You and I are a natural person. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Leige-Lord (i.e. legal) system, the vast majority of "persons" in this system are artificial persons - otherwise known as corporations, trusts, partnerships, etc.
The etymology of the word comes from the Greek "Persona" however, which was defined as a character in a Greek stage play (comedy/tragedy). An "actor"!
It's also worth noting that we had a word for two or more called "people", but the legal system required the word "person" to maintain their subterfuge with "persons".
Not sure how this works in the US, but in Australia, UK etc (which makes me suspect also in the US, as the US constitution is essentially a codification of common law (the law of the land) that arose from British history), we are NOT natural persons, but living men and women.
Not familiar with the US dimensions of this. Possibly what you refer to as "natural persons" is the 'legal' (but not necessarily lawful) designation for a living human within the legal system, which indeed draws a distinction between a natural person and a legal person (corps, etc). Nonetheless, I think they are ALL still being controlled under the jurisdiction of maritime law.
From a common law perspective:
"Persons" are corporate entities, coming under the jurisdiction of maritime law, aka commercial law. When we are born and 'registered' with whatever corporation is operating disguised as govt or a govt body, a 'person' i.e. corporate entity is created, using our name.
It is that corporate entity that is affected and controlled via statute law, aka commercial law, derived from the Roman civil law.
But living men and women come under jurisdiction of the law of the land, common law.
When you interact with a govt agency, for example, which will be a registered corporation, you are interacting as that corporate entity created with the registration of your birth via the "birth certificate".
One key problem in the Western world today is that most folks are completely ignorant of this reality, and they live and function in a world where they identify with the corporate entity mimicking them, rather than as living men and women.
Legalese is funny. Take the word “drive.” It’s become modern vernacular to say “you drive a car” but it’s not technically true. Originally, technically, and legally speaking, driving refers to the profession of transporting goods by land. Think of cattle drivers. They drove cattle but they did so while riding on horses. Technically there are no truck drivers or taxi drivers, but rather, product drivers and human drivers who ride in the same automobile/car(ridge) they use to transport those products and humans.
According to MANY Supreme Court cases, the right to travel (aka, freedom of locomotion) on public roads via automobile is a Constitutional right that can only be curtailed via due process (i.e., conviction of a crime). The only people, technically, who are not constitutionally protected from laws that require a drivers license, are professional drivers. But alas, here we are.
I concur. It's the same in the Australian constitution. Under the Australian constitution, only travel on public roads for commercial purposes can be regulated (i.e. require registration, licensing, etc) by government, and private travel does not fall under that. Yet, the governments ignore this fact, and base its interactions with us via our strawman, who is by nature a corporate and commercial entity, and so it goes on.
Ignorance of the law is the greatest problem we have.
we are NOT natural persons, but living men and women
The trick is the authorities in the liege-lord system have to offer up a common definition in order to pull their legalese tricks. The judge will happily agree with you verbally that you are a natural person and then go right back to adjudicating the case of the strawman artificial person.
Not familiar with the US dimensions of this. Possibly what you refer to as "natural persons" is the 'legal' (but not necessarily lawful) designation for a living human within the legal system, which indeed draws a distinction between a natural person and a legal person (corps, etc).
That's right. When you look up "person" in Black's Law Dictionary, it directs you to these two distinctions.
From a common law perspective:
From a common law perspective, using your phrasing here, recall that there is nothing written down. This is the "common law" of old. As the word "person" is a commonly used word with a clear meaning to the populace, there is no harm in the word itself - it matters not. Everybody is in agreement, judge, jury, audience, etc. that a man/woman can also be called a "person" without any confusion of the matter.
It is that corporate entity that is affected and controlled via statute law, aka commercial law, derived from the Roman civil law.
That's correct. This might all be clearer stated as such. The liege-lord system is wholly and completely designed to operate exclusively with dead, fictional entities. As such, the living man/woman must be converted into one as well, the cestui que trust, transmitting utility, etc. via the strawman ALL CAPS NAME in order to interact with all the fake dead entities (corporations, governments, actors etc.). This is why the living man/woman must be RE-PRESENTED, as the liege-lord system cannot see/hear/interact with the PRESENTMENT of a living man/woman. Make sense?
But living men and women come under jurisdiction of the law of the land, common law.
This is technically correct. But walk into any court running today in the U.S. and commonwealth nations and the judge will happily tell you that this courtroom is indeed operating under the "common law", as it is 100% COMMON to the people today. See the trick?
When you interact with a govt agency, for example, which will be a registered corporation, you are interacting as that corporate entity created with the registration of your birth via the "birth certificate".
Right, as said above, the dead cannot interact with the living.
One key problem in the Western world today is that most folks are completely ignorant of this reality, and they live and function in a world where they identify with the corporate entity mimicking them, rather than as living men and women.
Agreed. The liege-lord system is pure trickery and deception. You can only be one "thing" at a time. Thus, you surrender your man/womanhood as soon as you agree to be a person, resident, citizen, driver, taxpayer, defendant, litigant, affiant, registrant, petitioner, and on and on we go.
Are you a taxpayer or a man? You can't be both in the eyes of the liege lords!
It's nice to have your comments confirm mine. In my experience, this whole area is the rabbit warren to end all rabbit warrens, and there are many, many shades expressed through many different types of language and vantage points. For example, the "Liege-Lord" expression is new to me, but many of the other angles you express are not.
Oh, the trickery! Indeed.
I am in the very fortunate position of having some access (limited, but still) to someone who is probably one of, if not the most, erudite person in my country re: our constitution, the law and the practical application thereof in terms of fighting against the legal quagmire of trickery.
