one FEELS about these issue the 1st point is that a small group forced a big change upon an unwilling population and stopped the majority from being able to chose who the associate and do business with. The 2nd point is that this was possible only because a powerful minority was able to focus large sums of money and political clout into this fight.

    A group with little power or money CAN benefit from lawfare in two ways

    1) As Mr Corbett says, it focuses attention on the issue
    2) The courts are caught between their natural desire to serve power and the need to maintain the appearance of legitimacy….they can either slow down a process or give concessions OR they make it clear that Rule Of Law (and thus the need for the majority to RESPECT that Law) is over.

    The idea of suing a PERSON is much more effective- indeed the so called left wing makes a point to target and harass their enemies in any way possible and having to deal with a legal case is a PITA at the very least. Also, in a Managerial State the average functionary has the primary goal of growing their own office empire and avoiding having to take responsibility for anything. A legal case is quite unpleasant for such people because they NEVER WANT THEIR BOSS TO DECIDE THEY ARE CAUSING A PITA.

    My own experience is as follows-

    Management where I worked were doing a disgusting and dangerous thing regularly even though it was against regulations. I complained and was ignored, so I put it in writing and then started CC’ing it to Head Office. When they started giving me trouble I wrote things up and gave them a copy, also sending one to head office…..head office was ALSO full of lazy ass covering people who then started giving my local boss stress, for disturbing them from their slumber.

    The practice stopped…though I heard that they went back to doing it some time after I left, because while everyone else complained no one else actually made their problem the bosses problem.

    You must always remember that most people doing bad things in an official capacity are basically lazy, cowardly and greedy- they will bully you if they can but the second they have a threat of a bigger bully they tend to back off. This works the other way too, as I hear that plenty of city cops are getting lax on catching actual criminals for fear of ending up like Eric Chauvin, and just mess with regular people now.

    • Your writing makes a lot of sense.

      Why can’t you simply describe the ‘the disgusting and dangerous thing’ in a straightforward manner? It would give us a little more information, and require less imagination, on our part

      • hankey

        “… and require less imagination, on our part…”

        Just makes me grin since now I’m wondering what everyone is imagining. LOL, maybe its even more disgusting then real life, maybe less so.

        If this was reddit I’d ask people to post what they imagined for my entertainment, 🙂 Lol.

        But TBH its not really important since the principle of making your problem the bosses problem was the point.

  5. Also we should remember that Mans Law ultimately rests upon violence and the ability of the Government to hold its monopoly.

    as Pompey Magnus said

    “‘Will you not give up,’ he said, ‘reading laws to us men girt with swords?'”

    Plutarch, Lives. Pompey 10.3.2. To the Mamertines in Messana, complaining about Pompey’s legal jurisdiction after their city was retaken during the civil warfare.

  6. I’m eager to hear the outcome of Liam Sturgess’ lawsuit against the Government of Canada (Elections Canada) for not honoring mask exemptions for poll workers during our 2021 election. I think it’s notable that there are similar instances, like at least for a time juries required covid shots (unclear if this is still the case. We will see how the Canadian bureaucracy handles the contradiction of ignoring codified human rights law in some instances where it would likely be upheld in other circumstances.

    In general I’m very pessimistic about legal challenges in general.
    I’d argue they’re on-balance worth doing, but it’s still a non-trivial opportunity cost compared to other means of pushing back.

  7. “The means determines the end.” If your end is to achieve a society that values the non-aggression principle, then using a coercive system, e.g., the law, is counter productive.

    Also, seeking redress for denial of a specific right is “attacking the branch, trig, or leaf on the tree of evil, does not attack the root.” We have very limited time/money/energy compared to TPTB. While we win small victories, mass injustices flourish. Don’t forget, we started out 230+ years ago with almost zero govt., and the legal system based on the initiation of deadly threats quickly resulted in chaos, e.g., the whisky tax provoking “The Whiskey Rebellion”. Eventually, the tax was revoked, the POTUS T.J. pardoned the inprisoned tax resisters, but since the system remained coercive, injustice continued to be publicly financed, the worst people continued to be supported, e.g., war and a standing army continued to grow. Given the political paradigm, it was inevitable, the logical outcome.

    • I agree. Your logic is consistent.
      I truly love James’ work, but this is a slippery slope, at best. I am referring to elevating and using the power of the corrupt and immoral courts.

      There is a memorable quote that I heard almost 20 years ago.
      “Dance with Devil, and he won’t become like you… You will become like the Devil.”
      The reason it stuck with me, is because I heard it first from Alex Jones. He sold out his principles shortly thereafter.

      So, what is the solution? I don’t know, in a materialistic sense. I am getting too old too vigorously fight against the wind and shadows. Am I a fool for having any optimism? It seems most essential things eventually heal somehow and get set aright at some point. But I don’t expect it in my lifetime. We are wanting to change huge and deep things in the evolution of mankind’s psychology and spirituality. This is on a grander timescale.

      So, just one foot after another. What I mean is, just keep telling the truth in a dignified way, as each instance arises in your personal life. We all reflect real experiences, but some of us are warped and/or dirty mirrors. I mentioned spiritual evolution. The ego warps our mirrors, and we will be lost until we can master that paradigm.

    • Voluntaryist
      “… If your end is to achieve a society that values the non-aggression principle,….”

      Yes, that is a noble goal buts its just not ever going to happen.

      In reality, where we are forced to live, all society depends at some level on coercion. That is never going to change, so we are left with the choice of dealing with the world as it is or wishing the world was as we want it to be.

      I would also disagree STRONGLY that the USA started out with ‘minimal’ government- there were LOTS of regional governments, and some of them were even somewhat fascistic. They used to run people out of certain colonies for having the wrong religious outlook and kept slaves and had lots of very strict laws.

      What the USA did not have was a strong Fed Gov to enforce the values of a distant government, all government was much more in keeping with teh type of people it ruled in any particular area…a good book to read on this is “Albions Seed” which is a good over view of the sets of people who lived in the different regions……the most “libertarian” were the Border’ers, and they had zero idea of the NAP and would have found it quite amusing if someone told them about it (before they mugged him….lol)

      • Duck:
        Perhaps the writings of the Founders from the mid 1700s-1790s were misleading? Maybe the most popular pamphlet, “Common Sense”, read by over 90% was not representative of the politics. Perhaps the Plymouth Colony’s rejection of communism, e.g., a communal common storage area, was rejected until poverty was replaced by prosperity, then restored? Perhaps the oldest city, St. Augustine, in Florida colony, one of the 15 original colonies, was not representative. It gained independence early, lasting 200 years, and was not segregated, didn’t count? Perhaps West Florida didn’t either?
        From the history of cities/empires, going back 10,000 years, it is not conclusive as to their politics, compete records do not exist. There is one society, the earliest 10K years ago, that had no public structures, all spaces were family dwellings, underground.

        Does the past political paradigm of coercion by deadly threat prove “all society depends at some level on coercion”? I find the opposite. All empires failed. Then a new society started with comparative freedom, building wealth but slowly depreciating. But English political history since the 1200s is a slow progression with ups/downs toward English Common Law, the development of rights. See: “The Levelers” generational struggle. This politics influenced/informed the colonists, at least a third, one third remaining authoritarian, one third neutral.

        Gene Sharp estimated that it takes about 10-15% activists to achieve a political shift using non-violence persuasion. He noted it depends on the culture what specific tactics work, and he listed 198. I read one of his books detailing how specific past wars could have achieved their goal by non-violent action, without the negative effects that contaminated the victory. For example, the America colonists war for secession left a federal standing army that later begin to expand, committing genocide of indigenous tribes. Canada got their independence peacefully, and tribes escaped there to find sanctuary.

        In conclusion, I see where humanity is “dealing with the world” not by wishing or praying, or acceptance, but by using Aristote’s “scientific method” and reasoned discourse, which requires no coercion. Why? It’s only logical.

        Voluntarily, Don

        • “…Does the past political paradigm of coercion by deadly threat prove “all society depends at some level on coercion”? I find the opposite. All empires failed. ….”

          Yes, they failed AFTER EXISTING, where as zero Non-coercive societies have ever existed. You may as well be saying that The United Federation Of Planets is better then the British Empire, even though one is real and one fictional.
          You can may say that primitive tribes no one has heard of (probably in this case extended families) such as the lived in those underground houses (new mexico I guess?) existed in a non-coercive state but I find little evidence to suggest its true. Even the Australian Aborigines would kill each other from time to time.

          as to Paine and Co, Yes… indeed the Founders who wrote a good deal about Liberty ARE misleading if we pretend that they had an idea of “liberty” meaning anything like the modern conception of that term.

          You realize that some of them owned slaves? That they would coerce into working?

          You also know that Paine was eventually rejected by the Founding fathers because he was too extreme? However good a wordsmith he may have been his ideas were too radical for the American public, being more in line with the insanity of the French Revolution.

          I also dont understand your point about the Plymouth Colony, since the Puritans were quite happy to persecute, killing or driving out, religious dissenters who went too far outside of their ideology.

          As I said, if you read “Albions Seed” you will see that the conception of Liberty was VERY different in different parts of America and the modern usage is closest to “the boarderers”, not the Hyper religious Puritans , not the Quakers and not the Planters.

          I also dont know why you are talking about Segregation, which was a highly popular policy brought in by Populist politicians LONG after the Civil War and the end of slavery. There was no perceived need for segregation when the distinction was between Free and Slave.

          “….Gene Sharp estimated that it takes about 10-15% activists to achieve a political shift using non-violence persuasion. ….”

          yes, they CAN indeed get stuff thru non-violence, yet I ask you to say with a straight face that it would have worked against the Bolsheviks who murdered 20 million people??? Such techniques only work against opponents that are constrained by other forces (such as fearing international censure or internal revolt)

          “…. by using Aristote’s “scientific method” and reasoned discourse, which requires no coercion…”

          ???? Logic is cool, but its a tool that has less effect then a plank with a nail in it on shaping public policy

          • “…whereas zero Non-coercive societies have existed.” Societies have been a mixture of peaceful coexistence, e.g., economically those closest to capitalism, a non-violent economic system, are always more prosperous, and varying degrees of violence politically. The less violence, the more productive the political policy.
            “…a plank with a nail…” is force, which “shapes public policy” negatively.
            Reason is a uniquely human trait that when optimized, creates a positive policy that producers thrive in, as do all who just “go along to get along”.

            • ‘‘…. Societies have been a mixture of peaceful coexistence….. and varying degrees of violence politically…..”

              Politically just means ‘socially’ in this sense, “The Polis” being the people who are forced to follow the rules that allow property ownership to exist. There is always a % of people that lack the IQ or the self control to prosper and it is perfectly logical for them to use violence and steal what they want which is why Coercion will always be needed to stop them….. and you are also agreeing with me that there has never been a NON-coercive society.

              Politics just means how the people are ruled and how they rule themselves, its not a special category except , perhaps, in highly advanced/complex societies. Its just how the rules of living in groups ar negotiated 99% of the time.

              “….. The less violence, the more productive the political policy…..”
              The Roman Empire and the Slave holding estates of the antebellum South disagree…. They were societies HIGHLY productive of material wealth. If you are defining productive in another sense feel free to correct me.

              “….Reason is a uniquely human trait that when optimized, creates a positive policy that producers thrive in, as do all who just “go along to get along”……”

              Again, “YES-But…” if you happen to be a low IQ person at the bottom of an advanced society then looting stores or committing other crimes is a perfectly logical way to get material goods that you could not earn. If you happen to be an advanced society then looting the wealth of your primitive neighbors is perfectly logical.

              No one can say that stealing Australia or forcing China to buy opium at gunpoint made Europeans poorer, nor can you argue that its not logical for ill educated tribal politicians in South Africa to steal from the productive white minority.

              Now, both may be MORAL issues, and we might wish that people act differently, but we must deal with how people DO act.

              Coercion stops theft and allows property rights to exist and productive activity to continue- one may REASON with a guy stealing your car, but only the threat of force will generally stop is actions

              • I am using coercion to mean the initiation of violence, threats, fraud, as distinct from non-aggressive violence, e.g., a reaction defending against an attack.

                Note: Pacifists don’t distinguish between the two forms of violence, denial of rights versus defending rights, immoral aggression versus moral response to the aggression. Their amorality encourages the immorality by removing negative consequences. It is immoral to be amoral in the face of immorality. Moral resistance stops or deters immoral acts, but it may not change the actor who only stops out of practicality.

                The persistence of immoral actors is best addressed by moral actors, e.g., a voluntary politics, achieved by all who contract directly, not the so-called “social contract” that is forced on all by the fact that they live within arbitrary boundaries. That concept is indefensible by reason, but force is an unrealistic reliance on superstition, e.g., “The Most Dangerous Superstition” (Larken Rose), the political paradigm of authoritarism.

              • @Voluntaryist,

                Thank you for explaining the “non aggressive principle” distinguishing it from pacifism.

                This is an important distinction.

                I hope I am not being rude by butting into your conversation with Duck, but I was interested in the subject.

              • @Duck,

                IQ and morality are two separate things.

                There are psychopaths with very high IQs who kill, corrupt, demoralize, maim, etc…on a grand scale.

                People with high IQs can be very evil.

                I think making this distinction is important.

            • Voluntaryist

              “….I am using coercion to mean the initiation of violence, threats, fraud, as distinct from non-aggressive violence, e.g., a reaction defending against an attack….”
              Then you ARE talking about the Social Contract, in a sense.
              For example, on what basis may I be said to “own” something (say land) ?
              I own it because people have agreed that I own it, presumably other people would also like to use it and are prevented fro doing so because its generally agreed that its MINE, not someone elses. Now what if ten guys want to build houses on “my” land? I cant fight ten guys, and the only thing stopping them from becoming the new owners is “the law”, which they are forced to obay thru threat of violence and punishment.
              ALL law ultimately means nothing unless it rests upon coercion….this IS how ( as you say) “…..The persistence of immoral actors is best addressed by moral actors,….” in practice.
              You may say that I can get ten neighbors to protect “my land” BUT THIS IS the creation of coercive government, which is the natural state for man to live in when part of a community. IT IS the ‘social contact’ that, as you say “..…. is forced on all by the fact that they live within arbitrary boundaries……” because it is the only way that humans are able to live in something approaching a peaceful condition.
              The reason is, human nature. As you say “….Moral resistance stops or deters immoral acts, but it may not change the actor who only stops out of practicality….”
              I would however quibble about your use of “moral” since in this situation its an irrelevant term since the ten guys who want my land probably think that I’m a greedy SOB hording all the wealth that they are ‘morally’ entitled to share in. As the amusing short film “Get off my land” (link below) points out all land (and almost all resources) were fought over at some point.
              As to the idea that “…That concept is indefensible by reason, but force is an unrealistic reliance on superstition, ….” it makes no sense.
              First off, “reason” told us for ages that Honeybees could not fly (until we learned more about fluid dynamics ) and FORCE is the reason that you are able to hold possession of anything. The only thing the Farmer in the film need fear is the coervive power of the police

              “get off my land” short film

              • @Duck,

                A “social contract” makes sense to mention. Shared morality or ability to defend oneself from bad actors.

                I don’t think self defense is coercive in the true sense of the word. The word to me implies unethical use of force or intimidation.

              • This presumes the farmer lacks a conscience.

                That is the other penalty.

                Also, suppose the farmer lacked a conscience. The family may avenge the deaths.

                If I were to trespass on private land, I mostly worry about the response from the owner, rather than the state.

                The state does coerce people to abide by unethical rules.

              • Definition of terms are probably helpful prior to debate.

                Looking up the definition of coercion. In an ethically neutral sense, it means to compel or “force” someone to do something against their will.

                If someone’s will is to harm another person and treat them in an unethical manner, opposing their will violently (even taking of a life) according to some could be defined as coercive.

                Self defense using violence could be defined as coercion but the word is not commonly used that way in English as far as I know.

                Is it ever ethical to force someone to do something they don’t want to do?

                Yes it is, especially if what they want to do is violating the legitimate rights of another person.

                What makes something legitimate?

                Is it only “social contract” in absence of morality?

                From a materialistic perspective devoid of any feelings, what are the rewards of respecting the rights of others?

                Perhaps human development is the reward. Positive development, survival, discovery, exploration? To become more than we have been, improvement…

              • “Then you are talking about the Social Contract, in a sense.” In any society, their is an expectation of civility, e.g., vendors expect to be paid for their merchandise, not robbed. If they are robbed, it is looked down upon, regarded as immoral, as is denial of rights such as life, liberty. This minimum civility was necessary for a society to develop. If they didn’t exist, pre-government, if they only exist by govt. mandate, forcing them on people, what held together pre-govt. society? I claim our species developed a higher intelligence, and that is our ONLY means of survival. Brute force alone, our physical makeup would make humanity unsuitable to compete.
                But our unique cognition, despite our poor physicality, makes us superior competitors.
                “Right” is a concept developed by “reason” which was identified by Aristotle, NOT invented. Concepts come from his system, the laws he discovered about our ability to think and know reality.
                Plato disagreed. He put reality second to thought. He would say we create our own reality by our imagination, our thoughts. Reality is an agreed upon human invention, a popular belief.
                This is Platonism when you claim property rights are nothing more than an agreed upon construct.
                I claim they exist by our unique mentality, and must be understood, acknowledged, for our survival. I am an Aristotelian.
                Those who claim reason can’t be trusted to give us “the truth”, i.e., reality, are depending on Plato’s cave analogy, which contradicts itself.

            • Voluntaryist
              “…..In any society, their is an expectation of civility,….”

              Indeed….but exactly what is considered civil varies greatly by culture.

              Also that civility only exists when those who do not wish to be ‘civil’ are coerced unwillingly into doing so. The pressure of people rejecting you works OK in a tribe/small society, but it is not sufficient to prevent crime in anything larger then a small homogeneous group.

              “…(civility) ….If they didn’t exist, pre-government, if they only exist by govt. mandate, forcing them on people, what held together pre-govt. Society?….”

              The enforcing of rules by violence as I said.

              But What is a ‘pre-Gov’ society?
              Anything over a small family group of hunter gatherers has some way of making and enforcing rules. You are mistaking THE MODERN state for ‘government’ when in-fact even a village headman was ‘the gov’ of his own little society.

              There is NO settled group that is without SOME form of “government”, and pastoralist societies also have respected leaders who set the tone of expected behavior and enforce them either by social pressure of (more usually) violence

              “….. I claim our species developed a higher intelligence, and that is our ONLY means of survival…..”

              Tom Paine, IIRC, said correctly that man must live in groups to survive.
              A single human is pretty much toast the second he gets even a small injury. Without a society no mother could feed herself while pregnant or nursing.

              Our intelligence is what allows this high level of cooperation, but without a group even the smartest ones of us can not survive the slightest mishap.

              It is our SOCIAL group that makes humans ‘competitors’ and a social group, above a tiny size, has, will have and has always had some for of top down leadership.

              “…….“Right” is a concept developed by “reason” which was identified by Aristotle, NOT invented…..”

              Possibly- but Aristotle believed that SOME HUMANS ARE NATURAL SLAVES, and thus I think his conceptions of “right” and Wrong” and “Rights” is VERY different from the one you are trying to shoe horn him into.

              “……This is Platonism when you claim property rights are nothing more than an agreed upon construct…..”

              Possibly, I would disagree, because I think that it is YOU who is seeing the shadows upon the wall. You see the results of the natural system but not the causes which I believe I have outlined correctly.

              If you can show me a society of people who exist above hunter gathering that do not have some kind of ruler and ruled, and who never steal because of morality (but would NOT be punished if they did) then you would have a point. But I think you will not be able to do so.

              • Punishments are best if not violent, as many villages in India have shown. Also, the Amish, the Mennonites. This way of living is much less stressful than worrying about infinite laws, unlimited power of LEOs exempt from them, e.g., “limited (unlimited) immunity” policy by the SCOTUS, creating an official ruler/ruled class, “Law for thee, not for me.”
                Just as advanced tech appears to a primitive tribe as magic, advanced development of civil life may appear to the politically superstitious as unworkable, impossible because they can’t imagine it or haven’t worked thru details. Even if too advanced to conceive of, it’s logical.

            • Voluntaryist

              What form of punishment works best is not really relevant to my main point, which is that its is impossible for a society to exist without some form of coercive government.

              THAT is the whole point of all that I have said to you.

              If you can not show me that such a thing as a government free society has ever existed you are in the same position as an evangelical awaiting the Rapture.

              “… advanced development of civil life may appear to the politically superstitious as unworkable, impossible because they can’t imagine it or haven’t worked thru details. Even if too advanced to conceive of, it’s logical….”

              MAYBE that is true, but the onus is on the person claiming that something that has never existed can or will exist to prove it is possible. Even if it WERE possible one would then have to show how such a society could survive against a less advanced, hostile competitor culture.

              I will not hold my breath. I try to see things as they are, not as I WISH them to be.

              • Duck: You said: “What form of punishment works best is not really relevant to my main point, which is that its is impossible for a society to exist without some form of coercive government.”
                ??? That is my refutation to your support of coercion. Your “maybe that is true” is the opposite of a comeback for my arguments.
                The Vikings were brutally uncivilized, undefeated warriors that slowly became less violent, settled down and mixed with their victims, who produced goods and services they valued but could not produce. Without realizing it they were changed by those they thought inferior, without changing the producers.
                MY point: There is no future in violence. It only destroys. Peace is productive, civil, moral. It’s the logical way to live.

            • “….MY point: There is no future in violence…..”

              That is clearly untrue.
              However productive a period of peace may be it will always end when the cycle of civilization gets to the weak, degenerate phase. THEN a successor culture colonizes it in some way or other- most often by violent means.

              “… It only destroys. Peace is productive, civil, moral. It’s the logical way to live…..”

              Yes, but it holds the seeds of its own destruction. The wealth and comfort it produces makes the soft men who turn their back on reality. Their wealth shields them from reality….until it does not.

              Here is “fate of EMpire” by Glubb being read aloud.

              If your as old as you say (80’s?) you have lived your life in the shade of the Super Power status of the USA. Those days are coming to an end.

              • Duck, you keep chanting that coercion is necessary, unavoidable, as history has proven.

                Buddha, Confucius, Aristotle, Gandhi, Thoreau, most of the Founding Fathers, all presented arguments that refuted you.

                Rothbard tells us about Chuang Tzu (369-c.286 BC):

                ’There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]’. Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of ‘spontaneous order’, independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and developed by F.A. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus, Chuang Tzu: ‘Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone’.

                Political progress has been slower than scientific progress. When it catches up, coercive govt. will be abolished.

            • “….Buddha, Confucius, Aristotle, Gandhi, Thoreau, most of the Founding Fathers, all presented arguments that refuted yo….”

              They may say what they like….BUT WHERE is the Non Coercive state????

              Have you found one to tell me about or are you still in Theory Land awaiting the rapture??

              But the guys you talk of:

              Buddha…..maybe agrees with you, but since he lived the life of a mystic and begged for a living and his followers are ALL living in coercive states so what?

              Confuscianism is HARDLY a non coercive system….. in fact IIRC in China the state would sometimes would punish your whole family for the crime of a single member

              Aristotle did not have an issue with coercive state at all, was the teacher of Alexander the Great who built a massive empire, and Aristotle thought that some people were “Natural Slaves”

              Gandi…. I wonder how well he would have done tossing out a Nazi occupation of india….? The British Empire only gave up because they were bankrupt and exhausted.

              The other guy…? Did he create a non coercive gov????? Or was he an early Freeman on the Land type???? LoL

              As for the Founding Fathers they were perfectly OK with State Power. They allowed slavery, hanged criminals and put down insuretions and drove off “untaxed Indians”….. they just wanted States to be able to over rule the FedGov. Some of them also coerced slaves that they owned.

              You are imagining a state of being that has LESS chance of happening the automated techno communism dude. Never happened, never will, there is no progress to an impossible state.

              • Duck asks me: “…BUT WHERE is the Non Coercive State????”

                We both agree states are a mixture of freedom & Force. I would say some are “less enslaved than others”, BUT, I could say some are “more free than others”, pessimist vs. optimist.

                Look at the 190 states as rated by various “think tanks” and rated for their degree of freedom. The freer are the more prosperous, more productive.

                If you think coercion is so great, so necessary, why aren’t all states 100% coercive?

            • Voluntaryist

              I never said Coercion “is great” – what exactly are we arguing about?

              1) I said it was a fact of human nature and would always be present in any society to some degree- I THINK you agree on that (you said states are a mix of coercion and non coercion )

              2) There is no progession into a TOTALLY NON coercive society because it can not function.
              2b) even if it could it would be eaten by a more aggressive neighbor and no state or culture is permanent and will cycle from high to low because civilizations always decay and are replaced.

              3) The level of physical coercion a society needs is directly linked to how diverse its people are (the more diverse the fewer interests they share) and also the wealth of that state (Pigs dont need to fight when there is a full trough)

              3b) The USA is going to become a more coercive state because the population is no longer homogeneous enough in culture that they share interests and values.
              (” our constitution is made for a religious and moral people and would suit no other’ to butcher a quote)

              If you agree that all societies use coercion to SOME degree we dont really have anything to argue about except the ‘details’ listed above.

              • “If you agree that all societies have coercion…we don’t really have anything to argue about…”

                Only if you assume the political paradigm is unchangeable. I don’t. I believe it must change or humanity is doomed.

            • Voluntaryist
              “…BUT, I could say some are “more free than others”….”

              Yes, we agree on that.

              I am not a FAN of strict laws and a heavy government hand, sorry if I gave that impression.

              On the other hand I would say that physical coercion is what takes the place of social coercion in a less homogeneous society where people do share the same values and have the same interests.

              As to prosperity, Singapore is hardly a bastion of freedom and yet its also pretty prosperous . One could say that China is also doing rather well right now. Neither are very free, but they both have high IQ populations that have a culture of conformity.

              You are RIGHT that a place with more freedom allows more wealth creation, but that freedom has to be wedded to rule of law or at least a predictable set of rules. Chaos is what destroys wealth IMO, since people have zero incentive to invest- some corruption is the cost of complex society but too much kills it.

              I guess its kinda like free range chickens vs battery hens- in the short term you can get more eggs from the latter but in the long term the free rangers mostly take care of themselves. Since I must live in a society I want as much freerange as possible.

              ALL society is, by its nature, kinda like a farm IMO but unlike purists I dont deeply hate that fact. I just see that living on a farm is what makes it possible for higher populations of animals to exist then could live in the wild. The Unabomber was correct about industrial society, but I dont want to try living a primitivist life.

              • I quit eating meat/eggs about 15 years ago because they were contaminated with pesticides, antibiotics from the grain food. I get them again, IF they come from all-grassfed animals. Meat was very expensive, at first, but Costo has been carrying grass-fed beef patties and sausage. Sprouts sells Vita Farm eggs, no grain or antibiotics. We pay more, but it’s a much healthier food.

                John Stossel reported on the most world’s most prosperous city, Hong Kong, when under the most laisier-faire Brit rule. He was able to start a business for pennies in minutes compared to cities in the USA that smother with red tape, charge $hundreds, delay days-weeks. Are we safer? Hell, no, but the bureaucrat parasites exist because of the deadly politics that sell “protect & serve” bullshit.

                See Stossel’s latest interview with a Swedish economist who explains in detail how the US is more socialist and why Sweden has ditched socialism to save it form collapse and is now much more prosperous than the US.

                I think we should study societies like the Amish to see how they deal with crime without using coercion. Could we call it “Cohesion without Coercion”? Or, “Rules without Rulers”?

            • “…..I think we should study societies like the Amish to see how they deal with crime without using coercion. Could we call it “Cohesion without Coercion”? Or, “Rules without Rulers”?”……”

              Uhh…. you dont know much about the Amish if you think that.

              while I would not object much I doubt that many people on this site would exactly love being in a community controlled tightly by religious rules and religious leaders.

              They have a very strong religious leadership and will expel people from their society or ‘shun’ then into submission via social exclusion. That is very powerful, even cruel, social coercion, that they do not need to use physical coercion much is because they live (like free ranger chickens in a pen) inside the US system…… if you go to rob them the US police will punish you, the coercion is outsourced.

              They DO however send the young ones out, quite often, to get rid of those who do not fit in well with their ridgid way of life 9noote that rigid is not always ‘bad’ but not many on this site would wish to submit themselves to those kind of rules)

              . Were the US gov to cease to exist the Amish would become the property of a local ruler who, if he were wise, would just extract wealth from them rather then rape all the women and sell the men as slaves.

