Blacks Law

Before we go into Legal Titles we need to refer to Black’s Law. This dictionary details the legal definition of words and titles.

Legal Title

Removal of your status is done to you by way of sleight of hand, by making you accept a Legal Title and all the legislation that applies to it. Changing your status makes you agree to waive all your rights in exchange for benefits and privileges. However these so called benefits are nothing of the sort.

Privileges: means asking permission to have your freedom back.

Benefits: mean you now have to pay any charges or bills, or even go to prison. The following are legal terms, and if you accept them you have been moved out of a Court of Law and into a Legal Court or a court of legislation; you have lost your sovereign status.

Note: Anything written in all caps letters refers to Dog Latin, Glossa or ASL meaning your name in all caps letters makes reference to your dead entity, or corporate fiction.

Person

The word person comes from the Latin word Persona, meaning: human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character.

This originates from a mask, or false face, that covered the whole head, which was worn by the actors in Roman theatre.

The word Person today is making reference to your Legal Identity, and not you as a sovereign. If you accept this title then you are now within the Legal World or System, with the lowest status within an administrative court. The meaning of the word Person includes Natural Person, Firm, Co-partnership, Association, Limited Liability Company or Corporation.

Civil Society

Civil means “Roman”, which refers to Roman Law, which in turn actually refers to legislation and not law.

Meaning a Civil Society is a group of people who have unknowingly agreed to be part of, and a member of, a society that is controlled by Roman legislation.

The origin of modern day Equity Law is England.

The origin of modern day Legislation is Rome.

Citizen

To understand the meaning of Citizen, we must first address the word State. Note: the word State is referring to your state of mind. Your state of mind has to be controlled to accept the legal fiction of government.

A State is a legal corporation, set within a nation or territory, from which a political community controlled by a government reside. In basic terminology it is a business.

A citizen is a person who owes allegiance to the State, and is entitled to “rights”, privileges and “protection”.

Meaning that a citizen is an employee of the business called “The State”, and as an employee you have traded your freedom and rights, for privileges.

Your status is now at the lowest level.

Taxpayer

Although this term may seem simple, i.e. “a person who pays taxes” we need to understand that only a person can pay taxes, but not a living breathing man or woman.

Therefore if you accept this title, you have agreed to become a person, and therefore you have become taxable.

Based on the word citizen taken from the Anglo-French world “citesein”, meaning “city-dweller”, where “dweller” refers to a “bonded slave living in a property owned by their master”.

A group of bonded slaves, indebted to the church, live in “sin” or within a city making them a “city-sin”.

The origin of the word citizen, spelt with “zen” may refer to the “entrapment of the mind” that makes you a “slave to the city”.

When entering the ship of the citizens, you have given up your sovereign status and are under the authority of a governing body, and must abide by all the rules.

Your passport is written in all caps, meaning it is referring to your legal fiction. The British Nationality Act 1948 redefined British Subject as Citizen of the United Kingdom, which is a corporation.

The word Passport is a combination of the word “Pass” and “Port” and refers to the allowance of your corporation to travel from port to port.

A stamp was issued when entering a different jurisdiction for your corporation to operate. You do not need a passport to travel.

Law Abiding Citizen

The question you should ask is “whose law?” If you don’t ask this question and blindly agree, you will find that “Law” actually refers to Legislation, and citizen is an employee with the lowest status.

Member of Society

The word Member is referring to you as having Membership. Society refers to an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.

If someone attempts to apply this title to you, you must ask “which society” and then ask yourself if you applied to become a member.

If you accept this title then you have accepted your legal identity and have agreed to be part of a society where your status is unknown. However your status shall be of the lowest level.

The legal system and the language we use today still exhibit the origins of maritime law, or “law of the sea”, with many words referencing nautical terms, which few people notice.

One of the more common suffixes added to words is the word “ship”, which references the action of boarding a ship or “vessel”, which has a controlling body, with a set of rules. Although innocent enough, it can be a dangerous trap to fall into if you do not recognise its true meaning.

So before you decide to “come on board” an “anything –ship”, it would be prudent to know who runs it and what the rules are, as you are about to travel the “waters of commerce”.

Leadership

Taken from the Old English word “lithan”, which means “to go” or “to guide”, the word leadership refers to the action of going somewhere together with others, with the first use of this word being in the late 1700’s.

However, the Greek root word for leader is “agogue”, and when added to the prefix “dem”, from the Greek word “demos”, meaning “people”, dem-agogue means “people-leader” or “leader of the people”.

To board the “ship of being lead”, means to trust the captain of the vessel and therefore, before following any leader, be sure they are treading the right path, or steering a true ship.

Rulership

The word rulership, which was first recorded around the year 1640, refers to the act or fact of ruling, or the state of being ruled. The root word rule is from Middle English “reule”, which is also spelt “rewle”, and is borrowed from the Old French word “riule”, which was from the Latin word “regula”, meaning “straight stick”, “bar”, or “lord”. Once the unsuspecting person has accepted a ruler, they have boarded the “ship of rule” and, with the loss of their sovereignty, must obey the regulations from their master.

Worship

The word worship is based upon the word “worth”, which has its origins founded on the Old English word “weorþ”, which means “significant”, “valuable”, “appreciated” and “deserving”.

To worship someone or something, such as a god or deity, is to come on board the “wor-ship” vessel and allow yourself to be governed as one of the legion, within the “re-legion”. Note: when choosing to worship a deity, it may be prudent to ask who owns it.

Scholarship

The official meaning of the word scholarship refers to academic study or achievement within learning at a high level. It can also refer to a grant or payment to support the student’s education.

However, the word scholar is from the Ancient Latin word “schola”, meaning “school”, which led on to the Medieval Latin word “scholaris”, meaning “pupil”.

Learning, education and schooling are not the same thing.

Learning: the cognitive process of acquiring new skills or knowledge, usually self-taught. Learning is a lifelong process and requires self-study.

Education: knowledge and information acquired through instruction or coaching, usually passed on from your ancestors.

Schooling: instructed to follow a curriculum, program or doctrine, involving punishment if not followed. The opposite of self-study.

Being schooled is not an education. Further to this, you must consider the one offering the scholarship and payment therein, and question their motives and what strings are attached? For example: a student would receive schooling to become a doctor, and once completed would then require a licence from a higher authority to practice the program, under conditions.

The most common understanding of this word is as follows: “the act or fact of dwelling in a place for some time”. However it also refers to the act or fact of living or regularly staying at or in some place for the discharge of a duty or the enjoyment of a benefit.

The word “duty” implies an obligation which is to follow and accept legislation, and benefit is the outcome of said obligation if not followed, which is usually a fine. This becomes more apparent when referencing The Black’s Law definition: “a tenant, who is obliged to reside on his lord’s land.” In short, a resident is without property rights. A Residence is not considered a fixed or permanent home.

Occupier

This title is often used in letters and unfounded notices sent to you in the mail. This is a legal term that implies occupier by virtue of a lawful contract, either express or implied, or even without any contract. However if you have entered into a lawful contract then you will be notified by name, by the person you have the contract with, and not by the title of “occupier”. Expressed contracts means intended contract requiring your consent. Implied contracts are in fact implied service agreements, which attempt to enforce legal obligations to whoever accepts the title “occupier”.

Your Status is as Sovereign once you become of age; a living breathing Man or Woman. Self-governing and having Supreme Authority.

As we are all Sovereign, and have equal status, we need to accept titles within a group or structure, and give authority to those with higher titles to tell us what to do. The Legal System will try and lower your status so you lose your rights, and are coerced into accepting contracts you need not agree to.

Hierarchy

This is done by creating a Hierarchy and placing you at the bottom. The Greek word Arch means rule.

Hierarchy: A combination of the Greek word Hier, meaning “Sacred” and the word Arch meaning “Ruler”; Hierarchy, with the earliest sense means “system of order of angels and heavenly beings.”

From 17th century Hierarchy means a system of “Rulers”, with varying rank and status.

Monarchy: Monos is a Greek word meaning “alone” and Uni is from Latin meaning “one”. Mono is derived from these words, and hence Monarchy means “One Ruler”.

Anarchy: Two words from the Greek language, An meaning “without”, and the Archos meaning “Chief” or “Ruler”; combination of these words means “Without Ruler”.

The word employee has its roots in the Latin word implicare, which became implicari, meaning “to be involved in” or ”attached to”.

Over time, the Latin word evolved into the middle English word “imploy”, from the 16th and 17th century, and meant “enfold”, “entangle”, “to entwine” and “imply”, and is compared to the Latin word implicare or_“to implicate”.</

A person who is carrying out the action of, or offering employment, is offering you to be implicated with the business in hand, and would be called the “employer”. If the offer is accepted, then you would be in the “state of being employed”, making you the “employee”. Once employed, you can now be deployed, meaning “to make use of” or “to bring into effective action”, just as troops or infantry would be.

Note: being employed does not mean you are entitled to payment, it just means you are implicated. Therefore, if you accept “citizenship” or “civilian-ship”, you are now implicated with a corporation, which can “deploy you”, or “make use of you”. Meaning you have become a “taxable human resource” to the corporation.

A “tender” is the name given to a small boat that “tends” to the needs of a larger ship, usually by transporting people or supplies from shore or another ship.

With the word legal referring to a contract, the term “legal tender” means to “tend” to a debt sometime in the future, by way of contract.

Meaning, by using legal tender the debt is never paid, as the “small boat” never left the “shore” to deliver the “money”.

Theese are contracts:

The Old English word stream refers to “a course of water”, which comes from the Proto-Germanic “strauma”.

Other words meaning “stream” are as follows:

• Old Saxon - strom
• Old Norse - straumr
• Danish - strøm
• Swedish - ström
• Norwegian - straum
• Dutch – stroom

The Old English word “mægen” meaning “power”, “strength” or “force” became the word “main” over time.

By the 1660’s the word mainstream would refer to a “principal current of a river”, and by the 1830’s the word mainstream would also mean a “prevailing direction in opinion” or “popular taste”. In the early 1980’s the term “mainstream media” began to become popular, and would refer to large organised media outlets, usually licensed and controlled by the state.

NEWS

The word news is in fact an acronym meaning North, East, West and South, and referred to the compass that was used to navigate the oceans.

A mainstream media outlet would “cast” their “net” in a “broad-cast” to reach a large audience, where a news “anchor-man” would “anchor” you within the “current” events.

Both TV and “news-papers” use “head-lines” to catch the “fish”, and are referred to as “the hook”, with television “channels” directing or "channelling” your thoughts in the direction of the official narrative.

You are the “fish”.

Note: all mainstream media is now considered as “infomercials”, with the title “news” being nothing more than a logo, hence they can now give opinion-based editorials, or just lie.

Today, a loan shark is a person who offers loans at extremely high interest rates, has strict terms of collection upon failure, and generally operates outside the law. Although the origin of the word shark is uncertain, it appears the first use of the word was written in the 1560’s and referred to a “large voracious fish” or “predator”.

It is possible that the word shark came from the Old German word “Schorck”, a variant of “Schurke” meaning “scoundrel” or “villain”, which is likely to have derived from the Dutch word “Schurk”, meaning “predator”, “scoundrel” or “villain”.

The word shark, regardless of its origin, was used in reference to a “dishonest person who preys on others”, and by the 1880’s “loan shark” began to appear in the press. Borrowing from “loan sharks” in the 1880’s was often considered one of the consequences of excessive alcohol consumption.

This was because when an unsuspecting victim or “small fish” became inebriated, they would be targeted by a “loan shark”, and made to agree to unfair and often criminal contracts of debt.

A Whale

Someone who has a habit of gambling and who consistently wagers large amounts of money, is often referred to as a “high roller”.

However, if they tend to lose more than they win, they are referred to as a “whale”. To keep the whale happy, they often receive lavish “comps” from casinos to lure them back onto the gambling floors, such as free use of a private jet, limousine and use of the casino’s best suites. When the whales “cash flow” eventually “dries up” and they are “drowning in debt” and need to “stay afloat”, the “loan shark” smells “blood in the water”.

Applying the word Mister, which is commonly abbreviated to just Mr, is a title used before your surname or full name, and is used to address a man without a higher or honorary or professional title.

Mister is derived from the term Master. It should also be noted that the term “master” is often applied to, or used in addressing politely a boy, who has not come of age, and therefore cannot use any other title.

Mrs has the same standing as Mr, and comes from the word “Mistress” which is the counterpart of “Master”.

However, both titles are only making reference to your legal name, and have a status lower than most other, if not all other, titles within a “court of legislation”. Accepting the title of Mr or Mrs enters you in the jurisdiction of “Mercantile law”, which is also known as commercial law or trade law.

This is the law dealing with persons, the corporate sense, and businesses engaged in commerce, which deals with both private law and “public legislation”.

Esquire

Esquire is a legal title of respect, and acknowledgement of a man with a higher social rank. Historically Esquire refers to a young nobleman, who in training for knighthood, will act as an attendant to a knight.

In legal terms it moves the status of a person higher within an administrative court, often applied to a Lawyer, who is now above the Plaintiff but still lower than the Judge.

Subject

When you are referred to as a Subject you have become a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with regarding an issue. You are also subject to all the rules, codes, regulations, etc. issued by your master. Your status has been dropped to the lowest level, that of a person, and only refers to your legal identity.

Defendant

The definition of a Defendant is “an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law”. However a company or institution are legal fictions, and only function within a court of legislation. Any and all legal fictions are beneath any living breathing man or woman, or sovereign, so if you accept this title, you have accepted a legal fiction within a court of legislation, and not law.

Plaintiff

Similar to defendant, the term Plaintiff also refers to either a person or company, which makes a legal complaint in administrative or judicial court. Both the word person and company refer to legal fictions and not a living breathing man or woman. The person has no rights. An administrative court only deals with legislation.

Pro Se

This is a Latin term meaning “in one’s own behalf”. This gives you the right to appear in a civil case in federal court as defined by statute 28 U.S.C § 1654 which is the right to represent yourself. Although this may sound like it benefits you, it does not. If you accept this title, you have now accepted statute 28 U.S.C § 1654, which pulls you out of your own court and into their controlled civil court or administrative court. You have now agreed to represent yourself, however “yourself” is actually a legal name of a trust where you are only a trustee and the judge is beneficiary. You now have the same status as an attorney which is below that of the judge. The judge is now above you, and has full standing and jurisdiction over you. The scam behind this is to take your rights away from, turn them into privileges, and give them back to you as court given “rights”.

Honourable

This title is used for various government “officials”. This makes reference to being one of principle and upstanding. However if you accept this term being applied to someone within a court, you have just agreed that they are the beneficiary principle of a trust, and you are a trustee. Furthermore they now up-stand above you, as your status has been reduced to one of under-standing.

The word Driver refers to a Person who drives a Vehicle, and is considered an act of commerce within the legal court.

The word vehicle refers to the thing used for “transporting people or goods”, which is a service. Notice the reference to “person”, this is a legal fiction and refers to your legal identity only. If you accept this title then you have lost your status and have agreed that you are an employee and “consent” to any inspection, and accept the consequences.

Driver Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. Revised 1968, p. 585:

One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle. Wallace v. Woods, 340 Mo. 452, 102 S.W.2d 91, 97.

Parent originated from the Latin word Parere, meaning “to comply”, then Parent meaning “Bringing Forth” and then Parentem meaning “father or mother, ancestor”. However the meaning of the word has changed over time, since the 17th century, and has become a legal title used in administrating and judicial courts, which deals with legislation.

In the 1660’s the word Parent was redefined as “be or act as a parent to”. The key word here is act. When you look up the legal description of Parent today, it says either “a person’s father or mother” or “a person who has children” and “be or acts as a parent to [a child]”.

You may note the use of the word Person within these definitions.

The deception is to get you to accept a legal title that has a status no greater than a legal fiction; you have been turned into a corporation, and your child is now owned by your legal fiction, which is owned by the state. You have lost ownership of your children.

To understand this, think of the term “parent company”: A parent company is one which owns and controls other firms or companies, usually known as subsidiaries.

Ward of the State

Wardship is the name that is given to court proceedings where a child is made “property of the state”. The court has claimed “guardianship” or custody over the child, which is often passed down to local governments or council, usually social service. Note: It should be noted that a named living person has not claimed guardianship and therefore responsibility over the child.

The Latin word sensus means “perceiving”, “feeling” or “sense” with the prefix “con”, meaning “with” or “joint”, although “con” comes from the Latin word contra meaning “against” or “opposite”. For example: pro vs con means “for” vs “against”.

Today the modern meaning of the word consensus means “a general agreement”, although based on one of feelings.

A consensus does not mean true or even fact, and the sovereign mind-set will never go with the general feelings of the collective.

Note: depending on your chosen definition of the prefix con, consensus could either mean to “join” with, or go “against” the “general feeling” of the group.

It is often quoted that you should give respect to people or just “respect others”. However, the correct term is consideration and not respect, as respect has to be earned over time. The origin of the word respect comes from the ancient Latin word “respectus”, which is the combination of the prefix “re” meaning “back” or to “redo”, and the Latin word “specere” meaning “to look at”.

This means that over time you “look back at” the actions of someone and make a judgement, and if their actions are just, you can give your respect to them. When you meet someone for the first time, you give them consideration whether or not to give your respect, making you “considerate”.

Once your judgement has been reached, and you find the person to have good qualities, you may then give your respect in a feeling of admiration, or in honour of their achievement. Respect must be earned over time, and not just given away.

The concept of “ownership” has its origin in Ancient Rome, and although considered simple to understand, it is not, as it involves a similar concept of possession. Someone can be in possession of an item but it may not belong to them, and therefore a claim can be made upon the item from the rightful “owner”.

This is where ownership comes from, which is the state of “legal possession” and possible “control” over the property.

Note: just because you own something does not necessarily mean you control it. Ownership can involve multiple rights, with different titles being applied to a person with said right, such as:

• Rightful owner.
• Registered owner.
• Legal owner.
• Legal keeper.
• Registered keeper.
• User rights.
• Legal title.
• Controlling title.
• Legal guardian.
• Equitable title.

It is this lack of understanding regarding the word ownership that has entrapped so many people in bogus contracts.

To ensure “total ownership” you need to also make claim to all titles and rights, which is often referred to as Superior title or Allodial title. Note: Allodial title comes from the Latin word Allodium, meaning having absolute authority, control and absolute right to the property, with no claim being possible from another.

Real estate is not property, but many people think it is and enter into contracts where they own nothing, using this legal term. The word “real” comes from the Latin root word res, meaning “thing” or “significant”, and from the Latin word rex, meaning “king”, which became “reg”, and then “regalis”.

By late Middle English it had become regal, meaning “royal” or “real”. Estate has its origins based on the Latin word stare meaning “to stand”, which became status, then from Old French “estat”, which became “estate” from Middle English, meaning “state” or “condition”.

Therefore, as historically all land was owned by kings, “real estate” means “land owned by the king”. Real estate became a legal term in the 1660’s to identify a royal grant of estate land, meaning the “king” had granted one of his “subjects” the use of his land. Not only did the king “own” the land, he also owned everything upon it and everything it produced, the “subject” just had use of it, and was taxed accordingly.

Note: the great fire of London was in 1666. Prior to the fire, original property deeds had allodial title, whereas after the fire, deeds were re-named “real estate”. In 1670-era London, the legal term “realty” came from “real estate” and is still used to this day, meaning if you buy “real estate” from a “realtor” or “estate” agent, you have only bought the title to use it, you do not own it.

Note: the acronym LOT means, “lease of title”. Therefore, if you purchased a LOT, you do not have allodial title of the land or property, just lease of a jurisdiction placed upon it. The word lot comes from the French word “allotement”, which is from Old French word “aloter” meaning to “divide by lots”, and then portioned or assigned for use.

This deception occurs as most people believe they are conducting trade, when in fact they are acting within commerce. It begins with physical land, which is quickly switched into a “paper” version of the land through a survey, which means to “examine” or “to see”.

This survey or jurisdiction is then placed within a corporation, and then an “interest” in the survey is offered for sale to unsuspecting customers. Interests are sold as the corporation subdivides the survey into lot numbers; with those who purchased an “interest” only holding the lowest title to the survey, with others having a higher claim. Just because you own something, doesn’t mean you own it.

Today the average person is unaware that they are indeed a slave, with almost all of their wealth and freedom being stolen from them throughout their life.

This unseen slavery is linked to “your” Birth Certificate, the legal system and the modern day financial and monetary system, but it all started with your name.

Law of the Sea

Eons ago Man and Woman were considered opposite but interconnected forces, or the “Yin-Yang” of life. Although both were different they depended on each other for life to exist. Many ancient cultures considered the meeting of the land with the sea to symbolise this, with the law of the sea being feminine, and the law of the land being masculine.

This is why throughout history, the sea would be referenced in the feminine, with “enchantment” of the sea being an allegory to how women enchant men, and was symbolised with mermaids and “sirens of the sea”.

All ships are referred to with feminine pronouns, with names and figureheads often being female. The law of the land was considered masculine, as land would give stability and security, with the man often becoming the provider and protector of his woman and child. Today maritime law has become the rape of the feminine, with the theft of her child.

Your name is not yours; it is given to you, usually by your parents. There is no law saying you must have a name, but it is useful to have one if you wish to interact and contract with others. It is the name that is used within a contract to “represent” you on paper, and it is this vulnerability of requiring a name that is exploited by those who control the system.

For something to be given to you the giver must have full and complete title to it, this also includes your name. Note: Although you have “ownership” and use of “your name”, it continues to exist even after you die and is then no longer in your control.

Once you are given something, including your name, you must be sure you have full and complete title to it. It is unlikely that any loving parents would give their new born child a name with strings attached, however they are tricked into doing just that. The people behind the system knew they could never control your name, so instead devised a scheme of tricking you into accepting “their” name, under “their” full control.

With this deception you have been turned into a bonded slave. Note: The Latin word Nomen or “no-men” is the root word which leads to the Germanic word, and then old English word “nama” or “noma” meaning “name”. Nomen in Latin means name, race, family, nation, fame, a thing or person, and a debt.

When you are born, in a state hospital, it is referred to as your birth or “berth”, which is carried out by a “doctor”; however the word “berth” is a shipping term, within maritime or mercantile law. Note: Doctor means “Dock-Tender” a person who “attends”, or “functions” at the dock. They are “docking a vessel” meaning the birth of a baby from its mother’s water.

The term “berth” means when a ship or vessel has left its allotted place at a wharf or dock, which is usually conducted by a “doctor”. So the date of “berth” is when your name was registered with the system and recorded by the “doctor”, who works for the “shipping company” within commerce using mercantile law.

When asked what is your date of “berth” they are asking for the date your mother or “vessel” was “berthed” at the “dock” and delivered the “cargo” meaning you.

It would be advisable to question this and ask them “do you mean when was I born?”

Note: When you are unwell, you “dock into harbour”, a doctor will offer you a contract of illness, and if you accept will enter into an agreement to buy drugs. You have now “contracted” an illness and are in debt to the doctor for the drugs.

All State maternity hospitals are actually “foundling hospitals”. Foundling is a place where abandoned goods are shipped to be discarded, at which time someone else can take ownership. This means the parents, primarily the mother, are tricked into abandoning their newly born child. So, this is done when you have just been “berthed” and taken by the doctor, who then lifts the baby or offspring up from the “mothers water” so that the baby does not touch land, thereby placing the newly born baby under the jurisdiction of maritime law.

This “lifting of the baby” is done immediately after birth, requiring the abrupt cutting of the umbilical cord, which results in trauma being unnecessarily applied to the new born baby, or offspring. The umbilical cord should never be cut, but left attached to the new born baby and will separate naturally when the time comes.

Note: The word “offspring” is based on the Latin word “prolificus”, meaning to be “prolific”, or to make “offspring” which comes from Middle English “of-spring”. The origin of a river, which reaches the sea, is a spring; you “spring” from your mother’s water. Once this action has been carried out by the doctor, the baby has now become “abandoned goods”, which breaks the bond between mother and child.

This is all carried out on a hospital “ward”; ward is a prison term. Note: Prisoners are securitized commodities, with their prison paperwork being monetized, generating millions for the private prison corporation. Children are treated the same from birth.

When you are “live born”, the statistics of your “live birth” are catalogued, using the birth notification form, creating a “manifest”, which in turn creates hospital records, which are then used to create a bond. These “bonds” are sold to government entities or the Vatican by the hospital, as the child is now a “ward of the state”.

Note: Most if not all state hospitals operate as trusts, with the board of trustees of said hospital in full knowledge that “hospital bonds” are being created with every new birth. The certificate of live birth is a “trust instrument”; with the modern day version being modelled on the American version that was applied to the children of “freed” black slaves after the 14th Amendment was passed by the Senate on June 8th, 1866, and ratified two years later, which granted the slaves “citizenship”.

Note: This birth certificate or “trust instrument” is legal tender, and the foundation for all legal tender used as money throughout the world.

There are four parts to the Birth Notification form as used by the UK Corporation, as follows:

• White Copy; is sent to the Registrar of Births.
• Yellow Copy; is sent to the director of public health and medicine.
• Green Copy; is sent to the National Perinatal Reporting System (NPRS), and the Healthcare pricing office (HPO).
• Pink Copy; stays with the hospital for their own records.
</ul

Note: Perinatal means relating to the time, usually a number of weeks, immediately before and after birth.

A ward is a jurisdiction where the people, who have consented to be within said jurisdiction, have given up their power of attorney and are now considered “minors” without capacity or responsibility to make their own decisions, so said decisions have to be made for them.

For example: within the electoral system, a ward is a “local authority” operating inside a geographical area being offered for electoral purposes, such as voting.

However the unsuspecting voter is made to use a form that is not under their jurisdiction, but that of the local council, requiring them to mark an “X”, written in black ink, against the party they wish to vote for.

Marking an “X” in this way is the signature of a simpleton unable to make their own decisions, and who has agreed to hand over power of attorney to the state.

Note: It is people with no title to land, but who live on land owned by someone else who vote; if you own your land you “elect”, you do not “vote” on a selection.

Once born in a state hospital, the child becomes “abandoned goods”, and is then claimed and recorded by the corporate state. However it is not the living baby that is abandoned, but the infant, which is a legal title as is the word baby written in all caps.

Note: Infant is originally a Latin word meaning “unable to speak” and is the basis for the word Infantry, meaning “foot soldier” with the lowest rank, who is too inexperienced and therefore cannot speak. You are considered an infant up to the age 7, then a minor up to the age 14, where you have reached the “age of consent”, and are supposed to claim your trust at 21.

When recorded, this paper record or “certificate” gets sold, monetized and traded on the stock market.

The birth certificate, to “certify the goods”, is printed on “bond paper”, which is a type of paper that is made from linen, rather than wood, and has a greater weight than standard paper, usually 60 g/m2 or more.

This paper is often water-marked and was also used in the creation of early bank notes, as well as government bonds.

This securitization is based on the hospital’s maternity records, where a manifest of the child is recorded, such as:

• Name of child.
• Date of birth.
• Sex of child.
• Birth weight and length.
• Place of birth.
• Name of father.
• Birth registration number.

Note: Your birth weight is transferred into a value based on the same weight in gold, and is used to initially set up a trust in your name; this is where the phrase “worth your weight in gold” comes from.

The process of securitization is done through the signature of a certifying official working for the hospital in conjunction with the Birth registration number, and the footprint that was made by placing the baby’s foot up against the “contract”.

Note: It is in this signing using the infant’s foot that the soul has been offered, which is then taken through baptism. Hence the word “sole” or “soul”.

A bond or debt is created from this paperwork and the new born baby has been signed as the surety for the bond and will now spend the rest of its life servicing this debt, resulting in approximately 95% of the child’s lifetime wealth going to the holder of said bond. The parents will be given a copy of the hospital records but, because the parents are illiterate, they will not, and do not, understand what is truly written. Ward Meaning: A minor subject to Wardship. A person, who by reason of incapacity, such as minority or mental illness, is under the protection of a court either directly, or through a guardian appointed by the court. Also called “ward of court”. A person or body of persons under the “protection” or tutelage of a government. Note: If you hire an attorney you are considered a “ward of the court”, which is a child without mental capacity to make your own decisions, irrespective of how old you are.

Registering anything means it is not yours anymore, and usually you are left with nothing more than the user rights, often requiring “permission” to use in the form of a “licence”. Note: The word register comes from the Latin word “Regis” meaning “of the king” and the suffix “ter” means “to perform the action”; ergo handing over to the king.

The property rights is now owned, in trust, by the corporation the item or child was registered with. Therefore you are the “holder” or “keeper” and not the “owner”. Note: The words “Parent” and “child” are legal titles, with the word “child” or “children” meaning chattel owned by the state.

The parents or mother and father are no longer the “legal” parents, but have become nothing more than just “custodians” of a child owned by the state. This is why “social services”, “public schools” and “hospitals” can now claim ownership over the child, often fining the parents, seizing the child, or even imprisoning the parents.

Parents are tricked into thinking they give the baby its name, when in fact it is the hospital, through the signature of the “certifying official” that issues a “surname” to the child. Note: Surname means “slave name” and is corporate; meaning it is a “legal fiction” under the control of the Vatican and is why you need a “marriage licence” or need to ask permission to conduct a marriage or “corporate merger”.

So, a surname, under the control of the Vatican is added to the birth certificate form, this is referred to as “printing the name into form”; meaning the “surname” is written on the hospital’s form. This entrapment is done using the four corner rule, block capitals, italic fonts, symbolism and words within margins.

Hieroglyphic or symbolic language is used to further hide the truth. For example: Crosses are placed in and around such forms, sometimes in areas where signatures are required, however the cross means “dead” and can also mean “pre-signed” by someone else; ref. mortgage contracts.

Note: In most cases within corporate countries, the “birth certificate” and “death certificates” have the same number. This number is referring to the original bond and/or trust, which has now gone unclaimed after death. If the trust goes unclaimed upon death then it is claimed by the banking system and is used to either cancel debt created by the credit of the trust, or is used to generate more revenue on the outstanding debt in the way of further interest payments.

You have until your 21st birthday to claim this trust; this is why you are given a “key”, which is to open your trust.

Note: Dog tags worn by soldiers were created to streamline this process of closing these trusts after death, so the banks could collect more quickly. Summary: However, as most of the world know nothing of this, the illiterate parents just fill in the blocks on the form without knowing what they are doing, and the cycle of creating more disposable “human resources” continues.

1/n

Within the Public World, which is controlled by legislation and private organisations, you will often encounter people who will try and get you to accept a title, in an attempt to lower your status below their own.

Note: The government’s version of “the public” is in fact a private group requiring membership, which is controlled by the state and should not to be confused with the true meaning of the word “Public” referring to common land.

Using titles is one way to lower your status; another is to make you accept a course of action. Carrying out the following actions will strip you of your status as Sovereign and reduce you to the lowest status within a court of administration or judicial court.

Make a Plea

If you are asked to “make a plea”, you have just been stripped of your rights, and been given only two choices, either guilt or not guilty. The word Plea is short for plead, meaning to make an emotional appeal, such as begging. However as a living breathing man or woman you have a third option, and that is to question the validity of the claim made against you. In other words, if a claim or charge has been made against you, you request they prove it.

In administrative and judicial court you will be required to have someone, usually a lawyer or solicitor, to represent you, or for you to “represent” yourself.

However if you accept this, you now have a lower status than the lawyer or solicitor, who has a lower status than the judge. It is also impossible to “Re-present” yourself, as you can only present yourself. What this tactic is trying to do, if you accept this offer, is to get you to represent your legal fiction, and in some courts you will be representing a trust that was made in your name without your knowledge or consent.

People are “summoned” or “subpoenaed” to appear before court on a daily basis, however many do not check the paperwork and ask very simple questions.

Note: A “summons” sent through the post is from administrative, or corporate court, and is an invitation only. To be summoned before a court of law you must first be accused of a crime. You must be presented with a warrant, signed by a judge, which is backed up by an affidavit certified by the accuser. If you do not know the name of the person who has accused you, and you do not have the name of the judge, then if you are taken you have been kidnapped.

Most warrants today are based on a legal fiction, and not supported by a judge. Furthermore you are not even being summoned to appear in a court of law, but either an administrative court acting as a trust or a judicial court, meaning a court controlled by a Judge and not a jury. If you accept the “summons” based on a legal fiction, meaning in the name of a corporation, or referring to your legal fiction, then your status and rights have been lost.

This may seem innocent enough, but when you are asked to hand over your “driver’s licence” by a police officer, you have just handed over all your rights and lost your status. To understand this, we must realise what is actually going on.

First, the word “Traffic” or trafficking is a legal term used in commerce to transport goods from one place to another. It only applies to a business who has agreed with legislation. The title “Driver” is referring to an occupation, and if you accept this legal title, then you are considered to be working for the state and are now subject to all the traffic codes, legislation and licencing required.

The word “Vehicle” refers to a tool of the trade; an object used while you are working as a driver under commerce. With the simple act of handing over your driver’s licence when requested by a police officer means you have entered into a contract with the police officer and have accepted all the traffic codes. This is clearly deceptive and therefore fraudulent, as to have a lawful and legally binding contract, there has to be full disclosure before consent.

You have now agreed to the title driver, and to appear in court. Note: when you are issued with a ticket it is referred to as an offence, not a crime. An “offence" refers to breach of contract; they cannot call it a crime as no law has been broken.

Furthermore you have just proclaimed the law, as it is you who has just signed and dated it. Before you signed it, the law did not exist. Note: There are no such things as “road laws”, nor can there ever be. All roads are common land and are owned and used by all.

It is unlawful for a living breathing man or woman to forcibly apply policy onto another on common land.

People within corporate government departments cannot act against you without your consent. To achieve this consent they will offer you to sign their paperwork, documentation and forms. With the knowledge of the Plebetoral system and Black’s Law dictionary, the deceptive writing within these forms is clear to see.

The person presenting you with a form to sign is trying to gain your “Assumed” consent, and not “Informed” consent. Note: the word inform comes from two Latin words; in meaning “into” and forma meaning “form” or “shape”. When combined it means “give form or shape to”, also “form the mind of, teach” and “shape, fashion, describe”. However the word Formal from the ancient Greek language means “with form” and “In-Formal” means “without form”. The Greek word “in”, before “formal” means “not, opposite of”.

You will be asked to use black ink, write in all caps, and tick a box denoting your title, whether it’s Mr, Mrs or Miss. This gives consent to using a title against your name, placing you within the jurisdiction of “Mercantile Law”. The black ink refers to death, or dead entity and the all caps makes reference to your corporate name, and not you. Never use their paperwork, always use your own.

If you “go to court”, you have entered their court and left yours. This is an administrative court and you have accepted the title defendant, robbing you of your sovereign status and giving authority to the judge.

Never step through the gate, it is called the bar. Doing so is acceptance of the private codes of the bar association.

1/n

When entering a court building, almost everyone employed at this place of business will be trained to deceive you into agreeing with, or entering you into, a contract that you will know nothing about.

The “contract” is within the jurisdiction of the court. Note: a court is not the same as a courtroom. A court is held by a natural living person making a claim, a courtroom is just a room where it is held.

The court uses “consent through ignorance”.

If you are in the court building, then just your presence could be taken as “acceptance” of a contract, or your “consent” to a jurisdiction. To combat this, you must state why you are there. Note: all questions and declarations should be stated to the “clerk of the court” and not the magistrate directly. So on entry to the courtroom, identify who the clerk of the court is.

Remember this: nothing can be hidden in a courtroom, otherwise informed consent is lost and the court collapses.

The courts operate under a system of “voluntary submission”, and require your consent. When questioned why you have appeared before the court, usually by the simple action of asking your name, they are trying to get you to “consent” to a general appearance, resulting in the “acceptance” of their jurisdiction and loss of your sovereign status.

An appearance in court may be either general or special:

• General: is a simple and unqualified or unrestricted submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
• Special: is a submission to the jurisdiction for some specific purpose only, not for all the purposes of the suit.

Meaning, a general appearance is made where the defendant waives defects of service and submits to the jurisdiction of the court.

Whereas a special appearance is for the purpose of testing, or objecting to, the sufficiency of service or the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant or respondent, without submitting to such jurisdiction.

In court the title Mr and Mrs refers to your “foreign military accounts” or “foreign situs trust”, and the court is a “foreign vessel” in dry dock. Do not accept these titles, or you have surrendered your sovereign status and agreed for the court to access your “foreign military accounts”.

Note: it is your right to accept, decline or even refuse any title being applied to you. Legal titles do not mean the same as described in the Oxford English Dictionary, so other legal titles to decline would be:

• Resident: a person occupying within a jurisdiction, and does not own the property.
• Occupier: as in “occupation”, referring to a person’s profession within a jurisdiction conducting commerce.

Note: Occupation also means taking control of a piece of land or property which belongs to someone else.

The use of the postcode is acceptance of “residency”. Meaning you are the “corporate legal entity”, and therefore cannot “live” there.

If an employee within the court persists in trying to apply titles to you, inquire that they must define said title first.

If they continue further, they are now causing a conflict and contempt of court.

If you are currently auditing the court, this should be noted, as should all answers to questions and other issues.

You will be asked to give your name, however what they are trying to do in court is for you to accept the name of your “legal fiction” or “corporation”. If you refuse to give your name, then they will record that you did not turn up to court, and put out a warrant for your arrest. However, you can proceed by letting the court know that you are there for the matter associated with the name, and they can call you by a name of your choice. Furthermore, you will notice them that you reserve all your rights.

Note: Court protocol dictates that a “defendant” or “respondent” can be addressed the way they choose.

These two titles have different meanings, as follows:

• A defendant has accepted the claim or obligation and is now “defending” their position.
• A respondent is “responding” to a claim but has not accepted the claim or obligation.

For example:

Court: “Are you Mr John Henry Doe?”

Respondent: “I am here for that matter, you can call me John and I reserve all my rights.”

They may persist, so you can reply as follows:

“I am unable to give you my name, as I would be without name; however you can call me John as I am here for that matter.”

Addition: “I am the responsible party in due course for that account.”

Meaning, that you are the “creditor” to the “debt” or bond, which is “for sale”, and are therefore the “account holder”. This plays into the constructed trust which is most likely operating within the court.

If you are pressured to give your full name, or accept a full name, by the following questions:

• “Give me your name?”
• “What is your name?”
• “Are you (John Henry doe)?

Reply: “Could you define the meaning behind the name as written on your paperwork?”

For example: Are you referring to either:

• A private natural person or
• A corporation?

If the court is hesitant to answer, you can follow up with a question as follows:

“Are you asking me that question to entice me into an immoral contract to purport to act in person as a corporation through a crown created fictitious corporate name?”

If the court becomes belligerent and is going to declare a verdict that you have “not attended” court and then put out a “warrant” for your arrest, you may have no choice but to reveal your name, however state the following:

“You can call me John Henry Doe; however this declaration is not acceptance of any obligation, jurisdiction or contract and is not to be applied to the following”:

1. A Corporation
2. An implied company
3. A constructed trust
4. A Dead Entity
5. Legal Title
6. Legal Entity
7. The last name is not a surname but a family name

You should then question the court for the source of the name.

If the court is trying to apply a name to you, which is usually done by asking you “Are you (John Henry doe)?”, inquire on the source of the name.

For example: many names are written and sound the same, but are not the same name. Anyone with the last name “ford” is not necessarily the owner of the “ford” motor company.

There are many names that share the following;

• Style (font)
• Spelling
• Diction
• Language
• Pronunciation

However they are NOT the same name.

To define the true name, the original source must be determined, therefore ask for the source of the name and who sourced said name.

Birth certificate:

If it is a “traffic matter” and “the court” gave the source for your name as your “driver’s licence”, then that name cannot be used as a form of identification as it is based on “your” birth certificate.

Note: it is clearly written on “your” birth certificate that it cannot be used as a form of identity, and therefore any document based on it can also not be used as a source of identity.

Once you have established what you wish to be called within the courtroom, usually just your first name, you can now claim you are the Third Party Representative for your legal fiction.

For example: “You can call me John, I am the third party representative for Mr John Henry Doe.”

Note: it may be prudent to establish who is the rightful legal owner of “Mr John Henry Doe” before offering to be the representative.

Also note: if you have brought proof of your own limited corporation, then you can claim you represent that.

The legal fiction that is used within these courts is NOT owned by you, but is crown copyrighted, so you could be committing fraud for speaking on behalf of said legal fiction. Note: you can use this as the reason why you cannot accept the legal fiction or “corporate name” being used within court, as “Mr John Henry Doe” is not owned by you.

If you find yourself in court and the “claimant” happens to be a corporation, such as “The Police” or “The Council” or “The Inland Revenue”, then you, in turn, will require the name of the Representative for that “legal fiction”. Because the claim is being made against you, you have the right to have the full name of the claimant in court on that day.

If there is no one within the courtroom who wishes to represent the corporation making the claim and therefore be accountable, liable and responsible for said corporation, then the court collapses.

For the court to move forward it will require the following:

• John a “Private living person” representing – “Mr John Henry Doe” a Corporation.
• Tom Dick Smith a “Private living person” representing – “The Government” a Corporation.

Most people are tricked into accepting the jurisdiction of the court by some very deceptive methods.

The judge will try and gain jurisdiction and control over you through the follow ways:

• Oath of Office.
• Statutes.
• Parens Patriae.

Oath of Office:

Ask to see proof of the oath taken and the up-to-date copy of the oath.

Statutes, acts, codes, regulations are all quoted within court and the judge is hoping that your silence is acceptance of these jurisdictions, so it is assumed you have accepted them. Remedy: when acts and statutes are used, ask who is administrating them and if the court has evidence that you are an employee of the government.

Note: within the legal system the people are “governed” by consent, and therefore acts, statutes and regulations cannot be forced onto a natural living person.

The court is operating as a “foreign vessel” at dry dock, and is not currently under any other jurisdiction, this is why so many people fall foul of this deception by quoting from other jurisdictions of law which are not applicable.

So before quoting acts, statutes, rules and regulations you should ensure that the court is operating with the correct jurisdiction, so ask the following questions:

1. Is the court operating within the Bill of Rights act 1688-1689?
2. Is the Coronation Oath act 1688 current statute law?
3. Do you accept the jurisdiction of the bench book?

Once these jurisdictions have been confirmed, you can now quote legislation from them.

Once the jurisdiction of the Bench Book has been accepted, the clerk of the court is obligated to introduce you to everyone within the courtroom:

Bench Book Page 28: Section 63 of the Equal Treatment Bench Book, requires the court introduce everyone, and must explain each person’s role. This means not only their title but also their rights and obligations.

If the answer regarding the previous jurisdictions should be “no”, which is unlikely or the deception would be obvious to see, then ask the following:

To the Court: “What jurisdiction is being offered?”

You then have the right to accept or decline.

Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation". In “colour of law” it refers to the “public policy power” of the “state” to intervene against an abusive or negligent “parent”, legal guardian, or informal caretaker, and to act as the “parent” of any child, individual or animal who is in need of protection.

Note: notice the wording here; “parent of the nation” or “parent of one’s country” or “father of the people” means “common law authority”.

Therefore Parens Patriae means the “common law authority” of the Attorney General to represent the interests of those who are unable to represent themselves.

Because you are unable to “represent” yourself, you have now lost your authority and are under the authority of someone else.

If the court has agreed that they are operating under the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights act 1688-1689, you may wish to inquire to the absence of a jury.

Not only is it your right to be tried in front of a jury, but within the Bill of Rights act 1688-1689 jurisdiction it also stipulates this.

Also with the Bill of Rights act 1688-1689 it is stated:

“No fine or forfeiture without conviction with a jury of my peers.”

The minimum number of people it takes to form a jury is 12, although a Common law court has 25 jury members. This is why modern day “courts” often only “allow” 7 people into the courtroom, so you are unable to form your own jury.

Note: limiting the number of people to enter the courtroom is a violation of your rights.

To combat this fraud you have the right to bring a jury of 12 or more people with you; this gives control of the court to the jury. The judge cannot stop this, or he would be in contempt of court. A true court of law is an open court and a court of record, meaning you can bring your own jury, witnesses, recording devices and audit team with you.

The jury for any court should be made up of “his peers” and NOT citizens. Note: peer means people your age, or close to it, who have experiences and interests similar to yours, preferably who are living within the same local economy and location.

Citizen means “slave to the city”, or employee of a corporation, namely the “crown corporation”.

Once you have established who is in court and they have each identified themselves and confirmed their individual oaths, it would be advisable to confirm the case number.

The case number allows easy and unique reference to specific civil and criminal cases. Such as:

1. Identifying the year the case was filed.
2. The office in which it was filed.
3. The judicial officer whom it was assigned to.

Note: everything that occurs within these courts is all commerce, including criminal cases. Meaning a “criminal charge” is still brought forward for financial gain, resulting in the creation of a prison certificate, which is securitised and sold on the debt market.

Once a case number has been created, it is applied to a Memorandum of Consent and Case management files.

Note: it is important to note that the one being accused must sign these documents for the court to move forward. Without a signature, the court is committing fraud if the court continues. On the Case management files there will be a declaration box that must be signed by you.

One of the deceptions, or frauds, to get around the signing of this document, if you decline, is to get it signed by someone else on your behalf.

Meaning it can either be signed by you or your solicitor; however the solicitor will not tell you this otherwise he will lose his commission.

Furthermore, you must sign this document to excuse the jury, or the court has no jurisdiction and cannot proceed.

The jury must be excused before judgment can be made, so they cannot be held liable for their decision, unless intent to defraud is discovered.

The court is being set up as a trust, so these questions can be asked regarding the construction of a trust that resembles your full name:

“I must confirm the following regarding this name:

Is there an illegal trust before this court that was set up using a nom de guerre, which resembles this name?”

If the clerk answers “no”, give them forewarning that they will be personally liable if this is to be found untrue.

If the clerk answers “yes”, which is unlikely, respond as follows:

“I require the bond to be brought forward. Is there a reference number or bond number attached to your paperwork?”

“I do not consent to being surety for this case and these proceedings.”

“I demand the bond be immediately brought forward so I can see who will indemnify me if I am damaged.”

When a claim is made upon you, there are three points you should remember:

1. The burden of proof is placed on the one making the claim.
2. You have the right to know the full name and contact details, namely their address, of the one making the claim against you.
3. You are under no obligation to answer any questions.

So, before you proceed any further you will require “the court” to provide the full name and details of the person making the claim.

If these details are not provided, then ask the following:

“Who is refusing to give me these details?”

It is unlikely anyone will accept this liability, as you can then make a claim against them. However, without the details of the person making the claim, the court collapses as there is no one making a claim. And, without a claim, there is no cause and therefore no case.

There can only be two types of claimant offered by the court, and they are as follows:

1. A private natural person.
2. A corporation.

It is the latter, a “corporation” or “legal fiction”, which you must address if given in court as the claimant.

Note: a corporation can only make a claim against another corporation. A corporation can never make a claim against a private natural person. These are two separate jurisdictions, and can never cross.

If a name of corporation is given, then you will need to know the name of the corporation the claim is being made against.

For example: the following would be legal entities, legal fictions and corporations:

1. The state.
2. The government.
3. The police.
4. The council.

Note: in fact, you should question any name given if not applied to a natural living person, and even then you should get confirmation and never assume.

If a name of a corporation is given, then you will need to ask the following: “Can you give me the name of the corporation that [insert corporation] is making the claim against?” Now the court has a problem: they cannot proceed without divulging the name of the corporation, which will resemble your name, at which point the gig is up.

Furthermore, you will need to see the contract between these two corporations that allows the claim to be made, so you can ascertain if you are even obligated.

Note: it is your right to be provided with a lawful contract on demand.

There must be a verified claim in court, meaning a claim must be backed by a private natural person or “living breathing man or woman” and, if an affidavit is present, that private natural person can be cross-examined in court, on the day.

If a name of a corporation is given, then a private natural person representing the corporation or “legal fiction” will have to accept liability for the claim.

If no one is willing to take responsiblity, liability and the consequences of making the claim, then there is no claim. And, without a claim, you must question why you are even in court at all. There can be no cause of action if there is no claim, meaning there is no case.

When a “legal fiction” or “corporation” is making a claim against you, although in reality it will not be you but against your own corporation, challenge the corporation that they are not a “for-profit” organisation.

All corporations are registered with Dun and Bradstreet, Companies House or the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

• Companies House: the Department for Business registration within the UK Corporation.
• Dun and Bradstreet: Credit reporting agency for corporations.
• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: regulates companies within the USA Corporation.

Both the “council” and “police”, and indeed even the “government”, give the false, assumed illusion they are “not-for-profit”, when in fact they are.

For example: The UK Parliament is a for-profit company; company number: #UC2279443 This would prove conflict of interest within the court, as employees working for the “body corporate” would be making a claim for financial gain, and not “law”.

Note: when using an approach like this, word your question so your opponent is forced to deny something, rather than admit, because if they remain silent, they admit guilt automatically. No one has to admit anything within court as everyone has the right to remain silent so not to self-incriminate.

The name Press Gang referred to a body of men from the 1700’s who would “force” others into service or civil conscription. This was done by tricking the unsuspecting man to accept the King’s money.

A silver coin with the face of the king would be “pressed”, hence the name, into the hands of the victim, and once “coin” had been “accepted” the contract was concluded and the man had enlisted.

Note: today, the modern fiat currency has hidden “contracts”, such as taxation. However, the use of the British pound within these courts is grounds for treason as the British pound is now backed by the US dollar, which is printed by a non-governmental, independent US corporation called the Federal Reserve, with shareholders.

Furthermore, as these “notes” are nothing but promissory notes, you have the right to submit your own promissory note to discharge any fine.

The word “fine” is a legal term used in regards to a breached policy within a contract, and for a “fine” to be issued you must first consent to the contract and accept the policy.

Therefore, if you are issued with a “fine” in court, you must question “the court” as follows:

1. “Who is going to financially benefit regarding any fine that may be imposed?”
2. “I require the contract to be brought forth to prove obligation to pay.”

Note: although difficult, it is possible to track payments and bonds that the court processes, so if done correctly you can prove fraud.

For example: if it is found that “the court” is working alongside “the police”, both having DUNS numbers or are registered businesses, like all are, then they are “for-profit”, so there is a clear and provable conflict of interest.

Note: when a court pronounces “debt to society” it is referring to the BAR association or “Law society”. There is no such thing as “debt to society”, assuming that means “to the people”, as “the people” do not receive the payment made.

BAR is an acronym for British Accreditation Registry and is a privately owned corporation.

Meaning, this is a fraudulent “court for profit” and no law is being conducted. Therefore, any employee of the court is committing barratry by using the phrase “pay your debt to society”.

The word barratry was first used within Admiralty law and means “misconduct by crew of a ship resulting in its damage”. However, within Common Law it means “litigation for the purpose of harassment or profit”.

If an employee working for a corporation should initiate litigation against you, without a contract, then they have committed barratry, and if said corporation is “for-profit” then the employee has done so for financial gain.

Until the year 1888 barratry was a capital offence, and, although it is still punishable by imprisonment today, fines are usually paid.

The “court” requires your consent to enter into contract with you, so the proceeding can go forth, as this is a “court of commerce” or “business”.

However, within contract law everything must be disclosed, including any payments or commissions from the court to any 3rd party within the court, or vice versa.

Any hidden 3rd party payments or “secret commissions” would be an “illegal contract”, and as this was conducted within a courtroom with witnesses, the people involved would be committing a crime, as the act would be unlawful.

When in court, you have every right to know who the injured party is that is cause for you to be in the courtroom.

Therefore you must ask the following:

“Can I have the name of the victim or injured party?”

Note: if a name of a corporation is given, you will need to see the contract where the policy is written to have caused the corporation to be an “injured party”.

The definition of the word “victim” is a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. And in this case the word “person” refers to a private living person, not a corporation.

A corporation is a “dead entity” and does not exist, hence it cannot be physically injured in this way, and ultimately a corporation has no rights to violate.

Therefore, a legal fiction or corporation cannot be a victim.

If there is a claim that a “legal fiction” or corporation is an injured party, then “injured party” would refer to being financially injured due to a breach of contract. At which point you would demand to see the contract to verify if you were obligated by it.

If you are not given the name of the injured party then there would be one of two reasons for this:

1. The name of the injured party is being deliberately withheld.
2. There is no name of the injured party, as there is no injured party.

If the name of the injured party is being deliberately withheld, ask the following:

“Why are you refusing to give me the name of the injured party?”

If the court continues to refuse, then conflict has been created and the court cannot proceed, without your consent.

If no name is given, then ask the following:

“Can it be confirmed that there is no injured party or victim?”

Once confirmed ask the following:

“If there is no victim, then will there be a claim for damages made against me?” Note: There cannot be a claim for damages without an injured party.

If you are asked to “make a plea”, the court is trying to strip you of your rights. By being given only two choices, either guilty or not guilty, you will have inadvertently “accepted” the claim whichever choice you make.

Note: The word plea is short for plead, meaning to make an “emotional appeal”, such as begging.

However, as a private natural person or “living breathing man or woman” you have a third option, which is to question the validity of the claim made against you. In other words, if a claim or charge has been made against you, you request they prove it.

If a plea is made without your authority, you must question the source of this pleading, as it is not yours.

No one within that courtroom can make a plea for you without your consent; this includes the judge or magistrate.

If anyone should attempt this, ask them the following:

“Have I authorised you to speak for me?”

If they say “no”, then request they retract their statement. If they say “yes” then the burden of proof is on them, so now ask them to prove it.

Prosecutors are government officials charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes.

Note: within the UK Corporation, the prosecution is carried out in the name of the “crown”, meaning the prosecutor works for the “crown corporation" which is a legal fiction.

Also note: representing a legal fiction without disclosing the full name of the owner of said legal fiction within court, is unlawful and illegal.

The official narrative for the function of the prosecutor is to decide which cases should be prosecuted, determine the appropriate charge and control the plea bargaining process. This clearly has nothing to do with law, as a single person can never have so much power or control over the proceedings.

Note: the title “prosecutor” denotes that the decision of your innocence is already decided.

However, if you have no claimant or jury, just a prosecutor, then question the following:

“Does the prosecutor have subject matter or personal knowledge regarding the claim?”

Without either subject matter or personal knowledge then the prosecutor cannot move forward, due to there being nothing to substantiate the claim.

The prosecutor may try and gloss over this question and move forward, which he cannot do unless there is a witness present who does have either subject matter or personal knowledge, therefore ask the following:

“Has the prosecutor brought forward a witness to verify the claim?”

Without a witness then there cannot be any hearing, you are not in a “court of law”.

If there is a police officer in court who is going to give evidence against you, then get them under oath. However, they cannot swear an oath as a police officer, as they are allowed to lie in court, so you must get the private living person, who is acting as a police officer, under oath.

Ask the Clerk of the Court:

“I require [Name of officer] to be sworn in under oath, but not as a police officer but within their own standing.”

Note: do NOT refer to the person as a police officer or mention their PC number, just refer to their full name.

For example: it is not PC John Doe, it is just John Doe.

Note: the word status within this court takes on a “legal meaning” and refers to the “status” of your “legal fiction” or “corporation”, so you must use the word standing, which refers to “standing on the land” or “law of the land”, meaning they are personally liable and cannot hide behind a title or office.

If the police officer refuses, then ask:

“Why are you, [PC name] refusing to be sworn in under oath?”

Note: if someone fails or refuses to swear under oath, then their testimony cannot be heard in court.

The system has been set up over thousands of years, and hides behind the legal fiction called government, which does not exist.

These people, who hide behind this fiction, carryout scams and deceptions towards the people of this earth, which results in mass poverty, misery and war. However these people hope you won’t dig too deep and discover the truth, and place many traps in case you should even try.

Note: a few government scams are sophisticated and arduous to comprehend, but many are surprisingly easy to grasp, if you are willing to see.

Here is a list detailing many of these traps.

Assumption

The entire system requires your consent and ignorance to just assume. The people controlling the system consider your assumption as “consent”, and therefore can then act upon you.

Note: Within the legal system there is a maxim of law: “For he who would be deceived, let him”.

This comes from the Latin phrase “Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur” meaning “The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.”

However when you question someone’s claim or documentation, they often withdraw.

For if they told you directly, then your assumption has not been granted, and fraud has been committed against you.

Exemption

The word “exemption” means to be freed from an obligation or liability imposed by others with authority, usually through contract.

Therefore to use an exemption is to accept the obligation, and subsequent imposed authority, resulting in accepting the policy within a contract that may grant you exemption.

Religious exemption

The definition of Religious exemption is a legal privilege that exempts members of a certain religion from a “law”, regulation, or requirement by the state or government.

Note: you can never be exempt from law; otherwise the victim would be without justice.

A legal privilege is not a right, and it certainly is not your right; it is a clause within a contract that someone else controls. If you do not control said contract, then the privilege, along with the exemption can be withdrawn at any time.

Religious Saviour

Although the choice to follow a religion is a personal one, there are dangers in doing so that are not quite so obvious to the average person of faith.

Throughout recorded history, many “religions” have either been started or taken over by people whose sole purpose is to gain wealth and power.

The usual trap is to instil fear, depression and anxiety that “all is lost”, into the followers, and then give “salvation” to them if they just followed the cult leader, usually in the way of penance.

However the danger of instil too much fear into the people is some will often feel they are without hope, and a man without hope is a very dangerous thing. So, a “saviour” is often created, given false hope that “salvation” is coming, all the followers have to do is wait and continue to give penance until such time as the “saviour returns”.

This is a trap set up so you believe someone is going to save you, so you will not try and save yourself, with the modern day equivalent being QAnon, Anonymous and certain politicians. Note: the word “religion” comes from the act of re-creating a legion of followers, after a collapse of society, older faith or war, with a Roman legion being made up of between 3,000 to 6,000 men.

Do not go looking for a saviour, as the saviour is found from within, it is you.

Although the word resistance can refer to the ability to not be affected by something or someone, usually adversely, within the legal world it means something else.

Resistance also refers to the “refusal to accept”, or comply with, something or someone, usually in the way of an order, rule or instruction. However resistance is not required when there is no contract or agreement in place to the implied requirement to begin with, but the act of resisting now creates the obligation to comply.

When someone offers you a service or product, do not say you refuse. Saying you refuse indicates that you had a prior obligation to accept the service or product being offered, and you have now defaulted on your “prior obligation”.

For example: do not refuse a test, just decline the test. If you refuse, the one making the offer will continue as if you have now defaulted on a prior “obligated contract”.

The correct response would be to “decline the offer”, as this shows this is the first time the offer has been made, and therefore there cannot be any prior obligation within a contract to accept. If they persist, then they are without honour and you can make a counter claim against them.

Compliance and being compelled refers to the obligated action or fact of complying with a wish or command given by another.

However the act of complying means you had a prior agreement to comply.

Therefore an act of “non-compliance” means you agree that you should follow the order or command, but you have chosen not to, resulting in the loss of your honour, and now the party issuing said order can act upon you.

The word disobedience means the failure, refusal or neglect to obey rules imposed by someone in authority.

However you can only disobey a rule if you had already accepted the obligation of the contract from where the rule is stipulated, and therefore the authority from the person issuing said rule. Many people make the mistake of “disobeying” a baseless order, which inadvertently places them under obligation to follow, when they should have just questioned the obligation all along.

When someone is making a claim to their “authority”, they are stating they have the power or right to give orders and make decisions over their subordinates. The title “authorities” is often, yet incorrectly applied to a person or organization having political or administrative power and control, without contract.

Authority can only come from the individual, and to become a “subordinate”, they must willingly, and without coercion give their authority to another.

This is usually done through contract, when a person decides to work for someone else, resulting in limited authority being given to the boss, who is limited by the policies written within said contract. If anyone should try and impose their authority onto you, without agreement or contract, then this is a violation of your rights and should be challenged.

Although the official narrative of the title “civilian” means a person not in the armed services, or a “non-combatant”, or “private citizen”, the true nature of this title dates back over 2000 years.

Before people were referred to as “civilians”, they were called “plebeians” within Ancient Roman society, who were a group of lower class commoners, under the rule and control of the upper class called Patricians.

These Patricians ruled over the Plebeians using a bureaucratic system of “law” which over time became Civil Procedure Code, or “law”, which is controlled today by the BAR association. Therefore anyone within the jurisdiction of this society was under the authority of “civil law”, and became a “Civilian”.

There have been many calls for “Civil Disobedience” in retaliation against tyranny throughout history, however making the claim of “Civil” disobedience acknowledges “your title” and therefore position within a society.

This action is “acceptance” of operating within the jurisdiction of a society or “community” controlled by others, namely the state, and your agreement that you have no status, and therefore no rights, within it.

Meaning you have no right to disobey any command, and your actions have become threatening to the society you agreed to be a part of. The result of which is you have now become an “Extremist”, meaning “the state”, which controls “the society” can now act upon you.

Why disobey when you had no obligation to start with?

Similar to Civil Disobedience, “Civil Rebellion” is the action or process of resisting authority, control or convention; however it can also be seen as a “call to action”.

A Rebellion is also applied to the act of armed resistance against an established government or leader. Therefore to call for a “Civil” Rebellion, you are calling for “Civilians” with no right to rebel, to take up arms against the state; you have now become a “Domestic Terrorist”.

Referring to a “Lawful” Rebellion would suggest the right to this action, where the word “rebellion” is being used to oppose an unfounded authority or an illegitimate claim of dominance upon you, resulting in a direct threat being made against you without a prior agreement.

Meaning if a group, corporation or government where to make unfounded claims of authority, then you would have the “lawful” right to rebel and defend yourself.

This could work if the individual chose to use their own law, but many make the mistake of referencing the “law” from others, resulting in the loss of their sovereignty.

The most common mistake would be quoting the Magna Carta, which was a contract signed by a king and a group of barons.

The person trying to use this ancient contract today is not only operating in the wrong jurisdiction, but quoting a document that does not bear their signature. Note: You cannot and do not get your rights from another’s contract, furthermore there is no document that can ever save you from tyranny.

The Plebtorial system which originated within Ancient Roman Society, developed and changed over time and became the Electoral system. To give the Plebeians the illusion that they were in control, they were offered elections so it would appear they could choose who ran “their” government.

Note: of course the government was never the peoples, but those who owned the government, the Patricians, with all the candidates already preselected.

This deception begins with the ballot paper; when you register to vote, you handover power of attorney. You are asked to use black ink and mark an “X” in a box, which is the signature of a “simpleton”.

This action declares you are “incompetent” to make a decision, and are asking those in control to decide for you.

If you think you can vote your way out of tyranny, then signing an “X” was the correct thing to do.

Note: if you own your own land and are therefore Sovereign, you elect, you don’t vote. All you are doing when you go to the polling station, is recording your opinion within said poll, so the government can see what the general consensus of the people is, nothing more.

In America on September the 17th 1787 twelve state delegates approved the constitution.

These states now became constitutors.

A constitutor in civil law is one who by simple agreement becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt.

A constituent is one who promises to pay the debt of another, meaning if you register to vote, within the electoral system, you have agreed to become the debtor to the state.

Note: A citizen does not have access to, nor is protected by, any constitution or “bill of rights”.

The definition of the word “protest” means a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.

Within the legal system, this can be in the way of a written declaration, typically by a notary public, that a bill has been presented and payment or acceptance refused. The word Protest is derived from the Latin word “prōtestārī” meaning “to declare publicly” and the root word “testārī” meaning “to testify” ergo Pro-test means to “testify publicly”.

However as “the public” has now become a controlled jurisdiction, to “protest” is no longer a right, but a “privilege” that can be revoked at any time by those who control the “general public”, “society” or “community”.

Furthermore, the very action of protesting indicates an obligation to adhere to the very issue you are protesting against.

This is why so many protests and petitions are organised and funded by the very corporate organisations you are protesting against, such as “big oil” and governments. In simple terms you are accepting the “corporate authority”, and by protesting it you are strengthening it.

A petition is a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to “authority” in respect of a particular cause. However in most cases, when you sign a petition you have inadvertently accepted the obligation of the very thing you are petitioning against, when in fact you may have had no obligation in the first place, as there was no lawfully binding contract to begin with.

Meaning the subject or cause you are petitioning against did not even apply to you, but through the very action of petitioning, now it does. This is why most petitions against the “government” are actually set up by the very “government” you are “petitioning” against.

Note: a petition is an “appeal” which means in simple terms “begging”. You have lost your sovereign status and become subservient to a higher authority.

For example: If you petition against changes made to the “Human Rights Act” then you have accepted that “contract” or corporate policy, and are now bound by it, when it never even applied to you.

You have now agreed that your rights no longer belong to you, but are now controlled by the people who have written the “Human Rights Act”, who now have the power to change them at will. You have become a slave.

A lawful petition can only exist where a standing agreed upon contract already applies.

For example: If a group of people all sign a contract to work for a corporation, and the management of said corporation then “change the deal”, the group of people could “petition” against the changes to an existing contract.

However if you are petitioning against a change in policy regarding a contract your are obligated by, remember regardless of how many people signed said petition, the overall document is only considered as one voice and only carries the weight of “one person” in court.

Therefore it would be better to sue the management for breach of contract than petition, that way the workers retain their sovereign status.

Note: Most unions will not tell the workers this, and are usually working with the very corporation the union said they would protect the worker against.

Petitions are also set up and offered by governments to defuse a situation where the people are angry over a certain issue said government caused.

The way this works is those who sign have a sense they are acting against the issue and therefore are making a difference, when in fact they have not, and hence do not take the matter any further.

In short, only children or slaves beg, make appeals and petition.

To complain seems a legitimate action when something is either unsatisfactory or unacceptable; after all if you accepted a good or service you have certain expectations or standards which are accepted to you.

However to complain is one thing, but to accept another’s procedure to resolve such complaint is the trap.

Almost all corporations offer a “complaints procedure” department, however this is not done to assist you with your complaint, but to take control of the process and therefore determine the end result.

You have lost control of the situation, and as a result you will not be satisfied with the outcome.

When working for someone else, and an issue arises, many people make a complaint to their immediate supervisor, which in turn usually leads to following the company’s “grievance procedure”.

This is a formal way for an employee to raise a problem with their employer concerning the actions of another employee.

However this action establishes you as an employee, which is a taxable human resource without rights.

Furthermore, if you initiate this “grievance procedure” you have lost the ability to direct the process and are at the mercy of the “senior management”, who have no obligation to conduct themselves fairly or justly.

Note: the primary goal of any senior staff is to protect the corporation from litigation, and not to help you.

Additionally you have now accepted the often convoluted grievance procedure rules and regulations, which are written in a way to entrap you further. If someone has made a complaint against you, then you have the right to know who this person is within the private, but not as an “employee”.

If their name is not divulged, then the burden of proof and hereto the claim now becomes the responsibility of the supervisor you are dealing with, which you must deal within in the private. Many people will opt for perceived simple solution of using a union, but just like petitions and protest, will only pull you into the legal system deeper, as most unions are usually working with the very corporation the union said they would protect you against.

The general description of a “society” is a group of people living together in an ordered community or commune.

The official narrative regarding a society often includes the following:

• Shared Language.
• Customs and Traditions.
• Religion.
• Arts and Literature.
• Families.

But this is culture, not a “society”.

However the definition of a society is more accurately applied to an organisation or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.

Within this organisation there is a hierarchical management structure, usually comprising of a board of directors or committee, controlling the members.

And when were break down a society further, we see the trap, as it includes the following:

• Forms of government.
• Economic systems.
• Businesses.
• Regulatory system.
• A class or cast system.

Note: A society operates as a business using maritime law, requiring a membership for the rules of said society to apply to you.

Within this controlled class system, the family is considered the “basic unit” of society, which in turn forms communities, with many communities making a nation, which in turn is under the jurisdiction of a country controlled by the owners of said country.

Being part of a society obligates you to the social order or “new world order”, with the loss of your freedom.

The term “social contract” is often causally spoken about and accepted without any proof that said contract even exists.

For there to be a contract, then informed consent must be considered and accepted with the signing of said contract.

With a society being social control of the individual, an “imposed contract” can be implied.

Never accept a contract without reading it first.

Class is a shortened word taken from classification, which is the operation of separating various entities or units, and categorising them within a set of definitions limited by margins or boundaries.

This set of definitions can be set up as a hierarchy which distinguishes between lower and higher importance. A “social class” is the method of grouping people into a set of hierarchical social categories, with the most common being upper, middle and lower class.

This system of separating and valuing people is most evident within favoured and preferred communities.

Ask yourself this; who is putting you into a “class”?

The word community comes from the Latin communis, meaning “common, public, and shared”.

The first known or recorded use of the word community was in the 4th millennium BCE, and referred to a Civilization of Mesopotamia, which developed the first city-states.

Note: BCE stands for Before the Common Era, and refers to the Gregorian calendar. Community also means “public”, municipal, and obviously communal, which became the foundation for communism. It means the opposite to private.

Note: Man is tribal, not communal. The word Tribunal comes from the world tribe, which is “common law”.

It is a common mistake to consider a country as a place where people live within an accepted culture; that would be called “land”. For example: The name of England came from “the land of the Angles” or “Engla-Land”, which was the home of Germanic Tribes called “Angles”, who lived upon the land.

The name country came from the word county, which referred to a jurisdiction placed upon the land, usually by a king or monarch.

People who lived within this jurisdiction were considered “subjects” to the king, making them subject to his rule, where he would “count” the heads living upon the land, who would then became taxpayers.

Note: “Subject” is the title given to the person who has become subjugated; the act of subjugation refers to the action of bringing someone or something under domination or control.

A country is just a collection of counties, or “communities of taxpayers”, under subjugation of a king. Today it means under the jurisdiction of a corporation, which exists on paper only. Note: Moving from one country to another, with a change in jurisdiction, can be done by the stroke of a pen.

With an understanding of what a country is, which is nothing more than a corporation, flags are nothing more than corporate logos. Using a flag from one of these corporate countries within your own jurisdiction or business, places your private dominion under the jurisdiction, and therefore control of said corporate country.

Therefore you have just placed yourself within the authority of that flag, including all the rules, regulations, policies, taxes and legislation that come with it.

A white flag does not mean surrender; it means you are without flag and therefore not operating within the jurisdiction of corporate warfare.

Note: the word warfare comes from combining “war” with “fare”, where “fare” means “journey”, or more accurately the money you pay for the journey you make, ergo “the cost of war”.

Your rights are often given away through the deceptive use of words, to understand how we need to know the following:

Adjective meaning: An adjective is a word that describes a noun or noun phrase. The semantic role of an adjective is to change the information given by the noun.

Noun meaning: A noun is a word that generally functions as the “name” of a specific object or set of objects, such as people, places or actions, such as “Man”, “Home” or “Car”.

This means placing an adjective before a word, usually a noun, changes said word or noun.

Therefore adding a word or “adjective” in front of the word “right” turns it into a title, and the “right” into a privilege controlled by someone else, usually the people behind government. Meaning a word before the word “right” turns it into a titled privilege operating within maritime law, such as:

• Human rights.
• Civil rights.
• Cultural rights.
• Religious rights.
• Gay rights.
• Minority rights.
• Miranda rights.

Only a Sovereign individual can have rights, as it is their authority that enforces it.

Caution should also be exercised regarding rights, as making open declarations to your rights will make this appear as an invitation to contract by politicians, in the guise to “protect them”.

It is far safer to consider that “no one” has “rights”, or a right to something within your dominion, rather than you having a “right” to it, as the burden of proof is on the one making the claim to said right. Rights protect you from the action of another, not to give you resources.

Many people fight government over changes to “human rights” and most notably the “Human rights Act”.

However without the ability to read and see the truth, this is a futile fight and pointless.

When we breakdown the language, we can see the trap as follows:

• Human: this is not referring to Man, but “colour of man”, which is a “monster without rights”.
• The combination of the word “human” and “right” now makes it a Title Privilege.
• The word “Act” means, “acting as law”, so therefore not law.

Your rights do not come from some else, for if they did you would be a slave.

If your rights came from someone else, they can be taken away.

The official narrative regarding the title “Sovereign Citizen” is as follows: “A member of a political movement of people who oppose taxation, question the legitimacy of government, and believe that they are not subject to the law and do not respect the authority of the police.”

Although a true sovereign is capable of seeing through the official propaganda, the following issues with this statement are as follows:

• Being sovereign is not political, but a status of life, which is that of having supreme authority and control over one’s life.
• Sovereignty is not a belief system, but truth in fact.
• The “law” that is referred to is nothing more than corporate policy without contract and therefore no obligation to comply.
• The police are a private “For-Profit” Corporation in the business of selling debt to the general public in the guise of fines, based upon bogus and unfounded rules and regulations.
• Citizen means “slave to the city” meaning that the title “Sovereign Citizen” is an oxymoron. You cannot be both sovereign and a slave.

The tactic is to create a baseless hypothesis and then apply a title to it, and then use said title to try and strawman the argument without attempting to even tackle it.

This is nothing new within the corrupt political game played by people who hide behind the legal fiction called government.

To “record” is the act of documenting data or to chronicle the history of a particular subject or person, resulting in the creation of a database for reference in due course.

Creating a “criminal record” is to produce a database of a person’s previous criminal convictions; however what constitutes a “criminal conviction”?

Furthermore, who is doing the recording of said database, and under what authority? Regardless of your life choices and any indiscretions you may have carried out, who did you give permission to that allows them to record, store and share the history of your life?

Moreover, a “criminal record” is actually “policy violation” from unfounded contracts, issued by corporations, which can be repeatedly brought up to further hinder your life, and is usually subjected to the poor only.

Note: It should also be noted that a “criminal record” is only applied to your corporate birth certificate, operating within the lower public realm or jurisdiction of a “democracy”. This is why the rich and powerful never get convicted or sent to prison.

The definition of a credit rating is as follows; “A credit rating is an evaluation of the credit risk of a prospective debtor, predicting their ability to pay back the debt, with an inherent forecast of the likelihood of the debtor defaulting”.

With the knowledge of the corporate birth certificate, enslaving newly born babies into lifelong debt slaves, the phrase “credit rating” takes on a whole new meaning.

It is the corporation, in the name of your surname, or “slave name” that is being “rated”. However, we should consider the obvious, when did you give authority for a credit rating to even be carried out, and by whom?

The official narrative regarding the “The No Fly List” describes it as a database controlled by the United States Federal Government and maintained by the “Terrorist Screening Center” using an algorithmic ruleset, issued by various government agencies and airlines to decide who to allow and deny to board airline flights, under the guise of “national security”.

However this “official narrative” is quickly defeated when it becomes apparent that what is truly being said; the list is for people so dangerous they should never be allowed to fly on an airplane, yet so innocent that they cannot be arrested.

This conflict of narratives exposes the truth; taking away your right to travel if you do not do as you are told.

However, and this should be obvious:

• Who’s list?
• Who’s authority?

When did you give your authority to be added to this list, and who did you give permission to?

Various groups and movements have called for the “defunding of the police”, and are promoted heavily by many main stream media outlets and publications.

However this is an orchestrated propaganda psyop set up to manipulate the general public to move in the opposite direction.

A “psyop” is short for the phrase Psychological Operation or Warfare, which is the term given to the action of government’s influencing the perceptions and attitudes of an individual or group, often foreign but become increasingly domestic.

Based on the ill-conceived and incorrect assumption that the police deal in law, and are there to “protect the people”; most individuals consider defunding the police a bad idea. Usually based on the left-right divide, people who are unable to critically think and cannot see the deception are easily persuaded to go against the opposing side.

This results in the refunding of the police, which often includes them being granted more “powers” given to them by government.

Note: the amount of political power is dependent on the number of brainwashed slaves.

The truth is the police have no authority, nor does the government, but people with a slave mentality have just given away theirs.

Note: it should also be noted that from the earliest conception of the police, they have been working with organised crime. The “criminals” create the “problem”; the police are there to “solve” the “problem”.

The police, courts, lawyers and “criminals” are all working together against you for money.

It is a scam and a racket, design to generate billions in revenue while simultaneously suppressing the poor and weak, referred to as the “citizen” or “slave to the system”. If you think you are safe by giving away your sovereignty, rights and authority to another, you never will be.

Within the modern day “justice system” the “courts” operate within three basic jurisdictions:

1. Bank
2. Maritime
3. Religious

Each one is set up to extort money from you.

This is done by setting up a constructed trust in your name, where you a tricked in agreeing to be surety for a bond.

This bond is then used to support the trust, which is referred to as the Res or trust body.

With this trust in place the court is about to generate thousands, if not millions in credit.

Note: it should be noted that if you accepted the bond for value, the trust would collapse and so would the court, along with all the charges. However if you “go to court” you are entering someone else’s court, and have lost your sovereign status. This is the trap.

This scam could not exist if enough people knew the truth, which is only a Sovereign can hold court, which is you.

Please read more about Courts here

Coup D’état is French for “stroke of state” and means a sudden, violent and “unlawful” seizure of power from government, more commonly known as a coup.

Many people believe they have to overthrow government, and have even attempted to do so, often resulting in death, a failed attempt and then imprisonment for life, or even execution.

However a “government” is just a corporation with no contract with the individual private natural person, so by carrying out a coup would be considered an “unlawful” act against the shareholders of said corporation.

Moreover if you’ve accepted the title citizen or even subject, then it is an act of war, which will be met with violence.

When you actually realise how the system works, you’ll see there’s no need for a coup, you just walk away from the game.

Although not quite as violent as a Coup D’état many people opt to “sue government” over “regulations”, but again this is a mistake.

Although hard to accept, the people behind “the system” cannot actually force you to do anything, and require your “consent”.

Now, this is where the deception occurs, because although they cannot act without your “consent”, they have no compunction in using fraud, deception, lies and even coercion to get it. The way these people defraud you into “accepting” is by applying all these rules, regulations and policies to your corporate birth certificate, which in itself is a fraud.

The people behind government will never divulge this, as it would expose the scam, they just hope you assume that all those “laws” apply to you; basically you are self-imposing these regulations or corporate policies. Therefore the very act of start litigation against the “government” shows you have already accepted the obligation to follow them; meaning you have already lost.

When “acts and statues” are quoted in paperwork sent by various corporations, the person who sent it is hoping you just accept them.

However when “acts and statutes” are quoted you must question this and ask the sender if they are administrating the act or statute upon you.

No one will ever admit to this as this makes them liable for their actions of administrating something upon you, which you did not authorise.

Further to this, ask to see the signed document by you allowing that person to administrate the “act or statute” upon you; it doesn’t exist.

Therefore do not fight regulations, inquire if you are obligated to obey them, and who is going to administrate them, and under what authority.

Sometimes referred to “Miranda Rights”, the Miranda act is a “police caution” that is spoken within many corporate country jurisdictions, when someone is detained or “arrested”.

The typical spoken caution is as follows:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will and can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, they will be provided for you.”

However this is not spoken to protect you, but to entrap you.

The clue is in the title Miranda Act; “act” means it is “acting” as law, so not law. It’s nothing more than a corporate policy.

Note: If someone else is telling you what your rights are, you have none.

The most damning part of the Miranda act is; “You have the right to remain silent” the trap is if you stay silent the police will take this as acceptance as you acquiesced. This is a form of pseudo-tacit agreement. Note: When someone says “you cannot take the law into your own hands” means you never had the right to the law in the first place.

People are scammed and deceived into requesting and paying for documentation that they do not even need. This scam is perpetuated because you were just born into it, and it seems it has always been this way; it hasn’t.

All these sham documents require a form of “registration”, meaning you are literally handing over control of whatever the thing is that “requires” the document.

Furthermore you are also unknowingly entering into a jurisdiction controlled by someone else, and accepting corporate polices you do not even know.

Here are a few examples:

Passport.

“Passport” means to pass from port to port, and the concept of a worldwide passport was created after the 1st World War.

When you register for a passport, it identifies your corporation and not you. Furthermore you are now a “postman” carrying a “document” and operating within the postal union. The passport restricts you from travelling, not assists you. To travel is a right; therefore under what authority are you asking to have the privilege to travel?

Driver license.

The word licence means to ask permission. By registering for a licence you have given up the right to use your own car, and are now asking for permission from a higher authority and furthermore you are willing to pay for the privilege.

Log book.

All corporate countries request registration of all forms of transportation. By doing so you have given up control, and in some cases ownership of the transportation. Furthermore you have now entered the jurisdiction of any corporate policies placed upon the roads, which are in fact common land owned by all and without policies.

Identification.

Under what obligation do you have to identify yourself to anyone? The answer is none.

National Insurance number.

You are nothing more than a “product”, a human resource with a reference number.

With so many scams and deceptive schemes within the “system”, it is difficult to avoid them, however many people get suckered into them quite easily at the very beginning, with the first point of contact.</p<

You are under no obligation to answer any offers put to you; obligation can only be ascertained once you have entered into contract.

• Open your front door: You are not obligated to open your front door to anyone who does not have an appointment, agreed by you.
• Answering the phone: You are not obligated to answer your phone, unless a call is expected, and you do not have to give any information over the phone.
• Texts received: “Texts” are not legal or lawful documents, and can be ignored, unless you have given permission and acceptance for texts to be used. If they are unsolicited, they can be blocked.
• E-mails: “E-mails” are considered secondary evidence in “court”; without contract or agreement you are under no obligation to accept them, reply to them or even read them. It is often prudent to not deal with any e-mails, for data protection reasons, and delete and then block any further unsolicited e-mails.

Many of these “first points of contact” will make a suggestion to a “customers account”; however you should question the following:

• When was the account offered?
• Do they have written evidence, signed by you, requesting an account?
• When was it accepted?
• In what name is the account set up?
• Who set up the account?

If you should open the door, the person who knocked will try and command the situation by ignoring to verify any obligation or contract, but instead deceptively focus on you, and your actions.

This trick will centre on questions such as: “why did you not reply to our correspondence”.

They are trying to get you to “justify your actions”.

Never do this; the burden of proof is on them; what right do they have to make you explain anything, especially when there is no agreement or contract? They have none.

Read more here

Although it is suggested that the word LAW is an acronym for Land, Air, Water, meaning that truth, rights and ethics are universal within these realms, and those who break the law can run but can’t hide, the history of the word seems to suggest a different origin.

The first recorded use of a word meaning “law” dates back to the Proto-Indo-European word Leg-h, meaning to lie, or lay, which may have originated from Proto-Germanic word Laga meaning “that which is laid down.”

The Old Norse word Log referencing law, means “things laid down or fixed.” This transitioned to Old English Lagu, then Middle English, Lawe.

This would explain where the term “laying down the law” got its roots. Today the law is a complex web of misdirection, deception and fraud, with the last 2500 years of human history becoming blurred to such an extent that it is almost impossible to tell where the jurisdiction of one form of law ends and another begins.

This is by design and has been done to hide the truth; No single person will even reach the bottom of it all. The law today is fraught with many grey areas that cause disagreement and argument, however the following listed laws gives an elementary clear map.

Law is not enforced; it is upheld or laid down. This is referring to laying out the truth, or holding up the truth for all to see.

Note: Whenever enforcement of law is being referenced, it shall always mean enforcement of Policy.

Law is based on agreement or consent. It is consent that makes the law; this is a Maxim of Law, which is a fundamental moral or ethical rule or principle.

Law is about balance, hence the symbolism of the scales with lady Justice. This is based on the Greek goddess Themis, who is honoured as clear-sighted, and the Roman goddess Justicia, honoured as representing the virtue of justice.

There is no rule of law. As mentioned previously, law is about balance and consent. For you to apply or administer law on to someone they must give consent, this is either through contract or choice by violating your rights.

For example: If someone chooses to steal from you, they have now consented for you to apply your law to them.

Simply put Law applies in violation of a person’s right, or Law bound within a contract.

The term “Rule of Law” comes from Ancient Rome, where a ruler would decree the law, so if you accept this term you also accept a higher authority to rule over you.

Sometimes referred to as Traditional Law, Customary Law historically is the tradition of indigenous people, who generationally pass on the culture, customs, ethics and procedures on to the new generation, often orally, including song, dance and even story telling.

Overtime a legal custom is then established that follows the pattern of behaviour that can be objectively verified within a particular social setting.

A claim can then be carried out in defence of "what has always been done is now accepted by law".

Marriage is one example of Customary Law. Age of consent is another. This is where the age of consent is agreed through history, custom and tradition, which is ethically the right thing to do. Within history, most cultures celebrate coming of age, this is where all the rights and responsibilities are given to the child who has now become an adult.

Note: There is only one age of consent, within England it is 16. Other ages, such as 17, 18, and 21 are referred to as Legal Age of Majority, which is based in legislation, and have nothing to do with law.

The term Canon Law comes from the Latin phrase, Ius Canonicum meaning “a System of Laws”, controlled and enforced by hierarchical authorities.

The word Canon is also said to come from the Ancient Greek word Kanon, meaning a “straight measuring rod, or ruler”.

Over time people within the Catholic Church used Canon Law to regulate, govern and control people towards the mission of the church.

Ecclesiastical law, which is supposed to be indirectly based upon immutable divine law and natural law, or the word of god, is now intertwined with Canon Law which controls the Roman Catholic Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglian Communion Church.

Generally Ecclesiastical Law is the authoritative rules that govern the Christian Church, and covers internal policy and relations in secular power.

Note: The word secular means not connected with religious or spiritual matters, meaning that the secular power is referring to either the state or monarchy.

Although the history of the Christian Church is complexed, to better understand the legal system today, and to simplify the situation we should make the distinction between the “Free Christian Church” or “Protestant Church” and the “Church of Rome” or the “Roman Catholic Church”. This distinction is due to the claim of the “Roman Catholic Church” to be the only Church, with their laws being of universal obligation.

With the creation of the Christian name, and adoption of the surname, legal fictions are created within ecclesiastical law, as all certificates of birth are controlled by the Vatican. All deeds are controlled by the Vatican, through ecclesiastical law, and are in fact deeds of trust and not deeds of property.

For example: If you wished to change your name you would use the Ecclesiastical Deed Pole, however you are not changing your name, but the name of your legal fiction or corporation, which is controlled by the Vatican.

https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2020/02/canon-2057.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140715163417/http://one-heaven.org/canons/positive_law/article/101.html

A Trust is a legal entity created to hold property, where the property owner called the Trustor, Grantor or Settlor, transfers legal ownership to the trust.

The trust is then managed by a professional or family member called a Trustee, for the benefit of another person called the Beneficiary.

Although Trust law is extremely complicated, in layman’s terms, a trust separates the legal ownership from beneficial usage, or User Rights from Property Rights.

This is done to protect assets from various claims such as lawsuits and tax agencies.

A foundation is a trust, although it deals more with corporations, whereas a Trust deals with families.

More details: - https://www.bitchute.com/video/D8mMbED07CXO?playlistId=nlVxYddVbTem - https://youtu.be/j5xNNNLWVgI

The word Equity originally means being fair and impartial, with the biblical meaning referring to justice, fairness and uprightness: God judges people with equity.

Equity law evolved over time alongside common law and is a legal system based on contract law, which is designed to obtain fairness and balance when other laws do not provide a solution.

This system of law was more about procedure and remedies than standardised rules. It allowed the individual to use their own documents and affirments, such as notices and affidavits, to uphold their law, either broken through contract or a violation of their rights.

However, over time this system of law was taken over by the Catholic Roman Church and includes the follow:

• Contract Law.
• The Law of Commerce.
• Trust Law.
• Ecclesiastical law.

It also exists in both Civil and Common Law.

Common law and Equity Law work side by side, Common Law deals with crimes and is based within custom and usage, whereas Equity law deals with contracts, and laws thereof.

Often referred to as the Theodosian Code, Theodosian Law is a collection of approximately 2500 imperial laws, from the Roman Empire under the rule of two Christian Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III, and published in the year A.D. 438.

Roman Law had always regulated the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next, with much of this wealth being channelled to the Patricians, and away from the Plebeians.

Note: The Patricians were the wealthy upper class of people, and were the ruling class of the early Roman Empire before its collapse which began in A.D. 395 and Ended in A.D. 476.

While the Roman Empire was becoming Christian, emperors sought a greater share of the wealth taken from the Plebeians, and called upon the Imperial Church to control the Plebeians through the control of wills and testaments.

The Theodosian code always punished violators, with severe punishments such as flogging and torture, and became intertwined with Roman Civil Law.

However, although punishment was severe this did not stop the people who ultimately turned their backs on Civil Law, which lead to the collapse of Rome.

The Byzantine Empire was founded in the year A.D. 330 and is also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire which was the continuation of the Roman Empire, throughout the Middle Ages.

Justinian I also known as Justinian the Great, was the Byzantine emperor from A.D. 527 to A.D. 565. He was responsible for creating the Code of Justinian, Roman Civil Law, or Corpus Juris, which is Latin for “body of law”.

The Corpus Juris is essentially military law, which is made up of the following:

• Law of the legally dead.
• Law of the Sea.
• Law of the private merchant bankers.
• Law of Corporations.

The modern day version of Corpus Juris controls foreign governing corporations and the banking system, which include the United Nations, United States and European Union as they are all corporations.

Accursius, who was a Roman Jurist, meaning he was an expert in writing law, perfected the Corpus-Juris in A.D. 1230 with the introduction of the surname, just after the signing of the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta gave the people the law of the land; however they were tricked into the jurisdiction of Corpus-Juris with the acceptance of the surname written in all caps. With the creation of the surname, and illiteracy of the Plebeians within the Plebetoral system, the people were enslaved by accepting the title civilian, under the control of the civil law system. The Byzantine Empire fell in the year 1453, although the legal system continued to this day.

The High Court of Admiralty was first considered during the reign of Edward the 1st, 1272-1307 and it is now generally accepted that the court emerged after the Battle of Sluys in 1340, and became established in 1360 when it was granted jurisdiction over civil maritime cases.

These courts specified in disputes and claims arising from contracts and torts of the high seas, usually dealing with lost or spoiled cargo or disputes between a business owner and a ship-owner, who had failed to deliver.

Admiralty law or Court dealt with the different jurisdiction between the Law of the Land and the Law of the Sea, and ultimately gained control and seized the power to create the laws that would govern all ships.

Over time the Law of the Land has been replaced by the Law of the Sea, where water holds no mark.

Maritime Law refers to the regulations and policies that crew members are obligated to follow, and are considered the law of that ship.

The law of the ship, requiring member-SHIP, would cover hazards of ocean travel or personal injuries sustained while working on the vessel.

These laws would stipulate the duties and obligations of the crew and detail the benefits the captain would provide. Although workers’ rights are covered under Maritime Law, they are at the discretion of the captain and are in fact privileges.

In layman’s terms, Maritime Law refers to the laws on board ship, whereas Admiralty Law has the power to create said laws, and control all ships.

Meaning, citizens within the Plebetoral system have been conditioned to accept “Maritime Law” as doctrine, and are treated as “crewmen” aboard a “citizen-ship”, who must follow orders issued by the Captain governed by a group of authoritarian corporate people who have claimed “Admiralty Status”.

English Law is the Common Law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly of criminal law and civil law.

However since 1189, the concept of English Law had just been Common Law, and did not include the civil law system. Meaning there was no comprehensive codification of law.

This system of law developed in England’s Court of Common Pleas and other Common Law courts, and overtime became corrupted and controlled by a panel of judges who declared the law derived from custom and precedent.

English Law in modern times covers 4 main areas of law:

• Tort Law.
• Contract law.
• Property law.
• Criminal law.

All courts in England are still common law courts, for the people, by the people.

The simple official definition of case law is; law established by the outcome of former cases. The process is deciding a disputed point of “law” by a panel of judges, with the outcome being recorded, changing or clarifying the “law”, which sets a precedent in which all others courts are bound, and must apply in later cases.

This form of law is based on examples of previous cases, rather than constitutional, statute or regulatory law. Using the detailed facts of previously resolved cases by court or similar tribunals, these decisions are used to create new “law”, adding to the ever increasing catalogue of court incidents, called Case Law.

Common Law is often confused with Case Law, as Common Law is based on judicial precedent; however this means the process of a court, NOT the outcome of the court.

Furthermore, when questioning the word “Law”, which is used within the term “Case Law” it is found to mean the Law within a contract or agreement, meaning that this is private law or contract law. If two people are in a dispute over the law within their private contract or violation of rights, then clearly their private disagreement does not involve the lives of others not associated with the case, and if this is true and for freedom to exist it must be, then nor can the outcome of their case.

So when we apply Equity Law, or Contract Law to Case Law, then there can be no other conclusion than the outcome of any Case Law cannot be applied to anyone without contract, furthermore any attempt to do so would be a tort or even a criminal act, as it would be a violation of consent.

Case Law should be used as reference only, and cannot or should not be applied to anyone not associated to the original case.

However, those who work for corporations registered with government are bound by all forms of law.

There are many different forms of law, almost too many to list each one in detail, and the very idea of so many laws can be daunting, however when it is realised that the word “Law” is in fact referring to “colour of law” then things become much more clear.

If a document is only “colour of law” then it is not law at all, but only functioning as law if agreed upon.

In layman’s terms, they are not laws at all but policies, requiring your signature, and consent to have any authority over you.

Here are some examples:

Banking Law | Commercial Law | Corporate Law | Criminal Law | |Employment Law | Environment Law | EU Law | Family Law | Human Rights Law | Insurance Law | Media Law | Public Law | Shipping Law | Sports Law | Tax Law | Administrative Law | Bankruptcy Law | Civil Rights Law | International Law | Immigration Law

When you replace the world Law with Policy, the deception is easy to see.

Proclamation is the title given to the action of Proclaiming a state, affirmation or declaration; it is a combination of two words, “pro” meaning forward, and “claim” meaning to state or assert that something is the case, sometimes done without providing evidence or proof.

Proclamation is usually used within an official formal public announcement. One of the functions of a proclamation is to bring in new “law” for members of the public.

Within government legislation, and within the legal system, for a new “law” to be created, first a policy must be drawn up and proposed, and then it must be proclaimed by someone to be “Law”. Meaning within legislation a proclamation is required to bring in “colour of law”, a person must stand by and take the responsibility of this proclamation. It must be signed and dated.

Much of what is referred to as law within the legal system has not been proclaimed, and does not have a proclamation date as no one within government wants to be responsible for it.

Note: When someone attempts to apply legislation onto to you, it would be prudent to ask for the proclamation date and who did the proclaiming.

Within legislation these “colour of law” require proclamation to be enforceable, so they make you proclaim it by the action of opening the letter.

Trying to navigate through all this is almost impossible; however there are few easy rules to remember that will help, such as:

1. None of these are “The Law”, but Policy.
2. The Law is unwritten and unspoken.
3. If you have to look it up, it is NOT law, but policy.
4. If it is written down, it is someone else’s law.
5. You need to know who is quoting the law to ascertain any obligation.
6. Any “law” that refers to a monarchy is Crown law.
7. Any “law” that refers to a government is Constitutional law.

https://www.thesovereignproject.live/_files/ugd/64735b_7ee29f693d74488ea2359e33f5c07ec4.pdf

Eternal Law

Eternal law is the mind of God which humans cannot know. Contained in it are the laws which govern the universe and control the life cycle of everything in existence. Although humans cannot fully know the eternal law, they can occasionally glimpse reflections of it, for example through scientific knowledge of aspects of the natural world.

Divine Law

Divine law is the law of God revealed to people through the Bible, which Christians call the “Word of God”. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, also brought Divine Law with him and the teachings of Christ convey Divine Law to the people.

Natural Law

Everyone has a natural sense that “good is to be done and evil is to be avoided” which some call human nature. It is what directs our conscience and if applied with reason to a situation will lead to the right outcome. Natural Law is unwritten and unspoken, it is just understood.

Universal Law

Universal law refers to a code of ethics that is agreed by all and universally accepted. There has to be a victim for universal Law to be broken. I.e. Murder, theft, fraud, assault. Universal Law is unwritten and unspoken, it is just understood.

SOVEREIGNTY ^{YOU ARE HERE}

Self-governed, having supreme authority

Human Law ^{REQUIRES YOUR CONSENT}

These are everyday rules that govern our lives, and are prioritised as follows:

Equity Law

Equity law and the law of commerce deals with contracts at the highest level, and are designed to protect the individual. These would include Trusts, Affidavits, Liens, Notices and Torts.

Common Law

This is the foundation of English law which is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.

Democratic Law

Contrary to popular belief a democratic society has nothing to do with governments, or political parties or even voting, but refers to a law structure that is conducted if someone is accused of a crime. A democratic society is self-governing. The word democratic is derived from the Latin word Demokratia: Demos meaning “the people,”Kratos meaning “sovereignty,”kratein, to rule.” This covers trial by a jury of twelve. Innocent until proven guilty. Right to remain silent. An open court and a court of record. The jurors have Judicial Authority, not the judge.

Crown Law

Originating from the rule and authority from royalty over their subjects, modern day Crown Law has the foundation of common law, added with constitutional law, and refers to government functions. The crown is a corporation and is the legal embodiment of executive, legislative and judicial governance. Crown Law was established after the signing of the Magna Carta and the end of feudalism.

Constitutional Law

These laws are a set of restrictions to anyone within government and are designed to protect the freedoms and rights of the people. These laws do not apply to the people as a group, but only to the people within government

Government Law?

There is no such thing as government law, as everyone within government works for the people, and can only write contracts that the people must consent to. The government is supposed to represent the people, protecting their rights and freedoms, while increasing their wealth and prosperity.

Federal Law

Federal Law is actually a set of rules that apply to members of a Federation, which is a group of organizations, countries, regions or states. Federal Law is limited to only the voluntarily groups with the federation, and cannot be enforced on any group or individual who are outside the federation and do not consent.

State Law

A state is a corporation or business that has been applied to an area of land defined by a border, state rules can only apply to those who voluntarily consent to them, within the border.

Legislation

Legislation is not law, but is in fact nothing more than contracts where people have the choice to voluntary consent to or not. They are often referred to as “colour of law”. These contracts are also referred to as Policy, Statutes, Guidelines, Acts, Bills, Mandates, Notices, Rules, Licenses, Permits, Regulations, Warrants, Diktats and incorrectly and fraudulently “law”. They all require your consent.

Policy

A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual.

Statutory

Obligations within a contract.

Guidelines

General rules, principles or advice that are offered to a consenting 3rd party.

Acts

A policy acting as law, but not law, and therefore requires your consent.

Bill

A document detailing the outcome of commerce between two consenting parties.

Mandate

An ordered to carry out a clause within a contract. For a mandate to have any legal merit, a contract must be inforce prior to the mandate being sent. Sending a Mandate without a contract is a Tort. Notice: A written document or verbal command giving notice of an activation of a clause within a contract, or termination of said contract. For a notice to have any legal merit, a contract must be written and agreed to prior to the notice being sent. Sending a Notice without a contract is a Tort.

Rules

A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity, between two or more agreeing parties.

License

Authorize the use, performance, or release of an item or granting permission of an action within an agreed contract between two or more consenting parties.

Permit

An official document or verbal command allowing the actions of a 3rd party who are bound and restricted by a legally binding and consented contract, written or agreed to prior the permit. Regulation: A rule or directive made and maintained by an agreed upon authority, between two or more consenting parties. These regulations are limited to bounds of the contract, and do not apply outside of said contract.

Warrant

A document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or another body to make an arrest, search premises, or carry out some other action relating to the administration of legislation. This only applies to those who have agreed to legislation and have breached it.

Diktat

An order or decree imposed by someone in power without consent. This is a violation of sovereign’s freedom and right to self-govern. It is an act of war.

Tort

A wrongful [Tortious] act or an infringement of a right.

Read more here

Disclaimer

1. To understand what is going on, we need to consider the different areas of the simple term “the police” and its various connotations.
2. There is the living breathing man or woman who decided to join a police force. We do not know their reasons for doing so, at an individual level.
3. There is the corporation, or agency that is politically controlled by people with an ulterior motive and hidden agendas.
4. Are you referencing a police officer or a constable of the law? Regardless of a person’s title, they are responsible for their actions; the severity of the punishment depends on intent.
5. Hard truth to swallow, but the actions of every police officer is unlawful and illegal.

Read more here

Some more videos how to deal with police:

• You STFU, do not talk to the police
• Student talking with the police
• When police is knockin to your door