It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man declares sovereignty, challenges jurisdiction of court

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Thanks for starting this thread. I've heard about going past the gate before. It's like boarding the ship otherwise know as a joinder. there are 3 different statuses defined in blacks law dictionary
.
John Doe - Capitis Diminutio Minima

The lowest or least comprehensisive 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 (surjuris) ( of his own right, not under any legal disability)

It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered.

_____________________________________________________________

You are a soveriegn a country of your own under CD minima until you "plug in" to the legal system or social contract ie Bill of rights (Canada)
_____________________________________________________________

John DOE - Capitis Diminutio Media

A lesser or medium loss of status this occured where a man loses his rightsof citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

_____________________________________________________________

JOHN DOE - Capitis Diminutio Maxima

The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occured when a man's conditionwas 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.

_____________________________________________________________

Rules are made to be boken however,

Federal interpretations act common names,

#38. The name commonly applied to any country , place , body, corporation, society, officer functionary, person, party or thing means the country..(same as former list)..party or thing to which the name is not the formalor extended designation thereof.

So.. the formal name formation dos'nt matter until you get into contracts. If you are trying to find out if it's a natural or artificial person you must find the source of creation of the name. OK?
_____________________________________________________________

Joinder of a natural and artificial person

What is a Joinder?

Joinder - Joining or coupling together uniting two or more constituents or elements in one, uniting another person in some legal step or proceeding union concurrence.

How must occur?

Voluntary , Unconstrained by interferance unimpelled by another's influence spontanious acting on ones self. Proceeding from the free and unrestricted will of the person.

Why must it be Voluntary?

Universal declaration of human rights Dec 10 1948

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all there forms.

How can it occur?

TACIT

Tacit consent is consent iferred from the fact that the party kept silence when he had an oppurtunity to forbid or refuse.

or if you did'nt say no you said yes.

Tacit Acceptance - In cival law a tacit acceptance of an inheritance (position) takes place when some act is done by the heir which nessesarily supposes his intention to accept and which he would have no right to do, but in his capacity as heir (person)




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 



It would have been more help if he'd asked the local newspaper to send a reporter with him to court...At least some details would come out for the enlightenment of the general public.


I doubt the Poughkeepsie Journal would touch a story like that.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
A little known fact that is missed in all this is the "law of contracts". There are many "types" of law, (ie. corporate law, tax law, international law, etc. etc. etc.) and the two types pertinent to OK. are Constitutional Law (common law or lawful) and Civil Law (private or legal). Both of these fall under the "Law of Contracts" (in latin: pacta sunt servanda, ie: pacts must be kept.) and the above mentioned "types" of law fall under Civil Law.

The Constitutions of the land are lawful contracts between the people of the land and and those elected (State and Federal) to protect their rights enumerated in 1st: each States own Bill of Rights and 2nd: the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Conststitution.

Only people can claim constitutional rights. States can't claim constitutional rights. Every agreement entered into by the states with the federal govt. falls under civil or contractual law. The actual laws that the states and fedral govt. operate under doing day to day business internally and with each other fall under contractual law and not common law.

The state an federal govts. are "legal entities", not "lawful entities", such as a human being is under common law.

NOW COMES THE BOMBSHELL! 99% of U.S. citizens are no longer subject to constitutional common law because of contracts entered into with both state and federal govts. and therefore have no const. rights placing themselves under civil law jurisdiction rather than common law jurisdiction.

Think I'm wrong. That drivers license in your wallet is a contract with the state. You no longer have a right to drive, it is a privelege granted by the state subject to civil law. That social security number is a contract between you and the federal govt. taking you from common law status to civil law status. File a tax return? The reason you must is because you became a "legal entity" with your S.S. number. File your name with the military draft board when you were 18? The reason you must is because as a "legal entity" you are subject to the rules and regulations of the United States of America pursuant to U.S. Code Title etc.

Ever collected unemployment? Welfare? These contracts are seemingly endless. And every one of them supersedes any constitutional rights you think you have. That holds true for state as well as federal.

And that is the crux....."constitutional rights you THINK you have." The State and Federal governments have comitted the biggest act of fraud imaginable on the people of America and the great majority don't even know it.

That's why this OK resolution won't hold water. It's full of holes from its inception. What can be done? I won't pretend to have all the possible solutions (that's what people have minds for) but I will venture one. Class action suits in every state of the land brought in common law courts charging the state and fderal govts. with fraud by not making full disclosure about the loss of constitutional rights by the signing of contracts that place the people under a civil law jurisdiction.

This is the only way to clear the air of this juggernaut of government corruption that threatens to place each and all under its tyrannical power. Short of violence. Sadly, because people are more likely to suffer the wrongs against them than to do anything about them my biggest fear is the violence people will be forced to resort to as a last resort when the powers that be step out from behind their sheeps clothing and show themselves for the wolves they really are. By then they will be so secure in their power it will take years of bloody revolt to throw off the chains that bind.

I originally posted this in the OK forum but find it has info relative to this thread



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
There have been many attempts in the past (25 years ago that I know of) to get out from under the jurisdiction of civil contracts where the individual filed affidavits, declarations etc. reclaiming his sovereinty under the constitution as a common law citizen. (Not a corporate citizen of the corporate United States).

Some succeeded, some failed. It all depended on whether the individual properly set up his new status and also if he properly presented the case in court. MidnightDStroyer is right about the man not going to the front of the court thereby submitting to jurisdiction. The only reason he was there at all (he didn't have to go unless summoned under common law) was to avoid the harrassment of being dragged in there by the locals. He probably knew the locals, was being responsible for his actions and doing them a favor by showing up on his own. Once there he could still take the position he took in the back of the court demanding the judge prove jurisdiction.

Income tax is a tax on corporate profits. Social Security number makes you liable to file tax return as a corporate person. Your signature on form is an admission you received taxable income and/or wages and are an "employee of the United States". They don't care if you sign under duress. You still signed. All that does is throw up red flags and you are labeled as a "tax protestor".

Your wage is not income under the income tax unless you sign your name saying it is and you have to sign your name because of your SS number. This is where they get you for willful failure to file.

The wages originally liable to the wage tax were federal govt. employee wages, (any govt. office workers including politicians, postal workers etc.) because they were "employees of the United States".

It is not easy reclaiming your sovereign citizenship (like MidnightDStroyer said, "Try to find a constitutional lawyer". The cases I know of were prepared and fought in court by the individuals themselves. Meticulous care was taken to keep the case from being thrown out on a technicality. That's how the cases that I know of were lost.

One final thought. Jackinthebox said it was the last case of the day. This was because the man knew what he was doing and the judge didn't want a crowded courtroom to witness it. The case is a matter of public record and can be located and cited. The court can't deny access to it.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
You're precisely right, truthtalker...That's why I posted the link to this thread as a few examples of how the illegitimate government (federal & states) have used legalized double-talk to commit such fraud against the very same Constitution that they all swear/affirm legally binding Oaths to obey.

Perhaps it may be valid to suggest using their very own contract laws against them, as the violations they commit against the Constitution are also violations against the "contract of employment" they swear/affirm their Oaths to...Use the same contract laws against them that they use against us! I think that this may be the only peaceful recourse for regaining our sovereignty left to us...Before the 2nd Amendment must be invoked.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I'm tossing this out there because by the time I'm done reading everything I'm going to forget.

Are lawyers aware of this? As in, couldn't a lawyer tell this to his/her child as an ace in the whole defense? Wouldn't that knowledge eventually be leaked to significant others? Even if lawyers aren't in the loop, judges would be, right? We all can't just be cogs in the machine, after all, if this judge couldn't continue with the trial he did know.

Anyway, I happen to work with a lawyer, he's now a librarian, long story. Bottom line, couldn't I just ask him if this is the case? If so, what exactly should I ask.

I'm rambling, sorry. I'm sleepy.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


According to the 13th Amendment, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore should have their citizenship stripped for accepting the Nobel Prize from the King of Norway.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
have any of you seen the video with Irene Gravenhorst? She handled her self quite well. I will provide the link then after you watch that video watch the related footage she provides with the banker bailiff locksmith and rcmp that come to her house to change the locks. It's very interesting indeed to watch.

video.google.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   

license1) n. governmental permission to perform a particular act (like getting married), conduct a particular business or occupation, operate machinery or vehicles after proving ability to do so safely or use property for a certain purpose. 2) n. the certificate that proves one has been granted authority to do something under governmental license. 3) n. a private grant of right to use real property for a particular purpose, such as putting on a concert. 4) n. a private grant of the right to use some intellectual property such as a patent or musical composition. 5) v. to grant permission by governmental authority or private agreement


dictionary.law.com...

Thanks for the link MidnightDStroyer. I haven't checked out sizzles links yet cause a couple of things came to mind that I wanted to clear up if I can. The term license. It keeps coming up in post after post and I think readers should know what it "legally" means. I couldn't get access to Blacks Law Dictionary without paying for it (which would be the ultimate authority) but I did find this and says the same as Blacks because I have read Blacks.

Another phrase which gave me pause for thought was "ignorance of the law is no excuse". I have seen it used to great effect by the courts and I wonder if this could be a key point in a class action case against govt. claiming fraud by not providing full disclosure (as to loss of const. rights) where it applies to signing contracts. If one thinks about it, aren't SS numbers given to babies at birth nowadays? I'm sure this is true but I need to verify it. Where is full disclosure there? I understand it is the marriage license-birth cert. that gives them authority to issue it (probably through a Fed-State "contract"). If they pulled "ignorance of the law etc. on plaintiffs for not knowing of loss of rights it could be thrown right back at them for not giving full disclosure. Hmmm....interesting.

Back to the thread you gave me and the links that are there. Thanks again.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
This is a fantastic thread! Being a Brit I would not comment on the intricacies of the American constitution etc., however, this reminds of the old British Common Law concept of the "Outlaw". By that, I mean somebody who defied the laws of the realm, was classed as an outlaw and thereby was removed from the protection of the legal system.

Basically, such people could be killed with impunity, although there were exceptions to this where the kin could clear his name by oath prior to submission of the fact to the authorities.

However, being an outlaw essentially meant that you were truly a free man, with no obligations to the realm but wholly to yourself in ensuring that you lived long enough to enjoy it ;-)

This kind of went out of fashion purely as a result of an increase in population densities and thereby the increased threat of capture or death at the hands of somebody after a reward.

Being a truly free man isn't easy it seems. Society by coercion.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by SugarCube]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by SugarCube]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I watched human rights and the illusion

video.google.com...

It's really worth watching even though it's more from a Canadian perspective. Be warned it's over 3 hrs long.

he explains things like the word includes in the legal world means somthing quite different in the every day world we live in.

h

Editor's note:

A fully linked version of this file
can be found at Internet URL:

supremelaw.com...


The following version of this file
is being maintained for redundancy.



For Immediate Release November 2, 1996
"Karma and the Federal Courts"
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell
All Rights Reserved
(November 1996)
The law of karma is this: what goes around, comes around. When you begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your house.
And so, we have come to this point in decoding Title 28 of the United States Codes: there are two classes of federal "District Courts" in the federal court system.
One class is for the federal zone; the other class is for the state zone.
Using a very powerful rule of statutory construction, "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," we show that the phrase "District Court of the United States" refers to federal courts for the state zone; and the phrase "United States District Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone.
We have this on the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, most notably in the cases of American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic].
Now, here's the rub: Since federal courts are creatures of statutes only, they can only cognize subject matters which are assigned to them expressly by statutes.
When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, the controlling statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231.
This statute grants original jurisdiction to the District Courts of the United States (DCUS), but does not mention the United States District Courts (USDC)!
How about them apples?
Remember this carefully:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (in Latin ).
Inclusion of one is exclusion of others (in English).
Since the USDC is not mentioned, its omission can be inferred as intentional. (Read that again, then confirm it in Black's Law Dictionary, any edition).
So, from the historian's point of view, Congress has permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction of the USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and into subject matters over which said court has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but now it is obvious, and quite difficult to change, without bringing down the whole house of cards (which is happening, by the way. The Liege firemen are literally hosing their own corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of judicial tyranny.)
By the way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been invited, via the Internet, to discharge the Belgian debt to the United States by moving their talents state-side. They should return home debt free, in about ten years or so, depending on available supplies of soap and water.
Imagine a sheet of Saran Wrap, which has been yanked too far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which surround the federal zone.
This is the United States District Court (USDC), in all its limited Honors and tarnished glory.
Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c). Both statutes grant authority to issue remedies to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1962. Section 1964(a) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the DCUS; Section 1964(c) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the USDC. Both refer to the exact same subject matter, namely, RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities.
So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did Congress need to enact two separate statutes?
The answer is simple: one authority was needed for the DCUS, and the other was needed for the USDC. Simple, really, when the sedition by syntax is explained in language which penetrates the deception.
Now, if this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to prove us wrong about this matter, the United States (federal government) is in a heap of trouble here, because it has been prosecuting people in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War; furthermore, those courts have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, because such an authority is completely lacking from Titles 18 and 28, both of which have been enacted into positive law, unlike Title 26, which has not been enacted into positive law. See Title 1 for details.
What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery? Well, when any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request immediately, for such things as any regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for 18 U.S.C. 3231.
It won't hurt to send submit similar FOIA requests for the credentials of all federal employees who have "touched" the case in any way.
Since we already know that there are no regulations for 18 U.S.C. 3231, and that federal employees will usually refuse to produce their credentials, your FOIA requests will be met with silence, whereupon you will file a FOIA appeal. Once the appeal deadline has run, you are in court.
But which court? Guess ...
... the answer is the District Court of the United States. What an amazing discovery, yes? A United States District Judge in Arizona, in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States District Court (USDC) is not the proper forum to litigate a request under the FOIA. That can only be because FOIA requests must be litigated in the District Court of the United States (DCUS).
Now we have the United States checkmated. The proper forum for FOIA is now res judicata. If the DCUS is the proper forum for FOIA, and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, then the USDC is not the proper forum for prosecuting violations of Title 18 either, because the USDC does not show up in 5 U.S.C. 552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231!
Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it. It's okay to admit that you must read it several times; this writer once read a paragraph from Hooven and Allison v. Evatt some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 must have been intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head-on, collision.
Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ...
... freedom. Freedom! FREEDOM!!!
Love it.
Common Law Copyright
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, federal witness
and Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
November 2, 1996



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
According to the 13th Amendment, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore should have their citizenship stripped for accepting the Nobel Prize from the King of Norway.

Yep...The original "Titles & Nobility" clause in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8) was to forbid our government Officers from acting with "divided loyalties" while in the capacity of Office.

Yes, this was very important to the Founding Forefathers because they saw how other governments fared under these circumstances in history...Yet, the original Constitutional Clause didn't emphasize itself on how important it really was. So the "missing 13th Amendment" was written to increase the penalty for violating the T&N clause beyond the standard "impeach & indict for trial" as originally indicated within the Constitution.


Originally posted by truthtalker
I couldn't get access to Blacks Law Dictionary without paying for it (which would be the ultimate authority) but I did find this and says the same as Blacks because I have read Blacks.

It may not be very wise to put any credence to Black's Law Dictionary: Even the Black family has admitted that Black's Law Dictionary is a Hoax. They probably have some valid terms included in there, but many terms, such as "capitus diminutio" are not valid.


Originally posted by truthtalker
Another phrase which gave me pause for thought was "ignorance of the law is no excuse". I have seen it used to great effect by the courts and I wonder if this could be a key point in a class action case against govt. claiming fraud by not providing full disclosure (as to loss of const. rights) where it applies to signing contracts.

Yep, that's exactly right...This comes under the "remedy & recourse" clauses of the UCC 1-207 & UCC 1-203. "Remedy" concerns exemptions to keep from getting suckered into a particular law & "Recourse" concerns compensation for those who've been injured by a law. It's just that it took researchers a lot of slogging through pages & pages of the UCC text to find them because they're buried so deeply. It's no wonder so many people have no idea what to do about it. Every law must contain "remedy & recourse" clauses if it can still be legitimate as a law.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
You guys are the limit !
BYE BYE

disinfo anyone ? The black's law dictionary is joke (everyone knows that )
pass it on


[edit on 30-6-2008 by Swingarm]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthtalker
Another phrase which gave me pause for thought was "ignorance of the law is no excuse". I have seen it used to great effect by the courts and I wonder if this could be a key point in a class action case against govt. claiming fraud by not providing full disclosure (as to loss of const. rights) where it applies to signing contracts.

Yep, that's exactly right...This comes under the "remedy & recourse" clauses of the UCC 1-207 & UCC 1-203. "Remedy" concerns exemptions to keep from getting suckered into a particular law & "Recourse" concerns compensation for those who've been injured by a law. It's just that it took researchers a lot of slogging through pages & pages of the UCC text to find them because they're buried so deeply. It's no wonder so many people have no idea what to do about it. Every law must contain "remedy & recourse" clauses if it can still be legitimate as a law.

Thanks again MidnightDStroyer. Blacks aside, because the same word can have a different meaning depending on the context of the matter being judicated, and courts will rely on definitions from similiar cases to decide its meaning, the link was informative.

"Remedy and recourse" seems to be the way to go. (I will research.) The real problem, as you said, ("many people have no idea") this type of information is out there. First thing most people do when faced with a federal or state civil charge is hire a lawyer (the sad joke being on them). Others (the few), do get out of civil jurisdiction by getting their sovereign status recognized (though this takes time, effort and sacrifice). Even then the harrassment continues but for the most part they are let be because the govt. doesn't want anybody else to do know what they know. Besides, many people who do know of sovereign status don't want to make the sacrifice (I know men who have lost everything) to claim it. Many are too afraid of the government and turn their backs on the knowledge.

If class action remedy and recourse can work without the sacrifice of changing legal status then it could be a way for those out there who see the problem, would like to do something about it, but have been reluctant because of what it takes (sacrifice) to claim sovereignty, or out of fear (standing alone against big govt.)

No legal status change and individuals standing together rather than alone. An army with words for weapons rather than guns. Most people know something is going on out there and as govt. becomes more detached from, and controlling of their lives it will become evident as time goes on that that is what is going on. A battle for control of their lives. Legal slavery from the day your born til the day you die. And if you don't tow the line?

If class action remedy and recourse gives them a chance to address the govt. on the govts. terms with words first then it will put the ball in the govts. court and give them a chance to answer for themselves and remedy the situation. (I know, I'm dreaming aren't I.)

One things for sure. If the govt. doesn't back off from it's present course there will be war. I would prefer it be won with words rather than guns. Remedy and recourse gives me new hope. I will look into it. If it pans out getting the info out there is the next step.

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved
by conquest or consent."

Quote by: James Paul Warburg
(1896-1969) son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR
Source: while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950

I choose not to consent.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
It all just sounds like a bunch of words and technicality to me. I still really don't understand what implications this makes on my life or anyone else's. Legalese isn't my thing, I guess.

At any rate, I think that if they really, really want to put you in jail, they'll just do it. Do you think being "sovereign" or knowing some obscure law about "flag code" is going to deactivate the bailiff's taser? Is it going to bend the bars on your cell and set you free?

Furthermore, it seems to me that some people are of the impression that being a free man means that they don't have to adhere to the law. It reads off to me as some sort of loophole for anarchists. For all big brother's faults, it beats total anarchy any day. After all, without laws and courts that can enforce them, there is no society. Just chaos.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Blacks law dictionary is a hoax...bs

(i started a thread on this, not a single reply)

Here is the fairytale story circulating on the net.

Black's Law Dictionary Revealed as Hoax!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on 2008, April 24 - 7:35am.
Sarah Medhurst (nee Black) shocked journalists and legal scholars at a press conference held at the Black family estate Monday when she revealed that Black's Law Dictionary, a highly regarded legal reference text, was originally written as a joke by her eccentric great grandfather Henry Campbell Black.

Medhurst appeared unapologetic, suggesting that the Black family had never tried very hard to keep it a secret. "Have any of you actually taken the time to read it?” she asked, flipping open the renowned text.& nbsp; “Look at page 840 for instance. 'John-a-Nokes'? Or how about page 347? 'Correality – the quality or state of being correal." She then cast a challenging look around the room.

Medhurst admitted that the entire Black family has participated in the century-long ruse, working together to generate content for the ever-expanding text. She credits her Uncle Bertrand with developing one of their most successful filler techniques: "We created more than 30 new entries just by using the word 'actual'. Actual agency - see agency. Actual allegiance - see allegiance. Actual authority - see authority. And on and on - you get the idea."

Medhurst admits that the family started to get lazy in later editions, at times resorting to stealing terms from other dictionaries. "I remember one time my brother pulled 'Le Roi' (literally: "the king") right out of his French-English dictionary to meet the deadline for the 5th edition while on a three-week ski trip in the French Alps." She claims the ploy has been used sparingly, however, and that the family put a stop to the practice when her brother started bringing the Official Scrabble Dictionary to editorial meetings. 1

Henry Campbell Black had never intended - or even imagined - that his dictionary would become the authoritative source for legal terminology. "My great granddad had actually written the text for an upcoming firm skit night", Medhurst explains. "It was his way of showing how convoluted and, well, pompous the legal profession had become." The dictionary became an instant hit, however, and Henry Black's comedic intentions went unnoticed. When the money started to roll in, Black elected to pursue a highly lucrative career in legal publishing instead of becoming a marginally talented prop comic.

When asked why the family is revealing the fake after all this time, Medhurst stated that they had grown tired of living a lie, and were genuinely concerned that the universally accepted legal lexicon "is actually just a bunch of made-up gibberish." The family is asking that lawyers and students alike immediately dispose of any editions of Black's Law Dictionary into the nearest trash receptacle or recycle bin. end of article


There is only what can be called disinfo about this issue on this site. So when you hear the chatter and they try to baffle you with bologna. Please
be assured the blacks dictionary will remain a respected refererence book.

This same story was on a yahoo group in 2003 that had a thread discussing the same big announcement, FYI the word correal that Sarah Medhurst supposedly uses to prove the law dictionary a hoax is actually a legal term from Roman law meaning
"In both roman and modern law, there may be more than one creditor or
debtor in the same transaction. The obligation of co-creditors or co-
debtors is known as correality.
Joint or correal obligations are found in many modern systems of law,
such as the anglo-American, French, Spanish."

quoted from a book called "Roman Law in the Modern World." There is also a book called the Systematic and "Historical Exposition of Roman Law in the Order of a Code" which references correality.

here's a link to it
books.google.com... ver&source=web&ots=54egxW5Z7x&sig=S9YSZFUy066phP5gF452Crww31w&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA555,M1

use the search to find correality



The hoax is a 2003 hoax . . .originally found at a satirical website. See discussion tab at Wikipedia for blacks dictionary.


[edit on 1-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Swingarm]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Sounds like the guy listened to Jordan Maxwell and others about names in all capital letters and was using that argument in court.



www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Edited by The Idaho Observer
Lawful Foundations
The original U.S. Constitution is a foundational document created between the individual state nations. Proper representatives of the people in each nation state agreed upon it and signed it. The federal government is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines of Constitutional procedures. 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.
For years we have researched the lawful basis for creating ALL CAPS legal fictions and have concluded that there is no such foundation according to valid authority. But what about those purported “laws” that are not valid and have not originated from constitutional due process?
There's a very simple answer. Such purported laws are really not laws at all.
Executive orders and directives
Executive Orders and Directives are “color of law.” They have the appearance of law and look as if they're laws, but they are not lawful. Rather, they are “laws” based on fictional beginnings and are the basis for further fictional “laws” and other legal fictions. They are “regulated” and “promulgated” by Administrative rules and procedures.
Lincoln establishes EOs
Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or “without day.” This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there were no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum.
Lincoln's second executive order of April, 1861, called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority of the Constitution. In his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, “Congress” has not met based on lawful process. Our current “Congress” is based on a legal fiction not much different than a proper name written in all caps.
Legal fiction “laws”, such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were soon instituted by Lincoln and thus became the basis for our current “laws.” Every purported “Act” in effect today is based on legal fiction, not lawful due process.
The various bankruptcies
The legally created fiction called the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or gold coin to back up or pay their debts. Privately held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America were seized by Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Bank Corporation (FRB) under the terms of bankruptcy.
Congress -- still meeting under Executive Order authority -- confirmed this bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5, 1933 in H.J. Res. 192, 73rd Congress, 1st session, Public Law 73-10. Within this 1933 Public Law, it states in part:
“...every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy.”
In 1950, the corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed as “Receiver” of the bankruptcy in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, page 5967.
The only asset the UNITED STATES has, in order to pay their bankruptcy debt since 1933, is the people themselves. If the UNITED STATES openly declared this, the people would never allow their labors and futures to be collateral to this bankruptcy debt. Consequently, they legally pledge the future labor and tax revenues of Americans, by and through the ALL CAPS fictional legal persons they have created, as collateral for credit to pay daily operational costs and the ever increasing debt.
ALL CAPS legal person v. the lawful being
Just who is the full caps person, i.e. JOHN JAMES SMITH? He's the legal fiction the government created to take the place of the real being, i.e. John James Smith. The lawful name of birthright has been substituted by a legal fiction created by the government. If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being refuses to accept the legal fiction, the two are separated. Therein lies the simple solution: Refusal by the lawful person to accept or answer for the legal person.
How did this happen? A result of the federal government bankruptcies was their creation of a legal fiction known as THE UNITED STATES as a part of their legal reorganization. Each STATE was also converted to their respective fictional legal person, i.e. THE STATE OF IDAHO. Legal fictions can create further legal fictions, such as corporations or any other fictional person easily identified by being written with ALL CAPS.
All areas of government, including the purported courts of law, are currently authorized by, and operating as, legally created fictions. For example, the FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO or the U.S. DISTRICT COURT can only recognize other legal persons. This is why your lawful name is never entered in their records. It has been substituted with the legal person written with full caps. Jurisdiction in such legal fiction courts is only with other legal fictions. The only jurisdiction a lawful being can enter into is a lawful constitutional court.
(Note: While it does seem to be true the legal fiction governments and their legal fiction courts have no lawful jurisdiction over natural persons, they gladly use police power to arrest, assault and imprison natural persons until they acquiesce to their fictional authority. Justice, therefore, has nothing to do with what is right and wrong under the law, it is dominance and submission; one must either bow to the will of the state or be subject to its wrath).
The “catch 22” is that lawful courts no longer exist. Only “legal” courts are available to Americans.
ALL CAPs intent revealed
The purpose and reason for the government use of proper names written in ALL CAPS is now revealed. The only way to counter this is for lawful Americans to stop accepting the use of the substituted legal fiction the STATE has given them. Most documents now issued by government addresses the person written in ALL CAPS. Lawful Americans must insist that they are not that legal fiction and refuse to accept it. By joining together and doing so from the local level, each community will begin to upset the legal order. Lawful Americans must begin to demand lawful government and lawful courts. The legal fictions can only come to an end when the people refuse to use or recognize them.
The only way to restore lawful government in America is for the people to refuse the privileges of the legal government now unlawfully in place. We've all been duped. The use of full caps to write a proper name is absolutely no mistake.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
It all just sounds like a bunch of words and technicality to me. I still really don't understand what implications this makes on my life or anyone else's. Legalese isn't my thing, I guess.

At any rate, I think that if they really, really want to put you in jail, they'll just do it. Do you think being "sovereign" or knowing some obscure law about "flag code" is going to deactivate the bailiff's taser? Is it going to bend the bars on your cell and set you free?

Furthermore, it seems to me that some people are of the impression that being a free man means that they don't have to adhere to the law. It reads off to me as some sort of loophole for anarchists. For all big brother's faults, it beats total anarchy any day. After all, without laws and courts that can enforce them, there is no society. Just chaos.


It's the words and technicalities that govt. uses to baffle you with bull**** in hopes somebody like you will say what you just said.

What we talk about is based on reason and simple concepts. The right to life (the right to live), Liberty (the right to live that life to benefit yourself) and the pursuit of happiness (the enjoyment of those benefits).

The law comes into it to protect each mans right to exercise those three rights so long as he doesn't interfere with another mans right to do the same. That's the soul purpose of the Constitution and was supposed to be the soul duty of our politicians. To protect those rights. Not to give you permission to do this or do that which is what our govt. has become. Big Brother.

Putting it another way as simply as I can, it's like the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Respect a mans rights as you would expect him to respect yours. The constitution enforces that law. No anarchy. No baffling bull****.

The BS comes from govt. lawyers, politicians, judges etc. and their many laws, statutes, codes etc. to confuse the simple truth and to hide if from the public. What you see going on in this thread is like minded, concerned, freedom loving men and women trying to sort through the BS.

I hope this message helps you to understand a little better and in future you'll become a concerned freedom lover yourself. Best regards.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


Very good Swingarm. Where did you get this tasty morsel. Is the Idaho Observer a mainstream paper or a patriot publication. Who was the author? I am most interested in the following quote from it.

"The only way to restore lawful government in America is for the people to refuse the privileges of the legal government now unlawfully in place"

As you know by now I'm looking for a method to right the wrongs that can work for the average guy.

To "refuse the privileges" means either reestablishing legal status or breaking contracts already existing and is another method that requires individual action and scares alot of people off. I would like to discuss with the author and/or affiliates class action fraud suits.

It's late now and I can't keep my eyes open so I will look up the Observer tomorrow but any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

With warm regards.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join