I just find this stuff to be very difficult to believe. I think Russell-Jay Gould is a LARPer. If you really think about it, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Quantum grammar is the most ridiculous phrase I've ever heard.
I understand the seeming senselessness of it. The presentation in the video is not the best. Without intended insult, part of the problem is the presenter. That said, could it be that the seeming lack of sense is because we are not part of the groups of people who originated the 'deal', who understood the laws, or who comprehend the value in such things.
Here is a comparison which may be of use. I know a person who worked on rights of way, contracts, easements for use of long distance communication. Going back as far as the 1800s, companies associated with railroads secured line permits/licenses/easements, etc. for running telegraph lines to all sorts of places. Some of those contracts involved property which is now-aday in major metropolitan areas. You may find licenses with an annual fee of $1/mile length to maintain communication lines. The 130 year old physical document still exists, though it may have been imaged somewhere along the way. Originally for telegraph; later converted for use of copper telephone lines then fiber optic cable. This is 2021. These 130 plus year old contracts are still in force today based upon wording of the original contract and the laws and legal governments under which they were executed. The contract applies to successors of the original company. So, over those 130 years, the ownership of the original company, and all assets, was bought/sold/merged many times. The laws upon which that contract was issued still stand, and the contract stays in force. Today, that $1/year contract could cost millions to originate. The value of the contract itself is worth millions if it were to be sold.
Another common point of reference would be the contracts to buy a house. This is not about the financing part, but the transfer of ownership. These days, the default wording is that mineral rights do not transfer with the sale of the property. So, a plot of land developed sixty years ago was purchased by a land speculator, sold to developers (without mineral rights), lots were made, houses were built, and starting with the original occupant the house and property may have been sold multiple times. Yet, the mineral rights are the property of the land speculator and the successors (whoever or whatever they may be).
Without insult, most people are focused on their monthly payment amount and how much they have to bring to closing (today). They understand what they are signing in a property purchase (tomorrow) about as well as they understand the contract to purchase an iphone.
Now, look at the concept being applied in the video. What is alleged is that a contract/deal/agreement of a sort was made (today to those people at the time of execution). Most people at the time did not know/understand the contract (tomorrow for the people who lived then), they just needed to deal with looming debt (today for those people who lived at that time). They dealt with it like an iphone contract or the purchase of a house. They focused on their present need and left the long term consequences for other people to deal with.
This last point is of immense importance. The practice of incompetent/corrupt/compromised/lazy people in government making decisions which caused massive long term problems to fix a short term looming issue, at the expense of other people, has been going on .... probably since governments started to exist after the fall of man when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and cursed.
Evil people/being understand this. They are prey on the ignorance/fear of whoever is on the other side of the table. The fact that it may not be comprehensible to us at the moment does not mean the deal was not legitimate. It does mean it sucks for us who have to pay for the sloppy selfish behavior of people in the past.
To understand the applicability of a contract/deal/treaty/agreement it is necessary to understand the conditions/rules/laws under which the contract was executed.
Replying to my own post. Let's say a person who had full knowledge of rights of way, went to one of the companies who owned some of those million dollar leases. They go and talk to someone in the current owning companies rights or way dept and is able to convince them to sell the right of way license for much less then it is actually worth because the people who were in charge of making decisions to sell the right of way contracts AT THAT POINT IN TIME did not understand the value of the contracts in the way the buyer did. Once a lawful contract is executed, the ownership has changed. The new owner got a multi million dollar contract for a song because of knowledge vs. ignorance.
Take the previous paragraph and apply it to ownership of the title four flag which appears to signify ownership of the contract on the United States as it is alleged in the video presented by OP. Russell Jay Gould is alleging that he did the equivalent of getting the right of way contract for next to nothing. But in his case, it is a contract on the United States. It was achievable because he operated according to the laws under which the 'deal' was originated. And having taken possession of the 'contract instrument' (the flag), he declares his uncontestable claim.
I want to thank you first for the extremely high-effort reply and second for giving me a new perspective. I still believe the video has some truth and some things that aren't true, and I still think the idea of quantum grammar is pure baloney, but there could well be something more than I originally thought that is true.
He's not a larp, he's crazy. I went down the rabbit hole on this last year when it was posted and watched three of Goulds videos and had to shut them off. He's looney tunes.
I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold-fringed flag. A flag with gilded edges is the flag of an Admiralty court. An Admiralty court signifies a Naval court-martial. I cannot be court-martialed twice. that is all. Furthermore..
Judges are fucking tyrants in black robes. I have no good or nice things to say about any of them at any level.
They're petty little tyrants in charge of their own little fiefdoms. This country does not confer royalty - isn't that what a "judge" is? A small-time lord or duke or some sort of lower nobility?
This is an excellent video. I believe I've watched it 4 or 5 times to try to understand the capturing of the flag back from Britain by Russell-Jay Gould.
Can't believe you got this posted. This is some no shit stuff and wait for the common parse syntaxe grammar technology. Disruptive to legalese and will allow secure contracts. Lawyers will lose their fake language v
Sons of American Revolution are a Masonic linked org. Like Freemasonry it doesn’t mean they’re all bad people. But they’re a rich target for infiltration and subversion. Look at their symbols (Maltese Cross) and research their members. I believe this Russell Jay Gould stuff is pure Masonic disinformation.
I watched this almost a year ago and when I meet normies who want to know more, this is the first thing I send them. I only wanted to watch 20 minutes but I ended up watching the whole thing without realizing because it's so damn interesting.
Really shows the mechanisms behind the international laws we don't even know we're following.
There are multiple problems with the sovereign citizen argument. One of the most basic is an inconsistency of arguing that you are essentially above all laws while simultaneously arguing that you can benefit from the laws of which you and all others are not actually a part. The logical end state of the sovereign citizen movement is anarchy.
A second major problem is who precisely is supposed to come to your aid to insure your personal sovereignty? On what basis are they required to protect your sovereign citizen status (if they are required to at all, and no one is ogligated to. Why should anyone be if all are self sovereign)? Why is anyone required to enforce anyone else's status?
Most of the time, this argument is based upon someone not liking a law or set of laws in a country, and looking for a way to not have to abide by them.
Your sovereign status argument fails the moment that a group of people refuse to recognize it and inflict whatever consequences upon you they deem appropriate.
Old news- I tried posting this link nearly a year ago. 🤷♀️
I’ve done a good bit of digging on this but would love to hear a deeper dive. Unlocking the Tower of Babel. Interesting that Miller passed away but there’s no evidence of it.
I just find this stuff to be very difficult to believe. I think Russell-Jay Gould is a LARPer. If you really think about it, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Quantum grammar is the most ridiculous phrase I've ever heard.
Kind of agree with you here. Right up there with reptilians
I understand the seeming senselessness of it. The presentation in the video is not the best. Without intended insult, part of the problem is the presenter. That said, could it be that the seeming lack of sense is because we are not part of the groups of people who originated the 'deal', who understood the laws, or who comprehend the value in such things.
Here is a comparison which may be of use. I know a person who worked on rights of way, contracts, easements for use of long distance communication. Going back as far as the 1800s, companies associated with railroads secured line permits/licenses/easements, etc. for running telegraph lines to all sorts of places. Some of those contracts involved property which is now-aday in major metropolitan areas. You may find licenses with an annual fee of $1/mile length to maintain communication lines. The 130 year old physical document still exists, though it may have been imaged somewhere along the way. Originally for telegraph; later converted for use of copper telephone lines then fiber optic cable. This is 2021. These 130 plus year old contracts are still in force today based upon wording of the original contract and the laws and legal governments under which they were executed. The contract applies to successors of the original company. So, over those 130 years, the ownership of the original company, and all assets, was bought/sold/merged many times. The laws upon which that contract was issued still stand, and the contract stays in force. Today, that $1/year contract could cost millions to originate. The value of the contract itself is worth millions if it were to be sold.
Another common point of reference would be the contracts to buy a house. This is not about the financing part, but the transfer of ownership. These days, the default wording is that mineral rights do not transfer with the sale of the property. So, a plot of land developed sixty years ago was purchased by a land speculator, sold to developers (without mineral rights), lots were made, houses were built, and starting with the original occupant the house and property may have been sold multiple times. Yet, the mineral rights are the property of the land speculator and the successors (whoever or whatever they may be).
Without insult, most people are focused on their monthly payment amount and how much they have to bring to closing (today). They understand what they are signing in a property purchase (tomorrow) about as well as they understand the contract to purchase an iphone.
Now, look at the concept being applied in the video. What is alleged is that a contract/deal/agreement of a sort was made (today to those people at the time of execution). Most people at the time did not know/understand the contract (tomorrow for the people who lived then), they just needed to deal with looming debt (today for those people who lived at that time). They dealt with it like an iphone contract or the purchase of a house. They focused on their present need and left the long term consequences for other people to deal with.
This last point is of immense importance. The practice of incompetent/corrupt/compromised/lazy people in government making decisions which caused massive long term problems to fix a short term looming issue, at the expense of other people, has been going on .... probably since governments started to exist after the fall of man when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and cursed.
Evil people/being understand this. They are prey on the ignorance/fear of whoever is on the other side of the table. The fact that it may not be comprehensible to us at the moment does not mean the deal was not legitimate. It does mean it sucks for us who have to pay for the sloppy selfish behavior of people in the past.
To understand the applicability of a contract/deal/treaty/agreement it is necessary to understand the conditions/rules/laws under which the contract was executed.
Replying to my own post. Let's say a person who had full knowledge of rights of way, went to one of the companies who owned some of those million dollar leases. They go and talk to someone in the current owning companies rights or way dept and is able to convince them to sell the right of way license for much less then it is actually worth because the people who were in charge of making decisions to sell the right of way contracts AT THAT POINT IN TIME did not understand the value of the contracts in the way the buyer did. Once a lawful contract is executed, the ownership has changed. The new owner got a multi million dollar contract for a song because of knowledge vs. ignorance.
Take the previous paragraph and apply it to ownership of the title four flag which appears to signify ownership of the contract on the United States as it is alleged in the video presented by OP. Russell Jay Gould is alleging that he did the equivalent of getting the right of way contract for next to nothing. But in his case, it is a contract on the United States. It was achievable because he operated according to the laws under which the 'deal' was originated. And having taken possession of the 'contract instrument' (the flag), he declares his uncontestable claim.
Someone not in the military talking Jurisdictions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7xJ_aSKGuk
And, an American State National telling the cops he doesn't need a license plate or driver's license at a traffic stop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfUJLHKKzjg
I want to thank you first for the extremely high-effort reply and second for giving me a new perspective. I still believe the video has some truth and some things that aren't true, and I still think the idea of quantum grammar is pure baloney, but there could well be something more than I originally thought that is true.
Someone not in the military talking Jurisdictions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7xJ_aSKGuk&t=509s
And, an American State National telling the cops he doesn't need a license plate or driver's license at a traffic stop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfUJLHKKzjg
He's not a larp, he's crazy. I went down the rabbit hole on this last year when it was posted and watched three of Goulds videos and had to shut them off. He's looney tunes.
I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold-fringed flag. A flag with gilded edges is the flag of an Admiralty court. An Admiralty court signifies a Naval court-martial. I cannot be court-martialed twice. that is all. Furthermore..
Court-martialed twice?
https://youtu.be/OfSkBONbDwA
Judges are fucking tyrants in black robes. I have no good or nice things to say about any of them at any level.
They're petty little tyrants in charge of their own little fiefdoms. This country does not confer royalty - isn't that what a "judge" is? A small-time lord or duke or some sort of lower nobility?
Also don't mean to sound like an asshole, but that didn't explain anything, even though it was humorous.
You must be fun at parties
I have the memory of a gold fish.
goto www.lastflagstanding.com.
: Russel-Jay: Gould explains it himself.
In the booklet: David-Wynn: Miller wrote, contains the copy claim.
As towards your own questions, what are they exactly and what would have researched.
This is an excellent video. I believe I've watched it 4 or 5 times to try to understand the capturing of the flag back from Britain by Russell-Jay Gould.
Firstly, it’s on YouTube. At this point in our history, why would I trust anything on YouTube?
If this is legitimate, we need receipts for his claims (not just his word).
I almost didn't watch it cause it was an hour long. Great timeline of important events, very interesting, lots to process.
Can't believe you got this posted. This is some no shit stuff and wait for the common parse syntaxe grammar technology. Disruptive to legalese and will allow secure contracts. Lawyers will lose their fake language v
Sons of American Revolution are a Masonic linked org. Like Freemasonry it doesn’t mean they’re all bad people. But they’re a rich target for infiltration and subversion. Look at their symbols (Maltese Cross) and research their members. I believe this Russell Jay Gould stuff is pure Masonic disinformation.
I watched this almost a year ago and when I meet normies who want to know more, this is the first thing I send them. I only wanted to watch 20 minutes but I ended up watching the whole thing without realizing because it's so damn interesting.
Really shows the mechanisms behind the international laws we don't even know we're following.
Oh, we're sovereign citizens now? Folks will really take us seriously now.🤦♂️
There are multiple problems with the sovereign citizen argument. One of the most basic is an inconsistency of arguing that you are essentially above all laws while simultaneously arguing that you can benefit from the laws of which you and all others are not actually a part. The logical end state of the sovereign citizen movement is anarchy.
A second major problem is who precisely is supposed to come to your aid to insure your personal sovereignty? On what basis are they required to protect your sovereign citizen status (if they are required to at all, and no one is ogligated to. Why should anyone be if all are self sovereign)? Why is anyone required to enforce anyone else's status?
Most of the time, this argument is based upon someone not liking a law or set of laws in a country, and looking for a way to not have to abide by them.
Your sovereign status argument fails the moment that a group of people refuse to recognize it and inflict whatever consequences upon you they deem appropriate.
More on this: https://youtube.com/user/horisize
https://youtube.com/c/JustinianDeception
Old news- I tried posting this link nearly a year ago. 🤷♀️
I’ve done a good bit of digging on this but would love to hear a deeper dive. Unlocking the Tower of Babel. Interesting that Miller passed away but there’s no evidence of it.
That’s why we don’t hear about Special Operations in the news anymore