food for thought

[Freeman Stephen]

So you aren't bound to the legal name which is in bondage? You can't have a job or collect benefits if you are not bound to the thing they hold in bondage (they, being the mainstream media celebrities who feel they are represented by the politicians who claim to run the civil service). They made laws against people working without their permission (except in the case of selling coal or coking products and selling a newspaper - in which case you need permit from newspaper proprietor or coal board who impose the restrictions on working on you directly.)

If you arent bound to the name they hold in bondage, you cant be a landlord, a tenant, have expectation they wont crush your car because you dont have a driving licence or a registration document gor your car. You cant get a bank account or a passport and they will still impose themselves on you whether you agree to be the name or not. These are restrictions 'they just made up' claiming to protect the liberties of persons they completely restrict. You claim this bondage only applies to paper persons and they dont impose this bondage on the human being.

Do you think it is a crime against humanity to use experimental treatments on people prevented from leaving medical facilities? This is the latest in things they would claim I agree to because they restrict me getting the basic requirements to exercise my right to life by laws they just invented in the pretence of protecting the liberties they restrict. I say I dont agree to this quite expressly and lunatics refuse to hear overt statements of 'no' and claim I agree with what I clearly dont. Can democracy exist in a climate of lies, censorship and unwarranted interlocutions? Is it fraud on top of slavery to say this is a democratic country? Are you absolutely sure there is no one born into bondage and deceived by complex legalities about the state of affairs the ignorant (because they ignore our 'no') create?

[iamani]

Hi Freeman Stephen

Are you perchance asking me how one would live without the name?

Cheers!

[Freeman Stephen]

I lived off grid for five years and unlike those claiming to have been there and done that who never did and used to say impossible until its accomplishment blew their pop-up expertism out the water and all the lies that go with it. I really have done the practical on living without the name and I was subjected to an unlawful detention and an unlawful search and Id have been jailed with worse consequences if they couldn't pin a name on me. I'm not asking you how to live without the name. I'm asking you to cut through your shit that we arent born into bondage because of that wild goose trail about a paper persona I was studying over a decade ago. We were worried about increasing 'papers please' attitudes from state agencies interfering in our personal affairs as warrantless wiretapping had trolls right here trying to push people toward facebook which is now total propaganda and censorship. It requires a name. A phone number, government issued id if you want to advertise for anything where political opinions might be voiced. Like the president banning twitter, it was advertised heavily by the BBC on national platgorms lying that they dont carry advertising because they dont have commercial breaks. People are addicted to the media like junkies and they teach their children the same perverse habits. All of them need an name and a tenancy or property ownership also requiting a nsme to get a licence to feed their addiction. Im not asking uou for anything. My original interjection was to add something to what you already said by sharing an experience of my own. All Im saying now is that you have expressed the view that slavery is not going on because people can live without the name. I dont think they can.

[iamani]

Greetings

It occurs to me that we may have gone down the wrong path in professing disdain for all things 'fiction'. Without the concept of fiction in law, and its strength, we could never have civilisation. Rules, laws, contracts, agreements, treaties,  covenants, promises, our rights, even language itself  -  all are of fiction, and without them all we have is natural law ie might makes right, the law of the jungle (which we seem disturbingly close to right now). Our problem is that we do not understand fiction and its proper use and place in our lives, to the point where many of us spend our time in pursuit of fiction-free living eg lose the name; i am a man, not a person; i am not a fiction; etc, and most of us have the cheek to do it whilst enjoying the benefits and privileges such fictions afford...

Is our (general) lack of success any wonder when we simultaneously claim and disown the same legal-personality? To be in two minds is to be of no mind. No mind = no standing.

Civilisation and true freedom cannot co-exist in the same realm. However bad things seem right now, there can be no argument that we have civilisation, ipso facto no one is or can be free. Not even the top-dog, whoever that may be.

We have the illusion of freedom, which means all is but illusion.

Be that as it may:

There seems to be three ways we are tied to the will of others, there are three ways to 'live'.

1) The Church. In the 'state' of grace, the law of the air. To live with the Church as your master as a servant of God, one surrenders one's will, one's possessions, and one's interest/equity in the birth trust (including the given name, birth name and ALLCAPS) to the Church, you now have no civil/commercial/military status ('civil death') and can never 'own' anything  -  but you will never be taken as surety (possibly why so few clergy are jailed  -  the Church being liable for costs. Of course it could just be that clergy don't do crime...), or be press-ganged into military service, and your (usually frugal) 'living' expenses are forever assured by the Church under a New-Testament-new-Christian title-name (eg Brother Paul, Father Peter etc). One is then directly in-benefice subject to the Holy Si, canon law and the scriptures, and generally excused from heavy-lifting; and as long as you don't commit war-like crime then admiralty can't touch you. If you don't act in commerce law-merchant can't touch you. Or rather  -  they can't touch your birth trust account (the piggy-bank) as it is now fully protected by the Church as a Church assett. The courts won't touch it.

2) The Monarchy/State. The 'state' of dependence, and the law of the land. With such as your master you have status of subject/civilian. This makes you part of the military-reserve ie a 'voluntary' soldier. As soon as you enter reserve-military service (everyone does, whether by deed or default at sixteen years) you are considered as having pledged your very life to service of the Monarchy/State. Your will is subsumed by same, meaning you have no equitable standing as Monarchy/State holds your P.O.A. You are bound by regulations as law. This is your 'Mr Person' (M-ilitary  r-eserve  Person) with your English-language-styled name, and your Roman-styled ALLCAPS for dog-tags (usually surname first). Your birth trust is a foreign situs trust  -  which makes you 'foreign' to this land and so an invader ie 'occupier' of this country... but don't worry - so is the Government! Which leads to the neat trick of having the public laws of the occupied country and the martial law of the occupying force to be one and the same, with none the wiser. Unless you come from a devout religious family or the upper-crust this is your default position  -  a 'voluntary' by default, perhaps not by your own will as such but certainly of your own volition. Subject to (Roman) civil law as well as 'service discipline' (eg admiralty) instead of law of the land. Oh, and there's usually lots of heavy lifting...

Whereas 'voluntary' soldiers/Crown-servants are expected to meet most of their own  costs, they are also pushed to operate in...

3) ...Commerce. The 'state' of independence, upon the laws of water and of fire. You are a merchant, a banker, an international trader in goods and securities subject to statutory and commercial law, martial law, admiralty, the jurisdiction of international law and law mercatoria. You are also a mercenary/private-soldier responsible for your own provisions and expenses. All crime is commercial and commerce is considered a form of warfare, potentially making any crime a supposed war-crime with a cash value attached for penance. One is forbidden to use one's own name whilst operating in international commerce, hence use of the literary sleight-of-hand we know as the ALLCAPS name-derivative. How much heavy lifting there is for you depends upon your own business acumen.

To achieve a modicum of freedom without becoming a monk or a priest, and without necessarily sacrificing your 'interest' then you must learn to appreciate the value of fiction and operate from a trust of your own creation. You make yourself god/sovereign/caretaker of 'the promised land' (your physical presence, which is unarguably in your possession by the will of God  -  so it MUST have been promised to you, yes?) by writing your own law (contract) and creating 'man'-agement of/in your own image to your likeness as an act of will and competence (as above, so below). You no longer own anything (in line with a vow of poverty), you just have a 'man'-aged 'interest' in the trust res  -  which is your 'interest' in the birth name and ALLCAPS and the associated value  - which you now 'control' via the instructions of your new law (trust-agreement/contract). Your particular patch of 'promised land' comes ready equipped with its own almost-impossible-to-replicate unique seal with which to complete contracts and agreements. Basic - even primitive - yet perfectly lawful and very convenient.

'Man' would appear to be the first trust...

Cheers!

[Freeman Stephen]

All your words are fiction?

Ah... I see ...

[iamani]

Greetings

...says the blind man. All words are fiction.

Now  -  where was i...? Oh, yes...

Anyway. i was watching the latest vid from 'lifeinthemix' (YT, great channel, well worth subbing) and he mentions that the warrant card identifies the PC as a constable  -  i must beg to differ...

What follows is merely my opinion.

i have reason to believe that the warrant card is a modern version of the 'letter of marque and reprisal' issued (by the Monarch/Crown of days gone by) to ship-owners, private companies, who came to be known as 'privateers' and which were so authorised to commit what would normally be considered as acts of piracy upon 'foreign vessels'/'enemies of the State' with impunity, with the goal of shared profit and salvage rights and call it commerce and taxation.

The warrant card holds the number that identifies the bearer's permanent bond of indemnification ie insurance/assurance and this is why they are loathe to show it. This is also why they don't need car insurance on their Noddy-cars. If they but knew it, every copper could file paperwork to use the same bond to insure their own personal vehicle for free and even clear their mortgage and other liabilities because the fact that they are self-bonded suggests or even implies that each one is a 'made-man' ie 'Secured Party/Creditor' (supreme status in commerce) and the fact that each one is an INDEPENDENT agent of the Crown seems to corroborate that impression.

In any event it is their own (birth-certificate-)credit-file that is the actual surety to their mistakes/misdeeds when acting as a 'privateer' (policy-man) rather than as a constable. It evidences the individual (policy-man) officer's authority over those who choose to identify as 'human' (aka the ALLCAPS NAME).

Said authority is delegated to the policy-man by the Crown (which holds the controlling interest on each ALLCAPS NAME until it is claimed) and without having the warrant card about his person he has no authority to capitalise on Mr. Joe Public's statutory criminal (admiralty) infringements. That's why it is an offence for them to not carry it, especially whilst on-duty (and of course why one should always ask to see it...) as they would be operating in commerce without insurance

In further corroboration: the office of Constable is a purely land-based role, a semi-ecclesiastic and honorary office and as such unpaid and un-insurable. Insurance policies cannot be applied to land-based property and people, as all insurance is maritime-based.

As i say, just my opinion and i could be wrong - and if so i apologise in advance - but if i'm right, i'm sure he won't mind me correcting him...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

Was reading comments under a video and came across a ref to the ICC Act 2001, Sch 8. Very interesting reading in relation to our current predicament, but something unrelated to that caught my eye.

Firstly, notice how the statute title is styled to English language, as is the main body of text, but the headings are in Roman-slave-script aka ALLCAPS...

That tells us (imo) that this domestic act results from parliamentary compliance to an international agreement under Roman Civil Law.

...but that's not what piqued my interest. Check this out:

International Criminal Court Act 2001

SCHEDULE 8
GENOCIDE, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES: ARTICLES 6 TO 9

ARTICLE 7
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

2 For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(c)“Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

...See anything interesting? What does this statement suggest to you? To me it suggests:

a) that 'women and children' are legal-fiction-persons according to statute, otherwise they would not be mentioned;

b) that 'women and children' can be owned and trafficked but not 'man' (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others);

c) corroboration of the idea that 'man' (who is never mentioned in statute) is of a much higher status in law than 'women and children' ie 'man' is a benefice-soul, an ecclesiastic-fiction (with recognised rights) rather than a property of 'man' or a lowly legal-fiction (no rights, just attached benefits of privilege).

At first glance Art7: s2 (c)  seems a plain enough definition of the term 'enslavement' but in breakdown of the scrivening, there are three major components and a potential twist or two...

1) " “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person..."

That the scrivener of this piece seemingly accepts the possibility that someone can ever have 'right' of ownership power over a person, when all forms of slavery are abhorrent to law ie wrong, implies stipulation that 'person' does not refer to (non-consensual enslavement of) 'man'...

First question - is it then the (ecclesiastic-fiction-of-covenant) 'man' being referred to as the 'exercisor' ie who has right to exercise ownership over a person...?

Whereas in law only 'God' as creator may be owner of 'man', in turn (and as above so below) 'man' as creator of person has right only to exercise ownership over a person ie the right of use and administration of a (legal-fiction) person.

Second question: why only 'a person' singular? Should it not say 'person or persons'? Use of the singular might imply reference only to one person  -  so to which person does it refer...?

Might it refer to the reader...?

2) "...and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons,..."

This section ties down the definition by use of the term 'includes', so only that which is included defines the term. What's also interesting is the double-switch of singular/plural  -  part 1) has 'powers' and 'person' but part 2) lists 'power' and 'persons'. This might be (imo) a set up for the third part which is very cute  -  because legally-speaking i suspect 'women and children' is not the same as 'woman or child'

3) "...in particular women and children;"

Probably being excessively pedantic on the semantic here, but this phrase can be taken for more than one meaning eg:

"...in-particular women and children;"

"...in particular women-and-children;"

The first specifies all women and children being at risk; the second could be interpreted that only SOME women and children may be at risk, or could even be interpreted that some women and children might be perpetrators of trafficking in persons...

OED: Traffic = Trade (in goods, or usually in something that should not be bought & sold, as trafficking in men's lives)...

So:

Trafficking  =  the profiting (preying) of one (man) upon the weakness of another (usually a-human:being); evidence of unchecked desire; one's exploitation of another's pathetic vulnerability, for gain.

An alternative interpretation:

(c)“Enslavement” means the exercise of power attaching to the right of ownership over a person, and includes the exercise of power attaching to the right of ownership over a person in the course of trading said person, in particular a woman or child;

Now that's a bit different  -  it now more clearly suggests that slavery is ok until you try to buy or sell the slaves...

If we know that the stock markets buy and sell persons, why are there no prosecutions for enslavement? Is it because this Art7: s2 (c) is not what it initially appears to be, ie an attempt to curtail slavery, but instead just meaningless sop to hide something else...?

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

It seems that many of those who are offered the jib-jab and don't want it, they are asked - "Do you decline?".

This is a specific term being used generally, and makes me wonder... i mean, it made me think of how the po-po always ask - "...are you refusing?" when people don't instantly bend over. Like they can't act violently with impunity until they can say you 'refused to comply'.

So why in this instance regularly choose the term 'decline' over 'refuse' when both words are synonymically similar?

Is it just coincidence that the same one word 'decline' is regularly chosen over other synonyms? Whereas i consider 'coincidence-theorists' to be intellectually-lazy and/or crack-pots i would have to say 'no'...

We absolutely know that every opportunity to use language against us is utilised. i suspect this is no exception, although of course i could be seeing more into it than is the case...

...but what are they actually asking?

OED
Decline, show a downward slope or tendency, droop or draw to a close or decrease or deteriorate; refuse (challenge, battle, invitation, offer, to do or be treated), give or send refusal;

Cheers!

[Freeman Stephen]

They need your consent by law so sacred, the neglect of it causes war. This is a known. The terms of Article 1 of The Nuremberg Code should be brought to their attention, state they do not have your free consent and you will be offended by any further conversation on the matter. Any attempts at further conversation on the matter should be treated as idiotic rambling, bearing in mind it is also likely soft coersion in violation of the code. Idiots should be continually referred back to the code and no discussion should be entered into with them. Any use of physical force should be treated as an act of war. You are likely in enemy territory and outnumbered so get out and make a report to local networks. Try to capture evidence.