Man declares sovereignty, challenges jurisdiction of court

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.

books.google.com... 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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

www.natural-person.ca...



[edit on 8-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Swingarm]

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.

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.

en.wikipedia.org... Black%27s_Law_Dictionary

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


video.google.com... 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.


video.google.com... 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]

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

Star for you