    • @Voluntaryist:

      “The means determines the end.” If your end is to achieve a society that values the non-aggression principle, then using a coercive system, e.g., the law, is counter productive.”

      In principle this would be nice, but in practice, sometimes it’s necessary to use the tools that exist.

      For me it is anyway because I am still in the system. I must work still, must exist in the general population and their rules still apply. It’s a fact.

      In order to survive I must compromise, modify, improvise..The shift in consciousness will probably be slow.

      • Cu.h.j

        Maybe the Farmer lacks a conscience, but its really irrelevant if so (or if he feels justified) since the only way he will stop murdering people walking on his land is if the POlice force him to stop

        (presumably by giving him a fine….? LOL)

        “Kill the Dog Next Dog, weird Al. See his reaction to the moral quandary 😉

        The point about fearing the landowner when you walk on his land is not an issue if you get 20 guys with guns to take his land. The only thing stopping some people from ganging taking your stuff is the fear of punishment by other organized people- and the second you organize with others to protect your property you are FORMING a government. Thats why Government is the natural state of humans living in groups above a certain size.

        As to IQ….yes, evil people can be smart. But Stupid people do not care about hypothetical ideas like ‘bettering humanity’ or ‘Finding true morality’ and such- they live in the immidiate NOW where (unless the have fear) taking your stuff makes the richer NOW.

        They dont care if it ruins the economy in the future, the future is far off to them….do you think the Blacks taking productive White Owned farms in South Africa and turning them into unproductive peasant holdings think about whats gonna happen to the food supply there???? Do the HR and DEI types care if their immediate benefit runs the corporations they depend on into unproductive bankruptcy? Nope…. its all about NOW

        One of the issues with Libertarianism and Volynterism is that they are the ideas of smart people, mostly middle class and living in safe areas, who have not had enough experience with stupid people. The system they disparage has insulated them from the effects of uncontained stupid people, but that system is coming to an end.

      • I define “the system” as a coercive political paradigm, i.e., authoritarianism, i.e., the initiation of deadly threats. It exists worldwide, by varying degrees, but all governments propagandize (lie) to their subjects that their form is the best, the freest, most moral.
        Why do people believe obvious lies? The are “willfully blind”, politically immature victims of “The Most Dangerous Superstition” (Larken Rose).
        But not all. Historically, stats show about one third are not political zombies. For example, in Nazi Germany, about 25% of the Jews did escape, did renounce their allegiance to “the Fatherland”, valuing themselves over a mythical collective “duty to serve”. The remaining were unable to psychologically break free from “the system”. As the survivors explained afterward, “Better the devil we knew, than the devil we didn’t”. But both groups were trying to survive, one by surrender to “the law”, i.e., the only system they knew. By surrender, I mean having faith in force (coercion) to protect/serve them. The group that fled? Their dream was to live in the USA, a less coercive place. Was that indicative of a new politics? For Einstein, probably. For most, it was probably just a vague hope, driven by fear of staying.
        I started resisting the madness at 9 & 10, 1951, getting expelled for refusing to salute the flag, participate in a ritual designed to instill unquestioning obedience. Of course, I didn’t understand what was happening, just that it made me feel uncomfortable and my teachers couldn’t or wouldn’t explain, instead physically attacking me, dragging me down to the principal’s office. I wasn’t embarrassed, just confused at their response.
        At 81, I have survived by thinking of ways to live as free a possible in an unfree world. But I question constantly. I am motivated to improvise, to never give up, give in. I have always been a tax rebel. I quit my first job working for 50 cents/hr. because they took out S.S. tax of .75%. I made more for less work self employed, mowing lawns.

        • Volunteryist
          “…. It exists worldwide, by varying degrees, but all governments propagandize (lie) to their subjects that their form is the best, the freest, most moral.
          Why do people believe obvious lies? The are “willfully blind”, politically immature victims of “The Most Dangerous Superstition” (Larken Rose)…..”

          NO, they believe because the people with power tell them to believe.

          Do you really think everyone who took the Vax believed the Government? Did Soviet Soldiers fed into the meat grinder really believe in Communism? Did British redcoats recruited from the scum classes really think king George was the best king ever?


          If you can get people to believe that their system is mystically “the best, however, you can get them to do amazing things.

          But historically The only place where it was really needful to make people believe in the system was the USA as it entered its Imperial stage just prior to WW2. That hold over from the days when a homogeneous population with roughly the same culture and value system is long gone.

          I dont know why you seem to think that the Jews coming to the USA believed it was a better place- they almost immediately started to do their best to re-shape the country in ways that suited them. They MADE it into a better place for themselves.

          Who do you think was pushing the Immigration Act? Who do you think was pushing removing prayer from schools and legalizing abortion?

          ‘The Authoritarian Personality’ was their handbook on how to reshape the American psyce, and they pretty much won.

          • “I dont know why you seem to think that the Jews coming to the USA believed it was a better place- they almost immediately started to do their best to re-shape the country in ways that suited them. They MADE it into a better place for themselves.”

            Elon Musk claimed he moved to the USA because it was the most friendly to innovators and business. He immediately started to write innovative game software so he could make money to realize his dream, interplanetary colonization. He had to create what others valued to get what he valued. And he found “like minds”, e.g., engineers who shared his dream. I’m no engineer, just a Trekie”, but believe he is making the world a better place when he makes the world a better place for himself. It is possible to “re-shape the country” in ways that suit a few, at the expense of the many, using a coercive system, but it doesn’t have to be so. When it is, first blame the political system. It can’t happen without coercion.
            A voluntary non-coercive govt. would have to use the ONLY alternative, reason, rights, consent.

            • “….Elon Musk claimed he moved to the USA because it was the most friendly to innovators and business….”

              Elon Musk makes most of wealth because of Government contracts and regulations, paid for with tax money extracted from the population.

              Tesla makes money because it sells the carbon credits its EV’s earn to other auto makers.

              SpaceX makes money mostly from Gov contracts (which is why he has so far not been squished for barking at the establishment)

              “…A voluntary non-coercive govt. would have to use the ONLY alternative, reason, rights, consen….”

              A Pixie will use only pixie dust.
              I have never seen a pixie, OR a non coercive Government.

              I will believe in either when I see one

              • Would you like to see SpaceX deny NASA contracts? They would pay a lot more of your money, and in some cases fall behind because no other company can do what SpaceX does.

                Would you like to see ICEVs continue to pollute without being penalized?

                What were your points? Please explain.

                “(which is why he has so far not been squished…)” RESEARCH
                SpaceX is being stone-walled over & over by several bureaucracies.

                For example, several Billionaires have gotten the FCC to limit the satellites he can put up so they may more easily compete, if and when they ever develop the tech. That is actually the argument they used, and the agency bought it. This is blatant fascism, i.e., govt./business conspiring to interfere in the Unfree market.

                Someday this coercion will not be tolerated or our species is doomed.

            • Volutayrist

              My point is that Elon Musk exists because of the coercive state taxes that feed his empire.

              He may have come to do better, or indeed make cool stuff- but he could do nothing without the coercive state that allows him to be rich and do the projects he wants.

              He is thus not in any way a symbol or poster child for non coercive government or people coming to the US for it.

              Like the jews did, he hopes to Terraform the US into something better FOR HIM.

              • Duck: “…the coercive state that allows him (Elon) to be rich and do the projects he wants.”

                Does Elon get the state to coerce the best engineers to work for him? No. How does coercion allow non-coercion, persuasion? Please explain.

                If I use reason to persuade so I may “terraform”, will it work to enslave? Can I trick others using reason? Or, will I only get those of like mind, same values, same goals?

                Won’t that be a win-win? Yes, because un-coerced choice, free choice, unlocks/induces productivity.

                The slave plantations could not compete with share cropping. Slavery is grossly inferior to freedom.

            • Elon musk makes money because most of his companies are funded BY TAX PAYER MONEY….. its coercive taxation that pays for those engineers he uses….hmn, or maybe “non-coercive” taxation by inflation??

              Either way, while he does appear to be going off script he is certainly dependent on the Big Gov model which he games thru selling his carbon Credits from Tesla to other automakers.

              His main products (rockets and cars) are all funded by Deep State money and he would be a much poorer guy without the government propping him up.

              No hating on him, particularly, he does appear like he has the makings of a Great Man,who can do big things, but I’m not at all sure he is a Good Man.

  8. Hi James, this subject is completely up my alley and since you ask for feedback so specifically I am happy to share you my experience.

    In 2014 my bankaccount got terminated because of Bitcoin. Being born in Netherlands it’s quite a shock to experience covid like discrimination. Back then in NL, nobody really understood the dangers of centralized control because people experienced huge benefits from them. Cheap resources and well payed wages, nobody wants to be the party pooper in such a moment so people ignored my warnings for the most part. I did manage to connect with some small groups of people, for example Reichburgers in Germany or The freestate of Wonderland between Netherlands and Germany, who fought endless battles with the law. I know a guy who got his birthcertificate signed by the queen of Netherlands because of the lawsuits he filed, people that live taxfree and who are not bothered by the police for it, even better, some of them make it onto a list so that policeofficers know it’s better to not spend their time on them, these people live a lawless life, as long as they stay irrelevant.

    My conclusion is that your solution from this video, to sue the system and individual handlers of the system, is not the way how I would like to handle my actions for a better society. I believe the best possible outcome of this solution will be that governement employees will be intimidated to such a level they might quit their job if they get grief over their job and everything they have worked for in their lives. Fighting the paper machine on it’s own bureaucracy is an uneven battle, because most judges are clowns in the global show of centralized failure, which is why they wear a wig and a funny costume. In the Netherlands, judge rulings are now being used by politicians as an excuse to reach the sustainable development goals of agenda 2030. “Sorry public, we have to implement this unwanted policy because the judge ordered us to do so.”

    In the future I foresee we do not need a judge to rule over justice. I might be a little dreamer, but some awesome decisions from my past have made it possible for me to try and develop the change I like to see. I’m writing a blog from near Liberland and tomorrow I will debate the leader of the Dutch Libertarian Party because I believe Bitcoin got hijacked. It all costs me time & effort and to keep it on topic, fighting the system in court will also cost you time and effort, money, the risk of being declared a persona non grata and have your personal live been made more complicated, but with the difference of result that if you focus that attention on creation the solutions you want to see, you will have something to show for if you succeed, and a winning lawsuit will leave only losers. Congrats your doctor is now liable for your vaccine injured baby. Go celebrate your court victory, but mourn for eternity for not having a better option available and believing the state is going to provide you with satisfaction.

    • Yoshi: I love your identification of judges as “clowns in the global show of centralized failure”. I believe some are deluded like their victimized public, who suffer from “The Most Dangerous Superstition” (Larken Rose). Some are not, but focus only on their short term benefits, and to hell with harm they do to humanity, long term. This short run focus infects some businesspersons who defraud knowing they can buy their way out if caught. I am following Elon Musk’s career because he has stated his concern for our species need to become multi-planetary.
      I realized this watching “Star Trek” in 1967. Meantime, he led the EV industry’s pollution free movement and cheap renewable energy to replace “Big Oil” who use govt. to stop innovation, a clean environment.

  9. n my part of the world, which would be the south eastern United States, it seems as though suing the government or individuals of the government doesn’t work out in your average citizens favor. I actually know a someone who lost their life for bucking the system. A reallly great person that made the community a better place. The good ole boy system is a tough one and a vicious one. more power to those people who can actually jeopardize their family and their own life and/or well-being and come out ahead. But where I come from it would take a huge loss for me to sue anyone in my local or state government. I’ve had several situations that are obviously unjust and have been told by attorneys to give in back off let them get their karma but walk away after years of being told that I was right. I still get screwed on a regular by a state agency. I’m a single mom and it would be selfish of me to not just take it because my kids would grow up without their mom. So if you can DO. Because a lot of us can’t. And I’m not one to let myself or family get ran over but I have to know when it’s just not worth it for my family. I guess it’s that attitude that’s got our country where it is and I apologize to my fellow Americans. Rock 🤔 hard place🤷‍♀️. Corruption everywhere one turns🤯

  10. I agree that taking on the system is usually an expensive, time consuming, energy sapping and fruitless exercise. Also, that this system isn’t going to disappear until we stop using it. It does seem like the judicial system is rigged and no longer separate from the government.
    A good start is to know who we are and how we relate to and communicate with the system.
    Here is a link to a recent Tom Barnett interview (with Monica Sepherd) about exactly that topic. Tom has many resources and ideas on this subject and has been living that life for a long time.
    While he acknowledges that NoL’s are usful and does have experience with them, a better way is to know who you are and use that knowledge to repond to any “offers” that come your way.

  11. Class Action Lawsuits, or their implied threat, to Better Conditions

    Back in the days of landline phones, snail mail bills and writing checks, I had a billing-date problem. With either AT&T or Southwestern Bell, I had made some change to our phones. I think that I added a new line. The billing cycle had changed. I started receiving the phone bill on a different time of the month. When I received my statement in the mail, the due date was often less than 10 days away, many times 5 days away. There was a surcharge fee if the payment arrived late. The penalty wasn’t much – maybe 89 cents or $1.75 or $2.50 or so.

    In order to avoid late fees, I made a concerted effort to write the payment check and get it in the next day’s mail as soon as I received the phone bill.
    I couldn’t do it. I’d have to wait until next month’s bill to see if my check made it by due date. A month is a long lag to check results, and then to try again only to have to wait another 30 days to check results. A year has 12 lags, and I wrestled with this for many months, if not years. After months and months, I then called the phone company on several occasions, and I was always promised that this billing due date issue would be resolved.

    Most people don’t read all the details of the billing, but I did. On a phone bill at that time, there was an assortment of different charges and fees, (e.g. call waiting, long distance plan A & B, voice mail, installments for line install, local tax, Federal tax, taxed tax.) And then this “late payment” charge. The amount was not very much.

    Sand sometimes sifts slowly in my skull.
    It finally dawned on me that I was not the only person receiving a bill where meeting the due date by return mail was virtually unachievable.
    Do the math. Everyone and every business had phone lines. Billing statements were mass printed and bulk mailed.
    Perhaps over the course of a year, maybe I incurred $20 to $30 in unjustified late fees. Times how many years? Times how many other people?
    Can you smell a Class Action Lawsuit brewing?

    So I wrote a letter, making copies and mailed it to every executive or department I could drum up. I outlined the above. I made it clear that if the billing cycle wasn’t resolved, they would see a Class Action Lawsuit. Not many months after, the billing date suddenly was corrected.

    • More on Class Action Lawsuits…

      Years back I had a part-time job in a small retail store. It was part of a national chain with satellite stores in many strip centers. The typical store was about the size of a two car garage, and usually one person ran the place except on shift overlap. During my short tenure, a new Regional Manager took over. He oversaw many, many stores. I met him and he was an asshole deluxe. He started firing a huge number of store managers and older people who had been there for years. Most were excellent producers, but were replaced by inexperienced, much younger people. I knew what he was doing – He could more easily intimidate, manipulate and control this young breed. Before I quit, a recently fired manager from another store got with me. He said that he wanted to do a Class Action Lawsuit.

      We met at the Attorney’s office who had experience in Class Action. I took notes and asked tons of questions.
      My take-away was that if a person wanted to start a Class Action Lawsuit, the tough works begins with the person, not the lawyer. There is all kinds of homework to do. It is a major undertaking which rests on the shoulders of the initiator.
      It is an Erin Brockovich type endeavor.

      Besides Brockovich, there are other well-known people who have taken on the government and/or corporations, such as Robert F Kennedy, Jr. or Robert Bilott.

      For those that don’t know Mark Lanier, he is one of the best trial lawyers in the country. In fact, he has achieved some of the largest verdicts in history, which total over $20 billion. He coaches other lawfirms on lawyering.
      Mark Lanier identifies the critical moments of trial and shares his strategies.
      The Critical Stages of Trial | Mark Lanier | Ep. 1 of 2
      (36 minutes) (Language Arts – Delivering the message and concepts)

      Jan 9, 2019 – Corbett had this related episode…
      Asbestos Found in Baby Powder. You’ll Never Guess How J&J Respond!… #PropagandaWatch

      There are a lot of Warrior Lawyers out there. Here’s one…
      Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox
      How a Lone Lawyer Stopped Forced Quarantine Camps in New York—(for now)
      Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox’s substack article:
      Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes
      Our government is rewriting history. Do not let them!

    • Even more on Class Action Lawsuits…

      I have a personal friend (since 2005) who started a nationwide Class Action Lawsuit against Big Pharma. His son is now doing fantastic.
      WFAA-TV Channel 8 in Dallas did an Investigative Report about Autism, mercury/thimerosal, and vaccine injury in February 2001.
      *****!!!!! Watch Part 1 (8 minutes) – The Attorney is Andy Waters.
      Vaccine Dangers Part 1 – WFAA News Dallas – 2001 – VaccinationEducation
      Vaccine Dangers Part 2 – WFAA News Dallas – 2001 – VaccinationEducation
      VaccinationEducation YouTube Channel – Full List of Videos

      Interviewed in that 2001 8 minute video is Andrew Waters, the attorney in the Class Action Lawsuit. He is a founder of the Dallas based firm – Waters Kraus & Paul. The Fluoride Trial attorney, Michael Connett has been employed with Waters Kraus & Paul.
      “Fifty Reasons to Oppose Water Fluoridation”
      Here is a Waters Kraus & Paul document of FOIA information which exposed the Dental Lobby and blew-up into news stories late May 2023.

      Back to the Vaccine Injury Class Action Lawsuit circa early 2001…

      The lawsuits looked to be a sure win against vaccine makers! After 9/11/01, The Patriot Act was put forth before Congress. Both the House and the Senate agreed NOT to sneak any other non-related legislation into this voluminous Patriot Act. However, the top ranking Republican Senator Bill Frist did sneak in legislation which essentially made it impossible to sue the vaccine makers.

      Senator Bob Frist owned HCA (Hospital Corporation of America ) which at the time was the largest hospital chain in America with over 400 hospitals and surgery centers.
      HCA itself was filled with corruption. In 2002, HCA was involved in the largest fraud settlement in US history.

    • More about Senator Bob Frist
      Alliance for Human Research Protection
      Advancing Voluntary, Informed Consent to Medical Intervention
      Homeland Security bill – Pharma Immunity on Vaccines
      Fri, 15 Nov 2002
      [Full Washington Post article at link]

      The Homeland Security bill that passed the House includes sweeping last minute provisions attached to it that have nothing to do with the war on terrorism. The provisions put the interest of pharmaceutical industry giants above the health and welfare of the public.

      Of particular concern is a White House-backed provision that would give pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability for adulterated products–such as drugs and vaccines–even if the manufacturer is willfully negligent in using adulterated products! According to the new bill such items would could escape from liability lawsuits, simply by being designated by the head of the homeland security department as “necessary for security purposes.”…

      … Eli Lilly could be the first beneficiary of the Homeland Security bill would immunize the company from legal action by parents who suspect that their children’s autism was caused by the mercury-laced vaccine preservative, thimerosal.

      The sweeping provisions of the Homeland Security bill–including exemption from Freedom of Information provisions–can be interpreted as an opportunistic move by special interest groups to suspend citizens’ legal rights and protections.

      As Dallas Attorney Andrew Waters told the Washington Post: “The industry has seized the opportunity presented by a Republican House and Senate to immediately pass legislation to get the industry off the hook. To me, it looks like payback for the fact that the industry spent millions bankrolling Republican campaigns.”….

  12. James,

    The option I use is to financially support those who are suing the tyrants with monthly donations. My highest monthly donation is to one of the examples you highlighted: MAFA. I have been with them for 3 years, and they are kicking ass. Next on the list is CHD, another ass kicker along with ICAN. My lowest monthly donation to lawsuits against tyrants is to Tom Renz Law. All of these have figured out how NOT to get cases dismissed because of using the wrong jurisdiction, or inappropriate statutes. They’ve ferreted out the original sins, so to speak.

    I have sent notices of liability to PUD commissioners over “smart” meters and boards of health over C-19 jabs, but I think they were ignored… how would I know? I’m contemplating sending another to the head of our state (WA) office of public education, as our governor is reinstating mask and vaccine mandates for students and school employees.

    Thanks for all you do!

  13. Congratulations on your eventual triumph.
    But you did not sue. You did not use lawfare, as I understand it. I guess it was cheaper for them to just pay you, and quiet down the issue.
    Did the needle move? In other words, did they stop the practice, thereby benefiting others, as well as you, personally? Did it stop the problematic practice, industry-wide? Culture -wide?
    So many of our bills are full of added on charges. I don’t see relief from this area of inflation, as long as we have the current dog-eat-dog moral culture in place. Trusting the ‘authorities’ and governments and their ‘budgets’ is proving a very bad bet. Thank you, and James, and everyone here for opposing injustice. But this huge deep problem will persist until we evolve spiritually. Don’t hold your breath…
    But chipping away, where we can, with sharp and pointed pieces of truth is still worth it. Who knows, it may hasten the day when we deserve and get trust from each other on a wider scale.
    ‘Truth is better than lies’ is my simple stripped down, one tenet religion. It is deceptively complicated to adhere to it impeccably.

