food for thought

[iamani]

Greetings

:mark-kishon: recently uploaded a vid titled 'What is Admiralty?' which i enjoyed and found very useful, so much so i watched it twice. However... he is not quite right when he insists that you are a vessel. He so strongly emphasises this opinion (which i shared until recently), and this is such an important point, that i could not refrain from posting a correction for the benefit of members and observers of this forum (and :mark if he sees this).

So... you are NOT a vessel (legal/virtual or otherwise) and neither is your flesh. Technically your flesh is a vehicle (defined as a 'land carriage or cart for crossing land'  -  and can signify a standing on the land. Also the term carriage may be used to describe ones physical deportment) for the real you and the real you is your 'awareness' ie. the 'self'  -  a fiction of air and dust controlling and conveyed by the flesh vehicle.

A (virtual/legal-fiction) vessel is designed for the waters of commerce. Staying with the analogy/fiction and in reality, both, it can not cross land. If you wish to cross 'land' (even figuratively) you must employ a vehicle (think of land interests being conveyed by 'special purpose VEHICLES'!).

You are not a vessel  -  you have use of a (virtual/paper) vessel. A Crown(copyright) vessel no less, ignorant usage of which makes you an unwitting servant of the Crown. Not only is it a vessel, it is a gunboat. It carries formidable armament far beyond its apparent draught/capacity and it is equally capable of crossing an ocean (think international trade/commerce), inland waterway excursions (think domestic) and secure long-term mooring at a foreign dock (foreign situs trust, anyone?). Of course these are all analogies, more fiction... but fiction begets fiction and man is only man if he begets and controls fiction  -  i suspect this fact is something we have missed/ignored to our cost.

Why do i specify the vessel as a gunboat? Well, in Admiralty/maritime your vessel is an individual agency of the Lord you serve. The Lord you serve is designated by your surname. By means of the birth certificate system the Crown has copyright on all surnames (and possibly all names and titles). Your surname is the name of a Lord (courtesy of Henry VIII) when written in English and yet in Admiralty it is, when presented in ALLCAPS, (imo) the name of a vessel/ship, a mother-ship and in (virtual) actuality a vessel of the Lord Admiral (and/or the Lord Lieutenant, though i suspect under a different jurisdiction). Your name and surname both in ALLCAPS is the designation of a vessel subordinate to the mother-ship, and constructed for your control (ambiguity intended). i seem to remember an American or Canadian bloke  -  Steve Duncan... ? Not too sure of his name but he was running with this in a big way, had a 'fleet' of like-minded individuals classifying their ALLCAPS as various classes of battleships... i was intrigued but didn't really get it back then.

So how do you come by usage of this vessel/ship... ? By contracting title to it's name, of course. Don't believe me? Check this out  -  the term 'Mr.' is defined severally (imo) by: Mister, Master, Minister, Monsieur, Mother(ship), and Monster. When you accept use of the title 'Mr.' you do contract for all of these words to apply to you on occasion.

It may help to pick a name and break it down, so:

a) :john-henry.   This is not a 'name' but the private beacon (guiding-light/beckon/calling) attached to the flesh-vehicle hosting the living-fiction (aka the spirit etc.) and is used only to gain the attention of the living-fiction. Note: this is not the name of the living-fiction.

b) John Henry.   This is a slightly more formal calling, and although it may be used in public as a name without implied public liability, it does still imply legal personality (thought to be that of a Creditor-entity courtesy of and backed by the Vatican... )

c) John Henry Doe.   This is the semi-public calling of (b) conjoined with the Crown-copyright surname 'Doe'; use of this conjoined name incurs upon the user certain liabilities and obligation to the Crown and brings one fully into the public realm (as a debt-entity or office of the debtor).

d) Mr. Doe.   This titled surname might describe an adult male human in service to Lord Doe.

e) Mr. John Henry Doe.   This titled name-and-surname joins the specified creditor-office of (b) to the non-specific debt-office of (d), with the debt-office now, under certain circumstances, able to access (read: rape/reap) the value contained within the office of creditor (b). A joindure.

f) DOE, John Henry. 

g) DOE, JOHN HENRY

(Note: i'm yet to gain an understanding of (f) and (g). When i do i may edit to suit.)

h) JOHN HENRY DOE   This is the big one. Just place 'H.M.S.' (as opposed to R.I.P. ...remember, we're just thinking Admiralty here) as a prefix to complete the picture. This is your vessel, your virtual gunboat fully equipped to go grab some booty and swashbuckle off into the sunset. Just don't forget to take along your copy of the Black Book Of The Admiralty... of course, if you are a Mister Doe rather than a Master Doe you are going to spend most of your time upended over a barrel being not-so-jolly-rogered by some johnny-come-lately corporate pirate or other. 

The two most important ones to consider under Admiralty are (imo) (e) and (h). For (e), the 'Mr.' would describe your role/rank/status on board 'ship'. If you have proven to be competent in navigating your virtual vessel then your title would be 'Master Doe'. If not, then just plain 'Mister Doe' and with a much lower status than the Master.

Now look at the term 'Mr.'...  that's an abbreviation, right? Nope. It's a contraction. Every time you put Mr. ahead of the name you are contracting an office in title. When you accept mail addressed to 'Mr.' you contract the office again. Meaningless coincidence? Perhaps...

Having mentioned in prior posts my belief that 'Lord'/'LORD' relates to the surname in connection with both testaments of the Bible, here's a pertinent quote from the KJV:

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. (Exodus 15:3)

...and a man-of-war is a gunboat. Which lead me to the idea for this flight of fancy.

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

How far back does the strawman-NAME-game go? Well, at least as far back as Adam... and the KJV Bible tells us all about it.

The first chapter of Genesis explains how 'heaven and earth' is created  -  but only generally. It tells us there have been several 'worlds'/civilisations prior to ours, and the fashioning of our world is explained (purportedly) in chapter two.

Much is made of Gen.1:26 as our beginning:

KJV Gen.1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

...but first of all - this part isn't about us!

And secondly: what is really being said here? i suggest it to be:

And God said, Let's make us a strawman...

You don't see it? How about if i put it like this:

And God said, Let us make man in our IMAGE, after our 'style(-manual)'...

As we know, ALLCAPS is an illustrative text. That means it creates a picture of a name, which is imagery. What 'image' really means (imo) in this context though, is 'fiction' - and 'likeness' means 'style'; or 'in our place' - or near enough.

To corroborate the point that Gen. 1 covers several world creations you might notice that said chapter mentions only 'God', which technically is a general term. In chapter 2 the latest god of the latest creation is designated specifically as 'LORD God'.

So we have a fiction (image) and a STYLE (likeness). If that fiction, in that style, were to be attached to a substance we could have a 'legal-person' on our hands... wait a minute...

KJV Gen.2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

...of 'dust', you say... straw not invented yet, then, or... ? Dust is the smallest of substance, so much so that it may be described as insubstantial, which perfectly conveys the same meaning as straw in this context. This 'man' is clearly not flesh. He is the inspired living soul, it tells you right there - 'man', however real he may be, is fiction. You may also consider substituting LORD God for SURNAME God...

...and going back to the first quote:

KJV Gen.1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So, er, who has dominion then...? And where does our flesh come into it...?

That was covered in chapter 1 and again in chapter 2. If you are really interested i would suggest looking very closely at them...

Cheers

[iamani]

Greetings

While watching some PINAC vids on YT i got to wondering about the flag patch the police now wear on their uniforms - whose flag are they flying?

It's obviously a corrupted version of the union flag - in blue. Is this an in-your-face reference to their maritime status? Or is it a corporate flag? Or given their paramilitary apparel these days is it the flag of a private army?

They never wore a true flag, so why do they wear this flag? What exactly does it imply?

i'd really like to know as i suspect it may be quite important...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

62) Does authority provide jurisdiction, or does jurisdiction provide authority...?

Cheers!

[MikeThomas]

Surely..... consent provides both?

[iamani]

Hi Mike Thomas

It surely does. Consent allows for everything...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

On a recent thread about mags court the subject of common-law jurisdiction, and how to access it, came up.

It's a recurring question - how to gain said jurisdiction. People go to these 'courts' and demand their common-law rights and don't understand why they don't get them. "i'm a living man", "i'm flesh and blood" and "i don't consent" are just some of the refrains common to such exploits. As we know - such claims never bear fruit...

Having said that, plenty of people have and do gain common-law jurisdiction on a regular basis. They force the 'court' to accept their point of view and standing.

How so?

Well, the reason we seek common-law jurisdiction when summoned to the mags is to prevent being prosecuted under statute - they can't prosecute statutes under common-law, so if you prevent the hearing from proceeding and the case is dismissed or even just quietly dropped even though the subject matter is indisputable, what have you achieved?

Common-law jurisdiction, that's what...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

63) 'Man' is born of paper and Inc.

Cheers!

[MikeThomas]

Paper & INC - Love it!

[iamani]

Hi Mike Thomas

Thanks Mike. Will be posting an expansion on that thought in next few days hopefully.

Cheers!