Top

Shattering Illusions with Rob Halford 7/25/2009

July 26, 2009

Shattering Illusions with Rob Halford: Another ground breaking 4+ hour show. 

  • Birth Certificates
  • Promissory Notes
  • Beat the draft
  • Boxing gloves
  • Unocal
  • Sharia

And much more

Comments

30 Responses to “Shattering Illusions with Rob Halford 7/25/2009”

  1. George Orwell on July 26th, 2009 2:45 am

    I really do like this Rob fellow. What’s a nugget?

  2. Rob Halford on July 26th, 2009 1:35 pm

    Mark is a nugget, ask him.

  3. M. Kraus on July 26th, 2009 5:10 pm

    I’m sorry but I’m going to have to shatter a few illusions also. The US is not a corporation. A US citizen cannot discharge obligations, or create money, by using the “accepted for value” method. The US is not a part of Britain. These and many other similar, potentially dangerous arguments are addressed at this site: http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/deadissues.htm

    Any US citizen who wishes to end up in jail like Roger Elvick–who is also the subject of a gleeful article at http://www.splcenter.org–will get there very quickly by putting these ideas into practice.

  4. Welsh John on July 26th, 2009 5:34 pm

    Rob, you mentioned that Hitler’s government backed their currency by labour, how can labour be quantified in terms of real economic value?

    Let me give an example, in Romania under Ceausescu the country was focused on heavy industry and most males were trained as engineers. According to the labour theory of value the economy should have been booming, however there was no need or demand for the products the engineers were producing. Thus there was plenty of labour but no value.

    I’d appreciate your response to my musings on your show.

  5. Rob Halford on July 26th, 2009 10:36 pm

    Thanks for your efforts M Kraus. Typical of the legal profession to try and scare people with threats and bluster. I have not been arrested nor have I even had any issues.

    For your info, the Supreme Court of the US has already said that the US is a corp, do your homework better.

    A US Citizen can’t protest debt or discharge debt, but I was talking about men and women, not legal constructs.

    You can post rubbish all day, but at the end, the truth will win out over lies and threats.

  6. M. Kraus on July 27th, 2009 1:23 am

    Mr. Halford, lawyers may make threats, but the State (government, empire, etc) makes promises. The fact that you have not yet been jailed, or raided by government agents, is not proof of the validity of your argument. Others, like Roger Elvick, have been jailed, raided and harassed for trying to use the State’s own laws against it.

    I maintain the US is not a corporation. The evidence against this
    argument can be found here:
    http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/10/the-united-states-is-not-a-corporation-us-v-cooper-corporation-312-us-600-1941.html

    As for “legal constructs” vs. men and women, I should note that Roger Elvick’s legal construct is not in jail. He is.

    The truth is that the State will not allow its citizens/subjects to use its own laws and courts against it. Anyone with a lick of common sense should realize that. We cannot cut our chains by politely asking to borrow the master’s hacksaw.

  7. Rob Halford on July 27th, 2009 2:52 am

    M. Kraus, you are correct about the state makes promises. However, your argument displays no facts that are similar to my case or cases of people I know have done things.
    Roger Elvick used different techniques and tools a while ago, things have advanced since.
    As for what you maintain, you are free to cherry pick whatever cases you like, but be aware the Supreme Court has said that there are more than one UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    The reason Roger is in jail is because he did stuff incorrectly.
    You are correct about the state and ITS courts and laws. They aren’t my courts or laws and I don’t care what they do there.
    You are also correct to state that their laws won’t give us freedom, that is why we use our law, after all, we are the source of the law, not the lawyers, not the courts, not the state.

    How did you hear about my show, just out of interest?

  8. Rabbi Swindleberg on July 27th, 2009 7:34 am

    I can not listen to this guy talk about obscure legal loopholes and being under a corporation when I see piles of third world filth out of my window destroying my country. How is this information constructive in any way what so ever? Ok, we are a corporation, we owe debt…..now what? Do you think the masses of illiterate scum from every shithole on the planet are interested in your clever diatribe about the intricate and hidden legal situations we are in? They will slit your throat while you have heated debates about corporations and debt.
    I wish Ghost Wolf Radio was still up. THAT WAS REAL INFORMATION.
    How to survive and build skills needed in the coming future conflicts. Throw your books away about Jews, blacks the economy. We already know what the problem is! Learn a skill, get good with your weapons. Leadership will form in tough times, trust me. These debates about corporations are just mental masturbation until we have something reasonable to replace this system with.

  9. Rob Halford on July 27th, 2009 8:40 am

    Thanks for the input Rabbi. If you don’t like my show, don’t listen.

  10. M. Kraus on July 28th, 2009 1:50 am

    Mr. Halford: I didn’t hear about your show from any other source. I’m a regular visitor here, and listen to all the shows. Don’t misunderstand me: this isn’t meant as a personal criticism of you, or of VOR–I’m only concerned with ideas which I think are erroneous, and extremely dangerous in practice.

    You say that things have advanced since Mr. Elvick was arrested. Well, maybe so, but here’s a link to a description of the “new” redemption process, with caveat, of course:

    http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/NewRedemption.html

    Closed bank account instruments? Who but a blockhead would try that?

    All I can see from the commercial-law-is-supreme camp are vague generalities and assurances that yes, this stuff works, but we can’t really prove it to you–just trust us. That is ridiculous. Mary Elizabeth Croft, for example, claims that she made her own “international drivers permit”, and presented it to a police officer who had stopped her for some minor violation, and the officer let her go on her merry way. I can tell you with no hesitation, I will NOT be allowed to drive away if I do that. In fact, I’ll be hauled off to the slammer tout de suite. Anyone with half a brain would never attempt such a stupid stunt. Is Croft a charlatan? Is she just insane? I don’t know, but I do know that reading her book makes my survival instinct scream “no”.

    You may not care about the state and its courts, but I assure you that they DO care about you, and they will prove it by employing their agents, their police, their military–whatever it takes.

    No, we are not the source of the law–they are. They write it, they interpret it, they enforce it with their guns. Once again, we as racially aware and freedom loving white people, cannot free ourselves using the empire’s laws. Not the UCC, not the 1099 OID, not the tax code–nothing. Doing any of those things will only bring the hammer down on us. We will have to do it the “old fashioned” way, or not at all.

  11. Rabbi Swindleberg on July 28th, 2009 4:19 am

    I did not mean to be rude Rob, I am just frustrated about the “on the ground situation”. It is important to have a broad knowledge base in order to call ourselves educated men and I appreciate your effort s in trying to explain these things. I understand the need to clarify certain concepts but things are deteriorating quite rapidly and I think we are actually wasting your intellect and speaking skills on this tired ass subject of corporations and debt.
    Where I live the tension is building between the muds and whites and whites are unprepared for any conflict. We need to get white men in the gym and on the shooting range and off of the damn internet. Enough researching obscure laws and statutes and arguing over definitions of legal terms!

  12. Rob Halford on July 28th, 2009 7:35 am

    M. Kraus, I can take criticism, after all, I just put a show out into the public, if you can’t take it, don’t broadcast, so that isn’t a problem.
    Criticism can be good, because it can knock your ego down, it can show you an area where you screwed up and you can learn from others, I don’t mind that at all.
    That link you posted isn’t new, that is 2003. None of that is connected to anything I do, or anyone I know. Also, you are using the oppositions terms to define what I and others do, not our definitions. Becraft is a lawyer, what do you expect he will say about all of this?
    Mary Croft wrote a very good book, but I have no idea about the application of her stuff as I have never seen her methods, only what she claims as results.
    If you believe you will be arrested for doing X, then of course, you are correct as you are the master of your own destiny, not the cop.
    People have to stop externalising all of the things in life and realise IT IS IN YOU.
    If you believe in the system, read the constitution of the US, it says WE THE PEOPLE. YOU ARE THE SOURCE OF THE LAW, not them.
    Using the ‘freeman’ type approach is not to free the world, but to free yourself and those around you. Remember, 1 pebble starts the ripple effect.
    Just so that you know, I am not offended by your posts, so don’t worry about that.

  13. Rob Halford on July 28th, 2009 7:38 am

    Rabbi, ya boxhead, I have a feeling I know you. Now on your comments, I hear what you say. You are not wrong, but you are not 100% correct either.
    There was a guy once, known to the world as Adolf Hitler and he decided that if the Germans were going to free themselves, they had to know themselves before they started messing around with anything else.
    THat is what I am trying to achieve, I want to help people to empower themselves. I can’t teach you guys and girls anything, you learn it yourselves, but I can assist you.
    As for doing stuff out there in the real world in the gym and firing range, it isn’t an either or decision. You need to do both. Sending meatheads out to fight isn’t a good decision.

  14. jimbo on July 29th, 2009 3:28 am

    re: “Rabbi Swindleberg” & “M Kraus”…… these matters that Rob H discusses are just another weapon in our “arsenal”….no-one is seriously disputing that ZOG can be over-thrown by any-thing other than some sort of “force”….the point is: these para-legal “techniques” can be effectively used to challenge the validity of most, if not all, of ZOG’s “laws” AND “tie up”/”blockade” the ZOG “justice/court-system”;

    that leaves ZOG with only one option…..brute force…..when that happens, most white people should clearly see that our current system is NOT based on “rule of law” but “rule of force”, thus providing a legitimate causus belli for declaring open hostilities against the current, corrupt ZOG “system”!

    these ideas have been used effectively in the UK……..although, admittedly, in a n° of limited instances!

    the US also has its “constitution”…..if that was more effectively utilised & exploited (good exmpl: US gun laws violating the second amendment!)……then, ZOG would not have so much “lee-way”!

  15. M. Kraus on July 29th, 2009 1:53 pm

    Jimbo, I cannot find any examples of court cases being won by any group or individual who puts these ideas into practice. Until I can find a reference to such a case, and can independently verify it, I will maintain the position that it cannot be done.

    One would think that the websites which promote these ideas, and promise to walk people through the process of freeing themselves–for a hefty fee–would certainly be able to cite at least once court case which has been decided in their favor.

  16. Rob Halford on July 29th, 2009 3:29 pm

    M. Kraus, you do know about out of court settlements, don’t you? You sound very much like our old freind Bernie, aka Shoonra.

    Is that you Bernie?

  17. M. Kraus on July 30th, 2009 2:18 am

    Mr. Halford: No, I’m not Bernie.

    Yes I know about settling out of court. What I want to see is a case which was decided IN court, and which was a favorable decision for the defendant who based his defense on commercial redemption/strawman/UCC etc.

    No one can cite such a case, it would seem.

  18. jimbo on July 30th, 2009 7:51 am

    re: “M Kraus” …. yr “missing the point” of what Rob H is saying…..these matters do not ‘end up’ in court(s) ….. (the reason is)……. because “the authorities” do NOT want people knowing about/”twigging to” this stuff…..if it “ends up in court”, then, it is either reported in the MSM or is recorded in official Law Reports……either way, the case can then be looked up & the relevant material quickly researched on the web……..but……to satisy yr “curiosity”, you should “read up” the link i posted above (tpuc.org)……especially their “Forum”…..there are cases mentioned, for instance, where people have refused to register their motor vehicles in the UK & have “gotten away with it”…..there is significant “back-up evidence”……copies of notarised letters, official government replies & YT-type vids of cars with their own home-made “number plates”…….i guess you could take that or leave it with respect to “proof” :-| ~

  19. Steve on July 30th, 2009 10:45 am

    Mark is a nugget! lol

    Hey Rob, play some Black Sabbath on a future show brother!

    BTW, the show is AWESOME!

  20. M. Kraus on July 30th, 2009 1:05 pm

    Jimbo, these matters certainly do end up in court, and here’s a whole page of citations:

    http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/UCC.htm

    Notice that the courts all say the same thing: “Uniform Commercial Code does not apply”,”UCC is not applicable”,”IRS’s Notice of Intent to Levy is not a negotiable instrument”, etc. These are not technicalities or loopholes; they are fundamental principles which any student of law would understand. The notion that all law is commercial law is just a personal interpretation which will not stand up in court.

    I read some of the pages on the link you posted. It seems like most of the people on that forum have the same attitude as those who espouse this theory in the US: We can’t prove it, but it works for us. In other words, anecdotal evidence. That’s nice, but I need something a bit more substantial. What I want to see, again, is a court citation from a US court in which a defendant won a case with a defense was based on a “non-traditional” interpretation of commercial law. Until I see that, I’ll assume that all of this is just a nice fantasy.

    It shouldn’t be so difficult to produce that kind of hard evidence.

  21. Rob Halford on July 30th, 2009 3:09 pm

    M. Kraus, I don’t have the hard evidence for you, because whatever I posted, wouldn’t be enough. Now, I understand caution, but somewhere along the line, you need to piss, or get off the pot.

    I have first hand knowledge of stuff that has happened, mostly out of court, but some in and you wouldn’t get it.

    You keep quoting Becraft, he is a lawyer, he is going to cherry pick cases to make us look bad, that is his job.

    No different to communists and their anti western propaganda.

    I won’t be posting evidence for you, you find it yourself, it is YOUR journey, not mine. I am on my own journey, I just decided to let others hear my opinions in an effort to help you guys along, if I could.

  22. Rob Halford on July 30th, 2009 3:10 pm

    As for you Steve, which version of Black Sabbath do you like best?

  23. M. Kraus on July 30th, 2009 4:41 pm

    Mr. Halford, I’m asking for just ONE instance of a court case in the US which has been decided in favor of a defendant who used commercial law as a defense in a non-commercial case. Just ONE.

    Not from you personally, by the way. From anyone who espouses this viewpoint and would like to jump in here. Please do.

    Anyone can say they settled out of court. I did. I settled out of court for a substantial sum, less than what I hoped for originally, but still substantial. Or…maybe not. See how that works? Anecdotal evidence. Does anyone want to bet their freedom and their life on it?

    I wouldn’t get it? Maybe not. But for the benefit of those who WOULD get it, please provide it.

    I don’t know much about Becraft, but from what I can see on his site, he’s quite a bit different from communists. In fact, I imagine commies would like to see him dead. In any event, if he is in fact cherry picking cases to make the CR crowd look bad, they should be able to provide at least ONE example in their defense. They haven’t, or at least I haven’t seen it. That’s why I’m asking for someone, anyone, to provide me with it.

    “Find out for yourself” doesn’t inspire confidence. Why is this stuff such a big secret? Because it doesn’t work? Because people are afraid of getting caught? Because it’s more profitable to sell the information for hundreds or thousands?

    Well intentioned people are going to try out some of these ideas, and they are going to get a nasty surprise. I have no intention of doing a tour of “Club Fed”, and anyone who is not prepared for such a scenario should stay away from this stuff, because all available evidence is against it. I don’t want to see White people further marginalized as nutcases and cranks, especially when they are racially aware. The SPLC and other despicable, anti-White groups love to hold up the example of “patriots” who go off on half-baked ventures, and end up in jail, fighting black and brown scum to stay alive. Ha ha ha, stupid White supremacists and their nutty ideas. That’ll teach ‘em.

    Let’s not help “them” to put us away.

  24. Steve on July 30th, 2009 9:44 pm

    Hey James, uh, I mean Rob. Any Sabbath with Ozzy of course!

    “Who Are You” from Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is quite appropriate for current events, wouldn’t you say? ;)

    Can’t wait for the next show, very entertaining and provocative.

  25. jimbo on July 31st, 2009 3:13 am

    re: “M Kraus” (again!)

    here is a link from tpuc.org concerning a Brit’, Richard Harrison, who used “Rob H’s” techniques to successfully de-register his motor vehicle!

    now, by rights, i shouldn’t have had to post that….you should have been able to “look it up” yr-self on their Forum!

    i don’t believe that you’ve carefully investigated ALL (or, even, most) of the material @ the tpuc link……as such, i suspect although, of course, i cannot prove (!), that yr posting here wholly & solely for the purposes of dis-information & disruption!

    you also say, in reply to Rob H:

    Well intentioned people are going to try out some of these ideas, and they are going to get a nasty surprise. I have no intention of doing a tour of “Club Fed”, and anyone who is not prepared for such a scenario should stay away from this stuff, because all available evidence is against it. I don’t want to see White people further marginalized as nutcases and cranks, especially when they are racially aware. The SPLC and other despicable, anti-White groups love to hold up the example of “patriots” who go off on half-baked ventures, and end up in jail, fighting black and brown scum to stay alive. Ha ha ha, stupid White supremacists and their nutty ideas

    k….well…..Rob H is too much of a “gent” to continue engaging you in accusatory debate but i’m NOT!
    …………………….

    we’re engaged in a racial struggle for our very survival!
    only a complete cretin could think other-wise!

    for any serious player in the white racialist movement, arrest, imprisonment and, even, death are occupational hazards!

    these “techniques” that Rob H discussed are the “blunt end” of the wedge of tactics we could use against ZOG…….the “sharp end”, of course, being actual full-on combat!

    if yr not prepared for “confrontation” with fedZOGjewSA, amongst others, then, you shouldn’t be calling your-self “a white nationalist”….maybe “a white feather” would be more appropriate (!)

    lots of our people have been “set up” & “locked up” for concocted, non-violent “offences” (David Duke, Chester Doles and, now, Hal Turner & Bill White)….that goes with the territory……you think we’re going to win this war without ZOG putting up a fight?

    they’ll use (and HAVE used) every “dirty trick” in the book…..and that also means, concocting bogus charges against some-one exercising their lawful rights! or, even, their constitutional rights!

    as for “white people being (further) marginalised”…..who cares?!?……their ultimate plan is “WHITE GENOCIDE”…..so……..why the HELL should we care HOW “marginalised” they make us look?…….our only goal is to STOP them!

    also: here’s a FLASH for you!

    we’re not really that interested in the “great un-washed mass” of soccer-moms, joe-sixpacks, nigger-lovers, diversity-mongers, feminists & politically correct bozos that make up the majority of white adults……you think those sort of people will be admitted to the New White Imperium?…….only white children under the age of sixteen or seventeen will get carte blanche entry……after that, it will be: i/white activists, ii/those with a demonstratable connection to the white nationalist cause and iii/those with significant and valuable genetic traits and skills/accomplishments…….in that order!

    (the rest can “fend for them-selves” in mud-landia!)

    we’ve probably reached about 5% of the adult white population by now…..even with the sterling material produced by VoR…….the final % can never be more than 15%…….and…….then……….on the strength of that, some sort of coup d’etat…….”mass white revolution” is, quite simply, a pipe dream!

  26. Mike Conner on July 31st, 2009 4:37 am

    Jimbo: No offense, but no one here is in a position to dictate who’s going to be in the “New White Imperium”, whatever that is. We’re doing Internet radio at VoR. Nothing more, nothing less.

    By the way, there seems to be something wrong with your period key, which seems to be sticking. You might need a new keyboard or something.

  27. jimbo on July 31st, 2009 5:03 am

    Mike……..that’s not my “personal opinion” as to who does or doesn’t gain entry into the NWI (read Yockey’s book if you want to know what i’m referring to with that particular phraseology!)…….that seems to be “the general consensus” from the premier WN sites……VNN, StormFront & Blood and Honour;

    i would have thought it was self-evident that white children should get absolute priority in “a white home-land”–perhaps that’s a bit clearer than the term “New White Imperium”?

    after all, isn’t that the essence of “the 14 words”?–the basic credo of the whole WN movement!

    further-more, i would have thought it was also self-evident that such an enclave, country or continent cannot afford to be “infected” with white adults who have been, more or less, totally brain-washed by ZOG and are, thus, pretty much beyond redemption!

  28. M. Kraus on July 31st, 2009 1:38 pm

    Jimbo, I appreciate your concern. That link you provided was very interesting, although as a non-lawyer, I can’t grasp a lot of the terminology in those letters. The fact that it pertains to UK law doesn’t make it any clearer, as I’m in the US.

    Let me reiterate, I’m not making any personal attack on Mr. Halford. He’s obviously very intelligent, and an entertaining host. My only concern is with IDEAS; e.g., the idea of commercial law as the supreme law of the land. I think that is a personal interpretation, will not stand up in a court of law, and will ultimately hurt anyone who tries to employ it. I don’t want to see decent, well-meaning White people get hurt. From what I can see, many in the US have already been hurt by trying to employ these techniques. These people are not revolutionaries, they’re not prepared to be jailed (or killed) for fighting ZOG. They are acting WITHIN the system, doing something which they believe is legal and appropriate. It saddens me that they have been harmed by a government I despise, and I don’t want to see that happen to anyone else. Do you, Jimbo?

    Again, let me ask for just ONE example of a US court case which has been decided in favor of a defendant whose defense was based on commercial law, in a non-commercial case. Anything which would lead me to believe that the UCC can be effectively applied to areas other than commerce, or that the very definition of “commerce” can be extended to civil or criminal law. Thank you.

  29. Rob Halford on July 31st, 2009 11:10 pm

    M.Kraus, give it up. How long are you going to just go on and on about the same thing?
    You have your opinion and I have mine, is mine better than yours? Who knows?
    I know this, you are looking for evidence of something that is easy to find out, but only for those with the balls to try it after they have learnt enough.
    Oh, by the way, ALL civil law is about commerce, hence the need to suffer a loss to give you a cause of action.
    Might wanna brush up before you come here lambasting people.

  30. M. Kraus on August 1st, 2009 1:05 am

    Mr. Halford, thanks for your input. How long will I go on? Depends on what you’re referring to, but the prescient answer would be “until the mods kick me off”.

    Practically speaking, I can stop going on about wanting to see some real evidence that commercial redemption is a viable strategy, since no one has provided me with a single case reference to justify it–as I assumed would happen. So it’s an interesting idea, but not something that has any basis in reality. I only deal in reality, not hearsay or conjecture.

    I’m a reasonable man, and open to suggestion, so I brushed up as you suggested. My brush-up convinced me that matters of commerce are a subset of civil law. Saying that all civil law is about commerce is like saying all criminal law is about murder. This is why people who try to use the UCC, for example, in matters unrelated to commerce get their wrists slapped, or worse.

    Sorry if anyone thinks I’ve lambasted them. The definition of “lambaste” is “to reprimand or berate harshly”, and in my defense, I should say that if I decide to lambaste someone, it will be made manifest. All I’ve really done is to criticize what I believe to be a faulty idea.

    That’s enough for me in this thread. I haven’t changed my mind, so I’ll sit back and read any closing arguments. Thanks to VOR for this free speech platform.

Bottom