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.


Black's Law Dictionary is a Hoax and there is no such thing as "capitus diminutio"

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:00 AM
Go to:

Search for form 56.

Form 56 is a "Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship" the first line asks for:

Name of person for whom you are acting(as shown on tax return).

Form 56 is a pdf, so scroll down to the bottom, to the "Definitions" section:

Person. A person is any individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation.

An individual by legal definition is a natural person, while something like a trust is an artificial person. The registration of your birth with the State, your Birth Certificate, and your social security number represent a trust which is an artificial person.

The Federal Reserve has a lien held on that trust because you are being held as collateral for the National Debt that the bankers created.

After slavery was abolished (by the thirteenth amendment, not the fourteenth) the "freed" slaves were placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government by the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1:


Amendment 14 "Citizenship Rights"
Ratified 07-09-1868

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Black's Law Dictionary, Third Pocket Edition defines a 'Privilege' as the following:

privilege. 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity GRANTED to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty

legal,adj.1. Of or relating to Law; falling within the province of Law. 2. Established, required, or permitted by Law; LAWFUL. 3. Of or relating to Law as opposed to equity.

grant,verb. 1. To give or confer (something), with or without compensation. 2. To formally transfer (real property) by deed or other writing. 3. To give permit or agree to. 4. To approve, warrant, or order (a request, motion, etc).

As you can see, by the Fourteenth Amendment you are U.S Citizen who falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and the Federal Government grants you your so-called "unalienable rights."

Remember that the Contract makes the Law, and we have the unlimited right to contract, even if we have no knowledge of making a contract.

The Declaration of Independence states clearly:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed, —

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights


en·dow (n-dou)
tr.v. en·dowed, en·dow·ing, en·dows
1. To provide with property, income, or a source of income.
a. To equip or supply with a talent or quality: Nature endowed you with a beautiful singing voice.
b. To imagine as having a usually favorable trait or quality: endowed the family pet with human intelligence.

Jurisdiction is a HUGE part of Law. If your Creator (whomever that may be) endowed you with "unalienable rights" what mortal, or mortal institution, has the Lawful authority to strip you of those rights? Like, if you have the "Right to Bear Arms" why do you have to ask the State for permission to exercise that right by obtaining a permit?

The philosophical idea of a "Creator" is the idea of an "Absolute, Highest-Authority." That authority "endowed" YOU with unalienable rights, so why are you asking the State for permission to exercise them?

It is because you are less-than human. Or at least something pertaining to you is.

Remember that slaves were considered to be animals and "less-than-human." Even after slaves were freed, when two "freed slaves" got married it was considered "animal husbandry." The newly freed slaves DID NOT have the same citizenship status as everyone else, the thirteenth amendment freed them and the fourteenth amendment charted out their citizenship status.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed

Notice the word consent. TO consent means to make a contract.

And the contract makes the Law.

You have willingly (yet unknowingly) diminished your own political status by contracting with the State and placing yourself under Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction.

If you have a Birth Certificate you are contracted with the State.

If you have a Driver's License you are contracted with the State.

If you are a registered Voter you are contracted with the State.

If you have a gun permit you are contracted with the State.

If you have a Marriage License you are contracted with the State.

The idea of Capitis deminutio and having a "strawman" is merely a symptom of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You do not have a "right" to do something if you have to ask for permission, you have a privilege.

Stop asking for PERMISSION and just do it!

[edit on 3/9/2010 by dalan.]

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:02 AM
Double post.

[edit on 3/9/2010 by dalan.]

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:24 AM
reply to post by Mad_Hatter

ALL lawyers are full of crap, even the "good" ones we pay top dollar.
What I mean is, they are used to a set routine. When someone that isn't educated to function within the system the way it's designed for their benefit and not yours, they get very angry and deceitful.
The fact is, they aren't used to dealing with this type of defense so, they don't want to acknowledge it's legitimacy. If they go into court and use this angle, they are going to piss a lot of people off and encounter opposition, disrespect, a loss of business and all around negative effects.

So your lawyer is the one that's full of baloney, he simply did not want to use a technicality that rubs everyone else in his PROFESSION, the wrong way. They'll hate his guts and while in the end, you might get off scott free, it's going to be a longer and more stressful battle. Once they see these tactics being employed, they get VERY angry. They know you can win without so much as a slap on the wrist so they're going to make it a very trying process.

Imagine you're going to a premiere contractor that builds houses.
He has a menu of templates for you to choose from. Now generally, you go through these templates, you pick one, maybe make some minor customizations then he sends that final draft blueprint based on the master template into his supplier. They manufacture all the parts and instructions, their guys go in and more or less, do tab A to slot B construction.
Your lawyer works the EXACT same way with the courts, was prepared to do so in college and has been FORCED to do so since his first day on the job.

Now when you go in wanting them to build an igloo or a straw and mud concrete house, they think you're insane and have absolutely no idea how to work with the materials. They're going to get mad when you insist it can be done now aren't they?
You're just some customer, they're the educated and experienced expert.

It's the exact same situation with your lawyer and the courts.
They don't want to deal with your igloo made of straw and mud concrete. It might be a great system and far better than anything they build but since it's completely foreign to them, they have absolutely no experience for dealing with it and know that if forced to do so, they will make nothing but mistakes and look like fools at the hands of a non professional.

So in other words, your lawyer is a lying dirtball just like all lawyers. It's in his best interest to remain on good terms with these people because he is going to deal with them again or someone they are closely involved with. The judge is a lawyer, the courtroom workers are generally in the process of becoming lawyers and essentially everyone you encounter has an education in the "template" of law.
They don't know the real law, they know the standardized, acceptable methodology imposed by those working deeper in the system long before they came along.
So in short, it's all bull$hit. They're lying liars that share a common backbone.

Watch the Rob Manard videos floating around. He's probably the premiere freeman currently spreading the truth around. This is nothing new, guys have been doing what Rob does for the last few hundred years and believe me, they absolutely win. It gets to the point that nobody wants to deal with them because their methodology is very degrading to those in the system but they absolutely deserve it.
The fact that you asked your lawyer and expected him to tell you the truth is absolutely HILARIOUS to me!

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:22 PM
My mother worked for a district court judge for 10 years and guess what always sat on her desk. A copy of Blacks Law 4th edition printed in 1968. She purchased it after asking the judge what which book dictionary to get. I happen to have that book. An let me tell you the judges they have a copy in their library as well in their office.

An what you say is not in there is in there on page 264 of the 4th edition that was printed in 1968 in the right hand column the 3rd definition from the bottom.

An its definition is as follows.

The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a mans condition changed from that of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave, It swept away with it all rights of citizenship, and all family rights.

So much for it being an hoax and not reality and so much for judges and lawyers not using it.

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:37 PM
hi all, I think trying to use "capitus diminutio" as a defense, (not going to court because its not you) is rather, well, stupid. What i want to know is how do i go to court and retain all my rights under the constitution? And while im here, maybe someone can tell me why the British Accredited Registry or BAR, has anything what so ever to do with united states law?

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:52 PM
From Blacks Law Dictionaryfreeonline ( "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 potcstas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 1G, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom. Law,"...sounds like someone cannot understand what they read.

Read more: C Information and Definitions from Black's Law Dictionary

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:07 PM
Wait, the OP asked a "lawyer" about the topic? A lawyer? A member of the British Accreditation Registry priest class, who doesn't even know he's pledged allegiance to the Queen and Crown by his membership to the Bar? An allegiance that SUPERSEDES his allegiance to his client?

Then, the OP "researched" online? Online? The OP's full effort was to "google" something and draw blanket conclusions by the hits he received on the first 2 pages of links?

And the OP of course, naturally, went and researched earlier versions of Blacks law definitions at a library, before folks altered them? Right? And the OP read the original Magna Carta right? And the OP went and read the various treaties he's under the jurisdiction of, right? And the OP engaged in dialogue with folks not of the legal priest class to find out more, right? And after 6 months of work, the OP reached a deep, fully vetted, detailed conclusion which he is sharing with us now.

No, he did none of that. The guy got pinched, and looked, last minute, for a easy way out of his mess. When the road went didn't go far enough, fast enough, he quit.

And finally, the fact of CD does not in an of itself mean a thing! That fact is only the first clue to knowing your truth, not the entire truth. To suggest because a "google search" says "hoax" is to say, "well I too lazy to any real research at all, my iphone search will do all I need."

I can't stand posts like this, they demonstrate such ignorance, laziness and complete defeat for those who want to actually be free rather then be "told" they are free and to sit down and shut the hell up as being told that fact is more then enough.

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:45 AM
I would say it is in the so called lawyers best interests to keep this information surpressed after all if everyone knew that they had the power in the court and that is the power to consent or not to consent providing it is of course a victimless crime causing no loss , injury or damage to another man/woman or property belonging to .
Only the creator can make law not what is created for example parents can tell their children what to do not the other way around. Government is the creation of the men and woman therefore you tell government what to do.
For too long we have stood by and watched 1984 come to pass our apathy will be our undoing , but we can change it all together by building community , grow food gardens remove your dependance on the state and corporations , put the common unity back into community.

Also the only law i follow is the natural law all other law is fiction intellectual property of the writer and their clubs of which i do not belong therefore there law doesnt apply to me.

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by Swingarm

Thank you for what you have added to this thread ...It's been awhile and some of the vid's you have posted go to a 404 ...I did manage to find one of them but the one in this post I dont have enough information ...could you give me a link to your vids thanks

posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 02:03 AM
a reply to: Mad_Hatter
Wouldn't it be more benificial to find more information on "capitis diminutio maxima" then more information on a dictionary? I have read several situations from Canada and Europe both claiming admirality laws, which is what "capitis diminutio maxima" is classified under. I just can't find anything solid on the validity of they're claims, but also nothing disproving them.

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:15 PM
capitis deminutio

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in