Screw Ward of the State, Gov. DeSantis Stands Up For Parents Rights!

Lawlessness is rampant because people have obeyed so it could be practiced! IT’S NOT LAW! IT’S LEGALIZE – LIKE JACKSON’S VIEW ON WOMAN!

Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking back the rights of the parents in the State of Florida! He signed the Parental Rights in Education bill Monday, March 28, 2022, at Spring Hill school. The bill calls for a ban on discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation in the K-3 grade levels or “in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.”

Major polls showed a majority of Republicans were in favor of the bill. Polls also showed 52 percent of Democrats support it. 

Audra Christian, 47, who has a 16-year-old daughter, said she’s happy parents now have control over the classroom again. “I think it’s phenomenal that parents actually have recourse now to address curriculm in the schools and what their children are being taught in schools. I think it’s great and then also you have term limits for school board members.”

Parents can take their concerns to the State Board of Education who will appoint a magistrate to look into the matter at the school’s expense. 

Since its inception, the measure has drawn intense opposition from LGBTQ advocates, students, national Democrats, the White House and the entertainment industry. Read more: DeSantis signs ‘Parental Rights in Education’ bill into law (

There is a big difference between the law and what is legal. It appears that Governor DeSantis has been brushing up on the Constitutional Rights and taking a stand to take back parental rights from the state and give them back to the parents. Parent consent is the number one issue now on ‘transitioning students to a different gender without the knowledge of the parent’...and the whole jig is being exposed as the government cradle to the grave scam that it is. It’s time to end the corruption and stop their legal games. There is no law above the constitution and Bill of Rights, no matter how lawmakers and judges interpret and reword it!

Hopefully DeSantis will take further steps to help expose the entire government takeover of its’ legal system by inching in little by little and creating ludicrous standards that served only to enhance the government and eliminate the true rights of “We The People” and our GOD GIVE LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS! The government is not the parent of the child and they do not own people as chattel and slaves… only in their sick sided view of humanity does that even appear, and they have taken great steps to hide that truth from all citizens!

Only recently have they been so bold as to own their evil ideas openly and boast about their wicked plans and perceived accomplishments that press toward its’ completion.

We are a Sovereign Nation – “We The People” have inalienable rights … we hire government to serve us in our absence. The Government is a Creation of We The People, and can never be above We The People. So — what the heck happened?


From the time our birth certificates were filled out and filed to show the government the proof of birth, we joined the data base of the property of the state. Your sovereignty went out the window. You now are their slave and must do as the state says and follow the laws of their land.

You may say, what a crock … that is a bunch of bull. You can jump up and down and swear what an idiot I am. Slap me silly and when you are completely through and feel better having the tantrum… the fact is, the truth is still the truth, and you have allowed yourself to be a property of the state.

So what about the constitution and Bill of Rights? Well, we will find out. You see, we still do have those. But we have given those rights up willingly and unknowingly by following along with the system the government has put in place. Just like the masks and shutting down the businesses. Most everyone follows the system because that is what they are told to do. This system was created in layer upon layer, here a little there a little until one day… BOOM – it was all in place and no one ever questioned it anymore. They just do what they are told to do and flow through the system. We allowed our Constitution and Bill of Rights to lay there like a family heirloom gathering dust. Today, we follow along and do what the government system tells us to do.

Because we let this go on and on and on without doing anything about it, we have quite a mess and quite a lot to learn in order to know how to get our sovereignty back and restore our Republic.  But, as long as the majority don’t know they have been enslaved, it will be very difficult to ever restore anything.

This video explains exactly what I am presenting.

Strawman – The Nature of the Cage (OFFICIAL)

Which bring us to a thing called “Feudal Tenancy”

If you think you are a landowner in America, take a close look at the warranty deed or fee title to your land.  You will almost always find the words “tenant” or “tenancy.”  The title or deed document establishing your right as a tenant, not that of a landowner, has been prepared for transfer by a licensed BAR Attorney, just as it was carried out within the original English feudal system we presumed we had escaped from in 1776.

A human being is the tenant to a feudal superior.  A feudal tenant is a legal person who pays rent or services of some sort for the use and occupation of another’s land.  The land has been conveyed to the tenant’s use, but the actual ownership remains with the superior.  If a common person does not own what he thought was his land (he’s legally defined as a “feudal tenant,” not the superior owner), then a superior person owns the land and the feudal tenant – person pays him to occupy the land.

This is the hidden Feudal Law in America.  When a person (a.k.a. human being, corporation, natural person, partnership, association, organization, etc.) pays taxes to the tax assessor of the civil county or city government (also a person), it is a payment to the superior land owner for the right to be a tenant and to occupy the land belonging to the superior.  If this were not so, then how could a local government sell the house and land of a person for not rendering his services (taxes)?

We used to think that there was no possible way feudal law could be exercised in America, but the facts have proven otherwise.  It’s no wonder they hid the definition of a human being behind the definition of a man.  The next time you enter into an agreement or contract with another person (legal entity), look for the keywords person, individual, and natural person describing who you are.

Are you the entity the other person claims you are?  When you “appear” before their jurisdiction and courts, you have agreed that you are a legal person unless you show them otherwise.  You will have to deny that you are the person and state who you really are.  Is the flesh and blood standing there in that courtroom a person by their legal definition? These are things to ponder and discern.  And it is simply the way it is in the courts.

15 Feudalism board ideas | history class, history, world history

There is a difference between the law and what is legal. Below is an excerpt from “U.S.A. The Republic How You Lost It!”, on the topic of  “Hiding Behind the BAR”.

Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:

Solicitor – one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court

Counselor – one who advises another concerning a court matter

Lawyer – [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court

Barrister – one who is privileged to plead at the bar

Advocate – one who pleads within the bar for a defendant

Attorney – one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another’s rights & property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)

It’s very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises.  The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant’s rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).   Read the legal facts and truth here:

image 130

With the Supreme Court nominee issue making the headlines and Twitter jokes, all complete with Memes revealing the ridiculousness in such a pick for such a position of power of the law of the land…it will serve the masses greatly to understand that the law of the land is indeed quite a mess of sorts.

The law of the land has a perceived idea of what that actually is. It also has many of the Law telling you all sorts of things of how important it is and all about the “Bar Association” and all the big deal in that. What they are not telling you is they have memorized the words and gone through the steps to support the system that lay before them, regardless of what it really is or isn’t, only to become part of the system that supports the lawlessness it so claims to Lord above and to insure truth and justice.

The same truth and justice that is buried deep beneath their next clients case, for after all… they are a member of the Bar, and in so being such a member…they serve to uphold the ???? Can you even imagine what would become legal interpretation of the law under Jackson?

image 131

Which bring us to this preface of a book called:



Professor of Law, Yale University

Written in 1939

“Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away  the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” – Luke. XI, 52

A lusty, gusty attack on “The Law” as a curious, antiquated institution which, through outworn procedures, technical jargon and queer mummery, enables a group of medicine-men to dominate our social and political lives and our business, to their own gain.


No lawyer will like this book. It isn’t written for lawyers. It is written for the average man and its purpose is to try to plant in his head, at the least, a seed of skepticism about the whole legal profession, its works and its ways.

In case anyone should be interested, I got my own skepticism early. Before I ever studied law I used to argue occasionally with lawyers – a foolish thing to do at any time. When, as frequently happened, they couldn’t explain their legal points so that they made any sense to me I brashly began to suspect that maybe they didn’t make any sense at all. But I couldn’t know. One of the reasons I went to law school was to try to find out.

