WoW just read this, had the tab open for a few days but not able to read it. I've been preaching LAW = Land Air Water 3 authorities, 3 jurisdictions, 3 constitutions. That We The People are of the Land Jurisdiction and therefore do NOT belong in courts of the Water Jurisdiction. As in LAW jurisdiction can be challenged at any point I always require written response to what they claim their Jurisdiction actually is over me a Living Man, of the Land Jurisdiction! Funny thing is I only get threats and bully tactics and never any written response to any jurisdictional questions. We know that the lies are so big and have been goin on for so long cultures and traditions have been created on lies. Therefore anything presented to us needs to be vetted through research to know if it's a lie or truth. Thus I propose that the Revolutionary war was actually won by the British. I've yet to be proven wrong. My premise is the Crown of London controls our courts and has since the Constitution was created. Through the BAR association. Thus 1/3 of the 3 branches of government is controlled by British. If We The People won the war would we allow any British control of any branch of our government? I look forward to diving into the rest of your work. This needs to be read and understood by all to help free and educate We The People!!! Peace...
Simplified comment to your generally correct belief.
The revolutionary war result allowed the Torries to keep their land and stay in America sometimes as United States citizens. The people were so mad, they ran some of them off anyway to Canada. They actually even were able to stay as part of Congress and general politics. What a mess.
The civil war allowed for the 14th amendment which was never ratified and the conversion of the federal government unincorporated into a corporate business under Scottish corporate control. Hence the British water control.
1938 solidified the water jurisdiction with the unlawful Erie Railroad vs Tompkins ruling for "persons". The rest of the BAR influence came after 1913 and the federal reserve that allowed the 1938 ruling to occur.
Ever since, the BAR influenced all legislation and how the codes are defined. And, all trade moved to corporations and water control. No more private trade or sales.
The other big steal is property with the 1933 hypothecation of all people as citizens of the United States and then and their property as collateral for the government debt.
The recent Chevron ruling helps reign in some of the water jurisdiction. But, much more to reverse.
Since you seem to have a good grasp of history, in a much more detailed form than what I possess. I'd be interested in your take on the Organic Act of 1871. I recently wrote a substack post "The Constitution for the united States of America vs The Declaration of Independence." In this post I note that The Organic Act of 1871 changed one word in the Constitution. and how changing the word "for" to the word "of" they changed the structure of command from We The People to The Several States to The Federal Government that structure was changed to The United States Inc. To the Franchise States of, To We The People. In essence inverting the structural chain of command and stealing our country and enslaving We The People... Greatly appreciate your response... Peace..
As you are indicating and it is a correct understanding that the Declaration of Independence was the contract of the people and their status and basically the obligation to freedom. The Constitutions are between the Federation of States and the new Federal Government of WE the PEOPLE (those in the new Congress and the setup of the three branches). The letter case (upper and lower) and the context are very important. 1871 was simply the incorporation of the District of Columbia and moving the two following constitutions from unincorporated to incorporated.
Doesn't the Constitution define the 10 square miles between Virginia and Maryland to be the Seat of the United States? Therefore wouldn't changing or incorporating the "District of Columbia" also incorporate the Seat of the United States? Therefore incorporating The United States without the authority to do so???
Answer to first part of question... Yes, to the 10 square miles. And, the Residency Act defining those in or working for or the military of the United States as residents.
The Act of 1871 was actually repealed. But, future legislation dribbled pieces back in.
The incorporation of the United States of America in Scotland occurred much earlier. It was implemented with the second two Constitutions in 1868. If you look at the actual states Constitutions, they started changing as far back as 1848 to "State of" titled Constitutions. Do some research on your state. Look up on Google how many Constitutions for your particular state. In most cases their are between 2 & 5. If you declared being a national of your state (land jurisdiction) your constitution is pre "State of" or "Commonwealth of" ( the latter being a blatant nod to being controlled by the Vatican).
Yes, the incorporating is the problem. It creates a private company in the form of a incorporation with its own by-laws. Anyone who registers to vote or declares themselves a citizen of the United States becomes an employee. Babies were hypothecated into the same corporation with the corporation name created with the birth certificate and the mother being an informant using her maiden name assuming a bastard child. They then become persons on paper and can be called any number of fictitious entities and fall into admiralty jurisdiction.
Thank you sir for your time, it is greatly appreciated. I'm reading the list you provided. I will have to conduct research into how many constitutions our state has and when they went to State of... Appreciate your information... Peace...
It's a small point, but "Esquire" is not a title of nobility. It is probably best described as an honorary or courtesy title which used to be for men above the rank of gentleman, but below the rank of knight. Even knights do not rank as noble. More recently, "Esquire" became more widely used by lawyers and other professionals, university graduates, etc.
Thank you for your comments. i, appreciate the response. i, first want to apologize for limited detail in the article. i, also tend to stay away from Wikipedia if i can due to the heavy manipulation and changes that occur that adjust meanings, timing, and more importantly the omission of information. It is the same tactic used by the Encyclopedia Britannica to explain the British version of history - initially printed and disseminated in Scotland to "educate" the Scots and then largely pushed in America in simplified form to keep Americans interest and attention.
The term and the title has a varied source definition and origin. For example:
Merriam-Webster Definition:
1: a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight
2: a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight
3: used as a title of courtesy often by attorneys usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname
John R. Smith, Esq.
4: archaic : a landed proprietor
The Title of Nobility clause goes a step further than just the "noble" reference. It clarifies any title from a foreign State: "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State". The term lawyer, attorney, barrister, esquire, and solicitor are all variations with slightly different meanings and responsibilities. However, all are titles from the English practice of law and conferred as such.
This is why the 1789 Constitution contains the Bill of Rights Amendment VI that clarifies "and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". It does not use any of the preceding terms as they are associated with a pledge to an entity/society before the people. Anyone can be counsel that is versed in law. It can be a husband, friend, father, etc...
More importantly, related to backup of your point however; is the timing and use of esquire or even attorney/lawyer. Wikipedia varies from some other sources. But, The A.B.A. was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states. The I.B.A.,
established in 1947, now has over 55,000 individuals and 195 bar associations and law societies, and no end in sight of the growth.
Keeping in mind the founding of the A.B.A. was by lawyers, so, lawyers as a "title" had existed from before the countries founding. The concern with the title of a lawyer is related to piracy on land. In the actual 18 USC 1651 statutes it is of note, "High seas included in special maritime and territorial districts within the United States". This openly admits to the existence of these jurisdictions related to the United States which was created with the 3rd Constitution https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.1670010a/?sp=1&st=image.
Common law prohibits the "appearance" of a lawyer or attorney unless the man or woman is truly incapacitated. The presumption in a court of the high seas is that everyone is an incompetent thing/slave/infant.
So people were aware early on that lawyers in office constituted a title and were prohibited from office. There is a deeper history associated with this issue and the actual "missing" 13th amendment. There are records in at least 10 early states archives that have original copies of the Constitution that have the original 13th amendment included (before the post "civil war" 13th amendment). Records indicate it was ratified in Virginia in 1819. There is no record of repeal found to date. This ratification was after the burning of the library of congress, housed at the capital in 1814. One of the oldest of these Constitutions actually found intact is a print from 1822. The total copies located across 10 states archives are at least 18 publications.
The Amendment reads:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
Lawyer and esquire is a title of honour (honor). The people knew this fact and were against anyone taking office with any honorary title. It was not limited to nobility in the strict definition. Hence, the added insult to the States in the south and their delegations.
After the end of civil war hostilities (1863-1868), the British Monarch (Queen Victoria at the time, 1837-1901) seized on the opportunity to claim that the Federal States-of-States were under “Reconstruction” (due to bankruptcy of the federal government from the conflict) and then, very quietly, created an incorporated Scottish commercial corporation “The United States of America” [Incorporated] (the incorporated company seems to have actually been created sometime in 1840’s – pre civil war!) and substituting franchises of this corporation [formed in Scotland in 1868 — see America, Inc. –https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440504325/ref=x_gr_bb_amazon?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0440504325&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2] for the original Federal States-of-States. Thus, “The State of Florida” owned and operated by Florida for the benefit of Floridians, was moth-balled, and a Territorial franchise corporation calling itself by the deceptively similar name “the State of Florida” owned and operated by the Scottish Government for the benefit of the British Monarch and United Kingdom, took its place — and generations of Americans have had no idea. All went bankrupt in 1907.
In current times, Congress would obviously consent to any lawyer, as the Congress is mostly comprised of lawyers and attorneys. Does anyone see a problem with this issue?
As for seeing a problem with this issue, it seems to me that the Constitution is routinely ignored these days; so I assume that it is, for one reason or another, no longer relevant and the subject of yet another deception. Wasn't the Republic dissolved in bankruptcy by The Emergency Banking Act 1932? So which Constitution applies to what now?!
I know Scotland has its own laws separate from those of England & Wales; but was there a Scottish government during Victoria's reign? Surely there was only the UK government and parliament in London?
Without wishing to put you to trouble or intrude on your time, how does my title, "Mister," fit into all this?!
Great questions and ones i can answer for the most part, surprisingly.
Yes, the Scottish corporation went bankrupt in 1907 with an official bankruptcy announced by FDR on March 9th, 1933. The actual A banking emergency was declared because of insolvency. Executive Order 6073, 6102, 6111, 6260; Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594, 1973.
Quote: "“The new money (paper promissory notes) is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker’s acceptances. The new money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other
property of all the people in the Nation.” Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congressional Record, 1st Session.
On may 1st, 1933 gold was forcibly transferred from U. S. Citizens to the United States via Executive Order 6102
On May 23rd, 1933 Congressman, Louis T. McFadden brought formal charges (Congressional Record May 23, 1933 page 4055-4058) against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, conspiracy, fraud, unlawful conversion and treason. There was a petition for Articles of Impeachment that was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but was never acted upon.
As a result on June 5th 1933 and in order to satisfy McFadden’s charges and to avoid charges of treason, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 192 to provide U. S. Citizens the right to set off all debt obligations as the consideration for the transfer of all the gold and property. It is against Public Policy to pay a debt. Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112 in the United States Statutes at Large is Public Law. This bankruptcy can was kicked down the road until 1993!
"the" United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, Since March 9th 1933 per, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress June 5, 1933.
So, since the house of Stuart since 1603, the English Isles were under "dual reign". IN other words, James the VI of Scotland also became the King of England in 1603. Since then, it has been one monarch. There is an arrogance factor in this Wikipedia link... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_British_monarchs, as they love to show off their power. It is a kind of rule in the universe where you tell them all who you are and what you are doing - then it is voluntary when we are too stupid to figure it out.
Now, as far as the title "Mister" and "Mrs.", etc...
In the "law of persons", any title is a fictitious entity and more specifically, a "Mr." is a British Merchant Marine Warrant Officer, or a British Navy Midshipmen. That puts you in the service of a sea going vessel and hence without rights until you are "at liberty" when going ashore. "Liberty" is actually a poorly chosen word in many of our founding documents. We have rights - period. That is the root of freedom.
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition states a Title is: "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.""
The definition of "person" in Hebrew (also known as "shem") is: "an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; the face of something, by impl. honor, authority, character: - name, renown, fame, famous, named… Strong’s Concordance pg 283 Hebrew to English"
The bible specifically notes: Deuteronomy 1:17 – Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
I hope this helps. Basically, it is best to stay away from the titles "Mr./Mister" and "Misses/Miss", etc... If called upon in court and the judge uses these terms, they are trying to get you to confirm you are in fact a crewman aboard a ship at sea and under their jurisdiction.
Well, I've learned a lot today. Thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to plug these gaps in my knowledge. I will continue to do my best always to stay out of court!