For me, one of the linchpins behind my thinking (the more I learn about and encounter this stuff) is the belief and awareness that this is all rooted in a spiritual reality that humanity has been afflicted with since the first days described in scripture.
Deceit, trickery, chicanery has ALWAYS been at the base of the enslavement of humanity. The legal quagmire is simply the manifestation of that on a tangible, social level.
In any case, your point by point response is much appreciated.
Well you're spot on. My research is very much rooted in the spiritual realm.
I write "liege lord" as the words liege, allegiance, & legal all come from the same Latin root. They're telling us who is in charge with the very name of their system!
I could go much deeper on the spiritual level with you. But suffice it to say, we all agreed to enter this realm of "duality" and, as such, somebody needed to play the role of the "bad guys" to make the good/bad part of it work. My theory is, there are two factions at work here; one are the "good guys" and one are the "bad guys" always hard at work trying to tip the balance in their respective direction. The freemasons are here to keep the balance, hence the black/white checkerboard symbology. If you weren't aware, they also completely run the liege lord system.
Now here's the key to it all -> Knowing who you are; within the lawful/legal realm is a start, but far more importantly, within the game of "life" itself. My understanding is, once you've mastered the legal realm, the judge will bow down and allow a real man/woman to proceed LAWFULLY, but only after you've been tested. Said judge will also admire you for figuring out the game afoot. But you must always remember, within the legal/liege-lord system, nothing matters as much as behaving honorably, not facts, not truth, not justice. It's all about honor! It's their system and that's the number one rule.
Once you've figured out you're a man/woman, and nothing else, you get to pass "go" and now take on the larger and far more important task of figuring out who you REALLY are. Because rest assured, not only are you not a person/citizen/resident/defendant/etc., but you're also not a man/woman either. You're something far greater than that!
So it's all about stepping up your game from playing "little ol' me"; weak, subordinate, able to be bossed around, subservient, dependent, etc. which is how we've all been brainwashed into behaving by the establishment institutions. You're not going to get anywhere with this legal/lawful stuff until you can see through the game and EMBODY the truth of the matter. It's because of this brainwashing that the liege-lord system must stay in place. It can't just be wiped out overnight. It serves its purpose for the unconscious, asleep, brainwashed sheeples. But if you're ready to step into self-governship, self-responsibility, and zero dependency on their system, that opportunity is available to you and they will "part the sea" and allow to crossover into your own sovereignty.
Most important of all, it's not about "what you know", but rather it's about "who you be" from moment to moment, whether you're in the midst of a legal/lawful affair or not. As my favorite guru likes to say; "it's a lifestyle".
A "human being" is defined as a "monster" or "beast" in some legal dictionaries.
But you don't have to take my word for it, look up the word "person" in most editions of "Black's Law" and it will direct you to either "artificial person" or "natural person".
To avoid all the pitfalls of the liege-lord system, all you can ever agree to be is a man or woman. Every other word; individual, defendant, litigant, petitioner, citizen, resident, driver, taxpayer, etc. is a "gotcha", as you've accepted your title of slavery and rescinded your man/womanhood.
Put simply, you can't be BOTH a man and a person under the legal system. And the legal system does not, and cannot recognize nor interact with a living man because they are all "acting as" judges, prosecutors, etc. representing fictional entities like citys, states, governments, corporations, etc.
The point I take away from this is that natural person and artificial person (to use M's terms) are both entities under the legal system, but the legal system does distinguish between them.
However, a natural person is not a natural or living man or woman. A living man or woman is above (outside) the corporate (maritime) legal system.
I only read the first two pages, but within that scope this article does not make its case. On the contrary, it makes claims about the law that cannot be corroborated in law. For example, it states:
A VOTE is a VOW and a VOW is a
PLEDGE to a DIETY. A PLEDGE is a CONTRACT and a DIETY is a God. Voting then is a contract with
another god.
Black's Law Dictionary, which makes explicit the definitions that are used in any law case, defines "Vote:"
Vote. Suffrage; the expression of one's will, preference,
or choice, formally manifested by a member of a legislative or deliberative body, or of a constituency or a body
of qualified electors, in regard to the decision to be made
by the body as a whole upon any proposed measure or
proceeding or in passing laws, rules or regulations, or
the selection of an officer or representative. The aggregate of the expressions of will or choice, as manifested
by individuals, is called the "vote of the body."
There is nothing in there that can be interpreted as a "contract" in the legal sense (AKA an obligation on the party of the individual casting the vote). There is nothing in there that implies anything about Deities (God, false gods, etc.). Such wording, within the document posted, without explicit examples within the law itself is almost certainly designed to mislead. Even if what they say can be corroborated within the law, it does not itself provide actionable information to to do. You can not use this document to make an actual case within the law, even though it proposes to be an "elucidation of the law".
You could say, "Blacks Law Dictionary is lying," except that that is the source that is used to argue law. If you want to make a case that a definition is something completely different than what BLD says, you better provide really good evidence within the law itself, otherwise you will be laughed out of court.
I'm not saying that this is intentional Controlled Opposition, but my research suggests that this is exactly what it looks like.
This document is obfuscation disguised as illumination. My choice to pick "vote" to show that was only to provide an example. It was not my intention to defend the concept of voting as defined by BLD or anyone else.
With regards to that, there is all sorts of fuckery in the concept of "qualified electors," or a "Republic," etc as defined in BLD.
My protest is about the document in the OP and its attempt to define it in a way that suggests an elucidation of legal fuckery, when it is not showing, in any provable way, the actual legal fuckery the PTB are perpetrating on We The People.
I have found this shit a lot in my investigation. It takes elements of the truth, then using that, shows a legal trap (true or not) without showing a legal path to escape it. This causes anger, which leads to a controllable state. It is a form of manipulation, a Controlled Opposition.
The same people responsible for definitions outlined in any official dictionary, have also defined pregnancy as being achievable by females as well as males.
I made my case specifically addressing the direction of your protest and you ignored it in your response.
Aside from that, the legal definition of pregnancy does not in any way suggest what you are saying it does:
Pregnancy. The condition resulting from the fertilized
ovum. The existence of the condition beginning at the
moment of conception and terminating with delivery of
the child.
What you think they are saying is not what they are saying. You are confusing what is legal (AKA defined formally in the law) with what is a non-legal brainwashing technique applied in an "official" setting. Both are fuckery, but they are completely different types of fuckery.
Think of the expression "sovereign citizen" in the same way you think of "conspiracy theory", and you'll start to grasp what is going on.
Not with reference to this particular pdf, but on a more general note, compared with common law vs maritime law, etc, Q is superficial. Q is a psyop designed to wake up the people. (psyop does NOT mean it's not true or real, it just means that its an operation in 5G warfare with a purpose to generate a result via psychology).
Way in the back, way way back, like in the place where the minions like obama, clinton, soros etc, are all just instruments serving the hidden masters of the game, back on that level, this is where the fact that you are a living man or woman created by God, not by any government, comes into play.
Update: I've just taken a bit of a peak at "sovereign citizen" stuff ala the United States.
Based on what knowledge I have, I draw the following conclusions:
The expression 'sovereign citizen' has been weaponized in much the same way that 'conspiracy theory' has been.
yes, there have been many wackos who came forward with 'conspiracy theory' stuff, but without the full picture, and so have been painted as wackos. And, half the time, they were. But weaponizing the term necessarily involves injecting fake and false information, to discredit 'conspiracy theorists', and hold the nutjobs up as the image (e.g. tin foil hats).
The roots and foundation of the 'sovereign citizen' stuff are legit, and real, but there is a lot of disinfo out there, and people who are quite ignorant of the whole picture and the law get themselves in to a lot of trouble, which is what is promoted as 'sovereign citizen stuff'. See?
I found one video that I think will shed some good light on this topic for many reading here and who are unfamiliar with the ideas.
Anybody trying to assert their freedom and non-personhood will sound like a nutjob to the great sleeping masses. The information needs to become more widespread and comprehended in order for freedom to not seem absurd.
Yes. Moreover, we ourselves need to learn a LOT more about making the law work for us, instead of for them.
One of the top experts (not a lawyer, thankfully) in the field of Australian constitution and law and interacting with the legal system always encourages us to question. to put the onus on the system.
For example, asking what jurisdiction the court has, with regards to X, and where their authority comes from. As far as I can see, so much authority is claimed fraudulently and without basis, but the slave population simply go along with tit, because the matrix.
Like mask 'mandates'. A mandate is not a law. It is essentially an invite to contract. "you must wear this mask if you agree that you must wear this mask".
My wife and I spent a lot of time in 2020 trying to educate people and business owners about the wordplay that was being used regarding the mask mandates. A few people grasped it but they still went along with it out of some deeply instilled trust in government. They couldn't believe that it could actually be happening.
Well considering Sovereign citizen is an oxymoron and look at the people pushing it trying to get their cake (not pay taxes/duties) and eat it too (still use the birth certificate/corporate entity to get privileges) it becomes more clear how it is a miss.
'Citizen' means you come under the legal structure. Doesn't it derive originally from Roman civil law?
If you are a citizen, you are by definition not sovereign, right? You come under some other sovereignty.
Sovereign man or woman... that I can accept. Which is what we are. God grants us sovereignty over ourselves, which the wise man will return back to God.
I have been watching David Straight's ‘out of Babylon conference’ and it is a wealth of knowledge and I highly recommend taking the time to go through it. Beginning to understand this has brought quite a few pieces to the puzzle together that would seem to be quite vital with how we take this all back or don’t. Perceived authority is an interesting concept.
Exactly. That's the starting point. It won't make real sense until you get a LOT more information.
When I first came across this entire rabbit hole (common law - maritime law - living man / woman vs. strawman (corporate entity) - after I began going down rabbit holes (2016), it made no sense to me, and I thought it was all nonsense.
But with the flow of time, and being exposed to more and more pieces of the puzzle, I came to grasp something of the reality in all this. It's entirely mind-blowing, and imo, is the rabbit hole to end all rabbit holes, because it deals with everything that lays the basis for the slavery system of the Cabal, and the very matrix in which we have been living.
There is LOTS of information out there, and many different shades, with many different assertions and viewpoints. IMO, anyone digging into this should be aware of that, because you will really have to develop your own sense of discernment and purpose to engage on this level.
But it's worth it.
My suggestion is you start with "common law". It's worth noting that the US constitution is essentially a codification of common law, that the founding fathers were well aware of and understood. They took the common law and codified it into a living constitution.
If you are in the UK or Aus, Canada, etc, there are different shades there to grasp. But in the end, it is all about the common law and how it has been subverted by the regular suspects (the bankers, their politicians, their govts. etc) to enslave us in a 'legal' matrix.
i've been down the maritime law rabbit hole. but that doesn't explain negative references in the Bible to the word 'person'. what did the writers of the Bible believe that word to mean?
not a Bible expert. not sure what translation the quotes in this document are pulled from, or how that affects my question.
Yeah, important to remember that "person" is an English word, and the Bible (scripture) was NOT written in English.
The biblehub has some great resources for looking at the original language (i.e. Greek, or Hebrew) and seeing how they are translated into English, etc.
If used it a couple of times, but I don't quite recall how to track that down.
Me either. The only other times I've seen this argument made have been on episodes of Court Cam & it's always a toothless hillbilly methhead arguing it in a kangaroo court.
This will happen because people don't really know their stuff. Because such people don't know their stuff, they go about everything in the wrong way. They try to play the game in terms that don't actually come under the jurisdiction of the law courts, and so they get owned by the system.
When engaging with the law courts, one has to know very, very clearly what their jurisdiction is, and what it isn't, and know where you stand in that context.
There are so many starting points in this rabbit warren (a rabbit warren is an interconnected network of rabbit holes), it's hard to begin. You'll find pieces that make no sense, that seem to contradiction, that appear meaningless gobbledygook, but that is by design.
The Cabal was people to know about this are LESS than they want people to know about human and child trafficking. Because even if one knows the corruption exists, you can only directly fight with them if you know HOW they control you.
I know what you mean! Apparently they think there is some sort of magic phrasing that if you just say something that sounds sort of legal, there's a loophole that the courts have to give you to get out of trouble. It's just stupid.
You'd think that they would catch on when everyone using this stuff loses their case. Case after case, year after year with none of this silliness ever working like they want it too.
Why is it that every fringe dweller on the outskirts of civilization want to dump their issues onto Q? Like this is the dumpyard where everything outside mainstream sheeple beliefs go to die.
The "Legal System" has been warped, mangled and twisted to an unrecognizable spaghetti mess of inanities. Laws should be simple and concise. Anywhere there is the possibility of confusion, misinterpretation and manipulation should require a clearly defined and delineated purpose/explanation and a clear and concise definition of the "Spirit" of the law. The law is a tangled mess to allow manipulation. The Law needs to be bound by Truth and Justice. It needs to be tied to Right and Wrong. This needs to be a prime goal of the Great Awakening. The Restoration of Justice is as critical to the rescue of humanity as is the fight for transparency.
The truth about the SS Cardholder is the SSA reserves ownership of the name, number and card to themselves; then they entrust the same to Corp. U.S. agency trusts they call “cardholders”.
This is an interesting article that helps explain the root of the problem:
Corp. U.S’. Myth 10; also known as: “The Prevailing Mythology”:
The Social Security card is: “your Social Security card;” and/or, the Social Security Number is: “your Social Security Number.”
I've never seen or heard of a case that anyone won using this Sovereign Citizen stuff. It's legal-ish sounding gibberish. And why is it that every case seems to be someone trying to get out of a parking or speeding ticket or not paying their child support.
That's because people who don't really know their stuff engage with it in the wrong way, and they end up simply getting owned by the system. They try to play the game in terms that don't actually come under the jurisdiction of the law courts.
When engaging with the law courts, one has to know very, very clearly what their jurisdiction is, and what it isn't, and know where you stand in that context.
By the way, think of the expression "sovereign citizen" in the same way you think of "conspiracy theory", and you'll start to grasp what is going on.
Great post. One thing to also keep in mind is Judges that are corrupt and will not follow the law. Same for prosecutors, etc. I have personally witnessed someone get convicted by a jury that was influenced and controlled by the judge. This person had no attorney, and the judge told him if he let the jury know he was being tried without an attorney against his will that he would be put away for the rest of his life. He was not allowed to present his evidence, and was unable to give any jury instructions. He was also told if he appealed he would be dealt with.
This was about 10 years ago, and it has gotten a lot worse today. Most courts are corrupt and you will not likely find a fair trial or any justice within a courtroom today.
In a court case? You want me to define for you what a win is in a court case?
Ok, let's see. We'll assume the person using Sovereign tactics is a defendant. So if they plead not guilty of whatever they're charged with, and their use of Sovereign whatever results in the court finding them not guilty, that's a win.
You want me to define for you what a win is in a court case?
No. I want you to clarify how YOU define "win" in this context. I don't want you to do anything for me, but thanks for the offer.
Would you consider a case being dismissed as a win?
Or a case being put into limbo for 5+ years?
Is being found "not guilty" under a system that is corrupt or which exerts jurisdiction by fraud a win? In many cases, I would say no. It merely perpetuates the system, and the individual is still controlled by it.
To even begin looking at this question, you need to be able to understand the difference between "legal" and "lawful". Can you explain the difference to me?
People are advised not to attempt using this stuff for the first time on a case with a heavy downside. It's common for people to challenge things like parking tickets, where the downside is having to pay a $50 fine and the upside is the building up of one's confidence in a courtroom.
Then at some point, after using those tactics for smaller things, their confidence should be at a level where they can successfully use it on a case with a "heavy downside". I would like to see a case where that has happened.
Look, I'm not the one making claims that it works. People who buy into this stuff are the ones making such claims. When it's pointed out that people using those tactics lose, they say that the losers weren't doing it right. When asked for an example of when it was done right, they can't provide an example.
Basically all they can do is argue that these tactics SHOULD work, usually by attempting to redefine words or by misinterpreting some legal issue. I'm not interested in any of that. I want to see an actual case where it HAS worked. Just one single solitary little case where these tactics have worked as claimed.
I am not trying to convince anyone that there is a magic process that circumvents the legal system, I am saying that the legal system is a corrupt system that only works because we have been misled into believing we are who we aren't. When someone who is aware of this tries to stand their ground and fight the system they are almost always crushed because the system doesn't have to play by any rules, they have a monopoly on violence.
You and I are a natural person. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Leige-Lord (i.e. legal) system, the vast majority of "persons" in this system are artificial persons - otherwise known as corporations, trusts, partnerships, etc.
The etymology of the word comes from the Greek "Persona" however, which was defined as a character in a Greek stage play (comedy/tragedy). An "actor"!
It's also worth noting that we had a word for two or more called "people", but the legal system required the word "person" to maintain their subterfuge with "persons".
Not sure how this works in the US, but in Australia, UK etc (which makes me suspect also in the US, as the US constitution is essentially a codification of common law (the law of the land) that arose from British history), we are NOT natural persons, but living men and women.
Not familiar with the US dimensions of this. Possibly what you refer to as "natural persons" is the 'legal' (but not necessarily lawful) designation for a living human within the legal system, which indeed draws a distinction between a natural person and a legal person (corps, etc). Nonetheless, I think they are ALL still being controlled under the jurisdiction of maritime law.
From a common law perspective:
"Persons" are corporate entities, coming under the jurisdiction of maritime law, aka commercial law. When we are born and 'registered' with whatever corporation is operating disguised as govt or a govt body, a 'person' i.e. corporate entity is created, using our name.
It is that corporate entity that is affected and controlled via statute law, aka commercial law, derived from the Roman civil law.
But living men and women come under jurisdiction of the law of the land, common law.
When you interact with a govt agency, for example, which will be a registered corporation, you are interacting as that corporate entity created with the registration of your birth via the "birth certificate".
One key problem in the Western world today is that most folks are completely ignorant of this reality, and they live and function in a world where they identify with the corporate entity mimicking them, rather than as living men and women.
Legalese is funny. Take the word “drive.” It’s become modern vernacular to say “you drive a car” but it’s not technically true. Originally, technically, and legally speaking, driving refers to the profession of transporting goods by land. Think of cattle drivers. They drove cattle but they did so while riding on horses. Technically there are no truck drivers or taxi drivers, but rather, product drivers and human drivers who ride in the same automobile/car(ridge) they use to transport those products and humans.
According to MANY Supreme Court cases, the right to travel (aka, freedom of locomotion) on public roads via automobile is a Constitutional right that can only be curtailed via due process (i.e., conviction of a crime). The only people, technically, who are not constitutionally protected from laws that require a drivers license, are professional drivers. But alas, here we are.
I concur. It's the same in the Australian constitution. Under the Australian constitution, only travel on public roads for commercial purposes can be regulated (i.e. require registration, licensing, etc) by government, and private travel does not fall under that. Yet, the governments ignore this fact, and base its interactions with us via our strawman, who is by nature a corporate and commercial entity, and so it goes on.
Ignorance of the law is the greatest problem we have.
"Passengers" is another one. They are assumed to be paying a fare to the "driver".
The trick is the authorities in the liege-lord system have to offer up a common definition in order to pull their legalese tricks. The judge will happily agree with you verbally that you are a natural person and then go right back to adjudicating the case of the strawman artificial person.
That's right. When you look up "person" in Black's Law Dictionary, it directs you to these two distinctions.
From a common law perspective, using your phrasing here, recall that there is nothing written down. This is the "common law" of old. As the word "person" is a commonly used word with a clear meaning to the populace, there is no harm in the word itself - it matters not. Everybody is in agreement, judge, jury, audience, etc. that a man/woman can also be called a "person" without any confusion of the matter.
That's correct. This might all be clearer stated as such. The liege-lord system is wholly and completely designed to operate exclusively with dead, fictional entities. As such, the living man/woman must be converted into one as well, the cestui que trust, transmitting utility, etc. via the strawman ALL CAPS NAME in order to interact with all the fake dead entities (corporations, governments, actors etc.). This is why the living man/woman must be RE-PRESENTED, as the liege-lord system cannot see/hear/interact with the PRESENTMENT of a living man/woman. Make sense?
This is technically correct. But walk into any court running today in the U.S. and commonwealth nations and the judge will happily tell you that this courtroom is indeed operating under the "common law", as it is 100% COMMON to the people today. See the trick?
Right, as said above, the dead cannot interact with the living.
Agreed. The liege-lord system is pure trickery and deception. You can only be one "thing" at a time. Thus, you surrender your man/womanhood as soon as you agree to be a person, resident, citizen, driver, taxpayer, defendant, litigant, affiant, registrant, petitioner, and on and on we go.
Are you a taxpayer or a man? You can't be both in the eyes of the liege lords!
It's nice to have your comments confirm mine. In my experience, this whole area is the rabbit warren to end all rabbit warrens, and there are many, many shades expressed through many different types of language and vantage points. For example, the "Liege-Lord" expression is new to me, but many of the other angles you express are not.
Oh, the trickery! Indeed.
I am in the very fortunate position of having some access (limited, but still) to someone who is probably one of, if not the most, erudite person in my country re: our constitution, the law and the practical application thereof in terms of fighting against the legal quagmire of trickery.
For me, one of the linchpins behind my thinking (the more I learn about and encounter this stuff) is the belief and awareness that this is all rooted in a spiritual reality that humanity has been afflicted with since the first days described in scripture.
Deceit, trickery, chicanery has ALWAYS been at the base of the enslavement of humanity. The legal quagmire is simply the manifestation of that on a tangible, social level.
In any case, your point by point response is much appreciated.
Well you're spot on. My research is very much rooted in the spiritual realm.
I write "liege lord" as the words liege, allegiance, & legal all come from the same Latin root. They're telling us who is in charge with the very name of their system!
I could go much deeper on the spiritual level with you. But suffice it to say, we all agreed to enter this realm of "duality" and, as such, somebody needed to play the role of the "bad guys" to make the good/bad part of it work. My theory is, there are two factions at work here; one are the "good guys" and one are the "bad guys" always hard at work trying to tip the balance in their respective direction. The freemasons are here to keep the balance, hence the black/white checkerboard symbology. If you weren't aware, they also completely run the liege lord system.
Now here's the key to it all -> Knowing who you are; within the lawful/legal realm is a start, but far more importantly, within the game of "life" itself. My understanding is, once you've mastered the legal realm, the judge will bow down and allow a real man/woman to proceed LAWFULLY, but only after you've been tested. Said judge will also admire you for figuring out the game afoot. But you must always remember, within the legal/liege-lord system, nothing matters as much as behaving honorably, not facts, not truth, not justice. It's all about honor! It's their system and that's the number one rule.
Once you've figured out you're a man/woman, and nothing else, you get to pass "go" and now take on the larger and far more important task of figuring out who you REALLY are. Because rest assured, not only are you not a person/citizen/resident/defendant/etc., but you're also not a man/woman either. You're something far greater than that!
So it's all about stepping up your game from playing "little ol' me"; weak, subordinate, able to be bossed around, subservient, dependent, etc. which is how we've all been brainwashed into behaving by the establishment institutions. You're not going to get anywhere with this legal/lawful stuff until you can see through the game and EMBODY the truth of the matter. It's because of this brainwashing that the liege-lord system must stay in place. It can't just be wiped out overnight. It serves its purpose for the unconscious, asleep, brainwashed sheeples. But if you're ready to step into self-governship, self-responsibility, and zero dependency on their system, that opportunity is available to you and they will "part the sea" and allow to crossover into your own sovereignty.
Most important of all, it's not about "what you know", but rather it's about "who you be" from moment to moment, whether you're in the midst of a legal/lawful affair or not. As my favorite guru likes to say; "it's a lifestyle".
Good luck with your continued studies my friend!
No you are not. You are human beings. A person is a legal entity and fiction.
A "human being" is defined as a "monster" or "beast" in some legal dictionaries.
But you don't have to take my word for it, look up the word "person" in most editions of "Black's Law" and it will direct you to either "artificial person" or "natural person".
To avoid all the pitfalls of the liege-lord system, all you can ever agree to be is a man or woman. Every other word; individual, defendant, litigant, petitioner, citizen, resident, driver, taxpayer, etc. is a "gotcha", as you've accepted your title of slavery and rescinded your man/womanhood.
Put simply, you can't be BOTH a man and a person under the legal system. And the legal system does not, and cannot recognize nor interact with a living man because they are all "acting as" judges, prosecutors, etc. representing fictional entities like citys, states, governments, corporations, etc.
Thanks for the input. Always something to learn :D
He's good.
The point I take away from this is that natural person and artificial person (to use M's terms) are both entities under the legal system, but the legal system does distinguish between them.
However, a natural person is not a natural or living man or woman. A living man or woman is above (outside) the corporate (maritime) legal system.
I only read the first two pages, but within that scope this article does not make its case. On the contrary, it makes claims about the law that cannot be corroborated in law. For example, it states:
Black's Law Dictionary, which makes explicit the definitions that are used in any law case, defines "Vote:"
There is nothing in there that can be interpreted as a "contract" in the legal sense (AKA an obligation on the party of the individual casting the vote). There is nothing in there that implies anything about Deities (God, false gods, etc.). Such wording, within the document posted, without explicit examples within the law itself is almost certainly designed to mislead. Even if what they say can be corroborated within the law, it does not itself provide actionable information to to do. You can not use this document to make an actual case within the law, even though it proposes to be an "elucidation of the law".
You could say, "Blacks Law Dictionary is lying," except that that is the source that is used to argue law. If you want to make a case that a definition is something completely different than what BLD says, you better provide really good evidence within the law itself, otherwise you will be laughed out of court.
I'm not saying that this is intentional Controlled Opposition, but my research suggests that this is exactly what it looks like.
In Germany voting is called "Stimme abgeben" "abstimmen"
= give your voice / pass your voice (over)
= give your voice over to the representatives so they can speak up for you in Berlin in the Bundestag
and we put our "voices" into the "Urne" = the urn
= our voices are dead, burried in urns and our representatives in Berlin are only obliged to follow their conscience w/out an oath
(oaths only for chancellor, president, ministers, but with no legal consequences!)
This document is obfuscation disguised as illumination. My choice to pick "vote" to show that was only to provide an example. It was not my intention to defend the concept of voting as defined by BLD or anyone else.
With regards to that, there is all sorts of fuckery in the concept of "qualified electors," or a "Republic," etc as defined in BLD.
My protest is about the document in the OP and its attempt to define it in a way that suggests an elucidation of legal fuckery, when it is not showing, in any provable way, the actual legal fuckery the PTB are perpetrating on We The People.
I have found this shit a lot in my investigation. It takes elements of the truth, then using that, shows a legal trap (true or not) without showing a legal path to escape it. This causes anger, which leads to a controllable state. It is a form of manipulation, a Controlled Opposition.
Interdasting.
The same people responsible for definitions outlined in any official dictionary, have also defined pregnancy as being achievable by females as well as males.
I made my case specifically addressing the direction of your protest and you ignored it in your response.
Aside from that, the legal definition of pregnancy does not in any way suggest what you are saying it does:
What you think they are saying is not what they are saying. You are confusing what is legal (AKA defined formally in the law) with what is a non-legal brainwashing technique applied in an "official" setting. Both are fuckery, but they are completely different types of fuckery.
Thanks for taking the time comment well
This reads like some sovereign citizen stuff… not quite sure how this fits in with Q and all.
Think of the expression "sovereign citizen" in the same way you think of "conspiracy theory", and you'll start to grasp what is going on.
Not with reference to this particular pdf, but on a more general note, compared with common law vs maritime law, etc, Q is superficial. Q is a psyop designed to wake up the people. (psyop does NOT mean it's not true or real, it just means that its an operation in 5G warfare with a purpose to generate a result via psychology).
Way in the back, way way back, like in the place where the minions like obama, clinton, soros etc, are all just instruments serving the hidden masters of the game, back on that level, this is where the fact that you are a living man or woman created by God, not by any government, comes into play.
https://media.greatawakening.win/post/7xKXyj8r5RV6.jpeg
Top Notch meme! Tippy Top!
Update: I've just taken a bit of a peak at "sovereign citizen" stuff ala the United States.
Based on what knowledge I have, I draw the following conclusions:
The expression 'sovereign citizen' has been weaponized in much the same way that 'conspiracy theory' has been.
yes, there have been many wackos who came forward with 'conspiracy theory' stuff, but without the full picture, and so have been painted as wackos. And, half the time, they were. But weaponizing the term necessarily involves injecting fake and false information, to discredit 'conspiracy theorists', and hold the nutjobs up as the image (e.g. tin foil hats).
The roots and foundation of the 'sovereign citizen' stuff are legit, and real, but there is a lot of disinfo out there, and people who are quite ignorant of the whole picture and the law get themselves in to a lot of trouble, which is what is promoted as 'sovereign citizen stuff'. See?
I found one video that I think will shed some good light on this topic for many reading here and who are unfamiliar with the ideas.
The nature of the cave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sArXw6ajNg
Anybody trying to assert their freedom and non-personhood will sound like a nutjob to the great sleeping masses. The information needs to become more widespread and comprehended in order for freedom to not seem absurd.
Yes. Moreover, we ourselves need to learn a LOT more about making the law work for us, instead of for them.
One of the top experts (not a lawyer, thankfully) in the field of Australian constitution and law and interacting with the legal system always encourages us to question. to put the onus on the system.
For example, asking what jurisdiction the court has, with regards to X, and where their authority comes from. As far as I can see, so much authority is claimed fraudulently and without basis, but the slave population simply go along with tit, because the matrix.
Like mask 'mandates'. A mandate is not a law. It is essentially an invite to contract. "you must wear this mask if you agree that you must wear this mask".
My wife and I spent a lot of time in 2020 trying to educate people and business owners about the wordplay that was being used regarding the mask mandates. A few people grasped it but they still went along with it out of some deeply instilled trust in government. They couldn't believe that it could actually be happening.
Well considering Sovereign citizen is an oxymoron and look at the people pushing it trying to get their cake (not pay taxes/duties) and eat it too (still use the birth certificate/corporate entity to get privileges) it becomes more clear how it is a miss.
The real deal is the legal name fraud.
I was thinking just this earlier today!
'Citizen' means you come under the legal structure. Doesn't it derive originally from Roman civil law?
If you are a citizen, you are by definition not sovereign, right? You come under some other sovereignty.
Sovereign man or woman... that I can accept. Which is what we are. God grants us sovereignty over ourselves, which the wise man will return back to God.
There is a lady attorney up in Alaska or something who has a trove of info on how to disown your strawman.. anyone able to reconnect me with her site?
http://annavonreitz.com/
Is this who your referring to maybe?
I have been watching David Straight's ‘out of Babylon conference’ and it is a wealth of knowledge and I highly recommend taking the time to go through it. Beginning to understand this has brought quite a few pieces to the puzzle together that would seem to be quite vital with how we take this all back or don’t. Perceived authority is an interesting concept.
https://rumble.com/v10w2xh-david-straight-out-of-babylon-part-1-of-8.html
Yes! I do believe it is! Thank you!
I will check out "out of babylon," too!!
Wonderful information, Fren! Thank you!
super interesting, but i'm not sure what to make of it.
Exactly. That's the starting point. It won't make real sense until you get a LOT more information.
When I first came across this entire rabbit hole (common law - maritime law - living man / woman vs. strawman (corporate entity) - after I began going down rabbit holes (2016), it made no sense to me, and I thought it was all nonsense.
But with the flow of time, and being exposed to more and more pieces of the puzzle, I came to grasp something of the reality in all this. It's entirely mind-blowing, and imo, is the rabbit hole to end all rabbit holes, because it deals with everything that lays the basis for the slavery system of the Cabal, and the very matrix in which we have been living.
There is LOTS of information out there, and many different shades, with many different assertions and viewpoints. IMO, anyone digging into this should be aware of that, because you will really have to develop your own sense of discernment and purpose to engage on this level.
But it's worth it.
My suggestion is you start with "common law". It's worth noting that the US constitution is essentially a codification of common law, that the founding fathers were well aware of and understood. They took the common law and codified it into a living constitution.
If you are in the UK or Aus, Canada, etc, there are different shades there to grasp. But in the end, it is all about the common law and how it has been subverted by the regular suspects (the bankers, their politicians, their govts. etc) to enslave us in a 'legal' matrix.
i've been down the maritime law rabbit hole. but that doesn't explain negative references in the Bible to the word 'person'. what did the writers of the Bible believe that word to mean?
not a Bible expert. not sure what translation the quotes in this document are pulled from, or how that affects my question.
Yeah, important to remember that "person" is an English word, and the Bible (scripture) was NOT written in English.
The biblehub has some great resources for looking at the original language (i.e. Greek, or Hebrew) and seeing how they are translated into English, etc.
If used it a couple of times, but I don't quite recall how to track that down.
Me either. The only other times I've seen this argument made have been on episodes of Court Cam & it's always a toothless hillbilly methhead arguing it in a kangaroo court.
This will happen because people don't really know their stuff. Because such people don't know their stuff, they go about everything in the wrong way. They try to play the game in terms that don't actually come under the jurisdiction of the law courts, and so they get owned by the system.
When engaging with the law courts, one has to know very, very clearly what their jurisdiction is, and what it isn't, and know where you stand in that context.
There are so many starting points in this rabbit warren (a rabbit warren is an interconnected network of rabbit holes), it's hard to begin. You'll find pieces that make no sense, that seem to contradiction, that appear meaningless gobbledygook, but that is by design.
The Cabal was people to know about this are LESS than they want people to know about human and child trafficking. Because even if one knows the corruption exists, you can only directly fight with them if you know HOW they control you.
I know what you mean! Apparently they think there is some sort of magic phrasing that if you just say something that sounds sort of legal, there's a loophole that the courts have to give you to get out of trouble. It's just stupid.
You'd think that they would catch on when everyone using this stuff loses their case. Case after case, year after year with none of this silliness ever working like they want it too.
Why is it that every fringe dweller on the outskirts of civilization want to dump their issues onto Q? Like this is the dumpyard where everything outside mainstream sheeple beliefs go to die.
Doesn't David Icke have a forum for these people?
:please dont-make ; Me / Type like-This.
kek
I've been digging into this topic for years..
And....?
The "Legal System" has been warped, mangled and twisted to an unrecognizable spaghetti mess of inanities. Laws should be simple and concise. Anywhere there is the possibility of confusion, misinterpretation and manipulation should require a clearly defined and delineated purpose/explanation and a clear and concise definition of the "Spirit" of the law. The law is a tangled mess to allow manipulation. The Law needs to be bound by Truth and Justice. It needs to be tied to Right and Wrong. This needs to be a prime goal of the Great Awakening. The Restoration of Justice is as critical to the rescue of humanity as is the fight for transparency.
The truth about the SS Cardholder is the SSA reserves ownership of the name, number and card to themselves; then they entrust the same to Corp. U.S. agency trusts they call “cardholders”.
This is an interesting article that helps explain the root of the problem:
https://teamlaw.net/Mythology-CorpUS.htm#SSn=You
Corp. U.S’. Myth 10; also known as: “The Prevailing Mythology”: The Social Security card is: “your Social Security card;” and/or, the Social Security Number is: “your Social Security Number.”
This is another great read to help understand how we have been deceived:
https://teamlaw.net/Mythology.htm#FreedomToFascism Myth 22: Combined myths regarding the nature of “our government”:
I've never seen or heard of a case that anyone won using this Sovereign Citizen stuff. It's legal-ish sounding gibberish. And why is it that every case seems to be someone trying to get out of a parking or speeding ticket or not paying their child support.
That's because people who don't really know their stuff engage with it in the wrong way, and they end up simply getting owned by the system. They try to play the game in terms that don't actually come under the jurisdiction of the law courts.
When engaging with the law courts, one has to know very, very clearly what their jurisdiction is, and what it isn't, and know where you stand in that context.
By the way, think of the expression "sovereign citizen" in the same way you think of "conspiracy theory", and you'll start to grasp what is going on.
Great post. One thing to also keep in mind is Judges that are corrupt and will not follow the law. Same for prosecutors, etc. I have personally witnessed someone get convicted by a jury that was influenced and controlled by the judge. This person had no attorney, and the judge told him if he let the jury know he was being tried without an attorney against his will that he would be put away for the rest of his life. He was not allowed to present his evidence, and was unable to give any jury instructions. He was also told if he appealed he would be dealt with.
This was about 10 years ago, and it has gotten a lot worse today. Most courts are corrupt and you will not likely find a fair trial or any justice within a courtroom today.
Could you give me the name of a case where someone using the tactics you've described have won their case because of them?
Okay, but could you first define "win"?
In a court case? You want me to define for you what a win is in a court case?
Ok, let's see. We'll assume the person using Sovereign tactics is a defendant. So if they plead not guilty of whatever they're charged with, and their use of Sovereign whatever results in the court finding them not guilty, that's a win.
No. I want you to clarify how YOU define "win" in this context. I don't want you to do anything for me, but thanks for the offer.
Would you consider a case being dismissed as a win?
Or a case being put into limbo for 5+ years?
Is being found "not guilty" under a system that is corrupt or which exerts jurisdiction by fraud a win? In many cases, I would say no. It merely perpetuates the system, and the individual is still controlled by it.
To even begin looking at this question, you need to be able to understand the difference between "legal" and "lawful". Can you explain the difference to me?
Keep shilling harder. You need more practice. You're far too transparent.
Oh, and also, try to cut down on the projection. It's a dead giveaway.
People are advised not to attempt using this stuff for the first time on a case with a heavy downside. It's common for people to challenge things like parking tickets, where the downside is having to pay a $50 fine and the upside is the building up of one's confidence in a courtroom.
Then at some point, after using those tactics for smaller things, their confidence should be at a level where they can successfully use it on a case with a "heavy downside". I would like to see a case where that has happened. Look, I'm not the one making claims that it works. People who buy into this stuff are the ones making such claims. When it's pointed out that people using those tactics lose, they say that the losers weren't doing it right. When asked for an example of when it was done right, they can't provide an example. Basically all they can do is argue that these tactics SHOULD work, usually by attempting to redefine words or by misinterpreting some legal issue. I'm not interested in any of that. I want to see an actual case where it HAS worked. Just one single solitary little case where these tactics have worked as claimed.
I am not trying to convince anyone that there is a magic process that circumvents the legal system, I am saying that the legal system is a corrupt system that only works because we have been misled into believing we are who we aren't. When someone who is aware of this tries to stand their ground and fight the system they are almost always crushed because the system doesn't have to play by any rules, they have a monopoly on violence.