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
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'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?
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.
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!