Texas Judge Rules Students Must Wear Tracking Devices

[Arrowwind]

http://oneradionetwork.com/latest/texas-judge-rules-schools-can-force-rfid-chips-on-students/

http://oneradionetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/andrea-hernandez-wearing-rfid-tracking-device-id-badge.jpg
Listen to our interview with Andrea Hernandez and Katie Deolloz
Katie Deolloz and Steve and Andrea Hernandez – Would You Like A Yellow Star With That Student ID?: Standing Up and Sayng NO to RFID Spychip Tracking – September 11, 2012 (http://oneradionetwork.com/%e2%80%9chow-to-be-free-in-an-unfree-world%e2%80%9d/katie-deolloz-and-steve-and-andrea-hernandez-would-you-like-a-yellow-star-with-that-student-id-standing-up-and-sayng-no-to-rfid-spychip-tracking-september-11-2012/)


Activist Post (http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/texas-judge-rules-schools-can-force.html)
In the fall of last year the San Antonio Northside School District in Texas announced that they would track students with RFID (radio frequency identification) chips in their student badges.
One student, sophomore Andrea Hernandez, was suspended for refusing to where the tracking device and took the matter to court.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled in favor of the school district claiming they have the right to expel Hernandez for refusing to abide by school requirements. By default the judge ruled that the school had the right to force children to be treated like cattle while on campus.

[M0JFK]

Just put the I.D. in the microwave oven for about 3 seconds. End of problem. A friend of mine worked in Asda here in the UK in Cornwall near to St Michales Mount and the RFID chips was in his/their name badge. And he only found out because he damaged the name badge by accident.

[sigma6]

When I see a story like this I want to especially express this... and I am going to keep feeding this into the collective consciousness of this forum... as probably the most important and powerful idea I can provide...

Man oh man... the ONLY solution out of ALL of these unlimited rights violations, has to do with how we are signing ANY documents (making oath) evidencing our consent to be a PERSON. We have to START there, and start learning how to control that PERSON... I am glad when someone points out violation after violation... that is a start too... maybe it starts there in the sense that people are starting to realize the COMMON DENOMINATOR in every one of these ISSUES is about CONTROL. The STATE vs (what I call...) the "sentient living soul" (as any other word will have been 'taken' by the legal dictionary (statutory) people, and I advise not to use them, especially in the 'public' or in a court) I am a sentient living soul and I live in this body (until I specifically know what better to say... but that is STRICTLY accurate and cannot be rebuked by any court) That and a copy of your SOB in hand CAN and WILL protect (its EVERYTHING else you say that gets you into trouble)

There is a major conflict between government and the people. But the focus point is around the PERSON. Short of an all out war, which I am 100% against, since by definition it IS NOT the option of last resort... Therefore the real option is to learn one small subsection of underlying TRUST principle. TRUST interpretation trumps statutory AND common law...

EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES can be dealt with by understanding the relationship that we have to the PERSON. That SOB, that evidences our parent's intention to give us a NAME, that ended up being registered and held by the State/Crown, by their intention as a matter of fact.

Learn to control that and you have the solution to almost every single one of these issues. I am just trying to figure out what is required in general for 'John and Jane' average to learn how to understand that...and ways to apply it, whom to seek out to administer this process... I honestly don't think it would be any more complicated then learning how to do basic income taxes or something like that (bad example maybe...) This is nothing short of a major and profound change of looking at how the world really works...

In the final analysis, what it will look like - ...is that we would have almost unlimited access to vast stores of wealth, but we would also need to let go of the idea of owning things outright... (remember title and controlling interest can be TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

This is the reality... think about it... can you take it with you? NO! do you need to pass anything to your children if they had the same access to the same unlimited credit? (for all practical intents and purposes, more then most can imagine anyway) NO!

There is a simple efficient, realistic system, which is actually how it is set up RIGHT NOW but people are opting OUT of it and into STATUTORY!!!

The model as it is actually set up clearly shows the the credit/wealth of the people is held as giant pool that is drawn from. People must be willing to 'willingly' give to that in order to take from it... And that is not happening right now... So the banks (super trustees) via the government are forced to extract some kind of tax (which is really interest) for the credit/wealth we are taking out of the system and unwilling to circulate back into the system... and paying tax is NOT giving to the system, so much as paying interest on wealth/credit you are taking out of the system and refusing to circulate back in (allow and acknowledge that the State is 'holding it'.

And... it is not as big a deal as people think. How big a deal is it to you for example to say "this is my car..." vs saying "this is the car I have interest in, and is 'held' by the State"? A4V doesn't work until you can see this... And what if in fact all property was held by the state, like house you live in, the car you drive, the bank accounts you opened, etc... well guess what all these things have a trust interpretation, and they are 'held' by the State. The chain of title would all lead to the BC, and that is held by the State, thus, everything that was registered in the NAME is held by the State. But get this, can you imagine this as a good thing? Well it is... or has the potential to be. It's not about 'ownership' it's about controlling interest.

It is absolutely true when "they" say it requires a change of perspective, and understanding, and knowing who you are and all that stuff... it IS all true...


DEAL WITH THAT AND YOU WILL HAVE THE FREEDOM YOU SEEK... All the Winston stuff was a precursor and is "in principle" correct, but by my understanding today, is 'clunky' and dated, and maybe even coming at it from the wrong angle... the commercial... as the answer lies in understanding a non statutory trust interpretation, something he hinted at, but never completely focused on, but I imagine left for other modules to 'purchase' perhaps...