That is an interesting insight and seems to explain the exact reasoning and basis on how and why you could get away with creating a status of “citizen” with the description of “person” to deprive “We the People” into voluntarily giving up our Inalienable God given rights as Men and Women in exchange for a membership into the corporation of 1871 as a “person” who receives “privileges” and “immunities” (not inalienable rights) that bind us to corporate policy and burden us with taxes through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Good points! Your sentence is worth of reading slowly and carefully, as it packs so much information!
through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Imagine a country where the people are not bound by contract but by unilateral bonds: i.e. gifts.
How that is possible?
Quite simply: you coerce the parent under duress to do so, change the name of the child into a pronoun and the family name to the child's name and create this juridical person called Natural Person. On top, obfuscate the difference between right and law/statute. This creates a porter, a vessel, a transmitting utility carrying duties and privileges.
Most people in that country belief they are that Natural Person. And most of those who do not, cannot even comprehend that person actually means: by means of sound.
Any idea what country that is?
Hint: Deep State Central and it is not Switzerland.
within 3 days of the birth-event of a child, such child is subject to" geboorte aangifte" =aan - gifte. Literally: given to. Gifte equals the English word: Gift; geboorte is used in an adjective sense but because no article is used it is unclear weather birth as an event is used or born = the child. Of course parents do not have the right to give away their child into bondage.
A contract is jurisdiction in which two or more parties agreed to enter into. A gift is a unilateral (1-zijdig or one-sided) bond = ver-binte-nis). Since it is a gift, this creates a unilateral bond under public statue, and a public statute natural person, a transmitting utility, is created. This is akin to at the notaries where a juridical person is created. Just like every juridical person, the natural person is required to have a seat, i.e. an address. In the Dutch system is this the combination of postal code and housenumber. This process is done at the city level, called: ge-meen-te meaning: common-uni-ty.
Since a new entity under statute is created, a new name applies, as I explained in my previous post.
The word PERSON is derived from two Latin words: PER meaning by means of, and SONA meaning to sound.
It is often applied to actors wearing a mask to declaim certain ordinances of the gods.
In the same vein, we wear a mask for all intends and purposes. We are father, mother, child, tweeny, carpenter, athlete, etc.
SO, to agree such a view applies without objection.
This was the usual method of doing business. You want this amphora of wine: YES or NO. We as living beings a persons.
There are two words denoting the same thing in different states in Germanic Language: Lijf meaning the living body and equals to the English word Life. The pronunciation is the same. The other word: corps, the dead body is derived from corpora, corporate, equals to lichaam or Leichnahm in Germanic. In a way it is rather astonishing to consider that words: Marine Corps. Dead mariners, as opposed to a fine body of men has not yet been given a name change.
And as such, as a person, we are entitled to be regarded under law. However, not in the Netherlands as you can only be recognized IF and WHEN you** identify** (note the meaning this word) as a natural person, a dead body, with a client number issued by the State. (consider the word client carefully. It is also derived from Latin and it has nothing to do with business between free peoples!) and a false name. This way, a natural person can be forced to do things which are against his rights: it is called a porter or bearer of rights and duties. And the duties multiply, and the rights diminish. Of course.
Duties can only exist by means of a bond, either uni-lateral or multi-lateral. So the person is then called: the ingezetene (ingeseytene. This is a word from the middle ages. Certain city people were burgers, or citizens, called uitgeseytene, those who are no longer sat upon, may be a bit like a yoke was sat upon an animal of burden. De ingeseytene were eh ... lorded over, shall we say, and usually had no property)
There is a mix up of meaning in terms of: right, statute and law. A law cannot convey a right, a statute cannot convey a law, nor amend it. But it can infringe, abridge, contain its enjoyment. Hence they call the law/statute: right (recht) The whole system in that country is totally screwed up, because of it.
More than 8 weeks ago we were embroiled in a suit where the demand for a change of name on a rental contract with a public housing union was conducted. We explained the above and how in the Netherlands "fraus legis" is committed by the State of the Netherlands. "Fraus legis", which in The Netherlands is often used in tax cases, is also applied differently than was originally intended. Here, the law or statute is setup such that its intended use is the prohibition of enjoying a right. Fraus legis is put into law under 18-USC-241, 242 as a comparison.
Since we were not the party demanding, but only served as the expert witness, we were not in the position to do what we normally would do: get the Clerk to send us the concept for our consideration and revision of the ruling within 3 days of the court-day.
In the Netherlands then, usually, either of two things happen: 1. No ruling at all, postponed indefinitely, or 2. a false ruling. The latter is done by only granting the demand as sustained or rejected without consideration and weighing, as is obligatory by statute. For if they were to rule correctly, the system would come crashing down like a diseased temple.
The point is: The Netherlands operates under the provision of "legaliteits-beginsel" as is expressed in the UVRM, EVRM, EU-constitution, ICCPR. One might consider that the rule of law: so all things proceed according to law. No law? no process. In and of itself not a bad idea, except for one small thing: Every Dutch born of Dutch parents with a family tree back to before 1780 has a right to sovereignty under natural and INTERNATIONAL law.
That is fascinating, thank you for that insight and information. It also raises my suspicion, after beginning to understand the fraud within the United States and you explaining the similarities about the Netherlands, that many more countries are running this type of scam on their people.
Concerning person, I also find it interesting that the Bible states there is life and death from the tongue and in this case they use it in a way to say you didn’t speak up to claim your life or status so under the premise of parens patrae (or similar) we default you to the status of a ward of the state or the state as your guardian.
It would seem they are in a sense using the same premise from the 1666 cestui que vie act to claim your status as dead and therefore the state has sovereignty over your affairs and estate.
When I have a minute I’m going to look over this again, thank you. There are definitely a few things you brought up that catch my curiosity to dig deeper.
That is an interesting insight and seems to explain the exact reasoning and basis on how and why you could get away with creating a status of “citizen” with the description of “person” to deprive “We the People” into voluntarily giving up our Inalienable God given rights as Men and Women in exchange for a membership into the corporation of 1871 as a “person” who receives “privileges” and “immunities” (not inalienable rights) that bind us to corporate policy and burden us with taxes through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Good points! Your sentence is worth of reading slowly and carefully, as it packs so much information!
Imagine a country where the people are not bound by contract but by unilateral bonds: i.e. gifts.
How that is possible?
Quite simply: you coerce the parent under duress to do so, change the name of the child into a pronoun and the family name to the child's name and create this juridical person called Natural Person. On top, obfuscate the difference between right and law/statute. This creates a porter, a vessel, a transmitting utility carrying duties and privileges.
Most people in that country belief they are that Natural Person. And most of those who do not, cannot even comprehend that person actually means: by means of sound.
Any idea what country that is?
Hint: Deep State Central and it is not Switzerland.
From the hint my guess would be Sweden.
From the description I have no clue.
Unilateral bonds. I.e gifts Someone leveraging credit on your behalf at birth and you are now bound to its debt?
By means of sound? That is an interesting statement, can you you explain that further?
Country is The Netherlands.
within 3 days of the birth-event of a child, such child is subject to" geboorte aangifte" =aan - gifte. Literally: given to. Gifte equals the English word: Gift; geboorte is used in an adjective sense but because no article is used it is unclear weather birth as an event is used or born = the child. Of course parents do not have the right to give away their child into bondage.
A contract is jurisdiction in which two or more parties agreed to enter into. A gift is a unilateral (1-zijdig or one-sided) bond = ver-binte-nis). Since it is a gift, this creates a unilateral bond under public statue, and a public statute natural person, a transmitting utility, is created. This is akin to at the notaries where a juridical person is created. Just like every juridical person, the natural person is required to have a seat, i.e. an address. In the Dutch system is this the combination of postal code and housenumber. This process is done at the city level, called: ge-meen-te meaning: common-uni-ty.
Since a new entity under statute is created, a new name applies, as I explained in my previous post.
The word PERSON is derived from two Latin words: PER meaning by means of, and SONA meaning to sound.
It is often applied to actors wearing a mask to declaim certain ordinances of the gods. In the same vein, we wear a mask for all intends and purposes. We are father, mother, child, tweeny, carpenter, athlete, etc. SO, to agree such a view applies without objection.
This was the usual method of doing business. You want this amphora of wine: YES or NO. We as living beings a persons. There are two words denoting the same thing in different states in Germanic Language: Lijf meaning the living body and equals to the English word Life. The pronunciation is the same. The other word: corps, the dead body is derived from corpora, corporate, equals to lichaam or Leichnahm in Germanic. In a way it is rather astonishing to consider that words: Marine Corps. Dead mariners, as opposed to a fine body of men has not yet been given a name change.
And as such, as a person, we are entitled to be regarded under law. However, not in the Netherlands as you can only be recognized IF and WHEN you** identify** (note the meaning this word) as a natural person, a dead body, with a client number issued by the State. (consider the word client carefully. It is also derived from Latin and it has nothing to do with business between free peoples!) and a false name. This way, a natural person can be forced to do things which are against his rights: it is called a porter or bearer of rights and duties. And the duties multiply, and the rights diminish. Of course.
Duties can only exist by means of a bond, either uni-lateral or multi-lateral. So the person is then called: the ingezetene (ingeseytene. This is a word from the middle ages. Certain city people were burgers, or citizens, called uitgeseytene, those who are no longer sat upon, may be a bit like a yoke was sat upon an animal of burden. De ingeseytene were eh ... lorded over, shall we say, and usually had no property)
There is a mix up of meaning in terms of: right, statute and law. A law cannot convey a right, a statute cannot convey a law, nor amend it. But it can infringe, abridge, contain its enjoyment. Hence they call the law/statute: right (recht) The whole system in that country is totally screwed up, because of it.
More than 8 weeks ago we were embroiled in a suit where the demand for a change of name on a rental contract with a public housing union was conducted. We explained the above and how in the Netherlands "fraus legis" is committed by the State of the Netherlands. "Fraus legis", which in The Netherlands is often used in tax cases, is also applied differently than was originally intended. Here, the law or statute is setup such that its intended use is the prohibition of enjoying a right. Fraus legis is put into law under 18-USC-241, 242 as a comparison.
Since we were not the party demanding, but only served as the expert witness, we were not in the position to do what we normally would do: get the Clerk to send us the concept for our consideration and revision of the ruling within 3 days of the court-day.
In the Netherlands then, usually, either of two things happen: 1. No ruling at all, postponed indefinitely, or 2. a false ruling. The latter is done by only granting the demand as sustained or rejected without consideration and weighing, as is obligatory by statute. For if they were to rule correctly, the system would come crashing down like a diseased temple.
The point is: The Netherlands operates under the provision of "legaliteits-beginsel" as is expressed in the UVRM, EVRM, EU-constitution, ICCPR. One might consider that the rule of law: so all things proceed according to law. No law? no process. In and of itself not a bad idea, except for one small thing: Every Dutch born of Dutch parents with a family tree back to before 1780 has a right to sovereignty under natural and INTERNATIONAL law.
That is fascinating, thank you for that insight and information. It also raises my suspicion, after beginning to understand the fraud within the United States and you explaining the similarities about the Netherlands, that many more countries are running this type of scam on their people.
Concerning person, I also find it interesting that the Bible states there is life and death from the tongue and in this case they use it in a way to say you didn’t speak up to claim your life or status so under the premise of parens patrae (or similar) we default you to the status of a ward of the state or the state as your guardian.
It would seem they are in a sense using the same premise from the 1666 cestui que vie act to claim your status as dead and therefore the state has sovereignty over your affairs and estate.
When I have a minute I’m going to look over this again, thank you. There are definitely a few things you brought up that catch my curiosity to dig deeper.