"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words [*in their law books] make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3
"The words of ungodly men are crafty; but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them." Proverbs 12:6

There are only two types of laws in existence; mandatory and voluntary. The way you can tell if a law is mandatory or voluntary is very simple. If it is voluntary, your signature is requested, a contract is required. If it is mandatory, no signature or contract is required. For example, do you sign a piece of paper saying you will not kill anyone? Or steal from anyone? No. These are mandatory laws, and don't require your permission or signature to enforce them. Mandatory laws don't require a contract. They only require the presence of your body for enforceable action against you.

When you are asked to sign a piece of paper, it must always be done voluntarily.

To illustrate, let's use an example of a signed confession. A signed confession must be done voluntary. If a policeman took you in a back room, put a gun to your head, and threatened to kill you if you didn't sign a piece of paper, that paper would not be signed voluntarily by you. Now, the same applies to every piece of paper. If anyone threatens you in the same way to sign any piece of paper, then it is not signed voluntarily by you. Additionally, if anyone says to sign something, and threatens to take your car, or take your house, or fine you, or put you in jail, if you don't sign it, then this paper is not signed voluntarily. It is signed under threat, duress, coercion, etc.

Now, think of every time the government asked you to sign a piece of paper. Does the government threaten you in any way? Do they say, "If you don't sign this paper, then we will do (threat) to you?" For example, does the government say to you, "If you don't sign this drivers license, registration, and insurance paper, then when we pull you over, we will take away your liberty by arresting you, steal your car by impounding it, extort your money by fining you, take away your liberty of movement by throwing you in jail, take your kids from you and put them in a foster home, bring your pets to the humane society and have them terminated, and, oh yea, we'll cancel your library card! "Yes, they do," may be your answer. Why do they have to intimidate you into signing papers? Because there is no law requiring you to sign anything! Are deceit and threats compatible with the character of God? (Lam.3:22-25).

If there was a law requiring you to do something, no signature would be required! If there was a law stating you were required to sign something, then this would mean they can use force, "legally," to get you to sign anything they want. If they can use force legally, then you are not signing a contract voluntarily. So, that police man who took you in the back room and "held a gun to your head" (threatened you), he would be doing his job legally by forcing you to sign a piece of paper. There is no law to force you to sign a confession, but it makes it a lot easier to prosecute you if you do sign something "voluntarily." There is no law requiring a signature from anyone, but it makes it a lot easier for the government to convert you into something that you are not.

When you sign a drivers license, or any license, this signature is not required by law. For they 'ask' you for your signature. If it was the law, your signature would not be required. Only contracts and permits require a signature. Governments only have the right to regulate commerce, and commerce is regulated by contracts, licenses, and permits. These are all voluntary. This is why the government must force you to accept a mark identifying you as being engaged in commercial activity.

The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments

The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with
impunity.


2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of
society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random
and unnecessary in nature.


3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal
experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other
problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the
experiment.


4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical
and mental suffering and injury.


5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to
believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those
experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.


6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the
humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.


7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to
protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury,
disability or death.


8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.
The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of
the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.


9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to
bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state
where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.


10.During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared
to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe,
in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required
of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury,
disability, or death to the experimental subject.

We have all been lied to and tricked into servitude by deceit and fraud.

Satan only gets away with it, if you don't object, if you don't wake up.  

His triumph over you comes only by deceit. 

REPLACE YOUR METERS
Lets spread the word of gaining free gas & electric across the UK/Worldwide. Join our telegram group free energy nationwide and start learning how to become sovereign. ALL BILLS ARE PRE-PAID stop entering into fake contracts with these brokers! The link is in my bio or search on telegram FREE ENERGY NATIONWIDE
#gas&electric #freeenergy #debtfreecommunityuk #nicolatesla #fakecontract #deceit #strawman #legalfiction #meters #governmentlies