    • Yes, My letters resolved it for me.
      I wasn’t worried about getting a refund of maybe less than $50 for a couple years of billing.
      But I could not tell ya for certain if the full issue was addressed with everyone, because I did not see everyone’s bill.
      Typically, monthly billing periods often have standard cut-off dates.
      I would bet good money that everyone’s billing-dates/mailed-out-invoice-dates were reviewed and corrected to what was appropriate.
      It would be silly for them to do a bulk mail-out of invoices, but mail mine separately on an earlier date.

      Letters to Executives of Companies <–This trumps Lawyers if effective.
      I do know that the tactic of sending a letter to Execs and Dept Heads is effective.
      Maybe not always, but "if the wheels don't spin, ya don't go anywhere".

      One example:
      At a grocery store one time, my plastic bags were scented, as in 'perfumed'. All the bags were.
      I wrote Corporate and any Exec Dept I could imagine with a copied letter about the issue.
      There have not been scented plastic bags since.

      I've done a similiar thing (snail mail) with another international corporation, and they responded in an email. The customer service department certainly got the message. They told me. I can tell the difference.

      I plan on doing more letters in the future, 'cuz there ain't no downside except stamps and time.

  14. James- can you please cover Dutchsinse- i think you have in the past–maybe interview him soon?- he’s doing some amazing things on recent earthquakes- 4/07/2024 — New Seismic Update — All others gone / removed — Unrest spreading Be prepared dutchsinse this is a pretty amazing broadcast- he’s outdone himself

  15. Back in 2021, Professor Cahill, while in conversation with James, made a very good point about this kind of strategy in the context of the scamdemic. She stated that since the Nuremberg trials, civil servants (and not only) can no longer simply say “I was just following orders”. So to sue one single individual instead of a whole organization is the principle applied here.

    “Coercive behavior” was the terminology she used.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    You know, whether it’s the police,
    whether it’s somebody in the passport office,

    or if it’s a doctor that’s coercing you
    or forcing you, they can actually be struck off.

    You can sue their medical indemnity insurance and
    it’s a crime and it’s against their ethics on the Nuremberg code.

      • HRS, it’s an honor to read such compliment from you 😉

        I really liked that podcast as Dolores explained as well how the official definition of pandemic had been tampered with over the years. Very instructive.

        James had given me the green light back then to translate their chat into French and Spanish (in case anyone is interested):

        YT was delighted, they miss him so much…

  16. Here is my experience, which I’m posting with the caveat that of course I don’t know whether my Notice of Liability was responsible for what happened here:

    Essentially, I sent NoLs to a number of individuals, including the California surgeon general, in the spring of 2021. In November, I sent out Notices of Dishonor. And in February of 2022, the California surgeon general resigned.

    Again, I don’t know whether my NoL had anything to do with her decision. But I’ve heard many similar stories from others who have sent NoLs: Frequently, the individuals who are served, resign, and often the position is left unfilled for some time.

    There were other respondents who left their positions, however because of the length of time between my sending the NoLs and their leaving, I am more inclined to think that those were coincidences. CDC director Rochelle Walensky was one of them, and I think she had other reasons for leaving!

    I have not taken any of my NoL/NoDs to a court to try to get a judgement, but I have heard – second and third-hand – of some successes here. I agree that collecting these experiences, where they can be documented, is an important project, and I am grateful that you are taking it on.

    I’ll also add that another potential use of the NoL is as evidence in support of any future class-action (or other) lawsuits that might be brought by others against the individuals you have served.

    Thank you for what you are doing here!

  17. William Francis Pepper was a barrister in the United Kingdom and admitted to the bar in numerous jurisdictions in the United States of America.
    He practiced international human rights law from the United States and from London. He has represented governments and heads of state.

    Saturday Apr 20, 2024 James Corbett had a Memorial FLASHBACK to a 2018 interview.

    There is no doubt that Bill Pepper epitomizes lawyering on an almost spiritual level.

  18. I’m a lawyer in Romania and in novermber 2020 I sued the government for closing the restaurants during the pandemic.

    I partially won the case ( in the sense that the court allowed the government to limit the number of people entering the restaurant, but they couldn’t close it completely) in december, but the government appealed the first court decision and the appeal lasted for another year, although it was refuted by the supreme court in Romania.

    The final decision, although favorable to my clients, couldn’t be applied, because already in 2021 the laws we’re changed in Romania and the restaurants didn’t close completely ever again.

    I don’t have definitve proof that they changed the law because of me suing their ass, but I have some inside info that the government was monitoring these kind of trials and that they we’re sensitive to the courts rulings, so that theire laws don’t get anulled.

    • George,
      Sir, I tip my hat to you!

      For me, regardless of “proof”, I am carving the narrative that they changed the law because of George Perju suing their ass.
      If I had a paper, the front page headline lede would have that in bold italics print.

      For me, when it comes to government and social perception, narrative trumps fact.
      I don’t give a shit if I don’t have “proof”.
      Let the opposition further open the conversation on my front page narrative by saying that I don’t have “proof”. Where’s their proof that it is not true?

      I know…my hypothetical paper headline might be considered unethical by some. So, sue me.
      The narrative that is in the public square wins.

      • The trial was covered in the local news in a somewhat neutral way, but I didn’t make any effort of publicizing it.

    • Were those proclamtions of prohibitions actual laws or just scriblings on paper? Not that there is a big difference between the two, but at least the former are shrouded by the ever elusive concept of democracy.

      • The prohibition regarding the closing of restaurants was a form of govermental decree that they were issuing every 30 days.

        Tehnically, it wasn’t a law issued by the parliament, but an executive order or administrative decision issued by the goverment, with the effects of a law.

        So, the fact that it wasn’t an actual law made it easier to be contested in court and analyzed in its merits, legality, constitutionality etc.

        • Thanks. Good to know that at least someone was applying some pressure.

  19. I like this idea and they use it against us, so why not use it against them? It’s called “Law-fare” and it is not fun being sued and for most people, it’s stressful.

    High profile cases though, like the Epstein cases went a long time before he was actually punished.

    Horrible injustices allowed by the “justice system” and the corrupt courts. However there are legal professionals and people who work in the system who do have a moral compass and their ethics can be reached sometimes.

    It is necessary though to have a lawyer to represent the case because it’s true the legal system is a club. Individuals who sue without a lawyer are far less successful than those who do have a lawyer.

  20. Please look into “deputations”, a recent trendy topic in freedom circles in Canada, and beyond – but perhaps by other terminology.

    (Also more grand juries, farmers movements, Bill vs Charter Rights, and effective bottom-up organizing (cat herding), please.)

    If I understand it correctly, 5 to 15 minutes (depending) is granted to a citizen to present information to (teach) their city council. Examples: climate scam, COVID lies, Strong Mayor agenda, corrupt UN and WEF global domination plans, how each councillor is personally responsible, etc.

    Obviously one starts gently with verifiable facts and irrefutable sources to cover the issue before laying odious blame and personal responsibility – as they may tune you out or throw you out if attacking first.

    I’ve heard of a lady in Peterborough who blew her councils minds, they changed course, and Trudeau had to fly in. I understand several cities have shifted. I wish I could be more specific now, on my phone. A friend is giving a presentation on deputations tomorrow and I can provide more information later.

    YouTuber Richard Vobes in the UK (worth interviewing or be interviewed by) occasionally talks with folks taking similar local action. I don’t know if they called them “deputations”.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member