Journals of Congress (pages 334-343) FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1787 – Territory west of the Ohio River and the establishment of new states added to the Union - How to convert territories to states...
More sharing to come. There is a long road of history to go and how we came to this mess before i can share how to remove yourself from the legal kill box. The removal will be lawful and recorded for record keeping. However; it will not prevent evil men from doing evil things to good and righteous people for the sake of control and power.
More sharing to come. There is a long road of history to go and how we came to this mess before i can share how to remove yourself from the legal kill box. The removal will be lawful and recorded for record keeping. However; it will not prevent evil men from doing evil things to good and righteous people for the sake of control and power.
I am sorry if you thought that I was making an argument, and maybe I am, but that’s not my intention. If you recall, I started by admitting that I am ignorant of everything that you are presenting. I therefore am not in a position to argue, one way or another. I have my own views and I want to share them with you. Maybe by the end of our exchanges we both could come out of it more enlightened or not. I am curious and I am simply attempting to gain clarity on the material that you are presenting.
History from my perspective is the story of the my direct experiences. History from the perspective of others, in my opinion, is hearsay. I have no means of verifying anything that happens outside of the purview of my own experience, so I really do not invest much of my time time on it. I find it difficult to know of the things that have happened in my lifetime. It would be a daunting task for me to know what happened many centuries before my time. So it is always pleasing to me to find someone who is willing to invest the time to first seek out the knowledge and then distill it down to a level where some one like me can digest it. I hope you do not think I am being facetious. I laud your effort. It is truly admirable.
You quote all of this stuff with such intimacy that I get the sense that you are directly connected to the things that you share. So tell me. Is mankind the same thing as man? If it is, then why not just say man. Person, man, resident, ... Aren’t these not just mere meaningless words? If you have to consult with a book, whose author you are not acquainted with, to know what the words means, then it is, at least, questionable that you truly know what you think you know. If the author’s work was altered, wouldn’t that add to the complexity of what you are attempting to do?
I think it is better to focus on now. What is past is dead and gone for ever. We have found ourselves in a difficult situation and I think that if we are ever going to extricate ourselves from it we must put all of our focus on now. The frauds are happening right now. The enslavement is happening right now. The fifth column is within our walls right now. It demands our attention right now. Words are not going to save us from the perils that hangs over us. Simply knowing how we got here is not enough.
A few questions to understand the baseline gap in perception and understanding:
1) What do you use for the base line reference for the definition of the words you speak to people everyday?
2) Do you only believe things are real that you experienced and everything else is not real and/or not true? In other words, if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This is a sort of paradox of true versus truth.
3) Do you believe two words that are spelled differently mean the same thing? (man, woman, mankind)?
4) We communicate with words - who decides what words are true and what words are not true?
5) What other form of communication do you suggest if words are meaningless?
A quick note - the paradigm (false paradigm) was the previous belief we had to pay taxes, that we had to have usury placed on all money borrowed, that Hamilton and John Jay had the countries best interest at heart, that a title actually raised your place in the hierarchy of life, that the banks actually had money in reserve which we borrow against, that currency is money (it is not), that we were not the creditors of the US but the debtors, that property taxes are lawful, that a driver's license was lawful, that a hunting license was lawful, that driving is traveling and a motor vehicle is the same as property... these are all paradigms of the false world that we voluntarily participate in to gain "benefits and privileges". What i am attempting to share is that the vast majority of mankind (not the same as man as mankind is plural) live in a paradigm of partial truths (completely different meaning than "true") that are just close enough to what is real that we believe these false truths. Truth is subjective. What is true is rooted in fact.
Many books have been altered. This is going to be addressed in part in later articles. Especially how the English brought their universities to the US (Cambridge over 160 years ago) to do exactly as you suggest, re-write the history books, set up testing and certification standards to approve what they wanted approved, change just enough information to change new generations perspective on England and the British monarchy. Interesting how one of the most oppressive feudal kingdoms became one of America's closest allies after the revolutionary war. Yet, they still held India and Hong Kong as colonies until relatively recently.
The connection with the things i share is strictly based on research, confirmed observation, and the belief that complaining about things that are not right, but doing nothing, does not fix them; but sharing and educating others about how language and history is a little bit different than what we are told and how the use of language fuels that deception, has driven me to this sharing. It has come with great hardship. i have learned the evils of corporations, i am actively fighting (and winning) against some of these monsters in their legal system and using it against them without lawyers, attorneys, or counsel (all spelled differently and mean something different). The definition of the words alone are not the enslavement mechanism, it is the inability for mankind to take a few minutes, look up words and understand them, and see what they actually mean, and realizing you were using the wrong damn word all along. Because it is what you were taught! On Purpose!
Examples:
A job is doing something illegal for elicit gain - a bank job.
Income is not compensation.
Work is not a job.
A person is not necessarily a man.
And the list goes on. It is up to each of us to take the time and actually learn the language we speak and then use that language against the oppressors. They have to follow their own rules for their system to work. We just do not understand our own language. And, if you go to other languages, the same holds true. The meaning of the translated words used in the legal system and English language mean much the same thing. But, because we are taught to substitute the wrong word (job instead of work for example, or employee instead of a man doing work for compensation) and think of it as the same meaning - that is the base issue.
The evil entities (less than man or woman) are ratcheting up word crimes now. That is possible because we did not understand the words we were using up to this point. So, once the language becomes meaningless because we allowed it to happen, then the evil ones can make any word evil on a whim. Because we were all too caught up in the initial deception.
And in closing for now - there are two main operating systems in how we go about our lives - private trade and public commerce. i will get to this eventually. But, once you realize private trade is lawful and does not come with federal statutory regulation, the world starts to look a whole lot different.
I do not wish to offend you in any way, but I think your mind is stuck in a paradigm. The paradigm is the beginning of everything for you. I am more interested in the states of mind before the Congress was imagined. As far as I am concerned, Rome is merely a story that was told. I do not know what any of that have to do with the present state of things. My perception of things can only be based upon the totality of my experience. I have no direct or indirect experience with Rome or United States of America for that matter
. I have encountered many who claim that they are agents of the United States, but I have one small problem with the claims; the United States is imagined. Yes I think it is a figment of the imagination. If it is so, then the agents are frauds. I say that because the source that you cited, Black’s Law Dictionary defines agency as “Relation in which one person acts for or represents another by latter's authority, either in the relationship of principal and agent, master and servant...”.
I know that in the world of fiction it is permissible to ascribe personality to inanimate and imagined things. However, in my right state of mind, I could never appreciate that it is possible for a living man to have an imagined entity as his principal. I would be, woefully, incompetent, If I were to accept such a thing as true.
On the matter of, “diminishing or diminished personality” and “curtailment of status”; are you implying that man is not equal to man?
What man has the capacity to do these things to another? Please explain. It will be helpful in dispelling the doubts that I have on the matter.
Man explains... saying a man is not equal to a man is a simple contradiction or an argument for argument sake. Lawyers and children argue. Man explains. There seems to be a misunderstanding of context. Whether you believe the United States, in any form is imaginary (or any country) is from the position that man "created" that entity in an authoritative position. So, it is imaginary. The point of John Wycliffe translating the Bible into English was to dispel the false authority and imagining of the church. And he took the title of a Catholic priest. This was almost 100 years before Martin Luther and the protestant revolution. He shared the Bible in native language to dispel the false authority.
The goal of this sharing in the Substack is truly to provide context and history for how we got here and the word magic utilized to enslave and how to stand as a man or woman (have not fully moved to that topic to date). As previously noted, the hierarchy is Creation, man, property. Very plain. But, those who do not know or understand history are doomed to repeat it.
You provide the definition of agency. Appreciate the reference. The words used in the definition are important. "Person" is used in the definition. You are not a person first, you are one of mankind first. So, yes, that is correct, an imagined entity should not be above another of mankind. But, humanity, regardless of where in the world they are born, have been taught to acquiesce to some level of authority outside of parents. Which is not the proper hierarchy. So, maybe your questions/comments are helping clarify for others. We should only refer to ourselves as man or woman, the seed of consciousness, who claims (belongs to us) names for our own distinction from others of mankind (other seeds of consciousness). Names are our property. Titles can be our property, but there is a risk of enslavement with titles. You are not a gardener, you are a man or woman who sometimes tends plants. You are not a carpenter you are a man or woman who sometimes builds with wood. If we are wise, we realize titles are property that define duties and responsibilities, but do not diminish us from being mankind first. But, there is huge risk in using titles. So, the highest right mankind has is property. Don't be something; do something. Share gifts. We have been programmed from a young age with phrases like "who do you want to be when you grow up"... The question should be how do you want to share your gifts with the world? We should be taught to act, not to be diminished thing.
Finally you ask using the word "capacity". All of mankind have the capacity, The question is what man has the authority to do this enslavement to another man... That answer is simple... No man. Choice to believe something different creates the risk of harm being posed on another of mankind. Man can do anything man wants as long as it causes no harm to another of mankind.
Harken to all-fathers sovereign witness of the good people of united America of these United States.
Germane to ordinance of 1787 respective to the northwest or southeast, remember...., this was the 1st ordinance of the grand corporation known as "The United States of America."
Prior to 1787, there were 2 'organic' ordinances for populating America with "townships', continentally speaking. Consider these organic measures by delegates not representatives of the good people of united America of these United States.
These 1784, 1785 & 1787 "township" ordinances dealt with administering developing treaty privileges and immunities by the high contracting parties for their inhabitants of the United States (crown property or subjects) found in these United States of the good people of united America. Not for the good people of united America.
But remember, these townships could only be administered by the good people of united America of these United States. Not by any resident "inhabitants of the United States." because these inhabitants were loyalist to the crown, not of these United States, continentally speaking.
Chose in action wisely & Normal Law will reign both by Golden Rule & Castle Rule and in thy day of testing all things by divine providence and goodly spirit of wisdom, honor is thy crown of living, eternal forevermore.
Whatever you will it shall be "Living with Honor" or DEATH by DISHONOR!!! Be wise, safe and blessed...., while your coin of time remains to rightly chose in action, service in honor for honor above all else, eternally forevermore. Arthur
I am not trying to be a jerk. I am, genuinely, ignorant to the whole business of law and authority. Do you have definitions for these words? I don’t want to have a long and drawn out debate, but I hope that your definitions will justify the impositions that I have and must endure from total strangers. In the name of law and authority I have, many times, been enslaved by men and women I have no prior dealings with. The claim is always the same, “I have the authority” or “It’s the law”. I don’t know if I was born into slavery; that is a possible explanation. Please explain why this could be the possibility. I know that all men are born of a woman. However, the part on why the one is master and the other slave totally escapes me.
The following caption is an example of a notice in response to being misaddressed as something other than one of mankind:
"i, present this notice as a woman; not in any way to diminish the status of i, to a misses, entity, party, member, principle, company, defendant, pro se, sovereign citizen, freeman on the land, human person, living beneficiary, trustee, executer, executor, man pro se, plaintiff, or prosecutor; any further attempt at said diminishment by you, will be considered a trespass on i, a man;"
Please take notice that all other methods of being addressed (and in the case of JOHN DOE or JANE DOE) are a reduction of the status of being one of mankind. ALL titles and stylizing in legal documents are a diminishment.
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:
TITLE: The radical meaning of this word appears to be that of a mark, style, or designation; a distinctive appellation; the name by which anything is known. Thus, in the law of persons, a title Is an appellation of dignity or distinction, a name denoting the social rank of the person bearing it; as "duke" or "count."
Notice the use of the phrase "law of persons". Person is not necessarily one of mankind. It again is a diminishment. Researching the changing of the definition of the word "persons" from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd to 5th editions, it is obvious the sprawling inclusion of other redefining of mankind so as to gain jurisdiction.
In the case of this post, the definition of "ordinance" from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition was provided. The case of the styling of words was in a previous post and below is the definition also from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition (which is close to what the founding document writers would have used for the creation of the documents and to set the hierarchy of words and language).
CAPITIS DIMINUTIO. In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality. This was a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications, following upon certain changes in his civil condition. It was of three kinds, enumerated as follows:
Capitis diminutio maxima. [JOHN DOE] The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Capitis diminutio media. [John DOE] A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man lost his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
Capitis diminutio minima. [John Doe] The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [john doe] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 10, pr. ; 1, 2, 3 ; Dig. 4, 5, 11 ; Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 144.
What else do you wish to be defined? Do you live in a "residence" or a "domicile" that is permanent? Are you a "person" or one of mankind? Are you an entity (any title other than mankind) or one of mankind? When looking at a legal document, how is your name spelled? All caps? Are you that name or are you one of mankind first? Hierarchy of law - Creator (or creation - whatever original consciousness mankind originates), mankind, property... in that order. Titles are something we as mankind take on that diminish that original standing as mankind.
The issue that I have with your response is that you seem to think that words are sufficient to render any one anything. The truth is that man, and I use the word man only for the sake of convenience, is NOT a subject of any other. Therefore, he is not bound by these words by default. He is bound, only by his willful consent or choice. He cannot be forced or coerced into subjugation; he may by his own free will and volition lower himself to that state. All men are born free. There’s not a single man that is born into bondage. That is absolutely and wholly a fallacy. The wild beast is free and will to everything in its power to remain so. So please explain the difference, besides the obvious, between man and beast?
Quite the contrary. Using "you seem to think" is quite presumptuous. All the other statements are generally true. The issue is we, as mankind inadvertently answer "yes" to many presumptions in the legal demonic word magic because we think we know what words mean. So regardless of what you or I think, if one does not understand the words they use and the presumptions they make, the ability stand firm in the exact state of being free gets twisted quickly. Agreed, no man is born into bondage. All are born free.
Correct. Although this is fast forward to the future condition of the events just prior to the not so "civil war". These (northern and southern confederacies) were new federal Confederacies that were NOT the Union of States under the Articles of Confederation. That went into dormancy with the lack of seating of Congress representation from the States. There were not enough States present for quorum when the southern States seceded from the northern States. Who gained to benefit? Britain. By stoking a commercial conflict due to unfair trade practices and drastic lowering of export prices out of Britain, the ability to compete was very trying for a growing nation. It is important to note, the first shots fired in Lincoln's War were not between people. It was between north and south federal military employees. Hence, a commercial mercenary conflict... We will get into this as the history unfolds. And there was not a peace treaty signed following the conflict. Only a series of cease fires/surrenders.
Bingo! An alarm should be going off in everybody’s heads. It is that territorial government of the United States (Municipal Corporation---take that to mean British and Papal) that is in control of the State of New York, State of Massachusetts, State of Florida, etc. These are territorial States passing off as American States of____. The Confederate States of the North and South that fought in the civil war were business organizations that were bankrupted by Abraham Lincoln. What do you know about bankruptcies? That the bankrupted businesses enter into receivership with its creditors. Who were the creditors of the North Confederacy? And who were the creditors of the South Confederacy? Well the British King and the Pope of course.
Bingo! Karma should be going off in everybody’s heads. It is that territorial government of the United States (Municipal Corporation---take that to mean British and Papal) that is in control of the State of New York, State of Massachusetts, State of Florida, etc. These are territorial States passing off as American States of____. The Confederate States of the North and South that fought in the civil war were business organizations that were bankrupted by Abraham Lincoln. What do you know about bankruptcies? That the bankrupted businesses enter into receivership with its creditors. Who were the creditors of the North Confederacy? And who were the creditors of the South Confederacy? Well the British King and the Pope of course.
More sharing to come. There is a long road of history to go and how we came to this mess before i can share how to remove yourself from the legal kill box. The removal will be lawful and recorded for record keeping. However; it will not prevent evil men from doing evil things to good and righteous people for the sake of control and power.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not, is a fool; shun him.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not, is simple; teach him.
He who knows, and knows not he knows, is asleep; awaken him.
He who knows, and knows he knows, is wise; follow him.
I am the simpleton and I admitted it.
More sharing to come. There is a long road of history to go and how we came to this mess before i can share how to remove yourself from the legal kill box. The removal will be lawful and recorded for record keeping. However; it will not prevent evil men from doing evil things to good and righteous people for the sake of control and power.
I am sorry if you thought that I was making an argument, and maybe I am, but that’s not my intention. If you recall, I started by admitting that I am ignorant of everything that you are presenting. I therefore am not in a position to argue, one way or another. I have my own views and I want to share them with you. Maybe by the end of our exchanges we both could come out of it more enlightened or not. I am curious and I am simply attempting to gain clarity on the material that you are presenting.
History from my perspective is the story of the my direct experiences. History from the perspective of others, in my opinion, is hearsay. I have no means of verifying anything that happens outside of the purview of my own experience, so I really do not invest much of my time time on it. I find it difficult to know of the things that have happened in my lifetime. It would be a daunting task for me to know what happened many centuries before my time. So it is always pleasing to me to find someone who is willing to invest the time to first seek out the knowledge and then distill it down to a level where some one like me can digest it. I hope you do not think I am being facetious. I laud your effort. It is truly admirable.
You quote all of this stuff with such intimacy that I get the sense that you are directly connected to the things that you share. So tell me. Is mankind the same thing as man? If it is, then why not just say man. Person, man, resident, ... Aren’t these not just mere meaningless words? If you have to consult with a book, whose author you are not acquainted with, to know what the words means, then it is, at least, questionable that you truly know what you think you know. If the author’s work was altered, wouldn’t that add to the complexity of what you are attempting to do?
I think it is better to focus on now. What is past is dead and gone for ever. We have found ourselves in a difficult situation and I think that if we are ever going to extricate ourselves from it we must put all of our focus on now. The frauds are happening right now. The enslavement is happening right now. The fifth column is within our walls right now. It demands our attention right now. Words are not going to save us from the perils that hangs over us. Simply knowing how we got here is not enough.
A few questions to understand the baseline gap in perception and understanding:
1) What do you use for the base line reference for the definition of the words you speak to people everyday?
2) Do you only believe things are real that you experienced and everything else is not real and/or not true? In other words, if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This is a sort of paradox of true versus truth.
3) Do you believe two words that are spelled differently mean the same thing? (man, woman, mankind)?
4) We communicate with words - who decides what words are true and what words are not true?
5) What other form of communication do you suggest if words are meaningless?
A quick note - the paradigm (false paradigm) was the previous belief we had to pay taxes, that we had to have usury placed on all money borrowed, that Hamilton and John Jay had the countries best interest at heart, that a title actually raised your place in the hierarchy of life, that the banks actually had money in reserve which we borrow against, that currency is money (it is not), that we were not the creditors of the US but the debtors, that property taxes are lawful, that a driver's license was lawful, that a hunting license was lawful, that driving is traveling and a motor vehicle is the same as property... these are all paradigms of the false world that we voluntarily participate in to gain "benefits and privileges". What i am attempting to share is that the vast majority of mankind (not the same as man as mankind is plural) live in a paradigm of partial truths (completely different meaning than "true") that are just close enough to what is real that we believe these false truths. Truth is subjective. What is true is rooted in fact.
Many books have been altered. This is going to be addressed in part in later articles. Especially how the English brought their universities to the US (Cambridge over 160 years ago) to do exactly as you suggest, re-write the history books, set up testing and certification standards to approve what they wanted approved, change just enough information to change new generations perspective on England and the British monarchy. Interesting how one of the most oppressive feudal kingdoms became one of America's closest allies after the revolutionary war. Yet, they still held India and Hong Kong as colonies until relatively recently.
The connection with the things i share is strictly based on research, confirmed observation, and the belief that complaining about things that are not right, but doing nothing, does not fix them; but sharing and educating others about how language and history is a little bit different than what we are told and how the use of language fuels that deception, has driven me to this sharing. It has come with great hardship. i have learned the evils of corporations, i am actively fighting (and winning) against some of these monsters in their legal system and using it against them without lawyers, attorneys, or counsel (all spelled differently and mean something different). The definition of the words alone are not the enslavement mechanism, it is the inability for mankind to take a few minutes, look up words and understand them, and see what they actually mean, and realizing you were using the wrong damn word all along. Because it is what you were taught! On Purpose!
Examples:
A job is doing something illegal for elicit gain - a bank job.
Income is not compensation.
Work is not a job.
A person is not necessarily a man.
And the list goes on. It is up to each of us to take the time and actually learn the language we speak and then use that language against the oppressors. They have to follow their own rules for their system to work. We just do not understand our own language. And, if you go to other languages, the same holds true. The meaning of the translated words used in the legal system and English language mean much the same thing. But, because we are taught to substitute the wrong word (job instead of work for example, or employee instead of a man doing work for compensation) and think of it as the same meaning - that is the base issue.
The evil entities (less than man or woman) are ratcheting up word crimes now. That is possible because we did not understand the words we were using up to this point. So, once the language becomes meaningless because we allowed it to happen, then the evil ones can make any word evil on a whim. Because we were all too caught up in the initial deception.
And in closing for now - there are two main operating systems in how we go about our lives - private trade and public commerce. i will get to this eventually. But, once you realize private trade is lawful and does not come with federal statutory regulation, the world starts to look a whole lot different.
I do not wish to offend you in any way, but I think your mind is stuck in a paradigm. The paradigm is the beginning of everything for you. I am more interested in the states of mind before the Congress was imagined. As far as I am concerned, Rome is merely a story that was told. I do not know what any of that have to do with the present state of things. My perception of things can only be based upon the totality of my experience. I have no direct or indirect experience with Rome or United States of America for that matter
. I have encountered many who claim that they are agents of the United States, but I have one small problem with the claims; the United States is imagined. Yes I think it is a figment of the imagination. If it is so, then the agents are frauds. I say that because the source that you cited, Black’s Law Dictionary defines agency as “Relation in which one person acts for or represents another by latter's authority, either in the relationship of principal and agent, master and servant...”.
I know that in the world of fiction it is permissible to ascribe personality to inanimate and imagined things. However, in my right state of mind, I could never appreciate that it is possible for a living man to have an imagined entity as his principal. I would be, woefully, incompetent, If I were to accept such a thing as true.
On the matter of, “diminishing or diminished personality” and “curtailment of status”; are you implying that man is not equal to man?
What man has the capacity to do these things to another? Please explain. It will be helpful in dispelling the doubts that I have on the matter.
Man explains... saying a man is not equal to a man is a simple contradiction or an argument for argument sake. Lawyers and children argue. Man explains. There seems to be a misunderstanding of context. Whether you believe the United States, in any form is imaginary (or any country) is from the position that man "created" that entity in an authoritative position. So, it is imaginary. The point of John Wycliffe translating the Bible into English was to dispel the false authority and imagining of the church. And he took the title of a Catholic priest. This was almost 100 years before Martin Luther and the protestant revolution. He shared the Bible in native language to dispel the false authority.
The goal of this sharing in the Substack is truly to provide context and history for how we got here and the word magic utilized to enslave and how to stand as a man or woman (have not fully moved to that topic to date). As previously noted, the hierarchy is Creation, man, property. Very plain. But, those who do not know or understand history are doomed to repeat it.
You provide the definition of agency. Appreciate the reference. The words used in the definition are important. "Person" is used in the definition. You are not a person first, you are one of mankind first. So, yes, that is correct, an imagined entity should not be above another of mankind. But, humanity, regardless of where in the world they are born, have been taught to acquiesce to some level of authority outside of parents. Which is not the proper hierarchy. So, maybe your questions/comments are helping clarify for others. We should only refer to ourselves as man or woman, the seed of consciousness, who claims (belongs to us) names for our own distinction from others of mankind (other seeds of consciousness). Names are our property. Titles can be our property, but there is a risk of enslavement with titles. You are not a gardener, you are a man or woman who sometimes tends plants. You are not a carpenter you are a man or woman who sometimes builds with wood. If we are wise, we realize titles are property that define duties and responsibilities, but do not diminish us from being mankind first. But, there is huge risk in using titles. So, the highest right mankind has is property. Don't be something; do something. Share gifts. We have been programmed from a young age with phrases like "who do you want to be when you grow up"... The question should be how do you want to share your gifts with the world? We should be taught to act, not to be diminished thing.
Finally you ask using the word "capacity". All of mankind have the capacity, The question is what man has the authority to do this enslavement to another man... That answer is simple... No man. Choice to believe something different creates the risk of harm being posed on another of mankind. Man can do anything man wants as long as it causes no harm to another of mankind.
People, People, People...
Harken to all-fathers sovereign witness of the good people of united America of these United States.
Germane to ordinance of 1787 respective to the northwest or southeast, remember...., this was the 1st ordinance of the grand corporation known as "The United States of America."
Prior to 1787, there were 2 'organic' ordinances for populating America with "townships', continentally speaking. Consider these organic measures by delegates not representatives of the good people of united America of these United States.
These 1784, 1785 & 1787 "township" ordinances dealt with administering developing treaty privileges and immunities by the high contracting parties for their inhabitants of the United States (crown property or subjects) found in these United States of the good people of united America. Not for the good people of united America.
But remember, these townships could only be administered by the good people of united America of these United States. Not by any resident "inhabitants of the United States." because these inhabitants were loyalist to the crown, not of these United States, continentally speaking.
Chose in action wisely & Normal Law will reign both by Golden Rule & Castle Rule and in thy day of testing all things by divine providence and goodly spirit of wisdom, honor is thy crown of living, eternal forevermore.
Whatever you will it shall be "Living with Honor" or DEATH by DISHONOR!!! Be wise, safe and blessed...., while your coin of time remains to rightly chose in action, service in honor for honor above all else, eternally forevermore. Arthur
I am not trying to be a jerk. I am, genuinely, ignorant to the whole business of law and authority. Do you have definitions for these words? I don’t want to have a long and drawn out debate, but I hope that your definitions will justify the impositions that I have and must endure from total strangers. In the name of law and authority I have, many times, been enslaved by men and women I have no prior dealings with. The claim is always the same, “I have the authority” or “It’s the law”. I don’t know if I was born into slavery; that is a possible explanation. Please explain why this could be the possibility. I know that all men are born of a woman. However, the part on why the one is master and the other slave totally escapes me.
The following caption is an example of a notice in response to being misaddressed as something other than one of mankind:
"i, present this notice as a woman; not in any way to diminish the status of i, to a misses, entity, party, member, principle, company, defendant, pro se, sovereign citizen, freeman on the land, human person, living beneficiary, trustee, executer, executor, man pro se, plaintiff, or prosecutor; any further attempt at said diminishment by you, will be considered a trespass on i, a man;"
Please take notice that all other methods of being addressed (and in the case of JOHN DOE or JANE DOE) are a reduction of the status of being one of mankind. ALL titles and stylizing in legal documents are a diminishment.
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:
TITLE: The radical meaning of this word appears to be that of a mark, style, or designation; a distinctive appellation; the name by which anything is known. Thus, in the law of persons, a title Is an appellation of dignity or distinction, a name denoting the social rank of the person bearing it; as "duke" or "count."
Notice the use of the phrase "law of persons". Person is not necessarily one of mankind. It again is a diminishment. Researching the changing of the definition of the word "persons" from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd to 5th editions, it is obvious the sprawling inclusion of other redefining of mankind so as to gain jurisdiction.
In the case of this post, the definition of "ordinance" from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition was provided. The case of the styling of words was in a previous post and below is the definition also from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition (which is close to what the founding document writers would have used for the creation of the documents and to set the hierarchy of words and language).
CAPITIS DIMINUTIO. In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality. This was a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications, following upon certain changes in his civil condition. It was of three kinds, enumerated as follows:
Capitis diminutio maxima. [JOHN DOE] The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Capitis diminutio media. [John DOE] A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man lost his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
Capitis diminutio minima. [John Doe] The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [john doe] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 10, pr. ; 1, 2, 3 ; Dig. 4, 5, 11 ; Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 144.
What else do you wish to be defined? Do you live in a "residence" or a "domicile" that is permanent? Are you a "person" or one of mankind? Are you an entity (any title other than mankind) or one of mankind? When looking at a legal document, how is your name spelled? All caps? Are you that name or are you one of mankind first? Hierarchy of law - Creator (or creation - whatever original consciousness mankind originates), mankind, property... in that order. Titles are something we as mankind take on that diminish that original standing as mankind.
The issue that I have with your response is that you seem to think that words are sufficient to render any one anything. The truth is that man, and I use the word man only for the sake of convenience, is NOT a subject of any other. Therefore, he is not bound by these words by default. He is bound, only by his willful consent or choice. He cannot be forced or coerced into subjugation; he may by his own free will and volition lower himself to that state. All men are born free. There’s not a single man that is born into bondage. That is absolutely and wholly a fallacy. The wild beast is free and will to everything in its power to remain so. So please explain the difference, besides the obvious, between man and beast?
Quite the contrary. Using "you seem to think" is quite presumptuous. All the other statements are generally true. The issue is we, as mankind inadvertently answer "yes" to many presumptions in the legal demonic word magic because we think we know what words mean. So regardless of what you or I think, if one does not understand the words they use and the presumptions they make, the ability stand firm in the exact state of being free gets twisted quickly. Agreed, no man is born into bondage. All are born free.
Correct. Although this is fast forward to the future condition of the events just prior to the not so "civil war". These (northern and southern confederacies) were new federal Confederacies that were NOT the Union of States under the Articles of Confederation. That went into dormancy with the lack of seating of Congress representation from the States. There were not enough States present for quorum when the southern States seceded from the northern States. Who gained to benefit? Britain. By stoking a commercial conflict due to unfair trade practices and drastic lowering of export prices out of Britain, the ability to compete was very trying for a growing nation. It is important to note, the first shots fired in Lincoln's War were not between people. It was between north and south federal military employees. Hence, a commercial mercenary conflict... We will get into this as the history unfolds. And there was not a peace treaty signed following the conflict. Only a series of cease fires/surrenders.
Bingo! An alarm should be going off in everybody’s heads. It is that territorial government of the United States (Municipal Corporation---take that to mean British and Papal) that is in control of the State of New York, State of Massachusetts, State of Florida, etc. These are territorial States passing off as American States of____. The Confederate States of the North and South that fought in the civil war were business organizations that were bankrupted by Abraham Lincoln. What do you know about bankruptcies? That the bankrupted businesses enter into receivership with its creditors. Who were the creditors of the North Confederacy? And who were the creditors of the South Confederacy? Well the British King and the Pope of course.
Bingo! Karma should be going off in everybody’s heads. It is that territorial government of the United States (Municipal Corporation---take that to mean British and Papal) that is in control of the State of New York, State of Massachusetts, State of Florida, etc. These are territorial States passing off as American States of____. The Confederate States of the North and South that fought in the civil war were business organizations that were bankrupted by Abraham Lincoln. What do you know about bankruptcies? That the bankrupted businesses enter into receivership with its creditors. Who were the creditors of the North Confederacy? And who were the creditors of the South Confederacy? Well the British King and the Pope of course.