Greetings
i have been following with great interest the progress of the Common-law Court fronted/developed by John Smith and co. and i would highly recommend anyone interested in common-law to do the same and perhaps benefit from their efforts.
In a recent video John gets onto the subject of judges and mags etc refusing to recognise/acknowledge the living man in favour of conversing with 'the dead' (the legal-fiction) and so bringing into question the mental state of the court officials.
Sorry John but i think you may be missing a trick... imo they would say it is actually the bloke ('Fred Bloggs') in the dock acting as a 'medium', that it is he who converses with 'the dead' (FRED BLOGGS). Fred is after all claiming to be FRED whom the judge knows to be dead. Remember that the legal-person is often described as a 'vessel', and whereas we tend to think of said vessel as a 'ship' the word 'vessel' also describes a 'channel' (as in 'blood-vessel'; which coincidentally perfectly describes the placenta/umbilical/biomass...) and 'channelling' is another term for what mediums do. The judge is indeed talking to and with said bloke (living-Fred) - the pretence is that the bloke is 'channelling' the part of himself that died (actually murdered) during his parturition event - aka 'dead-Fred' or more accurately: 'FRED BLOGGS' (dec'd) simply because 'living-Fred' fraudulently assumes the identity of 'dead-FRED BLOGGS'. Yup, fraudulent Freddie is ripping off the Crown Corp.; thereby giving rise to the presumption of his dishonour before the court...
Kurt Kallenbach has done some great research on this subject (birth certificate problem child) that seems to match/parallel my own line of thought. He points out that the afterbirth is made up largely of Fred's DNA and only exists because of Fred. It is a living piece of the living-Fred right up to the point of its 'murder' when the umbilical is cut. However, there is also some of mother's DNA in there so she also has a legal interest in the placenta-biomass. The father has no biological connection to this biomass once it is amputated (docked) from Fred (hence "...no inheritable blood"). It is imo the mother's legal interest that is hi-jacked by the birth-registration procedure and it is dead-Fred the murdered placenta-biomass (which is legally described as a 'human life-form', btw) that is recorded/memorialised and then securitised as FRED BLOGGS, not living-Fred. The birth register is for still-born children only. In fact the whole Birth, Death, Marriages thing should read: Deaths, Deaths, and Deaths (marriage involves the 'death' of a person - the bride's maiden name).
Incidentally the removal of the umbilical could also be termed as a 'dock' (as in the docking of a puppy-dog's tail) by the doc'tor...
Extract from PPSR Act 1999 (NZ, from a Bill Turner vid)
Part 2 Preliminary provisions
16 Interpretation
document of title - means a writing issued by or addressed to a Bailee---
(a) that covers goods in the Bailee's possession that are identified or are fungible portions of an identified mass; and
(b) in which it is stated that the goods identified in it will be delivered to a named person, or the transferee of that person, or to bearer, or to the order of a named person
The PPSR process as far as i can tell is the NZ version of a UCC 1 filing, and Bill explains 'documents of title' and how to record them. This extract was shown regarding birth-registration documents and Bill was focused on (b) at the time, but it is the wording of (a) that caught my attention, in particular:
"...fungible portions of an identified mass..."
...which to me (after looking up the word 'fungible') potentially suggests evidence of mass/institutionalised murder-for-profit and human trafficking. After all, the placenta-biomass is classed as a 'human-life-form' that is 'considered' (note the use of a commercial term) to be 'born-alive' and 'viable'. If it is true that the placenta/umbilical is meant to stay attached to baby until it naturally drops off by itself (fully spent and delivered of whatever it is supplying baby with) about three days after parturition, it means that the forced separation may be viewed as murder and if the reason it is done is just to provide fodder for the stock market via registration then isn't that murder for profit...?
Cheers!
food for thought
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:44 pm
Greetings
With common-law still on my mind, i was wondering...
Is it possible to establish common-law jurisdiction at point of contact with police?
i believe so - maybe - if one ask's the right questions at the right time and on record (video! Switch it on AS SOON AS THEY APPROACH! i would not say a word until it's on). Bear in mind that if one has caused harm damage or loss, none of this will help; and that if one's attitude is of anything other than a calm and confident demeanour one will achieve nothing; and that as ever, this is all merely my opinion. It is up to each one of us how far we wish to go in the pursuit of the exercise of right. Evidently some prefer the exercise of 'rut'. Good luck to them...
Whereas dealing with common-law is (provably) not what police are paid for, these are the kind of questions i would ask if i wished to establish common-law jurisdiction in an uninvited/unwanted encounter with the thin-blue-line, eg perhaps while performing acts of photography in a public place:
First one needs to establish (for the record) the thin-blue-line's credentials, and their intent...
Strictly for the purists this one:
"Halt who goes there - friend or foe...?"
...and for everyone else:
1} "Is your body-cam recording?"
2} "Would you care to address me as '(first-name)'?"
3} "Do you intend to abuse or deprive me of my rights?"
4} "Do you understand that the video evidence of this encounter may be used against you in a court of law?"
5} "What is your name, address and D.O.B.?"
(They obviously won't give those details, but may ask why one ask's. One would be asking for the same reason they ask us for those details - to ascertain identity for a claim against a certain person's bond. One might now jump to Q49 through to Q57 and see if they get the idea...)
6} "What is your name, collar number and station?"
7} "What is the name of your inspector?"
8} "Are you currently engaged in the performance of a sworn duty?"
9} "Is it not considered dereliction of duty to go fishing whilst on-duty?"
10} "Do you know who i am?"
11} "So you are not looking for me?"
12} "Do you have lawful reason for impeding my progress?"
13} "Do you suspect me of a crime?"
14} "Do you require my assistance in the ongoing investigation of a crime?"
15} "So you are just fishing?"
16} "Are you aware that any impedance of my progress by yourselves may, in a court of law, be perceived as an arrest?"
17} "Am i being lawfully detained?"
(If they say anything other than 'yes' to Q17 one has the right to just turn and (SLOWLY!) walk away. Their words no longer count (unless their words are "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"). If no physical effort is made to stop you going on your way, you know you have achieved common-law jurisdiction. If one doesnt walk, then one is consenting to the encounter under their jurisdiction. If one does walk and then is physically touched by them - do not resist, do not express anger. Just stop. Smile. Ask some more questions...)
18} "Are you currently acting under the authority of a warrant-card?"
19} "Are you obligated to produce said warrant-card for inspection upon request of those with whom you seek to engage?"
20} "Do you seek to engage with myself?"
21} "Are you willing to produce said warrant-card for my thorough inspection?"
22} "Do you seek controversy?"
At some point, one might wish to deal with their questions...
23} "Is it possible i might incriminate myself by answering your questions?"
24} "Am i obliged to incriminate myself?"
25} "So i am not obliged to answer your questions?"
26} "Am i obliged to answer your questions?"
27} "Do you recognise the right to silence?"
28} "So i am not obliged to answer your questions?"
Eventually one will be asked to identify oneself...
29} "Am i obliged to have a name and address and D.O.B.?"
30} "Is a D.O.B. not hearsay in this instance?"
31} "Did i already indicate that you should address myself as '(first-name)'?"
32} "i have been known to use several names, which name would you like?"
33} "If a name appears under Crown copyright (birth certificate), does it not legally belong to the Crown?"
34} "If i don't own such, how can i lawfully give those details to you?"
35} "Doesn't a birth certificate legally advise us that it is not to be used for identification purposes?"
36} "Does the Crown have more authority than you?"
37} "Do you legally advise myself to ignore the prior legal advice of your employer, the Crown?"
38} "Were i to claim such a name as my own despite the clear legal advice from the copyright holder (the Crown), would i not be committing copyright fraud?"
39} "Do you incite myself to commit fraud against your employer?"
40} "Do you intend to bear false witness against myself?"
41} "Do you intend to falsely represent myself?"
...and now onto issues of language and style and financial impropriety:
42} "Are we on English soil?"
43} "Do you agree that we are speaking the English language?"
44} "Do you agree to record in English language and style, the details you request from myself?"
45} "Are you able to guarantee that said details will be henceforth recorded styled according to the rules of English language and grammar?"
46} "If you can't guarantee that, how do i know that the data you gather here won't be converted to unlawful use?"
47} "Does current legislation and regulation prohibit persons from sharing personal data if they suspect it may be used unlawfully by the proposed recipient of said personal data?"
48} "Are you legally qualified to determine which statute takes precedence over another statute?"
49} "Is it possible to create a financial instrument from the personal details you do request?"
50 } "Does the law still require consent of all parties involved in the creation of such an instrument?"
51} "Do you intend to create a financial instrument from the personal details you request?"
52} "Do you intend to make any kind of gain from doing so?"
53} "Were you aware that it is a crime to profit from crime?"
54} "Do you have work-related-performance targets to achieve?"
55} "If you log this encounter and/or issue an instrument do you gain credit towards your work-related-performance targets?"
56} "So you do intend to make gain from this encounter?"
57} "Do you consider myself to be a consenting party to this transaction?"
To expose the international fraud:
58} "As an English-man do i not have the right to be dealt with under English law?"
59} "Were you aware that the statutes you promote, quote and favour are not English law but private international administrative law?"
60} "Were you aware that Halsbury's Laws of England states that there is no place in English law for the foreign administrative courts you do collaborate with, and no act of legislation can change that?"
61} "Were you aware that private international administrative law applies only to those that are a consenting party to an international contract?"
62} "Do you have evidence that i am party to such a contract?"
63} "Were you aware that writing in block-capital letters is not considered in law to be English language style but rather a foreign/international language style?"
64} "Were you aware that in ignoring my express will to record in English the details i may give you, and then recording said details in a foreign style to make fiscal gain for yourself or others to my detriment, you do bear false witness; and misrepresent both yourself and myself; and commit the trespass of converting property of another to your own use?"
...and here's a couple for those who consider themselves Christians:
65} "Do you seek to lead me into temptation?"
66} "Do you seek to deliver me unto evil?"
...although i suspect these last two (very powerful) questions would be much better used in a court setting.
After all that (kudos to anyone who makes it through the whole list!), if they insist on writing a ticket, when they hand it over for a signature one will notice they have marked the signature line with an 'x'. This is a signature in itself. One might like to ask them:
67} "Why do you sign a ticket that you say is for myself?"
68} "Do you claim to legally represent the person who's data you have recorded on this instrument?"
69} "Am i obliged to sign this?"
...and should they walk away - no personal details taken nor ticket issued - congratulations! One has just established common-law jurisdiction, you little legend you! If you DO get a ticket then it's just an opportunity to ask more questions via correspondence. Ask enough of the right questions and you might be left alone...
Ok it's just a bit of fun to suggest one would get through all those questions - but it's not too hard to remember some of them. The point is: question everything - EVERYTHING! To question is the answer to all problems. A claim may bring you blame, a statement just the same, but to question shows you sane... (and competent!).
Btw, please feel free to add or ask your own questions...
Cheers!
With common-law still on my mind, i was wondering...
Is it possible to establish common-law jurisdiction at point of contact with police?
i believe so - maybe - if one ask's the right questions at the right time and on record (video! Switch it on AS SOON AS THEY APPROACH! i would not say a word until it's on). Bear in mind that if one has caused harm damage or loss, none of this will help; and that if one's attitude is of anything other than a calm and confident demeanour one will achieve nothing; and that as ever, this is all merely my opinion. It is up to each one of us how far we wish to go in the pursuit of the exercise of right. Evidently some prefer the exercise of 'rut'. Good luck to them...
Whereas dealing with common-law is (provably) not what police are paid for, these are the kind of questions i would ask if i wished to establish common-law jurisdiction in an uninvited/unwanted encounter with the thin-blue-line, eg perhaps while performing acts of photography in a public place:
First one needs to establish (for the record) the thin-blue-line's credentials, and their intent...
Strictly for the purists this one:
"Halt who goes there - friend or foe...?"
...and for everyone else:
1} "Is your body-cam recording?"
2} "Would you care to address me as '(first-name)'?"
3} "Do you intend to abuse or deprive me of my rights?"
4} "Do you understand that the video evidence of this encounter may be used against you in a court of law?"
5} "What is your name, address and D.O.B.?"
(They obviously won't give those details, but may ask why one ask's. One would be asking for the same reason they ask us for those details - to ascertain identity for a claim against a certain person's bond. One might now jump to Q49 through to Q57 and see if they get the idea...)
6} "What is your name, collar number and station?"
7} "What is the name of your inspector?"
8} "Are you currently engaged in the performance of a sworn duty?"
9} "Is it not considered dereliction of duty to go fishing whilst on-duty?"
10} "Do you know who i am?"
11} "So you are not looking for me?"
12} "Do you have lawful reason for impeding my progress?"
13} "Do you suspect me of a crime?"
14} "Do you require my assistance in the ongoing investigation of a crime?"
15} "So you are just fishing?"
16} "Are you aware that any impedance of my progress by yourselves may, in a court of law, be perceived as an arrest?"
17} "Am i being lawfully detained?"
(If they say anything other than 'yes' to Q17 one has the right to just turn and (SLOWLY!) walk away. Their words no longer count (unless their words are "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"). If no physical effort is made to stop you going on your way, you know you have achieved common-law jurisdiction. If one doesnt walk, then one is consenting to the encounter under their jurisdiction. If one does walk and then is physically touched by them - do not resist, do not express anger. Just stop. Smile. Ask some more questions...)
18} "Are you currently acting under the authority of a warrant-card?"
19} "Are you obligated to produce said warrant-card for inspection upon request of those with whom you seek to engage?"
20} "Do you seek to engage with myself?"
21} "Are you willing to produce said warrant-card for my thorough inspection?"
22} "Do you seek controversy?"
At some point, one might wish to deal with their questions...
23} "Is it possible i might incriminate myself by answering your questions?"
24} "Am i obliged to incriminate myself?"
25} "So i am not obliged to answer your questions?"
26} "Am i obliged to answer your questions?"
27} "Do you recognise the right to silence?"
28} "So i am not obliged to answer your questions?"
Eventually one will be asked to identify oneself...
29} "Am i obliged to have a name and address and D.O.B.?"
30} "Is a D.O.B. not hearsay in this instance?"
31} "Did i already indicate that you should address myself as '(first-name)'?"
32} "i have been known to use several names, which name would you like?"
33} "If a name appears under Crown copyright (birth certificate), does it not legally belong to the Crown?"
34} "If i don't own such, how can i lawfully give those details to you?"
35} "Doesn't a birth certificate legally advise us that it is not to be used for identification purposes?"
36} "Does the Crown have more authority than you?"
37} "Do you legally advise myself to ignore the prior legal advice of your employer, the Crown?"
38} "Were i to claim such a name as my own despite the clear legal advice from the copyright holder (the Crown), would i not be committing copyright fraud?"
39} "Do you incite myself to commit fraud against your employer?"
40} "Do you intend to bear false witness against myself?"
41} "Do you intend to falsely represent myself?"
...and now onto issues of language and style and financial impropriety:
42} "Are we on English soil?"
43} "Do you agree that we are speaking the English language?"
44} "Do you agree to record in English language and style, the details you request from myself?"
45} "Are you able to guarantee that said details will be henceforth recorded styled according to the rules of English language and grammar?"
46} "If you can't guarantee that, how do i know that the data you gather here won't be converted to unlawful use?"
47} "Does current legislation and regulation prohibit persons from sharing personal data if they suspect it may be used unlawfully by the proposed recipient of said personal data?"
48} "Are you legally qualified to determine which statute takes precedence over another statute?"
49} "Is it possible to create a financial instrument from the personal details you do request?"
50 } "Does the law still require consent of all parties involved in the creation of such an instrument?"
51} "Do you intend to create a financial instrument from the personal details you request?"
52} "Do you intend to make any kind of gain from doing so?"
53} "Were you aware that it is a crime to profit from crime?"
54} "Do you have work-related-performance targets to achieve?"
55} "If you log this encounter and/or issue an instrument do you gain credit towards your work-related-performance targets?"
56} "So you do intend to make gain from this encounter?"
57} "Do you consider myself to be a consenting party to this transaction?"
To expose the international fraud:
58} "As an English-man do i not have the right to be dealt with under English law?"
59} "Were you aware that the statutes you promote, quote and favour are not English law but private international administrative law?"
60} "Were you aware that Halsbury's Laws of England states that there is no place in English law for the foreign administrative courts you do collaborate with, and no act of legislation can change that?"
61} "Were you aware that private international administrative law applies only to those that are a consenting party to an international contract?"
62} "Do you have evidence that i am party to such a contract?"
63} "Were you aware that writing in block-capital letters is not considered in law to be English language style but rather a foreign/international language style?"
64} "Were you aware that in ignoring my express will to record in English the details i may give you, and then recording said details in a foreign style to make fiscal gain for yourself or others to my detriment, you do bear false witness; and misrepresent both yourself and myself; and commit the trespass of converting property of another to your own use?"
...and here's a couple for those who consider themselves Christians:
65} "Do you seek to lead me into temptation?"
66} "Do you seek to deliver me unto evil?"
...although i suspect these last two (very powerful) questions would be much better used in a court setting.
After all that (kudos to anyone who makes it through the whole list!), if they insist on writing a ticket, when they hand it over for a signature one will notice they have marked the signature line with an 'x'. This is a signature in itself. One might like to ask them:
67} "Why do you sign a ticket that you say is for myself?"
68} "Do you claim to legally represent the person who's data you have recorded on this instrument?"
69} "Am i obliged to sign this?"
...and should they walk away - no personal details taken nor ticket issued - congratulations! One has just established common-law jurisdiction, you little legend you! If you DO get a ticket then it's just an opportunity to ask more questions via correspondence. Ask enough of the right questions and you might be left alone...
Ok it's just a bit of fun to suggest one would get through all those questions - but it's not too hard to remember some of them. The point is: question everything - EVERYTHING! To question is the answer to all problems. A claim may bring you blame, a statement just the same, but to question shows you sane... (and competent!).
Btw, please feel free to add or ask your own questions...
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:59 pm
Greetings
Oops!
We ARE the strawman. Whereas the consensus is usually that the ens legis fills that role, i now think we are mistaken in that assumption.
i suspect there may have been a huge sigh of relief somewhere when we mistakenly took the ALLCAPS/legal-fiction to be the strawman, but I suspect their guffaws of laughter to be tinged with unease...
We are the strawman for the ALLCAPS organisation created via the birth registration process.
Why? Several reasons. i came across a definition for 'strawman' that pointed out that the man/woman needs to be unaware of the true purpose of an enterprise created by others and with which he/she has become involved, ie unaware that he/she is being used as a fallguy/patsy. If said man/woman is aware of and consents to the personal risk attached to their involvement with said shady enterprise he/she is complicit and scienter - not nescient/unaware.
Whereas the dead-legal-fiction has no capacity to be aware or unaware of anything; and whereas most people ARE unaware of the true purpose of the ALLCAPS and title, and ARE being used as fallguy/patsy by others, i would say 'strawman' describes most people...
Cheers!
Oops!
We ARE the strawman. Whereas the consensus is usually that the ens legis fills that role, i now think we are mistaken in that assumption.
i suspect there may have been a huge sigh of relief somewhere when we mistakenly took the ALLCAPS/legal-fiction to be the strawman, but I suspect their guffaws of laughter to be tinged with unease...
We are the strawman for the ALLCAPS organisation created via the birth registration process.
Why? Several reasons. i came across a definition for 'strawman' that pointed out that the man/woman needs to be unaware of the true purpose of an enterprise created by others and with which he/she has become involved, ie unaware that he/she is being used as a fallguy/patsy. If said man/woman is aware of and consents to the personal risk attached to their involvement with said shady enterprise he/she is complicit and scienter - not nescient/unaware.
Whereas the dead-legal-fiction has no capacity to be aware or unaware of anything; and whereas most people ARE unaware of the true purpose of the ALLCAPS and title, and ARE being used as fallguy/patsy by others, i would say 'strawman' describes most people...
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:12 am
Greetings
Is it true that the word 'man' is not legally defined? i don't think so. It may not be defined in Black's or other legal-term dictionaries, but it is defined in the legal-tome known as the KJV:
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
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.
So we have water and dust, which makes ink, and we have a formed (form=paper) man ie a man by title, ie indoctrination neo-personified (in)corporation - or 'Inc.' and so:
Man is born of paper and Inc.
...and one cannot touch a soul.
Remember - anything one cannot touch is fiction... one can touch the paper and ink but not the concept of 'man'.
'Man' is a fiction/indoctrination created and therefore owned by the church - doesn't matter which one, as there is no longer any separation between Roman Catholic and Anglican.
We are not 'man' nor 'woman' nor 'human' - for these are but (legal) titles - though we are treated as such if we claim to be one of these legal-fictions. Admittedly one has higher status in the fiction of 'man'.
So what are we...? For myself i would prefer to be described rather than named/titled (ie OWNED!). i would choose to describe myself as: wholly-sentient-flesh-bone-blood; as i think that covers all the bases without treading on any copyrighted toes... bit of a mouthful though.
The god of the old testament created 'man', or so the story goes. That would be 'God' of Genesis 1 rather than 'LORD God' of Genesis 2, who only adapted 'man' to his own purpose and agenda. It would appear that Frank o'Collins bases his philosophy/procedure on the Genesis 1:1 narrative of a singular heaven - very clever, i must say. Bravo, Frank! Come back, you are missed...
'Man' is only the aggregate of the stories he is given (indoctri) and the stories he mentally tells himself and speaks to others (btw the 'tower of Ba'el' is also made up of 'stor(e)ys - make of that what you will). He is not the flesh, the flesh (according to Genesis, in my current opinion) is termed 'woman' and/or 'surpent'. ALL flesh, all physicality, is of the feminine...
When one reads the KJV as a legal document/contract much is revealed. Whether my interpretation here is correct or not i don't yet know, but it certainly opens the mind to other possibilities...
Eg:
Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Hebrew original may also be translated as:
"The source agreement secures the bond of the fiction and the physical (eg flesh)."
What is our first agreement? Birth certificate, perhaps...? Or one's first signature to the ALLCAPS name/title...? i suspect the latter seals the deal of the former. But it could even be just our acceptance of the N.I. number, as if you don't question or return the paperwork (sent to you on or before the age of consent) it becomes deemed contract and BOOM! - you just volunteered!
Cheers!
Is it true that the word 'man' is not legally defined? i don't think so. It may not be defined in Black's or other legal-term dictionaries, but it is defined in the legal-tome known as the KJV:
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
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.
So we have water and dust, which makes ink, and we have a formed (form=paper) man ie a man by title, ie indoctrination neo-personified (in)corporation - or 'Inc.' and so:
Man is born of paper and Inc.
...and one cannot touch a soul.
Remember - anything one cannot touch is fiction... one can touch the paper and ink but not the concept of 'man'.
'Man' is a fiction/indoctrination created and therefore owned by the church - doesn't matter which one, as there is no longer any separation between Roman Catholic and Anglican.
We are not 'man' nor 'woman' nor 'human' - for these are but (legal) titles - though we are treated as such if we claim to be one of these legal-fictions. Admittedly one has higher status in the fiction of 'man'.
So what are we...? For myself i would prefer to be described rather than named/titled (ie OWNED!). i would choose to describe myself as: wholly-sentient-flesh-bone-blood; as i think that covers all the bases without treading on any copyrighted toes... bit of a mouthful though.
The god of the old testament created 'man', or so the story goes. That would be 'God' of Genesis 1 rather than 'LORD God' of Genesis 2, who only adapted 'man' to his own purpose and agenda. It would appear that Frank o'Collins bases his philosophy/procedure on the Genesis 1:1 narrative of a singular heaven - very clever, i must say. Bravo, Frank! Come back, you are missed...
'Man' is only the aggregate of the stories he is given (indoctri) and the stories he mentally tells himself and speaks to others (btw the 'tower of Ba'el' is also made up of 'stor(e)ys - make of that what you will). He is not the flesh, the flesh (according to Genesis, in my current opinion) is termed 'woman' and/or 'surpent'. ALL flesh, all physicality, is of the feminine...
When one reads the KJV as a legal document/contract much is revealed. Whether my interpretation here is correct or not i don't yet know, but it certainly opens the mind to other possibilities...
Eg:
Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Hebrew original may also be translated as:
"The source agreement secures the bond of the fiction and the physical (eg flesh)."
What is our first agreement? Birth certificate, perhaps...? Or one's first signature to the ALLCAPS name/title...? i suspect the latter seals the deal of the former. But it could even be just our acceptance of the N.I. number, as if you don't question or return the paperwork (sent to you on or before the age of consent) it becomes deemed contract and BOOM! - you just volunteered!
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:12 pm
Greetings
Anyone taken a good look at The Lord's Prayer lately? i mean a really good look, a forensic scrutiny... perhaps you should, because it is the Christian contract ie the new covenant, and i'm told el Papa has recently changed it...
It's all very interesting to me, but i draw your attention in particular to the phrasing:
"...as we forgive those who trespass against us..."
followed by:
"...and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil..."
If you've learned to recite the prayer you may know that the cadence can be such as to imply the separation of those two lines, which has lead to confusion over the meaning of the second line as it appears to imply that we implore 'God' not to be evil... which goes against the consensus perception of 'God'.
i believe said second line is to be dropped, supposedly removing the confusion. But does it? i find the suggestion of its removal even more confusing than the line itself! At least, i did until i read it like a contract and found that if one reads it like so:
"...as we forgive those-who-trespass-against-us-and-lead-us-not-into-temptation-but-deliver-us-from-evil..."
...it is slightly more revealing. Do you see what i see...? Do you see a clause in the contract granting qualified immunity to a certain group of people? i think you should.
So who are 'those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil...' ? Who is it that we are to allow trespass against us as long as they do it solely for our benefit...? And why did the Pope choose to change that clause recently...?
i believe said line refers to the secular authorities, eg courts and police and the various other supposed governmental agencies, and that we are to forgive their trespasses against us if and only if said authorities did not (directly or indirectly) cause the temptation-to-offend that created the controversy; and if their interest in the situation is not motivated by personal gain ie you are not being thrown to the ravenous wolf ie delivered unto evil.
Do you know the true definition of 'evil' in the bible? i have checked several Oxford dictionaries and not one of them gives the correct and simple definition. You think it means the opposite of 'good'? Think again. Do you even know what 'good' means in its simplest sense? Have you ever even thought about it? i will explain what i mean in a future post, but i suggest you read Genesis 3 from the perspective of legal/commercial scrutiny, you may be surprised how simple (and relevant) it is.
Ok, so have such elements of the government ever lead us into temptation, and have they ever delivered us unto evil...?
If not, then just regard this post as more of my nonsense.
Cheers!
Anyone taken a good look at The Lord's Prayer lately? i mean a really good look, a forensic scrutiny... perhaps you should, because it is the Christian contract ie the new covenant, and i'm told el Papa has recently changed it...
It's all very interesting to me, but i draw your attention in particular to the phrasing:
"...as we forgive those who trespass against us..."
followed by:
"...and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil..."
If you've learned to recite the prayer you may know that the cadence can be such as to imply the separation of those two lines, which has lead to confusion over the meaning of the second line as it appears to imply that we implore 'God' not to be evil... which goes against the consensus perception of 'God'.
i believe said second line is to be dropped, supposedly removing the confusion. But does it? i find the suggestion of its removal even more confusing than the line itself! At least, i did until i read it like a contract and found that if one reads it like so:
"...as we forgive those-who-trespass-against-us-and-lead-us-not-into-temptation-but-deliver-us-from-evil..."
...it is slightly more revealing. Do you see what i see...? Do you see a clause in the contract granting qualified immunity to a certain group of people? i think you should.
So who are 'those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil...' ? Who is it that we are to allow trespass against us as long as they do it solely for our benefit...? And why did the Pope choose to change that clause recently...?
i believe said line refers to the secular authorities, eg courts and police and the various other supposed governmental agencies, and that we are to forgive their trespasses against us if and only if said authorities did not (directly or indirectly) cause the temptation-to-offend that created the controversy; and if their interest in the situation is not motivated by personal gain ie you are not being thrown to the ravenous wolf ie delivered unto evil.
Do you know the true definition of 'evil' in the bible? i have checked several Oxford dictionaries and not one of them gives the correct and simple definition. You think it means the opposite of 'good'? Think again. Do you even know what 'good' means in its simplest sense? Have you ever even thought about it? i will explain what i mean in a future post, but i suggest you read Genesis 3 from the perspective of legal/commercial scrutiny, you may be surprised how simple (and relevant) it is.
Ok, so have such elements of the government ever lead us into temptation, and have they ever delivered us unto evil...?
If not, then just regard this post as more of my nonsense.
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Thu Apr 02, 2020 1:29 pm
Greetings
Here's something i knocked-up for a better understanding...
Law = agreement; consensus; covenant, contract. What is a 'legg'? It is law that you stand upon for your claim. What is 'standing'? Ideally it is an incontrovertible fact of law eg a square is made up of four equal internal angles - this is an incontrovertible fact of law = agreement; consensus; covenant, contract. What is a 'legg'? It is law that you stand upon for your claim. What is 'standing'? Ideally it is an incontrovertible fact of law eg a square is made up of four equal internal angles - this is an incontrovertible fact of law = agreement; consensus; covenant, contract. What is a 'legg'? It is law that you stand upon for your claim. What is 'standing'? Ideally it is an incontrovertible fact of law eg a square is made up of four equal internal angles - this is an incontrovertible fact of law = agreement; consensus; covenant, contract. What is a 'legg'? It is law that you stand upon for your claim. What is 'standing'? Ideally it is an incontrovertible fact of law eg a square is made up of four equal internal angles - this is an incontrovertible fact of law = ... etc.
Cheers!
Here's something i knocked-up for a better understanding...
Law = agreement; consensus; covenant, contract. What is a 'legg'? It is law that you stand upon for your claim. What is 'standing'? Ideally it is an incontrovertible fact of law eg a square is made up of four equal internal angles - this is an incontrovertible fact of law = agreement; consensus; covenant, contract. What is a 'legg'? It is law that you stand upon for your claim. What is 'standing'? Ideally it is an incontrovertible fact of law eg a square is made up of four equal internal angles - this is an incontrovertible fact of law = agreement; consensus; covenant, contract. What is a 'legg'? It is law that you stand upon for your claim. What is 'standing'? Ideally it is an incontrovertible fact of law eg a square is made up of four equal internal angles - this is an incontrovertible fact of law = agreement; consensus; covenant, contract. What is a 'legg'? It is law that you stand upon for your claim. What is 'standing'? Ideally it is an incontrovertible fact of law eg a square is made up of four equal internal angles - this is an incontrovertible fact of law = ... etc.
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:22 am
Greetings
Have you ever wondered why a 'voluntary attendance interview' is so called, when the police can threaten to arrest you if you refuse to agree to such? How ridiculous is that...?
i spent an hour online trying to find information that outlined procedure for police requesting a voluntary attendance interview of a person, that i might unravel the mystery by checking their definition of 'voluntary', and it might be down to poor research skills but i found nothing. Lots of stuff on procedure and 'rights' once you attend, and what might happen afterwards but nothing on the lead up to the request for an interview.
If my lack of findings is not due to my own shortcomings then i must conclude that they may be hiding evidence of how one may decline the offer of such an interview. They may threaten to arrest you, but if they had evidence enough to do so they would surely have done so already. So it really is up to the individual concerned whether to accept the offer or not.
It happened to a friend - he was put under a lot of pressure (7 or 8 plod) to agree to a voluntary attendance interview so he turned up, handed over a prepared statement and was physically restrained when he tried to leave.
i was reminded of this while watching a recent marti blagborough YT wherein a bloke who 'terrorised' a traffic warden by pointing a camera at him and being polite, had 5 uniforms at his door soon after, who told him if he didn't agree to a 'voluntary attendance interview' he might be arrested - despite there being actual video evidence showing no crime and no victim.
So how can they do that when the people are clearly not volunteering to attend, but are in fact and seeming evidence, coerced?
It's quite simple really - just another play on words and our perception of them in as much as we see the word 'voluntary' as an adjective, whereas the police and courts seem to be using it in this instance as a noun...
How so...?
...because if they use the word 'voluntary' as an adjective it means they recognise the man in common-law rather than the legal-fiction in Admiralty/maritime...
Why...?
...because one thing a legal-person can never do or be is: a volunteer... as to volunteer is an act of will. A strawman (a deceived man or woman) can volunteer, but not the ens legis that he or she operates/represents.
So what can we do...?
Ideally we would perhaps un-volunteer, but maybe more on that in a later post. For now, one might consider the following:
As ever, imo it's better to conditionally accept the offer rather than outright refusal, and perhaps also ask some pertinent questions eg one might calmly and politely ask:
"Do you suspect an offence has been committed?"
"Would you agree that you regard me as a person of interest in your current investigation?"
"Are you familiar with the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice?"
College of Policing: Authorised Professional Practice: Investigation: Investigative Interviewing;
Legal issues:
A person is innocent until proved guilty. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove their case against a person suspected of committing an offence.
A suspect is under no obligation to provide material to an investigator or prosecutor which is likely to be self-incriminating or which will assist the prosecution case.
"Whereas you agree that you consider me a person suspected of committing an offence, i accept your offer of a 'voluntary attendance interview' on strict condition that nothing i say will be used to assist the prosecution case"
Or:
"i agree to answer your questions on strict condition that nothing i say will be used to assist the prosecution case"
Or just:
"What does 'voluntary' mean...?"
Cheers!
Have you ever wondered why a 'voluntary attendance interview' is so called, when the police can threaten to arrest you if you refuse to agree to such? How ridiculous is that...?
i spent an hour online trying to find information that outlined procedure for police requesting a voluntary attendance interview of a person, that i might unravel the mystery by checking their definition of 'voluntary', and it might be down to poor research skills but i found nothing. Lots of stuff on procedure and 'rights' once you attend, and what might happen afterwards but nothing on the lead up to the request for an interview.
If my lack of findings is not due to my own shortcomings then i must conclude that they may be hiding evidence of how one may decline the offer of such an interview. They may threaten to arrest you, but if they had evidence enough to do so they would surely have done so already. So it really is up to the individual concerned whether to accept the offer or not.
It happened to a friend - he was put under a lot of pressure (7 or 8 plod) to agree to a voluntary attendance interview so he turned up, handed over a prepared statement and was physically restrained when he tried to leave.
i was reminded of this while watching a recent marti blagborough YT wherein a bloke who 'terrorised' a traffic warden by pointing a camera at him and being polite, had 5 uniforms at his door soon after, who told him if he didn't agree to a 'voluntary attendance interview' he might be arrested - despite there being actual video evidence showing no crime and no victim.
So how can they do that when the people are clearly not volunteering to attend, but are in fact and seeming evidence, coerced?
It's quite simple really - just another play on words and our perception of them in as much as we see the word 'voluntary' as an adjective, whereas the police and courts seem to be using it in this instance as a noun...
How so...?
...because if they use the word 'voluntary' as an adjective it means they recognise the man in common-law rather than the legal-fiction in Admiralty/maritime...
Why...?
...because one thing a legal-person can never do or be is: a volunteer... as to volunteer is an act of will. A strawman (a deceived man or woman) can volunteer, but not the ens legis that he or she operates/represents.
So what can we do...?
Ideally we would perhaps un-volunteer, but maybe more on that in a later post. For now, one might consider the following:
As ever, imo it's better to conditionally accept the offer rather than outright refusal, and perhaps also ask some pertinent questions eg one might calmly and politely ask:
"Do you suspect an offence has been committed?"
"Would you agree that you regard me as a person of interest in your current investigation?"
"Are you familiar with the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice?"
College of Policing: Authorised Professional Practice: Investigation: Investigative Interviewing;
Legal issues:
A person is innocent until proved guilty. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove their case against a person suspected of committing an offence.
A suspect is under no obligation to provide material to an investigator or prosecutor which is likely to be self-incriminating or which will assist the prosecution case.
"Whereas you agree that you consider me a person suspected of committing an offence, i accept your offer of a 'voluntary attendance interview' on strict condition that nothing i say will be used to assist the prosecution case"
Or:
"i agree to answer your questions on strict condition that nothing i say will be used to assist the prosecution case"
Or just:
"What does 'voluntary' mean...?"
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by MikeThomas » Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:22 am
Or just say.......... NOTHING! That's your right!
As far as I'm concerned if Plod have evidence on you committing a 'crime' then they don't really need your input do they?
As far as I'm concerned if Plod have evidence on you committing a 'crime' then they don't really need your input do they?
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
-
MikeThomas - Moderator
- Posts: 1649
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
- Location: Llanharan, South Wales
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:58 pm
Hi Mike Thomas
Good advice...
"Shut up - and then shut up some more!"
Very good advice, as good now as it ever was. The above quote is from an ex-cop in the U.S. blowing the whistle on police tactics there.
Only for those (like me) who can't keep it shut, and/or those inclined to exercise their rights and prepared to deal with a court hearing without representation (like you), and/or those who might wish to establish early (and polite, non-belligerent) dominance in encounters with police who are doing their job (revenue generation) rather than their sworn duty (peace-keeping and protection of the people's rights) i might suggest asking such questions as were posed in my prior post.
After all, isn't that our agreed aim - to re-establish dominance over our wayward public servants, and to do so in honour?
However, i appreciate your contribution and i do see your point - so i would like to offer compromise:
If one knows nothing - say nothing!
If one has questions - then ask!
If memory serves, Musashi once mentioned a case you were involved in where you stuck to your principles, applied your researched knowledge and stood your ground quite competently only to be told by the judge/magistrate that he was now going to try you under military jurisdiction - is my recollection correct?
May i ask... did you ever get to the bottom of how they were able to do that? If you've already posted that info would you mind telling me what topic it's under so i can go look? i suspect it might help me in a post i'm currently drafting...
Cheers!
Good advice...
"Shut up - and then shut up some more!"
Very good advice, as good now as it ever was. The above quote is from an ex-cop in the U.S. blowing the whistle on police tactics there.
Only for those (like me) who can't keep it shut, and/or those inclined to exercise their rights and prepared to deal with a court hearing without representation (like you), and/or those who might wish to establish early (and polite, non-belligerent) dominance in encounters with police who are doing their job (revenue generation) rather than their sworn duty (peace-keeping and protection of the people's rights) i might suggest asking such questions as were posed in my prior post.
After all, isn't that our agreed aim - to re-establish dominance over our wayward public servants, and to do so in honour?
However, i appreciate your contribution and i do see your point - so i would like to offer compromise:
If one knows nothing - say nothing!
If one has questions - then ask!
If memory serves, Musashi once mentioned a case you were involved in where you stuck to your principles, applied your researched knowledge and stood your ground quite competently only to be told by the judge/magistrate that he was now going to try you under military jurisdiction - is my recollection correct?
May i ask... did you ever get to the bottom of how they were able to do that? If you've already posted that info would you mind telling me what topic it's under so i can go look? i suspect it might help me in a post i'm currently drafting...
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Re: food for thought
by iamani » Mon Apr 13, 2020 1:56 am
Greetings
63) We volunteer to act our lives as players of fiction...
...and we, in the state of voluntariness under voluntarism, do volunteer voluntarily as a voluntary of the voluntariate to the voluntary sector in voluntary-servitude to the army, the navy, the merch', the Church, the Crown corp, the clown corp and every other corporate shark we choose to swim/agree with unilaterally.
Cheers!
63) We volunteer to act our lives as players of fiction...
...and we, in the state of voluntariness under voluntarism, do volunteer voluntarily as a voluntary of the voluntariate to the voluntary sector in voluntary-servitude to the army, the navy, the merch', the Church, the Crown corp, the clown corp and every other corporate shark we choose to swim/agree with unilaterally.
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
- iamani
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests