Economic theory poll

[Professor Snep]

The so-called 'vatican' brought to pass the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, and this made all corporations on earth a subsidiary of the so-called 'vatican', and ecclesiastical entities. And so, the 'courts' are ecclesiastical entities and the so-called 'judges' are ministerial clerks--nothing more. And they all wear 'black' to symbolize their dedication as priests in the church of satan. A whole lot could be said about this topic.

So the Parliament of England, after firmly opposing Charles' Declaration of Indulgence, enforcing Royal Assent of the Test Act, while at the same time aiming to sabotage royal succession of the heir-presumptive (the catholic James duke of York, future James II and VII) as well as impeaching Charles' high treasurer Lord Danby on anti-catholic motivated charges of high treason agreed to pass above mentioned bill in an act of submission to Rome?

Good sir, Charles II would've gladly given up one or two mistresses for that to be true.

 

[Bas]

I read about the Freeman-on-the-Land thing years ago. @Bas - you're saying you actually cited that and the case was dropped? Will you go into more detail?

I didn't cite to the ship of admiralty the item mentioned earlier, no. I cited other items. [by the way, Dunn & Bradstreet list all the 'courts' as for profit corporations]

I allowed the man masquerading as a 'judge' to know that he had no judicial immunity and was, in-fact, acting in his private capacity, because he has no lawful capacity. Now, he knew he was doing this, but remember, the one who makes the assertion, must prove it. I allowed information to freely flow, but did not make any assertions. The man calling himself a 'judge' was compelled to either respond or retreat. In this situation, the man retreated. He 'abandoned ship'.

If the co-called 'courts' mess with you, ask if you are forced onto their 'ship of admiralty', "Do you claim to have jurisdiction over me?" And if the ministerial clerk who pretends to be a so-called 'judge' says "yes" or anything meaning or implying that, then you ask, "Can you prove it?" The fraud/pirate pretending to be a judge will in most all situations leave the so-called 'court'. And in so doing, what he is actually doing is 'abandoning ship'. For that so-called 'court' is actually a 'ship of admiralty'. And in abandoning ship, he is admitting you have jurisdiction.

You see, never answer questions. Period. Always make statements and you may ask them questions. Realize though, sovereigns don't answer to anyone but the Creator. And so, when they answer your questions, they surrender. If you answer any questions, you surrender as well. And so, when you ask them the above, they will most always say nothing and proceed to abandon ship.


Usually, after the ministerial clerk who pretends to be a 'judge' abandons ship, I then dismiss the so-called 'case', with cause and prejudice.

In the so-called 'case' that I helped a man with back in April, I took his so-called "case number" and I re-wrote as "cause number". And then proceed to write numerous things (11 pages of things). The fraud masquerading as a 'judge' proverbially, tucked-tail and ran!

You see, the word 'cause' is a matter of common law. The word 'case' is most always a matter of courts martial. In placing 'cause' as the word I used, in place of, the word 'case', I clearly stated that the man I was helping was in the common law jurisdiction.

Common law is an inferior part of natural law, but still, it is part of natural law just the same. And natural law is ALWAYS superior to all courts martial.

When people get birth certificates, social security numbers, etc, what they are actually doing is creating a subsidiary-corporation of the corporation that offers 'birth certificates' and 'social security numbers', etc. Yes, a 'birth certificate' is a corporate 'certificate'/instrument.

It's quite funny, but let me tell you two stories that happened this year, some months ago:

Some months ago, I decided to take a late night walk, and while on my walk, I decided to get an iced coffee. After getting the iced coffee I wanted, I turned and started walking home. A PIG (person in government) was 'driving' (there is a BIG difference between 'driving' and 'traveling') in his squad car and, as PIGs do, he was about to harass me. He pulled-over, I was walking on a public easement ('side-walk'). He looked at me from his car and was about to get out, then he took a 'double-take' and noticed it was specifically me, he sat back firmly in his seat and drove off. He decided the encounter would not have been worth it. He undoubtedly knew that if he messed with me, I would file multiple complaints (At Common Law) and his 'Public Hazard and Malpractice Bonding Company' would revoke his coverage and he'd no longer be bonded.<<<aka, no longer, so-called 'employed' nor be 'employable' forever.

Fast-forward to mid-summer. I followed a man who was committing unlawful acts outside the home of a neighbor. I confronted the man. Witnesses called the PIGs. The PIGs showed-up and started asking questions. They wanted a statement from me too. The conversation with the PIGs went something like this:

PIG: "Sir, I'd like you to give a statement."
Me: "I'll tell you what I witnessed, but I won't write anything for you."
PIG: "Fine. I'll write it. Tell me, 'what's your name'?"
Me: "I don't answer questions. Ever. However, that said, if one felt like making statements: hypothetically, one might say something such as, "I am called 'Bas; of the family De La Vega'. 'That's by Common Law'".
*The PIG looked confused, yet curious as to what I was talking about*
PIG: "Okay. And, uh, your date of birth?" [sidenote: the term 'date of birth' or any phrasing like unto it is corporate domain.]
Me: "I don't answer questions. Ever. However, that said, if one felt like making statements: hypothetically, one might say something such as, " I don't know when I was born."
PIG: "You don't know when you were born?"
Me: "I never answered any questions."
PIG: "Okay". "Have a good evening, sir". *the PIG put away his notepad and pen, got in his car, and drove over to some other PIGs, and went-on with whatever they were doing.*

As I walked away, I chuckled.

You see, if you don't actually remember first-hand the exact day, time, moment of your birth, you can't bear witness to it. You see, the phrase 'Date of Birth' refers to the day upon which the subsidiary-corporation was born ('birth certificate'/chain of title), not the day when a flesh-and-blood soul came out of his or her mother. Babies are born without any paperwork attached to their flesh-and-blood bodies. None. Just "butt-naked". That's it. No documentation. And so, all docs that are made and which are made to represent that baby, are 'artificial persons'. <<<and all 'artificial persons' are subsidiary-corporations.

At Common Law, she who is joined in Holy Matrimony to a man is his private property. And all sons and daughters that come from that relationship between that man and that woman, are also private property of that man. Now, feminists will undoubtedly have a 'vegan-cow' (*grin*) over this fact, but it does protect that woman and the sons & daughters of that man from being sold into slavery. This includes the adopted sons and daughters of that man as well, as long as those adoptions were done At Common Law or At Divine Law--better still. <<< additionally, 18 USC § 1901 is about 'genocide'. When an entity attempts to take away the sons and daughters of man, they are committing 'genocide' by ending his family line, even if they did not actually kill anyone. The very removal of them is genocide, and an attempt to end a family's lineage and cause it's existence to cease. Oh yes, the pirates run like 'hell'; if you use the correct words and in the correct way!

I never give 'legal' advise, but I do give 'Lawful' advise! ;-) Now, that said, here is my Lawful advise: Everyone should take pictures of their man ('husband') or woman ('wife') and their sons and daughters, all of them together in the same picture. And then, make physical, hard-copies of those pictures. If PIGs ever come along and try messing with your family, you can, if the circumstances require it, show the picture and say, "this woman is my private property. These others souls in this picture are my sons and daughters. They too are my private property." The PIGs will most always leave and never come back. They figure, if you know this wording of things, "what else might you know"?

 

[Bas]

@Cornerstone , btw, should you wish it, I may be reached c/o: sovereign[dot]bas[at]gmail[dot]com

 

[Cornerstone]

@Cornerstone , btw, should you wish it, I may be reached c/o: sovereign[dot]bas[at]gmail[dot]com

Thanks. Like I said, it has been a good while since I've read about these things but it is certainly interesting. I do wonder though, assuming this is true, when these people are told that they don't actually have authority. I assume most people study law or join the police unaware of these distinctions. At what point in their training/career are they informed that a court is a 'ship of admirality' and that answering questions equates to surrender?

 

[Bas]

Thanks. Like I said, it has been a good while since I've read about these things but it is certainly interesting. I do wonder though, assuming this is true, when these people are told that they don't actually have authority. I assume most people study law or join the police unaware of these distinctions. At what point in their training/career are they informed that a court is a 'ship of admirality' and that answering questions equates to surrender?

Most of "police" don't know this stuff--all of them know just enough to stay out of trouble with the average soul--since the average soul is a slave and doesn't know this stuff. They've been given rules to follow which allows them to stay within 'corporate boundaries'. All, so-called 'judges' know this stuff. And one of the first things taught in so-called 'law school' is that no one can own a 'name'. So, yeah, they know. And, btw, so-called 'law school' teaches so-called 'case law', which, is NOT actually law. One of my friendly-acquaintances was an 'attorney' in Vegas for nearly 3 decades. He didn't know about any of the stuff I wrote in other posts here in this group. In-fact, he mocked me. And when his son 'out of nowhere' learned how to get out of his drug charges, that friendly-acquaintance wasn't mocking me anymore.

It's easy to win in so-called 'court' though, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on appeal. I never surrender jurisdiction, but for those whom I've helped, it's easy to challenge jurisdiction even when damage has already been done:

"'Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,' and 'jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.'"
--Basso v Utah Power & Light Co., 395 F2nd 906,910

"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal."
--Hill Top Developers v Holiday Pine Service Corp., 478 So. 2D, 368 Fla a DCA (1985)

"[H]owever late this objection [to jurisdiction] has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, BEFORE any court can move ONE STEP FURTHER IN THE CAUSE; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction."
--Rhode Island Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 718, 9 L. Ed. 1233 (1838) [emphasis NOT mine]

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
--Stuck v Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751.21 P2d 289


"There is no discretion to ignore the lack of jurisdiction."
--Joyce v US, 474 F2d 215

"Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff."
--Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 I11. App. 3d 558, 522 N.E. 2d 841 (1988)

"The burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it."
--Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill. App. 3d 1042, 571 N.E. 2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991)

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."
--Lantana v Hopper, 102 F 2d 188; Chicago v New York 37 F Supp. 150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just keep your jurisdiction and you win. Run your mouth or provide any information at all, you lose. You MUST refuse (even in contempt) to produce.
Ask the so-called "Judge" (if you made the mistake of entering their ship of admiralty in the first-place) if he or she claims to have jurisdiction over you. If he or she says "yes"
or anything to that effect, say, "Can you prove it?" You must absolutely refuse to provide any information whatsoever. * drum roll.......* You Win! :-D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States."
Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the term 'citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Amendment (14th) recognized that "an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several states without being a citizen of the United States," (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, "a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a state." (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)). And in a more recent case: Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which says: "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra.

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)



"Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity"".
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773 [emphasis mine]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every course of life is to be tried by this test and judged by this standard – the Bible alone." Hale v. Everett (1868)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the State; but the individuals rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an EXCISE cannot be imposed."
Redfield v Fisher, 292 P. 813, 819 <<< Natural Rights are a matter of Natural Law.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Supreme Court Decisions:
“Congress has taxed income not compensation." Conner v United States 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969)

“Compensation for labor can not be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. “ The word ‘profit’ as ordinarily used, means the 'gain’ made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor." Oliver v Halstead. 86 S. E. 2 d. 858, 196 Va. 992 (1955)
[Thus the reason I don't pay taxes]

Earning a living is a protected RIGHT!

"The court has flatly rejected the imposition of a tax upon a right secured by the Bill of Rights." ... "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right" Murdock v Pennsylvania 319 US 105, 113 (1943)


"Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens." Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So. 10. [<<< because anyone who pays taxes is a slave. And a 'citizen' is a 'subject', and therefore not a Master (Sovereign).]

" Since corrupt people unite amongst themselves to constitute a force,
then honest people must do the same " - 'Count' Leo N. Tolstoy

 

[esotericelement]

Sovereignty.