At law school I was lucky. Ten of the men under whom I took courses were sufficiently skeptical and common-sensible about the branches of law they were teaching so that, unwittingly of course, they served together to fortify my hunch about the phoniness of the whole legal process. In a sense, they are the intellectual godfathers of this book. And though all of them would doubtless strenuously disown their godchild, I think I owe it to them to name them. Listed alphabetically, they are:

Thurman Arnold, now Assistant Attorney-General of the United States; Charles E. Clark, now Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; William O’ Douglas, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Felix Frankfurter, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Leon Green, now Dean of the Northwestern University Law School; Walton Hamilton, Professor of Law at Yale University; Harold Laski, Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics; Richard Joyce Smith, now a practicing attorney in New York City; Wesley Sturges, now Director of the Distilled Spirits Institute; and the late Lee Tulin.

By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. I never have. I am not a member of any bar. If anyone should want, not unreasonably, to know what on earth I am doing – or trying to do – teaching law, he may find a hint of the answer toward the end of Chapter IX.

When I was mulling over the notion of writing this book, I outlined my ideas about the book, and about the law, to a lawyer who is not only able but also extraordinarily frank and perceptive about his profession. “Sure,” he said, “but why give the show away?” That clinched it.


Read the Book:,_Lawyers!.pdf Below is part of an interesting chapter that is very thought provoking and informative writing within the book.

Queen Of Hearts In Alice In Wonderland GIFs | Tenor


“’What do you know about this business?’ the King said to Alice.

‘Nothing,’ said Alice.

Nothing whatever?’ persisted the King.

Nothing whatever,’ said Alice.

‘That’s very important,’ the King said, turning to the jury.” –

Lewis Carroll

No single fact is so essential to the life and lustiness of the legal racket as the sober pretense on the part of practically all its practitioners – from Supreme Court judges down to police court lawyers – that The  Law is, in the main, an exact science. No pretense was ever more  absurd. The basic assumption behind the settlement of every legal  dispute, whether it be settled by a judge’s sacred words or out of court,  is that, according to The Law, there is only one right answer, one  preordained answer, to the problem. Lawyers and judges, so the fairy tale goes, are merely trained mechanics in the manipulation of that tremendous and complicated adding-subtracting-multiplying-dividing[1]and-square-root-computing machine known as The Law. They take a  problem, any problem, translate it into the appropriate legal symbols, push the buttons on the big machine that correspond to those symbols, and the right answer automatically pops out at the bottom.

Certainly it is only because of their passionate belief in the machine-like and inexorable quality of The Law that non-lawyers continue to submit  their civilization to legal decree. Certainly too, the law boys themselves are anxiously aware that they must keep up the pretense if they would  keep their prestige and their power. Even the Supreme Court, from time  to time in its opinions, feels it imperative to state that it is The Law, that infallible automatic machine, and not the Court, those nine fallible men,  that really dictates decisions. For the lawyers know it would be woe unto the lawyers if the non-lawyers ever got wise to the fact that their lives were run, not by The Law, not by any rigid and impersonal and  automatically-applied code of rules, but instead by a comparatively small group of men, smart, smooth, and smug – the lawyers.

CSotD: Truth, Justice or the American Way The Daily Cartoonist

Yet it should not, at this point, be necessary to pile up any more examples of how The Law works, nor to examine in detail any more of The Law’s mealy-mouthed concepts and principles and elaborate logic, in order to show that Law is a very inexact and teeter-totter “science”; that none of The Law’s answers to problems is preordained, precise, or inevitable; and that it is indeed the lawyers, with their dreary double[1]talk, and not The Law, that mass of ambiguous abstractions, that run  the show. Even if The Law still be considered a big machine that gives  automatic answers to legally-worded questions, it is the lawyers and the  lawyer-judges who phrase the questions and decide which buttons to push. And anyone who has ever worked a cigarette slot-machine knows  that if you want Chesterfields, you push the Chesterfield button. The machine does the rest.

Thus the Supreme Court knows that if it pushes the “deprivation of  property without due process of law” button, the answer will come out  – unconstitutional. If it pushes the “state police power” button, the answer will come out – constitutional. But the machine of The Law does not tell the Court which button to push. Again, any judge, engaged in deciding a dispute over an alleged  business agreement, knows that if he pushes the buttons marked  “offer,” “acceptance,” “consideration,” and a couple of others, the  answer will come out – valid contract. But if he pushes the “no offer” button, the answer will be – no contract. It is just as simple as that.

The point is, of course, that in every case the real decision is made, The  Law of the case is laid down, not after the machine gets to work but  before. The crux of the whole matter lies in the choice of which button  or buttons to push, which principle or principles or concepts to follow.

In Senior v. Braden, the Supreme Court decided to push the buttons  marked “property tax” and “interest in land.” Whereupon the machine  whirred smoothly through “no jurisdiction to tax” and “deprivation of property without due process of law,” right up to the answer – unconstitutional. But if the Court had instead laid its venerable finger on  the “income tax” button, or had skipped the “interest in land” buttonthe machine of The Law would have whirred just as smoothly to the  exactly opposite conclusion.

And there are always at least two buttons, two principles, between  which a choice must be made. Often there are several such choices. In no law case, in no legal dispute, is such a choice not presented.  Take one of the coldest, cut-and-dried cases imaginable. A sane man deliberately kills another man in the sight of several reliable witnesses. All the relevant written statutes and all the principles of Law which  encrust those statutes seem to point toward one answer – first degree  murder. Yet, as everyone knows, some lawyer will take the killer’s case,  will dig up accepted and respectable principles of Law which, if  followed, would declare the killer innocent of crime, and may – for it  has often happened – convince the court that the right legal answer is –  not guilty. No wonder, then, that in less spectacular and less apparently  open-and-shut legal controversies, a principle or series of principles can  always be found to lend the benediction of The Law to either side of  any case. No wonder there is no such thing as a legal problem which  does not have, in the eyes of The Law, two sides to it – up to the point when some judge applied just one set of principles to the problem, and thereby settles it “according to The Law.”

What are, then, all these abstract principles of which The Law is built,  these rules so diverse and complicated and contradictory that some  combination of them can be used as push buttons to obtain any result  under the sun? What are these great and guiding truths that can  override written statutes and even constitutions? What are these  indispensable counters of all legal thinking and legal action? Where do they come from – once the stork-brought-them theory that they sit in some jurisprudential sky, waiting to be brought to earth, has been dispensed with?

Alicia. Nada de nada! on Make a GIF

The simple truth is that each of them originated as the out-loud cogitation of some judge, slightly worried as to which old set of principles – or cogitation’s of other judges – to apply to the case before  him, and still wanting to make his decision sound as inevitable, as automatic, as scientific and logical as possible. Every legal principle begins its existence as a rationalization, a justification, an honesty – this – is – why of some legal decision. And the more it is subsequently  used to justify other decisions, the more respectable it grows. Legal principles, like meerschaum pipes, improve with use and age. There is a principle that equitable relief – a special kind of legal remedy – will not be granted to anyone who comes into court with “unclean hands.” It originated, centuries back, in the desire of some judge to bolster with a high-sounding excuse his decision for the defendant in a case in which the plaintiff seemed, at first, to have the best of The Law  on his side. The excuse came in handy in other cases. Today it is a primary principle of “equity law.”

So with the principle that the states may regulate businesses “affected with a public interest.” A Supreme Court judge, in upholding such a regulation, once helped give his opinion an authoritative sound by stating that the business in question was affected with a public interest and consequently was properly subject to regulation. The words stuck. Click the link to read the rest of the chapter:,_Lawyers!.pdf

That being said…

Stand up for your rights America! The family unity and God given liberties and freedoms are not and were never negotiable!

Keep on Pressing into the Kingdom of God… and pray unceasing! PRESS, PRESS, PRESS!


By Dianne Marshall

I don't sleep I write! Author, Graphic Artist, Researcher and lover of the truth.

4.4 7 votes
Article Rating
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments