• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHY (THE DEFINITION OF THE STATE, THE SOVEREIGN AND CONSENT)

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
601
Reaction score
126
THE DESIGN OF THE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM, THE DEFINITION OF "STATE", THE "SOVEREIGN" AND THE "GOVERNED"

In the state court system in the United States, the head of every law enforcement agency (city, county, state) is ELECTED by "We the People", all of the judges are ELECTED by "We the People", all statutes enforced or otherwise used are written by lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People", in some states all of the prosecutors are ELECTED by "We the People" and all of the public defenders are ELECTED by "We the People", The parties to every case (criminal or civil) even get to pick their own juries (who make the ultimate decision as to guilt or innocence or liability of no liability). The judge is only a referee between two opposing parties until the jury reaches its verdict.

The purpose of this system was to guarantee that "We the People" ELECT every person who is in a position to influence in any aspect of our own justice system, right down to the Clerk Of Court and the Property Appraiser.

The federal court system in the United States is the same except that instead of these public servants being ELECTED by "We the People", they are APPOINTED by those that "We the People" ELECT to make those "APPOINTMENTS". Like the state court system, the parties to every case (criminal or civil) get to pick their own juries (who make the ultimate decision as to guilt or innocence or liability or no liability). The judge is only a referee between two opposing parties until the jury reaches its verdict.

IN THE UNITED STATES, THE "STATE" MEANS ALL OF THE PEOPLE RESIDING WITHIN TERRITORIAL BORDERS

1). See the very first definition here at 1:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck87nSn9Fcs

2). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state

3). See the third and forth definitions
https://www.definitions.net/definition/state

4). See definition number 5
https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/state.html

5).. See definitions 3 a.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/state

6). See definitions 5 a & 5 b.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

7). See definitions 5 a & 5 b
https://www.yourdictionary.com/state

WHEN DID "WE THE PEOPLE" BECOME DIABOLICAL AND TYRANNICAL?



THE DEFINITION OF THE "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed#:~:text=explore dictionary-,consent of the governed,democracy, and John Locke.)
A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people [a PLURAL term], AS EXPRESSED BY VOTES IN ELECTIONS. (See Declaration of Independence, democracy, and John Locke.)

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself said, "[It is] by THEIR [a PLURAL term] VOTES [also a PLURAL term] [that] the PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term] exercise THEIR [also a PLURAL term] sovereignty". Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws.
at about 55% through the text in the middle last paragraph before the dissent and the concurring opinion HERE.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2459141824775540924&q="the+people+exercise+their+sovereignty"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006



DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGN"
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx#:~:text="... a determinate person,obedience to any human superior."
Has two meanings. The first one is a technical word for the monarch (king or queen) OF A PARTICULAR COUNTRY as in the Sovereign of England is Queen Elizabeth. The other meaning of the word is to describe the supreme legislative powers OF A STATE: that they are totally independent and free from any outside political control or authority over their decisions.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT) OUTSIDE A NATION RULED BY A KING OR QUEEN.



DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGNTY"

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereignty.aspx
A STATE'S ability to legislate without legal limitation save as set by themselves and the reach of international law.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+power
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which AN INDEPENDENT STATE is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence OF A STATE, combined with the right and power of regulating ITS [not his or her] internal affairs without foreign interference. Sovereignty is the power OF A STATE to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as MAKING, EXECUTING and APPLYING LAWS, IMPOSING and COLLECTING TAXES, MAKING WAR and PEACE and FORMING TREATIES or ENGAGING IN COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT). DOES AN INDIVIDUAL HAVE THE "POWER OF A STATE" to MAKE LAW, EXECUTE LAW, APPLY LAW, IMPOSE TAXES, MAKE WAR AND PEACE, FORM TREATIES OR ENGAGE IN COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty
Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process OF THE STATE and in the maintenance of order.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the full right and power OF A GOVERNING BODY over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme legitimate authority over some polity.[1] In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power BY A STATE.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/
Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. THE STATE is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereignty
the quality or state of being sovereign, or of having supreme power or authority.
the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign;royal rank or position; royalty.
supreme and independent power or authority IN GOVERNMENT as possessed or claimed BY A STATE or community.
rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
A SOVEREIGN OR INDEPENDENT STATE, community or political unit.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sovereignty
the power OF A COUNTRY to control its own government:

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereignty
Sovereignty is a political concept that refers to dominant power or supreme authority. In a monarchy, supreme power resides in the "sovereign", or king. In modern democracies, sovereign power rests with the people [A PLURAL TERM] and IS EXERCISED THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE BODIES SUCH AS CONGRESS OR PARLIAMENT. The Sovereign is the one who exercises power without limitation. Sovereignty is essentially THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS, even as Blackstone defined it. The term also carries implications of autonomy; to have sovereign power is to be beyond the power of others to interfere.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/sovereignty
Sovereignty is the power THAT A COUNTRY HAS to govern itself or another country or state.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.lexico.com/definition/sovereignty
1. Supreme power or authority, "the sovereignty OF PARLIAMENT"
2. The authority OF A STATE to govern itself or another state. "national sovereignty"
3. SELF GOVERNING STATE.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/what-is-sovereignty.htm
Sovereignty is a term that is used to refer to the independence and autonomy of modern NATION STATES. Unlike earlier eras where countries were ruled by Kings in historic times and by colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries, sovereignty refers to the fact of absolute independence and autonomy that NATION STATES have with respect to the decisions taken by them in matters concerning their citizenry.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS DEFINITION THAT MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A "SOVEREIGN" (A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).



7TH GRADE CIVICS REVIEW:


In a republican form of government such as ours, there are THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. This prevents tyranny from any single branch of government. This legal principle is called the "SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE" which is found in the constitution of every state and in the constitution of the United States.

Our three branches of government are the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (the ELECTED statutory law makers), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (the ELECTED law enforcement officials and their appointees) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the ELECTED judges, the ELECTED prosecutors and the ELECTED public defenders of the courts). Through the ELECTION process, "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) control ALL THREE BRANCHES of our own government. But, as INDIVIDUALS, we have no such control.

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our state statutes, then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT DIFFERENT ELECTED state LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES to change or repeal the state statutes that we do not like. This ELECTION process works the same way with our nationally ELECTED LEGISLATORS (our SENATORS and CONGRESSMEN & WOMEN) as well as our locally ELECTED law/ordinance makers (county commissioners, city commissioners and city council members, etc.).

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our ELECTED state law enforcement officials, their appointees or their practices, then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT DIFFERENT state ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS to change the appointees and/or practices that we do not like (different Governor, different County Sheriffs, different City Police Chiefs, etc.). This ELECTION process works the same way with our nationally ELECTED law enforcement officer (our PRESIDENT ).

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our ELECTED state judges, their practices or their rulings , then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT different ELECTED state JUDGES (different Supreme Court Justices, different appellate judges, different circuit judges, different county judges, different city judges, etc.). This ELECTION process works the same way with respect to our ELECTED state prosecutors (state attorneys and district attorneys) and our ELECTED state public defenders. NOTE: In the federal courts, judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, both of which are ELECTED by "We the People". But, those ELECTED representatives of "We the People" (who do the nominating and confirming of our federal judges) can be removed from office by the ELECTION process as well. The ELECTED President also appoints the federal prosecutors. But, the President can be removed from office by the ELECTION process too. Some state jurisdictions even use a combination of BOTH systems whereby judges are first APPOINTED to the bench by ELECTED representatives of "We the People", but then must withstand a "retention" vote by "We the People" every single ELECTION cycle thereafter in order to remain on the bench.

Regardless, EVERY single person in a position of power in EVERY single branch of our STATE and FEDERAL government is put into office DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY by "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.


FACT: In a republican form of government such as ours, every conviction of a single INDIVIDUAL involves the efforts of ALL THREE ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the ELECTED LAWMAKERS who write the statutes, the ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS whose appointees make the arrests and who file the charges, the ELECTED JUDGES who preside over proceedings in court AND the ELECTED PROSECUTORS who attempt to convict the statutory violators in court).

In a republican form of government such as ours, NO SINGLE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CAN CONVICT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER TWO ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE THAT ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MAKE

The fundamental mistake made by ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS is their inability to comprehend the difference between the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute) and the ABSENCE of power of the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (which is almost nothing) when opposing the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY.


Every single amateur legal theory ever promoted reflects a basic misunderstanding of this simple legal principle, "THE MAJORITY RULES and the INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT." All amateur legal theorists get this simple legal principle exactly BACKWARDS (or OPPOSITE) to what the law really is (a common problem in amateur legal theory).

ABOUT EMPOWERMENT OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CONFUSION ABOUT "CONSENT"

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state LAWMAKERS to pass our state statutes and to make them binding upon all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state HEADS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES to ticket, arrest and charge any INDIVIDUAL in the state who violates our state statutes without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state JUDGES to preside over state court proceedings of such an INDIVIDUAL and to order the punishment of such an INDIVIDUAL in accordance with the law without that INDIVIDUAL’S "consent" (“contractual or otherwise”).

This means that in a republican form of government such as ours, an INDIVIDUAL'S "consent” (“contractual” or otherwise) is NOT REQUIRED in such matters. Instead, in a republican form of government such as ours, "CONSENT” COMES FROM “WE THE PEOPLE” COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, NOT FROM THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAVE THE COLLECTIVE “CONSENT” OF “WE THE PEOPLE” TO MAKE OUR LAW, TO ENFORCE OUR LAW AND TO PUNISH FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR LAW.

Under our federal and state constitutions, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT ALSO NEED THE INDIVIDUAL “CONSENT” OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS.

So, every single legal burden placed on the INDIVIDUAL in a republican form of government such as ours is a legal burden that is placed upon the INDIVIDUAL directly or indirectly by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL


In a republican form of government such as ours, the power of the INDIVIDUAL is limited to VOTING, RUNNING FOR OFFICE and to enforcing what few INDIVIDUAL rights and protections that "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) allow the INDIVIDUAL to have (such as those INDIVIDUAL rights and protections listed in the Bill Of Rights of the United States Constitution).

In a republican form of government such as ours, these INDIVIDUAL rights and protections of the INDIVIDUAL are determined by the constitution and by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL).

ELECTIONS AND THE VALIDITY OF GOVERNMENT


This is why in a republican form of government, such as ours, ELECTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT. In a republican form of government such as ours, ELECTIONS (which reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, including any amendments and/or repeals to sections of the constitution..

THESE ELECTIONS DETERMINE WHAT OUR LAWS ARE, WHO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE, WHO OUR JUDGES ARE, WHO OUR PROSECUTORS ARE, WHO OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT ANY DESIRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OR REPEALS MIGHT BE.

FACT: THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR STATUTES VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR COURTS VALID, OUR JUDGES VALID, OUR PROSECUTORS VALID AND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS VALID.


FACT: The people who oppose, defy and seek the overthrow our ELECTED government, our ELECTED legislatures, our ELECTED executive (law enforcement) officials, our ELECTED judges, our ELECTED prosecutors and our ELECTED public defenders ACTUALLY OPPOSE, DEFY AND SEEK THE OVERTHROW OF OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF and in so doing, SEEK TO OVERTHROW THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" OURSELVES.

BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when pretending to represent others).

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 80 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax

For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row and who will spend the rest of his life behind bars), click here. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850

For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion

For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-amp-quot-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax-quot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\

For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
 
Last edited:

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
35,924
Reaction score
57,267
Location
Qmerica
Well if it isn't our original font master.
 

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
3,110
Reaction score
4,566
And the purpose of this new wall of text is...?
 

jimswift

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
932
Location
SC swamps
Didn't read it all.

I will say though, your sovereignty comes from God.

It's why the founders made gold the money, because we as individuals are all king's.

King's on our own land = sovereign

It's not until some legalese shyster comes with duplicitous contracts, schemes and intentions etc... that it goes to shit.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,407
Reaction score
9,806

What is CAPITIS DIMINUTIO?

In Roman law, A diminishing or abridgment of personality. Tills was a loss or curtailment of a man’s status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications, following upon certain changes in his civil condition. It was of three kinds, enumerated as follows: Capitis diminutio maxima. The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights. Capitis diminutio media. A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man lost his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights. Capitis diminutio minima. Tile lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 1G, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom. Law.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,407
Reaction score
9,806
ANSWER TO THE ENIGMA of a capitalized name

Canadian Rights researcher Russell Porisky has conducted extensive studies into common law versus Admiralty law, and its attendant natural personsversus legal fictions. Porisky provides us with the answer. In book one of his five part study series on, Canadian Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Porisky – who describes himself as a "natural person" brings forth definitions from two credible sources...
Gage Canadian Dictionary, 1983, Sec. 4 defines Capitalize adj. as... "To take advantage of – To use to ones own advantage."
Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows ...
Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) – In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man’s status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) – The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) – A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.​
Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.​
Capite. - Lat. By the head​
Diminutio. – Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.​

As Black’s Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one’s natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn’t willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used. The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for "inventory" control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner’s manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory. It is under the Admiralty jurisdiction Terri Schiavo’s fate was determined, and under this alien fictional jurisdiction many of today’s legal or other fictional entities such as "gay marriages" are fabricated. Commensurate with color of law, they appear to "be," but they are not. Indeed, under common law and the American Constitution, "gay marriage" is unlawful and an oxymoron (contradiction). This, no legal maneuver can change.

Whereas one may have legal recourse in a Corporate or Admiralty Court, no lawful or moral remedy will be found. Administrative directives of the legal tribunal or Admiralty jurisdiction, while having the color or appearance of law, may be legal but are in fact unlawful due to the nature or status of the Court’s origin, which is predicated upon fiction. Admiralty Courts are in effect vastly inferior to the intentions and authority of those who founded the American Constitutional Republic. When searching America today, one would be hard pressed to locate an authentic Constitutional or Common law Court. This unlawful condition prevails in both Canada and the United States. A serious breech of Constitutional fidelity surfaced recently, when it was discovered Judges in Oregon were not properly sworn to uphold the Oregon Constitution and therefore were acting without Constitutional authority. The Courts and Judges in question, therefore, represent an alien power or entity.

It is worth noting the causes for the Colonist revolt against England (it wasn’t the Boston tea party)... On July 6 1775, a declaration by the representatives of the united colonies of North America, met in Congress at Philadelphia setting forth the Causes and necessity of their taking up arms.
"...They (England) have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent (seizing from the colonies the right to issue their own colonial script which destroyed the colonial economy). Though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice- admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter..."​

Through obfuscation and trickery America has been attacked and occupied by Corporate or pirate ships of war, which are the privately owned Federal Reserve and the IRS. Under Admiralty jurisdiction, commercial pirates have kidnapped and commandeered the American people into servitude. In fact, American’s today enjoy a legal status no different from that of the Amistad Africans had they been found by the United States Supreme Court to be slaves or items of cargo owned by Spain and/or Spain’s representatives. Under terms used to facilitate slavery i.e., cargo, inventory etc., both Americans and Canadians now fall under these definitions i.e., as articles of commerce under Admiralty law and the UCC (Universal Commercial Code). America and Canada have been surreptitiously hijacked by pirates under "color of law." It should be emphasized; piracy and kidnapping are crimes under most lawful jurisdictions. In law, today’s Admiralty courts are accessories to piracy.

In all human endeavors, it is the responsibility of each person to guard first his own dignity and freedom, then the dignity and freedom of his family, community and fellow man. Those who do not uplift and guard the freedom and dignity of their fellow human beings little deserve it for themselves. John Quincy Adams was successful in securing the freedom of his African defendants. Would it be he were here with us today and that all Americans could be the black Africans he so eloquently represented. His words are an inspiration for all time.
"Not slaves and therefore cannot be considered merchandise, but are free individuals with certain ethical and moral rights, including the right to engage in insurrection against those who would deny them their freedom – When there appears no hope at all, one must invoke one’s ancestors – who we are, is who we were and who we must become."
[Anthony Hopkins as J.Q. Adams in the movie Amistad]
Kevin E. Abrams is not a product of Academia. Rather he is a lay "psycho-historian," who studies the "who," and "why" of history. Over the past 25 years, he has written on the hidden history of the "gay" movement and other pertinent issues dealing with human rights and freedoms. In 1995 Mr. Abrams co-authored The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party with Mr. Scott Lively. The Pink Swastika can be read on-line at, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality In The Nazi Party - Fourth Edition.

The preceding was copied from:
La Amistad & Slave Ship AMERICA
© 2005 Kevin E. Abrams – All Rights Reserved

The following is the balance of the article:
"By the blessing of God, I will argue the case before the Supreme Court - I implore the mercy of God to control my temper, to enlighten my soul, and to give me utterance, that I may prove myself in every respect equal to the task."
[John Quincy Adams] At the age of 74, elder member of Congress John Quincy Adams received a visitor at his home in Massachusetts – slavery abolitionist leader Lewis Tappan.
Tappan’s purpose was to persuade "Old Man Eloquent" to argue his defendant’s case in Washington in what today is remembered as the Amistad Trial. In Steven Speilberg’s film Amistad, the essential ingredients of the trial are brought forth, however, La Amistad also serves up a living template for jurisdictional issues which today directly impact the freedoms, liberties and human rights of both Americans AND Canadians. On Monday, February 22, 1841 Legal arguments commenced before the United States Supreme Court in Hartford Connecticut. John Quincy Adams began his argument on February 24th. The question to be decided by the nine Supreme Court Justices, was one of legal jurisdiction. Their decision would mean slavery and death, or life and freedom for the 36 black African defendants. Specifically, were these Africans items of commerce or inventory as Spain and the Spanish slave traders maintained, or, had these Africans been illegally kidnapped from their homes along the Ivory Coast where slavery had been outlawed? Was their rebellion against enslavement, in which the Africans killed all but two of their Spanish captors lawful, or not? The trial became a contentious national issue, and as we shall see, La Amistad is not only an important event which sailed into American history, but ominously, an accurate and significant portrayal of America and her people today – of Slave Ship America. We will explore and identify how we were "volunteered," and how we "volunteer" ourselves into servitude. We will also uncover the primary covert machinations employed by self-appointed scientific and banking elite’s to maneuver and seduce freeborn human beings into slavery. Ironically, all Americans have been reduced to the same legal or commercial status the Spanish Crown sought to impose upon Amistad’s African "inventory" just 164 years ago. Whereas we appear to have come a long way in our cultural and legal battles for human rights, we in fact have landed far from our intended shore. In today’s fictional courts, all Americans are equally black.

"Any law that originates from the Constitution is lawful. Any purported law that does not originate from it is a fictional law without validity. The true test of any American law is whether it was created according to lawful process or outside of lawful process." [July 2003 Idaho Observer]

Sir William Blackstone of Blackstone’s Law Dictionary, with his many teachings on common law lays the lawful foundation of the Constitutional Republic and American justice. Both America and the Dominion of Canada were founded under common law jurisdiction and the unalienable rights and freedoms enjoyed by our forefathers. The right to life, liberty and property, for instance, are lawful claims not legal privileges – the right to justice not sympathy. Legal privileges and sympathy sway with the wind and times, whereas unalienable rights supersede convention and legality. Lawful Government must uphold and protect the unalienable rights of its born or naturalized citizens. However, there is a second status of "person" or "individual" with which many people are unfamiliar. This legal or fictional "person" can also be described as similar to the straw man, as in the "persona" born without a brain in the movie Wizard of Oz. This also describes the persona of a Corporation – a legal fiction without a brain, except that is, for "its" articles of incorporation that define "its" character and legal capacity. Due to the fact, a Corporate entity has no life of "its" own, and that "it" serves only itself, "it" must derive "its" life from sources external to "itself" which is why Corporate entities often become such liabilities to both the individual and community within which they function. Unlike a natural person with autonomous volition, an entity or legal fiction not only doesn’t have a brain, but also lacks the ability to act morally. Indeed, Corporations often violate human rights codes outlawing slavery by classifying natural persons as resources whom they include in the sale of the Corporation or entity as "intellectual property" or "good will." A straw man, legal fiction or entity could be likened to the image of yourself when you look into a mirror. The image looks like or has the "color" of you as in the "color of law," and even moves like you - but "it" is not the real, flesh and blood, you. However, within the legal scheme of things, you "volunteer" to become this image, fiction or entity through an involuntary or voluntary act of legal joinder every time you file a domestic income tax return or apply for a driver license (invisible contracts). This license is issued not to you, but to the entity.

"It is to the property of the citizen, not to the demand of the creditor of the State, that the original faith of society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, and superior in quality."
[Edmund Burke, Quoted in, The Coming Battle , Pub by, Paul & Loraine Walter]

In his arguments before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the Amistad Africans, John Quincy Adams states, "I derive consolation from the thought that this Court is a Court of JUSTICE." Adams quotes from the 2,000 year old, "Institutes of Justinian," meaning, "the constant and perpetual will to secure to every one HIS OWN right." Adams also alludes to this mirror image, fiction or "color of law" as, "that it said the thing which is not—too unfortunately it was so, as he said." Meaning, the claims of the Spanish Crown and slave traders, while having the color or appearance of law, were in effect neither lawful nor predicated upon law at all. It must be noted, John Q. Adams was acting as an advocate FOR the Africans, rather than as an interpreter of the UCC or Universal Commercial Code which deals specifically with such matters as commercial damage or loss claims as in the Amistad slave "inventories" etc. In the strange world of legal fiction it is doubtful Adams’ lawful arguments could even be heard today in any American Court, including the Supreme Court, due to the fact the Supreme Court of the United States is today no longer capable of even "hearing" a natural or lawful person. In a future article, we will also explore how fraudulent science promoted by tax exempt Foundations has co-opted and undermined the American Constitution as the basis for American law and how this has extended into all areas of American life.

For purposes of understanding one’s legal or commercial status under the Admiralty system, it is necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS in legal and domestic income tax forms. While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently small detail has deep significance. In 2003 the Idaho Observer conducted an inquiry into the meaning, or basis of capitalizing a natural person’s name in official Government and legal documents. A proper answer was never found. However, Canadian Rights researcher Russell Porisky has conducted extensive studies into common law versus Admiralty law, and its attendant natural persons versus legal fictions. Porisky provides us with the answer. In book one of his five part study series on, Canadian Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Porisky – who describes himself as a "natural person" brings forth definitions from two credible sources...
FICTIO; In Roman law, a fiction; an assumption or supposition of the law. "Fictio" in the old Roman law was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction. Maine, Anc.Law, 25. Black's Law dictionary, p. 751.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,910
Reaction score
38,415
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Snoop, you need to figure out who "We the People" as used &:written in the Constitutions actually are... Secondly you must also discriminate between the use of proper nouns & nouns as employed in the constitutions, for instance People & people!
 

Voodoo

Midas Member
Midas Member
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,274
Reaction score
6,472
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
Another one they love to use, especially in licensing.

For the "Public good". By which they mean the government interests.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,407
Reaction score
9,806
Snoop, thanks for reminding me of this interesting document, which the link been censored:

July 9, 2009

The following is presented "as is", just as it was first published in 1983 in a book titled "The Tontine Government." This transmission is not offered for general consumption, as only a very small percentage of what you will understand or appreciate its contents, and it is for that very small percentage that it is primarily being offered.

[EXON: "(In Britain) one of four yeomen of the guard who act as commanding officers in the absence of higher authority. Also called EXEMPT."]

The Federal Reserve Act transferred the money making powers of the United States to a private group of bankers who then set up the fractional reserve system of banking. Under the charter granted to this private corporation, there was a stipulation that if the American people did not agree with its operation, the people had 20 years to oust the corporate charter. They could (or were entitled to do this) by the use of an ancient Common Law Writ called a Quo Warranto ["quo warranto" means "by what right?"] After 20 years it becomes a matter of Public Policy; Public Policy being a part of the Law of Nations under the Law Merchant. Twenty years puts us to the year 1933, which is the infamous year the Congress suspended our Public National Money System (Gold Standard, House Joint Resolution 192, June 5, 1933) and put an end to the American people being able to "pay" their debts "at law." Upon reading the debates of the 73rd Congress in 1933 on the subject of the gold standard, one learns that on June 5, 1933 America became bankrupt; being unable to tender in "payment" of debts.

But that is only part of the story. What you probably also missed was the part where America was re-insured by a credit policy and this was done under the Statute of 19 George II c. 37. At the stroke of the pen, American lost its Constitutional government in "payment" of debts and its 18 delegated powers, along with its allodial land titles and all the "law" that went with it. Instead of "paying" taxes to support a democratic-republican form of government, where the people are sovereign, we now have a parliamentary-republic in which the Congress is the sovereign. But more importantly, all we can do is a compelled performance in "discharge" (NOT PAYMENT) of debts. These "discharges" are nothing more than insurance premiums to the Federal Reserve, which is a Tontine policy which is re-insured by a credit policy.

The idea of a Tontine scheme is nothing new, but has existed in one form or another since the Roman Empire. As time went on, it became more sophisticated up to the point where it is today. The first Tontine started in America in 1791. By the year 1880, Tontines were very numerous and were quite corrupt. There was practically no end to their power due to the immense amounts of money involved. As a result of this money power, the Tontine insurance companies were buying up businesses and controlling the government. As a result, the Tontines became so corrupt and gross that they threatened the American family and the very basis of the United States of America. This corruption spurned the Armstrong Committee in the year 1905 to investigate the Tontine insurance companies. After a long investigation, the committee recommended that the state legislatures pass legislation banning Tontine schemes. This was done under the non-forfeiture statues. The owners of these Tontine schemes saw that their whole world was about to collapse because of the pending legislation regarding their schemes. They immediately went to work to establish a federal system to both broaden the scope of their operation and avoid the problems of operating in individual states. This was the start of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. The Tontine policy is a gambling policy, or what is called in the law, a wagering policy. The cunning plot to reinstitute the Tontine scheme at the federal level in the name of the Federal Reserve is by all means cunning and despicable. This is the basic groundwork used to enslave the American people.

Their next move was the suspension of the Public National Money System (HJR 192) in "payment" of debts, and then 5 years later, the Erie Railroad v. Tomkins 304 U.S. 64 case, which opened the flood gates to flood the country with insurance script, debt and credit in "discharge" of debts.

The plot to enslave the people thickens even more because until the advent of (HJR 192) and the Erie Railroad decision, the Maritime or Admiralty Law now prevails over the entire country through re-insurance of a credit policy mentioned earlier. The second a person touches the credit system of the Public National Credit (Federal Reserve) they have involved themselves in a Joint Maritime venture for profit in a Tontine policy of limited liability for the payment of debt. The joint venture being the use of the communal credit, Maritime Law is a credit system, and finally, you have created an insurable interest because you used the credit system of the commune. The insurable interest is what the federal income tax, right to work taxes, property taxes, and all the other obscenities that you can think of are about. These are not taxes, but insurance premiums on the use of the credit for profit.

In the case of De Livio v. Boit, 2 Galliston, Mass., Federal Case No. 3776 (1812), it was held that insurance is a maritime contract, therefore, of Admiralty Jurisdiction. A person's involvement in Maritime Law (communal credit of the Tontine, HJR 192) means you are on a voyage and hopefully it will be successful (gambling) and you will make a profit. Under limited liability for the payment of debt, the limited liability is provided by the insurance premiums you tender (your taxes).

Common Law insurance is for the security of the family unit and not for profit. This means that you want to place yourself under the Common Law rather than the Maritime Law, unless you are greedy, corrupt and in control of the system! The principles of Maritime Law is not family, but rather for profit, and under Maritime Law you can be (and are) compelled to carry insurance (pay taxes -- a form of protection money) and you are now beginning to see the mess this country is in and how we got here.

The gold bill being promoted by Rep. Ron Paul from Texas is another hoax by the enemy in order to destroy the Federal Reserve, thereby allowing the Class "A" stockholders of the Tontine to foreclose on the United States Treasury, whereby all the land titles will be totally locked up along with the highway system that has the U.S. in front of the route number, the Library of Congress will be confiscated and all the truths about the corrupt Tontine will disappear forever. These are only a few of the foreclosures to come. Rep. Ron Paul's gold bill is a private gold system owned by the owners of the Tontine swindle. This gold bill will not repeal HJR 192, nor will it be a Public National Gold Standard owned by "We the People" in "payment" of debt.
The Formula of the Federal Reserve is as follows: Fractional Reserve Banking is a Tontine policy, re-insured by a credit policy in the form of ex- chequer annuitie bills generating an over insurance, which is split with the Class "A" stockholders of the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury. This split started in 1946 to fund their socialistic programs whose effect catalized small investment and over-consumption, postulating traded discounted script, compounding on Tontine principles, whose price premium is being confiscated through insurable interest at positive premium, positive premium, reflecting inflation.

As one can see, the freedom movement has been taking an historical approach to the problem and this has been in error because nowhere in the history of the world today have we dealt with the issues that we are confronted with today.

An interesting fact, as a result of the Tontine (Federal Reserve), HJR 192 and the Erie Railroad decision, is this: there is no longer an immovable law (Common Law) of the world to guide commerce. Everything is in collision through a Tontine (gambling policy) for profit (greed) under limited liability for the payment of debt, ala John Calvin and the Teutonic Order. For more information on the Teutonic Order, see the "Black Book of the Admiralty" 4 volumes, the authority on Admiralty Law. The above Tontine, HJR 192 and the Erie Railroad decision, 304 U.S. 64, has now turned private enterprise, not free enterprise, into public law under the International Law of Marine Insurance under the guise of National Government. This law of insurance (limited liability for the payment of debt) has superseded the Common Law and equity. All the Law and equity has been dismantled and replaced by a wagering policy of insurance under Admiralty Law.

Since HJR 192 and the Erie Railroad decision replaced the immovable law (Common Law) with the movable law (law of marine insurance), then it follows that there are in reality, no Common Law juries today. Today's juries decide no issues of Law. Today's judges, state and federal, are now more properly Vice Admiralty Chancellors ruling in marine insurance and the juries merely advisory councils which serve as the conscience of the Vice Admiral (after being instructed by him). The legislature (sovereign) has already ruled by passing the statute initially. One has to remember that we as a people and a nation are bankrupt and insolvent, being unable to determine our own destiny because we cannot truly "pay" our debts. You are not responsible today for what you do, Common Law, however, is full responsibility for your actions.
Organized religions of today teach the Tontine principles of the Teutonic Order. Proof of this is that the church will not marry you unless you get permission from the State. The license, incidentally, is purchased with Tontine insurance script. This license requirement is a direct result of the church having its franchise to operate from the State under limited liability for the payment of debt (forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors). For more on John Calvin, read Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822. For profit, because the church is tied into the Tontine credit system and is gambling to make a profit. Ultimately, what this all means is the One World Corporate Church (EXON) operates for profit while its debts are passed on to the reprobate or non-elect slaves on Space Ship Earth. This "good ship Earth" concept is important because it allows the law of maritime insurance and not the Common Law to operate and our freedoms are based on the Common Law as prescribed by our Founding Fathers.

The law of maritime insurance (Tontine) imposition is destroying families by turning them into warring cannibals. The order of the day will soon be murder, rape, robbery, distrust and lack of respect for your fellow man, along with unidentifiable fatherhood to be a corporate cog in their machine to worship their coal-tar god of EXON. This will all work for the benefit of the people of EXON (the elect) who will be exempt from all liabilities. These EXON are the last survivors of the Tontine swindle, such as George Rapp and his Harmony Society that became the first Tontine court case in America. In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the people's right to enter into a commune and each surrender his property into one common stock for the mutual benefit of all. Schriber v. Rapp, 5 Watts 23 (1836). It is this very case that opened the door for the destruction of America and its precious document called the "Constitution of the United States." The Class "A" stockholders of the Tontine Life Insurance Corporation of limited liability for the payment of debt called the Federal Reserve. They will own everything on the face of the Earth and the non-elect reprobates will be locked into performing as slaves. The non-elect will be forced to use all the EXON's phony products so the EXON can show a profit.

Thomas Jefferson said it will take mankind at least 2,000 years to overthrow this slavery should we become totally locked into it. This may sound like an insane story, but it is true, nevertheless.
Lee Brobst - Lecturer


web.archive.org/web/20080105125749/http://usa-the-republic.com/Lee+Brobst/Exon.htm
 

789

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
120
Reaction score
64
The Federal Reserve Act transferred the money making powers of the United States to a private group of bankers who then set up the fractional reserve system of banking. Under the charter granted to this private corporation, there was a stipulation that if the American people did not agree with its operation, the people had 20 years to oust the corporate charter. They could (or were entitled to do this) by the use of an ancient Common Law Writ called a Quo Warranto ["quo warranto" means "by what right?"] After 20 years it becomes a matter of Public Policy; Public Policy being a part of the Law of Nations under the Law Merchant. Twenty years puts us to the year 1933, which is the infamous year the Congress suspended our Public National Money System (Gold Standard, House Joint Resolution 192, June 5, 1933) and put an end to the American people being able to "pay" their debts "at law." Upon reading the debates of the 73rd Congress in 1933 on the subject of the gold standard, one learns that on June 5, 1933 America became bankrupt; being unable to tender in "payment" of debts.


The gold bill being promoted by Rep. Ron Paul from Texas is another hoax by the enemy in order to destroy the Federal Reserve, thereby allowing the Class "A" stockholders of the Tontine to foreclose on the United States Treasury, whereby all the land titles will be totally locked up along with the highway system that has the U.S. in front of the route number, the Library of Congress will be confiscated and all the truths about the corrupt Tontine will disappear forever. These are only a few of the foreclosures to come. Rep. Ron Paul's gold bill is a private gold system owned by the owners of the Tontine swindle. This gold bill will not repeal HJR 192, nor will it be a Public National Gold Standard owned by "We the People" in "payment" of debt.
So, Ron Paul is a charlatan ?

The first paragraph clearly indicates that the writer was too lasy even to read the text of the federal reserve act.

I would also ask this Toone time character to please show, what does he interpret as bankruptcy in what was recorded in the Senate and the House of Representatives on Monday, June 5, 1933.

He should please also tell when, where, to whom has Thomas Jefferson said/wrote what he claims
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
601
Reaction score
126
So, Ron Paul is a charlatan ?

The first paragraph clearly indicates that the writer was too lasy even to read the text of the federal reserve act.

I would also ask this Toone time character to please show, what does he interpret as bankruptcy in what was recorded in the Senate and the House of Representatives on Monday, June 5, 1933.

He should please also tell when, where, to whom has Thomas Jefferson said/wrote what he claims

Hello 789,

Thank you for your interest and for your comments.

YOUR COMMENT: So, Ron Paul is a charlatan?

MY RESPONSE: Hell no! Ron Paul is a true American hero!

YOUR COMMENT: The first paragraph clearly indicates that the writer was too lasy even to read the text of the federal reserve act.

MY RESPONSE: "Lazy" is spelled with a "Z", not an "S". Regardless, your claim is not so. I am intimately familiar with the Federal Reserve Act and I oppose every single word of it. Money creation and regulating the money supply should be the sole prerogative of the ELECTED government of "We the People", not the prerogative of UN-ELECTED private interests. But, the fact that the Federal Reserve exists changes nothing about what I wrote above about THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE". The Federal Reserve is not part of the THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE". Indeed, that is precisely what is wrong with it!

YOUR COMMENT: I would also ask this Toone time character to please show, what does he interpret as bankruptcy in what was recorded in the Senate and the House of Representatives on Monday, June 5, 1933.

MY RESPONSE: If you yourself had ever bothered to actually read the Congressional Record of that date, you would already know that no "bankruptcy" is recorded in the Congressional Record on that date (or on any other date). See the proof of what actually occurred on that date here. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1933-pt5-v77/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1933-pt5-v77-9-2.pdf. Thus, the claim that the United States went bankrupt on June 5th, 1933 is a hoax. Other action taken by Congress on that date does not constitute "bankruptcy" or anything of the sort. The same is true of the false claim that Jim Traficant referred to that alleged 1933 bankruptcy in his March 27th, 1993 speech before Congress. That claim is also a hoax. Here is the proof of what Jim Traficant actually said on that date. You will note that Jim Traficant makes no reference to a 1933 bankruptcy in this speech. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1993-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1993-pt4-5-2.pdf. Charlatans created the FAKE text about the alleged 1933 bankruptcy in that speech and fraudulently attributed their own words to Jim Traficant who is now dead and therefore cannot rebut their fraudulent claims.

The reason that charlatans tell you false claims about what has occurred in Congress is that they know that you are unable to verify the accuracy of their false claims. That is, they know that you are incapable of performing legal research. So, these charlatans know that they can fool you, but they cannot fool me.

YOUR COMMENT: He should please also tell when, where, to whom has Thomas Jefferson said/wrote what he claims.

MY RESPONSE: As is shown in the very first comment at the very top of this thread, Montesquieu, a French legal scholar and the author of "Spirit Of Laws" quoted Thomas Jefferson who said/wrote, "[It is] by THEIR [a PLURAL term] VOTES [also a PLURAL term] [that] the PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term] exercise THEIR [also a PLURAL term] sovereignty". The court in the case below quoted quoted this sentence of Thomas Jefferson and cited Montesquieu's book, "Spirit Of Laws" as the source of Thomas Jefferson's quote. That quote is:

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself said, "[It is] by THEIR [a PLURAL term] VOTES [also a PLURAL term] [that] the PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term] exercise THEIR [also a PLURAL term] sovereignty". Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws.

So, scroll down to about 55% through the text in the middle last paragraph before the dissenting opinion and the concurring opinion AGAIN, CLICK HERE AND SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 55% THROUGH THE TEXT TO THE ACTUAL QUOTE AND THE CITE TO THE SOURCE OF THE QUOTE.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2459141824775540924&q="the+people+exercise+their+sovereignty"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Thank You again for you interest and comments,


Best Regards,

Snoop
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
58,653
Reaction score
117,368
Location
Rocky Mountains
The purpose of this system was to guarantee that "We the People" ELECT every person who is in a position to influence in any aspect of our own justice system, right down to the Clerk Of Court and the Property Appraiser.
Quote all the law you want... it's turned to shit since JFK....