It is Natural to control our own lives, it is how we were made.
In a free world anyone who chooses to control the own live can so, otherwise freedom is a farce.
Anyone selected to be a judge can be a judge. Legal system exist for thousands of years. First Police force was created in 1838 in Boston, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854, for the purpose to re-capture runaway slaves, aka slave enforcement agency.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230207070250/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/the-invention-of-the-police
Topic: FREEMAN ON THE LAND - page 2. (Read 430 times)
Self-determination: the process by which a person controls their own life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-determination
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/self-determination
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-determination
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-determination
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/self-determination
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-determination
Self determination is a fundamental human right that give people the freedom to choose their political, economic and social status and endeavors. But this right have been neglected by the political class. The political class knows that this right will not favor their selfish interest. When people want to enforce or enjoy this right the government always use force, intimidation, punishment and threat to force them to drop their political or economic determination. The only way to force the government to respect this right it through peaceful and sometimes violent protests and demonstration. Many people in the world are under political slavery because their right to self determination have been undermined by the government.
Judge Andrew Napolitano Discusses Natural Law as a Law against Tyranny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4orlWZeF6sg
Alex Jones and Mark Passio Discuss Natural and Divine Law
https://rumble.com/v2ajime-alex-jones-and-mark-passio-discuss-natural-and-divine-law-gods-law.html
Mark Passio’s Natural Law Seminar. (8 hours of very Important Information for Humanity.)
https://rumble.com/v2cffgo-mark-passio-natural-law-seminar-full.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4orlWZeF6sg
Alex Jones and Mark Passio Discuss Natural and Divine Law
https://rumble.com/v2ajime-alex-jones-and-mark-passio-discuss-natural-and-divine-law-gods-law.html
Mark Passio’s Natural Law Seminar. (8 hours of very Important Information for Humanity.)
https://rumble.com/v2cffgo-mark-passio-natural-law-seminar-full.html
Self-determination: the process by which a person controls their own life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-determination
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/self-determination
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-determination
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-determination
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/self-determination
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-determination
Theirs no government that does not woman the citizen to be in freedom but some funds from government always pray for the finest of their age and example of this government I will say that is an African mostly and officially Nigeria in question so I don't know the country you are from maybe things are different in your country
I don't understand exactly what your content is all about, because sometimes, I don't think you do cross check your before posting, i tried to read what your point is all about but i could not understand it very well, so therefore i will advice to you to read before posting, i know that sometimes we do make mistake and no body is above mistake but try to read before posting.
All, 100% of, freedom is based in God. St. Paul says it plainly in his Galatians letter, chapter 5, verse 1, when he says, "It is for freedom that Christ [Jesus] has set us free."
Simply being free isn't enough. Remaining free is what counts. For example: many Ukrainian soldiers are freely giving up their lives for Ukrainian freedom. Then they die without knowing Jesus their Savior, and place themselves into the bondage of Hell for eternity.
Freedom is the norm of the universe. God made it that way. You don't see God forcing anyone to believe in Him. Maybe He should, because the results of being stupid enough to not place Him first in our lives is what takes true freedom away.
Check out history. Much of the freedom fight in countries around the world has been (and still is) for religious freedom... even when the religions are wrong ones.
Simply being free isn't enough. Remaining free is what counts. For example: many Ukrainian soldiers are freely giving up their lives for Ukrainian freedom. Then they die without knowing Jesus their Savior, and place themselves into the bondage of Hell for eternity.
Freedom is the norm of the universe. God made it that way. You don't see God forcing anyone to believe in Him. Maybe He should, because the results of being stupid enough to not place Him first in our lives is what takes true freedom away.
Check out history. Much of the freedom fight in countries around the world has been (and still is) for religious freedom... even when the religions are wrong ones.
Why do some want/need Ruler's who control and enslave them?
https://newtube.app/user/GeronimosStolenBones/IUaaYxo
Freedom flag the most radical flag you can hoist.
https://flagsforanewworld.com/pages/freedom
Edit: And make sure you have your phone with you (and carry it close to the heart) https://youtu.be/-NuPC1uIj20
A group of friends gave up their jobs and cell phones and life off-grid in North Carolina’s Appalachian Mountains, "Minding their own business".
https://theusamedia.com/enchanted-off-grid-community-discovered-hiding-in-the-appalachian-mountains/
https://flagsforanewworld.com/pages/freedom
Edit: And make sure you have your phone with you (and carry it close to the heart) https://youtu.be/-NuPC1uIj20
A group of friends gave up their jobs and cell phones and life off-grid in North Carolina’s Appalachian Mountains, "Minding their own business".
https://theusamedia.com/enchanted-off-grid-community-discovered-hiding-in-the-appalachian-mountains/
I do not know how they can be left alone while they live within society. Societies need laws that regulate the relations between individuals and also between individuals and society as a whole, otherwise chaos will prevail.
Of course, I do not support governments and I know that they are corrupt and thieves, but my point is that a civil society in the modern era cannot live as our ancestors lived in ancient times. At that time, life was simple and there were no complications, so there was no need for governments. Now, the situation is very complicated and different.
No law will be sufficient for a society who accepts secret societies to exist within. Its like accepting to partake in a game of poker with one player laying the cards on the table the other holding it close to his chest. No matter the laws (rules), the secret player will always win in the long run.Of course, I do not support governments and I know that they are corrupt and thieves, but my point is that a civil society in the modern era cannot live as our ancestors lived in ancient times. At that time, life was simple and there were no complications, so there was no need for governments. Now, the situation is very complicated and different.
A world with respect for natural law the Earth is honored, Truth is spoken, Love is the basis of all action and Justice is organic, self-fulfilling function.
Like the BAR Association, that makes up the US court system.
Edward Johnston
January 15, 2015
CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM vol 25 section 344, Federal District Courts are courts of record. A court of record has the power to fine or imprison for contempt. It proceeds under the common law, not a statute or a code. The tribunal is independent of the magistrate.
No statutes, cops, lawyers, or judge that is anything more than a spectator, a referee
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Did you catch that yet? In suits at common law...according to the rules of the common law.
All federal courts are Article III courts under the Constitution.
All federal courts are courts of record.
All state courts are common law courts.
I do not know how they can be left alone while they live within society. Societies need laws that regulate the relations between individuals and also between individuals and society as a whole, otherwise chaos will prevail.
Of course, I do not support governments and I know that they are corrupt and thieves, but my point is that a civil society in the modern era cannot live as our ancestors lived in ancient times. At that time, life was simple and there were no complications, so there was no need for governments. Now, the situation is very complicated and different.
No law will be sufficient for a society who accepts secret societies to exist within. Its like accepting to partake in a game of poker with one player laying the cards on the table the other holding it close to his chest. No matter the laws (rules), the secret player will always win in the long run.Of course, I do not support governments and I know that they are corrupt and thieves, but my point is that a civil society in the modern era cannot live as our ancestors lived in ancient times. At that time, life was simple and there were no complications, so there was no need for governments. Now, the situation is very complicated and different.
A world with respect for natural law the Earth is honored, Truth is spoken, Love is the basis of all action and Justice is organic, self-fulfilling function.
Governments are needed for about 2 reasons:
1. To organize and direct the military in the times of attack;
2. To organize and direct during natural disasters.
People don't need any other training than two basic forms:
1. What they get from their parents and relatives;
2. Love God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself.
The family should be the government. Any government other than that should disperse as soon as the 'emergency' is over.
For little local needs, like a local theft or even murder, a temporary government should be selected by the local people. Somebody should be selected as court administrator, and the local 12-person jury should be the judges. Once the case is done, the little government should be terminated.
Read the sci-fi book, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," by Robert Heinlein. From the book, "If two people brought a quarrel to [Judge] Brody and he could not get them to agree that his settlement was just, he would return fees and, if they fought, referee their duel without charging—and still be trying to persuade them not to use knives right up to squaring off." In other words, anybody could be selected as judge regarding anything as long as both people accepted him as judge. Lots of logic in this fun-to-read book.
EDIT: From the book:
1. To organize and direct the military in the times of attack;
2. To organize and direct during natural disasters.
People don't need any other training than two basic forms:
1. What they get from their parents and relatives;
2. Love God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself.
The family should be the government. Any government other than that should disperse as soon as the 'emergency' is over.
For little local needs, like a local theft or even murder, a temporary government should be selected by the local people. Somebody should be selected as court administrator, and the local 12-person jury should be the judges. Once the case is done, the little government should be terminated.
Read the sci-fi book, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," by Robert Heinlein. From the book, "If two people brought a quarrel to [Judge] Brody and he could not get them to agree that his settlement was just, he would return fees and, if they fought, referee their duel without charging—and still be trying to persuade them not to use knives right up to squaring off." In other words, anybody could be selected as judge regarding anything as long as both people accepted him as judge. Lots of logic in this fun-to-read book.
EDIT: From the book:
Quote
One lad, oldest, about eighteen and leader, said to me, “Where’s judge?”
“Don’t know. Not here.”
He chewed lip, looked baffled. I said, “What trouble?”
He said soberly, “Going to eliminate his choom. But want judge to confirm it.”
I said, “Cover taprooms here around. Probably find him.”
A boy about fourteen spoke up. “Say! Aren’t you Gospodin O’Kelly?”
“Right.”
“Why don’t you judge it.”
Oldest looked relieved. “Will you, Gospodin?”
I hesitated. Sure, I’ve gone judge at times; who hasn’t? But don’t hanker for responsibility. However, it troubled me to hear young people talk about eliminating a tourist. Bound to cause talk.
Decided to do it. So I said to tourist, “Will you accept me as your judge?”
He looked surprised. “I have choice in the matter?”
I said patiently, “Of course. Can’t expect me to listen if you aren’t willing to accept my judging. But not urging you. Your life, not mine.”
He looked very surprised but not afraid. His eyes lit up. “My life, did you say?”
“Apparently. You heard lads say they intend to eliminate you. You may prefer to wait for Judge Brody.”
He didn’t hesitate. Smiled and said, “I accept you as my judge, sir.”
“As you wish.” I looked at oldest lad. “What parties to quarrel? Just you and your young friend?”
“Oh, no, Judge, all of us.”
“Not your judge yet.” I looked around. “Do you all ask me to judge?”
Were nods; none said No. Leader turned to girl, added, “Better speak up, Tish. You accept Judge O’Kelly?”
“What? Oh, sure!” She was a vapid little thing, vacantly pretty, curvy, perhaps fourteen. Slot-machine type, and how she might wind up. Sort who prefers being queen over pack of stilyagi to solid marriage. I don’t blame stilyagi; they chase around corridors because not enough females. Work all day and nothing to go home to at night.
“Okay, court has been accepted and all are bound to abide by my verdict. Let’s settle fees. How high can you boys go? Please understand I’m not going to judge an elimination for dimes. So ante up or I turn him loose.”
Leader blinked, they went into huddle. Shortly he turned and said, “We don’t have much. Will you do it for five Kong dollars apiece?”
Six of them—“No. Ought not to ask a court to judge elimination at that price.”
They huddled again. “Fifty dollars, Judge?”
“Sixty. Ten each. And another ten from you, Tish,” I said to girl.
She looked surprised, indignant. “Come, come!” I said. “Tanstaafl.”
She blinked and reached into pouch. She had money; types like that always have.
I collected seventy dollars, laid it on desk, and said to tourist, “Can match it?”
“Beg pardon?”
“Kids are paying seventy dollars Hong Kong for judgment. You should match it. If you can’t, open pouch and prove it and can owe it to me. But that’s your share.” I added, “Cheap, for a capital case. But kids can’t pay much so you get a bargain.”
“I see. I believe I see.” He matched with seventy Hong Kong.
“Thank you,” I said. “Now does either side want a jury?” Girl’s eyes lit up. “Sure! Let’s do it right.” Earthworm said, “Under the circumstances perhaps I need one.”
“Can have it,” I assured. “Want a counsel?”
“Why, I suppose I need a lawyer, too.”
“I said ‘counsel,’ not ‘lawyer.’ Aren’t any lawyers here.” Again he seemed delighted. “I suppose counsel, if I elected to have one, would be of the same, uh, informal quality as the rest of these proceedings?”
“Maybe, maybe not. I’m informal sort of judge, that’s all. Suit yourself.”
“Mm. I think I’ll rely on your informality, your honor.”
Oldest lad said, “Uh, this jury. You pick up chit? Or do we?”
