INTRODUCTION
California Governor G Newsom wants to fine a school board for NOT using corrupted text materials that praise pedo predator Harvey Mil.
Question: How can a governor or other government body issue a fine against someone or something for simply breaking their rules?
For violating 'law'. "Legal violation". Once you understand that much of statute law aka 'civil' law, aka maritime law (contract law) is actually in violation of common law aka the law of the land, you begin to see the true evil mechanisms of the system of systems.
ONE
Common Law vs Contract Law
Common law is innate, God given. However, contract law requires agreement, consent.
Under common law, a crime can only exist when someone has suffered loss or damage. If no one suffers loss or damage, there is no crime.
Under contract law, however, a 'crime' or violation simply exists when one or more parties contravene the requirements or rules of the contract.
The 'legal' system has been infiltrated over decades and centuries, so that governments can 'legally' lay down rules that they then attempt to force citizens aka people to comply with. They can only do so via contract law, aka statute law.
How can they do this? It starts with requiring everyone to 'register' their children at birth. When you are registered, that registration creates a 'legal' entity in your name. Your birth certificate becomes the registration of the living you in the corporate - legal - civil system. It is on that basis that they exert control over you. By registering, and accepting that registration as 'you', you are seen as having given consent to be treated as a legal entity.
Why? Because a corporation itself is a purely 'legal' entity. It is essentially dead. It is not living. It only exists on paper, legally, and a non-living entity like a corporation cannot contract with a living entity.
But you are not your legal identity. You are a living man or woman. Burn your birth certificate, and you are still alive. You exist, and your rights as a living man or woman exist with you. But in order to exert control (corruptly, unlawfully), the governments establish 'statute law', aka rules that they then require you to comply with, and then they use force against your legal entity to make you do it if you do not comply. Taxation. Rules and regulations. Etc.
TWO
Contract Law Must be Subservient to Common Law
Statute law is meant to be subject to Common Law. Why? Because common law, the law of the land, is based on and reflects God's law, aka innate natural law.
Common law was developed and manifested via courts - places where living men and women could challenge each other for damages or loss, and where the results are judged by juries of their peers - other living men and women.
However, courts today mostly operate in the hidden and secret world of the 'legal system', where language is specialized, where lawyers and jurists (judges, etc) are an elite class, and where statute law rules the day.
Statute law - the law that legislatures draft and pass - is law enacted by governments (not courts) to lay down laws for corporate entities and interactions between legal entities. No statute law should violate common law. In other words, no statute law should violate the innate rights of living men and women.
The Founding Fathers understood this, and created the Constitution on the basis of common law existing up to that date, in order to curb and control government. The constitution is all about what the government CANNOT do, and what it can do within a prescribed limit. The Founders of the United States recognized that government had to be limited, because innate law, and innate rights, and living men and women, are correctly superior to government. Government should ONLY exist by the consent of the governed.
But corruption always seeks to infiltrate. It infiltrates through the cracks. It infiltrates in the dark, in secret, gradually increasing its own power and control. So, over time, the system of birth registrations arose, the system of the 'legal' world, and the systems of governments that allow them to dictate to living men and women what they must and must not do, via treating them as purely legal entities, not as living beings.
It's via this method that they reverse the correct order of justice and the order of creation, wherein the creator can never come below the created.
THREE
The Natural Order
The natural order is this: God > living man, living woman > government > corporation (non-living entities).
God creates living men and women, who then create governments as instruments for serving certain requirements of the living men and women, and governments then create corporate entities via 'legal' means.
The corrupting powers reverse this: corporations > government > living men and woman > (x) God
They put corporations on top (NGOs like WEF are corporations), which then exert control over governments, which then exert control over living men and women, in an effort to exert control over God and push God out of the equation altogether.
Today, much of the core influence of the Cabal is now exerted via 'money'. They use fiat 'money' aka 'corporate' money, instead of real money (gold, silver, etc, natural substances). This is another reason why "Gold Destroys FED".
In the modern era, governments are supposed to be created by living men and women to set rules for the interactions (aka 'contracts') between non-living entities like corporations, businesses, etc. Originally, the United States government was created with that vision.
But our living rights come from God, not from a government. They are innate, and since the 1200's in England, laws were developed on the premise that they MUST reflect God's law, aka innate natural law. This is common law, law that manifests via courts as venues for interactions between living men and women.
FOUR
Control Via Legal Means
Much of statute law is now created by governments not based on common law aka innate law, but based on maritime law aka contractual law.
So if you 'speed' in your car, they can fine you even is no one is even hurt. If you smoke this substance, they can fine or imprison you. Violate their rules, and they hunt you down.
All victimless crimes are only crimes because governments (the state) say they are crimes, and living people don't know that the difference.
Part of this entire system runs and functions because at birth, governments 'require' people to 'register' their children whereupon the child is replicated as a legal entity, and it’s this 'legal entity' that is targeted and controlled via statute law our entire lives.
But whether a living man or woman is registered with a government or not, they still exist, they are still alive, and as such they still have inviolable innate rights.
This is the REAL crux of the Great Awakening. The legal system of government is the core mechanism of enslavement. Where government is meant to serve, it is corrupted and used to control and enslage. The ideal vision of this evil is government (the State) controlling living people, enslaved using 'legal' means. The ultimate utopia of this evil system is the NWO, the ultra-government, controlled by the wealthy who exert their control via dead corporations.
The Covid19 "Pandemic" was where they showed themselves to be exactly who the "conspiracy theorists" have been saying they are for years.
FIVE
Legal Does Not Equal Lawful
There is a massive difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'.
Lawful originally means reflecting innate natural law (common law, law that comes from God). Legal means statute law, civil law, law created by governments and non-living entities, which essentially require consent between the parties to that.
Slavery was once legal, but it was never, and never can be, lawful. Slavery violates the innate truth, that all people are created by God with equal value, each one as God's son or daughter.
It's also important to understand that the United States constitution is essentially a codification of all the common law that had been established up until that date. That's where the Bill of Rights comes from. Common Law. Moreover, it was common law that was the basis for the entire premise of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
SIX
Understanding Lawful vs Legal is KEY to What Follows The Great Awakening
The War being waged today is both a spiritual war and a material law, and a war between Lawful vs Legal
Which will stand in the superior position, the 'legal' or the 'lawful?
We need the legal. It is necessary to coordinate and serve the people by defining interactions between non-living entities. We need the lawful, because law is the basis of a peaceful, harmonious, just society.
But what is lawful must ALWAYS stand in the upper position over what is legal. Just as living men and women must stand in their rightful position OVER government.
It is the REVERSAL of these positions and the correct order and dynamic that is evil. Why? Because the correct order is the one ordained by the Creator and infused into the fabric of the universe.
Today, evil is attempting to institute a dead, governing control system where all living people are slaves via legal means. This is done by corporate entities (and their money) controlling governments to create statute laws that essentially enslave the people and make them subservient to government.
This is the Swamp that DJT has sworn to obliterate.
The Great Awakening is about the masses of living men and women waking up to the mechanisms by which this evil has been deceiving, manipulating and controlling them over decades, over centuries. But that is the starting point.
SEVEN
What Comes After
The transition is one of moving from being governed by Evil to being self-governing under God (aka innate natural law).
For this, awakening is required. The foundation for the transition was planted with the victory of Christ 2000 years ago, and it has been fermenting, growing ever since. It has evolved centrally in the sphere of Christian civilization through the emergence of common law. In the last few centuries, it has spread to exert a positive influence on all cultures and civilizations worldwide. It's no coincidence that Evil has worked to corrupt that influence.
It's all about the innate rights of living men and women VS. 'privileges' endowed by dead corporate governments on legal entities via legal means. The people of the world are now being called (by God, imo) to wake up to how Evil has controlled the world since time immemorial, via what mechanisms, via what corruptions evil has assailed us with.
The people of the world are being called to wake up to our correct and rightful position as free living men and women under God, with governments under us, not the other way around, and the United States has been the chosen spearhead of this call.
When DJT stated he was transferring the power from Washington DC back the American People, he was in essence stating that he was acting to restore the correct and natural order between dead corporate government and living men and women.
But this is also why the Awakening MUST happen. Living Men and Women can ONLY exert their true authority over the dead corporate entities and contractually run governments WHEN those living men and women understand their true rights and obligations to be responsible and self-governing.
In the absence of living men and women who aware of their rights and the correct role and position of the legally structured non-living world, evil will always fill the vacuum and the servant will attempt to usurp the master's correct position.
So it was in Eden, so it was 2000 years ago, and so it is now.
FURTHER STUDY, INVESTIGATION
Legal vs Lawful
The Magna Carta
Adamic Law vs Angelic Law
Frederic Bastiat - "The Law" (essay)
Christian Foundations of Common Law
'Reversal of natural order' as the foundation and beginning of evil
Wow fren very solid high effort post. Thanks for sharing. People like u are what make this place special. Keep it up. I am here if u ever need prayer or a fren to vent to.
Together through Christ we have endless potential
Thank you Slech. Will keep that in mind. That's for that bright flag of faith and heart you keep flying!
One of the best posts Ive seen on this subject. Well done and ty.
I’ve been waiting to see this here!
U.S. National / State Citizen Comprehensive Guide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8KMFl0s838&t=1120s
HIGHLY RECOMMEND WATCHING: David Straight: Out of Babylon Conference
Part 1: https://rumble.com/vy7ad9-david-straight-out-of-babylon-conference-part-1-.html
Part 2: https://rumble.com/vz4heb-david-straight-out-of-babylon-conference-part-2-of-2.html
Part 3: https://rumble.com/vz50e1-david-straight-out-of-babylon-conference-part-3-of-8.html
Part 4: https://rumble.com/vz4xb7-david-straight-out-of-babylon-conference-part-4-of-8.html
Part 5: https://rumble.com/vz4z6p-david-straight-out-of-babylon-conference-part-5-of-8.html
Part 6: https://rumble.com/vz4zr9-david-straight-out-of-babylon-conference-part-6-of-8.html
Part 7: https://rumble.com/vz505f-david-straight-out-of-babylon-conference-part-7-of-8.html
Part 8: https://rumble.com/vz4z9r-david-straight-out-of-babylon-conference-part-8-of-8.html
This process is the greatest example of WWG1WGA available to each and every one of us
Thank you for explaining this so clearly. This is the simplest explanation I have seen on contract law and natural law.
Contract law is a tool of cabal power which has gone mostly unchallenged for hundreds of years.
It would be good to have a discussion on corporations as well and their place in society.
I believe they were originally meant to be temporary arrangements, to help with national projects such as building railroads, but the concept has been abused because of its power.
No, contract law is part of the common law.
The US Constitution even guarantees the right to contract.
Article 1, Section 10:
States add statutory (civil law) over the top of the common law structure, but the common law structure is still there.
What the cabal has done is to use contract law in a deceptive and hidden way.
For example, you sign a contract (whether you know it or not) as a condition of obtaining a "driver's license."
You have no idea what that contract says or obligates you to do or not do, because that is not disclosed to you.
This makes it a voidable contract, by common law, but nobody knows that.
It also does not disclose to you when the "driver's license" is required and when it is not.
Like a real estate contract, ONLY that which is in writing matters.
They can lie to you all they want, because their verbal claims mean nothing. It is ONLY what is in the contract that matters -- and you have no idea what that is.
Corporations are creatures of the state. You enter into an agreement WITH THE STATE to create a corporation. By doing so, you agree to FOLLOW THE STATE'S RULES regarding that corporation.
Again, you have a common law RIGHT to enter into that contract. But the problem is that the state does not tell you all the rules -- some of which might be made up as they go -- which means it is not a valid contract, per common law (because there is no real "meeting of the minds," which is a common law principle for a valid contract, and one that all civil law courts recognize because it is so obvious; they hide it though, when the government is the one committing the fraud).
Before corporations, businesses were either sole proprietorships, partnerships, or the sophisticated businessman created a business trust (also known as common law trust).
Standard Oil Company, originally founded in the 1890's, was a business trust, not a corporation (which were not in common use back then). Due to Rockfeller's attempts at monopoly, we get such terms as "trust busting" and "anti-trust" laws which were aimed at breaking up the monopoly power of the Standard Oil buiness trust. That's how business was done back then.
All 3 central banks in the United States (Bank of the United States, Second Bank of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Bank) were created as business trusts.
Such trusts would usually have a fixed term of 20 years before they would expire.
This was due to the common law trust principles developed in Engand, going back 500 years.
The Bank of the United States was the first central bank, established in 1791. It was a trust (business trust, or common law trust, or what the US Supreme Court has called a pure trust).
As such, it MUST have an expiration date, which could not exceed "21 years after lives in being," which was an English common law principle of trusts.
As a practical matter, they would make it a nice, round 20 years.
Which means, it would expire in 1811.
THIS was the real reason for the War of 1812. The US Congress was not going to renew the central bank, and England's power structure (Rothschilds, etc.) wanted the central bank in America, like the one they controlled in England.
Although the US won that war, the central banking crowd still got what they really wanted by creating the Second Bank of the United States, in 1816.
That, too, was a business trust which would expire in 20 years. But President Andrew Jackson was in office, and he was opposed to renewal. The bankers tried to assasinate him to get what they wanted.
But, they failed. I believe this is why he is on the $20 bill. It is their "fuck you" to Jackson. Because although he won the day, and central banking ceased to exist in 1836, it would rear its ugly head again in 1913.
From 1836 to 1913, WITHOUT a central bank, America experienced the greatest period of economic expansion and prosperity in the history of the world.
The Federal Reserve Bank was created in 1913, and it too was a business trust -- orginally.
It would expire in 1933, the year they confiscated gold.
But this time, the central bankers were prepared. They had developed the civil law for corporations from around 1900 until the 1920's.
In 1927, the Federal Reserve Bank business trust converted from a business trust to a corporation. The reason: corporations have perpetual life, and never expire. They no longer needed congressional approval (or oversight) to be renewed every 20 years.
THIS is what gave them their ultimate power.
Corporations are a good thing, overall. They were originally created by the king (once again!) to limit liability of investors.
This is a NECESSARY component in a strong, economic system. Today, it is abused. But the concept is a good one, at least in theory.
The king would create a special charteer for a corporation. Any investor would be able to contribute money, but if anything went wrong (the ship sinks, for example), nobody could sue the investor (or the king!). They could only sue the corporation, which might or might have have any assets left.
The corporation has taken over for the buisness trust. The business trust still exists, but so few people understand it -- especially attorneys and bankers -- that it is rarely used as a practical matter.
Before corporations, the trustees had liability for the wrongful acts of a business owned by the trust. Today, neither the shareholders, directors, nor officers of a corporation are held accountable for wrongful acts -- even if it is outright criminal in nature.
That is where it has gone off the rails. A corporation should not be able to shield the individual for CRIMINAL acts. Investment ideas that don't work out and lose money? Ok. That's one thing. But outright fraud or other criminal acts (such as these vaccine companies) should be prosecuted against the individuals who committed the crimes.
No, that is not correct, but ...
Yes, that is correct. But this is due to the liability shield that the government grants to the individuals who work for the corporation, but commit crimes.
This can be changed by the legislature, excpet that they are bought and paid for by these very people who like getting away with their crimes.
Thank you very much for all the information and the comprehensive correction.
^ BTW ...
This point actually brings up an crucial concept regarding the income tax.
If you ask an average attorney about the consitutional validity of the income tax, they will say that the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax IS constitutional.
And that is a true statement. But most attorneys have NO CLUE why or on what basis.
The case is from 1916, called Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad.
Frank Brushaber owned stock in the Union Pacific Railroad, a corporation.
He received dividends, and challenged the new (1913) tax law on that issue.
The MISSING KEY:
The Union Pacific Railroad WAS in fact established for the expansion of the railroads.
BUT ...
It was a SPECIALLY CHARTERED ... CORPORATION ... CREATED BY CONGRESS.
It was NOT a corporation created in one of the 50 States. It was a CREATURE of CONGRESS.
This made it a "federal privilege" in law.
And THIS is WHY the SCOTUS ruled that taxing the proceeds from this federal privilege WAS taxable and constitutional.
Think of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are (a) corporations that (b) buy mortgages, AND (c) WERE CREATED BY CONGRESS.
This gives them a special status, just like the Union Pacific Railroad was back then.
For more info on this, and what the federal income tax is ACTUALLY for, read Pete Hendrickson's book about the income tax.
If you see the federal income tax (and the other federal taxes) as protection money paid to a gang, you'll have a better time.
The federal government has, long ago, exceeded the limits of the constitution. Expecting it to keep itself within the limits is a pointless endeavor, unless you have a lot of guns and men willing to shoot those guns on your behalf.
Wonder if that's why they're all lawyers.
Even stupid Hunter Biden:
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf
That is EXACTLY the reason they are.
Although ... I'm sure Hunter was on the board because of who his daddy is, and nothing to do with him going to Yale Law School or anything else.
All of us need to slowly read and digest this post. It is extremely well put together.
I read every word of this. It is very well written. Succinct, clear and stays on track to make its points. Everyone needs to be familiar with what this article is stating. No awakening without these realizations.
I concur with other anons to the fact that this was very well put together. I've read other articles before and I'm always left scratching my head at the end of it, but this explains the differences between common (innate, natural, and lawful) vs statutory (contractual, corporate, governmental, civil, maritime, and legal) laws in a way that's easy to digest. I've already saved it and will be discussing it with others. Thank you.
Excellent synopsis of what we’re up against. I tell my kids often that we, the people need to understand that government is supposed to work FOR US, not the other way around. When enough of us get this, then we have power. Major power.
A beautifully written explanation of law. Brings so much clarity to the subject that I'm thinking you are in the legal field. Well done Sir! 👏
I think things become more clear when it is put into historical context.
It all comes from England, and they got parts of it from Rome, and other parts they created.
The common law is of the common people. Statutory law, also known as civil law, is of the king.
Civil law started in Rome. The emperors and/or Senate would write a law and that was the law. Everyone was supposed to obey it.
Most of the world still works under a civil law system. The government employees pass a law, and that is that. The people are supposedly only allowed to do what the law says they can do.
England was different.
England developed the common law. Under common law, the people have natural rights, so they can do whatever they want, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
England did not strictly develop this principle. Philosophers did, and the American founders enshrined these ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
But England developed the overall basic working structure. Some of the common law ideas even England borrowed from other cultures in Europe before them.
In England, there was a time before William the Conqueror (it wasn't officially England back then), when the people largely resolved their own legal issues and the common people came up with a system of law that more or less worked out for the best.
But as the king gained more power, the king did not like the people deciding everything. So, the king (don't remember off hand which one), studied old Roman law, and decided he like it. So, he started creating civil law within England, which already had the common law of the people.
So, when the people had a dispute with each other, they settled it with common law. They had their own trials, their own judges, and their own juries.
But when the king's money and powers were involved, the king enforced civil law and his own statutes and courts.
Want to enter into a contract with your neighbor? Fine. But any dispute arising from that will be settled in a common law court. The king was not interested in such petty disputes of the surfs and peasants.
However, if you decided you did not want to participate in the annual king's tax, well that was a different story. That was under the civil law system, and the king would enforce it in his own court -- with the obvious result being that the king would win any dispute.
Over time, this sytem developed such that different parts of the kingdom were following different common law ideas.
So, King Edward II decided to unify the common law system by sending judges around the kingdom to find out what everyone was doing. The result was a more unified common law system.
Out of that, we get such principles as a right to jury trial, due process, no search and seizure except under judicial order, etc.
When England's colonies in America won independence, the American system mostly adopted the English legal system, which they already had in place -- modified by American ideas.
So, England and all former English colonies utilize the common law system, while the rest of the world is under the civil law system.
The problem is that the common law system is "common law" in name only. Over the centuries, and especially ramping up in the 20th century, the civil law ideas of "top-down edicts from the government" have crept into the American common law system.
Law schools today bascially teach that the common law does not really exist anymore and it is more of a civil law system. Yet, we still have common law and its principles. Most "licensed attorneys" (it is unlawful to require a license to engage in the profession of law, per the Supreme Court, but every State does it anyway) have no idea how the common law really works.
The concept of admiralty law came in as there was more and more activity at sea, with bigger and more powerful ships (with larger crews).
At sea, the captain is the law, subject only to maritime (admiralty) law.
But they have tricked the People into an admiralty/civil law system in what SHOULD be common law courts.
Unraveling it all from there is a very deep topic.
I will just make 2 points here:
(1) Understanding this dual nature of a government (and its employees) who want to impose a civil law system within a common law structure is very important to understand, as I believe it is the key to unlocking the corruption within the legal industry. Keep one thing uppermost in mind: The US Constitution is a common law document, written for a people who understood the common law and its principles, adopted from England.
(2) By keeping all this in mind, you might be able to free yourself from some of the oppression that government employees would want to impose upon you. For example, I got a speeding ticket dismissed by challenging subject matter jurisdiction. I think what happened was that the "judge" (not a real judge in the true, common law sense) had no real idea what I was talking about, but did not want to look stupid (which she clearly was). While she huffed and puffed and was overbearing and outright rude in the extreme towards me, the case was ultimately dismissed because supposedly the "prosecution did not have anyone available to move forward with the case." Yeah, right! AS IF! This was TRAFFIC COURT. The ONLY job of that particular employee from the prosecutor's office was to handle these types of cases all day long. In reality, they were unsure of my constitutional grounds that I was raising, and decided to punt rather than cause themselves a potential legal problem. So, there can be power in understanding this stuff, BUT ...
Beware of claims around admiralty law and such, because when I have seen anyone try that in a real court room, they lose and lose BIG.
You have to meet the judges and attorneys (as corrupt as they and their system are) at a place where they can understand that a REAL legal issue they THEY recognize is possibly in play, and it might be a hot potato they don't want to touch.
There is a lot of debate about where the Common Law came from, and there are a lot of atheists (AHEM) who want to argue that it did not originate in the Law of Moses. However, it is quite clear from historical evidence and countless examples that the Common Law WAS the Law of Moses.
The question is -- why did it match? We do not have a record of someone saying "This is the Common Law". It just seemed to sprout into existence even before historical records were written.
The answer many English people have arrived at is the following.
Of course, such a conclusion completely blows away any narrative that evolutionists and atheists would like to have, that human reason can overcome passion and you can create peaceful, strong societies without God. Of course they are wrong.
That is an interesting take on history.
Central Europe was inhabited by the germanic people for many centuries. Like you said, the Angles and Saxons went into Britain and bacame the Anglo-Saxons of England.
Other germanic people went into the swamps of Holland and become the Dutch, who had a very libertarian society (the Pilgrims went there before coming to America, and got many of their liberty ideas there).
Where did the germanic people come from?
Dustin Nemos has done a lot of research and concluded that the original Chosen People are actually the White Europeans (germanic), not the jews.
The historical flow would fit with what you wrote. If they came out of Israel and settled in central Europe, then it would make sense that they would continue to follow The Law from biblical times to more modern times.
These people would also settle Britain and be the ones who created the English common law, and ultimately founded the USA.
https://theserapeum.com/what-is-the-serapeum/
BTW, yudsfbpc ...
Your connection of biblical law and English common law got me thinking, and looking for some info.
Found something interesting.
This article, "Where Do the German Peoples Come From?" is EXACTLY on point with what I was saying about how the biblical Israelites were White and ended up in Central Europe (and later, Britain, and developed the English common law -- largely from biblical principles).
Interesting that mainstream historians have no answer as to where these Germanic people came from, considering they were the primary population of Europe.
https://medium.com/secrets-of-german-history/where-do-the-german-peoples-come-from-cf9e3254b885
Here is a (long) video with 100 reasons to consider that God's Chosen People were the White race, and not the jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_pBwpOoLo0
This idea is new to me. But the more I look into it, the more the history seems to line up -- at least, from a biblical perspective.
Be careful with this research. They want to tag anyone who believes that Europeans are Israel as anti-semitism.
If you look at the Biblical prophecies about Israel's future, God promised that we would forget him and forget our ancestors, and that we'd be universally hated and despised by all the rest of the world. It certainly fits what has been happening with European history. No one ever liked the Europeans, and no matter where we went, we had to win wars and battles just to say hi more often than not. I think it's funny when people pretend the Europeans had some distinct advantage over, say, the African, Asians or Americans. Any advantage we had was because of countless years of being pushed against and beat upon. Take, for instance, the spice trade that passed through the Ottoman empire. We were at their mercy for such a long period of time in our history!
RE America's Founding. We followed the blueprint written by John Locke and demonstrated by Cromwell. The US Constitution, and all state constitutions, are based on English Common Law. English Common Law is STILL in effect in all states of the union and all territories governed by the US.
Many people want us to forget this law and what it means and how it is used, and those people UNIVERSALLY are the same that want to take away our sacred rights.
But really, Common Law doesn't govern us. It is the law we write, the law based on the law God writes in our hearts, the law God gave Moses and gave to all of Israel. It cannot be written down or contained in a book, and is subject to change as we see fit.
God --> People --> Common Law --> Constitutional Law --> Government is how the order of operations works.
The truth is YOU need to evaluate what YOU think is right, and then act accordingly. That is all. If you act righteously and with full faith and confidence in the Lord, you will be in the write, even when judges and juries say otherwise, and the people will eventually turn to follow your righteous law rather than the corrupt one!
The key principle is this -- unjust laws are not laws at all, and never will be! And justice cannot be limited by language!
That is all true, but it would still be helpful to have strategies to deal with unjust people in unjust situations.
Pew pew
That is our Anglo-Saxon tradition
When the norman conquerors punished the nearest town when a norman noble was murdered, the Anglo-Saxons would dress their victims in Anglo-Saxon clothing.
A lot of normans disappeared after their so-called victory.
Eventually the normans had to adopt the Anglo-Saxon traditions and laws.
Many of the kings of England after the conquest complained that they'd rather live in France and govern their lands there than the brutish Anglo-Saxons, who were ungovernable and opposed the king in everything he did.
In Rome, they would actually carve the law on a stone that everyone could see. Having a physical representation of the law opened up curious ideas, like, what would happen if someone defaced the stone, or knocked it over, or broke it?
Really, in the case of Rome, the law was a truce between warring households. Each house could raise their army and wage war. So when they were talking about law, they were talking about the agreement between each other, and nothing more, and if the agreement wasn't working for one or more parties, they could just raise an army and have a civil war.
This only applied to the patricians, however. Everyone else in Roman society couldn't afford to do such things.
That is interesting, considering that the vast majority of people could not read until the printing press was invented, more than 1,000 years later.
Lies
Reading was common
They Romans even taught their slaves to read, as most slaves had jobs that involved reading and writing.
Great post OP! MAG768720 adds some additional clarifications below. I'll slip in another just to help tighten up and clarify one part of your explanation:
You need to add one more step to this, and it's not necessarily a "reversal", but rather a legal deception. The "corporate entity" that government's create is the LEGAL FICTIONS known by words such as; Citizen, U.S. Citizen, person, resident, individual, driver, taxpayer, parent, guardian, etc. While there is indeed a "corporate entity" created, namely the STRAWMAN (ALL CAPS NAME) at birth, and we are tricked into being the trustee for it, the "evidence" they REALLY use against us is our tacit agreement to being a "U.S. Citizen" primarily. That they don't offer us any other choices on driver licenses, passports and other legal documents is the sleight-of-hand ruse they employ.
Following the "Maxim of Law" - "He who creates controls". We can then observe how the deception is deployed:
God created man -> Man creates government -> Government creates "U.S. Citizens".
In a nutshell, when you agree to being a LEGAL ENTITY, a "U.S. Citizen" first and foremost, you sacrifice your LAWFUL position, and therefore your RIGHTS as a man or woman. Because government created and therefore controls "U.S. Citizens", you unwittingly agree to act in this diminished status.
This is the essence of the trick!!
I've seen many lawful/patriotic gurus go down and end up in prison because they agreed they were a "resident of state X" on a bank account application, or through a utility provider they used the "Washington District of Columbia" postal service (Not Post office) mailing address with the 2-letter state abbreviation and zip code. The judge looks into his Lexis Nexis database and knows he has you under his thumb regardless of what you claim.
Extricating oneself from all of this is next to impossible if you wish to live and interact in modern society. Those that have primarily pulled this off successfully have done a great deal of work prior to getting tangled up in any legal situations. There doesn't seem to be a "one size fits all" solution, but some have apparently succeeded in large part.
Anyway, I hope this helps clarify the section about the "reversal" a bit. You might consider adding a brief paragraph about the 14th amendment "U.S. Citizen" and how not only did it not really "free the slaves", but instead enslaved us all. A remarkable sleight of hand deception to say the least.
Although I suspect that your overall thesis is part of the deception method used, we should be careful of getting too "in the weeds" on some of these specifics.
For example, the American founders themselves referred to themselves as "citizen."
You had to be a "natural born citizen" to become President is an obvious example.
It is the INCORRECT and DECEPTIVE use of these terms that are one of the main METHODS by which they entrap people into occult (hidden) contracts without the person understanding what they are saying or doing.
Even the word "understand" has more than one meaning. As in: I stand under your authority if I "understand."
It is all wordsmith.
HOWEVER ...
My contention is that we can get back to the common law principles by INSISTING on them.
I cite my speeding ticket as an example. One basic common law principle is that every defendent MUST be provided due process, or else the case MUST be dismissed, as a matter of law. (Even if the judge doesn't abide his lawful obligation in such a situation, if an objection is made, the case can be overturned on appeal or made void via collateral lawsuit, effectively overturning the judge's unlawful act of due process violation).
And the COURTS will recognize this. Even corrupt judges will begrudgingly do what they are obligated by law to do (unless Trump is involved). These basic principles of due process and common law are so obvious, that they cannot be denied. They are "self-evident," as Jefferson wrote.
One of the common law principles of due process is that a court MUST have both subject matter jurisdication AND personal jurisdiction.
When I challenged subject matter jurisdiction, the "judge" really didn't know what to do, and ultimately dismissed when it became clear that I was NOT going to back down.
Funny anecdote to that: The original ticket was for speeding, and I could pay $150 without going to court, but if I challenged in court, it could be as much as $300 (which I think is probably unconstituation, as well, but I did not deal with that issue).
In the preliminary hearing without the judge (pre-arraignment, with someone who was NOT an attorney and NOT a judge, but had some sort of authority in the judicial branch) offered me a deal if I would not go to trial. I think it was $225 if I did one thing or $150 if I did something else. I forget the actual numbers, but something like that.
I refused.
I went to arraignment, and the prosecutor talked to me directly before I saw the judge. The prosecutor offered to take it all the way down to $20 !!!
TWENTY BUCKS! Some major crime, huh?
I said NO.
She couldn't believe it, and asked why not. I said because I will be challenging subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
Well, she did not understand that, but guess what?
The FIRST thing the judge said to me was, "I understand you want to challenge subject matter jurisdiction."
Guess what?
THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT THERE !!!
I won the case at that moment.
Why?
Because the ONLY way the judge would KNOW that would be if the prosector TOLD the judge -- OUTSIDE OF MY PRESENCE.
That is known as an "ex-parte" meeting between one party and the judge, outside of the other party's presence or knowlege.
That is ILLEGAL, because it is a violation of the defendant's due process rights. Back to common law!
The system today is so corrupt that they do this sort of thing as a matter of routine, because it is "just easier."
They have ZERO respect for basic fundamental rights, which come from "the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God," as Thomas Jefferson so elequently wrote.
But WE can assert these rights -- if we know them -- and beat them within the system. However, I think the best STRATEGY is to do so in a manner that THEY understand at least somewhat.
You go into a court and start talking about admiralty law in a traffic ticket case, and they will think you are an idiot with an Internet law degree. They will IGNORE what you say and do.
BUT ...
If you learn a few things that THEY RECOGNIZE as legitimate law and legal principles, it changes the game on them.
It changes the game on them because they don't actually know the REAL law. They are like doctors. A medical school graduate knows NOTHING about health. He has NO IDEA how to make a sick person healthy. He ONLY knows how to (a) diagnose symptoms of illness, and (b) sell drugs or surgical procedures.
And MOST doctors (95%+) have ZERO intellectual curiosity to learn anything outside of what they were spoonfed. Even worse, they look down on anyone with alternative explanations of good health. That is because they BELIEVE that anything regarding health that is true and important was taught to them by the "experts" in medical school, and anything not taught must not be true or important.
They become educated lemmings, pushing drugs and surgery instead of good health.
Likewise, the law school student graduates BELIEVING that he learned all the basics of law, and anything outside the scope of that (such as common law) must either be irrelevant or wrong.
And THAT is why they are confused when REAL legal issues are raised in a way that (a) makes logical sense to THEM, but (b) conflicts with their BELIEF system.
It is classic cognative dissonance in both cases. And this is why they don't know what to do.
But in law, they subconciously know that maybe they could be overturned or penalized by the judicial review board if they violate an important principle of law.
Like I said, it changes the game on them.
That's my take.
100% agreed. You can't learn this from a few posts on GA. You can't learn what you've shared with probably a year of solid study unless you are lucky enough to land on somebody that covers all the bases.
You have clearly done your homework and your example shows you are able to handle a variety of situations the judge can and will throw at you. Most people, even those who have studied this for a while can only wriggle out of "situation X" or "situation Y" with the things they've learned. But when "situation Z" comes up, they're stuck and get sucked back in.
I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from. Many out there have learned a great deal through Karl. He's hard to listen to, doesn't suffer fools, but he operates at the fundamental basis of law which is necessary to be able to handle all the curve balls that can get thrown at you in court. As he states it, "it's a lifestyle". He "acts like a man" in all his daily activities, therefore this translates into court proceedings.
All that being said, looks like Karl is in some deep doo-doo right now as apparently he had quite a few animals (dogs, cats, ducks) on his farm that were in poor condition. I think he's sitting in jail as we speak. He's going to have a tough time wriggling out of this situation as unwell puppies and kitties will pull at the heartstrings of jurors, should he even get an opportunity to appear in front of a jury, which he hasn't been able to thus far.
Anyway, yeah, you clearly know your stuff. And I'd bet you probably have thousands of hours, and many years of learning and research under your belt....which can't be easily conveyed in a few posts, or even a book really. The deception is that deep!
As to your comment about "citizen", yes, it's a game of semantic deceit. If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you. Thus, all verbal exchanges should be avoided at all costs. Asking the judge to put his question into writing starts a whole new sparring session though as he then questions your capacity to understand basic english and starts to write up a psychological evaluation order, which is a whole new clusterfork. Navigating such encounters is a tricky process any way you slice it.
The bottom line is, until more of us figure this stuff out, they have the upper hand and can and will walk all over your rights if that's what they've decided to do. The masses still lost in the matrix see nothing wrong with what's being done, and carry out the judge's orders without batting an eyelash.
True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.
The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.
Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.
That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.
I have never heard of him, but ...
THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.
I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.
Here's why:
A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.
A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.
Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.
A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.
One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.
A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.
The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).
It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).
Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.
I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.
After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."
That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.
Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.
Go directly to the Robert Fox seminar. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.
But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.
He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register. And that case was cited in the annotated federal statutes -- something not 1 in 10,000 attorneys have ever accomplished.
He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.
He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.
He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.
Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his weekend seminar, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --
https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/
Re Lentz - He's a quirky guy, as many are in this space. All I've done is read the transcripts of his recent case. There's no doubt the prosecutor and animal protection lead are in cahoots. He hasn't even gotten a trial yet - guilty until proven innocent. His only option was to deal directly with the testimony of the animal protection agent. He couldn't introduce anything new. So it wasn't a trial, merely a "hearing" where he had no chance. I think it comes down to one's "definition" of a "healthy pet" or not. Needless to say, whatever the truth may be, it doesn't change what he teaches. He's the best out there IMHO, and I've listened to probably a hundred different "lawful gurus" to date, including Fox.
You're rightly arguing from the position of challenging SMJ. Thus, the first step is to make only a "special appearance (SA)" rather than a "general appearance (GA)". Most people don't understand this, nor want to even try. But once you show up in court, without serving notice of an SA, you're automatically there on GA. Traffic court, which isn't even really a "jurisdiction" to begin with. Doing this, however, indicates you are educated in "legal procedure" and this can cause many problems down the line for somebody who doesn't have a solid understanding of what they're getting into.
That being said, your strategy is sound. The easiest one I've seen work time and time again is to question whether this is a civil matter or criminal matter. The judge will first say criminal usually, after which you say you have the constitutional right to cross-examine the injured party. After the judge hems and haws while you hold your ground, they'll say it's a "statutory matter" in some way or another. Then you ask, well if that's the case, then there must be a contract involved which I'd like to see. At this point, the judge will typically ask you to sit down and wait until the end of all the other proceedings appearing that day. You could and should fight back, but most people take that "order" without putting up a fight.
This is where the Lentz strategy gets interesting. He likens "taking an order" to what you might do when you go to McDonalds and place an "order". In order to get your Happy Meal, you have to pay some money. So he carries around his fee schedule and makes it clear that time is money and if the judge wishes to "place an order" with him, it will cost the court accordingly ($1 per second in his case). He hands the schedule to the judge, confirming he's been "given an order" and says I'll happily take your order based on my fee schedule. All this under the premise that no man has any "right" to give "orders" to another man without compensating him accordingly.
But back to the normies. So the person waits out the rest of the folks in traffic court that day, after which the judge typically tells the person that the contract they signed is their driver's license APPLICATION. The person than states that nobody told me that was a "contract", I was only told it was an application. There was no Meeting of the minds, nor full disclosure as to the nature of the DL application, which is a requirement of contract law.
There's nowhere for the judge to go at this point and he/she knows it. The charges are summarily dismissed with nobody else in the courtroom to witness how it was accomplished.
Anyway, there are many strategies that can be used. Challenging SMJ is a good one but it's harder to navigate for the noob than the strategy I just shared IMHO. The person can kind of "play dumb" throughout, not showing any signs that they know anything but this simple strategy. You can get yourself into some real trouble if you start playing within the legal realm and showing you know your stuff. There are endless ways to entrap and ensnare within it. And not being well-versed, as you are, can lead to this. I've heard one too many horror stories.
For the record, Lentz firmly asserts this strategy as well. He continually reminds the judge he doesn't speak "legalese". He says "I'm just a man and....in the case of a victimless crime like a traffic ticket....you haven't presented any man or woman that I've caused loss, harm or injury to step forward, therefore, no crime has been committed". This is but one of his many strategies FWIW...
Special appearance vs. general appearance is personal jurisdiction, NOT subject matter jurisdiction.
I don't know of anyone who has won anything or had a case dismissed based on a special appearance vs. general. If you do know of such, give me some info.
SMJ has to do with the pleadings that the plaintiff/prosecutor filed, which will ALWAYS be defective in something like a traffic ticket (i.e. they won't exist at all, as was the case for me). And THIS is why it is an actual effective strategy.
The courts are NOT following the law, and we simply need to learn how to call them out on it in a way that THEY recognized something ain't right.
Richard Cornforth explains it best, even though it can be a tough legal concept to grasp -- especially for attorneys who usually think that SMJ is automatic, which it is not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8MAQEJZbuY&list=PLufQg4BcdaBBJRYcz4TUTw4MqGRuOmasS&index=2
And never assume that a prosecuting attorney knows jack shit about how to file good pleadings. Sidney Powell supposedly is a "great" federal prosecutor who won over 500 cases.
Did you read her pleadings? Gibberish!
But the legal industry has fraud on its side to help them win. Gerry Spence, famous attorney said, "In 60 years in court rooms all across America, I have NEVER ... hear me ... I have NEVER had a single case in which the government did not lie or cheat. NOT ONE!"
Yes, I've heard of that, too. I think Marc Stevens (strong Never Trumper) has used that to get cases dismissed.
Traffic tickets aren't really civil and they aren't really criminal -- or at least, none of the Rules of Procedure are followed, which is why they are kangaroo courts.
In reality, traffic courts are just administrative hearings disguised as courts. Which is why they do not follow the law regarding Due Process.
I would not use that strategy. I think it will only piss off the people in the corrupt system, and they will just ignore it.
Has anyone ever cut him a check for his time?
Doubtful.
Right here, my response would be:
ME: "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence."
Judge: <says whatever>
ME: "Objection! Judge, are you my adversary?"
Judge: No.
ME: Then, you cannot enter evidence into the record. Where is my adversary in this case?
Judges and attorneys cannot just make statements as if they are FACTS in the case.
ALL facts MUST be entered into as EVIDENCE in some way.
And THAT can ONLY by done via WITNESSES.
This is ALL basic principles of common law. Generally speaking, it is part of due process.
When you talk to a judge like this, you will be talking HIS language, not some foreign tongue about "my fee for talking you is $1 per second."
That means NOTHING to a judge.
But if you challenge him on HIS VIOLATION of Due Process, he KNOWS that if you are right, or if you are crazy enough to appeal or file a complaint with the judicial review board ... then HE might get into some hot water.
THAT will get his attention -- even though he will not like you for it.
So what?
Again, this means NOTHING to a judge.
You claiming that it is only an application is HERESAY. It is NOT EVIDENCE.
The exact same as the judge or attorney saying it IS a contract.
That, too is HERESAY.
ONLY A WITNESS CAN ENTER EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.
And since the always cut corners "to save time," they almost always violate Due Process.
Guess what happens when the judge violates Due Process?
HE LOSES SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AS A MATTER OF LAW!
And without SMJ, his ONLY move is to DISMISS the case!
You might be right, but if someone loses using your strategy, there is no further remedy because the judge did not violate any procedure of law.
With SMJ as the focus, the judge WILL -- at some point -- violate Due Process, which means that even if you lose, you SHOULD eventually win (there are no guarantees in a corrupt system, but this is as good as it gets, IMO).
Maybe Lentz' strategy could work in traffic court.
But what about more serious things?
Attacking the legal procedure as defective as a matter of law (built upon the common law concepts) is where a more serious case can be won, IMO.
^ BTW, I do think Lentz is right about a driver's license application (and signature of the DL itself) NOT being a valid contract for the reasons you cited (no meeting of the minds, no full disclosure, etc.).
But what I am saying is that IN A COURT ROOM, just simply saying it to the judge has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY, so the judge can just ignore it if he wants.
He might decide it is not worth it for a traffic ticket, and dismiss "for other reasons" (hehe) ... so it can work.
I do think it can be an effective strategy.
But mostly because the judge will think you are an uniformed peon who thinks he got smart from internet videos.
When you talk about Due Process, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, insisting that the court follows the Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Evidence ... well THAT ... will get the judge's attention in an entirely different (and good) way.
Also ...
How fun would this be?
You get a traffic ticket.
The traffic court violates Due Process in some way (they always do).
You then remove the case to federal court, and simulataneously file a lawsuit in federal court against the judge and prosecutor for violation of constituional rights under federal law 28 USC 2072(b):
Wouldn't that make their heads spin?
KEK
(I wish I knew about this statute during the Covid scam.)
I don't think you have this right. The WHOLE POINT of filing notice of SA is to argue they have no jurisdiction. Point being, once you show up GA, you've already tacitly agreed to the diminished serf status and they can and often will walk right over you. In other words, they can't hear a word you're saying, regardless of how solid your argument is. They will often just ignore it and proceed as if you've said nothing at all.
You don't get a case dismissed with an SA notice, what you're doing is not agreeing to be standing in front of them as the trustee/STRAWMAN/citizen/resident that they're presuming you to be. The SA allows you to rebut their presumptions before any matters of the case are even discussed. Showing up GA, the presumptions are in effect whether you're aware of them or not.
Of course. Now if only more people were interested in learning this...
Yep, I've listened to Comforth as well. You've really got to know your stuff, as he does, and have some intestinal fortitude as well. My mother couldn't pull this off. She'd almost certainly fold under just a tiny bit of pressure. Which is kind of my point about the easier tacks...
He has gotten paid a few times. I don't have documentable evidence of it so believe it or not. But the point of this isn't so much to get paid, but to make the point that the judge can't willy-nilly order another man around without compensating him. They need to hear this a couple thousand times to get the message. That's the point of it.
Takes some knowledge and some kajones to run this strategy. Again, a solid basis of understanding is needed to take this tack. You've got it. But most people don't.
As you rightly point out, that do this all day every day without penalty. You can flip on your TV and watch any number of "court dramas" and see how they're brainwashing the masses into BELIEVING they can get away with this. As I've come to learn these past few years, facts don't upend beliefs, as beliefs aren't based on any facts. How many out there have the kajones to call out the judge and attorneys on this? That's the real question. You and I, sure. But maybe one out of ten of us at best. The other 90% are painfully brainwashed into their subservient roles. This is the real challenge.
This is no "foreign tongue", this is operating in the CAPACITY of a MAN, not a lowly citizen. It's a role reversal. After all, the MAN is in reality the BOSS. The judge is a public servant. Public servants don't boss around their EMPLOYERS on their own whim. That's the idea.
I didn't say it was anything, nor make any claims. I said nobody told me that the DL app was a CONTRACT. Thus, whether it is or isn't doesn't matter in the least. It's FRAUD without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Puts the judge up against it to claim otherwise and can really get him in hot water if he tries to persuade you otherwise.
You can come back at the judge for furthering a fraud if he somehow tap dances around the fact that the DL app was a contract. The judge knows full well it isn't a contract. It's not even debatable. What choice does he/she have once he/she has admitted it isn't a criminal proceeding and you've pointed out there's no contract as a basis for a civil/criminal offense? Nowhere to hide if you can get paint the judge into this corner.
Sure. And I think this is the only way to go in more critical cases beyond traffic court as well. Hopefully a spot most of us never find ourselves in.
Of course, we're in full agreement on this point. The question is, once a person finds themselves involved in more serious litigation, not knowing the first thing about we're talking about.....what's the next step?
A crash course in SMJ?
Could you or I act as "Counselor at Law" for another without finding ourselves in hot water for "practicing law without a license", even though there's no such thing as a "law license" other than in Hawaii and I believe Wisconsin? Bill Thornton manage to do this successfully with his "It is not my wish KING" strategy. However, he was very well educated and had the right temperament for such a ploy. Not everyone can stand in front of a judge doing his best "Johnny Cochran" impression for long.
I'd say 99 out of 100 times the person in trouble runs straight to an attorney - game over. And the one person that doesn't and tries this tack? They usually find themselves caught up in matters way too deep to navigate. The judge throws the book at them of course too. The whole legal realm despises "pro se" (or "sui juris") appearances and makes sure to levy the heftiest fines and penalties possible when such an interloper enters their domain. One wrong step, one minor slip-up and its game over for the rookie/novice/newcomer. The pit of serpents usually finds a way to extract its pound of flesh.
That's my main point I guess. Very few are willing to take the time to learn this stuff in advance. And once they find themselves in hot water, fear takes over and dominates their reasoning. I see it all the time in the healthcare space where I spend most of my time now. Once a person has gotten the dreaded diagnosis, there's nothing you can do for them afterwards. They're drowning.
So my question to you would be, how do we get people interested in this subject who aren't presently in any legal trouble?
I am enjoying the debate and intellectual challenge.
In that spirit, I think we are mostly in agreement, with some minor differences around the edges.
I do want to drive home the point of Subject Matter Jurisdication, as I think that it is the achilles heel in the entire corrupt legal industry.
I do not think this is correct.
My understanding is that any court (judge) must have jurisdiction in order to proceed and make any ruling or do anything with regard to any case.
"Jurisdiction" just means the legal authority to act in a judicial capacity. Just because Joe Blow was hired on as a judge and collects a paycheck at the courthouse and wears a black dress and sits on a high chair does NOT mean he has legal authority to act in a judicial capacity in a particular case.
He must have two types of jurisdiction:
But the defendant is not easy. He does not want to get sued or criminally prosecuted. He does not really want to cooperate. In order for Joe Blow to have judicial authority over Mr. Defendant, the physical person, the court must have personal jurisdiction. This is obtained when the defendant is served a summons AND shows up in court.
It is at that moment that the judge obtains personal jurisdiction. Now, you are saying that the defendant can show up under Special Appearance only, and not General Appearance, and that will not grant the court personal jurisdiction.
Maybe, but I think a judge can go one of two ways here. You say you are not the person in "ALL CAPS" or are not a "US Citizen," or whatever. The judge will either say that is irrelevant and you have appeared in court (in which case, what are you gonna do, since there is nothing on the record that says otherwise), or the judge can agree that the person being sued/prosecuted did not show up. In which case, the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest. You can believe that when the sheriff (or court bailiff) is given and order to arrest YOU, they will not be asking if your name is in ALL CAPS.
As a practical matter, I don't think it is a good method because it does not get at the heart of the issue. It is an attempt to "play games" as the court/any judge would see it. I know of people who have gotten into worse trouble than they started with doing that.
So, I think it misses the mark, legally.
Besides personal jurisdiction over the parties, a judge also needs:
Acutally, that is venue, not SMJ. SMJ is about whether or not the judge has authority to act as a judge in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
And THAT is determined by the pleadings of the parties in the potential case. Why? Because the legislature that created that court (per the Constitution) said so, along with the Supreme Court in their Rules of Court Procedure.
It is the law itself that says so, not an attempt to "play games" as they would likely see it.
The reason SMJ is the achilles heel is because the system has become so corrupt that they no longer respect the rights of the people and what is SUPPOSED to happen. Instead, they take shortcuts to make their own jobs easier.
Although it makes their job easier, and they can go to lunch sooner, it causes them to VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.
Violation of Due Process means loss of SMJ, which means the END of the case.
It is a MATTER OF LAW, not a way of trying to play keep-away-from-the-judge.
VERY TRUE!
And that bothered me for a long time.
Until ...
I watched those Robert Fox seminar videos. He explains EXACTLY WHY this happens -- but not to HIM (once he figured it out).
And it is why I previously said here that it doesn't matter what you say to the judge ... IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONY.
ONLY testimony can be EVIDENCE. Everything else is heresay. And only EVIDENCE (and law and adhering to court rules) can win a case.
When you tell the judge that if it is a civil case then there must be a contract, and you never signed a contract. So what? The judge can pretend you never said it because ... IT IS HERESAY.
OTOH, if you created an affidavit to this set of facts AND you turned it into testimony IN THE COURT ROOM, then that would be a different situation. Then you would have the ONLY evidence in the case, and the judge would have to rule in your favor ... AS A MATTER OF LAW (that he knows the appelate court judges will uphold if he rules against you -- and he could be sanctioned by the judicial review board).
I take issue with this because the Founding Fathers did not see a citizen as a lowly position. It was the citizens who created the government. Maybe being a "subject" was bad, but a "citizen" was something to be proud of.
"Natural born citizen," after all ...
My take is that you should not be debating the judge at all. Our system is an adversarial system. It is you against me. Or the prosecutor against you. The judge is supposed to be a neutral third party, and should not be engaging in this sort of debate in the first place.
Yes, I know that happens all the time, but pointing out that the judge is acting outside of his authority by asking if he is my adversary should get his attention, and should make him think twice about what he is doing.
It should make him think that maybe you know more than he would assume you do, and that you could cause him some trouble if he does not follow his oath of office a little more closely.
And how EXACTLY are you gonna do that? File an appeal? On what grounds? You have none. No judicial error was preserved on the record for appelate review.
Are you going to sue the judge in a collateral action? If you knew you could do that, you would just get him to violate Due Process because that would be more of a slam dunk.
He has a very easy out. He just says that the motor vehicle statute says you must not drive above the posted speed limit, and the cop says you did.
No contract needed for a civil lawsuit.
If you are my neighbor and I am playing loud music all night, you can sue me for breach of quiet enjoyment. You are likely to point to a city ordinance against noise.
We never had a contract. Not a written one, anyway. This is under that heading of "social contract" that is promoted by the loonies.
I did have a duty not to interefer with your rights to peace and quiet, especially at night.
BUT ... there was no contract. You could still file a civil lawsuit against me.
Robert Fox claimed he did that in 5 states. Sat right next to the defendant in the court room.
How? Because the 6th Amendment provides that a defendant has a right to "assistance of counsel" ... NOT to an "attorney at law."
Also, the US Supreme Court had a decision many years ago that practicing law is a common law right and no license can be required.
They do it, but only in violation of law. Who challenges it? Nobody.
A violation of a right that goes unchallenged will stand.
Sleep on your rights and you lose them (at least for that moment). That is also a principle of the common law.
Absolutely. Frederick Graves, inventor of Jurisdictionary and an attorney for many years, said: "If you want to throw your money away, go buy an attorney."
True, but our generation has something that no other generation in human history ever did: the Internet.
We can communicate these ideas and share strategies and experiences.
That has potential to change the game, and clean up the corruption.
Even if Q team succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, We the People will STILL have to stand up and do our part.
Blackstone, who wrote the legal encyclopedia that the Founding Fathers relied on said, "The courts are the theater of the power of the People."
He said nothing about voting.
The Founders' generation were learned in the law, which is what made them "lawyers," even though most had never been to a formal law school.
The more we talk about it, the more might be open to learning more.
Ideally, we set up a simplified structure for people to learn.
Jurisdictionary is a very good tool for routine civil law cases (you vs. me, but not vs. the government).
When the goverenment becomes the predator, I think that learning where their weakness is in not following the law (i.e. procedure) is probably the key.
I heard someone talking a few years ago (don't remember the name), but he said, "Find the first flaw in their case. Attack that flaw, and do not let go."
By that, he meant that if there is a flaw in their legal paperwork (such as not fulfilling the requirements for the court to obtain SMJ), then do not even discuss the facts (i.e. whether or not I ever signed a contract with the DMV). Focus on that flaw, and that is where you win.
In my traffic ticket case, I never got to trial. I think it is because they were not sure what to do. Maybe they were just "too busy" to spend resources on my case.
But what if 1,000 other people with tickets did the same?
When I refused to settle for $20, I suspect that raised a few eyebrows.
I will never know, but I do think this is the path.
BTW, I've now heard of 3 situations in recent times with how judges are now pivoting when they hear the words "common law". Their response?
"This is the common law Mr. SoAndSo. This is the law common to our nation and is practiced in any court you choose to list. Statutory law is the common law of the land."
Technically speaking, that judge is right. As "common law" is merely the law followed by a collective agreeing to live amongst one another.
Not to mention, every attorney and judge educated since the 1950s have been taught that "common law" is just "case law". Which is of course ludicrous when you know what we know. I happen to know about a dozen attorneys and have asked them all to define "common law". They all regurgitated what they were taught and didn't take to kindly to me explaining they were deceived...as you would expect.
The trickery runs deep!
Question: Which statute was used to create the US Constitution?
Obvious Answer: There was no such statute. It was and still is a common law document.
Question: What does the 9th Amendment guarantee?
Answer: The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Question: Which amendment will the courts not go anywhere near with a 10-foot poll?
Answer: The 9th Amendment.
Question: What does Article III of the Constitution do?
Answer: It creates the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court and the several inferior federal courts.
Question: What is that jurisdiction?
Answer: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity ..."
Question: What is a "Case, in law," as opposed to a "Case, in equity?"
Answer: It is a case of law, as opposed to a case where a judge finds an "equitable" remedy. In a case of law, the principles of the common law must apply.
Question: Where did James Madison come up with the ideas described in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments?
Answer: They are the principles of the common law.
So ...
While state or federal statute might MODIFY some aspect of the common law, it does not OVERRIDE the common law.
As I said in a previous post, we have a system of common law, but in which employees and agents of government are always trying to squeeze civil law concepts (the law of the king) into the common law -- BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM MORE POWER.
Question: Under the 5th Amenment, the government is prohibited from violating your FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of liberty, even if you are arrested as a suspect in a crime, and put in jail (thereby, depriving you of your fundamental right of liberty).
So then ... HOW exactly might a government go about (a) holding you in jail but also (b) avoiding their OWN violation of your fundamental right of liberty?
Answer: By passing a STATUTE that tells the JUDGE and PRISON WARDEN (not you) that THEY must bring you before a judge within 72 hours of arrest, for a probable cause hearing, so that THEY can PROVE that THEY have a RIGHT to VIOLATE your right to liberty, because they have SOLID REASON to believe that YOU have violated someone ELSE'S rights.
For THAT reason (and THAT reason alone), statutes can be passed to "codify" common law principles into a statutory scheme ... for the EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT to abide by, since it is a PRIVILEGE for them to hold such a position of authority, and it is NOT their RIGHT to do so.
In a nutshell, that is how it is supposed to work.
We all have FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS that existed BEFORE the government existed.
We CREATED the government.
But ...
There ARE some bad apples in the bunch (both inside and outside of government) ... and so we ALSO have to have a way to deal with those bad apples, while retaining the maximum fundamental rights for all, generally.
Quite right. If you want to see for yourself how deep and pervasive the hatred is for free people having unalienable Rights as recognized by the founding fathers and encoded in the Bill of Rights, look no further than the topic of 'Law Positive' versus Common Law.
Investigating this topic, you'll quickly learn why America is experiencing the Marxist takeover of government. 'Law Positive'; ius positum is a legal ideology based on human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit. On the surface, it sounds good, but it's not. Instead, it is pervasive and evil. I'll go into this further, but it will require some background, so please be patient and your eyes will clearly see.
The concept of 'Law Positive' (or Positive Law) is distinct from 'Natural Law'. Natural Law comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, Nature or reason. Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. In other words, it is based on legal ruling as precedent. This is the reason for the Marxists calling the United States Constitution a 'living' document. That is, a document that is continually edited and updated. The Bill of Rights is not editable nor update-able. It is immutable. So, why have I presented this. Here's why.
It's very unfortunate that most people don't understand what is going on regarding our Constitutional Rights. They can see what is happening, but they don't recognize the prevailing legal theory that has become precedent in the courts across the land.
All the law schools and all the courts in the United States have adopted "Law Positivism" as the guiding law of the land.
In legal theory, Legal Positivism (or Positive Law) is contrary to Natural Law. Our Bill of Rights is based on Natural Law and is being increasingly ignored from the bench. All the graduating lawyers are being brain-washed and indoctrinated to follow Law Positivism. Seldom is Constitutional Law practiced in the courts today. In some cases, and it is becoming more frequent, a judge will brazenly forbid Constitutional arguments altogether.
If you wonder why your Rights are being taken away, it is because of this very reason. It is a well-known historical polemic that the courts provide an "appearance" of justice. Indeed, this concept has long been known and accepted as a principle; ipso facto in the legal profession. Justice has admittedly been revealed to be illusionary for purposes of appeasing the masses.
If the masses ever found out that the courts are all a contrived act there would be rebellion. I know this sounds harsh. However, the courts can only provide the appearance of justice in that justice must be weighed with the known facts.
What does the appearance of justice have to do with your unalienable rights?
Under Natural Law from whence the Bill of Rights was derived, the appearance of justice is based on morality, fact, and truth. It is the closest real justice that can be served. Positive Law is based on rules, ordinances, regulations, and statutes. These are suppose to be imperative components to morality. However, Positive Law is based on the meandering continuum of legal opinions that are rooted in ordinances, statutes, regulations, and rules. These are often government dictates that often have little to no public input. In other words, Truth and Fact need not apply for a conviction.
No one would deny you or I have certain unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (which derive directly from Natural Law). Yet today, the legal system has adopted the theory of Legal Positivism, which does not recognize you have these unalienable rights. Again, Fact and Truth do not often apply in the dark-robed chambers of today's courts.
In today's world seldom does the appearance of justice actually equate to real justice. Under Legal Positivism, the appearance becomes obvious.
"Law Positive," as you describe it, sounds like just another term for civil law, which is what most countries in the world have.
In general, the term "positive law" connotes statutes, i.e., law that has been enacted by a duly authorized legislature. [2] As used in this sense, positive law is distinguishable from natural law.
[2] "Positive law typically consists of enacted law—the codes, statutes, and regulations that are applied and enforced in the courts. The term derives from the medieval use of positum (Latin "established"), so that the phrase positive law literally means law established by human authority." Black's Law Dictionary 1200 (8th ed. 2004).
To get an idea of Law Positive or 'Positive Law' you can start here. The "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" has a good write up on 'Legal Positivism, which is another aspect of Law Positive..
I will bring up another point because someone might come across this term "Positive Law" as being used in a similar but slightly different way.
Now that I think about it, let's say there are two ways to think of the concept of "Positive Law" -- A and B.
The "A" way is what you stated. It is the big picture of the concept.
The "B" way is a more limited use, but could be a smokescreen to make law school students think that this is the ONLY use of the term.
By essentially replacing one concept for the other, but using the same term, they can effectively change the way people look at it, but using the same term.
(Just like how "gay" used to mean happy, but nobody uses that word to express that concept anymore.)
I ran across the term "Positive Law" awhile back.
What I got from it was that the United States Code was indexed into 50 titles.
These are organized by subject matter, but the statutes themselves (the ACTUAL ones passed by Congress) are in the Statutes at Large.
So the USC is taken from the SAL.
However, there is no guarantee that ALL of the SAL are correctly copied into the USC, and organized there. It is theoretically possible that some statute somewhere was left out or altered when copied to the USC.
This was a problem around 100 years ago. So, they began reviewing the USC and went back to go through all the SAL to see if they had everything right in a particular title of the USC.
This was done before computers, so it was a monumental task.
Only about half of the 50 titles of the USC were reviewed in this way. The ones that were had an "official seal of approval" that they were, in fact, the true and correct laws of the United States with regard to the subject matter of that particular title.
Congress then passed a resolution that "Title such-and-such is hereby enacted as Positive Law."
This means that in a court case, a party can cite the USC and that would be sufficient to quoting "the law" (which would otherwise be found in the SAL). But this is only true for those titles that have been enacted into Positive Law.
Any title not enacted into Positive Law is only prima facie evidence of the law. The SAL might (or might not) be different. Wherever there might be a difference, the SAL is the correct law, not the USC.
In the beginning of the USC books, you will find a listing of each title and its subject matter. I have seen that they have an asterisk by the titles that were enacted into Positive Law, but not the others.
Title 26, the Income Tax, is one without an asterisk. I think that the "law" on that subject has been so convoluted over the years that they will never unravel what ALL of the statues actually say (remember: each statute that changes the wording of a previous statute must be incorporated into the current version of what the "law is").
That is my understanding of the term "Positive Law."
Of course, it is quite possible (in fact, likely) that Congress has usurped this term "Positive Law" to mean this "official recognition" of what the statutes say, so as to hide the fact that the bigger topic of what you are saying also uses that terminology.
Wordsmith fuckery is probably 99% of today's "law."
BTW, I think that some of the things you stated is why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution is one of the most important.
I would say that Article 6, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and the Preamble to the Bill or Rights are the most important parts of the Constitution for the purpose of understanding our overall system of government.
I'm in complete agreement. Now, can you teach the 100 people closest to you all of this? Tout suite!
My experience has been, virtually nobody wants to learn it. We haven't reached that fabled precipice just yet.
Same story as the virus, huh?
Wilfull ignorance, all around us.
Indeed, you've stated it most correctly and succinctly.
As I'm starting to theorize lately, I think there are certain deep BELIEFS that significantly contribute to an individual's essential identity. As such, a threat to these beliefs is a threat to the core of one's existence.
I haven't heard a better explanation for this willful ignorance anyway. Sure, "herd mentality" has a little bit to do with it for some. But the people who fight to defend their factless beliefs? What other rational explanation could there be?
This is my latest theorizing anyway. Perhaps there's a better explanation. I just haven't heard one yet....
What do you think?
I think you are correct. It is essentially a spiritual problem. Belief directly affects spiritual growth and development. Spiritual growth and development impact on one's ability to process difficulty and pain. The issue is age-old, and the solutions are still in the process of emerging to popular consciousness.
Ever read Ayn Rand?
I didn't care so much for the novels. I liked the non-fiction.
One of the points I remember most was her explanation of what emotions are.
You might have a slight negative emotion, but you don't know who or under what circumstances, so your emotion would not be strong.
You might even have a smile on your face, amazed at such a long life.
Your emotion would be much darker.
You would be crushed.
You would probably laugh hysterically.
In all these cases, you received an external stimulus: I told you that someone died.
But your emotions were different, depending on the details. Why?
It's because our emotions are our body's mechanism for giving us physical feedback about any stimulus, either external or internal, as this stimulus relates to our values.
The stimulus can be external if you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something in the physical world. Or, it can be internal if you have a thought about something.
Either way, your body reacts with emotions based on your values.
If you hear RFK, Jr. talking about vaccine harm, you probably have a positive emotion because you value people speaking out about this subject.
But the libtard wearing 2 masks riding a bicycle is horrified at the exact same stimulus (RFK, Jr.). That's because the libtard's values are different.
And our values are different based on our experiences in life.
We obtain our values and beliefs from the culture we live in, modified by our own experiences (including learning about things).
This is what makes us have different emotions to the exact same stimulus.
If you can figure out not just what the other person thinks, but WHY they think it, you can get to their values and beliefs.
THEN, you can address those beliefs and MAYBE have a shot and getting them to see the error of their ways.
Ayn Rand said decades ago that the only way to get rid of communism is through a cultural revolution.
Cultural revolution is certainly how the commies have got as far as they have.
But two can play at that game.
Q team needs to take over the media. That will be the ultimate checkmate.
Short of that, we encourage each other and try to get the sheep to question their own beliefs.
Watch some of Jan Helfield's old interviews of politicians. He does exactly this, and they wrap themselves into knots trying to avoid all their intellectual hypocracy. It's hilarious!
One of the reasons why I drafted this post and shot it up on the forum has to do with my exposure to this area in recent years. The Covid19 atrocities conducted in Australia nation-wide and specifically in the State of Victoria triggered a process of mass awakening the likes of which Q in itself never did (here). (I've written elsewhere about how draconian and over the top the 'mandates' etc were here. Proudly, we were basically No. 1 worldwide for Orwellian dystopian fashion....
When the masses of people woke up, the Ausanons were ready and so the content from the Q movement quickly infused into the general awakening population.
Part of that awakening was a surge forward in people looking into and understanding about common law and civil law, etc, because the civil system was thrown at us hook, line and sinker.
Last year, I participated in 3 local seminars conducted by probably the most erudite people in this field in Australia. It helped me to grasp some of the basic concepts immensely, despite the many gaps and lack of knoweldge that I have.
We all hear about those champions and pioneers who have spearheaded progress in this area. You and u/MAG768720 have mentioned a few. We have had a few over here in Australia too. But what I think 2020 and 2021 did was trigger a more communal response here. Why? Because people who were awake and not happy for the BS have been targeted and attacked like never before, and actually pushing back because it no longer is just about me; it's about our community, about our society and our country.
I think there are two significant factors that are really important here:
One is simply basic awareness. Which is why I made this post, which, despite its shortcomings, certainly seems to have been of benefit to some pedes. Basic awareness is the starting point. Not the solutions, not the actual instances in courts (which are certainly relevant, and which are when the real engagement starts to happen), but basic awareness by an increasing number of men and women about the nature and roots of the problem.
Secondly, communal power. As u/MAG768720 has pointed out, the historical context adds some important dimensions. He seems to be saying, also, that common law is/was THE common law, developed by men and women between each other. It stands to reason, ontologically and socially, that communal engagement is going to be hundreds of times more effective that individuals spearing into the system. Oh, we need that. They become the seeds and the root, but I suspect that it's collectives like neighbors, communities and larger networks begin sharing awareness, educating each other, and operating and supporting each other in engagement with the legal system and it's purveyors, that change can begin to happen, and pushback becomes real.
Well, folks down this way have had great incentive to care, because of what we were subject to in 20/21. Maybe that is what is required. But however its generated, I would say awareness of the issues and the problems are the starting point.
Final word: When I began going down rabbit holes in 2015, I became envious of the United States and the United States Constitution. Gee. How I wish we had that, I would think.
It is only in the last two years that I have found out that in fact, the Australian constitution was drafted by people who wanted to take the best of the US, Swiss and one or two other constitutions, and create a constitution for Australia that drew on all their strengths.
I've come to believe that the Australian constitution is an extremely powerful document, and I no longer have envy of the US const. However, far more than the US, Australia is at a severe disadvantage, because despite having such a powerful foundation, Australians never had to fight and shed blood to establish that (well, not much) and we have been mostly ignorant of its existence, even. At least Americans have some historical pride in how they were founded and what a constitution means.
I'll make other comments elsewhere, but for the record, I think the engagement between you two here (Morpheus 11, MAG768720) has made this post one of the most valuable seen here at GAW for a long time. I suspect that too few understand the significance of the topic. (I requested a sticky, don't know that it ever got that, but the response has been good).
Kudos to both of you.
Hey, FractionalizingIron ... this has been a great thread. And yes, I believe it was sticked for awhile yesterday.
Australia and the USA both have the English common law base upon which our respective country's legal framework was built.
Besides our constitutions, I would say that the Declaration of Independence embodies principles that apply to all of mankind.
That document really summarizes the mindset that we should all have, and specifically that the government employees are our servants. NOT the other way around.
For that reason, we should be holding all government employees -- ESPECIALLY judges -- to the standard that THEY agreed to when the accepted the job. In the USA, they have to give an oath of office, I would guess that it is the same in Australia, since our legal systems are funamentally the same.
OF COURSE, people who are drawn to power (government jobs and authority) want to USE power over others. That is one of the flaws in any legal system. Most good people don't even want to have power over others. It is mostly bad people who want that.
And both of our countries have seen how damaging that can be when such people are allowed to hide in the shadows and gradually usurp power that is not rightfully theirs. They become tyrants.
And the "Karens" of the world are the wanna-be-tyrants who seize on an opportunity to exert some sort of pseudo-power that they suddenly find themselves in a position to exert (think: teachers, civil servants, police, politicians, etc.).
I agree. Awareness comes first.
But once one is aware, one feels powerless unless they have tools and strategies to do something about it. That is where the sense of community comes in.
Imagine if 50 or more people were to all get speeding tickets over the course of a year, and learn how the system works, comparing notes, and realizing that the traffic court system is largely a paper tiger.
Because we ALL have fundamental rights as humans (see: Declaration of Independence) and because our governments are required to uphold those rights (see: Constitution), and because such non-crimes as traffic infractions can NEVER be prosecuted in a way that upholds the fundamental rights of the individual, there will ALWAYS be a weakness in the system.
It is BUILT IN to the system because the system itself is a violation of fundamental rights.
As more and more people become aware, AND compare notes and experiences, we gain more power (of the People).
There are already A LOT of people who ARE interested in the law. The problem is that most of them go to law school, where they are taught a bastardized version of law.
The same is true for health care. People who are really, really interested in health care tend to go to medical school or nursing school, where they are taught lies, falsehoods and propaganda, but nothing about how to make a sick person really healthy.
Law schools teach how to manipulate the People, not how to make them more powerful. Where would the money be in that?
Be we can learn, despite the obstacle, because we have FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
These rights can be trampled on, they can be abused, but they can never be taken away.
That is why they are UN-ALIENABLE.
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL men are created equal, that they endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
We need to alter the course of history that our governments have been taking for at least a century. It has been moving away from the common law, and must be moved back in that direction.
The "king's law" is really no different than the dictator's law. And there is no place for that type of law to reign supreme in a free society.
^ BTW,
Check out these 4 videos from a seminar by Frederick Graves (creator of Jurisdictionary).
He was an attorney for a few decades. He became disgusted at his own profession.
Here, he gives a short seminar about how easy it is to understand the law. It's for Americans, but our systems of law have the same basic structure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZDG4oOF9gc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeWxDB0CZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXnF0tej9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gaYWwiDx1g
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you were an Aussie! 14th amendment doesn't apply!! I've listened to just about everything from Romley Stewart (Justinian Deception), his friend whose name escapes me at the moment, as well as Tom Barnett, who I know learned from another guy in Australia, Mark something I believe. All of whom greatly contributed to my overall awareness of the big bamboozle!
And yes, your post was FANTASTIC, every well written, very concise and extremely valuable to this community. You put some real time and effort into it. Something I've not ever done here, rather just lazily tagging on to other posts.
It was so good, I saved it...which I rarely do for GA posts.
As such, apologies for the 14th amendment lesson you obviously know, but is not pertinent to your neck of the woods.
Well done, glad to have another mind freed from the matrix here, and keep up the great work. I look forward to future posts from you!
I was privileged to encounter (and share a telegram group with) the man I consider to be an absolute national treasure for Australia.
Darryl O'Bryan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vEnunZT_xA
Sadly, there is not much material of his stuff on the Greater Web. A plumber by profession (trade), he knows the Australian Constitution back and forth and case law to back that up.
Where he stands out for me is that his approach is 100% practicality focused, about achieving desired outcomes via the law.
It's clear that there are a LOT of people with a BIT of knowledge and understanding of the law (common law, civil law) and the roots, etc, but they get into hot water because their focus is about sticking it to the system rather than making the system work for them.
O'Bryan's track record speaks for itself. The courts and the system are shit scared of him, because he knows what they are and how much fraud they conduct.
Daryl is apparently part of a group has made a lot of inroads in popularizing awareness in this area:
https://www.knowyourrightsgroup.com.au/
KYR have (apparently) been out there in this area for more than a decade. They gather interest (I guess) primarily using a very good angle: how this all impacts on "me and my $".
Their main face is about learning to stop paying fines, etc, and they sell information products, but feedback seems good.
The astonishing thing is, that the Australian constitution is actually a very powerful document, that places the Australian people in the sovereign position. Amazingly, this was done as an act of the British Parliament, who, for the first time in their entire history, handed over their sovereign power to the people's of Australia.
Last year, I had two opportunities to benefit from Daryl's advice. One, I had a parking ticket from a local council (our local councils are the pseudo (and non-constitutional) 3rd tier of government, aka 'local government' that manage the various "municipal cities" in the urban city areas. Two, I had a speeding ticket issued around midnight in an industrial area street where there were NO other vehicles, but I exceeded the prescribed limit (in my ignorance).
We know that by and large most fines are not legal (or lawful) in Australia because the constitution prescribes that only a court can issue a fine on the basis of a conviction. But our police, councils, and other bodies issue fines via tickets willy nilly, and people just pay them.
Moreover, under the constitution, only vehicles being used for commercial purposes are required to be registered.
As Daryl explained, a ticket from one of these bodies is essentially an invitation to contract. Accept and pay the ticket, and you enter the contract. However, under Section 42 of Australian consumer law, no person (!) is liable for unsolicited services supplied to them.
At Daryl's advice, I wrote a letter to the council, returning their "Penalty reminder notice", and reminded them of the Aust. Consumer Law, that I did not request or solicit any arrangement with their corporation (!) for services related to my use of my private vehicle for private, non-commercial use on a public roadway.
I further told them
They wrote back, and said blah blah blah, this vehicle [reg] was observed in a taxi zone at X time, this is considered a breach of the Road Safety Rules 2017.
"After due consideration of the circumstances outlined in your correspondence, we have decided to withdraw the infringement notice, and we intend to take no further action, consider the matter finalized."
So, basically, they said yeah, well, you broke the rules, but, um, ah, er, um, we're dropping the matter, because (the implication is "your position is unassailable").
Did they just not want to take it to court?
The more and more people that stand up to them, the less and less power they have.
The law serves us, not them. They only do what they do because of fraud.
The feeling of empowerment that comes with such a result is immeasurable. Even though its a tiny silly parking ticket.
Thanks for your reply, and feedback!!!
Cc: u/MAG768720
What comes after the Great Awakening? A Great Reckoning, methinks.
Thank you for that. I've seen several treatments of the topic, but they always included things I couldn't really believe, like our birth certificates were somehow making money for the cabal... Made no sense to me. And don't get me started on flippin' quantum grammar. This all makes perfect sense and is totally believable. Crystal clear, and I appreciate you for it.
Wow! Thank you for such a top notch, comprehensive post on this topic.
Extremely interesting and this should be taught in every school!
Would upvote 1,000 times if I could 👍🏻👍🏻
I am commenting so I can come back to read this. It looks like a great wall of text. Thank you, pede! 😎
Top quality post fren - thank you
This is one of the best, most easily understood explanations of common law (law of the land) vs. contract law (maritime law)! It goes a long way to understanding the cabal's tactics.
Thank you for this.
Wow. It's not often that a post justified creating a new folder. But this one did. And several of the comments were worthy of being added as well.
Well-played anons. Great thread that brings a tear to my eye that better is to come.
Hope I don't derail the thread too much by asking if there's any matters legally worth knowing with respect to marriage? Another anon mentioned covenant marriages earlier but they looked highly similar. What are the costs/benefits for a commonly accepted marriage in the US? Things worth avoiding or pursuing instead?
Quick AND Awesome Breakdown of LAW from Jordan Maxwell - Sorry for the Commietube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WYNukOeeDY
Incredibly informative and easy to digest. You're doing God's work, anon 👌 NCSWIC
Law Positive Versus Common Law.
All law schools teach Law Positive as the prevailing law of the land. Common Law is only mentioned in passing.
Well done friend! I've dabbled in The Common Law a bit, especially w.r.t. the vaxx mandates, but never fully grasped the distinctions you lay out here.