I Am Not The People, And Neither Are You


It is the greatest of all fallacies; indeed it might be the greatest public relations stunt ever conceived. It cannot be defined. It cannot be touched or spoken to. It cannot be seen. It has no substance.

And yet, we as “individuals” identify ourselves as it with a perfectly unhindered irrationality, while at the same time never being able to grasp its totality of non-existence. It is used to describe every last one of us, even when it singles out one of us to bully and plunder. It represents the basis of the entire structure of power over us, while at the same time, somehow, it is us. And the power of it has resulted in the most impressive false dialectic ever conceived in the history of the world.

Monarchies and dictatorships are surely envious of it, for even the most violent of militarized tyrannies cannot match the shear driving force of the ignorantly voluntary consent backing it. And all who oppose it have learned that no power in the world seems to be able to stop it.

So just what is it?

It is the ambiguous title of “the People.”

In its most surreal application, the People is a flattering title most often used to cause a lack of tangible responsibility for the actions of the actual people that claim at the same time to be that special they, the People. Like the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde model, the men and women that make up the lower citizenry under government can simply blame the government for everything it does in the People’s name, even though the government is supposedly full of the People, and run by and for the People. Thus, even though what the People of government did was supposedly already done with all the People’s tacit approval (because all common people believe themselves to be part of the People), a sort of permanent flow of manufactured consensus that no one actually votes for is established, also known as the consent of the governed. So the People govern the People, or does the People govern a lower class of persons? Are all common people considered to be “the People” of the States united?

For the government, inversely, the men and women (the People) that make up that legislature and Executive branch can simply blame the common subjects (citizenry) for giving their unwitting consent as a governed people to the actual governing bloodline families called as the People, never acknowledging that their own actions (which are most often done despite and against the actual common people’s will) were everything but the will of the common citizenry.

Either way, it seems, no one is ever to blame for the actions of the People… because the People simply does not exist. The People plays the role of both false God and devil, hero and villain, all because of this faith-based belief that all men are the People. But what exactly is the People?

Does the People cast a shadow? Can the People be touched or seen? Can the People actually only speak with one voice, considering it supposedly equates to the collective will of all the citizens in the nation whether they like it or not? Can elected officials somehow be the People despite the rest of the common people that believe they are equally the People just because those people voted without conscious consideration for those legislators to be the lawmaker and voice of the People?

Just who, in the end, do you suppose is taking responsibility as the actual the People? Is it the president? Is he the People when He decides to act as the People without actually consulting the People with say an Executive Order or Presidential Directive? Is the entire citizenry of common, clueless people thus responsible as a collective the People for the actions of the president acting as a singular power called the People?

–=–
The People vs. The People
–=–

I can just imagine it… where all parties claiming to be the People actually go into arbitration so as to decide just who is in actuality responsible for the actions of government. It would be more deviously twisted than the worst divorce case, more televised than the O.J. Simpson trial, and more flippant than a cat in a hot tub.

The common People would claim that “the government” has committed a crime. The government would then counter-claim that the People voted for government, and therefore the crime was in the name of the People. But, so argues the attorney for the voting common people, government (the People) is acting without consulting the People in its actions and lawmaking. To which government’s Attorney General would retort that the People gave consent for the government to act as “the People” in all things legal and political, which really means that government is the spirit of the People. Nay, nay, says the common people’s representative, for we the commoners who believe we are also equally the People have voiced in public and have called and sent petitions to these representatives of the People in government, and we have spoken our individual opinions of government’s actions, and a majority of the common people (that’ still believes we are part of the People) do not approve of government’s actions while acting as and on behalf of we, that patriotically believe we are also somehow part of the People. And still in a stalemate of duelist defiance, the government agent would claim that while the common people (persons of the United States) certainly have the right to individually voice their personal opinions under the doctrine of the lie you believe is called “free speech”, says the Attorney General for the United States (i.e. the People), the People (government) is certainly not required in any way to consider any of the common citizenry’s (the People’s?) individual opinions on the actions of government (the People).

And at this point, Judge Judy slams her gavel down in Talmudic entropy and declares a mistrial due to irreconcilable differences in sameness, screaming at the top of her adulterous lungs, “Get that constitution out of my administrative, commercial courtroom!”

And when the opinions of the case are written into case law, it would read that no distinction could be established in either separating the government from the People or the People from government, and that no individual citizen could claim to be the People, or speak on the People’s behalf, for all the People cannot be manifest in just one common person without duly being elected to that artificial position of legal authority. Finally, it’s this court’s opinion that no individual or group of persons can claim to be the actual full body of the People, because the People is a plural title for a singular body politic called as the People. An individual stands not in plurality, and the plural for person is persons, not People. Therefore, only government can call itself as the People, despite the fact that government is merely a fiction of law with no substance, and so the People cannot in fact sue the government for the government is in fact and in title the only representative body cooperate of the People.

Final decision: this imaginary case cannot exist because the People cannot sue the People. The government cannot sue itself. The common people that are citizens (SUBJECTS) of the United States that still somehow believe they are The People, therefore, must submit to the will of the People, which of course is only the government of and by the People. In other words, you aren’t in our club…

Here exists the hand of the People,
claiming to exist despite its non-existence,
presenting its own representation,
writing itself into artificial life.

–=–
Say What?
–=–

If the above is confusing for you, ask yourself a few questions….

Are you a People? Is there any way that the word People can be a singular term that refers to only one man or woman?

Is government a People? Inasmuch as Walmart is a corporation, and the entire staff, board, CEO, shareholders, and owners could loosely be called a family or a People, then we could loosely say yes.

But is government the People? Is government alive? Of course not. So, is the People alive? Of course not. The People is an anthropomorphism. The the People the States, not men. But then, how can government be and represent us as the People… unless we are all dumb enough to believe in and vote for the actions or laws created by the small group of actual the People (State representatives) in government? 

Here’s another conundrum: How can the People sue us individually if we are indeed actually part of the whole the People? How can the People sue Itself? Can my leg sue my hand for stabbing it?

Sure, we vote for which persons will inhabit government, but those People never ask permission from the rest of the People who voted for them when they pass laws on the People’s behalf. But if the government (the People) is able to put the responsibility of its actions on the entirety of all the People, then is it any wonder that the People never punish the People in government for crimes against the People? Perhaps the People are sovereign, which means necessarily that the rest of us are not. For what is a sovereign without subjects?

If I ask my local municipal corporation police officer where he gets his authority, he will no doubt point back to the corporation (city or county) he works for. If I ask the city or county municipal corporation where it’s authority is derived from, it will no doubt point to the state, the highest municipal corporation thereof. And when I ask the state corporation, the governor for instance, he will probably refer me to one of hundreds of independent agencies of the federal government, which will ultimately lead up the chain 9of command to the big chair, the office of the President of that Washington DC based corporation itself. And you know what his answer will be…

My power comes from the will the People.

So, Mr. President, can you point me to them, or it?

And so the whole cycle begins over again, as I return back down from the highest denominator to the lowest — the leader gets its authority from the followers, even against their will. So I ask my police officer again, where does your authority come from? And eventually the president will redirect me to the People again. This apparent God called as the People seems to be as illusive and unbeholden as any other religious personification. But one thing I do know… I am certainly not the People!

Trying to figure out just what the People is at this point is like looking at an infinite, self-similar fractal. The beginning and the ending of just what the People is can never be truly be ascertained. And just when you think you have it figured out, you realize the paradox that its true quantitative power is that it is an equation with no solution – a symbolical apparition representing an impossible perfection of the political corruption of natural reason and logic.

Don’t get lost…

–=–

How can such a nonsensical title as the People have been foisted upon the masses of unprivileged men, who self-identify as both an individual sentient being and a fictional plural construct? How can hundreds of millions of men be convinced that they are not men but legally a single hive-minded political term known as the People? And from that experiential belief, how were so many strong-willed men able to be convinced that We, the People is the creator of all things and all laws, and that even though they are supposedly one of the People, the People can somehow single one of the individual People out and sue, fine, tax, punish, imprison, and even put to death that individual all in the name of that great god called We, the People? Amazingly, even as individual sentient beings, we still consider and address ourselves not as our selves, but as the whole People. I am We. We am I.

And therein lies the greatest word magic and trickery ever spell-cast. For by saying I am We, the People, a man is really saying I am of government. I am a fictional representation of myself. I am an individual fictional person and one of the fictional People at the same time? I am not man. I have no voice. I am totally controllable. I am a creation of government

Literally, my will is the People’s will, and so therefore the People’s will tells me my will, whether I like it or not, and whether the People them-selves like it or not. Cause there are no real People, just a bunch of subjects called persons. It’s all just a fiction. Just a name. A big lie.

–=–
Maxim’s Of Law:
–=–

“The creator controls.”

“A thing similar is not exactly the same.”

“One who wills a thing to be or to be done cannot complain of that thing as an injury.”

“He who consents cannot receive an injury.”

“Consent removes or obviates a mistake.”

“The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law.”

“Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supercedes such understanding as the law would imply.”

“No one can sue in the name of another.”

“It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.”

“A fiction is a rule of law that assumes something which is or may be false as true.”

“Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.”

“Whoever does anything by the command of a judge (magistrate/We, the People as god) is not reckoned to have done it with an evil intent, because it is necessary to obey.”

“Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial (magistrative) authority, the law will not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounded duty to obey.”

 –=–

Why can’t anyone get in trouble by the law for crimes against humanity? Because People aren’t men! A man acting in person as one of the People has the permission of the People to do what the People tell the person to do on behalf of the People. In other words, if the People are sovereign, and a sovereign knows no law above it, then the People have no real law when acting as the sovereign We, the People, and pretend to operate their crimes under the law of the People! This is the simulacra and simulation of the People and of government. The People is a copy with no (living) original. The government is similar to the law but not the law; a simulation of God. This is the fractal reality of a great and powerful lie, the underlying law being truly that of anything goes.

Who, what, where, when, and how is the People?
Will the real People please stand up?

–=–

The People is a fiction of law. The law, however, according to the above maxims, assumes that the fiction (the People) is indeed a non-fiction, and that therefore the fiction is true in the eyes of the law (the law here being anthropomorphized into a fictional character that sees, hears, and speaks). The law says that all of mankind are a single People. Man acting as persons of the People (government) are acting in another name (in the name of the People), and so man acting in the name of or as the People can certainly not sue the government, for the government is the People, and the People cannot sue the People itself, and so this makes somehow a functional paradox we call justice.

The People cannot really complain to government, which claims to be doing the will of the People, because again the People cannot complain about the People. They are the same thing. One single body politic. On individual thing. E pluibus unum. One world order is merely a one world People of the same world government (the People). Individual nations are called “state’s” of the United Nations, and the member nations will just be the new People of the One World Nation. For ultimately, in a global government, the People that is the United States will only be considered one individual person in the United Nations.

Now don’t be confused, for it is easy to fall into the fractal trap of this word porn. A diehard “We, the People” person that just can’t imagine not being regarded as a plural and thus actually be responsible for his own actions despite the People he identifies himself as, and therefore as a real non-dependent man, is no longer able to blame government or his mistaken identity he calls the People for his or her own inaction; somehow blaming all other People as opposed to himself while simultaneously believing that he is indeed one of the People which he himself blames. Damn People!

Whoa there!

Seriously, before the fractal gets way out of hand (Mandelbrot would be so proud), let’s make sure that this whole diatribe isn’t just some modern abstract from a fractal crack-head’s dream…

Let’s see what this word People means in the legal books:

PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.]1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. 2. The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons. The knowing artist may judge better than the people 3. The commonalty, as distinct from men of rank. Myself shall mount the rostrum in his favor, And strive to gain his pardon from the people 4. Persons of a particular class; a part of a nation or community; as country people 5. Persons in general; any persons indefinitely; like on in French, and man in Saxon. 6. A collection or community of animals. The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer. Proverbs 30:25. 7. When people signified a separate nation or tribe, it has the plural number. Thou must prophesy again before many peoples. Revelation 10:11. 8. In Scripture, fathers or kindred. Genesis 25:8. 9. The Gentiles. –To him shall the gathering of the people be. Genesis 49:10. – verb transitive  – To stock with inhabitants. Emigrants from Europe have peopled the United States. (–Webster’s 1828)

PEOPLEA state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacityThe aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state… In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors… In neutrality laws, a government recognized by the United States. The word “people” may have various signification according to the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the rights of the people, or of the government of the people by law, or of the people as a non-political aggregate, we mean all the inhabitants of the state or nation, without distinction an to sex, age, or otherwise. But when reference is made to the people as the repository of sovereignty, or as the source of governmental power, or to popular government, we are in fact speaking of that select and limited class of citizens to whom the constitution accords the elective franchise and the right of participation in the offices of government. (–Black’s 4rth Edition)

PEOPLE – Ordinarily, the entire body of the inhabitants of a State. In a political sense, that portion of the inhabitants who are intrusted with political power; the qualified voters. The words “the people” must be determined by the connection. In some cases they refer to the qualified voters, in others to the state in its sovereign capacity. The United States government proceeds directly, from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people. It is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” Under our system, the “people,” who in England are called “subjects,” constitute the sovereign. The simple word “people”  is sometimes applied to a nation or foreign power. When the constitution of a State directs that processes shall run in the name of the State, a process in the name of the “people” will be held deficient, notwithstanding the form be statutory.” See Citizen; Country; Government; Lex, Salus, etc.; Magistrate; Nation; Sovereignty; State, Welfare. (–W.C. Anderson 1889)

–=–

Ever wonder why a petition never seems to work? That’s because a petition is not created by all the People, but only by some persons. Persons are not the People. In other words, a petition may be considered as legal evidence, but not as the will of the People. The People is a legal concept that the People can’t seem to access, though We are supposedly the People.

PETITION – A written address, embodying an application or prayer from the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body, or person to whom it is presented, for the exercise of his or their authority in the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, privilege, or license.

PRAYERThe request contained in a bill in equity that the court will grant the process, aid, or relief which the complainant desires. Also, by extension, the term is applied to that part of the bill which contains this request.

PRAYER – chancery pleadings. That part of a bill which asks for relief. 2. The skill of the solicitor is to be exercised in framing this part of the bill. An accurate specification of the matters to be decreed in complicated cases, requires great discernment and experience; it is varied as the case is made out, concluding always with a prayer of general relief, at the discretion of the court.

–=–

We pray to the court, because the court is the god, an other word for magistrate, which is another word for government as the People. The court represents We, the People against us, either wholly or as individuals or corporations. We as individuals or groups, associations, or corporations are never addressing the court as the People, it is the Court that is addressing us as the People, because government is the People. It is impossible for the People to sue the court because the court is the People. The court offers the opinion of the People. All we can do is pray to that magi-god in a black robe for remedy. The word prayer has been modernly re-named into “pleading.” The People need not plead, for the court is the People.

–=–
The Chicken Or The Egg?
–=–

I’m not sure how many other ways I can say this, but it should be clear that I, you, we, and us is not the People. It’s a physical impossibility, which is part of the strategy of control. The government knows that the People can never be together in one room, acting as its true self – all the millions of actual voters. It’s a gloriously impossible feat. And that’s why the legal god that has been named the We, the People as a representation of the People is so powerful and seemingly immutable.

The only last fallacy to be consumed in the fire of this fractal debtor’s hell is to dispel the notion that the People created the government. Here again, the romantic patriotic view is that the People all voted for the constitution. Of course this is a verifiable untruth. Very few of the People could vote, because they weren’t good enough to vote due to blood, status, lack of land-holdings, and of course color. The People who created the constitution were clear on this 3/5ths of a point, which makes it humorous to see a patriotic “negro” man eager to wave the flag.

While it is accurate to say that the group of Free-masonic men who signed the constitution were certainly a specific, proper noun group of People, it is not accurate to say that they were all the People of the entire nation, any more than it is accurate to say that the legislature actually represents the will of every person in the United States as the People. It is more accurate to say that the individual states as body politics’ were the things that made up the People, and not the men within acting as citizens, slaves, and voluntary or involuntary servants. The People, as defined above, are the states of the nation and therefore is the nation itself. That’s not real People, that’s just an incorporated thing. An idol. A god.

How could there have been a People if there was no nation? Was there a specific day that all men became the People? They certainly weren’t natural born at the time they became the People. Could the People of a nation exist before the nation was created? Obviously, if none of us out here can represent the People in court, then we are not really the People.

If government disappeared tomorrow, there would be no place for the People to legally appear as a legal body. For the People only exist as and in a fictional jurisdiction. Government creates and becomes the People, and the creator controls.

And so I end this puzzling commentary with one last question…

When are you going to quit denying the beauty and wonder of your uniqueness and individuality, quit denying your personal responsibility, and quit letting evil men commit atrocious crimes against all the men and creatures of the Earth in your name – in the name of the god of We, the People?

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, January 15th, 2015

 

Cracking The Legal Code Of King James


The average Christian in this world has been sold on the idea that they can buy their way into heaven, through the middle-man salesmen priest of their perspective church and its particular doctrine, as if this will somehow wash away their sins just like the three credit rating agencies can magically wipe away a bad credit score.

If I were a man on the street and I made the claim that for $100 dollars I could save your soul by somehow bypassing God Himself and His wrathful judgement, I’d be locked up in the nearest asylum (run by nuns) and charged with conspiracy to defraud the public. But if I incorporate and call myself a 501(c)3 religion, suddenly that same sales pitch becomes authorized by law and fervently protected by government… all 40,000 of them!

But did anyone ever do their due diligence and check the Bible to see if this was actually what’s supposed to happen?

Does the definition of what a Christian is and which path he or she is supposed to walk have anything to do with a corporate religion, a religious doctrine, a constitution of legal de facto government, or even a church? Can a man buy love, purchase forgiveness, tithe for his sins with the money of Caesar (government), and then step up to knock-knock-knock on Heaven’s door in forgiveness of these Biblical no-no’s? Can a church give men license to sin in exchange for the payment of blessings from priests in ceremonial robes?

Surprisingly, the answers to all of these questions within the Bible are both shocking and beautiful… And they all begin with the words absolutely not! The Bible does not say these things, and it does not bestow status on men to act in God’s or Jesus Christ’s name as a vicar (replacement) – which is surprisingly the claimed basis of all legal authority in religion and government (church and state).

But the church and state sure wants you to think it does…

Words like saved, salvation, and redemption are part of an alternative language not taught to most church-going folks, for these are the words of attorneys and lawyers – the language of secret societies and Orders that seek power and control through govern-ment (mind control) of the masses, so that we may never be free from the self-imposed debt that can only be forgiven through the comprehension of the Bible and its legal interpretation.

The first time I even began to contemplate the power of the Bible was when a friend entered the whole Bible as evidence of his clients personal credo of law into a federal court… and it was accepted and honored without question!

Then, some time later, I was approached by a man who tried to convince me to do what he was doing, which was to copy what the wealthy in-the-know business elite do. He explained that the registrar loved it when the elitist few brought in the King James “authorized” 1611 Bible and claimed it as law, utilizing it in the creation of a trust to turn the artificial person (strawman) attached as the surname into a not-for-profit corporation, where the new “trust” controlled the name, and then proceeded to show me all of the IRS tax forms that these society men utilized to get all of their tax dollars back in “redemption” at the end of each year. All of this was based on entering the legally “authorized” Bible as evidence of law. And while at first I was intrigued, I quickly realized this road was not for me, and that it was steeped in comprehensible participation of the  fraud of the system. I chose not to benefit from this organized corruption. And the secretive gent has never contacted me again, asking me not to share what he told me.

I later learned that the word trust, as do many words in the legal language, means the opposite of its vernacular (common) usage. It goes something like this:

—> A trust Maxim of law: when someone is in possession of something which they do not have a legal right to, then they are the “trustee” of that thing.

Needless to say, this made me want to learn more about this Bible and how it was being used in law! And this began a journey of discovery and actualization that I never thought I’d take. I started reading the Bible and cross-referencing the words with the legal language of the law society. And what I found was an exact match!

Before we can understand how to use the language of the Bible as a remedy in law, we must first define legally the words of that Sacred Book so as to comprehend the legal process hidden within. For they are of the same language. Only then can we be successful in the utilization of the Bible as a legal remedy within the legal language of the law society to escape the laws of man and mammon. In truth, anyone who has read the Bible will need to reread it once they learn this dualistic legal code, which naturally is the code of church and state.

It is ironic, really, that the powers that be (church and state) have divided these two languages of man’s legal law and the Bible. To create this division in the understanding of men through this separation of the togetherness of church and state, which both claim the same authority to rule men under God’s name under oath (defined as taking God’s name in vain), the separation of the temporal and the spiritual had to be accomplished. I now understand that this was an important step in conquering the minds of men within the powerful G20 (Gentile 20) nations. We must understand that there is no true redemption for mankind in the temporal (nonspiritual) legal law alone, for the law of men only deals with strawmen – artificial persons as corporations that are created as fictions of law and owned through letters patent by government, where the spirituality of the soul is rejected as being encased within the vessel (legal body of man). Thus a living spiritually inclined man will never find true remedy in legal law alone while acting as a legal fictional person under man’s laws, and certainly not in the constitution that created that legal fiction. For God’s laws and nature itself have no place in fiction except in name (noun) only.

On the other hand there is the Bible, to which the priests in their own religious societies never reveal the true legal language of that sacred Tome. So it is equally accurate to say that no fictional “person” or citizen of a soulless State will ever find remedy within the Bible, for the Bible is for the sentient and stateless mankind alone, and persons are mere legal fictions of mankind (secular government) that are not to be respected according to the Bible. Thus a citizen (person; an enfranchised man) will never be able to utilize the Bible as remedy, for persons (names) have no essence or “soul”, and are not found in nature (where the Bible exclaims is the natural law of God). Persons are creations of law (of man’s law), not God. And yet the priest-class continuously bombard their parishioners with fallacy confiding patriotism through God’s will for legal law issued by government (man) as “the law of the land”, when in fact all the Earth and land is under the law of God and nature – as God’s creation not man’s.

But the bridge between the linguistic code written in the Bible and what is written in the legal code is never crossed while “educating” the masses. Church and State are indeed one, and cannot be separated, for the authority of all law is based on God’s authority seeded to men. Indeed, if this relationship were ever discovered, all good men would turn away from fiction and choose to be free under God’s law and no longer be enslaved by man’s legal fiction, exactly as the Bible instructs us to escape. And no slaves would be left to run the machine of mammon (money).

I am well on my way to cracking this Code, and so I want to share with you what I’ve uncovered so far. Whatever your opinion or beliefs about religion and the Bible are, they do not apply here. I’m not interested in proving the existence of anything but what exists in nature that can be proven. The nature of God or lack thereof is for you to decide individually, and has absolutely no relevance within this discussion. The words we will be defining here are straight out of the Bible AND the legal dictionaries of government. When you comprehend that these things are one in the same, and that the Bible is the hidden authority of the laws of the men in government and religion, you will have your own revelation that I cannot imagine one to be able to put into words.

The word abandon, for instance, may be defined as two seemingly opposite concepts. Abandon on one hand means totally free and unhindered expression of will, while in the same definition it may also mean to leave something behind. But for our purposes, we must certainly combine these definitions in our comprehension that in order to be free and unhindered in our lives as free men (in abandon) under God (under the laws of nature), we must also abandon and leave behind permanently the ties that bind us in chains of debt and obligation to government (mammon). In other words, we must abandon our person so as to 100% of the time act as living beings (in abandon). A man that carries a commercial entity in the form of an artificial person in commerce with government (mammon) in truth carries around a “demon”, and therefore cannot live life in abandon.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines the word demon as:

“signifying an evil spirit or genius, which influences the conduct or directs the fortunes of mankind“.

And just what exactly is an evil “genius”?

Genius – n. [Latin from the root of gigno; Gr. to beget.] 1. Among the ancients, a good or evil spirit or demon supposed to preside over a man’s destiny in life, that is, to direct his birth and actions and be his guard and guide; a tutelary deity; the ruling and protecting power of men, places or things. This seems to be merely a personification or deification of the particular structure or bent of mind which a man receives from nature, which is the primary signification of the word. 2. The peculiar structure of mind which is given by nature to an individual, or that disposition or bent of mind which is peculiar to every man, and which qualifies him for a particular employment; a particular natural talent or aptitude of mind for a particular study or course of life; as a genius for history, for poetry or painting. 3. Strength of mind; uncommon powers of intellect, particularly the power of invention. In this sense we say, Homer was a man of genius. Hence, 4. A man endowed with uncommon vigor of mind; a man of superior intellectual faculties. Shakespeare was a rare-genius. (Webster’s 1828)

An evil genius (demon) might be one who, let’s say, creates a doctrine of “Christian” religion that goes completely against the teachings of the character of Jesus Christ, incorporates that doctrine into a corporate church, and then deceives all the followers of that religion that its word is not only of and inspired by God, but that his genius is the only true interpretation of the will of God as God’s spokesman and author. And thus one of a thousand religions is born, completely hiding the fact that religion, ceremony, symbols, and mammon is forbidden in the Bible for true followers of the legal and spiritual story of Jesus Christ and its guidance to be free from the influences and enslavement of the church and state.

And rest assured here that a demon (genius) needs no wings, horns, or claws as depicted in ancient artifacts. These are just frightening imagery to scare children and adults into never perceiving that ordinary men like themselves could be so evil and demonic in their genius. They live among us, controlling us, feeding off of our collective ignorance, harvesting our wealth and happiness… and they are just as human as you and me. They are as we are, simply of Adam.

ADAM – n. In Heb., Man; primarily, the name of the human species, mankind; appropriately, the first Man, the progenitor of the human race. The word signifies form, shape, or suitable form, hence, species. It is evidently connected with Heb., to be like or equal, to form an image, to assimilate. Whence the sense of likeness, image, form, shape; a body, like. [See Man.] (Webster’s 1828)

As we can read here and within the bible concordances, the word Adam is plural. It is representative of all mankind as a species. But more importantly, it represents within the Bible the “status” of mankind before being enslaved by diminishing legal statuses (names) such as “person”, “citizen”, “American”, “debtor”, or “slave”.

Yet, what does your priest sell to you every Sunday, hoping you never learn the true language of the Bible of the State of the Kings? That Adam should be anthropomorphized as a single man?

I do not claim to be a genius, and would avoid any demon that claims such notion for him or herself. For that is just a false title not of nature. I have no religion to sell, and I want none of your money or your pledged oath in exchange for this sharing of work. I give it freely in the hopes of breaking away the supposed mysteries of the Bible and revealing what it truly is to be free and to live in peace among all men under its teachings. For all men must know these words or be permanently stuck in their already existing bondage to the religion of church and State.

Ultimately, church and state are the same thing, where nowadays one is incorporated within the other, laughably calling themselves non-profits.

Perhaps non-prophets would be more like it…

In short, I want to help you to save you from your fictional self. I want you to stop taking part in your own demonic possession of an artificial person. Remember the popular axiom that possession is 9/10’s of the law? Well, this really means that the law is worthless unless you possess and appear by name as the person belonging to government – the legal fiction that the government’s fictional laws only apply to. You see, the laws of men do not apply to you, unless you claim and possess man’s fictional demon (citizen) as your person! Nine-tenth’s of man’s law, in other words, is only applicable to the government’s own property – the artificial person you possess called a citizen – creating a contractual obligation to follow the laws of man’s government over God’s. The laws of government (Satan) govern only persons (demons), not living men.

Not dis-similarly, the rules and regulations of Walmart employees only regulate the demon person created as and called the “employee” – another artificial status of person-hood. No man is bound by the rules of any corporation unless they are employed by that corporation, including all of the municipalities and offices of government (the corporation nation). If you are employed, you are possessing an additional legal fictional status added to a person called an “employee”.

POSSESSION – n. The having, holding or detention of property in one’s power or command; actual seizing or occupancy, either rightful or wrongful. One man may have the possession of a thing, and another may have the right of possession or property. In bailment, the bailee, who receives goods to convey, or to keep for a time, has the possession of the goods, and a temporary right over them, but not the property. Property in possession includes both the right and the occupation. 2. Any thing valuable possessed or enjoyed. Christian peace of mind is the best possession of life. 3. The state of being under the power of demons or invisible beings; madness; lunacy; as demoniacal possession To take possession to enter on, or to bring within one’s power or occupancy. To give possession to put in another’s power or occupancy. (Webster’s 1828)

EMPLOYMENT – n. The act of employing or using. 1. Occupation; business; that which engages the head or hands; as agricultural employments; mechanical employments. Men, whose employment is to make sport and amusement for others, are always despised. 2. Office; public business or trust; agency or service for another or for the public. The secretary of the treasury has a laborious and responsible employment. He is in the employment of government. (Webster’s 1828)

To be employed is to be in service as a debtor and taxpayer to government. It is to be employed through mammon, using the invisible being described above as a demon that the man possess in person (in name) and is employed (used) under the power of that demonic possession. The person employed is a material possession of government…

EMPLOYv.t. [Latin plico.] 1. To occupy the time, attention and labor of; to keep busy, or at work; to use… A portion of time should be daily employed in reading the scriptures, meditation and prayer; a great portion of life is employed to little profit or to very bad purposes. 2. To use as an instrument or means. We employ pens in writing, and arithmetic in keeping accounts. We employ medicines in curing diseases. 3. To use as materials in forming any thing. We employ timber, stones or bricks, in building; we employ wool, linen and cotton, in making cloth. 4. To engage in one’s service; to use as an agent or substitute in transacting business…  5. To occupy; to use; to apply or devote to an object; to pass in business; as, to employ time; to employ an hour, a day or a week; to employ one’s life. To employ one’s self, is to apply or devote one’s time and attention; to busy one’s self. n. That which engages the mind, or occupies the time and labor of a person; business; object of study or industry; employment. 1. Occupation, as art, mystery, trade, profession. 2. Public office; agency; service for another. (Webster’s 1828)

ENGAGE – v.t.  1. To make liable for a debt to a creditor; to bind one’s self as surety. 2. To pawn; to stake as a pledge. 3. To enlist; to bring into a party; as, to engage men for service; to engage friends to aid in a cause. 6. To unite and bind by contract or promise. Nations engage themselves to each other by treaty. 8. To occupy; to employ assiduously. (Webster’s 1828)

As a citizen, you are employing (using) and occupying in trust the person owned by government, and are therefore agreeing to its rules (codes).

When the concept of the Mark of the Beast is considered, we must realize that it has become increasingly difficult to find “employment” without the mark of the government name, which is representative of the Social Security NUMBER of the government beast. Thus, buying and selling (commerce) are also regulated by the beast, requiring the name and number. So will you be used (employed) simply to bow down to the beast?

In a corporation, your person is the tool being employed (used) for your actual time and labor as a man (connected as surety to the person). Thus you are a human tool no less artificial (soulless; non-sentient) than a pen or a brick being used in business. A slave has no God-given (inherent) rights, not even a paid one. For an employee is always a person not a man, and a person has no unalienable rights. A corporation hires the demon (surname of the person), and you work to satisfy the obligation of the demon in contractual “employment”.

So what is your “occupation”?

If your answer is a licensed doctor, attorney, or an unlicensed busboy or garbageman, or any other one of a million legal taxpaying “occupations”, then you are using a legal title (status) of government regulated under a person with the status of “employee” of government while under its tax code, receiving a pension from government via your tax contributions to Social Security. This investment in insurance and the future receivership of benefits from that Social Security trust binds you to the federal income tax as a beneficiary of that insurance trust and its future benefit payments. That’s why they say that the income tax is voluntary, because you volunteer just by being and possessing an employed citizen instead of your self, and government’s property (the person/employee) is obligated in that debt with you as surety.

This is the price of being possessed. The demon (person) brings the man out of nature and into government’s hell on Earth.

And what is hell, really?

Are we to take the Bible literally in its allegory of a dystopian underworld where fire and brimstone burns sinners for the rest of time after they depart the Earth in physical form?

Of course not. The body remains, so what’s left to burn? The fable of hell is simply the allegory of the unnatural (legally dead) state of being a debtor, as all persons (citizens) of government are. The United States is an open air prison for debtors, and all citizens are in-deed legally classified as debtors. Sure, you must be considered legally dead to go to hell, but hell is not referencing the after-life.

You are born alive, a pure and innocent child of God, and are then immediately delivered into hell by your birth certificate – your registration as a visitor to hell on Earth – thus creating your artificial status here as a person/citizen. We are still alive within the hell on this Earth, and our possession in artificial person-hood makes us a citizen of hell. Afterlife is just a clever allegory for being set free from a life lived while imitating a fictional person, and doing so as a debtor in hell.

Hell – The name given to a place under the exchequer chamber, where the king’s debtors were confined. Rich. Diet. (Black’s 4rth Edition) (Balentines)

Hell was a dungeon for those who did not pay their debts to the government (kingdom). Today, to be under the U.S. constitution (a debt compact), as a “constitutor” (debtor), simply means to be a debtor under contractual obligation. Since all citizens are debtors, the jurisdiction of the United States in its entirety is really just one giant open-air debtors prison. In other words, Hell.

Why do I claim this to be so?

It’s simple if you understand the nature of the U.S. dollar, which is nothing more or less than “a promise to pay a debt”.

Do you actually believe that you can pay a debt with another debt (promise to pay)? If no debt can ever be paid, because there is no lawful money in existence within the debtor nation, then how can a citizen/person ever be anything else but a debtor that can never pay his or her debt?

Our particular version of a “living hell” as debtors (persons) is that hell is indeed eternal as long as we accept citizenship and are possessed of such fictional obligations (like the national debt). There is no escaping hell as long as we consent to respecting persons of any kind, including government, church, and all other corporations of any function. These are all “persons”. Our eternity on this Earth will last until we die from an accidental or natural death – a death of the flesh and blood. But these artificial persons are all created as dead financial instruments (debtors), and government remedies can only be of comfort to the dead. Government can only summon the dead (person) to court with a legal fiction summons. The hell of indebtedness is perpetual and eternal for all persons, and we cannot escape hell because there is no actual remedy or way to ever pay your national debt, since the money is already debt-based.

To have “eternal life”, as the allegory of the Bible tells us over and over, we cannot respect persons (we cannot admit of being debtors). We must always remain living men in and of nature with unalienable rights under God. We must not contract with the synagogue of Satan (man as adversary to God) to go under the Devil’s (man’s) law. This guarantees us eternal “life” on Earth, not in some incomprehensible after-life. You might call this hidden utopia a “Heaven on Earth”. Again, this is simply allegory for not accepting contracts as dead pledges and other legal personifications of our living souls into fiction characters in Satan’s (man as adversary to God) plan.

Some may think this amounts to mere anarchy, or a life without government, the meaning of that word. Most can’t imagine that instead this amounts to mere Christianity – the following of the teachings of the character Jesus Christ in self-government. But then most have thrown out the Bible without reading it with contemplation, or have read it without understanding its legal language.

“You who are on the road must have a code that you can live by… Teach your children well; their father’s hell will surely go by.” –CSNY lyrics.

To have and to hold heaven on Earth, man must have logical and reasonable rules (a code) to abide by, and must agree amongst themselves to follow those unalienable truths in nature in order to live in peace and to protect themselves, their neighbors, and the very Earth they claim as home together – heaven. This is the essence of the Bible; the essence of following the laws of nature.

How difficult would this really be to accomplish, compared to the millions of codes and statues of man that no one can ever comprehend, let alone count? Well, try this one all-encompassing law on for size…

Do no harm.

That’s it! Sweet and simple.

In fact, any law that man can create for the actual benefit of society would automatically fall under this simple Maxim. In a shocking paradox to this simple truth, most of man’s laws create the opposite – a license and permission to break God’s commandments and natural law and thus to legally harm other “persons”, which directly effects the natural man possessed of that person in surety. This is in-deed just an end run around responsibility to your fellow man for your own actions – a way to cause harm and get “off the hook” for it. And this is truly anti-Christ.

The following words are defined for the benefit of the reader who wishes to finally bring logic and reason to the rhetoric and allegory of the Bible – the officially authorized legal presentation and evidence (testament) of law, issued by King James, 1611. The following is not religion, and in point of fact is quite far from it. For the Bible is not about religion, and is in fact surprisingly shunning of such corporate things as religion and government. Religions and their proclaimed doctrines are built around and very much in spite of the Bible’s words. Religions indeed existed long before the Bible was ever written, and have created many gods and tools of control over the ages. Thus religion and the Bible are not synonymous in any way, except for the claims made by religions and governments (both are churches known as corporation sole’s) to the contrary in order to control the information we are about to uncover. Information is power. Power (authority of law)  is control. And ignorance enslaves those without knowledge, causing them to “perish”.

As we delve into the true meaning of the scriptures (defined as ancient written knowledge and understanding, not necessarily of religion), we discover that quite shockingly there are no true Biblical “Christians” in America. Amazingly, the very book to prove this statement has all along been the very Bible that corporate churches twist and use to mislead good people into a state of anti-christian thought, behavior, custom, and lifestyle. It is indeed ironic that the atheist’s greatest weapon against religion turns out to be the Bible itself!!! But how do men of any religious or non-religious claim use it correctly to defeat those men who act as gods on Earth with the usurped authority of that book?

For the critic and “non-believer”, the following legal understanding of the words in that Bible is perhaps the greatest tool against organized corporate religion (and government) available, as presented in our dictionaries. For incredibly, even that word “believer” is a legal term, and means something other than what religion proclaims.

And what is more religiously doctrinal than the belief in the legitimacy of government and the patriotic indoctrination that is created from it? As it stands, the average citizen-person of the United States or any other government for that matter does the following…

They believe in government, as if it were not a work of fiction (a corporation/person).

They have faith in government, placing all love and devotion within this artificial thing.

They have trust in government; a financial bond enslaving them as surety to things unnatural.

They declare a pledge of fealty (allegiance) to government, salute its war flag, and even invoke the name of God to justify man’s authority over God (nature).

They obey the millions of commandments (legal laws) of government, which gives (issues) them license to “sin” against the laws and commandments of nature (God’s law).

They seek remedy, redemption, and salvation in government, which can only offer such things to artificial persons, not men. These are legal terms.

They pray (plead) to government in its courts, asking fictional characters to judge their actions instead of God.

They are servants (in servitude) to that government fiction, disobeying the laws of nature as a requirement of tenure.

They consider government as their master, and even bless it in prayer to God, though it was created by men.

They worship government’s paper constitution as if it were the Bible, claiming it to be inspired by God and even claiming rights from it above God, even though it is patently against everything written in the Bible.

See the similarities here? The question is, why is it so easy to believe in an absolutely known fiction called government and yet the same belief and faith in our tangible nature all around us and the laws of its “creator” are labeled as silly and fictional?

What is real, the grass that grows or the municipal corporation (city) codes that regulate its growth?

What is fiction, the legal codes of government or the omnipresence of nature all around us?

Your answer depends solely on the disposition of your soul: Are you a natural man (being human), or are you im-person-ating an artificial, fictional person like a demon?

Imagine if instead of teasing or demeaning people for having a spiritual connection to nature in the form of a belief in God as if God was the reality of nature, misguided as some may be, you teased people for believing in government  instead – which by its own laws, definitions, and admission in its own courts is a complete and utter fictional story requiring consent and acceptance to its purely imaginary, contractual existence?

Ha ha ha! You believe in government? What an idiot! It doesn’t even exist in nature! Even it doesn’t believe it exists! LOL!!!

I guarantee that this is exactly what the powers that be in government and religion say behind your backs as they strip you of your life, liberty, prosperity, and happiness. Of course, they tell you that these traits are protected under the constitution even as they take them from you at will, paying you money that says “In God We Trust”. And indeed they are protected by the constitution if you are a responsible living man under God as it states, but not if you foolishly become a citizen and give up those natural unalienable rights in a permissive and obligatory contract to government to possess a subjected person (demon) of government that have no unalienable rights. In other words, men and people are not the same thing. Only men, not people, are listed as having unalienable rights. They are tricky like that…

In truth, the answer is now clear to me, though it has taken my whole life to fall upon such comprehension. It’s a simple case of mistaken identity! Men believe that they truly are the artificial person they pretend to be, which is in fact property of government. Like an actor believes he is the character he plays on the stage to improve the preformance, men forget they are natural beings, which are property of God (nature), and instead abandon the laws of nature (God) by accepting an immense legal doctrine from government – much worse than any religious one.

Government is simply a Godless religion!

Living men destroy nature (God’s kingdom) by not being in their own minds but act in that of their citizen-person, doing so without conscious as artificial representatives of their selves; as citizens. They refer to their actions as they’ve been brainwashed to do using patriotic terms like civil liberties, civil rights, liberty, and freedom (all legal privileges of persons), and they do so under the banner (flag) of their fictional master – a government that protects the actions of these demons (citizens) by granting licenses to kill, to steal, to rape, to pillage, to plunder, and to blaspheme all that is sacred in nature (under God’s dominion and law).

Blasphemy in the legal fiction is again a legal term, meaning crime against the church and state. Belief and faith in government is the belief and faith (trust) that man is god, contractually speaking. And with no higher authority, men through government may control other men in spite of God and nature, and in spite of the Bible’s teachings that this is an unnatural status that can only exist through the “respect of persons”.

Under God a man is only ever himself, and has no person to hide himself away from his responsibilities. He or she acknowledges his or her actions and takes responsibility for them as forgiveness for his sin against nature (legally known as restitution). Thus the man has no need of the laws of other men (Satan), for he belongs to God, and need not be compelled to take responsibility for harm.

Under government, as a citizen, it is quite the opposite. Man hides behind his or her artificial person, and the crimes against nature (including to other men) are “forgiven” only by government, for the fictional person belongs to the fictional government, and crime is against persons not men. Like a puppet, man inhabits the person and acts under it, taking man outside of God’s protection of true law. In other words, as a person, man must give up all rights under God (man’s unalienable inherent rights), for government law is always anti-nature (anti-God/anti-Christ) and can never be inherent, for those rights are copyrighted fictions of man, and are always artificial (opposed to nature/not inherent). Government granted rights are to persons, not men, including those “people” of the constitution. And so for a man to answer for his or her crimes, he or she must embrace this fact and stand in person (impersonation) on an actors stage called a court not as a human being, but by possessing a demon (person). This is called representation. In order to use and operate a government citizen (demon/artificial person), a man must re-present him or her self not as a human, but as that demon. The man represents and is bound in surety to the actions of the artificial person.

Representation of PersonsA fiction of the law, the effect of which is to put the representative in the place, degree, or right of the person represented. Civil Code La. art. 894. (–Black’s 1st Edition)

Represent – v. t. s as z. [Latin repraesento; re and Low Latin praesenter, from praesens, present.] – 1. To show or exhibit by resemblance. 4. To personate; to act the character or to fill the place of another in a play; as, to represent the character of king Richard. 5. To supply the place of; to act as a substitute for another. The parliament of Great Britain represents the nation. The congress of the United States represents the people or nation. The senate is considered as representing the states in their corporate capacity7. To stand in the place of, in the right of inheritance.

As we study the words in the Bible, we slowly comprehend that the Bible is not at all about death or about a mystical life after our physical departure from this Earth, for it was written by men who had only but lived here on Earth and could not have reasonably known God or an afterlife. Instead, the Bible is an allegorical instruction book about how to live on this earth, within the constructs of nature, without religion and without government, and yet to adhere to the laws of nature so as to preserve and live healthy lives. It is a story about living life in the fullest.

Ironically, to inhabit and impersonate an artificial person is in fact to accept death (fiction) and to oppose life (nature). There is no life or nature within legal statutes, and I’m sure I don’t have to convince anyone by now that a fictional person is not alive.

Ultimately, the Bible offers two paths, one of grace (life) in nature under God’s law and one of fiction (death) within church and state under man’s legal fiction (mammon), and it leaves that choice up to the individual.

It’s all about choice… a choice between two rulers – God (law of nature) and Satan (law of man).

Grace or disgrace.

Of course in modern times this knowledge is lost on men, and is hidden by both the church and the state’s “forced government education”, either purposefully (Vatican) or through ignorance (small local churches of any denomination).

I realize now that men have been thrown into citizenship without ever being truly provided with a consenting choice. In this way, men are created (re-presented) as gentiles (goyim), which is defined as “people” – the common mass of peasantry and lowest status of person. We are acting as the synagogue wishes us to act, in the capacity of its property through impersonation. This creates inequity on a grand scale (which we ironically call legal “equality), and confers a concentration of power unprecedented in history that milks “public” wealth to its own ends. As persons, we have no sex, no race, no specialness, no culture. We are equal in our corporate blandness and rights – a machine. This unnatural state is exactly what the Bible warns against – an army of dead persons; the dead walking the Earth. That’s us…

The Bible is an instruction book on being free in life, not death. It instructs us on being responsible for our own actions within a state of love and protection to all men with sanctity of the same rights and duty to others. It tells us how to protect nature and the laws governing our use of Earth while we are here, as well as each other. It advises us on avoiding the bondage and servitude of the corporate institutions that would otherwise use that book of God’s natural law to entrap and enfranchise the whole of mankind into bonded servitude to a small minority of men (a synagogue of Satan) against nature in the world of corporate fiction, which is often interpreted by fools to be the sole basis of the book as a justification of the evils of the church. Of course, to understand evil, one must describe it and how to avoid it.

What is evil?

EVILn. Evil is natural or moral. Natural evil is any thing which produces pain, distress, loss or calamity, or which in any way disturbs the peace, impairs the happiness, or destroys the perfection of natural beings. Moral evil is any deviation of a moral agent from the rules of conduct prescribed to him by God, or by legitimate human authority; or it is any violation of the plain principles of justice and rectitude. There are also evils called civil, which affect injuriously the peace or prosperity of a city or state; and political evils, which injure a nation, in its public capacity. All wickedness, all crimes, all violations of law and right are moral evils. Diseases are natural evils, but they often proceed from moral evils. 2. Misfortune; mischief; injury. There shall no evil befall thee. Psalms 91:10. A prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself. Proverbs 22:3. 3. Depravity; corruption of heart, or disposition to commit wickedness; malignity.

Satan is and describes man. The concept of Satan is not some pitchforked demon as portrayed in a child’s story told to frighten the children of men til they die, in order to compel their obedience to obey church doctrine and government legality. It is not a he or a she. It is a descriptive word for the concept of influence of all men against nature (against God) and the laws of nature.

Satan – noun [Heb. an adversary.] The grand adversary of man; the devil or prince of darkness; the chief of the fallen angels.

Devil – n. Devl. [Latin , to calumniate.] 1. In the Christian theology, an evil spirit or being; a fallen angel, expelled from heaven for rebellion against God; the chief of the apostate angels; the implacable enemy and tempter of the human race. In the New Testament, the word is frequently and erroneously used for demon. 2. A very wicked person, and in ludicrous language, an great evil. In profane language, it is an expletive expressing wonder, vexation, etc. 3. An idol, or false god. Leviticus 17:7. 2 Chronicles 11:15.

As we can read, the word Satan refers to the Hebrew word for the “adversary of man”. Like the word demon, there is no supernatural quackery here. The Bible allegory uses fire and brimstone to describe men of unfettered evil genius that are adversarial to nature and life, and therefore must place other men in bondage and surety to them through the concepts of government and religion. Monsanto, Ratheon, Bank of America, the Vatican, the City of London, Washington D.C… these are the personifications of men in rebellion against God (nature); idols of false gods. Mere men. Satan incarnate.

So far, the synagogue of Satan has suppressed not only the Bible’s teachings, but also the path to abandon of all mankind from government. It has created in men a false status misleadingly called “Christianity”, that under church doctrine follow government as the “law of the land” while abusing and usurping God’s creation (nature). In truth, every action of today’s modern Christian is against the teachings of the Bible and its Christ character.

“Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality.
Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue.
Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law,
the law,  and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct.”

–William H. Prescott, “History of the Conquest of Peru,” 1847

Here are just some of the “religious” legal words that in actuality are quite opposed to religion, to government, and that are designed to make all men free in their comprehension by and through the allegory of the Bible:

–=–

The Following Are Taken From:
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language
Unless Otherwise Noted

–=–

Nickname – n. [G. To banter. Signifies to surname, to call by a name of reproach.] A name given in contempt, derision or reproach; an opprobrious appellation.- v.t. To give a name of reproach; to call by an opprobrious appellation.

Opprobrious – a. [See Opprobrium.] 1. Reproachful and contemptuous; scurrilous; as opprobrious language; opprobrious words or terms. 2. Blasted with infamy; despised; rendered hateful; as an opprobrious name.

Appellationn. [L. appellatio. See Appeal.] Name; the word by which a thing is called and known. Spenser uses it for appeal.

Render n. 1. A surrender; a giving up. 2. A return; a payment of rent. – v. t. [This is probably the Latin reddo, with a casually inserted.] 1. To return; to pay back. See that none render evil for evil to any man. 1 Thessalonians 5:15. 6. To surrender; to yield or give up the command or possession of; as, to render one’s self to his enemies. 7. To afford; to give for use or benefit. Washington rendered great service to his country. 8. To represent; to exhibit. To render back, to return; to restore.

(Note: To render back what is Caesar’s means to stop using the government’s property, money, and person-hood (citizenship) and to give it back with no intention to ever use it again. This is often confused to mean bow down to government in that Bible verse, but is in fact the opposite. Only in rendering back the use of government property (the person/surname) to government can one be free of its implied and contractual usury, taxation, and other obligations of that government for usage of government property. The surname and social security number are examples of government property used by men against God and nature that should be “rendered back to Caesar”.)

Surname – n. [L. super and nomen.] 1. An additional name; a name or appellation added to the baptismal or christian name, and which becomes a family name. Surnames, with us, originally designated occupation, estate, place of residence, or some particular thing or event that related to the person. Thus William Rufus or red; Edmund Ironsides; Robert Smith,or the smith; William Turner. 2. An appellation added to the original name.

Christian Name – the name a person receives by baptism, as distinguished from surname.

Addition – n. [Latin additio, from addo.] 1. The act of adding, opposed to subtraction, or diminution; as, a sum is increased by addition. 2. Any thing added, whether material or immaterial. 4. In law, a title annexed to a man’s name, to show his rank, occupation or place of residence; as John Doe, Esq.; Richard Roe, Gent; Robert Dale, Mason; Thomas Way, of New York.8. In popular language, an advantage, ornament, improvement; that is, an addition by way of eminence.

Diminution – n. [Latin] 1. The act of lessening; a making smaller; opposed to augmentation; as the diminution of size, of wealth, of power, of safety. 2. The state of becoming or appearing less; opposed to increase; as the diminution of the apparent diameter of a receding body. 3. Discredit; loss of dignity; degradation. 4. Deprivation of dignity; a lessening of estimation.

(Note: A surname is an addition, meaning it is a fiction added to the given name. This combination makes the person. The addition of the surname is actually a dimunition from God’s natural law. To “appear” as less refers to standing in a courtroom, as a status in the legal society. This makes you “common” and means you are no longer under God’s jurisdiction and protection under the laws of nature (unalienable rights), for you are no longer acting as a man under God but as a fictional person owned by another. This is a step down, a loss of dignity, and degradation. Only a person can appear in court, and only as less than a man.)

Baptism, n. [Gr. to baptize.] 2. The sufferings of Christ. Matt.xx22.23.

(Note: Baptism is simply the naming process, and does not require a religion, blessed water (for all water is considered as created and therefore it is all blessed), or a priest from a corporate church, all of which are “idolatry” and ceremonial. The Bible story of true Christianity is indeed strictly against ceremony, religion, and government’s act of bestowing surnames to “persons”. No church or priest needed, only intent. Thus, the given name is said to be a gift from God through the remedy of the sufferings of Christ. See “son”.)

Name – n. That by which a thing is called. A noun. A person. Assumed character of another. Authority; behalf; part; as in the name of the people. Appearance only; sound only; not reality; as a friend in name. (Rev. 3). When a man speaks or acts in the name of another, he does it by their authority or in their behalf, as their representative. Reputation; character; that which is commonly said of a person; as a good name; a bad name. Renown; fame; honor; celebrity; eminence; praise; distinction.- v.t. To entitle.

Name – The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation. In law a man cannot have more than one Christian name. 1 Ld. Baym. 562. (Black’s 1st Edition)

Noun – n. [altered from Latin name.] In grammar, a name; that sound or combination of sounds by which a thing is called, whether material or immaterial. [See name.]

(Note: The legal language is composed mostly of nouns – the names of persons, places, and things, which are all artificial “legal titles” of actual things. A name as a noun is not natural, for it is always of the hands of man. It is strictly a legal definition in acknowledgement of those persons, places, and things. However, in the legal realm the “given name” or “Christian name” (first name) is considered a gift from God (a natural and unalienable right unnameable in legal fiction) . The first name alone cannot be considered a person in law without an attached (added) surname. This is very important. All things are legally named (titled) by government (man) in the form of a noun, giving government jurisdiction over the surname or “title” of persons, places, and things. The name/noun or “title” is artificial and not of nature. It merely describes natural things in fictional terms to bring them into the realm of legalese.)

Nominative – a. Pertaining to the name which precedes a verb, or to the first case of nouns; as the nominative case or nominative word.

Misnomer – n. In law, the mistaking of the true name of a person; a misnaming…

Nomen (plural nomina) was the Roman gens (clan) name. In the typical Roman name it was preceded by the praenomen and followed by the cognomen.

Praenomen – Lat. Forename, or first name. The first of the three names by which the Romans were commonly distinguished. It marked the individual, and was commonly written with one letter; as “A.” for “Aulus;” “C.” for “Caius,” etc… (Note: By the 2nd century, praenomina were no longer commonly used.)

Cognomen – In Roman law. A man’s family name. The first name (praenomen) was the proper name of the individual; the second (nomen) indicated the gens or tribe to which he belonged; while the third (cognomen) denoted his family or house. In English law. A surname. A name added to the nomen proper, or name of the individual; a name descriptive of the family. Cognomen majorum est ex sanguine tractum, hoc intrinsecum est; agnomen extrinsecum ab eventu. The cognomen is derived from the blood of ancestors, and is intrinsic; an agnomen arises from an event, and is extrinsic. (Note: Originally cognomina were nicknames. Thus the cognomen in combination with the nomen functioned as a surname, breaking families into smaller groups than just the nomen alone.) (Black’s 1st Edition)

Agnomen – Lat. An additional name or title; a nickname. A name or title which a man gets by some action or peculiarity; the last of the four names sometimes given a Roman. Thus, Scipio Africanus, (the African,) from his African victories. (These were generally nicknames acquired at some point during the lifetime, but never given at birth.) (Black’s 1st Edition)

AgnominationA surname; an additional name or title; agnomen. (Black’s 1st Edition)

Patronym (or patronymic) is a name derived from the name of the father or another paternal ancestor. Some surnames are patronymic in origin, like Peterson = “Peter’s son”. Some cultures, such as Iceland, use uninherited patronyms instead of surnames. (BehindTheName.com)

Acquire – v t. [Latin acquiro, ad and quaero to seek, that is to follow, to press, to urge; acquiro signifies to pursue to the end or object; Heb. to seek, to make towards, to follow. The Latin quaesivi, unless contracted, is probably from a different root. See class Gr. and Gs.] To gain, by any means, something which is in a degree permanent, or which becomes vested or inherent in the possessor; as, to acquire a title (name), estate, learning, habits, skill, dominion, etc. Plants acquire a green color from the solar rays. A mere temporary possession is not expressed by acquire but by gain, obtain, procure, as to obtain [not acquire] a book on loan. Descent is the title whereby a man, on the death of his ancestor, acquires his estate, by right of representation, as his heir at law.

ForsakeTo quit or leave entirely; to desert; to abandon; to depart from. Friends and flatterers forsake us in adversity. Forsake the foolish, and live. (Prov. 9.2). To abandon; to renounce; to reject. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments – (Ps. 89). To leave; to withdraw from; to fail.

(Note: You must forsake the person to live free in abandon under God and nature. Never forget that a person is a fiction of man’s law.)

Fiction – n. [L. fictio, from fingo, to feign.] 1. The act of feigning, inventing or imagining; as, by the mere fiction of the mind. 2. That which is feigned, invented or imagined. The story is a fiction. So also was the fiction of those golden apples kept by a dragon, taken from the serpent which tempted Eve.

Remedy – n. [L. remedium; re and medeor, to heal.] 1. That which cures a disease; any medicine or application which puts an end to disease and restores health; with for; as a remedy for the gout. 2. That which counteracts an evil of any kind; with for, to or against; usually with for. Civil government is the remedy for the evils of natural liberty (and thus the opposite must be true). 3. That which cures uneasiness. 4. That which repairs loss or disaster; reparation. In the death of a man there is no remedy.

(Note: Christianity is the only remedy from man’s law. No living man can get remedy from an agency that only deals in fiction (death). Your reparation to nature and God is to counteract your demon by quitting (quitclaim) your possession of it. To quit government, you must have a higher authority than man to govern you. This is the nature of man’s law, not my opinion. And government will require proof of claim of a higher authority, which is why so many men have evidenced the Bible as their own law in court.)

Death -In theology, perpetual separation from God, and eternal torments; called the second death Revelation 2:10.

Spiritual DeathSeparation or alienation of the soul from God; a being under the dominion of sin, and destitute of grace or divine lifeWe know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. 1 John 3:1. Luke I.

(Note: “Spiritual death” is the contractual consent to abandon God’s law and protection, denounce Jesus Christ as lawful remedy to be in lawful receivership of God’s law and protection, and give up the unalienable rights of the law of nature so that government can harm your person without recourse as it controls your surname.)

Civil Death The separation of a man from civil society, or from the enjoyment of civil rights; as by banishment, abjuration of the realm, entering into a monastery, etc.

(Note: One must have civil death in order to only be considered a natural living being under God. This means giving up all privileges (civil rights) and obligations (duties) granted by government (for a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven). Government and its courts cannot see living things, only the im-person-ation of living things as legal persons with (noun) names and surnames. In other words, the synagogue of Satan can only see demons. But without the remedy of the invocation of true Christianity (the Bible), that life would be considered by government to be non-spiritual (strictly temporal) and without a governing set of laws. In other words, government would consider you as chattel livestock with no rights either civil or natural, for no invocation of God’s law (the law of nature) was recorded. In this vein, the concept of a “free man on the land” is missing the key element of the law of God as a lawful declaration of governance. You can only serve one master, not two… but also not zero. You must choose and declare God’s law through the lawful remedy of Christ in order for government to recognize your negative rights. Remember, this is not a declaration of religion or status, but rather a notice to government that you do not recognize it as the god on Earth it pretends to be – that government is not the vicar or replacement of Christ – and that you will access your personal God as you see fit. Thus, you must acknowledge a higher authority than government, which government will only lawfully recognize as the biblical God. This is a legal process, not religion. It is the basis of law and authority, and invoking the “authorized” higher power of God is the only available recourse to get out from under government tyranny as false-god.)

Abjuration – n. [See Abjure.] 1. The act of abjuring; a renunciation upon oath; as ‘an abjuration of the realm, ‘ by which a person swears to leave the country, and never to return. It is used also for the oath of renunciation. Formerly in England, felons, taking refuge in a church, and confessing their guilt, could not be arrested and tried, but might save their lives by abjuring the realm; that is by taking an oath to quit the kingdom forever. 2. A rejection or denial with solemnity; a total abandonment; as ‘an abjuration of heresy.’

(Note: It is very important here to recognize that a country is nothing but a piece of paper, and some imaginary lines drawn on a map. You are not ever in a county, state, nation, city, town, district, or any other legal fiction because quite simply, they are fiction and you are non-fiction. You as a living being cannot be physically in a state. A state is a legal document. You must accept a fictional status to become a character in that legal fiction (jurisdiction). Thus to swear an oath to God to never return to a country simply means that you swear to God to never leave the kingdom of God in nature, never be artificial again, and that God’s law is the only law despite the claims of government. You can only be in God’s kingdom, not man’s fiction. Only a fictional person can inhabit a fictional realm. Thus the term “abjuration of the realm” literally means never respecting persons or anything man-made, for the realm is also just a fictional legal document. The term “leave the country” simply means to give up (abandon) citizenship to be governed by God (higher authority) instead of man.)

Heresy – In Scripture and primitive usage, heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach. 2. heresy in law, is an offense against Christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained. 3. An untenable or unsound opinion or doctrine in politics.

(Note: Here the reference to an “offense against Christianity” is referring to an offense against the corporate church doctrine and political laws of government, not the Bible itself. This is not true Christianity (what’s taught in the Bible), which is against religion and organized church and legal law. We know this simply because this dictionary definition says “in law” (meaning “legally speaking”), thus we know it speaks only as something artificial/fictional, as all man’s laws are, and thus can only be offended by civil law persons, not natural human beings. Thus, it is literally heresy to disagree with government’s legal law and doctrine as a person. The trick is to distinguish within the Bible when the law is of nature and God and when it is of man acting as god and vicar. Many or most of the mentions of “god” and “lord” in the Bible refer to the kings who claim to rule as God on Earth in Christ’s departure (until His return). The Bible switches between capitalized God and little god; Lord and lord.)

SaveTo except, reserve, or exempt; as where a statute “saves” vested rights. To toll, or suspend the running or operation of; as to “save” the statute of limitations.

(Note: To be saved is to stop acting or “impersonating” something else that is not under God (in nature). To cease to be an artificial person is saving yourself and acting under God and nature again (becoming a “christian”). In religion, they will tell you that you can be saved and still be a citizen (fiction/person). Religion seeks to control you through fiction under the doctrine of “law of the land”. Government is religion. This doctrine is contrary to the nature of life itself (a person is not natural), thus by default is contrary to “God”. Either save yourself under God or remain a debtor person subject to man. Again, you cannot serve two masters. You must choose between God and mammon. To be “born again” is to quit using your artificial person and be reborn into this life on Earth, that’s all.)

Saver Default – L. Fr. In old English practice. To excuse a default. Termes de la Ley.

Saving the Statute of Limitations – A creditor is said to “save the statute of limitations” when he saves or preserves his debt from being barred by the operation of the statute. Thus, in the case of a simple contract debt, if a creditor commences an action for its recovery within six years from the time when the cause of action accrued, he will be in time to save the statute. Brown.

Injure – v.t. [Latin injuria, injury.] 1. To hurt or wound, as the person; to impair soundness, as of health. 2. To damage or lessen the value of, as goods or estate. 3. To slander, tarnish or impair, as reputation or character. 4. To impair or diminish; to annoy; as happiness. 5. To give pain to; to grieve; as sensibility or feelings. 7. To hurt or weaken; as, to injure a good cause. 8. To impair; to violate; as, to injure rights. 9. To make worse; as, great rains injure the roads. 10. In general, to wrong the person, to damage the property, or to lessen the happiness of ourselves or others. A man injures his person by wounds, his estate by negligence or extravagance, and his happiness by vices. He injures his neighbor by violence to his person, by fraud, by calumny, and by non-fulfillment of his contracts.

(Note: To injure (to cause injury) means to cause need for an action by or against another man or person. It literally means that you’ve done harm to another person or another against you. To injure is to bring some thing into law (jure = law). In the legal fiction world, such harms can be claimed by artificial persons where the harm is not in any way in nature and has no effect on the man claiming that person-hood. In and under God’s law, also called the “Laws of Nature”, a living man is responsible for all his or her own actions, and therefore there will never be need for injury – no need for man’s legal remedies in courts of men. Only a man that is not responsible for his own actions would need to be injured (brought into law) by man’s legal fiction. Under god, man lives by the simple credo of “do no harm”. No harm literally and consequentially translates to and presents no injury, and thus no person can be harmed under God, for a person is artificial and cannot truly be harmed in nature (reality). In this hierarchy, God is the creator and ruler of man, and under that, man is the god and ruler of persons. God creates man, and only then can man create persons (again this is not a religious view, but a legal precedent). A man of God cannot be charged with harming or injuring a person, for again the man is of God while the person is a fictional creation of man. Man is always superior to persons. Only a person can harm a person (act or crime of fiction), and only a man can harm a man (act of God). Mammon never trumps God, thus an artificial person never trumps a living man. To avoid being in-jured (brought into man’s fictional realm), we must abandon our fictional person to ensure abjuration from that realm. The legal realm can only exist within man’s realm. Without God, there be no man. Without man, there be no fiction of man. This is a legal concept, and it requires not your belief in any doctrine. Unfortunately, even if you don’t believe in it, it believes in you, for this is the maxim of law and it ultimately controls your person whether you like it or not. In legal law, a person’s reputation can be harmed, for it is artificial as is the law that protects it. In nature, a man’s reputation cannot be harmed in law, for it is real. In legality, a persons reputation is a mark or blemish (mark of the beast) and includes credit score, prison record, etc. In nature, man’s reputation is his actual actions and trustworthiness in life, not on paper. Without it, he will be shunned. Politicians and thieves thrive in the artificial world where reputation (credit score) can be fixed with money, power, and influence. In nature, there is no such system, for no man has title or status above another, and no demons are allowed or respected.)

Quit – Ad. Free; clear; discharged from; absolved 4. To quit one’s self, reciprocally, to clear one’s self of incumbent duties by full performance. 11. To forsake; to abandon. Such a superficial way of examining is to quit truth for appearance. To quit cost, to pay; to free from by an equivalent; to reimburse; as, the cultivation of barren land will not always quit cost. 9. To leave; to give up; to resign; to relinquish; as, to quit an office. 6. To vacate obligation; to release; to free from – Dangers of law, actions, decrees, judgments against us quitted. 2. To free; to clear; to liberate; to discharge from. 3. To carry through; to do or perform something to the end, so that nothing remains; to discharge or perform completely.

Quit – Clear; discharged; free; also spoken of persons absolved or acquitted of a charge. (Blacks Law 1st)

Quitclaim, v. t. [quit and claim.] To release a claim by deed without covenants of warranty; to convey to another who hath some right in lands or tenements, all one’s right, title and interest in the estate, by relinquishing all claim to them. The words used in the instrument are, ‘A hath remised, released and forever quitclaimed all his right, title and interest to a certain estate. – n. A deed of release; an instrument by which all claims to an estate are relinquished to another without any covenant or warranty, express or implied.

Quitclaim – v. In conveyancing. To release or relinquish a claim; to execute a deed of quitclaim. – n. A release or acquittance given to one man by another, in respect of any action that he has or might have against him. Also acquitting or giving up one’s claim or title. (Black’s Law 1st)

Quitclaim Deed –  A deed of conveyance operating by way of release; that is, intended to pass any title, interest, or claim which the grantor may have in the premises, but not professing that such title is valid, nor containing any warranty or covenants for title. (Black’s Law 1st)

(Note: A quitclaim is a legal document, quitting or ceasing to claim possession of the person, and conveying (transferring) it back to its owner government. It is like getting out of your car and abandoning it, never to drive (use) it again. Unless you quite claiming to be a person under mammon, you can never claim to be a man under God., for you may not serve two masters. You must discharge by dismissal your connection to anything artificial that might draw you back into the realm of fiction. You must take responsibility for your self 100% of the time with no exceptions. You cannot ever officially claim the surname again.)

Conveyance – n. 1. The act of conveying; the act of bearing, carrying, or transporting, by land or water, or through any medium. 2. The act of transmitting, or transferring, as titles, estates or claims from one person to another; transmission; transference; assignment. 3. The instrument or means of passing a thing from place to place, or person to person; as, a vehicle is a conveyance for persons or goods; a canal or aqueduct is a conveyance for water; a deed is a conveyance of land. 4. Removal; the act of removing or carrying. 5. Management; artifice; secret practices.

Discharge – n. 4. Dismission from office or service; or the writing which evidences the dismission. The general, the soldier, obtains a discharge.  5. Release from obligation, debt or penalty; or the writing which is evidence of it; an acquittance; as, the debtor has a discharge. 6. Absolution from a crime or accusation; acquittance. 7. Ransom; liberation; price paid for deliverance. 8. Performance; execution; applied to an office, trust or duty. A good man is faithful in the discharge of his duties, public and private. 9. Liberation; release from imprisonment or other confinement. 10. Exemption; escape. 11. Payment, as of a debt.

Acquittance – n. 1. A discharge or release from a debt. 2. The writing, which is evidence of a discharge; a receipt in full, which bars a further demand.

Deliverance – n.  1. Release from captivity, slavery, oppression, or any restraint. He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives. Luke 4:18. 2. Rescue from danger or any evil. God sent me to save your lives by a great deliverance Genesis 45:7. 3. The act of bringing forth children. 4. The act of giving or transferring from one to another. 5. The act of speaking or pronouncing; utterance. [In the three last senses, delivery is now used.] 6. Acquittal of a prisoner, by the verdict of a jury. God send you a good deliverance.

Salvation – n. [Latin salvo, to save.] 1. The act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity. 2. Appropriately in theology, the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness. This is the great salvation. 3. Deliverance from enemies; victory. Exodus 14:13. 4. Remission of sins, or saving graces. Luke 19:9.

(Note: Eternal death refers again to acting in dead pledge as a person, in bondage and liability/debt to the government. To live your life as something artificial is to live your life as a dead person. The legal redemption of your soul from this captivity is what the allegory of the Bible speaks about.)

Redemptionn. [Latin redemptio. See Redeem.] 1. Repurchase of captured goods or prisoners; the act of procuring the deliverance of persons or things from the possession and power of captors by the payment of an equivalent; ransom; release; as the redemption of prisoners taken in war; the redemption of a ship and cargo. 2. Deliverance from bondage, distress, or from liability to any evil or forfeiture, either by money, labor or other means. 3. Repurchase, as of lands alienated. Leviticus 25:24. Jeremiah 32:7. 4. The liberation of an estate from a mortgage; or the purchase of the right to re-enter upon it by paying the principal sum for which it was mortgaged with interest and cost; also, the right of redeeming and re-entering.6. In theology, the purchase of God’s favor by the death and sufferings of Christ; the ransom or deliverance of sinners from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God’s violated law by the atonement of Christ. In whom we have redemption through his blood. Ephesians 1:7. Colossians 1:14.

Distress – n. [See Stress.] 1. The act of distraining; the taking of any personal chattel from a wrong-doer, to answer a demand, or procure satisfaction for a wrong committed. 2. The thing taken by distraining; that which is seized to procure satisfaction. 4. Affliction; calamity; misery. On earth distress of nations. Luke 21:23. v.t. 1. To pain; to afflict with pain or anguish; applied to the body or the mind. [Literally, to press or strain.] 2. To afflict greatly; to harass; to oppress with calamity; to make miserable.

Distrain – v.t. [Latin Dis and stringo. See Strain. Blackstone writes distrein.] 1. To seize for debt; to take a personal chatel from the possession of a wrong-doer into the possession of the injured party, to satisfy a demand, or compel the performance of a duty; as, to distrain goods fro rent, or for an amercement. 2. To rend; to tear. – v.i. To make seizure of goods. For neglecting to do suit to the lords court, or other personal service, the lord may distrain of common right.

(Note: In all cases, the property of a person (citizen) and resident is the property of the State, for the person is also property of the State. A person can only be a tenant of State property, and so government will put a person in distress to take (distrain) that property on behalf of itself or for corporations (banks) that foreclose in its name and protection when the person does not pay his or her debts. This action of demand could not be done on living man with claimed higher authority (God), for man is above (god of) that fiction. A distress against a living man is not lawful, while a distress against an artificial person is no crime, for a person is not alive.)

Mortgagen.. 1. Literally, a dead pledge; the grant of an estate in fee as security for the payment of money, and on the condition that if the money shall be paid according to the contract, the grant shall be void, and the mortgagee shall re-convey the estate to the mortgager2. The state of being pledged; as lands given in mortgage. 3. A pledge of goods or chattels by a debtor to a creditor, as security for the debt.  v. t. 1. To pledge; to make liable to the payment of any debt or expenditure.

Mortmain – n.In law, possession of lands or tenements in dead hands, or hands that cannot alienate. Alienation in mortmain is an alienation of lands or tenements to any corporation, sole or aggregate, ecclesiastical or temporal, particularly to religious houses, by which the estate becomes perpetually inherent in the corporation and unalienable.

(Note: Dead, dead, dead. That’s what a person is. Thus a mortgage is a pledge by a dead person, which can only hold that property with (imaginary) dead hands. And a person cannot alienate, therefore a person cannot stop government (corporation) from taking. The word “fee” is equal to the word feudal or fief. It’s time you realize that you live in a modernized feudal state that has been around since before the Bible was written – an ancient system of pledging now streamlined and computerized.)

Alienablea. That may be sold, or transferred to another; as, land is alienable according to the laws of the State.

Unalienable – a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

Inalienable – a. [Latin alieno, alienus.] Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

(Note: Inalienable is the legal version of unalienable, but legal rights (privileges) can be taken or given away within an inalienable state, where natural (unalienable rights) cannot. Remember, nothing Government grants to persons (rights/benefits) are unalienable. Thus, while in the United States jurisdiction, property is always inalienable (alienable only by legal means), and thus legally property and land can be taken under eminent domain because the property does not belong to a man, but to a government created corporation or person. When property of any kind is registered under a surname, that property and land becomes government owned, where the person can only be a tenant (user). An artificial fictional thing (citizen) cannot own anything in nature, thus men as persons (demons) have no real property rights in the United States. All rights of persons are in fact ultimately artificial, and thus are ultimately always considered legally alienable under the doctrine of necessity.)

Pray – n. 2. To petition; to ask, as for a favor; as in application to a legislative body.

Prayer – The request contained in a bill in equity that the court will grant the process, aid, or relief which the complainant desires. Also, by extension, the term is applied to that part of the bill which contains this request. (Black’s Law 1st)

Prayer of Process – is a petition with which a bill in equity used to conclude, to the effect that a writ of subpoena might issue against the defendant to compel him to answer upon oath all the matters charged against him in the bill. (Black’s Law 1st)

(Note: The word pray was used in court until recently instead of the word plead. When one falls on ones knees and makes a pleading to the lord of the courtroom (the judge) for a lenient judgement, this was called praying to the court (lord).)

Atonement – n. 1. Agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy. Romans 5:11. 2. Expiation; satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or injury; with for. When a man has been guilty of any vice, the best atonement he can make for it is, to warn others not to fall into the like. 3. In theology, the expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ.

Expiation  n. [Latin expiatio.] The act of atoning for a crime; the act of making satisfaction for an offense, by which the guilt is done away, and the obligation of the offended person to punish the crime is canceled; atonement; satisfaction. Among pagans and Jews, expiation was made chiefly by sacrifices, or washings and purification. Among Christians, expiation for the sins of men is usually considered as made only by the obedience and sufferings of Christ. 1. The means by which atonement for crimes is made; atonement; as sacrifices and purification among heathens, and the obedience and death of Christ among Christians.

(Note: Accepting and declaring the grace of God is the legal remedy for atonement of the sins of the person. A man can have no obligations to the State unless he continues to claim and stand in his or her artificial person. Did I mention this is not religion?)

Grace – n. [Latin gratia, which is formed on the Celtic; Eng. agree, congruous, and ready. The primary sense of gratus, is free, ready, quick, willing, prompt, from advancing.] 1. Favor; good will; kindness; disposition to oblige another; as a grant made as an act of grace 2. Appropriately, the free unmerited love and favor of God, the spring and source of all the benefits men receive from him. And if by grace then it is no more of works. Romans 11:5. 3. Favorable influence of God; divine influence or the influence of the spirit, in renewing the heart and restraining from sin. My grace is sufficient for thee. 2 Corinthians 12:9. 4. The application of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. Romans 5:2. 5. A state of reconciliation to God. Romans 5:2:2. 9. Eternal life; final salvation. 1 Peter 1:13. 10. Favor; mercy; pardon. Bow and sue for grace With suppliant knee. 11. Favor conferred. 12. Privilege. 14. Natural or acquired excellence; any endowment that recommends the possessor to others; as the graces of wit and learning. 18. The title of a duke or an archbishop, and formerly of the king of England, meaning your goodness or clemency. His grace the Duke of York. Your grace will please to accept my thanks. 19. A short prayer before or after meat; a blessing asked, or thanks rendered.Day in grace in theology, time of probation, when an offer is made to sinners. Days in grace in commerce, the days immediately following the day when a bill or note becomes due, which days are allowed to the debtor or payor to make payment in. In Great Britain and the United States the days of grace are three, but in other countries more; the usages of merchants being different. –v.t. To adorn; to decorate; to embellish and dignify. 1. To dignify or raise by act of favor; to honor. He might at his pleasure grace or disgrace whom he would in court. 3. To supply with heavenly grace.

Disgrace – n. [dis and grace.] 1. A state of being out of favor; disfavor; disesteem; as, the minister retired from court in disgrace 2. State of ignominy; dishonor; shame. 3. Cause of shame; as, to turn the back to the enemy is a foul disgrace; every vice is a disgrace to a rational being.

(Note: This again leaves us with a choice: Do you prefer the grace of God in nature or the disgrace of a man in demonic robe and status who claims to be god on Earth? Who or what do you want to be the judge of your actions? To what do you wish to be responsible to, God and nature or to men who claim to be of higher authority than God? Hint: only a psychopath claims to be a god or act criminally against nature in God’s name… A man supplied with “Heavenly Grace” needs not pretend grace (shame) and lives life eternally here on Earth. A man without God’s grace in legal form must suffer man’s shame, judgement, and wrath in hell on earth as an eternal debt-slave.)

Enmity – n. 1. The quality of being an enemy; the opposite of friendship; ill will; hatred; unfriendly dispositions; malevolence. It expresses more than aversion and less than malice, and differs from displeasure in denoting a fixed or rooted hatred, whereas displeasure is more transient. I will put enmity between thee and the woman. Genesis 3:15. The carnal mind is enmity against God.Romans 8:7. 2. A state of opposition. The friendship of the world is enmity with God. James 4:4.

(Note: Friendship of the world refers to accepting dead/artificial things as persons created by men to have authority over nature and God. It is also referred to in the Bible as the “respecting of persons”. A person is an enemy (in enmity) of God, by simply being opposed to (not created by) nature and its laws.)

Son – n. 2. A male descendant, however distant; hence in the plural, sons signifies descendants in general, a sense much used in the Scriptures. The whole human race are styled sons of Adam. 4. A native or inhabitant of a country; as the sons of Britain. Let our country never be ashamed of her sons. 5. The produce of any thing. Earth’s tall sons, the cedar, oak and pine. [Note. The primary sense of child is produce, issue; a shoot.] 6. One adopted into a family. Moses was the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Exodus 2:2. 7. One who is converted by another’s instrumentality, is called his son; also, one educated by another; as the sons of the prophets. 8. Christ is called the son of God, as being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, or in consequence of his relation to the Father.

(Note: To be a son of God is to be an instrument of God. Instrument is a legal term. You are born a man (son of God) and then converted into a financial instrument through the attaching of a surname on a birth certificate into an artificial state of being a person. To find grace and salvation (remedy) to that artificial state in law, it requires you to to be re-converted back into nature – thus we say a person must abandon his person by “converting to Christianity”.)

GOD – n. 1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe. GOD is a spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24. 2. A false god; a heathen deity;an idol. Fear not the gods of the Amorites. Judges 6:10. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. Exodus 22:28. Psalms 97:7. 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. Whose god is their belly. Philippians 3:19.

(Note: Do not honor or respect persons as gods. The majority of the mention of the word “god”, “gods”, and “lord” in the Bible is referring to persons (Kings and Priests as vicars), not to GOD (Supreme Being/Creator). This must be understood to comprehend how and why the Bible tells two stories (God and false “temporal” god) and describes two paths, one of God and one of mammon. For instance it was the King’s (god’s) will that blood sacrifices be made to God, not GOD/creators will. Nature requires no such idolatry and no ceremony under the path of Christianity, for the sacrifice/crucifixion was already allegorically made in order to satisfy the law of men acting as gods who demanded sacrifices of blood. Again, literal or fundamental translation to this story will get you nowhere in life, and will continue to hide the allegorical brilliance of the Bible as a remedy to man’s claim of being authority over God and other men. You do not need to prove that Plato’s Cave actually existed in his Allegory of the Cave to be able to apply it’s lessons in real life. Robin Hood and King Arthur need not be anything but fictional characters and yet still their stories teach men. Why then cannot one learn from and utilize the Bible without the need for proof of its allegory?)

Mammon – n. Riches; wealth; or the god or riches. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24.

(Note: In this definition the distinction is made between God capitalized and god un-capitalized. Little god is man acting in the stead of God, claiming to be god, which is also known as idolatry. The god of riches is government and corporate church of course, for it creates money and is mammon.)

Vicar – n. [Latin vicarius, from vicis, a turn, or its root.] 1. In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office. The pope pretends to be vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. He has under him a grand vicar who is a cardinal, and whose jurisdiction extends over all priests, regular and secular. 2. In the canon law, the priest of a parish, the predial tithes of which are impropriated or appropriated, that is, belong to a chapter or religious house, or to a layman, who receives them, and only allows the vicar the smaller tithes or a salary. Apostolical vicars, are those who perform the functions of the pope in churches or provinces committed to their direction.

Authorized –  participle passive, Warranted by right; supported by authority; derived from legal or proper authority; having power or authority.

(Note: By having the title of “Authorized Version”, the 1611 King James Bible is literally the “legal authority” of the legal law of men (mammon). We don’t read the King James because it is a “good translation” or more easily understandable, but rather because it is the book that the current legal law is based upon. Other translations are irrelevant for legal purposes. You must not look for an easy to read translation, for that will be a work of mere fiction, and we are reading the Bible to find the legal remedy to invoke Christ as remedy. You must learn the language of the authorized version so as to understand what authority is – which is the legal language of the vicar of Christ. Remember, this translation is of the King (god), of the government (god), and is the evidence (testament) of law that all right and authority is claimed by the “vicar”. In God We Trust…)

Idolatry – n. [Latin idololatria. Gr. idol, and to worship or serve.] 1. The worship of idols, images, or any thing made by hands (of man/unnatural), or which is not God (of and found in nature). Idolatry is of two kinds; the worship of images, statues, pictures, etc. made by hands; and the worship of the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon and stars, or of demons, angels, men and animals. 2. Excessive attachment or veneration for any thing, or that which borders on adoration.

(Note: There is no image of God, for man cannot perceive God. Look around you and worship the creation of God, for that is the closest you will ever get to perceiving God. And more importantly, worship all men (respect their rights) who are Sons of God (I AM) in total equality, so that no man may ever have an artificial status (person) above any other. This is called peace.)

Peace – n.[Latin pax, paco, to appease.] 1. In a general sense, a state of quiet or tranquillity; freedom from disturbance or agitation; applicable to society, to individuals, or to the temper of the mind. 2. Freedom from war with a foreign nation; public quiet. 3. Freedom from internal commotion or civil war. 4. Freedom from private quarrels, suits or disturbance. 5. Freedom from agitation or disturbance by the passions, as from fear, terror, anger, anxiety or the like; quietness of mind; tranquillity; calmness; quiet of conscience. Great peace have they that love the (natural) law. Psalms 119:165. 7. Harmony; concord; a state of reconciliation between parties at variance. 8. Public tranquillity; that quiet, order and security which is guaranteed by the laws; as, to keep the peace; to break the peace. This word is used in commanding silence or quiet; as, peace to this troubled soul. To be at peace to be reconciled; to live in harmony. To make peace to reconcile, as parties at variance. To hold the peace to be silent; to suppress one’s thoughts; not to speak.

Reconciliation – noun [Latin reconciliatio.] 1. The act of reconciling parties at variance; renewal of friendship after disagreement or enmity. Reconciliation and friendship with God, really form the basis of all rational and true enjoyment. 2. In Scripture, the means by which sinners are reconciled and brought into a state of favor with God, after natural estrangement or enmity; the atonement; expiation. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity. Daniel 9:24. Hebrews 2:17. 3. Agreement of things seemingly opposite, different or inconsistent.

(Note: A man cannot reconcile with government his desire to be free of its person without making atonement to nature and thus showing favor of God as highest authority to government. You will be governed by men until you can prove and legally declare a higher God, and thus live in peace, for the meek shall inherit the world.)

Converted – p.p. Turned or changed from one substance or state to another; turned form one religion or sect to another; changed from a state of sin to a state of holiness; applied to a particular use; appropriated.

Meek, a [Latin mucus; Eng. mucilage; Heb. to melt.] 1. Mild of temper; soft; gentle; not easily provoked or irritated; yielding; given to forbearance under injuries. Now the man Moses was very meek above all men. Numbers 12:3. 2. Appropriately, humble, in an evangelical sense; submissive to the divine will; not proud, self-sufficient or refractory; not peevish and apt to complain of divine dispensations. Christ says, ‘Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls.’ Matthew 11:29. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5.

(Note: Persons may not inherit the Earth, for they are not natural as the Earth is. Only men who are meek, self-sufficient without government, and who pay for injuries caused to other natural things and beings as responsible for their own actions shall be allowed by governments to inherit the Earth without being governed by men.)

Inherit – v. t. [Latin hoeres, an heir. See Heir.] 1. To take by descent from an ancestor; to take by succession, as the representative of the former possessor; to receive, as a right or title descendible by law from an ancestor at his decease. The heir inherits the lands or real estate of his father; the eldest son of the nobleman inherits his father’s title, and the eldest son of a king inherits the crown. 2. To receive by nature from a progenitor. The son inherits the virtues of his father; the daughter inherits the temper of her mother, and children often inherit the constitutional infirmities of their parents. 3. To possess; to enjoy; to take as a possession, by gift or divine appropriation; as, to inherit everlasting life; to inherit the promises. –That thou mayest live, and inherit the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee. Deuteronomy 16:20. The meek shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5.

(Note: Maturity of thought creates the realization that no man may own the property (creation) of God. The creator of the Earth (a higher law) was the first progenitor, and only the men who are Sons of God may inherit that land – with merely the responsibility to keep and protect it as caretaker (dominion) but never to claim demonic possession of it through fictional title of property (corporate person). Persons being not of God, can only thus inherit a fictional paper title also not of God, which is unnatural and not the soil of the land itself (of the creator). The meek shall inherit the whole Earth, not incorporated plots (parts) of it. If this sounds like an impossible disposition for men, which is perfectly understandable considering today’s society, we must remember the most important rule of Christianity – DO NO HARM. To do no harm means also to respect the duty to never harm natural rights of all other men. Peace may never be on Earth (in heaven) without this duty being always upheld. I, for one, am not confident this pipe-dream can ever become reality among men, I am only deciphering the code so that if it is possible, men of God may have a fighting chance at peace and harmony – at heaven on Earth. I do claim to know that the way things are today requires war, occupation, and crimes against nature, and thus will never end in peace and quiet, for it is literally hell on Earth.)

Quiet – a. Unmolested ; tranquil; free from interference or disturbance. – v. To pacify; to render secure or unassailable by the removal of disquieting causes or disputes. This is the meaning of the word in the phrase “action to quiet title”, which is a proceeding to establish the plaintiff’s title to land by bringing into court an adverse claimant and there compelling QUIET.

Quiet Title – a suit brought about to obtain a determination as to the title of a certain piece of property.

Title Quiet – used to describe a suit in a court of equity that will settle all claims of rightful ownership.

Peace and Quiet – a term referring to a right to security, freedom and tranquility as is guaranteed by the law.

(Note: Only the quieting of persons and destruction of titles (status) can peace happen. Peace and legal quiet go hand in hand.)

Attachment n.1. A taking of the person, goods or estate by a writ or precept in a civil action, to secure a debt or demand. 2. A writ directing the person or estate of a person to be taken, to secure his appearance before a court. 3. Close adherence or affection; fidelity; regard; any passion or affection that binds a person; as, an attachment to a friend, or to a party.

Fidelityn. [Latin fidelitas, from fides, faith, fido, to trust. See Faith.] 1. Faithfulness; careful and exact observance of duty, or performance of obligations. We expect fidelity in a public minister, in an agent or trustee, in a domestic servant, in a friend. The best security for the fidelity of men, is to make interest coincide with duty. 2. Firm adherence to a person or party with which one is united, or to which one is bound; loyalty; as the fidelity of subjects to their king or government; the fidelity of a tenant or liege to his lord. 3. Observance of the marriage covenant; as the fidelity of a husband or wife. 4. Honesty; veracity; adherence to truth; as the fidelity of a witness.

Faith. 1. Confidence; credit; reliance. Thus, an act may be said to be done “on the faith” of certain representations. 2. Belief; credence; trust. Thus, the constitution provides that “full faith and credit” shall be given to the judgments of each state in the courts of the others. 3. Purpose; intent; sincerity; state of knowledge or design. This is the meaning of the word in the phrases “good faith” and “bad faith.” (Black’s Law 1st)

(Note: In government, a person is under an agreement of faith as a financial instrument, which has nothing to do with a belief in God. It is a bond of insurance or pledge to church and government, not God.)

Faithn. [Latin fides, fido, to trust; Gr. to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey. In the Greek Lexicon of Hederic it is said, the primitive signification of the verb is to bind and draw or lead, as signifies a rope or cable. But this remark is a little incorrect. The sense of the verb, from which that of rope and binding is derived, is to strain, to draw, and thus to bind or make fast. A rope or cable is that which makes fast. Heb.] 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth2. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind. 3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Cesar. 4. Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God’s testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God’s character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God’s testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation. Being justified by faith Romans 5:1. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Hebrews 11:1. For we walk by faith and not by sight. 2 Corinthians 5:7. The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind, which is called trust or confidence, exercised towards the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior. Faith is an affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God. Faith is a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word; or a full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them. 5. The object of belief; a doctrine or system of doctrines believed; a system of revealed truths received by christians. 7. An open profession of gospel truth. 8. A persuasion or belief of the lawfulness of things indifferent. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Rom 14. 9. Faithfulness; fidelity; a strict adherence to duty and fulfillment of promises. 10. Word or honor pledged; promise given; fidelity. 11. Sincerity; honesty; veracity; faithfulness. We ought in good faith to fulfill all our engagements. 12. Credibility or truth.

(Note: Whatever your claim of religion as a person, you automatically have faith in government as a person over God. Putting your faith in God simply means placing your whole self into the realm of nature under that law instead of man’s. You are putting faith in the teachings of the Bible through the “character” of Christ, not in the notion that Christ lived or did not live. Logic and reason must prevail here, or religion will form from even your own self-created doctrine. Plato’s Cave and the characters called slaves need not be proven to have lived in reality for the faith in its veracity of knowledge to be true. Do not allow religious thought to cloud your judgement or to demonize the Bible as just religion. You believe, put faith in, and obey the U.S. CODE, knowing it is merely the fiction of men. Why can you not therefore believe, put faith in, and obey the words of the Christ character to escape that U.S. CODE and be free?)

Respect, v. t. [Latin respecto, or respectus, from respicio; re and specio, to view.] 1. To regard; to have regard to in design or purpose. 2. To have regard to, in relation or connection; to relate to. The treaty particularly respects our commerce. 3. To view or consider with some degree of reverence; to esteem as if possessed of real worthTo respect the person, to suffer the opinion or judgment, to be influenced or biased by a regard to the outward circumstances of a person, to the prejudice of right and equity. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor. Leviticus 19:15. Neither doth God (nature) respect any person (artificial thing). 2 Samuel 14:14. –  n. [Latin respectus.] 5. Partial regard; undue bias to the prejudice of justice; as the phrase, respect of persons. 1 Peter 1:17. James 2:1. Proverbs 24:23. 6. Respected character; as persons of the best respect in Rome. 7. Consideration; motive in reference to something.

Character/Characteristica. That constitutes the character; that marks the peculiar, distinctive qualities of a person or thing. – n. 1. That which constitutes a character; that which characterizes; that which distinguishes a person or thing from another.

(Note: The character of persons is distinguished by the name and surname, and by the number assigned to that unnatural combination. You might call the Social Security number the number and mark of the Beast. A man with no surname or number is indistinguishable in mans’ law, for he has no prescribed legal character and no corporate or artificial characteristics.)

Person, noun per’sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.] 1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child. A person is a thinking intelligent being. 2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them. 3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant. 4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person’s attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect. 5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear. 6. Character of office. How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend. 7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb8. In law, an artificial person is a corporation or body politic. In person by one’s self; with bodily presence; not be representative. The king in person visits all around. –  v. t. To represent as a person; to make to resemble; to image.

(Note: The word person takes up many pages in law to describe. It can be used in nature and in fiction. But be clear that always in law and legal settings, a person is but a legal fiction and artificial. Thus, when speaking of man’s law, it can only recognize men if the respect the person assigned to them by government. The legal realm only deals with men when they possess a demon in impersonation of that fictional character. God protects men under the laws of nature only if they are not in possession and surety of a demon.)

Impersonatev. t. To personify.

Personify – v. t. [Latin persona and facio.] To give animation to inanimate objects; to ascribe to an inanimate being the sentiments, actions or language of a rational being or person, or to represent an inanimate being with the affections and actions of a person. Thus we say, the plants thirst for rain. The trees said to the fig-tree, come thou, and reign over us. Judges 9:1.

Ascribe, v. t. [Latin ascribo, of ad and scribo, to write.] 1. To attribute, impute, or set to, as to a cause; to assign, as effect to a cause; as, losses are often to be ascribed to imprudence. 2. To attribute, as a quality, or an appurtenance; to consider or allege to belong; as, to ascribe perfection to God, or imperfection to man. Job 36:3. Psalms 68:34. 1 Samuel 18:8.

Attributev.t. [Latin attribuo; ad and tribuo, to divide, to bestow, to assign; tribus, a tribe, division or ward. See Tribe.] 1. To allot or attach, in contemplation; to ascribe; to consider as belonging. We attribute nothing to God, that contains a contradiction. 2. To give as due; to yield as an act of the mind; as, to attribute to God all the glory of redemption. 3. To impute, as to a cause; as, our misfortunes are generally to be attributed to our follies or imprudence. – n. 1. That which is attributed; that which is considered as belonging to, or inherent in; as, power and wisdom are attributes of the Supreme Being; or a quality determining something to be after a certain manner; as, extension is an attribute of body. 2. Quality; characteristic disposition; as bravery and generosity in men. 3. A thing belonging to another; an appendant; as the arms of a warrior. In painting and sculpture, a symbol of office or character, added to the principal figure; as a club is the attribute of Hercules. 4. Reputation; honor.

(Note: An artificial person is an attribute of government granted to a man. It is a title. The person does not belong to you, and therefore every action taken in person and everything purchased in person and everything accomplished in life in person belongs to the owner of that person, which is government. Thus everything you have in person can be taken by government, from property to freedom. Remember, a person has no unalienable rights in nature, for a person is not of nature; not created by God and not under God’s authority and jurisdiction. All conglomerate corporations for profit or not are also property of government, as they are property of a person, not a man. The man incorporates in person, thus the corporation is fiction of government and thus government acts as god over that corporation (person).)

Appurtenance – n. So written for appurtenance. See Appertain.] That which belongs to something else; an adjunct; an appendage. Appropriately, such buildings, rights and improvements, as belong to land, are called the appurtenances; as small buildings are the appurtenances of a mansion.

Adjunct – n. [Latin adjunctus, joined, from adjungo. See join.] 1. Something added to another, but not essentially a part of it; as, water absorbed by a cloth or sponge is its adjunct. Also a person joined to another.  –  a. Added to or united with, as an adjunct professor.

(Note: A man is joined under legal law to a person through what is known as a surety. It is the goal of a man in becoming a “Christian” to abandon such an artificial joinder and to instead be a surety to Christ, being then bound by the laws of nature (God).)

Surety, n. Certainty; indubitableness. Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs Genesis 15:13. 1. Security; safety. 2. Foundation of stability; support. 3. Evidence; ratification; confirmation. 4. Security against loss or damage; security for payment. 5. In law, one that is bound with and for another; one who enters into a bond or recognizance to answer for another’s appearance in court, or for his payment of a debt or for the performance of some act, and who, in case of the principal debtor’s failure, is compellable to pay the debt or damages; a bondsman; a bail. He that is surety for a stranger, shall smart for it. Proverbs 11:15. 6. In Scripture, Christ is called ‘the surety of a better testament.’ Hebrews 7:22. He undertook to make atonement for the sins of men, and thus prepare the way to deliver them from the punishment to which they had rendered themselves liable. 7. A hostage.

(Note: One of the most important legal terms in both realms, a surety-ship is comparable to the shackles of a slave. Being attached through surety to an artificial person is like carrying around a ventriloquist’s doll, where the doll pulls your strings and speaks for you in law. The purpose of the action of surety is literally the bondage of man to a person. It is an insurance policy insuring that government’s property (the person) is not damaged, and creating a pact that the man shall pay the debts of the person. The remedy to this enslavement through bonded indebtedness to government is the act of abandoning the usage of that person and literally becoming a slave to the will and testament of God, through the legal concept of Christ Jesus. Faith and belief are thus removed from government and placed in God, and man is now bonded with Christ in redemption, no longer a slave in the legal fiction realm, abjuring to the laws of nature as his or her only true jurisdiction in law. This is an actual legal process, not to be mistaken with mere religions thought or doctrine. It involves all of the legal concepts discussed here, correctly applied within the authorized legal testament (evidence) of law of kings. In other words, this is the only authorized remedy by kings and governments, for only the usurpation of their claimed authority as vicar (replacement) of God on temporal/corporal Earth can legally be considered and recognized by that authority of man as remedy to that legal claim.)

Believern. One who believes; one who gives credit to other evidence than that of personal knowledge. 1. In theology, one who gives credit to the truth of the scriptures, as a revelation from God. In a more restricted sense, a professor of christianity; one who receives the gospel, as unfolding the true way of salvation, and Christ, as his Savior.

(Note: This word believer is very important. No other word creates more tension than this one by religious persons among non-religious men. But please understand that belief in anything is not a requirement in a religious or doctrinal way. Instead, this word legally signifies “use” with “confidence” as evidence of law under God and not man. To “receive” the gospel is to accept the Christian remedy in law in order to abandon man’s law of mammon. Belief is more easily understood here as confidence or trust. It is the state of being by one in receivership of God’s authority over man.)

Receive – v.t. [Latin recipio; re and capio, to take.] 1. To take, as a thing offered or sent; to accept. He had the offer of a donation, but he would not receive it. 2. To take as due or as a reward. He received the money on the day it was payable. He received ample compensation. 3. To take or obtain from another in any manner, and either good or evil. Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:105. To take or obtain intellectually; as, to receive an opinion or notion from others. 6. To embrace. Receive with meekness the engrafted word. James 1:7. 7. To allow; to hold; to retain; as a custom long received. 8. To admit. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. Psalms 73:24. 9. To welcome; to lodge and entertain; as a guest. 10. To admit into membership or fellowship. Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye. Romans 14:1. 11. To take in or on; to hold; to contain. 12. To be endowed with. Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit has come upon you. Acts 1:8. 13. To take into a place or state. After the Lord had spoken to them, he was received up into heaven. Mark 16:19. 14. To take or have as something ascribed; as, to receive praise or blame. Revelation 4:11. Revelation 5:12. 15. To bear with or suffer. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 16. To believe in. John 1:11. 17. To accept or admit officially or in an official character. The minister was received by the emperor or court. 18. To take stolen goods from a thief, knowing them to be stolen.

Reciever – n. 1. One who takes or receives in any manner. 2. An officer appointed to receive public money; a treasurer. 3. One who takes stolen goods from a thief, knowing them to be stolen, and incurs the guilt of partaking in the crime (i.e. sin). 4. A vessel for receiving and containing the product of distillation. 5. The vessel of an air pump, for containing the thing on which an experiment is to be made. 6. One who partakes of the sacrament (oath).

(Note: In law, the human body is considered a fleshly vessel that carries the soul. Upon that body is placed in surety a person. This requires voluntary receipt of that demon in possession and use. Is it so hard to accept grace as remedy of God in renunciation of government’s person when all of your life you’ve accepted and embraced the artificial fiction of government in its stead? Would it harm your ego so badly to accept the endowment of Christ as your Lord and Savior, even as you now accept government as your god, if it meant being free of bonded debt-slavery? Still think we are talking about religion here, oh foolish one? The ego is the devils prize, for it prevents good men from shining true to their natural character. And religion is the devil’s (man’s) tool to prevent ego death and thus the peace and natural liberty of mankind. And so man remains in hell as long as he lives on Earth, all the time avoiding the heaven it could be.)

Confidence – n. [Latin See Confide.] 1. A trusting, or reliance; an assurance of mind or firm belief in the integrity, stability or veracity of another (either God or mammon), or in the truth and reality of a fact. It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man. Psalms 118:8. I rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things. 2 Corinthians 7:16. Mutual confidence is the basis of social happiness. I place confidence in a statement, or in an official report. 2. Trust; reliance; applied to one’s own abilities, or fortune; belief in one’s own competency. 3. That in which trust is placed; ground of trust; he or that which supports. Jehovah shall be thy confidence Proverbs 3:26. 4. Safety, or assurance of safety; security. 5. Boldness; courage. Preaching the kingdom of God with all confidence Acts 28:31.

(Note: Is government a fact, a truth, and a reality? Do you trust in it? Do you freely place your confidence in it? Is your faith in it? Isn’t insanity really defined as putting your faith in men (government) over and over and expecting different results? Do you understand now that faith, trust, and confidence are all legally BINDING terms?)

Testament – n. [Latin testamentum, from testor, to make a will.] 1. A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death. This is otherwise called a will. A testament to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes. 2. The name of each general division of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures; as the Old Testament; the New testament. The name is equivalent to covenant, and in our use of it, we apply it to the books which contain the old and new dispensations; that of Moses, and that of Jesus Christ. In the primitive church, those who had been instructed in the truths of the gospel and baptized, were called believers; in distinction from the catechumens, who were under instruction, as preparatory to baptism and admission to church privileges. Synonym = evidence.

Witness – n. 1. Testimony; attestation of a fact or event. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John 5:31. 2. That which furnishes evidence or proof3. A person who knows or sees any thing; one personally present; as, he was witness; he was an eye-witness. 1 Peter 5:1. 4. One who sees the execution of an instrument, and subscribes it for the purpose of confirming its authenticity b his testimony. 5. One who gives testimony; as, the witnesses in court agreed in all essential facts. – v.t. 1. To see or know by personal presence… 2. To attest; to give testimony to; to testify to something. Behold, how many things they witness against thee. Mark 15:4. 3. To see the execution of an instrument, and subscribe it for the purpose of establishing its authenticity; as, to witness a bond or a deed. – v.i. 1. To bear testimony. 2. To give evidence.

(Note: The popular religions term to “be a witness for Christ” is yet another misapplied legal action by misleading or mislead religious corporations. To witness for Christ is to legally attest that your law is under God through His remedy called Christ Jesus. Doing so in a religious setting has no weight in law. Witnessing, however, in court of law or in a legal declaration overrules man’s law, with Christ as your witness. This is the presentation of evidence of God’s law which exempts man from the law of man and mammon. Without a witness, there be no crime. A person may not use Christ as a witness, for a person is not known to God. Only a man who abandons the surname and benefits of person-hood may use the Bible and the character of Christ as witness and evidence of law above that of man. There can be no uncertainty in your faith and belief – your slavery to Christ as Lord.)

Certainty – n. 1. A fixed or real state; truth; fact. 2. Full assurance of mind; exemption from doubt… perception of the agreement or disagreement of our ideas. 3. Exemption from failure; as the certainty of an event, or of the success of a medicine. The certainty of punishment is the truest security against crimes. 4. Regularity; settled state.

(Note: It’s your choice… your state of being is either real or fiction. Are you certain you can prove you are only a human being without a another state?)

Exemption – n. The act of exempting; the state of being exempt. 1. Freedom from any service, charge, burden, tax, evil or requisition, to which others are subject; immunity; privilege. No man can claim an exemption from pain, sorrow or death.

(Note: A fictional person may never be exempt from government, for the person is property of government and subject to all its (creator’s) laws. Government is the author of that fictional character in its fictional tale. The only true exemption, redemption, and remedy happens within the real, and is declared with abandonment of the false.)

Evil – n. Evil is natural or moral. Natural evil is any thing which produces pain, distress, loss or calamity, or which in any way disturbs the peace, impairs the happiness, or destroys the perfection of natural beings. Moral evil is any deviation of a moral agent from the rules of conduct prescribed to him by God, or by legitimate human authority; or it is any violation of the plain principles of justice and rectitude. There are also evils called civil, which affect injuriously the peace or prosperity of a city or state; and political evils, which injure a nation, in its public capacity. All wickedness, all crimes, all violations of law and right are moral evils. Diseases are natural evils, but they often proceed from moral evils. 2. Misfortune; mischief; injury. There shall no evil befall thee. Psalms 91:10. A prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself. Proverbs 22:3. 3. Depravity; corruption of heart, or disposition to commit wickedness; malignity. The heart of the sons of men is full of evil Ecclesiastes 9:3. 4. Malady; as the king’s evil or scrophula. – adv. [generally contracted to ill.] 1. Not well; not with justice or propriety; unsuitable. Evil it beseems thee. 2. Not virtuously;not innocently4. Injuriously; not kindly. The Egyptians evil entreated us, and afflicted us. In composition, evil denoting something bad or wrong, is often contracted to ill.

(Note: In a word, evil is described as “against government”. By assuming the persona of artificiality or fiction, government gives license to commit ill deeds that injure others, as a license to kill. No such license exists in natural law or under God, except in defense of life and the natural realm. License is permission by “god” the government to commit an illegal and/or immoral act. But remember, government also considers true Christianity to be amoral and sin against government. False gods do not like loosing slaves. Ironically, it is the goal of the Christian to become illegal in the eyes of government law, meaning not approved or created by that law. Disturbing the three great natural unalienable rights of life, liberty (peace) and happiness is a natural evil caused by political authority, and is a done deal once citizenship is accepted over God’s grace.)

Moral – n. Morality; the doctrine or practice of the duties of life. 1. The doctrine inculcated by a fiction; the accommodation of a fable to form the morals.

Fable – n. [Latin , Gr. The radical sense is that which is spoken or told.] 1. A feigned story or tale, intended to instruct or amuse; a fictitious narration intended to enforce some useful truth or precept. 2. Fiction in general; as, the story is all a fable. 3. An idle story; vicious or vulgar fictions. But refuse profane and old wives fables. 1 Timothy 4:7. 5. Falsehood; a softer term for a lie. – v.t. To feign; to invent; to devise and speak of, as true or real. The hell thou fablest.

(Note: The Bible is a moral fable “true or real” that is “intended to instruct” and “intended to enforce some useful truth or precept”.

Reala. [Low Latin realis. The Latin res and Eng. thing coincide exactly with the Heb. a word, a thing, an event. See Read and Thing.] 1. Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as a description of real life. The author describes a real scene or transaction. 2. True; genuine; not artificial, not counterfeit or factitious; as real Madeira wine; real ginger. 3. True; genuine; not affected; not assumed. The woman appears in her real character. 4. Relating to things, not to persons; not personal. 5. In law, pertaining to things fixed, permanent or immovable, as to lands and tenements; as real estate, opposed to personal or movable property.

(Note: Real means artificial in civil law, referring to title or status. Many words in legalese have opposite meanings from their conversational (non-legal) usage. In understanding the Bible and its remedy, we must understand the legal meaning, not what the corporate church preaches. The gods of religious doctrine are also “real” in concept, in that these gods are created on paper and don’t exist in nature.)

Covenant – n. [L, to come; a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.] 1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation. A covenant is created by deed in writing, sealed and executed; or it may be implied in the contract. 2. A writing containing the terms of agreement or contract between parties; or the clause of agreement in a deed containing the covenant. 3. In theology, the covenant of works, is that implied in the commands, prohibitions, and promises of God; the promise of God to man, that mans perfect obedience should entitle him to happiness. The covenant of redemption, is the mutual agreement between the Father and Son, respecting the redemption of sinners by Christ. The covenant of grace, is that by which God engages to bestow salvation on man, upon the condition that man shall believe in Christ and yield obedience to the terms of the gospel. 4. In church affairs, a solemn agreement between the members of a church, that they will walk together according to the precepts of the gospel, in brotherly affection. – v. i. To enter into a formal agreement; to stipulate; to bind ones self by contract.

Covenant – In practice. The name of a common-law form of action ex contractu, which lies for the recovery of damages for breach of a covenant, or contract under seal. In the law of contracts. An agreement, convention, or promise of two or more parties, by deed in writing, signed, sealed, and delivered, by which either of the parties pledges himself to the other that something is either done or shall be done, or stipulates for the truth of certain facts. An agreement between two or more parties, reduced to writing and executed by sealing and delivery thereof, whereby some of the parties named therein engage, or one of them engages, with the other, or others, or some of them, therein also named, that some act hath or hath not already been done, or for the performance or non-performance of some specified duty. A promise by deed. (Black’s Law 1st)

‘Ark, n. [Latin arca.] 1. A small close vessel, chest or coffer, such as that which was the repository of the tablets of the covenant among the Jews… 3. A depository. Arise, O Lord, into thy rest, thou and the ark of thy strength. Psalms 132:8.

Depository – n. A place where any thing is lodged for safe-keeping. A warehouse is a depository for goods; a clerks office, for records.

(Note: There is no mystery as to what the “ark of the covenant” was. It was a bank depository – a safe-deposit box – used by the same money-changers that enslave us in debt today! It was not Christian; not of God; but of the corporate church. Today the U.S. Government’s ark holds the Birth Certificates printed on bank notes of all the United States persons in trust, today called a bank vault. The simple secret of the ark of the covenant is nothing more than human trafficking through the ancient system of pledging – human beings enfranchised as corporate person denizens (citizens) and traded on the securities markets as future labor. The ark story is nothing if not ceremonial idolatry by the church. The Bible explains how to instead live under a covenant with God (the laws of nature), through the legal remedy called “Jesus Christ”, which simply means to legally claim a spiritual covenant to God (nature) and also to abandon any pledge and allegiance to mammon by quitclaiming the surname.)

Consumeverb transitive [Latin , to take. So in English we say, it takes up time, that is, it consumes time.] 2. To destroy by dissipating or by use; to expend; to waste; to squander; as, to consume an estate. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. James 4:3. 3. To spend; to cause to pass away, as time; as, to consume the day in idleness. Their days did he consume in vanity. Psalms 78:33. 4. To cause to disappear; to waste slowly. 5. To destroy; to bring to utter ruin; to exterminate. Let me alone– that I may consume them. Exodus 32:10. The wicked shall perish–they shall consume Psalms 37:20.

(Note: Your status as a consumer is literally a hidden reference to gentiles (goyim) as persons serving mammon, thus the Biblical reference to “the wicked shall perish” is akin to “burning in hell” – which legally means being consumed by greed and held in an open-air debtor’s prison called the United States. See “hell” defined above. A consumer can only be a debtor slave, for money is but debt, and debt can never pay off debt.)

Testament – A disposition of personal property to take place after the owner’s decease, according to his desire and direction. A testament is the act of last will, clothed with certain solemnities, by which the testator disposes of his property, either universally, or by universal title, or by particular title. Civil Code La. art. 1571. Strictly speaking, the term denotes only a will of personal property; a will of land not being called a “testament.” The word “testament” is now seldom used, except m the heading of a formal will, which usually begins: “This is the last will and testament of me, A. B.,” etc. Sweet. (Black’s Law 1st)

Testamentn. [Latin testamentum, from testor, to make a will.] 1. A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death. This is otherwise called a will. A testament to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes. A man in certain cases may make a valid will by words only, and such will is called nuncupative. 2. The name of each general division of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures; as the Old Testament; the New testament. The name is equivalent to covenant, and in our use of it, we apply it to the books which contain the old and new dispensations; that of Moses, and that of Jesus Christ.

(Note: Testament is synonymous with evidence. The Vatican and its vicar pope claims to be the heir to the last will and testament of Jesus Christ (evidence of God’s will), creating a false god on and of the Earth as land-lord (god) of the temporal realm. By posing as or “impersonating” the Christ (until His alagorical return), through anointment and ceremony, the church claims the power to cleanse people of their sins that only God can forgive, and to somehow forgive digressions over that of God Himself, as if to invoke an earthly power to create a strange state of amnesia in God when a man dies and meets his maker, (that God will not know about a man’s sins?). Thus, the church gives “license” to commit all sorts of unlawful acts under and before God and nature but in the name of the fictional church while pretending to play the part of God’s ambassador on Earth,  in clear contradiction to the sacred oath that says God will ultimately judge all of man’s actions. When any oath is taken, in all of law and any legal settings, it is taken to God as witness and ultimate judge under perjury. This is not theory, but has always been the traditional oath (sacramentum), and the church and government uses that oath as an excuse to play gods and land-lords of the secular temporal planet while convincing mankind to treat the church as God’s embassy.)

Redeem – To buy back. To liberate an estate or article from mortgage or pledge by paying the debt for which it stood as security. To repurchase in a literal sense; as, to redeem one’s land from a tax-sale. (Black’s Law 1st)

Redeemable – . 1. Subject to an obligation of redemption; embodying, or conditioned upon, a piomise or obligation of redemption; convertible into coin; as, a “redeemable currency.” 2. Subject to redemption; admitting of redemption or repurchase; given or held under conditions admitting of reacquisition by purchase; as, a “redeemable pledge.” (Black’s Law 1st)

Redeemable Rights – Rights which return to the conveyor or disposer of land, etc., upon payment of the sum for which such rights are granted. (Black’s Law 1st)

RedemptionA repurchase; a buying backThe liberation of a chattel from pledge or pawn, by paying the debt for which it stood as security. Repurchase of notes, bills, or other evidences of debt, (particularly bank-notes and paper-money,) by paying their value in coin to their holders. (Black’s Law 1st)

Redeem – v.t. [Latin redimo; red, re, and emo, to obtain or purchase.] 1. To purchase back; to ransom; to liberate or rescue from captivity or bondage, or from any obligation or liability to suffer or to be forfeited, by paying an equivalent; as, to redeem prisoners or captured goods; to redeem a pledge. 2. To repurchase what has been sold; to regain possession of a thing alienated, by repaying the value of it to the possessor. 3. To rescue; to recover; to deliver from. The mass of earth not yet redeemed from chaos. 5. To free by making atonement. Thou hast one daughter who redeems nature from the general curse. 7. To save. He could not have redeemed a portion of his time for contemplating the powers of nature. 8. To perform what has been promised; to make good by performance. He has redeemed his pledge or promise. 9. In law, to recall an estate, or to obtain the right to re-enter upon a mortgaged estate by paying to the mortgagee his principal, interest, and expenses or costs. 10. In theology, to rescue and deliver from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God’s violated law, by obedience and suffering in the place of the sinner, or by doing and suffering that which is accepted in lieu of the sinner’s obedience. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Galatians 3:13. Titus 2:14.)

Redeemer – n. 1. One who redeems or ransoms. 2. The Savior of the world, JESUS CHRIST.

(Note: God’s violated law is the respect of persons. To be redeemed in law from this violation and from the bondage of sin (person-hood) is the goal of the follower of Christ’s teachings. But they must declare this in the redemption process. Redemption is to “deliver us from evil” of demonic possession, meaning to deliver us from government fiction.)

Savior – n. savyur. One that saves or preserves; but properly applied only to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, who has opened the way to everlasting salvation by his obedience and death, and who is therefore called the savior by way of distinction, the savior of men, the savior of the world. General Washington may be called the saver, but not the savior of his country.

(Note: Why do we call Christ the redeemer? Why is Christ called a savior? Why do we say we are saved by Christ? Why does belief in Christ give onto us everlasting salvation? Because redeem, savior, save, belief, and salvation are all legal terms utilized to remedy man back into nature from the artificial church and government. The real question you should be asking is: Why have the corporate religions and secret societies lied about the true meaning of these words to the common man? Knowledge is power, and power is control. And the word govern literally translates to mean control. The truth: “Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.” No controlling church or state wishes its members to learn that!)

Deliver – v.t. [Latin Free, disengaged; to free, to peel.] 1. To free; to release, as from restraint; to set at liberty; as, to deliver one from captivity. 2. To rescue, or save. Deliver me, O my God, from the hand of the wicked. Psalms 71:4. 3. To give, or transfer; to put into another’s hand or power; to commit; to pass from one to another. 4. To surrender; to yield; to give up; to resign; as, to deliver a fortress to an enemy. It is often followed by up; as, to deliver up the city; to deliver up stolen goods. 7. To exert in motion. To deliver to the wind, to cast away; to reject. To deliver over, to transfer; to give or pass from one to another; as, to deliver over goods to another.2. To surrender or resign; to put into anothers power; to commit to the discretion of; to abandon to. Deliver me not over to the will of my enemies. Psalms 27:12. To deliver up, to give up; to surrender.

(Note: To be delivered from evil is simply to be freed, released, liberated, rescued, saved, transferred, and resigned from the artificial person in total abandonment. It is the act of rejection of all of the fictional things of mammon. Forgive us our tresspasses (debts)… for thine is the kindom and the power and the glory forever…)

Trespass –  n. In law, violation of another’s rights, not amounting to treason, felony, or misprision of either. Thus to enter another’s close, is a trespass; to attack his person is a trespass. When violence accompanies the act, it is called a trespass vi et armis. 1. Any injury or offense done to another. If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14. 2. Any voluntary transgression of the moral law; any violation of a known rule of duty; sin. Colossians 2:13. You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2:1.

(Note: Though a difficult concept, we must forgive the trespass of all against our person, for we no longer accept the person as true, thus such trespass and harm cannot harm us. Bear no ill will towards men who attack your person in their own persona. Instead simply abandon and quitclaim-ing the person and forgive those who trespass against it, for it is an empty vessel of fiction unattached to your body and soul. Enmity by freed and delivered men over actions done by fictional persons to other fictional persons is foolish and ultimately pointless in nature. Forgiveness is paramount to peace. And most necessary is forgiveness of the self and any trespass and debt through redemption of Christ, legally speaking!)

Surrender, verb transitive [Latin sursum, and rendre, to render.] 1. To yield to the power of another; to give or deliver up possession upon compulsion or demand; as, to surrender one’s person to an enemy2. To yield; to give up; to resign in favor of another; as, to surrender a right or privilege; to surrender a place or an office. 3. To give up; to resign; as, to surrender the breath. 4. In law, to yield an estate, as a tenant, into the hands of the lord for such purposes as are expressed in the act. 5. To yield to any influence, passion or power; as, to surrender one’s self to grief, to despair, to indolence or to sleep. – v.t. To yield; to give up one’s self into the power of another. – n. The act of yielding or resigning one’s person or the possession of something, into the power of another; as the surrender of a castle to an enemy; the surrender of a right or of claims.2. In law, the yielding of an estate by a tenant to the lord, for such purposes as are expressed by the tenant in the act.

(Note: Quite simply, by surrendering to God and God’s plan of remedy through Christ, we surrender and thus abandon our surety and bond to the fictional person, holding no claim to rights or duties and claiming no redemption, privilege, or law from government. You must surrender your person back to its owner (government) in order to cease being liable for its usury charges and obligations (duties). You must cease to be a user of government property. Note also that this word is a combination of the word sur and the word render, and that in an official surrender it is the name that is given up in the action.)

Atonement – n. 1. Agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy. Romans 5:11. 2. Expiation; satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or injury; with for. When a man has been guilty of any vice, the best atonement he can make for it is, to warn others not to fall into the like. 3. In theology, the expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ.

Purchase – v.t. [… purchaser is to pursue to the end or object, and hence to obtain. In Law Latin, purchase the noun, was written purchacium… In its primary and legal sense, to gain, obtain or acquire by any means, except by descent or hereditary right (to gain through artificial means without deserving). 2. In common usage, to buy; to obtain property by paying an equivalent in money. It differs from barter only in the circumstance, that in purchasing, the price or equivalent given or secured is money; in bartering, the equivalent is given in goods. We purchase lands or goods for ready money or on credit. 3. To obtain by an expense of labor, danger or other sacrifice; as, to purchase favor with flattery. 4. To expiate or recompense by a fine or forfeit; as, to purchase out abuses with tears and prayer. 5. To sue out or procure, as a writ… It is foolish to lay out money in the purchase of repentance.

Offering – p.p.t. Presenting; proposing; sacrificing; bidding; presenting to the eye or mind. n. That which is presented in divine service; an animal or a portion of bread or corn, or of gold and silver, or other valuable articles, presented to God as an atonement for sin, or as a return of thanks for his favors, or for other religious purpose; a sacrifice; an oblation. In the Mosaic economy, there were burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, peace-offerings, trespass-offerings, thank-offerings, wave-offerings, and wood-offerings. Pagan nations also present offerings to their deities. Christ by the offering of himself has superseded the use of all other offerings, having made atonement for all men. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed – Isaiah 53:10.

(Note: Have you ever considered that by placing check or cash into an offering plate that you are actually participating in a blood sacrifice? After all, what thing has more innocent blood attached to it than that of the U.S. Dollar and the wars and many collective sins it represents? This offering of sacrifice is not to God, for God does not require such things. Only man would destroy what God creates. And if anything, the offering of mammon (money) to God could only be taken as a severe insult and blasphemy to everything Sacred and Holy in the Bible, which is totally against the concept of money.)

Dummy – n. One who holds legal title for another; a straw man. – a. Sham; make-believe; pretended; imitation. (Black’s Law 4rth)

Dummy Corporation – This term is given to a company that functions as a legal enterprise but really has nor purpose at all in the corporation. (Black’s Law 2nd)

Bail – v. To procure the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he shall appear at the time and place
designated and submit himself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court. To set at liberty a person arrested or imprisoned, on security being taken for his appearance on a day and a place certain, which security is called “bail,” because the party arrested or imprisoned is delivered into the hands of those who bind themselves for his forthcoming, (that is, become bail for his due appearance when required,) in order that he may be safely protected from prison. – n. In practice. The sureties who procure the release of a person under arrest, by becoming responsible for his appearance at the time and place designated. Those persons who become sureties for the appearance of the defendant in court. Upon those contracts of indemnity which are taken in legal proceedings as security for the performance of an obligation imposed or declared by the tribunals, and known as undertakings or recognizances, the sureties are called “bail.” In Canadian law. A lease. Bail erhphyteotique. A lease for years, with a right to prolong indefinitely. It is equivalent to an alienation.

Civil bail. That taken in civil actions. Special bail, being persons who undertake that if the defendant is condemned in the action he shall pay the debt or surrender himself for imprisonment.

(Note: Because the God-given name and the surname are connected in contract and consent, this is a fictional representation of the natural man and the artificial person also being connected. Though born naked and innocent, the man is immediately incorporated with the invisible veil of clothing of the corporate fiction person. For purely commercial purposes, the man acts as the person (man is legally an actor playing the part of the person) and is thus responsible for what the artificial person does in commerce. Of course, government passes laws that make every action in natural life appear to be a commercial venture in law, requiring licenses, permits, insurances, and other bondage tools in order to do just about everything that is in fact non-commercial in nature. This brings into law (in-jures) every action taken by the man and makes it commerce of the person, no matter how insignificant it may be. The artificial person is a debtor, we must not forget that. No man can be in debt, except to God, for man can have no other master and must abandon the debt system of mammon to be a slave to God. So any “crime” the person makes is always as a debtor. Thus, all prisons are debtor’s prisons. To get out of jail, the man must pay the debt of his strawman person in the form of bail, agreeing to appear as that artificial person in a debtor’s court. This ensures that man will fulfill his or her role as an actor, playing the part of the debtor person, appearing as a strawman.)

Strawman – 1. Draft or outline copy ready for suggestions and comments. 2. Third party used as a cover in illegal or shady deals. 3. Nominee director. 4. A weak or flawed person with no standing. Also called man of straw. See judgement proof. (Black’s Law 2nd)

Stramineus Homo – L. Lat. A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety.

Slave – n. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Webster. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. Civil Code La. art. 35.

(Note: Here we understand that you cannot serve two masters (God and Mammon), or more to the point a man cannot be a slave to both. To declare oneself to be a “slave of Christ” or God is to declare oneself not to be a slave-person of government. This is a legal standing, not a religious sentiment. The court cannot recognize only a person of government (mammon), not a servant God. As a slave to God, a man can only acquire what is of God (natural) in nature, which means he or she cannot acquire (respect) a person or anything artificial or fictional in law. This creates a sort of automatic remedy by never allowing surety or bondage to any man-made thing, status, or person. But man must walk in the true Christian path to avoid such status, bondage, and person-hood.)

Sin Tax – An ad valorem tax or flat tax levied on services and goods that are considered to be morally or physically harmful such as alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. (Black’s Law 2nd)

 (Note: Under government you ridiculously pay a tax as forgiveness of sin. Under God, you have no such forgiveness. Yet the church is there to reenforce this hypocrisy to God through doctrinal remission.)

Indulgence – In the Roman Catholic Church. A remission of the punishment due to sins, granted by the pope or church, and supposed to save the sinner from purgatory. Its abuse led to the Reformation in Germany. Forbearance

Forbearance – The act of abstaining from proceeding against a delinquent debtor; delay in exacting the enforcement of a right; indulgence granted to a debtor. Refraining from action. The term is used in this sense in general jurisprudence, in contradistinction to “act.”

CombustioBurning. In old English law. The punishment inflicted upon apostates. (Black’s Law 1st)

(Note: Think debtors burning alive in the dungeons called hell for abandoning the church. True Christians that abandoned church and religious doctrine in seeking the peace and purity of God and Christ were burned, tortured, and thrown to the lions by the church and state, for they could not be controlled by man’s law. True Christianity is indeed illegal.)

Apostata – In civil and old English law. An apostate; a deserter from the faith; one who has renounced the Christian faith. (Black’s Law 1st)

(Note: Here the word faith is stated as a legal status; as a person, member, or citizen of the church and state. Your personal (illegal) faith does not matter to the church and state, only your legally pledged faith as servitude to that corporate structure’s control of your person. Abandonment makes you an apostate of the corporate structure, but in God’s eyes as a legal remedy it makes you a true Biblical Christian immune to corporate law.)

Apostasy – In English law. The total renunciation of Christianity, by embracing either a false religion or no religion at all. This offense can only take place in such as have once professed the Christian religion. (Black’s Law 1st)

Apostate – n. [Gr.] One who has forsaken the church, sect or profession to which he before adhered. In its original sense, applied to one who has abandoned his religion; but correctly applied also to one who abandons a political or other party. a. False; traitorous. (Black’s Law 1st)

(Note: Apostasy was part of the law of the land, created by the church, and not just some religious concept without true legal meaning. Yet again the Bible refers to the “vicar” of the Christ here, as an apostate is one who forsakes the church/government, not to be mistaken for the abandonment of God (creator). To be an apostate is a declaration of abandonment of a corporate church and its doctrinal religion upon a person, having nothing to do with the Bible or with God. It is not a sin against God to quitclaim religion, but rather only a sin against government and corporate church. The word sin in the Bible ofter refers to sin against church and state (the god or landlord), not sin against God Himself.)

Fictio – In Roman law. A fiction; an assumption or supposition of the law. “Fictio” in the old Roman law was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction. (Black’s Law 1st)

Fiction – n. [Latin fictio, from fingo, to feign.] 1. The act of feigning, inventing or imagining; as, by the mere fiction of the mind. 2. That which is feigned, invented or imagined. The story is a fiction. So also was the fiction of those golden apples kept by a dragon, taken from the serpent which tempted Eve.

FictionAn assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. A fiction is a rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Fictions are to be distinguished from presumptions of law. By the former (fiction), something known to be false or unreal is assumed as true; by the latter (presumtion of law), an inference is set up, which may be and probably is true, but which, at any rate, the law will not permit to be controverted. (Black’s Law 1st)

(Note: Though the courts know and recognize that a person is not alive, not true, imaginary, feigned, invented, and completely false, the government itself falls under that same description, and thus a fiction can only recognize another fiction. A living man is unrecognizable in court without a surname (person), as government only has jurisdiction over fictions, and government holds no authority over men claimed in surety to Christ.)

Overcomev.t. [See Come.] 1. To conquer; to vanquish; to subdue; as, to overcome enemies in battle. 2. To surmount; to get the better of; as, to overcome difficulties or obstacles. 3. To overflow; to surcharge. – v.i. To gain the superiority; to be victorious. Romans 3:4.

Overcome  – As used in a statute providing that a presumption may be overcome by other evidence, this term is not synonymous with overbalance or outweigh, but requires merely that such evidence counterbalance the presumption, where the party relying on it has the burden of proof. (Black’s Law 4rth)

Overcome – a term that is used for overcoming evidence that is presented by a party to a suit by presenting more convincing evidence. (Black’s Law 2nd)

(Note: Evidence of God’s laws of nature is always better and of higher authority as evidence than any fiction of man’s law.)

Enfranchise – To make free; to incorporate a man in a society or body politic. (Black’s Law 1st)

Enfranchisement – The act of making free; giving a franchise or freedom to; investiture with privileges or capacities of freedom, or municipal or political liberty. Admission to the freedom of a city; admission to political rights, and particularly the right of suffrage (voting). Anciently, the acquisition of freedom by a villein from his lord. The word is now used principally either of the manumission of slaves, (or) of giving to a borough or other constituency a right to return a member or members to parliament, or of the conversion of copyhold into freehold.

(Final Note: The word citizen stems from the word denizen, which means to enfranchise slaves and lower class common men into an equal state under the law. This signifies the act of assigning a surname to a man or slave and assigning that name to certain privileges, otherwise known as political rights. The citizen should know that the words freedom, liberty, and rights are all alienable privileges granted by government to persons (citizens). The word free-dom means obey the law of man or be punished. The word liberty means the same – to be free to act as long as man’s law is followed. The prefix “dom” means dominion, so as to signify that the state of being free for a man is dominated by the state, which it calls political freedom or political or civil liberty. Man can only be free under God, whereas he can only have artificial freedom under mammon, for he impersonates a regulated fiction of mammon. Like a rented car (vehicle), the fictional person (vehicle) comes with many rules for the user to comply with under force of law. In nature, the only law is to do no harm, and as long as this is maintained, a man is always free to do as he pleases. The word people means gentiles; common peasants; the lowest form of person and societal status. If you are one of the people, then you have no voice, only the collective has the voice, and it is completely controlled by the noble (higher) wealthy class. Knowing this, I wish you luck in your continuing disgrace in nature as you posses like a demon your rented fiction of man.

–=–

Conclusion

–=–

While there are many other words that could be contemplated here for their legal capacity within the Bible, I hope that this journey has opened your eyes to the reality of your disposition in life and in the fictional hell you live in. This writing has not been intended to offend or defend any one or any thing, but is given freely in genuine care and concern for my fellow man. No man can be free until all men are free. And we certainly are harmed by our lack of knowledge. Please understand that your personal beliefs in the comprehension of God are not the subject of this essay, nor should they interfere with the legal language. For the legal law knows no emotion, ethics, morals, values, love, hate, or any other human emotion or adoration, and so we must separate our conversational word from our legal words. this is one of the hardest things you will ever have to do in your life, even as the realization of the purposefully dualistic nature of the English language becomes ultimately and agonizingly apparent. I wish you the very best in your journey, and hope this collection will be an integral tool in your redemption from the tyranny of men.

I have suffered fools, including myself, for too long now. I redeem myself to the reader in hopeful abandon that the world can change and that all men can live be free…

.

(Christian name) Clint (Surname) Richardson – (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, April 3oth, 2014

 

 

Good Faith Notice Of Render (Abandon) Of Surname And Withdrawal Of Christian Name


The following letter is from Daniel. For those that have not been privy to our discussions on the radio, please enjoy the commercial free interviews at the end of this post. This was what Daniel considers his final step in ridding his given name of any government encroachments. Before this, Daniel returned his government issued certificates, licenses, and any other official documents with the surname or social security insurance number attached, and also included copies of those within this letter.

The names have been made generic.

We will be following up in future shows starting today to explain in further detail this “Christian Remedy In Law”.

For those not willing to consider such a thing, I have created a mini-dictionary of Biblical words taken out of the legal dictionaries and compiled a very in depth essay that will explain this whole process not as a religious one, but as a completely legal one. Do not let the doctrines of religion get in the way of understanding the 1611 Bible as the basis of all legal law in the “civilized” world. Again, this is not religion, but legal fiction.

Please see my next blog post called “Cracking The Legal Code Of King James“, which will be posted immediately following this post tonight.

Link –> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/cracking-the-legal-code-of-king-james/

Daniel’s Youtube site: https://www.youtube.com/user/ChristianRemedyInLaw

And now, as promised, not to be suffered by fools, Daniel’s Notice of Render And Abandon of Surname:

———————————————————-
Good Faith Notice Of Render (Abandon)
Of Surname And Withdrawal Of Christian Name
———————————————————-

(Page 1 of 5)

Greetings and salutations John-Que PUBLIC, Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, Ministry of the Attorney General:

May the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. The salutation by the hand of me, seed of Abraham, seed of the woman, Tribe of Judah (favour, praise), Christian name John, Ambassador and witness for Christ.

Verily, I make a good confession to all higher powers of government ordained by God (YHWH) just as my Sovereign, King, Master, Lord, Saviour, advocate and surety in all matters whatsoever, Jesus Christ, made a good confession to the Roman high priest and governor, Pontius Pilate:

John 18:36 [Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)] – Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

I forgive and forget any and all trespasses that have occurred upon my God-given unalienable Christian name, John; and, therefore, I divorce and forsake the surname, SMITH, in order to divorce myself from any implied or expressed trespass upon it and I pray the Lord’s Prayer in this matter:

Matthew 6:9-13 [Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)] – 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

I have been in soulful prayer of moral conscience as to what is right and what is wrong with respect to the question of the use of the surname agnomen, fictio, arma, after-acquired property, SMITH, placed over my graced, true, original, God-given unalienable Christian real birth name, John. I give you good faith notice that as a set-apart Christian believer, bestowed the nativity God-given unalienable Christian name, John, known by my heavenly Father before the foundation of the world, or any secular foundation identity document, instrument of man’s factitious world, I cannot be involved in an implied dual allegiance to serve two masters. The Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible admonishes me at Matthew 6:24 and states:

Matthew 6:24 [Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)] – No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Therefore, as an Act of God, bestowed the God-given unalienable Christian name John, being no part of the secular world of man or governments, I must stay within the protective realm of my Master, Lord, Saviour, Sovereign, advocate and surety, Jesus Christ’s Kingdom, in absolute loyalty, being neutral to the affairs of man’s constituted governments.

Under the definition of “Christian” the compact edition of the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Volume 2, states:

“6. Christian name. … When a man is made a spiritual peer he loses his sir-name; when a temporal, his christian-name.”

When a man accepts Christ as his Lord, Master and Saviour, he sheds the surname (sir-name), which is the “Antonomasia” [see definitions below], otherwise, to claim right to the surname would be a conflict of loyalties (allegiance), and it would place my Christian name, John, in future spiritual jeopardy with Almighty God (YHWH) and Jesus Christ, my Saviour, Master, Lord, advocate and surety.

I only desire conditions of peace with my fellow man and relinquish any thing in question that would express or imply that I, Christian name John, lay claim to war in any form whatsoever.

(Page 2 of 5)

ANTONOMASIA. Definition from the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY Latin, a. Greek … to name instead. The substitution of an epithet or appellative or the name of an office or dignity, for a person’s proper name, as the Iron Duke for Wellington, his grace for an archbishop. Also, conversely, the use of a proper name to express a general idea, as in calling an orator a Cicero, a wise judge, a Daniel. … a 1638 mede Wks. II. 332 That Capitolium by antonomasia is put for a Gentile Temple in general. … 1759 Adam Smith Mor. Sent. (1797) II. Any This way of speaking, which the grammarians call an antonomasia.

I, Christian name, John, having accepted my Lord, Master and surety, Christ Jesus, as my redeemer for I am called in the Lord and am a slave of the Lord, Christ Jesus, my Master. Therefore, I am the purchased property of the Lord Christ Jesus, King of kings and Lord of lords, a freeman called in the Lord Christ Jesus, and not the debtor property or servant of a gentile, pagan, unbeliever feudal lord or war-like insurgent secular freeman on the land who deceives himself by believing and acting as some factitious “thing” (surname) when he is no “thing” (see Galatians 6:3 AKJV).

1 Corinthians 7:21-23 [Authorized 1611 King James Version(AKJV)] – 21 Art thou called being a servant? are not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Although my earthly parents were ignorant of the fact of the requirement of the true supreme spiritual duty to only serve Almighty God (YHWH), and remain under the absolute true supreme spiritual duty to serve the anointed of God (YHWH), Christ Jesus, the Lord of lords, King of kings, Prince of Peace, my Sovereign Master, I, bestowed the God-given unalienable Christian name John, must and do hereby forever quit claim, relinquish, yield up, forsake, disclaim, renounce, render and resign as surety (guarantor) for the after-acquired, secular, gentile, public interest thing, man’s person title, agnomen, debtor surname, SMITH, the property belonging to a secular master contrary to God (YHWH) and the anointed of God (YHWH), Christ Jesus, the Lord of lords, King of kings, Prince of Peace, my Sovereign Master, of whom I serve exclusively. It would be wrong and against my good moral conscience to commit spiritual suicide by being unequally yoked or joined in name to unbelievers by wearing a factitious badge of fraud, blasphemous, gentile, pagan, unbeliever, war title surname SMITH, although for unbelievers it may be customary to do so.

STRONG’S CONCORDANCE defines the Hebrew word “title” (H3655) as “surname” and Job 32:21-22 [AKJV] admonishes me that I must not accept the factitious badge of fraud, blasphemous, gentile, pagan, unbeliever, debtor, war title surname SMITH:

Job 32:21-22 [Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)] – 21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. 22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

To innocence and life revealed, to death denied, to the triumph of the truth of the graced God-given unalienable Christian name, John (seed of the woman), overcoming the appearance of guilt of the condemned fictional, lie, accused, debtor, alienable surname (seed of the serpent), SMITH.

I am a Christian conscientious objector which is one who by reason of religious training or belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form and neutral to the affairs and titles of man’s secular world and constituted secular governments. As a true Christian I am conscientiously opposed on religious grounds to participation in war and need not be a member of a religious sect whose creed forbids participation in war to be entitled to classification as a conscientious objector. It is sufficient that I have a conscientious scruple against war in any form.

The surname is a form of war, which I refuse to claim and which I also do not consent to bear or take benefit from in any way whatsoever. I remove my consent and direct you to remove my God-given unalienable Christian name, John, photograph (image) and signature from any secular government documents expressing or implying my consent, to use the surname, SMITH, or to act as surety for it. It is treason against God (YHWH) and non-subjection to the higher powers of man’s government ordained (authorized) by God (YHWH) to claim right to and impersonate some “Thing” that does not belong to me as I am an Act of God, bestowed the God-given unalienable Christian real name John, not entitled to a secular surname.

(Page 3 of 5)

Therefore, I render and relinquish back the surname (title / property), SMITH, which does not belong to me, back to its true registered owner so that I am free of charge.

To be absolutely clear, I bestowed the private, peaceful, spiritual, graced, God-given unalienable Christian real name, John, Tribe of Judah (favour, praise), fellow citizen with the saints of Heavenly New Jerusalem, God’s (YHWH) Kingdom, no part of the secular world of gentile nations, hereby forever quit claim, relinquish, yield up, forsake, disclaim, renounce, render and resign as surety for the after-acquired, blasphemous, secular, gentile, public interest thing, man’s person title, agnomen, debtor surname, SMITH, the property belonging to a secular master contrary to God (YHWH) and the anointed of God (YHWH), Christ Jesus, the Lord of lords, King of kings, Prince of Peace, my Sovereign Master, of whom I serve exclusively.

I further renounce all common civil rights, which includes the right to money, gain, profit and claim to the title, agnomen, factitious surname SMITH, the public interest property of Her Majesty, that I was never entitled to claim right to as a son of the true God (YHWH) and slave of my Lord, King, Sovereign, surety and Master, Christ Jesus, the name above every name named.

In the event that your secular government of the Province of Ontario refuses to remove the blasphemy of the surname, SMITH, off the original STATEMENT OF BIRTH record, of which I am forbidden by God (YHWH) to use, then I remove my consent and God-given unalienable Christian name, John, off that original STATEMENT OF BIRTH record. A line must be drawn through the surname SMITH as this would be evidence of erasure or cancellation (blotting out).

To be clear, I direct you according to Colossians 2: 12-15 (AKJV) as I believe you to be the higher powers of government ordained by God (YHWH) to blot out, erasure, the blasphemous surname off the STATEMENT OF BIRTH record and provide me a “Certified A true copy” of this record verifying only my God-given unalienable Christian name, John, blotting out (cancelling) the ordinance of the law [i.e. certificate of debt, or BIRTH CERTIFICATE] containing the blasphemous surname, SMITH, written contrary to me as an Act of God (YHWH), unalienable set-apart Christian believer, bestowed the graced name John, a pardoned gift from God (YHWH). As a Christian I must be civilly dead to the constituted world of man.

Colossians 2:13-15 [Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)] – 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

For further clarity, the Gideon’s New Testament wrote Colossians 2:14 as follows:

“having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees written against us…”

To be clear, the “certificate of debt” is the Federal CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATE and the Provincial BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which are Her Majesty’s property.

To be clear, remove my signature, photograph (image) and God-given unalienable Christian name, John from all Federal and Provincial (State) secular records or instruments implying my consent to act as surety for the property of another, that being the surname SMITH, which is foreign and blasphemous to God (YHWH) and me as a Christian believer.

Never communicate to me addressing me with the blasphemous agnomen surname SMITH, an unclean thing, a factitious blasphemous artifice of fraud, since you have been given good faith notice not to do so. I believe the use of the blasphemous surname is forbidden by both God (YHWH) and by your secular government. I do not require a license to be who I really am, that being the God-given unalienable Christian name John. A license is only required to impersonate the thing, person or property belonging to another (i.e. blasphemous, debtor secular surname).

Revelation 18:4 [Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)] – And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

(Page 4 of 5)

The “Her” of Revelation is of the Roman Empire, which lays claim to the Roman civil surname thing, of which I lay no right or claim to in order to remain in peace and subjection to the higher powers of government as an Ambassador and witness for Christ.

It is only honest and logical if one continues to use the thing belonging to another, that being the surname that one would be under duty, debt and obligation to continue returning fees required for its use. If an individual believer in Christ Jesus, such as myself, relinquishes, renounces and gives up forever all claim and right to the surname to whomever is the feudal lord and master of it (i.e. Her Majesty and/or her duly appointed representatives) then one has in good faith returned to their original allegiance to Almighty God (YHWH) the Father and walks under the surety of Christ Jesus, the true Master, Sovereign, Lord of lords and King of Kings and Prince of Peace.

NOAH WEBSTER’S 1828 DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE defines “RENDER” as,

“To yield or give up the command or possession of … to restore.”

Therefore, I hereby fully divorce myself from the gentile, civil, Roman, blasphemous, agnomen, debtor surname, SMITH, property belonging to another, of which is not mine, by fully restoring it to its proper owner, being Her Majesty. This is the final tax return as I am to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, being the surname SMITH, the unnecessary addition of which creates the unequal yoke known as the combined “Legal Name” JOHN SMITH. I relinquish and renunciate all common right to gain or mammon or money in order to serve my true Father, God (YHWH), and his only begotten Son, my Saviour, Sovereign, Master, King of kings, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace, advocate and surety in all matters whatsoever.

I, God given unalienable Christian name, John, must obey my true Father, God (YHWH):

Acts 5:29 [Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)] – Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

I give my Spirit, the God-given unalienable Christian name, John, to God (YHWH); and, I render the dead body corporate surname, SMITH, to Caesar, the thing belonging to Her Majesty, a gentile queen ordained to punish evil and reward good (see Romans 13:1-5 AKJV), who does not represent God’s (YHWH) Kingdom. The patriarchal Kingly Tribe of Judah does not appoint queens and Christ Jesus is the last King of the Tribe of Judah, being no part of the constituted world of man’s secular governments.

I, Christian name John will not bear arms, that being the surname SMITH or any symbol of war in any form for or against Her Majesty as I am a Christian peacemaker under the allegiance of Christ Jesus, my surety, being no part of man’s secular world. In summary, I believe that relinquishing the use of the surname SMITH is the only right honest thing to do to eliminate all confusion and to remain in good moral conscience with both the Supremacy of God (YHWH) and the rule of law.

My Christian Charter and Book of Authorities is the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible, which supports my Christian faith and my God-given unalienable Christian name, John, bestowed upon me as grace and pardon at birth, and I accept Christ Jesus, who acts as surety for me, blotting out all charges, fees and encumbrances (certificate of debt) written against me. God (YHWH) knew me before the foundation of the world. The baptised font Christian name bestowed upon me on the original STATEMENT OF BIRTH document blotted out the surname that was written contrary to me and took it out of the way by the power of Christ Jesus, my surety.

I declared my faith by water baptism on October 12, 2013 A.D. in a tributary of the Humber River in Caledon, Ontario, within PART OF LOT 1, CONCESSION 5, AND PART OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIPS OF ADJALA AND ALBION, TOWNSHIP OF ADJALA, COUNTY OF SIMCOE. I lay down the arma, agnomen surname SMITH, property of Her Majesty, and return to my original allegiance of peace to serve only God (YHWH) and his anointed King, Christ Jesus, my Master, Saviour and surety. May the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. The salutation by the hand of me, seed of Abraham, seed of the woman, Tribe of Judah (favour, praise), Christian name John, witness for Christ.

(Page 5 of 5)

By this good faith notice and as an Act of God (YHWH) I am now and forever free of all public alienable charges by this act of relinquishment of the surname SMITH, the property belonging to Her Majesty, of which I am not entitled to as a Christian disciple serving only my Lord, Master, Sovereign, Saviour and surety, Christ Jesus. I am no longer ignorant of the fact that Christ Jesus is my surety and has bestowed upon me the God-given unalienable nativity Christian name John, and am no longer ignorant of the law that forbids me to claim right to or use the alienable man-made positive law blasphemous war surname of fiction, SMITH, without consenting to accept the penalty for its use, which is treason against God (YHWH), and which I am not entitled to bear as an Ambassador and witness for Christ Jesus, my Sovereign, Master, Saviour, Lord of lords, King of kings and Prince of Peace.

   John  

God-given, real, unalienable Christian name John, Ambassador and witness for Christ Jesus. Dated this fourth day of April in the two thousand and fourteenth Year from the birth of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the King of kings, Sovereign, Master, Lord of lords, and Prince of Peace, my advocate and surety.

NOTE: Attached to this good faith notice I enclose copies of:

(1) Copy of long form (Form 2) STATEMENT OF BIRTH RECORD.- [ NOTE: This instrument cancelled all debt, expressed, implied or written, against my graced God-given unalienable nativity Christian fact, real name, John, the purchased property of Christ Jesus].

(2) Copies of all secular government-issued documents or instruments.

(3) Copy of the heraldry or coat-of-arms for the war surname SMITH

c.c.

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
Governor General of Canada.
Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario.
Registrar General for the Province of Ontario.

b.c.c.

———————————————————————-

–=–

Confused? Think this is religious nonsense? What if the Bible isn’t about religion at all, but is instead a legal guide and remedy to escape from the tyranny of religion and government? What if the very authority of government stems from that very book, and we must therefore acknowledge the Biblical remedy to the Biblical law (testament).

View my exhaustive explanation and compendium of Biblical legal words here: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/cracking-the-legal-code-of-king-james/

And listen to our several interviews explaining the whole hidden meanings disclosed in Daniel’s above letter from The Corporation Nation Radio program here:

February 26th, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/show88_feb26.mp3

March 5th, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/show93_march05.mp3

March 12th, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/show98_march121.mp3

March 19th, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/show103_march19.mp3

March 26th, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/show108_march26.mp3

April 2nd, 2014

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/show112_april02.mp3

April 9th, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/show117_april09.mp3

April 16th, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/show122_april16.mp3

April 18th, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/show124_april18.mp3

April 23rd, 2014:

Download: http://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/show127_april23.mp3

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, April 30th, 2014

It’s Time To Withdraw Your Membership To The United States!


Citizenship SchoolIf you are a member of an organization that begins to do things you don’t like, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support to that organization and cease to be a member.

If your bank misbehaves or charges you ridiculous extra fees just because it can according to your “agreement” with the bank, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support and cease to be a customer.

If your insurance coverage starts to diminish in quality or denies you your due benefits or coverage when you need it, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support to that company and cease to be a member.

If my doctor or hospital began to practice bad medicine and cause more illness than it cured, the rational course of action would be to withdraw financial support to that hospital or doctor and cease to be a customer, and perhaps pursue alternative healing.

In fact, when we consider this repetitive logic, wouldn’t anyone be hard-pressed to think of any thing that might mistreat us as a member or customer that would not warrant the withdraw of financial support and termination of contract or membership?

So why then are people still voluntary members of the United States central government?

Do they enjoy the thought of future bad healthcare – which is really the quite unlawful forced commerce with insurance companies and not actual healthcare? If their membership to a corporation that gives them “benefits” suddenly forces them to accept bad medicine and bad insurance, isn’t the simple solution to end their membership to the main corporation?

Do the people enjoy paying taxes and unjust extortion fees and taxes for non-crimes just so that government can invest that money for itself without offering any benefit back to the people? Would it not be prudent to end that kind of business “relationship” with such a bad business?

Do people really believe that the meager benefit of “old-age insurance” called social security (socialism) is worth the vast amount of legal restrictions and tyrannies set forth upon them through their entire life – even when they could have invested their own money and walked away with double or triple what this administration will ever pay them – should they actually live through Obama-care? Do the people even know that there is no actual trust in their name – just a large investment fund that has been completely tapped for the national debt with no legal requirement to ever pay them anything? Do they know the difference between investing for themselves and their future and contributing (giving away) their hard-earned money to government? Do they realize where their money goes as government invests it into war, Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, and Think tanks?

Is there some misconception that being a “citizen” is somehow patriotic – that withdrawing their citizenship (membership) will make them less “American”?

Really? Because last time I checked, it was called the United States of America, not America of the United States.

Was there created at some point in history the fallacy that America is the central government called the United States – a 10 mile square municipal corporation that is not even one of the actual 50 states in the “union” ? Do the people actually believe that America is the United States?

Perhaps that misconception derives from the misunderstanding of just what citizenship is.

For citizenship is simply a membership, be it voluntary or forced through coercion and martial law, unilaterally agreed to by an individual. It is no different than a gym membership; where you must follow the rules set out in your agreement contract that only you sign. Like the government, the gym does not sign your contract. It is simply an agreement for membership to enjoy some benefits, as well as an agreement for you to follow their rules.

But what happens when the rules change without your consent?

What happens when the benefits diminish?

For instance, each state is a member of the Untied States, forced to hand over their unappropriated lands to the United States and draft new State constitutions after the Civil War under “reconstruction” and after agreeing to the terms of uniform “enabling acts” under duress. In fact, the civil war was nothing but a military takeover by a defunct central government under martial law of the lawfully succeeded sovereign states. They were forced back into contract membership with the new central government, one that was unlawfully created absent of the lawful participation of these states’ lawful congressmen. In their stead, military martial officers of law were forced into congress to replace the lawfully elected congressmen of each state. And under duress and at gunpoint, these states became members of this municipal corporation in Washington D.C, eventually dividing the entire territory of America into counties within states.

COUNTY. A district into which a state is divided.

2. The United States are generally divided into counties; counties are divided into townships or towns…

4. In some states, as Illinois; 1 Breese, R. 115; a county is considered as a corporation, in others it is only a quasi corporation.

5. In the English law this word signifies the same as shire, county being derived from the French and shire from the Saxon. Both these words signify a circuit or portion of the realm, into which the whole land is divided, for the better government thereof, and the more easy administration of justice. There is no part of England that is not within some county, and the shire-reve, (sheriff) originally a yearly officer, was the governor of the county. Four of the counties of England, viz. Lancaster, Chester, Durham and Ely, were called counties Palatine, which were jurisdictions of a peculiar nature, and held by, especial charter from the king. See stat. 27 H. VIII. c.25.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. Certain officers generally entrusted with the superintendence of the collection of the county taxes, and the disbursements made for the county. They are administrative officers, invested by the local laws with various powers.

***All legal definitions taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictioanry, 1856

Counties are nothing but municipal corporations; a network grid of contract issuers and enforcers for the United States government – acting under administrate local law with federal powers. Another word for administrative is contract. And all administrative law is simply the administration of the unilateral contractual relationship with you and government. The county has police officers. The gym has security guards. There is no difference. Police officers are just security guards for the county corporation. They’re authority is presumed, just as your citizenship that might grant them contractual authority over you is presumed.

UNILATERAL CONTRACT, civil law. When the party to whom an engagement is made, makes no express agreement on his part, the contract is called uni-lateral, even in cases where the law attaches certain obligations to his acceptance… A loan of money, and a loan for use, are of this kind.

One does not generally think of government as just another customer-based corporation, but this is exactly what it is. When signing a unilateral agreement (contract), one agrees to follow a certain set of de facto corporate rules and regulations (codes) as set out by government. This is the voluntary state of citizenship – a series of unilateral contractual agreements signed or unsigned (presumption of law) by the people of America.

This circumstance of multiple contractual obligations is often called the STRAWMAN, which is simply the “person” as defined and bound by these contracts. The “person” is artificial, as defined in US Code and the 14th Amendment (see below). The person is a corporate veil of the man, used for the purposes of contracts. And in administrative law, government can only contract with this artificial person. Government cannot regulate man, only the corporate person. Thus, administrative law has nothing to do with and no authority over living man, unless he or she is acting under the commercial activities described within their contractual relationship with government.

A driver’s license, for instance, is a unilateral contractual agreement by one man to follow the State government’s vehicle code, which is administrative law. Driving is administratively speaking a commercial activity. Thus, driving can be regulated by government… but only if the man agrees to become a commercial person while utilizing his automobile. He does this when he unilaterally agrees for no reason at all to agree with government that he is utilizing his car as a commercial “vehicle”, even when dropping the kids off at school. Even if that car is never used for any purpose in commerce pr commercial activities, the government still elicits people to obtain a commercial license to drive.

You see, this is the only way that government can have authority over you. It must trick you into entering into some agreement and contract for which you give your consent to its authority. Without this unilateral agreement, government cannot rule you and regulate every part of your life. It must convince you that the activities you participate in are within its authority as a legal activity before it can tell you they are illegal. And it must lie to you so as to convince you that using your car to travel is illegal unless you have a license to do so. For a license is nothing more than permission from government to do something illegal. In other words, every time you get into your vehicle and drive you are breaking the law by permission.

Though traveling in your personal automobile is not unlawful, driving commercially without a license is illegal – a breach of contract.

Perhaps most ironic about all of this is the simple realization that all of this contractual relationship nonsense is based on one and only one thing – your membership with the United States corporation in Washington D.C. This is the central hub of information. It is where your official artificial person is stored and maintains residence. And states and counties are just subdivisions of that corporation – artificial borders signifying United States jurisdiction, assigned federal locator codes called ZIP codes that are property of the United States. For the U.S. Postal Service is part of the United States corporation in Washington D.C. Your United States mail is not delivered to your home, it is delivered to your commercial address within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

You must never forget that all of your commercial activities are being done inside of the United States jurisdiction – the artificial corporate veil that extends throughout the 50 states and beyond like a spider web, ensnaring the activities people like flies and spinning them into commercial persons.

Imagine in your mind that the entire land of America has a plastic coating over it for which all people walk upon as corporate persons and citizens of the United States, never really comprehending that this clear plastic coating of corporate person-hood separates their natural body from the natural land. The people walk and talk on this corporate veil of clear plastic as if it doesn’t exist and as if they are walking on the actual land – which ironically is a true statement. For corporatism is indeed artificial, just as the artificial person replaces the man in his or her transactions with the corporation government, so to does the United States replace the land of America with its veil of artificial person-hood called statutes and codes.

Yet just on the other side of this artificial construct lies the natural world, natural law, and all of the natural rights that existed before the people contractually agreed to give them up for government granted political rights. For tyranny and oppression is literally the contractual right of citizens of the United States.

For a deeper understanding of what a right actually is (and this reality will certainly surprise you), please take the time to study my expose’ here:

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/tyranny-requires-equality/

Perhaps this love affair with citizenship stems from the fallacious belief that the United States is still the same old sovereign county it was when it was founded, before the civil war tore it apart and the defunct and unlawful United States glued it back together with legal tape and military oppression?

Well, I’ve got some bad news for you folks…

The United States is now a member of the United Nations… and the United States is referred to as a “sovereign state” by that international central government. Just like the states under contractual membership with the United States corporation in Washington D.C. are not referred to as “countries”, the 193 countries of the world under membership of the United Nations corporation are also not called “countries”. And it is not the people or the 50 states that are members of the United Nations, it is just this 10 mile square piece of land called the United States corporation that is a member.

So can a sovereign individual state be a member of such a central government and still be sovereign? And can a sovereign nation then still be sovereign as a member of an international government under international maritime and admiralty (military) law?

The United Nations doctrine for “statehood” rings familiar, sounding very much like the false paradigm of the rules of “statehood” for the 50 states in the United States of America:

The dominant customary international law standard of statehood is the declarative theory of statehood that defines the state as a person of international law if it “possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Debate exists on the degree to which recognition should be included as a criterion of statehood. The declarative theory of statehood, an example of which can be found in the Montevideo Convention, argues that statehood is purely objective and recognition of a state by other states is irrelevant. On the other end of the spectrum, the constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person under international law only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either:

  • (a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory

or

  • (b) are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state

Link–> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

The word-magic here involves the concept that the “state” has “declared independence” and has “control over a permanently populated area”.

This is of course the United States. It, as a central incorporated government, has declared independence that no one dare challenge due to its military might. The once sovereign states now pledged as collateral for this corporation, its debts, and its “good faith and credit” are considered nothing but legal territories of the United States in the legal realm through this contractual and constitutional relationship. The governments of the individual state territories of the United States are still military in nature, each one occupied by the United States’ military and its bases, which under the Libor Code represents military rule.

In other words, the presence of a military base in your State is stated in law to signify military rule under martial law. These bases are not just for your protection, they are for your control. They are the occupying forces of the United States, left over from the same forces that occupied each State during the Civil War. They are the United States corporation’s military – the military of Washington D.C. –  not the American or state militia. They protect the United States from all threats both foreign and domestic, and that includes the people of America and the 50 states. The military ensures the continuity of this 10 mile square municipal corporation and its military rule over the 50 states and other insular possessions. The United States is legally in possession of us!

And each state is governed militarily by a “governor”, whom in Canada is referred to as “Governor General”, and who is the ex officio Commander-in-Chief of the State National Guard of His State unless called in total by the President as (CIC) of the United States. This military position of Governor as commander of a military force is followed by a whole list of military positions…

Lieutenant Governor
Attorney General
Solicitor General
Insurance Commissioner – i.e. military commissions
Superintendents – The commanding officer of the United States Military Academy is its Superintendent.
State Controller
Officers of the court
Police Officers
Employees of Commissions and Authorities

All of these titles represent rule by military force.

OFFICER. He who is lawfully invested with an office.

2. Officers may be classed into, 1. Executive; as the president of the United States of America, the several governors of the different states. Their duties are pointed out in the national constitution, and the constitutions of the several states, but they are required mainly to cause the laws to be executed and obeyed.

3. – 2. The legislative; such as members of congress; and of the several state legislatures. These officers are confined in their duties by the constitution, generally to make laws, though sometimes in cases of impeachment, one of the houses of the legislature exercises judicial functions, somewhat similar to those of a grand jury by presenting to the other articles of impeachment; and the other house acts as a court in trying such impeachments. The legislatures have, besides the power to inquire into the conduct of their members, judge of their elections, and the like.

OFFICE. An office is a right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it

2. Offices may be classed into civil and military.

TAKE. This is a technical expression which signifies to be entitled to; as, a devisee will take under the will. To take also signifies to seize, as to take and carry away…

CIVIL. This word has various significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to barbarous or savage, to indicate a state of society reduced to order and regular government; thus we speak of civil life, civil society, civil government, and civil liberty.

2. It is sometimes used in contradistinction to criminal, to indicate the private rights and remedies of men, as members of the community, in contrast to those which are public and relate to the government; thus we speak of civil process and criminal process, civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction.

3. It is also used in contradistinction to military or ecclesiastical, to natural or foreign; thus we speak of a civil station, as opposed to a military or ecclesiastical station; a civil death as opposed to a natural death; a civil war as opposed to a foreign war.

So what does all this mean?

Consider for a moment just what the term “civil war” actually represents. As with the United States Civil War, we find that it was indeed fought to ensure the forced continuity of the United States government. It was not so much a war as it was an invasion. And it was fought to ensure that the people under martial law went along with that government who did not wish to.

To make the contradistinction between the words military and civil is almost a mute point. For a “civil society” under “civil law” cannot be accomplished without force of a military entity – which is the executive branch of government (now the Department Of Defense – as in defense of the realm).

For instance, the U.S. District Courts operate with no authority to actually enforce their decisions. Thus the power of the courts lie in the connection it has to the Executive Branch of that area. This is the true importance of the County Sheriff, for the Sheriff is the Executive power of all the courts within that county. The Sheriff’s Department man’s these courts (bailiffs, etc.), who operate under his authority. Of course, the Sheriff would have little power without the decisions and warrants issued by the courts. In a lawful society this would be referred to as a check and balance, creating a restraint of unreasonable power or influence by either entity. But when unlawful men occupy these offices as persons of the militarized United States under its authority and jurisdiction, the law becomes lawless and the powers of corruption go unchecked.

In essence, this relationship between the judicial and the executive is symbiotic in nature, where alone each office and officer would have no lawful power. But together they become the law, both written and enforced. The cowardly attorney’s in black robes called judges hide behind their pulpits and gavels while the Sheriff hides behind his badge and gun, while each gives authority to the other. Neither takes responsibility for their own actions, because they have been allowed to operate as artificial persons under limited liability incorporation. And they protect each other from legal action as one derives power unjustly from the other.

If lawful men took over either office, refusing to enforce the power and authority of the other, and taking responsibility for their own actions outside of the color of law, the people would have little to fear from their government. But lawful men such as these generally end up dead or imprisoned by the very entity they represent.

On the national level, the President of the United States acts as the Commander In Chief of his executive army, carrying out the legislative and judicial law presented to it. Congress, like the judicial, has no power to enforce its created statutes and codes (judicial opinions for courts) without the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch. A law or decision without force carries no weight, especially from men with no honor.

In other words, the legal system of the United States is solely based on the force and coercion of the executive government to carry out the political laws created by congress. The local and state governments operate under the authority of the United States, for they are just corporations as extensions of that federal government corporation.

Congress created the court system and the Supreme Court, which derives its authority and jurisdiction from that body politic.This is an important fact because this means that the entire system of corporate administrative courts across the country are statutory in nature – created by congress and not the constitution itself, and operating under the authority and jurisdiction of the United States corporation. To put it simply, this means that the courts are operating under private corporate law without lawful authority. That is, unless you consent to that authority as a private corporate person – a member of the United States corporation. Just like the gym example, this private law only applies to members of the United States.

This creation of the court system was done by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789:

–=–

The Judiciary Act of 1789

September 24, 1789.

1 Stat. 73.

CHAP. XX. – An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages…

Link–> http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm

–=–

The authority and jurisdiction of these statutory courts only applies to citizens (members) of the United States.

Some people also refer to citizens as “employees” of the Untied States, which is not incorrect. Congressmen (representatives and senators) are also “employees” of the United States corporation, but are officially called “Members”. And we can read above that judges and justices are “commissioned” as employees.

All of these men are acting as artificial persons of the United States, for there is no natural law or natural rights under civil and administrative law because only political law exists there – abeyance by force of contract. This is the very definition of military rule. And every time a citizen does not obey the law, the militarized executive branch steps in to force either compliance, incarceration, or death.

Murder is unlawful and illegal, but government gives license to commit this illegal act – a license to kill. It is interesting to note that government only acknowledges the “civil death” of a person, not the bloody and violent taking of the life of a man.

CIVIL DEATH, persons. The change of the state of a person who is declared civilly dead by judgment of a competent tribunal. In such case, the person against whom such sentence is pronounced is considered dead.

It is interesting to note here that just as a living or natural man cannot have a civil death but only a natural one, the word “perish” does not apply to persons, as artificial persons never existed as a living things but only as contractual things in legal code:

TO PERISH. To come to an end; to cease to be; to die.

2. What has never existed cannot be said to have perished

You see, an artificial person (corporation) never actually exists in nature, so it cannot have a natural death.

So it is perhaps the best definition of civil law for me to say that:

Civil law is the state of non-necessity of martial law while under military rule, because the governed are not acting in civil disobedience.

Martial law is the physical manifestation of force and violence via government decree to ensure the continuity of military rule that is visible and obvious (violent) to all people.

And military rule is simply the current state of a system of de facto United States corporate law based on coercion, force, and occasional violence, which is sugar-coated and masked under the appearance of civility and under the guise of “civil law”.

Civil law and military rule, therefore, are all but indistinguishable. They are both systems of law enacted by forced compliance of the Executive Branch of government. In both systems, the laws they tout are ensured by force. And in both instances, a man’s natural rights are struck down in lieu of positive or political rights.

It is ironic and disturbing then to point out the now obvious paradox of a subjected people in an occupied land…

For it would only be through open revolt and total disobedience of the current laws of the United States central government that the above facts could manifest themselves as self evident. This axiom of military rule is invisible to the civil servants and citizens of government, no differently than the subjects of a king might never consider that they are at all times under military rule – the rule by force of a tyrant – no matter how fair or just that king seems to be.

This kingdom called the United States – the District that reigns the lands of America through contractual membership under force of its own law despite being a foreign corporate entity outside of those lands – holds the reigns to millions of soldiers; obedient Americans conscripted by their own enemy through contract as security guards for the United States. And these soldiers, in their belief that they are fighting for America, will no doubt blindly follow this United States corporation into oblivion no differently than did those useful fools that killed father, brother, and child in that great United States Civil War – “The War Of Northern Aggression“.

Perhaps a more fitting title to that Civil War and to all wars proceeding it would read: “The Unending War Of Continued United States Aggression, Both Foreign and Domestic“.

Now you might think that Congress is there to redress grievances of the people to the United States government as representatives thereof. But oh what a tangled web they weave…

Congressmen are “employees” of the United States government, according to TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE.

So this would be like expecting a mid-level management employee of Walmart to change the policies of Walmart’s CEO and board of directors. Employees have no individual say on what happens in the United States corporation. So a single representative is worthless without the agreement of the vast majority of the entire body of representatives.

And of course the people represented in these congressional districts never seem to realize that the business affairs of Congress only happen inside of Washington D.C. – in other words outside of their State. Just as employees of Walmart have no authority outside of the corporate jurisdiction of Walmart, neither do the congressmen and Senators have power in the 50 individual States as republics. They are the Representatives of the Federal Government to the people, not the representatives of the people to the Federal Government. They conduct only Federal business in the jurisdiction of the United States, even while doing so in the States they hold domicile. They are United States Employees, not State Employees. In fact, they have absolutely no power within the State government, except those imposed by force by the Federal Central government as a whole.

So why do the people contractually volunteer to give up their power to a bunch of known-to-be-corrupt representatives as employees of the very entity that enslaves them, instead of leaving this horrific militarized club called the United States by withdrawing legal membership?

Perhaps it is the misconception that our membership (citizenship) is not a choice.

But wait a minute, you say. Isn’t it my “constitutional right” to be a citizen?

That’s an interesting question, actually. In fact, the concept of “citizenship” as it stands today was not part of the original constitution. Citizenship was created after the “country” was placed under military rule (martial law) under the Libor Code and General Orders 100. It was in this reconstruction period after the “Civil War” that was created reconstruction amendment #14.

The 14th Amendment states:

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…”

Whereas before this amendment was ratified by the now unlawful military congress the concept of citizenship was based on the blood of the man in question in a natural sense, the United States now took on a corporate disposition and changed the presumption of citizenship into a legally binding contractual duty; where all people became artificial persons as individual corporate bodies politic within the United States’ web of corporatism.

The most overlooked word in this amendment to the constitution is the word “subject”:

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement. This term is used in the laws of Scotland.

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights.

2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic

NATIONALITY. The state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born.

2. A man retains his nationality of origin during his minority, but, as in the case of his domicil of origin, he may change his nationality upon attaining full age; he cannot, however, renounce his allegiance without permission of the government. See Citizen; Domicile; Expatriation; Naturalization…

NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

2. But every combination of men who govern themselves, independently of all others, will not be considered a nation; a body of pirates, for example, who govern themselves, are not a nation. To constitute a nation another ingredient is required. The body thus formed must respect other nations in general, and each of their members in particular. Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of obligations and rights…

3. It belongs to the government to declare whether they will consider a colony which has thrown off the yoke of the mother country as an independent state; and until the government have decided on the question, courts of justice are bound to consider the ancient state of things as remaining unchanged.

In the Civil War, it would be a foregone conclusion to state that the United States did not accept (as it was lawfully required to do via its own charter) the secession of the confederate states – the yolks that threw themselves from the mother country. Instead, it acted unlawfully by all standards of ethics and natural law – a military conquest being the result – forcing the confederate states to be captured as prisoners of war and to accept the new reorganized United States and its new corporate constitution as their new sovereign tyrant.

COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.

2. Every man’s country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born, though there are some exceptions. See Domicil; Inhabitant. But a man has the natural right to expatriate himself, i. e. to abandon his country, or his right of citizenship acquired by means of naturalization in any country in which he may have taken up his residence. See Allegiance; Citizen; Expatriation…

Remember, the United Nations refers to the United States as a state that is a member of the U.N, just as the United States refers to its own 50 States that are supposedly independent but members of that body.

But more importantly one must understand the distinction made here of being “born in the country of the United States”.

Though a man may be born in the State of Georgia, his residence is created within the jurisdiction of the United States – that incorporated legal boundry that extends across the entirety of the territories called “states” and beyond. In essence, when a man is born in the United States, it is his artificial person that is civilly born, creating a citizen.

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…”

Again, this very important distinction must be made…

Though you physically are born in and reside within a State, the artificial representation of you called a legal “person” and a “citizen” is civilly born in and resides within the jurisdiction of the United States. Registered persons/citizens who vote are actually voting in the artificial representation of Washington D.C. – the jurisdiction that extends from that central district 10 miles square over the entire “country” through contract. Your home is a registered United States home. Your vehicle is a registered United States vehicle. Your children are registered United States persons. And all of these contractual agreements can be utilized to take these things away from citizens. In fact, it is the political and constitutional right of all citizens to have their registered property of the United States taken away from them. Just read the 5th Amendment very carefully… for it tells you clearly that through the United States court system under what it calls “due process”, you life, liberty, and property can be taken from you (see definition of take above).

In this way, it is correct to say that for the most part, the actual individual states are empty – abandoned by all the people who became residents of the United States in Washington D.C. – for the people all reside in the United States, and the States are territories of the United States. The people walk as persons upon the plastic coating of United States jurisdiction, never touching the natural land. Of course the illusion of States rights still exists among the citizens of the United States, who have no idea they are under the military rule of this foreign corporation, and who do not comprehend the true nature of the word person or citizen.

In the United States corporation…

Citizenship is granted, not taken;

Citizenship is legal and political, not lawful and natural;

Citizenship is contractual, not moral;

Citizenship is a voluntary membership, not a mandatory requirement.

Citizenship is artificial and un-American!!!

Perhaps the natural born citizens of the United States should be asking themselves why this so-called privilege and natural right of citizenship is being tossed to the wind and bestowed to those who did not naturally and traditionally gain it? The fact that citizenship can be contractually bestowed upon anyone who is contractually willing to receive or pay for all of the benefits and tyranny that accompanies such a legal status should be enough for anyone to realize that its conveyance has nothing to do with anything but a contractual tie to the military rule of government. This once honorable title of men is now just a corporate slogan to sell monopolized, for-profit government products and services to ignorant persons at non-competative prices.

Take the influx of what we call “illegal immigrants” as a clue as to how America became a militarized corporate slave machine:

The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of unauthorized immigrants. In total, about four million American-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, along with about 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents. The Center for Immigration Studies – a think tank which favors stricter controls on immigration—claims that between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born each year to illegal immigrants in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

These are “natural born” children (citizens) just like you according to your representatives in government, for citizens are no longer required to have honor to join the “country”. And soon over 11 million non-natural born invading immigrants will join the party when the United States says it’s just alright.

Citizenship means nothing to an honorable man. It is just a ticket to ride on the slave-ship. It is the act of selling ones soul to acquire artificial things. And it has become a pour substitute for a once-cherished thing. Most importantly, it does not make you an American, just a useful pawn in a collective extortion racket designed to create corporate authority by making all the people into one collective tool to extract their individual power and intent as one lone consenting voice for the actions of an unlawful corporation. And every unlawful action by government is based on the informed consent it presumes from its members.

Isn’t it time to rebut that presumption of consent and take back our individual voices and power as individual men?

So let’s say that you are a member of an exclusive golf club that only allows people just like you to enter. You retain a membership to this club because you wish to be a part of something special and be around like-minded individuals who contribute and benefit from this club and its rules and regulations, as well as its exclusivity and respect. And you stay a member because this club operates legitimately and lawfully with full respect to nature and to all involved.

But then let’s say that your club is taken over and its rules for membership changed.

Suddenly, this club is full of men, women and children (persons) who are not like-minded in any way and who do not respect in any way your methods, opinions, lifestyle, morals, ethics, values, and so on. And then the club management passes rules and regulations that require you to integrate, hire as employees, and tolerate all of these new members – lest you be fined and imprisoned for discrimination and your corporation terminated and its assets seized by government. (Note: This is what E-Verify does.)

Would not the proper response be to immediately end your membership with that club and either find a more lawful club or start your own exclusive one?

The club only seeks to collect more and more revenue and fees from these new members, in order to both generate more revenue and to control more and more of the population by forcing its registration of all things and children. So why would anyone stay as a member of that club only to be forced to tolerate a cultural invasion and complete change in the standards of that club? Why would you continue to financially support that club’s central governing body when everything it does goes against your ideals and values?

So why do you continue to stay a member of the United States club?

It’s not a requirement! It’s not necessary for you to work and live in America and in a State. This beast’s Social Security number is not needed for anything at all. And it certainly isn’t helping you to stay a member, unless you consider tyranny, unjust taxation without representation, pain, punishment, and extortion your political right like government does.

We complain, we scream, we weep, and we suffer. And all because we believe that we must stay members of this corporation that continuously harms us. We accept the mark and the number of this beast because we believe it is for the greater good. We support its illegal wars and pay for them with our voluntary taxes. It doesn’t listen or care about us as anything but commodities, because a corporation only cares about growth (expansion) and profits. It sells our labor and bonds our incarceration. It takes all and gives nothing.

So why are you still a citizen of this 10 mile square corporation that seeks to control every aspect of your life through your voluntary contractual obligation? Isn’t it time to pull the plug and stop financially supporting its exaction tactics to extort your money and estate?

Isn’t it time to take back your registered United States property and place it back into your personal possession, including your children?

Or are a few non-guaranteed benefits at the expense of future generations (your children and theirs) more important than being free?

Do you really think it would be un-American to withdraw your membership to this corporation that isn’t even part of America?

Since the concept of being an American seems to have been blurred between the natural and the contractual, perhaps we should end here with a quote from the most American thing I can think of…

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…”

–Declaration of Independence

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, May 18th, 2013

 

All legal definitions taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictioanry, 1856:

The President Does It Again…


I’d just like to remind the good people of America that there is only one man that the people voted in as president of the United States – well, technically he is elected by the electoral college and not the people, but who’s really paying attention to politics anyhow?

And again I’d like to remind the people that this one “elected” man in the presidency then appoints all other officers and cabinet members of the Federal Government. He is the Chief Executive Officer – the boss. All other officers are underlings operating solely on the authority of the President conveyed to them… millions and millions of unelected men and women controlling every aspect of our lives.

Do you get it?

These officers are not just the appointed goons of this “elected” man named Obama – they are Obama. Everything they do is in his name and under his authority. They are not voted in or elected to their positions. They are appointed by Obama to do his job. Thus, they are Obama.

When the ATF got caught in gun smuggling operations, the ATF was Obama.

When the military unlawfully attacks and occupies foreign countries and rebuilds nations, the military is Obama – acting under Obama’s “Emergency War Powers” and his declared “National Emergency” to bypass Congress, waging unlawful war while officially calling it a “mission of peace”.

And yes, when the IRS commits fraud, purposeful malfeasance, and discrimination while targeting certain political groups in illegal tax audits from its corporate headquarters in Guam, it is the “elected” President of the United States who appoints the Commissioner of that corporation, who in turn appoints managers, Chief Financial Officers, and all other unlawful employees that come after you in the middle of the night.

Of course, the game show of government is playing out as it always does, as the Obama appointed Attorney General (head of the Executive Branch legal team) will be investigating the case of the IRS (part of the Executive branch) through the court system (part of the Department of Justice – which is part of the Executive Branch). What does this mean? It means that the President is investigating himself and his appointed Executive Offices with his own Executive powers!!!

It was not the “Commissioner” who perpetrated the attack on the enemies of Obama; it was Obama – for the Commissioner was acting under the authority of only one man – the “elected” office of president; the Executive.

But it is always the patsy that must resign his appointed office, as we see again with the appointed Commissioner Steven Miller.

But I demand that Obama himself resign, for he is the only man with any power granted by the people (well, ah… sort of – whatever!), which makes the president fully responsible for any action taken by the Executive Branch. Everyone else is appointed by him or by someone else that he appointed!!!

Now imagine, folks, if you actually had a man as your president who was actually responsible for his own actions…

What a different world it would be.

But you didn’t vote for me to be president… not that the electoral college would have accepted the public vote as anything but what it actually is – entertainment.

This is America…?

It’s time to wake up from this dream, isn’t it?

.

For more delicious irony to pull that wool out of your eyes, please check out my research here:

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/why-the-supreme-court-claims-obamacare-is-constitutional/

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/understanding-the-2012-electoral-college/

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, May 15th, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

Tyranny Requires Equality


Question: What is required for a set of uniform codes and regulations to apply to all the persons of the United States?

Answer: Uniformity of legal equality under the law. In other words, equal rights.

It is an ultra-common misconception amongst the subjected people of the United States in their thought that “rights” are always a good thing, and that “rights” are always somehow a protection against the erosion and encroachment of government and corporations (persons) into the people’s personal liberties. To be even more clear, the general thought is that rights are always in place to prevent things like crime, extortion, tyranny, foreclosure, unlawful searches and seizures, incarceration, and so on from happening to the people.

For instance, one might arrogantly say that they have the right to a “fair trial”. And yet not once does the consideration dawn upon men of good conscious that the trial itself is literally forced upon them by government. Thus, the “right” to a “fair” or “speedy” trial is in actuality a direct consequence of an oppressive government in the first place. In other words, the fact that the trial is forced upon a person is the actual “right”, and the ability to receive the qualities of “fair” and “speedy” in that trial are not the root of that right. In this way, we begin to understand that rights are not voluntary at all, and these governmental rights are indeed forced upon the people. The government sells this tyranny to the people by baiting us like snake oil salesman with positive sounding diatribe such as fair and speedy. This is like me offering you (forcing upon you) my services to get hit with a hammer upon your head, but the impact will be “quick” and “painless”. Your right, you see, is to get hit upon the head with a hammer, with the beneficial service of the impact of that hammer being quick and painless.

Or you might believe in the “right” to free speech and the ability to freely assemble. Yet hate speech laws proclaim your speech must be nice and politically correct. Some cities require you to get a permit for free speech and to protest or assemble peacefully – but only in small, roped off , designated areas. The police even tell you that “anything you say may be used against you” when they read you your “rights”. But how can this be your right? If you don’t have a choice about these rights, are they really rights?

The real question you must ask is: Can a right be violently forced upon you?

Today we are going to be talking about a concept that is very difficult to understand. In legal code, we find what is called positive law. But we often forget that where there is a positive there is usually also a negative – an opposite and equal reaction, if you will. Positive law and “positive rights” are put into place in purposeful and direct violation or opposition to natural law and “negative rights”. A right is either positive or negative, and never-ever in between. Positive laws are laws assigning temporary and are revokable governmental rights placed upon legal persons, which usually create a direct violation of a man’s natural rights under God – the natural laws outside of governmental code.

The difference between these two types of law or “rights” is paramount to understand.

The problem is that all legal codes are positive, including the very misunderstood U.S. constitution itself.

Let’s use as an example the constitutional (positive) right known as the “freedom of religion”. This is one of the most deceptive phrases in legal code (positive law) that I can imagine. For in order to comprehend what it is to have the “freedom of religion,” we must first have a legal definition of these two legal words. All terms and phrases in the legal language have very specific meanings, and are often quite opposite to what we generally think of as conversational words – the words generally defined in an English general language dictionary. The word “freedom” is perhaps the best example of a legal word used to fool the unwitting public. We must realize that there is a very good reason why the legal dictionary is completely separate from the regular English dictionary, and why general dictionary definitions specifically tell you when referring to the same legal definitions within. English and Legal are two completely different languages, no different than English and Chinese. And every word in government must be a legal one, for government only deals in the legal construct, in the legal language.

Would it surprise you to learn that government is acting constitutionally when it requires you to get a permit for exercising “free speech”? To understand why this is so, we must define the legal terms involved, and you must stop thinking of the constitution as anything other than a legal language document.

So what is “freedom”, and what is “speech”?

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First, let’s get it into our heads what the word “freedom” means as used in this legal constitution.

While the natural or negative right to free participation in any religion is unalienable, the governmental or positive constitutional right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech is most certainly alienable. To understand this, we must understand the legal meaning of this legal term called freedom. In the Merriam Webster or any other normal English dictionary, you will see that the word freedom is defined in two distinctly different ways. Let’s take a look…

FREEDOM:

(1) The quality or state of being free: as

(a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

(b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: independence

(c) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>

(h) unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

FREEDOM:

(2)   (a) A political right

(b) franchise, privilege

(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom)

And so we can see here that there are without a doubt two distinctly different definitions of the word freedom, and that the legal definition is indeed a political or “positive” right.

The truth about freedom is this…

There is but one freedom under government rule enjoyed by citizens (subjects): freedom is the revokable political positive right (privilege) to be free to act as you will as long as you obey the laws of government. This is not the state of actually being free in an unrestricted way to do what you please while being responsible for your actions, but rather a literal legal enslavement to government law to act under government rule. It is a truism to state that free men must have responsibility for their own actions, lest government become the master and punisher of those who are its servants (subjects). United States citizens are not free men, but instead they live within invisible legal chains called “freedom”.

The right to bear arms as a natural/negative right must go unchallenged by government by its very nature of being a negative right – the natural right of non-interference. But the positive governmental rights which are assigned to citizens to carry legalfire-arms” is certainly being challenged in government right now – as we speak. The trick with government you see, in order for its tyranny to prevail, is to make all its equal people as citizens accept positive rights by government so that the people turn their backs on their natural, God-given, negative, unalienable rights the rights of men against government intrusion into those rights. Indeed, government actually requires a lien on all people’s natural/negative rights for them to enjoy citizenship within the United States under government’s strictly positive law, for we must remember that negative rights cancel out positive rights. So government must find legal ways to circumvent the peoples liberties (negative rights) and assign restrict-able political (positive) rights. Government does this via the contractual relationship offered to the people called “citizenship”, which carries with it the contractual benefit of positive rights, often called “civil rights” and/or “constitutional rights”. While it calls these liberties, they are far from it…

–=–

The Laws Of Attraction

–=–

So that we do not get confused here, let’s see just how one form of “right” is cancelled out by the other form. The job of an attorney as an “officer of the court” is to keep you within the legal language, so that the court never has to talk in plain English. The legal language of the law society within government is meant to keep you always in the artificial person-hood of your citizenship – never speaking the language of mankind. The following list shows the difference between the laws of man (natural) and the laws of government (legal):

Negative ……………………………………………………… Positive

Man …………………………………………………………….. Person

Free …………………………………………………………. Freedom

Free Man ………………………………………………………. Citizen

Natural ………………………………………………………. Political

Liberty ………………………………………………….. Entitlement

God-given ………………… Man-made (government granted)

Right (natural) …………………………… Privilege (revokable)

Right (natural) ……………………….. Duty (moral obligation)

Duty (responsibility, trust)…………. Contractual obligation

Responsibility ……………… Limited liability (incorporated)

Unalienable (inherent) ………… Alienable (not permanent)

De Jure ……………………………………………………… De Facto

Lawful …………………………………………………… Color of law

The words unalienable and inherent can be defined as essential and intrinsic . These words apply to ideals rather than to actual living beings. While life itself is not unalienable in any way (as is apparent throughout all of nature and its food-chain) the idea that life is an unalienable right is a negative concept in that it refers to the negative right of men to not be subject to the will of other men. This is the moral obligation of honor and duty that men should not kill other men… or as it is more commonly known: “Thou Shall Not Kill”.

On the contrary, cows, pigs, and chickens live under the positive rights granted by ranchers and farmers, in that they are subjects of that farm and its positive laws. These animal’s natural rights are only valid in as much as the farmer or rancher grants the same positive right to mirror their natural/negative rights. But when slaughter-season comes around and the market-price for bacon goes up, the cows, pigs, and chickens learn real quick that any rights they may perceive as livestock (citizens) of that farm are certainly alienable and in no way inherent or permanent. The cows only eat because the government (farmer) feeds them hey – thus the cows believe it is their natural right to have food brought to them every day by the farmer. But the farmer is only acting under his own positive law, and in reality the cows have no natural rights. But they still believe… The chickens may only have children (chicks) if the government (farmer) allows the hens to keep their eggs and hatch them. Parenthood is a legal term under contract with the state (farm). But the farmer, under the positive law of his farm (his rules), overpowers the natural rights of the chickens and allows those unborn children of the chickens to be collected for sale to others.

The only difference between the cows, pigs, and chickens and that of the humans within the United States farm is that the humans contractually volunteer and agree to be livestock under positive rights and laws, whereas these animals never had a choice.

And people think animals are dumb?

The difficult aspect here is to make people understand that as citizens they are not free, but are also livestock under the United States farm which grants the alienable privilege of “freedom”. Breaking through the “it’s a free country” paradox and fallacy of the American people seems to be the biggest challenge of our modern life and times.

Perhaps the most difficult of these opposite terms is the way in which a right creates an opposite duty. The individual natural right of “liberty” creates an opposite natural duty for all other individuals to respect the right of each others’ individual liberties. It would be the duty, for instance, for the people to use arms against government for violating their natural negative rights, no differently than if it was just a neighbor. For a natural right is something to be cherished and protected to the death. And it is a man’s duty to protect his own rights and that of others. It is a man’s duty to not interfere or trespass upon others rights – the duty to protect each others’ negative rights.

But when government offers political rights to citizens (artificial persons), the moral duty changes into a contractual obligation under legal law. The obligation of legal duty is no longer a choice, but rather a forced positive right – a right that forces you to conduct yourself in an activity that may be against your own interests or those of other individuals’ interests. The negative right requires only the opposite negative duty – a moral obligation to do no harm to others or yourself and to defend your negative rights with your life if necessary. But the contractual relationship of citizenship stifles negative rights (the right to not have your own rights trampled) so that positive rights are agreed to by the persons under contract. In other words, citizens agree to abandon their natural (negative) rights and accept under contract with government or corporations a replacement to their natural rights with the political (positive) rights offered by government, and accepted through contract by citizens. Thus, while in the natural realm government has no power over a man. But in the political realm government has total control over the person/citizen. For a positive law to be acceptable to natural men, that positive law must not be in violation of any negative right.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines a the word Duty:

DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them. 2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them. 3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind… 4. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites. 5. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.

To live under natural law is to follow the laws of non-interference, responsibility of ones own actions, and honor to fulfill one’s moral obligations under promise and private contract.

On the contrary, the magnetic opposite of this natural law called duty is offered by government through contract, as a political or positive right:

DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things; in its more restrained sense, it is often used as equivalent to customs, (q. v.) or imposts. (q. v.) Vide, for the rate of duties payable on goods and merchandise…

When the services of government are forced upon the people, the people must pay duties (taxes) on those services whether they enjoy or require those services or not. The right to pay taxes is a positive right, and the right to be punished for not paying those taxes is also a positive right. Punishment is an artificial duty created upon the positive right to be taxed – extortion being the right granted by government to persons. You, as a citizen/person, have the positive right to be taxed without the negative right to say no. The imprisonment you may enjoy as punishment for not paying mandatory taxes is also your positive right and duty. And most importantly, the right to pay more and more taxes on more and more things and accept more and more government services with more and more duties, as well as the right to allow government to raise those taxes at its own whim, is also your positive right.

Again, a right is not voluntary in the positive legal realm. So unfortunately, tyranny through extortion is certainly your right if government says it is so, and creates the positive law declaring it as such.

Positive law is involuntary service at the barrel of a gun…

It is perhaps easiest to comprehend these two completely opposite kinds of “rights” by using an analogy of magnets. Most people have played with magnets in their lifetime, attempting to push together two equal magnets that are opposed to each other in their polarities. A positive and a negative are diametrically opposed to each other. The harder we push those magnets together, the harder it becomes to push them, until the negative magnet throws off the positive magnet with a protective shield. And so the only way to make those magnets stick to each other is to turn one magnet around so that the polarities are equal, allowing them to join together. When speaking of God’s law and natural rights (negative rights), our opposing magnet in this case is government code and legality (positive rights). In essence, we must turn our back on law and our natural rights in order to function within government and its legal law and codes. The natural law is magnetically opposed to the positive (legal) law, just as negative rights are magnetically opposed to positive rights.

The first thing to consider whenever attempting to discern the legal language is to remember that emotion must be left out of the equation; that morals and ethics happen in men, not in legal codes. The legal language is just words, with a specific meaning, and with no humanity or consideration of morals or ethics. A contract, for instance, is just an agreement as written in this legal language. It has no moral obligations in an of itself to do anything, but instead establishes the specific positive rights and counterpart duties that will be followed. The moral and ethical parts of the fulfillment of that contract happen outside of the contract, in the hearts, minds, and actions of the men who signed that contract. The contract itself is a bridge between the moral realm and the legal realm, allowing what would otherwise be a natural duty to become an enforceable positive right. For instance, the right to be paid in exchange for an already delivered service or thing as agreed to within a private contract is a positive right, enforceable by law if one party to that contract doesn’t fulfill. Multiply this by 1 million and you have a government contract with men to be citizens, and in exchange the men as citizens must accept the services of government’s legal codes as a forced legal duty to accept. This is also positive law, the difference being that the former contract between men is done in good faith, where no legal recourse is needed, while the contract of citizenship is done without understanding, intention, comprehension, or good faith. A contract steeped in fraud is not enforceable by law, unless the law has been replaced by the positive laws created by government that allow that fraud to be law. This is government.

Just remember that rights are a double-edged sword, which can be positive or negative. In defining what this means, the term positive should not be misconstrued to mean good, no more than the word negative should be misunderstood as a bad thing. They are legal terms, and so attaching an emotional meaning to these words will only lead to confusion.

–=–

Equality – Ladies Acting As Men

–=–

A woman reading this may have an emotional response and espouse that women may sign contracts too, so why only mention “men” here? The confusing answer to this question is that in law, women are men. This is not my opinion, it is just legal law. All people are part of mankind, regardless of sex.  The legal language sees no sex and feels no emotion or obligation to appease the feminist or male perspective, unless specifically written into that code as an artificial construct. The word “men” simply refers to the species man, regardless of color, race, creed, or sex. In this way, the basic legal language itself is a higher language, not weighted down with petty intricacies and debates about whether women and men are equal, or whether all men are created equal. In actuality, the legal language has no ability in and of itself to make such a discernment, and is only concerned with defining the artificiality of mankind as “persons”. It is just a tool. Thus it does not recognize sex unless it is specifically told to, and then does so only in terms of a legal “status”. Legal code cannot be prejudiced, for it has no emotion or predisposition. A natural (real female) woman has equal rights with a natural man only if that natural woman has the legal status assigned to her as a legal fictional man called a legal “woman”. The legal term “Woman” is a status, not a natural state of a living being – not a living man (mankind). For legal does not recognize a natural living man or woman, only the artificial persons of these living people – which have no sex unless specifically defined that way in the code for legal separation purposes (rape, etc.). But this is no different legally than separating different species of ants for research and classification. There is no realization of feminism or masculinity in legal code, because a piece of paper has not the ability to make such distinctions or realizations. Paper has no emotions, any more than the legal words written on that paper. And so any sexual or other emotional or physical distinction between these two artificial persons is solely a construct of science and legal status, no different than distinguishing between garbage and recyclables. To the legal language, garbage and recyclables are the same thing – trash. Only when the legal codes are changed to recognize a certain type of trash as recyclable will a legal status be created allowing certain rights, restrictions, and benefits to be placed upon certain trash legally defined as “recyclables”. Though all garbage is created equal, certain garbage has a status. But that status can only be granted if all trash is first made equal under the legal law. Similarly, women have equal rights with men in law only because they take upon themselves the artificial person-hood status called “woman”, creating this status in positive law which states that persons shall be equally protected and punished under the law and shall have equal rights under the legal law known as “positive rights” but called “Equal Protection Under The Law”.

The reality for women is that their legal status is detrimental to their natural rights as men (mankind), and they become whatever the legal codes say they are as artificial constructs. Equal rights for “women” in law makes them no better or no worse than men, but instead makes them “equal” – removing any sexual differences unless specifically enumerated within that code and how it applies to that particular status of “woman” in opposite to men. Once this equality is established, then special positive rights can be assigned to the legal status of “women”. Thus, a “woman” can have unequal rights giving them special privileges over their supposed equal citizens of the male persuasion. The same goes for “African American” or other ethnicity’s – who are given a special status of “minority”, which then allows them to claim certain positive rights which trample all other citizen’s natural rights or lesser positive rights. In this way, it is the lesser status citizens who have inequality forced upon them, of which it is their contractual duty to accept that positive right and give up their right to sue for what would otherwise be blatant discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is an example of this. Protected rights of a certain status of citizens requires unfair and unequal treatment of all other citizens. Equality steals away the individualism of a human (regardless of sex, color, race, etc.) and makes everyone not special in any way. It peals away the sex, the color, the race, the religion, and the humanity of each individual living man and woman and places them all in one giant legal blender – a melting pot of unwarranted equality. The end result of this multicultural duel-sexed cornucopia of persons is called legal “U.S. citizens”, whom in the end are in no way equal under law due to the assigned legal status’ called entitlements. If one person is entitled to a positive right that other persons are not entitled to, then the negative right of liberty does not exist in that legal system.

This is not to say that the legal language doesn’t neutrally define these unique traits of mankind in a scientific and unemotional way, it is just to say that it treats them no different than any other legal concept (like the trash example), and its basis is not founded on anything but simply defining these terms without the hindrance of human emotional traits. In short, the legal language only deals with artificiality in the form of corporations, contracts, and persons (i.e. citizens). These citizens are artificial things, not living people. Thus, when defining legality, emotion and humanity really has no place, race becomes a legal weapon, and equality exists only when considering positive rights and punishment for not obeying the forced contractual obligation of legal codes.

Back in 1856, this was the definition of “Sex” in Bouvier’s and other dictionaries, which shows that “women” is a status:

SEX. The physical difference between male and female in animals. 2. In the human species (of animals) the male is called man, (q. v.) and the female, woman. (q. v.) Some human beings whose sexual organs are somewhat imperfect, have acquired the name of hermaphrodite. (q. v.) 3. In the civil state the sex creates a difference among individuals. Women cannot generally be elected or appointed to offices or service in public capa-cities. In this our law agrees with that of other nations. The civil law excluded women from all offices civil or public: Faemintae ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt. Dig. 50, 17, 2. The principal reason of this exclusion is to encourage that modesty which is natural to the female sex, and which renders them unqualified to mix and contend with men; the pretended weakness of the sex is not probably the true reason. Poth. Des Personnes, tit. Vide Gender; Male; Man; Women; Worthiest of blood.

A mature and thinking natural female human should be able to see that though this legal definition has changed over the years, the status is still the same. Legal persons called “women” have now been made to have equal status with legal persons called “men”. This is to say that the equality established in the legal code is completely artificial with respect to the hearts and minds of men. And though this status seems to benefit the female sex of mankind, you as a woman must remember that government defines you first as an “animal” here, and then assigns you a special status of woman-human-animal. So while you may certainly enjoy the positive rights bestowed upon you as “wo-man”, you must accept these positive rights with the knowledge that they create inequality among all natural men. In other words, equality in law is not true natural equality, but is an artificial status granted by a corrupt government that by definition tramples the negative rights of half of the population (male-human-animals). You, as a female of the species human, will only ever know true natural equality when men are not forced by law to treat you as such by positive law. As it is in legal code, men are forced to accept your legal equality, which in the end creates a resentment between sexes in the natural realm. This goes for creed, race, sex, and any other status that is “protected”. And in this way, citizens are forced to accept the most deviant and sinister of persons as equal, even when those persons act completely against the morals and values of others’ negative rights, and even as organizations of these persons legally extort from others. These persons are equal under punishment of legal law. Ironically, the struggle for equal rights for women, slaves, blacks, homosexuals, and other minority groups necessarily requires the unequal state of equality and status for certain individuals, but in no way creates equality among mankind.

If you are emotionally angry right now, then you are speaking a different language than the legal one, and your emotions are getting in the way of understanding your own enslavement.

As a woman, you are a legal fiction.

As a man, you are a beautiful creature of emotion, love, and flesh and blood.

Here is how these legal terms are defined in Bouvier’s Law Dict, 1856:

MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children… 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things.

–=–

MANKIND. Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. See Gender.

–=–

GENDER. That which designates the sexes. 2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the feminine, as, man sometimes includes women. This is the general rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the feminine, the latter is not in general included… 3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the feminine never includes the masculine; that according to this rule if a man were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the legacy; but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be included.

–=–

WOMEN, persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject.

In the modern definition, Webster’s English Dictionary defines the word woman not as a natural being, but as an artificial person. Most people will not realize what is being defined here:

WOMAN-

a : an adult female person
b : a woman (person) belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilwoman>

In the legal language, the term woman is never used in legal code to describe the natural state of a female, but only to issue a legal status.

However, the word female is used:

FEMALE. This term denotes the sex which bears young. 2. It is a general rule, that the young of female animals which belong to us, are ours, nam fetus ventrem sequitur. The rule is, in general, the same with regard to slaves; but when a female slave comes into a free state, even without the consent of her master, and is there delivered of a child, the latter is free.

If right now, while claiming to be a “woman”, you wish to call me sexist, a chauvinist, racist, or other false paradigm, you could be no further from the truth than I can possibly imagine – and you need to reread this section. In fact, I may be one of the few men in existence who actually recognize your natural/negative equality without the threat or need of being punished by the positive legal system if I don’t!!!

For those who can separate the legal and English languages with logic and reason, we can move on…

–=–

Love And Marriage

–=–

Love and hate are not considered in this legal language when speaking of the contract of legal marriage. Marriage is nothing but a contractual state of being between (as persons) the man, the woman, and the State. It is paper with legal words written on it, and signed by all parties involved. It has no emotion, ethics, morals, values, etc.

Children produced by this marriage contract are not treated as living breathing humans, because the legal language does not deal with living breathing humans. Rather, it treats children as artificial things that are State property – things which are disputed due to the avoidance or negation of a contract by the artificial persons contracted in that legal marriage. Children are no less fictitious persons than the persons who birthed them, when considering the legal nature of human animals.

Again, judging or discussing the legal language with emotion is foolish, since it has no emotion when it defines you. It does not understand love any more than that for which it may necessarily define love as a legal concept. Like an android, the legal language may sometimes simulate the emotions of living man, but will never actually feel them. And like an android with its humanoid appearing synthetic skin and outer shell, our own artificial persons may appear to be living men and women; but are in fact made up of nothing but the wires and circuitry of this legal language.

Love and marriage are distinctly different concepts. One is an emotion and one is a legal arrangement through contract. Love is for the most part incredibly outside of our control while marriage is a legal set of rules and regulations defining a state of contract controlled by government. Love is not in any way dependent upon the contract of marriage, nor is love required in a contract of marriage – for the legal language knows not love! But this does not mean that attempts by modern society, religions, and the courts have not presupposed the conjoining of these two concepts. But love is an emotion, and marriage is a thing (a signed paper contract). But most importantly, love is not controllable by law while marriage is.

Therefore love is a negative right whereas marriage is a positive right.

Love has no limits, whereas marriage is nothing but limits.

So now we may begin to personally see and feel the difference between positive and negative rights – like feeling the difference between heat and cold. When it comes to love, it is safe to say that our natural or God-given right is that we should be able to love any man or woman we choose, and that in fact it is not even a controllable choice – as love is an emotional feeling that, as most of us have certainly felt, is way outside of our emotional control. So love is not something that can be controlled by government with regards to law.

But the government deals especially well in the creation and enforcement of contracts. And marriage is nothing but a legal contract, which has nothing to do with love or emotion in the eyes of legal law. Therefore, marriage is indeed something that can be controlled by government with regards to positive law.

This again makes love a negative right and marriage a positive right.

I imagine right about now your emotion has kicked in again and you are feeling something that is causing you to perhaps forget that legality has no hindrance of emotion. This disposition may be getting in the way of your understanding of why or how love can ever be considered a negative thing. And some folks may musingly be thinking the opposite about marriage being a positive thing! But the confusion is only there because you are assigning emotion to the equation of the definitions of a legal construct. You must never do this. And one of the most difficult aspects of truly understanding the law and how it applies to living man is to be able to switch back and forth between the conversational and the legal language. For while we express our emotions through our interjectional conversations among other living humans, we must assume an unemotional state of person-hood when we switch over to the legal language. For the legal language is nothing if not a perversion of the natural state of man. Thus, we must recognize this perversion and imitate it in order to succeed in legal dealings and communications. If I am going to speak to an android, I would not expect that machine to contemplate morals or ethics other than what is written into its software and codes as a simulation. So why should I do anything different when speaking the legal language to an attorney or a judge? To them, you are nothing but an artificial person, and they are speaking the legal language without the limitations of human emotion if indeed they are doing their jobs correctly. They, in their capacities and regulations as officers of the court, are perversions of man that can only act within the scope of their written code and court procedures. They are legal automatons working in a fictional legal world that in my opinion no man should ever lay his natural rights or trust within. Doing so creates a contract of acceptance of the moral perversions of the legal language, the giving up of negative rights for positive ones, and acquiescence to all of the codes that are created and opinion-ed by such legal automatons in government.

And so your confusion about why a negative right is actually a good thing can be compared to traveling to another country and attempting to speak a new language there. In China, a horse may have the same name as a pig does in America. Thus, confusion may stem in conversations with the Chinese people when they call a horse a pig. But after a while, one becomes accustomed to switching back and forth between ones natural or “1st” language and that of the foreign language.

To most people, the legal language is certainly a foreign one. And so for now, simply realize that any confusion that you may be experiencing is just a loss in translation from your normal every-day conversational language to the foreign legal language.

A negative right is very much a good thing. Sometimes negative rights are referred to as “liberties”. Negative rights are also stated to be “unalienable” – which in legal language means that a legal lien cannot be taken out against that negative right. The constitution lays out some of these unalienable rights in a legal context, but is certainly no guarantee of such an unalienable status upon those constitutional (positive) rights. The thought that any legal document can ever guarantee another legal thing or right as unalienable is pure fallacy. For remember, a legal right is a positive right. And a legal positive right can be revoked at any time by its creator. Perhaps this is why God’s law in its permanence over man’s law is so important. We will talk about that in a moment.

Instead, the constitution as a legal document contradicts the very essence of protecting negative or “unalienable” rights as it boldly describes the ways in which such supposedly unalienable rights may indeed have liens put upon them or against them through legal means. And because of this, you will continuously hear me state loudly and fervently that my “rights” are absolutely not derived from the constitution or any other man-made law or legal code.

I have stated many times before that the 5th Amendment of the “BILL OF RIGHTS” in the U.S. constitution is perhaps the worst example of the deceptive nature of the legal language I have ever encountered. Perhaps in understanding what a “liberty” is as a negative (natural) right can help us to understand why the constitution in no way whatsoever gives individuals unalienable (negative) rights.

The 5th Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Geez, the constitution uses longer run-on sentences than I do!

Firstly, this is the right of persons, not men. A fictional person cannot have unalienable rights. A person can only be granted political positive rights.

Secondly, we must know what a “bill” is:

BILL, legislation. An instrument drawn or presented by a member or committee to a legislative body for its approbation and enactment. After it has gone through both houses and received the constitutional sanction of the chief magistrate, where such approbation is requisite, it becomes a law.

This nickname given to the first ten amendments to the constitution is not an official legal term, but instead borrows from the original English term of the “Bill Of Rights”, which was a declaration granted by Royals William and Mary who reigned England. But this was not a declaration of natural rights of the British people, but was instead a declaration of the rights bestowed upon the SUBJECTS of the crown. Again, this can be compared to a farmer declaring positive rights of a bail of hey to be fed to his cows (subjects) twice a day. But with these seemingly wonderful rights also come the duties to submit as subjects to all other rights forced upon the subjects.

And what is the legal definition of “subject”?

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement.

–=–

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. 2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.

–=–

SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others. 2. Subjection is either private or public. By the former is meant the subjection to the authority of private persons; as, of children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and the like. By the latter is understood the subjection to the authority of public persons.

–=–

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children. 2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that ” the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Art. 4, s. 2. 3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white.

Now, you should be wondering how a “right” can ever be “lost”. Of course, only political (positive law) rights can be taken away by government. Natural rights must be voluntarily given up to government.

But you may also be wondering why I am including these antiquated definitions within this essay.

The answer is an important realization about rights in general. For to declare that all men are created equal, and then to claim citizenship only for white persons should be a big clue to you that the legal law sees no equity but that for which is written by the hands of privileged men. And the preponderance by 100’s of millions of U.S. citizens that the constitution ever granted equal rights in natural men is the greatest fallacy of our time. Instead, the constitution literally and clearly states that only certain individuals (persons) are equally privileged and have the right to entitlements as positive rights that trample on the negative rights of all other colored or female persons.

And if you are not a citizen… let’s face it folks, then you are just an animal without government granted privileges and positive rights.

But even more importantly to comprehend here is that just because the constitution and other legislation has been changed over time to reflect “equality” in all persons regardless of sex or color, this if anything proves that nothing in the constitution or civil rights is in anyway an unalienable negative right. In other words, as they were changed in the past, so too can they be changed in the future.

Just ask the Japanese American citizens who were imprisoned during World War II if all citizens are equal regardless of race or color?

Here in this Bill Of Rights we have a listing of 10 positive entitlements that people mistakenly refer to as unalienable negative rights or liberties. But these are not in any way negative rights. They are instead listed here as positive rights that can be aliened upon through what is called “due process of law“.

This is why I call these an “exception clause”… and the constitution and all of legal code is riddled with them.

If your protections from double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and your protections of the rights of life, liberty, and property are indeed absolute and unalienable, then there would be no need to write them down in the first place, let alone place an exception clause within this statement (bill) of rights that allowed “due process of law” to deny you those very rights. In this way, these listed constitutional positive rights are not at all unalienable, and the constitution states clearly the “process” of how a lien can indeed be placed upon these listed positive rights – with due process of law.

Just ask anyone whose had their land stolen by government for “public use” through “eminent domain”; having watched in horror and helplessness as that land was then sold off to private corporate developers for a parking garage, a strip mall, or housing projects. Then ask that person whether they feel that their rights to property and liberty are secure and unalienable?

The 5th Amendment is the entire basis of the positive right of eminent domain claimed by government. In eminent domain cases, the 5th Amendment is noted as being the “takings clause“. This refers to the “exception clause” as noted within the 5th Amendment that property can be “taken” for public use by government with due process of law and “just compensation“. It is a fallacy to mistake the term “due process of law” with the “protection of natural rights”. Law and legal code can only protect legal or positive rights without exception.

If property rights were truly negative in nature for citizens, then government would be forced to respect the nature of that negative right without the ability to apply its right of positive law to nullify that individual persons’ negative right. In other words, the negative or natural right would not be able to be tread upon by a legal concoction of codes and concepts. A positive right by true republican idealism and rules of ethics can never trump a negative right.

In the case of eminent domain, with the backing and righteousness of the constitution itself, the government claims that it is your political “positive” right to literally have your land and home stolen by providing a remedy of what it terms to be “just compensation” for the imposing of that positive right upon you. We know this is a positive right when government won’t take no for an answer…

Imagine if I came up to your front door and handed you a check for $10,000 for the forceful purchase of your home that has a market value of $200,000 – me being just some guy with no government or militarized police force to back me up. Your first inclination would likely be to tell me to go stick my check where the sun don’t shine. But when government comes-a-knocking, our knees quiver and our head spins; for we know not how to tell government to stick its positive law where the sun doth not shineth.

So what’s the difference between when an average every day Joe “offers” you the contract of his version of “just compensation” in exchange for your home and when government makes you the same legal contractual offer?

Ah, this is where positive and negative rights truly come into play…

When the man approaches you to purchase your home, you use your negative right to say no to the contract offered by this individual man. You did not recognize his person, and refused the right of contract – acting in a negative capacity. This means that you have imposed the consequence of your negative right upon the man and expect him to fulfill his natural duty to uphold your right to say no. The abeyance and non-retaliation against your own negative rights by others with similar negative rights is called a “duty”. Thus, when average Joe made the offer for your home at a ridiculously low price, well below the market value of what you might sell that same house to another individual, it was your negative right to deny that offer of contract. It is now the duty of average Joe to respect your negative right to say no by walking away from the offer without force, retaliation, or theft of your property.

Duty has a direct association with negative rights. The consequence of a man declaring his natural, God-given, negative rights means that all other men of good conscious have the duty to respect that negative right. Thus, a negative right creates a duty in others to refrain from taking action against another. So a negative right is best explained as the right to not have “due process of law”, violence, or coercion forced against you. Therefore, a negative right is the right to be left alone. So Joe would respect your negative right to say no to his offer by fulfilling his natural or negative duty to not coerce you to sell your house to him. When this process is complete, the natural or unalienable right has been fully implemented and respected.

Under this system of respect and integrity between men, a lawful society without government can be imagined.  But since we live in and except the artificial world of fictional persons we must understand how this mutually respectful system of trust and integrity-based law has been perverted by government legal codes and its courts – which claim the very power of “due process of law” as listed in the Bill of Rights. In this regard, the constitution is in direct violation of all of man’s natural rights.

Before we can go on, this realization must be acknowledged: that the constitution does not give inalienable rights to individuals. Without this conscious admission, we cannot proceed. And we must fully realize and appreciate that the difference between a negative right and a positive right is that a negative right will never be written down as a legal right. Only a positive right must be written down, for this is the only way that a positive right may be enforced through due process of law to have power over a negative right. A positive right is adjudicated under positive law. And through the perversion of the legal code and its contractual nature, men are tricked into accepting positive rights that are in direct conflict with their natural/negative rights. They voluntarily relinquish the right to utilize negative rights against legal positive rights. Without the contractual nature of legal codes, no positive right of men could ever overshadow a negative right of God. In other words, the duty of men to respect and acknowledge the natural rights of their fellow man would never be excusable under color of law just because that man has a government ID, a police uniform, or a judges robe. The acceptance of a voluntary contractual obligation of positive rights by “citizens” allows other men to act as perverted beasts – artificial persons that trample upon any semblance of another man’s natural/negative right to not to be trampled on in the first place, with the excuse that their duty to respect man’s negative rights do not exist in legal code and are justified through due process of law, which is forcibly served upon that person/citizen for the benefit of the collective “public”. And in doing so, any recompense or remedy for their actions is applied not to the man himself for committing these acts of violence, coercion, and theft (taking) of property against the natural rights of another man, but are instead considered legal actions by an artificial person against another artificial person and its estate. You might say that no man was harmed, but only his dead or artificial person. This is referred to as acting under the “color of law”. Thus, the man doing the taking is not responsible for his own actions – actions taken by an artificial person (an incorporated entity with limited liability) on behalf of the due process of law of government. Positive rights then really equate to moral corruption of the living man in lieu of legal protections granted to the artificial person for which that man carries – the veil of artificial and limited liability corporation status called person-hood. And with this disposition; as in the art and atrocities of war where men kill men while claiming the positive right to do so as their perverted legal “duty” in the following of orders; men avoid their true and natural duties to protect the sanctity, integrity, freedom, and livelihood of the rest of their fellow man by claiming that due process of law allows constitutional and legal authority to do so. And government protects that positive right.

And so we now take for our example the constitutionally proclaimed power by government to at any time, through due process of law  and with just compensation, “take” your property through this process of eminent domain. To do this, the government exercises the true nature of your constitutional “rights” by utilizing the legal system of which government created in the first place. Thus, the taking of your property is justified by these artificial persons in government with the disclaimer that they as men are not responsible for the theft of your property because the due process of law allows such perversion of responsibility to be delegated to an artificial construct within the protection of legal code. Government officers are not men, but instead an incorporated group of persons. They have the positive (government granted and protected) right to ignore their duties to uphold and respect your negative rights because you agreed through contract to consent and be subject to these positive rights granted by government. They claim this positive right for one and only one reason: because you unwittingly told them they could. You gave up your natural rights when you became a citizen, accepting positive rights through contract. And every time that you state a pledge of allegiance to the “flag” of this artificial corporation called the United States (not a pledge to the other people within these united states of America and their natural rights, mind you), and every time you check the box that states you are a “citizen of the United States”, and every time you claim legal constitutional rights instead of negative natural rights, you are literally giving your consent and permission for government to tread on you and your negative rights via contractual obligations and duties to government’s provided positive rights and services.

Understanding and proving to government that you are alive 100% of your life seems like a ridiculous notion. But the truth is that government requires you to be dead for any transaction in commerce or contract with itself, and assigns you an artificial person for such commerce and communication. Proving that you are alive every minute of every day of your life while claiming only natural rights is the only true defense against government tyranny. Any other right provided by government and claimed by you in court is of a contractual nature, meaning it is by default a revokable and enforceable positive right – the validity of which will be decided by an artificial person known as a judge.

A negative right is the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A positive right is the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man has the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A citizen has the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man enjoys the negative right to be free under God and nature, deriving his rights as such.

A citizen enjoys the positive right (privilege) to be free under government, as long as and only if he obeys the law (legal codes) of that government no matter how tyrannical and inhumane they become.

The perversion of the words positive and negative is just one example of how the legal language harms man’s natural state of being by perverting even the basic definition of natural words. However, legal words only apply in the fictional legal realm, which is why of course living men must be attached to an artificial person.

But I digress, for the title of this writing is “Tyranny Requires Equality”.

And so I had better now qualify why I believe that this is so…

Just as the words negative and positive have been perverted into different meanings than we are accustomed to in our everyday speech, so too have the words equality and rights.

It is important to understand that as with all legal terms, when the legal language uses the word equality it does not predispose that such equality is espoused by living men. Remember, the legal code does not deal in living beings. It can only define legal terms for artificial persons attached to human animals. Thus, when the government states that all men are created equal, it doesn’t really mean that in literal terms. It is referring to persons. And it is referring to the way in which the law punishes equally that of all persons under the law.

Let’s face the hard truth… When the constitution and Declaration of Independence was penned over two centuries ago, the term men combined with the term equal only applied to white male land-owners. As much as it pains us to admit that the constitution did not in any way make all men equal, and in fact made some men 3/5 a person (not a man) for political purposes, we must admit that the constitution was only a legal document granting subjects of the government certain entitlements. It did not deal in men as flesh and blood human animals, it dealt strictly with artificial persons. A statement of equality as is laid down in the constitution does not necessitate the conversational meaning of that word when describing flesh and blood men, race, or color. In fact, since the constitution only applies to persons as citizens, its privileges also only apply to persons as citizens. Remember, a legal government document only applies to men who have taken the perversion of artificial person-hood. The constitution promoted slavery and entitled only the privileged class to “freedom” – which again means the requirement to obey the law. And it can only be considered a document of freedom for those who contractually accepted the legal definition of freedom to “obey the government’s laws”. The constitution, if anything, made all men un-free, but gave the privileged class of white male citizens the “freedom” to arbitrarily own other men and be higher in legal status than the female half of the species. Of course, the contract of marriage created the STRAWMAN Dominus name change that allowed women to obtain some of the rights of their husbands via a legal contractual nature.

This ownership of people was without question or doubt the “original intent” of the constitution. Just read the damn thing! And remember that slavery was outlawed in England long before it was in the United States.

Over the decades, incremental change began to be seen, amendments passed, and legislation created that allowed for all “persons” to obtain “equal rights” under the law. But remember that these were certainly not natural rights granted by the government, but were instead positive rights. And slowly but surely all persons were made civilly equal. But what this really meant was that all men were allowed to accept the perversion of their natural state of being men and were allowed to become persons. And so again, I cannot stress enough that the constitution only makes contractual obligations of men as persons for which it calls “equal” and “civil” rights. Again, any natural man, woman, or child who wonders into the fictional borders of the United States will know immediately that all men are not equal, but that equality requires the voluntary agreement and contract of tyranny of citizenship. An illegal alien is simply a man who has not sold his soul for the positive rights and entitlements of citizenship. And the treatment, imprisonment, and exportation of these “human animals” by government and it’s millions of citizens is enough evidence to me to call any woman, black man, or legal immigrant a total and complete hypocrite – one who screams for their equal rights from a government and constitution that for centuries denied their ancestors those same rights that they now deny all other men of the world. Americans are hypocrisy defined – free men enslaved by their own freedom. And the white, property-owning citizen is ironically the only non-hypocrite… but only because his ancestors were born into the privileges of citizenship in the first place that denied all others their own rights and entitlements.

Never again should any United States citizen falsely and hypocritically declare that all men are created equal. For they are not men – as citizens they are not even alive.

This is the oft quoted fallacy that plagues the people of the United States and other governments. For government can not declare all men as equal and free, but can only declare its citizens as equal with freedom. For what happens when one bucks their government and tries to act upon their natural God-given rights in their negative capacity and as protection against the forcibly assigned positive rights violently bestowed by that government upon its people? Why of course the government violates the man’s natural rights claiming that his person’s positive rights come first!

And this is the most difficult thing about law and rights to comprehend. For most people believe that rights are somehow voluntary, and don’t realize that there is such a thing as positive rights that are involuntary. It’s certainly a confusing concept – that there should be in existence a human right that is enforceable by punishment from government, whether you want that right or not. Well… that’s because people think only in terms of humanity, and not in the terms of their artificial person for which those forced rights apply.

Another example I like to use over and over is this one from TITLE 42 of U.S. CODE. This code is in my opinion the perfect examination of how a “positive right” is actually a forced privilege through coercion and violence upon persons and not men:

42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction of every kind, and to no other

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

And so here in one neat little package, the tyranny requires equality concept comes shining through. Remember, as stated here, the nature of “civil rights” is not to make men equal, but to make all persons equally screwed under the law. Government does not define men. It’s legal language simply makes all human animals as equal citizens – which means equal protection of the positive rights that are forced upon those citizens. This is the tyranny of legal equality. True natural equality will only ever happen in the minds of men, not through statute or positive right. It will never happen in all men, and no legal statute will ever succeed in this task. For the acceptance of all men as equal is a negative right, and this type of acceptance can only happen within men, not without. The bottom line is that respect for human and animal rights must be earned and learned, not entitled and forced.

First, in Section (a) of this U.S. CODE we have an explanation of your positive rights as an (artificial) person within the jurisdiction of the United States (federal government) – the federation controlling the “union” of States. It tells you that you have the positive right to enter into contract equally with all other persons, and most importantly into contracts with government. And then it tells you that by committing to such a contractual nature, the positive rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction (literally defined as legal extortion) are applied to you under that contract. If you sign a government or other contract, you are subject to positive rights. If you sign a contract, you give up your power of natural negative rights in acceptance of politically assigned privileges called positive rights. And in doing so, as a person and citizen, you are subject to all of the coercive measures that government allows itself to use against you to enforce those positive rights against you, including pain, punishment, and extortion.

Notice here that taxation and extortion are listed here side by side as a your right. There is hardly a difference between the two, and the avoidance of both gives you the positive, forceful, contractual duty to give acceptance to your right to be receive (enjoy) penalties, be punished, and be put in pain.

Now do you understand what a positive right is?

In Section (c) it states something that is also very important. It implies here that State laws, when compared to Federal laws, are subservient to these Federal U.S. CODES. By stating that the laws of the government of the individual States are only assigned to be as authoritative as to the “color of law”, this code is stating that you have no positive State’s rights that will protect you against these stated Federal positive rights. Federal contract law (citizenship), in other words, trumps any state law that may protect any other right you enjoy, either positive or negative. In other words, as a citizen you really have no negative rights!!!

But most important here is the legal right that all persons have to be equal with every other person. The last thing that government wants is for a man to break out of his or her artificial person/cage and be special – and claim to be unequal in the eyes of the legal code. Only with equality can democracy exist. Only with uniform equality can the people be considered a “body politic”. And only in a body politic can the government claim to act with the consent of all the equal people through representative government – representatives of the whole equal citizenry.

Some folks think that by exercising their right not to vote in elections that they are withdrawing consent to the election itself. But not voting is just another political positive right that persons have, in that this duty is not enforced as a requirement. Not voting is technically voting “no contest” to what the majority votes. Government doesn’t mind at all if individuals don’t vote in its public elections, for not voting means nothing at all. Even with less than 50% of the people voting in an election cycle, the majority of those actual votes still creates a majority vote. There is no law stating otherwise. And the president is not elected by the people anyway, but instead by the “electors”. That’s right, the constitution clearly states that the president is not elected by the people (voters) by popular vote, but by appointed electors. Amazingly, the majority of United States citizens believe that they actually elect the president every four years – a laughable psy-op that creates the illusion of authority of that office.

If this is news to you, you’ll be tickled to death to know that migrants who obtain citizenship in the United States know more about our presidential election process than most natural born citizens do!

Here is a link to the questions asked of potential legal immigrants before they become citizens. You’ll notice that question #16 asks: “Who elects the President of the United States?”

Scroll down a ways and you’ll see “The Electoral College” as the official answer.

LINK: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/typical-citizenship-examination-questions.html?DCMP=ADC-IMMI_Citizenship-NaturalizationTestQuestions&HBX_PK=the+naturalization+test+questions

Elections are a positive, not a negative right. Citizens do not have negative rights, other than those which have not been supplanted YET by positive ones.

What is the definition of the word “negative”?

NEGATIVE. This word has several significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to giving assent; thus we say the president has put his negative upon such a bill. Vide Veto. 2. It is also used in contradistinction to affirmative; as, a negative does not always admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable. When a party affirms a negative in his pleadings, and without the establishment of which, by evidence, he cannot recover or defend himself, the burden of the proof lies upon him, and he must prove the negative. Although as a general rule the affirmative of every issue must be proved, yet this rule ceases to operate the moment the presumption of law is thrown into the other scale. When the issue is on the legitimacy of a child, therefore, it is incumbent on the party asserting the illegitimacy to prove it. Vide Affirmative Innocence.

NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted. 2. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale. For example, when the issue is on the legitimacy of a child born in lawful wedlock, it is, incumbent on the party asserting its illegitimacy to prove it. Upon the same principle, when, the negative averment involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty, whether official or otherwise, it must be proved, for the law presumes every man to perform the duties which it imposes. Vide Onus Probandi.

And from Webster’s 2012 dictionary:

NEGATIVE-

(1) a: marked by denial, prohibition, or refusal <received a negative answer>; also : marked by absence, withholding, or removal of something positive <the negative motivation of shame — Garrett Hardin>

b (1) : denying a predicate of a subject or a part of a subject <“no A is B” is a negative proposition> (2) : denoting the absence or the contradictory of something <nontoxic is a negative term> (3) : expressing negation <negative particles such as no and not>

c : adverse, unfavorable <the reviews were mostly negative>

(5) a : not affirming the presence of a condition, substance, or organism suspected to be present; also : having a test result indicating the absence especially of a condition, substance, or organism <she is HIV negative>

By these definitions we can construct a view of how the word negative applies to and interacts with the word positive in law. A negative right attempts to remove or refuse a positive right, and a man seeks to withhold or remove the positive right with his negative right. Negative rights are a prohibition against positive ones. A living man may deny a positive right exists by denoting the contradiction of that positive right to his negative right. A living man must prove the non-existence of a positive. Positive rights directly contradict negative rights, negating the inherent and replacing it with the artificial, creating an absence of liberty. Positive is adverse and unfavorable to the negative. Men must not affirm the presence of a positive right, unless he is prepared to accept the conditions of its disease.

Even the word enjoyment has been twisted into a legal perversion, as defined in Bouvier’s:

ENJOYMENT. The right which a man possesses of receiving all the product of a thing for his necessity, his use, or his pleasure.

And Black’s Law Dictionary online defines Enjoyment as:

ENJOYMENT: 1 (a) possession and use <the enjoyment of civic rights>

And from Webster’s:

ENJOYMENT: The exercise of a right; the possession and fruition of a right, privilege, or incorporeal hereditament.

So while you may emotionally enjoy living somewhere, enjoyment is a legal term with no emotional attachments. It is the state of usufruct to which you are a person who enjoys the use of property, but do not legally own that property. Paying off a loan to a bank, it turns out, has absolutely nothing to do with ownership, as the home never belonged to the bank in the first place. A “lien” position is not an ownership position, but rather just a status of legal claim.

Legislative records explain this positive right of equal enjoyment best:

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933

“The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” –Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, and referring to the Act of March 9, 1933.

Enjoyment is use, as a user, of government property. Persons are not owners, they are users. Persons enjoy incorporeal use of real estate. The word estate in Latin means “status”. And a status of course is an entitlement – a positive right.

But don’t worry, all property holders have equal rights under the law – which really means that all property holders cannot say no when the government wants to eminent domain (legally steal) their property. Equal rights means equal enjoyment of equal extortion, which means equal victim-hood of the people is equally enjoyed as persons under the contractual nature of citizenship. Does it make you feel better that at any time the government can take anyone’s property, including your own? Does this equate to the disposition we take when our friends and neighbors have their property stolen by government for the public good? You are the “public”, you know.

Is it this equality of the possibility of legal theft upon all citizens that stops us from defending the property of our fellow man?

Have we been artificial for so long that we are becoming emotionless?

Have we grown to love our servitude, as Huxley declared so long ago?

Perhaps we have just lost our ability to do anything but legally enjoy our servitude – and have forgotten how to be free men.

Equality in legal terms is a detriment to all men, for no two men are alike. Under the law, men and women have no sex, except as a mechanical function in science. Their uniqueness is stripped away and replaced by a legal status. Their thoughts and ideas are stunted so that equality can prevail. By accepting the artificial person, the living soul becomes nothing but a user of the body – with enjoyment of the artificial person which interacts with the artificial world. In this way, the man hides away behind the mask of his or her person.

But the person is not the man, it is not created by the man, and it is not owned by the man. The person is a creation of and property of the government, assigned numbers and statistics which define each artificial person. And only the creator of persons can establish forced equality and tyranny among all persons equally.

And so I leave you with these final questions…

If government is the creator of persons, then isn’t it time to stop worshiping these idols of the false god of government and get back to nature’s and God’s law?

Who is your creator?

Isn’t it time to become a man again?

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, February 19, 2013