ON THE UK VIOLATION OF THE COMMON LAW, BY “DEBANKING” POLITICAL FIGURES #uk #ban

ON THE UK VIOLATION OF THE COMMON LAW, BY “DEBANKING” POLITICAL FIGURES
#uk #banking #canceling

The purpose of the State’s “insurance of cooperation” (keeping the king’s peace) is to limit us to private behavior that is reciprocal, limit public behavior to fulfillment of rights, obligations(duties), and inalienations necessary for the production of intergenerational families of citizens, and political behavior to the production of concurrency, and court behavior to the resolution of conflicts by crime, tort, contract, and property, producing commonality.

And yes, there are some ‘big words’ in there that you might need to understand. So let’s simplify it a bit:

In other words, we are prohibited from interference in occupation, business, employment, family, access to the market of goods services, and information, the provisioning of utilities, and yes, the provisioning of financial services (banking). We may only resolve disputes by boycott, debate or argument, ‘duel’ (fighting) in defense of honor or commons, appeal to the hierarchy of courts, including that court we call parliaments.

The US court is restoring the obligation of the people to use the legislature to produce changes by tests of concurrency (agreement between regions and classes). This is achieved by reversing lawfare through the courts, and limiting activism in the private sector, where both are simply means of bypassing the democratic process of legislating by successful concurrency, and never by mere majority, and certainly not by authority.

As such, one may not interfere with ‘banking’ for political reasons, and arguably political affiliation demands as high protection as religious affiliation because fundamentally, under majority democracy, the natural outcome is for political parties to represent feminine left and masculine right factions, whose difference is feminine irresponsibility and masculine responsibility. And these biases are largely genetically determined.

I will, at some point, have the organization take this issue to court and try to push it to the supreme court. For the same reason, the court is reforming now: the private sector does not have the right to engage in negative coercion, especially for political ends, and that applies doubly so to institutions that provide necessary utilities for ordinary life.

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation