It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:07 PM
I notice my link to the above post is no longer complete. I will post again.
Blacks is no hoax. Don't let the the disinformers on this site make you beleive it. ver&source=web&ots=54egxW5Z7x&sig=S9YSZFUy066phP5gF452Crww31w&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA555,M1

In this same book do a search for Capitis. You will see it is no hoax.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:52 AM
Capitus is a valid term under Roman Law, as per your link to "A Systematic and Historical Exposition of Roman Law in the Order of a Code," but you can't expect Roman Law to be held as valid in America as compared to Constitutional Law...That's where those legalese double-talkers try to keep Americans fooled under the "color of law."

Even Constitutional Law does make use of Latin terms, but only because Latin is referred to as a "dead language"...A language no longer in common use anywhere in the world & will never "evolve" beyond the particular definitions & contextual usage as they exist today.

The difference between Constitutional Law (aka: Natural Law) & Roman Law is that Roman Law can be nothing more than "color of law" in America, when compared to the Constitution.

As for Black's Law Dictionary, perhaps it's been missed that I mentioned that the Dictionary may have many valid legal terms in it, but there's also a lot of terms that were "made up" to be used as filler. Yes, it's possible to buy it in book form or subscribed on the 'net with periodic updates...But how many books out on the market now have been hoaxes? Just because it's published & printed doesn't automatically make it valid.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by truthtalker

I love freedom very much, thanks. But words on paper, in books, or even spoken in court won't help you much when push comes to shove.

The whole problem with the law and the Constitution is that neither protects you from people who refuse to follow it, ie; corrupt cops, judges, and politicians.

So, I still don't see how "sovereign people" or "corporate identities" have any meaning when push comes to shove. You can pick one, and call yourself that if you want. But to them you're just a target.

To put it simply, if I am sitting down to a delicious steak dinner, I don't give a rat's behind if the cow was sovereign. The only thing that matters to me is that it's dead, cooked, and delicious.

In the grand scheme of things, we're the cows.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:15 PM
Have a look at and study the book "construction of statutes". It's within statutes that you've been minipulated with your legal fiction, artificial person, slave status, corporate entity. That is you've become JOHN DOE Driver , JOHN DOE - Taxpayer,or Officer etc. Your legal fiction has been associated with these creatures within statutes. That is why it is important to establish yourself as a natural person, that is represented by the the bill of rights, not some statute that does not recognise your god given rights because you've been changed into a legal fiction.

As far as capitis goes, It was stated that it was a hoax. It's not a hoax. It has real meaning. If you want to start dismissing legal latin terms you're going to have to throw away many accepted legal maxims as insignificant.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by Swingarm]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Swingarm
As far as capitis goes, It was stated that it was a hoax. It's not a hoax. It has real meaning. If you want to start dismissing legal latin terms you're going to have to throw away many accepted legal maxims as insignificant.

Well, I don't consider it "insignificant" that a Google Search for the keywords "Black's Dictionary hoax" lists over 10,000 entries...Do you have equal evidence that it's not a hoax?

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:23 PM
Google entries are evidence? I've spoke to a legal professor about this and he asked me where I got this idea from. When i told him the internet ,he chuckled and suggested I find better sources of information.I'd say thats about equal.

Here is an interesting little book worth reading also if you'd like to remember who you really are.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Swingarm]

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Swingarm
Google entries are evidence? I've spoke to a legal professor about this and he asked me where I got this idea from.

So, are you also discounting the research done from the OP's thread as well? Are discounting all of that research as well? Have you even looked into that research for yourself? Not all of the OP's research was by internet, but that's all of the "evidence" that you say that you've mentioned to your "professor"...Or you merely failed to mention any other line of research to him.

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:57 AM
This article that has it's origins from some satirical web site back in 2003. Reappears 5 years later and now everyone takes it as gospel. I've already pointed out that the terms used in that article have meaning. Black%27s_Law_Dictionary

There are two people who have "defended themselves" successfully in the links provided. Irene gravenhorst

The link for wikppedia is not working. Search Black's dictionary. Click on discussion tab. Yhere you will see the hoax is a hoax. human rights and the illusion

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Swingarm]

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Swingarm

Here is an interesting little book worth reading also if you'd like to remember who you really are.

I've been looking all day long for a book like this! It's a must read for everyone--honestly.

Star for you

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:35 AM
I have read the posts, but still do not follow...

Can someone please explain this, in laymans terms? I have trouble understanding the differences between corporate identity and soveriegn one...I have followed the links, but I still am having trouble. I'm not trying to sound sarcastic either. How does having your name in all caps exclude you from anything when if you have a SS card, and have accepted that card, accepted that identity.


posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by Taledus

The way it works here in Canada is like this.

You are born. Your parents register you a Birth Certificate. This Birth Certificate is actually stock for the Corporation of Canada. Each person living in Canada with a valid Birth Certificate is a shareholder of the Corporation Canada.

If you have a Social Insurance Number you technically now work for the Corporation of Canada. Thus you have to abide by all of Canada's Laws, Acts, etc. You are now a government employee and ONLY government employees have to abide by acts statues etc... so anything they pass you have to abide by.

It is legal to abandon your SIN and when you do this you are no longer a government employee, thus you do not have to abide by the acts. The only laws you have to follow are you cannot breach the peace. This is basically physical harm to someone aka stealing, ect.

There are 2 different people. 1) The corporate fiction which is your birth certificate and SIN name which is a legal fiction or person and 2) you flesh and blood

Ever notice how you never recieve true bills for anything? Just take a look. Your credit card statement is not a bill it is a statement. According to the Bill of Exchange Act you do not have to pay a statement.

Once you grasp the entire concept it is easy.

Basically what it all boils down to is Contract Law as stated by others in this thread.

You do not have to contract with anyone. By going to court and swearing on the bible you are now contracting with the court. This is why the courts are at a loss with this case.

Do not sign anything unless you know the full scope of the contract which you are signing.

I could go on for ages about contract law but I am still a novice on the subject. There is much more available online if you are interested. u2u me for more details.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:25 AM
There's a lot more over in this thread about the differences between Natural Law (Common Law) & Statutory Law (Contract Law or Commercial Law). It's a long read, especially when you consider the hyperlinked resources included, but well worth the time & effort.

In short, the "authorities" will try any trick in the book & invent new tricks to try to trick you into "entering into contract" with them. For example, if you've been pulled over by a police officer when you did nothing wrong at all, he'll ask for your license, registration & proof of insurance...You must first establish the facts as to whether or not he has any reason to stop you.

If you just comply with his request first, you've just entered into contract with him & his jurisdiction over you has just been established.

The initial dialogue may go like this at first:
You: You are a Peace Officer, aren't you?
Cop: Yes.
You: Am I in Breech of the Peace?
Cop: No.
You: Then you have no probable cause to detain me against my will & must be on my way.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:01 AM
OK, I have read over 4 pages of the other thread and am utterly confused on a massive scale...pretty much if I am summoned to court for something in which I did not violate any peace, if the name summoned is in all caps, then I can just show up and tell them they have no right over me, as a soverign person? I think there needs to be a "for dummies" book on all of this because it is profoundly confusing...but it is the government laws that are making it hard to decipher.

Anyways, thanks for the info and links...of to reading more

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by ianr5741
Very interesting. I really do wonder from where an individual believes they get their authority to lord over another human being, if not by outright force.

I have a suspicion that those people who exercise "power" over others are really just people who are terribly afraid of being weak... so their actions are merely attempts are reassuring themselves that they have some measure of control in this world.

Are we not equal? Perhaps the defendant should lecture the judge on how to live, or decide punishment.

Certainly there are some rules we need to agree on. But at the same time, who decides?

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ianr5741]

ok ill tell you since your close, its the guy at the top, the weakest link lol, that convinces these people, he already knows- are in there own ways weak like you said, to certain positions of power, butters them up with candy and sweet nothings to get there compliance in a future need situtation, like taking bribes, lying, w/e . Then what you observe is like you stated, a mindslave who wants merely to steer the wheel of perceived control, but if they ever watched star trek, which quotes great writers of our time, "Power is an illusion." Force is a means to an end to control a world populace of many criminals and thug rapists. Sadly they are also in power, and theres a power struggle between good and evil, right and wrong within all governments. So technicly the war betwen good and evil always exists, just the question remains, how not soon are we going to or not going to see armageddon like events. Hopefuly never in my mind.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 03:24 PM
COURTROOM TECHNIQUES 3rd paragraph from the bottom:

I followed a link on the other forum...I don't know exactly which on on which page. Not going to cite the entire paragraph because it is too lengthy...but it did make me think of something. Child support cases.

If child support cases deal with criminal actions for not paying child support, in statutory jurisdiction, then they are null and void if the defindant is not provided with the rules of the court, thus not understanding the charges?

"...they can't try you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would be automatically a reversible error on appeal."

I am just trying to understand the logic here as it pertains to certain situations...I do not condone not paying child support.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:34 PM
Some more questions...if someone gets thier birth certificate corrected, returns thier SS# card, and claims to be soverign, what about getting medical insurance? What do you do if you are sick and have no insurance due to not having a SS card...or even car insurance because every time I have gotten insurance they have required a SS#.

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 11:59 AM
This thread is getting too far off-track...I'll post the reply over here. I'd also highly suggest that if there's any other questions not related to this man's declaration of Sovereignty in Court, then post at the thread I've linked: That thread is dedicated to questions about more specific laws & we won't be derailing this thread any more.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:48 AM
ray wills v michigan state patrol 1988 say statutes that use the word person dont apply to the sovereign unless the statute specifically names them .
yik wo v san francisco says sovereignty reside in the people
blacks law dictionary say natural person and person are not the same.
and the us constitution says theres only two jurisdictions common law and equity, statutory jurisdiction is not listed, everyone should challenge the court to provide proof upon the record of there assumed jurisdiction

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:06 AM

Originally posted by mattifikation
On the note of cops being able to find reasons to arrest you, I was informed by a local politician here the other day that Pennsylvania actually has a "windshield wiper law" that states if it's overcast and you're driving, your wipers have to be set to "medium speed."

yup. I was yelled at. They make you turn your lights on when its like dusk ( i could still see out and hes like trn em on im like why hes like cause im old and a cop). But yea a cop did tell me to do that before,

( i live in PA by the way)

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:17 AM
Titles of nobility huh....Well this leaves out car czar, drug czar, health czar and all the other czars that are constantly appointed with that title.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in