“I pay it; I agreed to judge for a hundred forty, gross. Haven’t you been in court before? But not going to kill my net for extra I could do without. Six jurymen, five dollars each. See who’s in Alley.”
One boy stepped out and shouted, “Jury work! Five-dollar job!”
They rounded up six men and were what you would expect in Bottom Alley. Didn’t worry me as had no intention of paying mind to them. If you go judge, better in good neighborhood with chance of getting solid citizens.
I went behind desk, sat down, put on Brody’s plug hat—wondered where he had found it. Probably a castoff from some lodge. “Court’s in session,” I said. “Let’s have names and tell me beef.”
Oldest lad was named. Slim Lemke, girl was Patricia Carmen Zhukov; don’t remember others. Tourist stepped up, reached into pouch and said, “My card, sir.”
I still have it. It read:
STUART RENE LaJOLE
Poet—Traveler—Soldier of Fortune
Beef was tragically ridiculous, fine example of why tourists should not wander around without guides. Sure, guides bleed them white—but isn’t that what a tourist is for? This one almost lost life from lack of guidance.
“Don’t know. Not here.”
He chewed lip, looked baffled. I said, “What trouble?”
He said soberly, “Going to eliminate his choom. But want judge to confirm it.”
I said, “Cover taprooms here around. Probably find him.”
A boy about fourteen spoke up. “Say! Aren’t you Gospodin O’Kelly?”
“Right.”
“Why don’t you judge it.”
Oldest looked relieved. “Will you, Gospodin?”
I hesitated. Sure, I’ve gone judge at times; who hasn’t? But don’t hanker for responsibility. However, it troubled me to hear young people talk about eliminating a tourist. Bound to cause talk.
Decided to do it. So I said to tourist, “Will you accept me as your judge?”
He looked surprised. “I have choice in the matter?”
I said patiently, “Of course. Can’t expect me to listen if you aren’t willing to accept my judging. But not urging you. Your life, not mine.”
He looked very surprised but not afraid. His eyes lit up. “My life, did you say?”
“Apparently. You heard lads say they intend to eliminate you. You may prefer to wait for Judge Brody.”
He didn’t hesitate. Smiled and said, “I accept you as my judge, sir.”
“As you wish.” I looked at oldest lad. “What parties to quarrel? Just you and your young friend?”
“Oh, no, Judge, all of us.”
“Not your judge yet.” I looked around. “Do you all ask me to judge?”
Were nods; none said No. Leader turned to girl, added, “Better speak up, Tish. You accept Judge O’Kelly?”
“What? Oh, sure!” She was a vapid little thing, vacantly pretty, curvy, perhaps fourteen. Slot-machine type, and how she might wind up. Sort who prefers being queen over pack of stilyagi to solid marriage. I don’t blame stilyagi; they chase around corridors because not enough females. Work all day and nothing to go home to at night.
“Okay, court has been accepted and all are bound to abide by my verdict. Let’s settle fees. How high can you boys go? Please understand I’m not going to judge an elimination for dimes. So ante up or I turn him loose.”
Leader blinked, they went into huddle. Shortly he turned and said, “We don’t have much. Will you do it for five Kong dollars apiece?”
Six of them—“No. Ought not to ask a court to judge elimination at that price.”
They huddled again. “Fifty dollars, Judge?”
“Sixty. Ten each. And another ten from you, Tish,” I said to girl.
She looked surprised, indignant. “Come, come!” I said. “Tanstaafl.”
She blinked and reached into pouch. She had money; types like that always have.
I collected seventy dollars, laid it on desk, and said to tourist, “Can match it?”
“Beg pardon?”
“Kids are paying seventy dollars Hong Kong for judgment. You should match it. If you can’t, open pouch and prove it and can owe it to me. But that’s your share.” I added, “Cheap, for a capital case. But kids can’t pay much so you get a bargain.”
“I see. I believe I see.” He matched with seventy Hong Kong.
“Thank you,” I said. “Now does either side want a jury?” Girl’s eyes lit up. “Sure! Let’s do it right.” Earthworm said, “Under the circumstances perhaps I need one.”
“Can have it,” I assured. “Want a counsel?”
“Why, I suppose I need a lawyer, too.”
“I said ‘counsel,’ not ‘lawyer.’ Aren’t any lawyers here.” Again he seemed delighted. “I suppose counsel, if I elected to have one, would be of the same, uh, informal quality as the rest of these proceedings?”
“Maybe, maybe not. I’m informal sort of judge, that’s all. Suit yourself.”
“Mm. I think I’ll rely on your informality, your honor.”
Oldest lad said, “Uh, this jury. You pick up chit? Or do we?”
“I pay it; I agreed to judge for a hundred forty, gross. Haven’t you been in court before? But not going to kill my net for extra I could do without. Six jurymen, five dollars each. See who’s in Alley.”
One boy stepped out and shouted, “Jury work! Five-dollar job!”
They rounded up six men and were what you would expect in Bottom Alley. Didn’t worry me as had no intention of paying mind to them. If you go judge, better in good neighborhood with chance of getting solid citizens.
I went behind desk, sat down, put on Brody’s plug hat—wondered where he had found it. Probably a castoff from some lodge. “Court’s in session,” I said. “Let’s have names and tell me beef.”
Oldest lad was named. Slim Lemke, girl was Patricia Carmen Zhukov; don’t remember others. Tourist stepped up, reached into pouch and said, “My card, sir.”
I still have it. It read:
STUART RENE LaJOLE
Poet—Traveler—Soldier of Fortune
Beef was tragically ridiculous, fine example of why tourists should not wander around without guides. Sure, guides bleed them white—but isn’t that what a tourist is for? This one almost lost life from lack of guidance.
I do not know how they can be left alone while they live within society. Societies need laws that regulate the relations between individuals and also between individuals and society as a whole, otherwise chaos will prevail.
Of course, I do not support governments and I know that they are corrupt and thieves, but my point is that a civil society in the modern era cannot live as our ancestors lived in ancient times. At that time, life was simple and there were no complications, so there was no need for governments. Now, the situation is very complicated and different.
Of course, I do not support governments and I know that they are corrupt and thieves, but my point is that a civil society in the modern era cannot live as our ancestors lived in ancient times. At that time, life was simple and there were no complications, so there was no need for governments. Now, the situation is very complicated and different.
In the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and a few other countries around the world, common law rules. This means that the people can be judged in court by their friends and neighbors, the (usually 12-person) jury. The civil law countries (most of the countries of Europe + Russia) are civil law countries. If there is a jury in civil law countries, it is completely controlled by statute law, not by common law.
However, if people of civil law countries would rather be judged by their fellow people in their location, just like common law, study the premises of the Nuremberg trials in civil law countries after WW2. These trials were the trials that judged German military people (mostly) for their criminality during WW2. The findings in these trials were unique in one major way. Learn how to use it and even if you are in a civil law country, you can gain your freedom from civil, statute law, based on common law.
Here is the point. In WW2 German commanders followed orders that harmed people (often civilians). In the Nuremberg trials, these commanders tried to use the excuse that they were simply following orders. But their excuse did not stand, based on natural law. They should have disobeyed orders that harmed other people rather than harm the people. This, of course, does not include battle harm, where they were fighting in self defense of an enemy. This was referring to harm they did to unarmed people, mostly civilians, who were not fighting them directly.
Learn Nuremberg trials methods and use them, because, often a civil government person will harm a man by his use of statute laws, when the man has harmed no-one. So, it is the government person (often a court judge) who is following orders from statues and higher up governing people, who are doing the harm. And that is the point of the Nuremberg trials. Learn it and use it.
However, if people of civil law countries would rather be judged by their fellow people in their location, just like common law, study the premises of the Nuremberg trials in civil law countries after WW2. These trials were the trials that judged German military people (mostly) for their criminality during WW2. The findings in these trials were unique in one major way. Learn how to use it and even if you are in a civil law country, you can gain your freedom from civil, statute law, based on common law.
Here is the point. In WW2 German commanders followed orders that harmed people (often civilians). In the Nuremberg trials, these commanders tried to use the excuse that they were simply following orders. But their excuse did not stand, based on natural law. They should have disobeyed orders that harmed other people rather than harm the people. This, of course, does not include battle harm, where they were fighting in self defense of an enemy. This was referring to harm they did to unarmed people, mostly civilians, who were not fighting them directly.
Learn Nuremberg trials methods and use them, because, often a civil government person will harm a man by his use of statute laws, when the man has harmed no-one. So, it is the government person (often a court judge) who is following orders from statues and higher up governing people, who are doing the harm. And that is the point of the Nuremberg trials. Learn it and use it.
Quote
Under the law of nature, we are all born free, every one comes into the world with a right to their own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at their own will. This is your personal liberty and is given to all of us by the Author of nature.
-- Thomas Jefferson (third president of the United States)https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/45
I like a society that promotes freedom and peaceful coexistence between citizens. The community that Freeman on the Land promotes looks perfect and attractive. But humans sometimes misuse freedom and use it to infringe on the right of others. That's why there are laws that seeks to promote order. Although the government have field to uphold their promise to promote peace and harmony but without these laws our society will become lawless.
I will invest more time in studying about Freeman on the Land but I want to state that this movement will only be productive in developed world, where there is respect for the rule of law. If you want to apply your ideology in developing nations where the court is not independent from the executive, you might be intimidated, imprisoned or even killed. Hence, these wonderful beliefs of Freeman on the Land can not be applied in my country.
Quote
Under the law of nature, we are all born free, every one comes into the world with a right to their own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at their own will. This is your personal liberty and is given to all of us by the Author of nature.
-- Thomas Jefferson (third president of the United States)https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/45
Theirs no government that does not woman the citizen to be in freedom but some funds from government always pray for the finest of their age and example of this government I will say that is an African mostly and officially Nigeria in question so I don't know the country you are from maybe things are different in your country
Much of our freedom problem doesn't have to do with who or what we think we are, but it has to do with what other people think we said we are.
For example. If one fills out an application for a drivers license, for himself he is not stating that he is a person (a simple name) on a piece of paper, subject to the driving laws and rules. But that's the way the government interprets it because of language usage... grammar and spelling and punctuation technicalities and 'perfections'. Government can only understand what the quasi-contract/agreement says in their 'perfect' understanding of grammar and spelling and punctuation. They can't understand anything into it, like the fact that you are a man/woman who means something entirely different by what you said... the colloquialisms and standard idioms that you apply to the meanings of the words written on the application. They can't understand this stuff, simply because they don't know what you think. And you, obviously, don't know what they mean by the writing on their application, or the connotations of such writing.
Some examples:
- Technically, if you express yourself using the word "I" capitalized, you are stating that you are a person, a name on a piece of paper. You need to used lower case "i" and include that you are a man or woman, somewhere in the document. The form of such a sentence would be, "i, man, [your name], blah, blah, blah, etc.
- As I have stated elsewhere, a person is not a people (man or woman). Take a look at the US Constitution. Both words are used, 'people' and 'person'. But 'person' is used a whole lot more than 'people'. Why? Because 'people' are flesh and blood human beings, but persons are names on contracts and agreements. Persons are people in office. What is your office in government if government gets you to say that you are a person? Could be many different things, like a defendant in a court case. See https://redress4dummies.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.
- Look through driving statutes in the "Code" for your state government. Check to see the definitions of the word person in the driving laws - because statutes rarely use "man" or "woman" written within them. Then check out the definition in of person in the definitions section. "Man" or "woman" won't generally be included... because a man or woman is not a person.
- Sign government documents like this, "non-assumpsit, [your signature]." Non-assumpsit essentially means 'no-contract,' or 'no-agreement'. Government may catch it and disallow your signature if you sign this way, but this can be used on many government forms that go to third parties, and not directly to government... such as an IRS Form W-4. Your employer gets the form, but since it is a form between you and the IRS, he doesn't have any say over what you tell the IRS.
- Using square brackets "[]" or boxes around words you say on paperwork, means that the words within the brackets or box aren't part of your document, even though they are on the paperwork. Government does this all the time with their paperwork, thinking that you don't understand. If you ever get a subpoena or indictment from government, look at the wording that is in the boxes. Make a copy of the paperwork, and white out what is inside the boxes or square brackets. Then reread what the document really says.
There are loads of simple things like this that government and attorneys use to trick you into saying that you are a person rather than a man or woman... because they have control over persons, but rarely men or women.
For example. If one fills out an application for a drivers license, for himself he is not stating that he is a person (a simple name) on a piece of paper, subject to the driving laws and rules. But that's the way the government interprets it because of language usage... grammar and spelling and punctuation technicalities and 'perfections'. Government can only understand what the quasi-contract/agreement says in their 'perfect' understanding of grammar and spelling and punctuation. They can't understand anything into it, like the fact that you are a man/woman who means something entirely different by what you said... the colloquialisms and standard idioms that you apply to the meanings of the words written on the application. They can't understand this stuff, simply because they don't know what you think. And you, obviously, don't know what they mean by the writing on their application, or the connotations of such writing.
Some examples:
- Technically, if you express yourself using the word "I" capitalized, you are stating that you are a person, a name on a piece of paper. You need to used lower case "i" and include that you are a man or woman, somewhere in the document. The form of such a sentence would be, "i, man, [your name], blah, blah, blah, etc.
- As I have stated elsewhere, a person is not a people (man or woman). Take a look at the US Constitution. Both words are used, 'people' and 'person'. But 'person' is used a whole lot more than 'people'. Why? Because 'people' are flesh and blood human beings, but persons are names on contracts and agreements. Persons are people in office. What is your office in government if government gets you to say that you are a person? Could be many different things, like a defendant in a court case. See https://redress4dummies.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.
- Look through driving statutes in the "Code" for your state government. Check to see the definitions of the word person in the driving laws - because statutes rarely use "man" or "woman" written within them. Then check out the definition in of person in the definitions section. "Man" or "woman" won't generally be included... because a man or woman is not a person.
- Sign government documents like this, "non-assumpsit, [your signature]." Non-assumpsit essentially means 'no-contract,' or 'no-agreement'. Government may catch it and disallow your signature if you sign this way, but this can be used on many government forms that go to third parties, and not directly to government... such as an IRS Form W-4. Your employer gets the form, but since it is a form between you and the IRS, he doesn't have any say over what you tell the IRS.
- Using square brackets "[]" or boxes around words you say on paperwork, means that the words within the brackets or box aren't part of your document, even though they are on the paperwork. Government does this all the time with their paperwork, thinking that you don't understand. If you ever get a subpoena or indictment from government, look at the wording that is in the boxes. Make a copy of the paperwork, and white out what is inside the boxes or square brackets. Then reread what the document really says.
There are loads of simple things like this that government and attorneys use to trick you into saying that you are a person rather than a man or woman... because they have control over persons, but rarely men or women.
Humans have intrinsic values, moral judgments, possess reason and free will to govern.
Natural Law is found right ⁴ on the political spectrum.
As it is fact based it has no space for religious mambo jumbo, Nature is the guidance.
U.S. Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are proponents of natural law.
Natural Law is found right ⁴ on the political spectrum.
As it is fact based it has no space for religious mambo jumbo, Nature is the guidance.
U.S. Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are proponents of natural law.
While there are many examples in law that state what the following court case points out, government has done their best to hide the following words of this court case from us. I have heard that one can find these words at some law libraries in old annotations. But if anyone has a link to them online other than this one - a real, lawful link - I would like to know.
US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)
� Supreme Court of the United States 1795 "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
� Supreme Court of the United States 1795 "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
http://annavonreitz.com/exactoriginalcitation.pdf
http://www.annavonreitz.com/youroffertocontract.pdf
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doanes Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed 57; 3 Dall. 54, Supreme Court of the United States 1795
Penhallow v. Doanes Administrators, DECIDED Feb. 24, 1795 (ARGUED Feb. 6, 9-14, 16, 1795)
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of
the MIND ONLY with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality
nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The
legal manifestation of this is that NO government, as well as any law agency, aspect,
court, etc., can concern itself with anything other than Corporate, Artificial Persons and
the Contracts between them.”
Quote
quote is genuine. It's just in the Appendix of the case and not in the case itself
https://web.archive.org/web/20160728233221/https://www.oom2.com/t40090-anna-von-reitz-making-it-up-as-he-goes
While there are many examples in law that state what the following court case points out, government has done their best to hide the following words of this court case from us. I have heard that one can find these words at some law libraries in old annotations. But if anyone has a link to them online other than this one - a real, lawful link - I would like to know.
US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)
� Supreme Court of the United States 1795 "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
� Supreme Court of the United States 1795 "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
Jump to: