Excellent. The system here, so-called 'government' and their so-called 'courts' constantly try to create joinder between a man and an entity. In a courtroom it is often the case that anyone questioning who is being referred to as the 'person', will result in 'contempt' and a short stint in the court cells.
I find this stuff fascinating, but, honestly, understand none of it. I know, that because of this, all the things we think are real, pertaining to us, aren't and we're screwed. At that point my comprehension ends. 😖😭
Start simple - it has taken years for this to click and to understand the layers of deception.
Start with the fact that you are of mankind. A living soul. Then work out from there and consciously evaluate things that are actually real versus things we create through paper of other inanimate creations. You are conceived and born real. Everything else is a choice. Even when we do not realize you have a choice.
Great article.Here in NZ, the whole 'person' rather than man or woman argument is one of the main sticking points to people comprehending their true status. I didn't use 'understanding' as that means to stand under, in the twisted legalese used against us.
person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body - NZ Legislation Act 2019, section 13
The roads are considered 'sealanes' to bring Admiralty 'law' onto the land and so the pirates (cops) raid other - enemy - vessels, as per the Naval Prize Act 1864 (still current in NZ), and the Admiralty Act 1973, and take the goods therein.
I see you quote Penhallows and Doanes. Have you seen the Clearfield Doctrine? Essentially it says that any claimed governance agency, or government itself, loses that governance right (if it ever had it) the moment it engages in commerce via the issuance or use of any commercial paper.
Commercial paper would be Bills of Exchange (contracts, invoices, receipts, infringement notices, and so on) or Promissory Notes (money). We have a Bills of Exchange Act 1908, which is the Law Merchant. All commercial law is this. Recommended reading.
anyway, this is why 'registration' of anything puts it into commerce such as car to vehicle, traveller to driver and the like.
Also, every fee, charge, fine, infringement notice, form, invoice or whatever is actually an 'offer to contract', which can be declined. Generally though it is best to require more information as in 'a notice of conditional acceptance' prior to declining as they get a little put out (legally speaking) with flat rejection.
When buying Land, generally the entire contractual engagement occurs via pieces of paper. a Title Deed is purportedly the proof of ownership of said land purchased. In fact the Title Deed is the thing actually bought and sold. This is because you cannot actually own land, only the 'right' to use it. This will often be written as the 'right of Usufruct'. from the latin - usus = to use, fructus = to gain the fruits of. In Roman Law, full ownership of land or property must also have abusus = the right to abuse (destroy).
Allodial is another, alternative, method of land claim. A 'Lot number' assigned to your land is referring to "Land of Tenancy" because your 'fee simple' title is just a lease.
Any words with 'ship' added to it come under Admiralty law.
Finally, a maxim = "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" means 'the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.'
So whenever you see "includes" written in anything 'legal' it means only that coming after "includes, including" forms a part of the meaning and intent of the sentence.
MAXIM OF LAW – “EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS – expressio unius est exclusion alterius [Law Latin] – a canon of construction holding that to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative.
“’Include’ or the participial form thereof, is defined ‘to comprise within’; ‘to hold’; ‘to contain’; ‘enclosed’; ‘comprised’; ‘comprehend’; ‘embrace’; ‘involve’.” Montello Salt v Utah 221 US 455
A few notes of clarity - contracting, in the form of corporations in America, requires a man to charter said corporation (entity) with another corporation (entity) via another man. Unless that man is of an office explicitly noted, with duties and responsibilities of said office also explicitly noted and agreed upon, or another agreement in the form of employment agreement, the man does not lose status. He can volunteer time at any time in the best interest of said corporation. Instead, he simply charters his business, as a king charters a corporation or property. As a man cannot directly contract with an entity unless he diminishes himself to an entity. A man owns an entity as property. A contract is administered between entities if behind the corporate veil. While the man stands on the land. There must be an explicit duty or responsibility enumerated to be of the Legal Person. Otherwise, it is simply a man chartering his entity. A fiction is a fiction. A mere construct of the mind.
So, man may be responsible through a statute if said statute is dealing with a man. If the list does not include or is not of the same "kind", the man is separate and distinct.
Regardless - this is all to show the proof through existing definitions and actual cases and statutes that remedy at law exists and that there is a distinction. A man is always a man if he knows he is a man. The contract (if written in proper grammatical sentences) may limit the man. If it is written in babble, it is gibberish and lacks the ability of enforcement. Unless a man does harm to another man or his property, there is no violation in Natural Law.
And an invoice is valid if there is a bill or pre-communicated fee schedule through notice, that when violated/exercised, automatically creates the contract. The violation after notice completes the contract. But, a notice must be given prior to the offense/charge. The invoice, based on the billing notice, is contractually sound if violation occurs after notice is given. An invoice is never valid if refused when no notice was given prior to the invoicing.
I will add a fact or two, Color of law started when South Carolina seceded from the perpetual Union on 24 December 1860. Then martial law began March 1861. When Congress closed sine die, for lack of a quorum. Fact, we have not had a de jure government since. It has been de facto martial law since then with Executive Orer 100 the Liebre Code. Still in effect with the US Army's update in 2018. Then DJT ushered in FEMA,
ex parte Milligan when implemented by our Civilian Court of record nullified martial law / Lieber Code / FEMA on Oregon June 2018. Our Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly aka ARTICLE I Section 1 aka the provisional government on Oregon, www.orsja.org, offers our solution, Grand Jury and Article III Amendment VII court to the other 32 states and commonwealth and the 17 territories.
All the answers are available and the paperwork can be completed in 30 days by 5 or 6 people, 15 hours work, 60 bucks in postage and 40 bucks for a seal.
Excellent. The system here, so-called 'government' and their so-called 'courts' constantly try to create joinder between a man and an entity. In a courtroom it is often the case that anyone questioning who is being referred to as the 'person', will result in 'contempt' and a short stint in the court cells.
Legislation here is of the 'babble' type.
I find this stuff fascinating, but, honestly, understand none of it. I know, that because of this, all the things we think are real, pertaining to us, aren't and we're screwed. At that point my comprehension ends. 😖😭
Start simple - it has taken years for this to click and to understand the layers of deception.
Start with the fact that you are of mankind. A living soul. Then work out from there and consciously evaluate things that are actually real versus things we create through paper of other inanimate creations. You are conceived and born real. Everything else is a choice. Even when we do not realize you have a choice.
oops, article.here is a mistake, it should read article. Here
no link meant
Great article.Here in NZ, the whole 'person' rather than man or woman argument is one of the main sticking points to people comprehending their true status. I didn't use 'understanding' as that means to stand under, in the twisted legalese used against us.
person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body - NZ Legislation Act 2019, section 13
The roads are considered 'sealanes' to bring Admiralty 'law' onto the land and so the pirates (cops) raid other - enemy - vessels, as per the Naval Prize Act 1864 (still current in NZ), and the Admiralty Act 1973, and take the goods therein.
I see you quote Penhallows and Doanes. Have you seen the Clearfield Doctrine? Essentially it says that any claimed governance agency, or government itself, loses that governance right (if it ever had it) the moment it engages in commerce via the issuance or use of any commercial paper.
Commercial paper would be Bills of Exchange (contracts, invoices, receipts, infringement notices, and so on) or Promissory Notes (money). We have a Bills of Exchange Act 1908, which is the Law Merchant. All commercial law is this. Recommended reading.
anyway, this is why 'registration' of anything puts it into commerce such as car to vehicle, traveller to driver and the like.
Also, every fee, charge, fine, infringement notice, form, invoice or whatever is actually an 'offer to contract', which can be declined. Generally though it is best to require more information as in 'a notice of conditional acceptance' prior to declining as they get a little put out (legally speaking) with flat rejection.
When buying Land, generally the entire contractual engagement occurs via pieces of paper. a Title Deed is purportedly the proof of ownership of said land purchased. In fact the Title Deed is the thing actually bought and sold. This is because you cannot actually own land, only the 'right' to use it. This will often be written as the 'right of Usufruct'. from the latin - usus = to use, fructus = to gain the fruits of. In Roman Law, full ownership of land or property must also have abusus = the right to abuse (destroy).
Allodial is another, alternative, method of land claim. A 'Lot number' assigned to your land is referring to "Land of Tenancy" because your 'fee simple' title is just a lease.
Any words with 'ship' added to it come under Admiralty law.
Finally, a maxim = "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" means 'the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.'
So whenever you see "includes" written in anything 'legal' it means only that coming after "includes, including" forms a part of the meaning and intent of the sentence.
There is so much more to this entire scam.
MAXIM OF LAW – “EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS – expressio unius est exclusion alterius [Law Latin] – a canon of construction holding that to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative.
“’Include’ or the participial form thereof, is defined ‘to comprise within’; ‘to hold’; ‘to contain’; ‘enclosed’; ‘comprised’; ‘comprehend’; ‘embrace’; ‘involve’.” Montello Salt v Utah 221 US 455
A few notes of clarity - contracting, in the form of corporations in America, requires a man to charter said corporation (entity) with another corporation (entity) via another man. Unless that man is of an office explicitly noted, with duties and responsibilities of said office also explicitly noted and agreed upon, or another agreement in the form of employment agreement, the man does not lose status. He can volunteer time at any time in the best interest of said corporation. Instead, he simply charters his business, as a king charters a corporation or property. As a man cannot directly contract with an entity unless he diminishes himself to an entity. A man owns an entity as property. A contract is administered between entities if behind the corporate veil. While the man stands on the land. There must be an explicit duty or responsibility enumerated to be of the Legal Person. Otherwise, it is simply a man chartering his entity. A fiction is a fiction. A mere construct of the mind.
So, man may be responsible through a statute if said statute is dealing with a man. If the list does not include or is not of the same "kind", the man is separate and distinct.
Regardless - this is all to show the proof through existing definitions and actual cases and statutes that remedy at law exists and that there is a distinction. A man is always a man if he knows he is a man. The contract (if written in proper grammatical sentences) may limit the man. If it is written in babble, it is gibberish and lacks the ability of enforcement. Unless a man does harm to another man or his property, there is no violation in Natural Law.
And an invoice is valid if there is a bill or pre-communicated fee schedule through notice, that when violated/exercised, automatically creates the contract. The violation after notice completes the contract. But, a notice must be given prior to the offense/charge. The invoice, based on the billing notice, is contractually sound if violation occurs after notice is given. An invoice is never valid if refused when no notice was given prior to the invoicing.
Thank you, well done.
I will add a fact or two, Color of law started when South Carolina seceded from the perpetual Union on 24 December 1860. Then martial law began March 1861. When Congress closed sine die, for lack of a quorum. Fact, we have not had a de jure government since. It has been de facto martial law since then with Executive Orer 100 the Liebre Code. Still in effect with the US Army's update in 2018. Then DJT ushered in FEMA,
ex parte Milligan when implemented by our Civilian Court of record nullified martial law / Lieber Code / FEMA on Oregon June 2018. Our Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly aka ARTICLE I Section 1 aka the provisional government on Oregon, www.orsja.org, offers our solution, Grand Jury and Article III Amendment VII court to the other 32 states and commonwealth and the 17 territories.
All the answers are available and the paperwork can be completed in 30 days by 5 or 6 people, 15 hours work, 60 bucks in postage and 40 bucks for a seal.
Thank you again.
I yield.