WoW just read this, had the tab open for a few days but not able to read it. I've been preaching LAW = Land Air Water 3 authorities, 3 jurisdictions, 3 constitutions. That We The People are of the Land Jurisdiction and therefore do NOT belong in courts of the Water Jurisdiction. As in LAW jurisdiction can be challenged at any point I always require written response to what they claim their Jurisdiction actually is over me a Living Man, of the Land Jurisdiction! Funny thing is I only get threats and bully tactics and never any written response to any jurisdictional questions. We know that the lies are so big and have been goin on for so long cultures and traditions have been created on lies. Therefore anything presented to us needs to be vetted through research to know if it's a lie or truth. Thus I propose that the Revolutionary war was actually won by the British. I've yet to be proven wrong. My premise is the Crown of London controls our courts and has since the Constitution was created. Through the BAR association. Thus 1/3 of the 3 branches of government is controlled by British. If We The People won the war would we allow any British control of any branch of our government? I look forward to diving into the rest of your work. This needs to be read and understood by all to help free and educate We The People!!! Peace...
Simplified comment to your generally correct belief.
The revolutionary war result allowed the Torries to keep their land and stay in America sometimes as United States citizens. The people were so mad, they ran some of them off anyway to Canada. They actually even were able to stay as part of Congress and general politics. What a mess.
The civil war allowed for the 14th amendment which was never ratified and the conversion of the federal government unincorporated into a corporate business under Scottish corporate control. Hence the British water control.
1938 solidified the water jurisdiction with the unlawful Erie Railroad vs Tompkins ruling for "persons". The rest of the BAR influence came after 1913 and the federal reserve that allowed the 1938 ruling to occur.
Ever since, the BAR influenced all legislation and how the codes are defined. And, all trade moved to corporations and water control. No more private trade or sales.
The other big steal is property with the 1933 hypothecation of all people as citizens of the United States and then and their property as collateral for the government debt.
The recent Chevron ruling helps reign in some of the water jurisdiction. But, much more to reverse.
Since you seem to have a good grasp of history, in a much more detailed form than what I possess. I'd be interested in your take on the Organic Act of 1871. I recently wrote a substack post "The Constitution for the united States of America vs The Declaration of Independence." In this post I note that The Organic Act of 1871 changed one word in the Constitution. and how changing the word "for" to the word "of" they changed the structure of command from We The People to The Several States to The Federal Government that structure was changed to The United States Inc. To the Franchise States of, To We The People. In essence inverting the structural chain of command and stealing our country and enslaving We The People... Greatly appreciate your response... Peace..
Take a look at the following posts as some additional background.
https://shirenews.substack.com/p/safety-vs-freedom-part-v
https://shirenews.substack.com/p/coffee-for-the-people-anyone
https://shirenews.substack.com/p/constitution-letters-voting-and-elections
https://shirenews.substack.com/p/on-jurisdictions-who-and-where-are
As you are indicating and it is a correct understanding that the Declaration of Independence was the contract of the people and their status and basically the obligation to freedom. The Constitutions are between the Federation of States and the new Federal Government of WE the PEOPLE (those in the new Congress and the setup of the three branches). The letter case (upper and lower) and the context are very important. 1871 was simply the incorporation of the District of Columbia and moving the two following constitutions from unincorporated to incorporated.
Doesn't the Constitution define the 10 square miles between Virginia and Maryland to be the Seat of the United States? Therefore wouldn't changing or incorporating the "District of Columbia" also incorporate the Seat of the United States? Therefore incorporating The United States without the authority to do so???
Answer to first part of question... Yes, to the 10 square miles. And, the Residency Act defining those in or working for or the military of the United States as residents.
The Act of 1871 was actually repealed. But, future legislation dribbled pieces back in.
The incorporation of the United States of America in Scotland occurred much earlier. It was implemented with the second two Constitutions in 1868. If you look at the actual states Constitutions, they started changing as far back as 1848 to "State of" titled Constitutions. Do some research on your state. Look up on Google how many Constitutions for your particular state. In most cases their are between 2 & 5. If you declared being a national of your state (land jurisdiction) your constitution is pre "State of" or "Commonwealth of" ( the latter being a blatant nod to being controlled by the Vatican).
Yes, the incorporating is the problem. It creates a private company in the form of a incorporation with its own by-laws. Anyone who registers to vote or declares themselves a citizen of the United States becomes an employee. Babies were hypothecated into the same corporation with the corporation name created with the birth certificate and the mother being an informant using her maiden name assuming a bastard child. They then become persons on paper and can be called any number of fictitious entities and fall into admiralty jurisdiction.
All fraud.
Thank you sir for your time, it is greatly appreciated. I'm reading the list you provided. I will have to conduct research into how many constitutions our state has and when they went to State of... Appreciate your information... Peace...
As always, a very interesting post. Thank you.
It's a small point, but "Esquire" is not a title of nobility. It is probably best described as an honorary or courtesy title which used to be for men above the rank of gentleman, but below the rank of knight. Even knights do not rank as noble. More recently, "Esquire" became more widely used by lawyers and other professionals, university graduates, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire
Thank you for your comments. i, appreciate the response. i, first want to apologize for limited detail in the article. i, also tend to stay away from Wikipedia if i can due to the heavy manipulation and changes that occur that adjust meanings, timing, and more importantly the omission of information. It is the same tactic used by the Encyclopedia Britannica to explain the British version of history - initially printed and disseminated in Scotland to "educate" the Scots and then largely pushed in America in simplified form to keep Americans interest and attention.
The term and the title has a varied source definition and origin. For example:
Merriam-Webster Definition:
1: a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight
2: a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight
3: used as a title of courtesy often by attorneys usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname
John R. Smith, Esq.
4: archaic : a landed proprietor
The Title of Nobility clause goes a step further than just the "noble" reference. It clarifies any title from a foreign State: "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State". The term lawyer, attorney, barrister, esquire, and solicitor are all variations with slightly different meanings and responsibilities. However, all are titles from the English practice of law and conferred as such.
This is why the 1789 Constitution contains the Bill of Rights Amendment VI that clarifies "and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". It does not use any of the preceding terms as they are associated with a pledge to an entity/society before the people. Anyone can be counsel that is versed in law. It can be a husband, friend, father, etc...
More importantly, related to backup of your point however; is the timing and use of esquire or even attorney/lawyer. Wikipedia varies from some other sources. But, The A.B.A. was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states. The I.B.A.,
established in 1947, now has over 55,000 individuals and 195 bar associations and law societies, and no end in sight of the growth.
Keeping in mind the founding of the A.B.A. was by lawyers, so, lawyers as a "title" had existed from before the countries founding. The concern with the title of a lawyer is related to piracy on land. In the actual 18 USC 1651 statutes it is of note, "High seas included in special maritime and territorial districts within the United States". This openly admits to the existence of these jurisdictions related to the United States which was created with the 3rd Constitution https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.1670010a/?sp=1&st=image.
Common law prohibits the "appearance" of a lawyer or attorney unless the man or woman is truly incapacitated. The presumption in a court of the high seas is that everyone is an incompetent thing/slave/infant.
So people were aware early on that lawyers in office constituted a title and were prohibited from office. There is a deeper history associated with this issue and the actual "missing" 13th amendment. There are records in at least 10 early states archives that have original copies of the Constitution that have the original 13th amendment included (before the post "civil war" 13th amendment). Records indicate it was ratified in Virginia in 1819. There is no record of repeal found to date. This ratification was after the burning of the library of congress, housed at the capital in 1814. One of the oldest of these Constitutions actually found intact is a print from 1822. The total copies located across 10 states archives are at least 18 publications.
The Amendment reads:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
Lawyer and esquire is a title of honour (honor). The people knew this fact and were against anyone taking office with any honorary title. It was not limited to nobility in the strict definition. Hence, the added insult to the States in the south and their delegations.
After the end of civil war hostilities (1863-1868), the British Monarch (Queen Victoria at the time, 1837-1901) seized on the opportunity to claim that the Federal States-of-States were under “Reconstruction” (due to bankruptcy of the federal government from the conflict) and then, very quietly, created an incorporated Scottish commercial corporation “The United States of America” [Incorporated] (the incorporated company seems to have actually been created sometime in 1840’s – pre civil war!) and substituting franchises of this corporation [formed in Scotland in 1868 — see America, Inc. –https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440504325/ref=x_gr_bb_amazon?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0440504325&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2] for the original Federal States-of-States. Thus, “The State of Florida” owned and operated by Florida for the benefit of Floridians, was moth-balled, and a Territorial franchise corporation calling itself by the deceptively similar name “the State of Florida” owned and operated by the Scottish Government for the benefit of the British Monarch and United Kingdom, took its place — and generations of Americans have had no idea. All went bankrupt in 1907.
In current times, Congress would obviously consent to any lawyer, as the Congress is mostly comprised of lawyers and attorneys. Does anyone see a problem with this issue?
Well, I did open a can of worms, didn't I?!
Many thanks for the comprehensive reply!
As for seeing a problem with this issue, it seems to me that the Constitution is routinely ignored these days; so I assume that it is, for one reason or another, no longer relevant and the subject of yet another deception. Wasn't the Republic dissolved in bankruptcy by The Emergency Banking Act 1932? So which Constitution applies to what now?!
I know Scotland has its own laws separate from those of England & Wales; but was there a Scottish government during Victoria's reign? Surely there was only the UK government and parliament in London?
Without wishing to put you to trouble or intrude on your time, how does my title, "Mister," fit into all this?!
Great questions and ones i can answer for the most part, surprisingly.
Yes, the Scottish corporation went bankrupt in 1907 with an official bankruptcy announced by FDR on March 9th, 1933. The actual A banking emergency was declared because of insolvency. Executive Order 6073, 6102, 6111, 6260; Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594, 1973.
Quote: "“The new money (paper promissory notes) is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker’s acceptances. The new money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other
property of all the people in the Nation.” Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congressional Record, 1st Session.
On may 1st, 1933 gold was forcibly transferred from U. S. Citizens to the United States via Executive Order 6102
On May 23rd, 1933 Congressman, Louis T. McFadden brought formal charges (Congressional Record May 23, 1933 page 4055-4058) against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, conspiracy, fraud, unlawful conversion and treason. There was a petition for Articles of Impeachment that was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but was never acted upon.
As a result on June 5th 1933 and in order to satisfy McFadden’s charges and to avoid charges of treason, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 192 to provide U. S. Citizens the right to set off all debt obligations as the consideration for the transfer of all the gold and property. It is against Public Policy to pay a debt. Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112 in the United States Statutes at Large is Public Law. This bankruptcy can was kicked down the road until 1993!
"the" United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, Since March 9th 1933 per, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress June 5, 1933.
So, since the house of Stuart since 1603, the English Isles were under "dual reign". IN other words, James the VI of Scotland also became the King of England in 1603. Since then, it has been one monarch. There is an arrogance factor in this Wikipedia link... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_British_monarchs, as they love to show off their power. It is a kind of rule in the universe where you tell them all who you are and what you are doing - then it is voluntary when we are too stupid to figure it out.
Now, as far as the title "Mister" and "Mrs.", etc...
In the "law of persons", any title is a fictitious entity and more specifically, a "Mr." is a British Merchant Marine Warrant Officer, or a British Navy Midshipmen. That puts you in the service of a sea going vessel and hence without rights until you are "at liberty" when going ashore. "Liberty" is actually a poorly chosen word in many of our founding documents. We have rights - period. That is the root of freedom.
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition states a Title is: "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.""
The definition of "person" in Hebrew (also known as "shem") is: "an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; the face of something, by impl. honor, authority, character: - name, renown, fame, famous, named… Strong’s Concordance pg 283 Hebrew to English"
The bible specifically notes: Deuteronomy 1:17 – Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
I hope this helps. Basically, it is best to stay away from the titles "Mr./Mister" and "Misses/Miss", etc... If called upon in court and the judge uses these terms, they are trying to get you to confirm you are in fact a crewman aboard a ship at sea and under their jurisdiction.
Well, I've learned a lot today. Thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to plug these gaps in my knowledge. I will continue to do my best always to stay out of court!