SeatBelts-​addendum

Any­one read­ing this need to first com­pre­hend that “Laws, of which there are many kinds”, fol­low a hier­ar­chy, being stacked on top of each other. We have all heard of statutes, codes, and reg­u­la­tions, rules, all “laws” within a select soci­ety. If you’re not in that soci­ety they do not per­tain to you. You have to vol­un­teer to be “gov­erned” by them.

Beyond “these Laws” that we have been exposed to by “them”, there are other lev­els of laws that need to be “remem­bered”. If we would just remem­ber, what we have always known, we could stop learn­ing, and get on to doing. Because these laws are not writ­ten, they are the laws of rea­son, the laws between men. Even The Law, the law of rea­son, has a set of rules to follow.

Divine Law, Nat­ural Law, the Law of Rea­son… then every­thing else in a lower order. To be law­ful your law can­not break Divine, or Nat­ural law, as long as it doesn’t, it is the law of your land.

The Law of rea­son, we now call “Com­mon Law”, before that it was known as Feu­dal Law. So why the name changes? Because the cre­ators of “their sys­tem” try to con­trol every­thing by nam­ing it. It is one of their beliefs, and so far it has worked out quite well for them. “Why do they call it Mar­i­juana? , Cause you can’t charge hemp”.

Go look at a dic­tio­nary; most any word com­monly used today has only been in exis­tence for 500 years or less. Either the orig­i­nal word’s spelling has been changed, or it’s a word derived from a Latin word. In their sys­tem, there is only one lan­guage rec­og­nized. Latin, high Latin.. the stuff the Pope and Courts use.

When it comes to the def­i­n­i­tion to use, it depends on the venue it is used in… only a def­i­n­i­tion for use in Com­mon Law can begin with the words. “In-​Law”.. If it says in statute law, or Eng­lish Com­mon Law.. it is infe­rior to In-​Law or In Com­mon Law with no other mod­i­fiers allowed. Focus on def­i­n­i­tions that say “in Law, or at worst in com­mon law, or feu­dal law… all oth­ers are infe­rior.

What they gave us is a slave’s lan­guage, full of magic words. Com­mon words that have very dif­fer­ent mean­ings depend­ing on the venue. Here is one of my favorites.

The “Legal” def­i­n­i­tion of Lie: TO LIE. That which is proper is fit; as, an action on the case lies for an injury com­mit­ted with­out force; cor­po­real hered­i­ta­ments lie in liv­ery, that is, they pass by liv­ery; incor­po­real hered­i­ta­ments lie in grant, that is, pass by the force of the grant, and with­out any liv­ery. Vide Lying in grant.

Tell a pros­e­cu­tor, “that’s a lie”, bingo… the magic word, you just agreed that what he said was proper. How­ever words have many mean­ings, the first part is what it means in an infe­rior “legal” set­ting, and the last part of Lie has to do with the com­mon law def­i­n­i­tion. More on that later.

The point I’m try­ing to make is when you have an idea what to look for it’s eas­ier to find. Or another way to iden­tify the problem(s), and your halfway to the answer. When you read a def­i­n­i­tion or statute etc, that goes on and on.. for­get it. Most def­i­n­i­tions that are Law­ful are at most a para­graph, and usu­ally much shorter.. (it doesn’t take long to tell the truth).

I know I’ll take a lot of shit for this, but I do believe that “they” do fol­low the rules. And once you learn the rules instead of argu­ing the facts, they will honor you.. after all, it’s the Law. No source of Law under the Law of Rea­son no mat­ter what it’s called (Case Law, Eng­lish Com­mon Law, UCC, US Codes, etc..) can over­turn the rul­ing of “The Court of Record with Final juris­dic­tion”.. I mean you.

Every­thing they have done is law­ful, and there­fore Legal, and it is why you can­not “win” in their sys­tem. Under the sys­tem of “Legal” this is the power of the Mag­is­trate (Judge):

When an offi­cer acts in both a judi­cial and min­is­te­r­ial capac­ity, he may be com­pelled to per­form min­is­te­r­ial acts in a par­tic­u­lar way; but when he acts in a judi­cial capac­ity, he can only be required to pro­ceed; the man­ner of doing so is left entirely to his judg­ment. See 2 Fairf. 377; Bac. Ab. Jus­tices of the Peace, E; 1 Conn. 295; 3 Conn. 107; 9 Conn. 275; 12 Conn. 464; also Judi­cial; Man­damus; Sher­iff (They just told you, you can­not win in any court that uses cod­i­fied law, (their court), this is the venue in which the mag­is­trate has “Judi­cial” author­ity”).

Late entry: Broth­ers and sis­ters that have responded via email thanks for point­ing out to me that the above needs to be stressed.. I know this now because so many of your responses keep refer­ring to “them not fol­low­ing” their own laws, statutes, codes etc. They don’t have to… read the def­i­n­i­tion again… “he acts in a judi­cial capac­ity (Judge), …he can only be required to pro­ceed; the man­ner of doing so is left entirely to his judg­ment. Where does it say he has to fol­low a stick statue? Have you ever heard them say…”In my court”… that what it is.. his court… so do not go to his court, take yours to him. The statutes are just so many rab­bit holes for you to chase..

The def­i­n­i­tion of insan­ity is doing the same thing over and over expect­ing a dif­fer­ent result. It’s insane to go to their juris­dic­tion, the moment you walk in you are incom­pe­tent. Stop being double-​minded.

At any level in the “Legal sys­tem, includ­ing UCC and inter­na­tional law”, it’s up to the dis­cre­tion of the mag­is­trate, and why they can keep com­ing and com­ing, and com­ing… So do you want to go to “their” court, as described above, or “be the court”, the Supreme Court is talk­ing about.

How­ever, no statu­tory or con­sti­tu­tional court (whether it be an appel­late or supreme court) can sec­ond guess the judg­ment of a court of record. “The judg­ment of a court of record whose juris­dic­tion is final is as con­clu­sive on all the world as the judg­ment of this court would be. It is as con­clu­sive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry con­cern­ing the fact, by decid­ing it.” Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202 – 203. [cited by SCH­NECK­LOTH v. BUS­TA­MONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

Your court of record, doesn’t fol­low any writ­ten law either, your guide to the law is “rea­son”, what is rea­son­able. Since no 2 sit­u­a­tions are exactly the same, it would be impos­si­ble to write a law that cov­ers them.. (that’s why “they” have over 60,000,000 laws… and still want more).. Statute Law sold itself as the cod­i­fi­ca­tion of the Com­mon Law.. .. Under com­mon law, or law, you are the Law­maker. it’s your wish that makes the law… if you can’t wrap your head around the dif­fer­ence… then go look at as many def­i­n­i­tions of com­mon law and sov­er­eign as you need to till it does..

They are talk­ing about you… as a King… a Land­Lord, given a fee sim­ple estate in lands and ten­e­ments, by the Ulti­mate Sov­er­eign being. Some­thing only a peo­ple can be.. (try find­ing the word per­son in the Bible).. You are the trin­ity of mind, body and spirit, and the Tri­bunal of the Court of Record with Final Juris­dic­tion… No ifs and or buts… you have final juris­dic­tion in all cases involv­ing your nation.

Why bring up the bible? Because it shows the two avail­able sys­tems “Law­ful and Legal” run­ning side by side. Or you can find it in movies, songs, comedy’s, on a bill­board, etc.. Clues to the dif­fer­ence and how to choose which one you live under. After all either you can gov­ern your­self, or surly some­one will gov­ern you.

UCC REF­ER­ENCES

Click for audio

{jcom­ments off}