IN 2019, 11 Supreme Court Justices reaffirmed the Rule of Law across the United Kingdom, though this may come as a surprise to many of us who have borne witness to events since.

In what was essentially an argument between government and Parliament about who the boss is, the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional position established by the Bill of Rights (1688) that Parliament is sovereign, but sovereign only over the government. Parliament as legislature has no authority over anyone other than the government (the executive).

Importantly, the Supreme Court did not stop there, as that would allow for a corrupted Parliament to approve governmental interference in our lives beyond the constitutional constraint to do no harm.

The court reaffirmed the correct constitutional position as evidenced by both the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act 1688, that it is the court and the court alone that determines the lawfulness of what they, Parliament, approve.

This is law; it is fundamental to recognise that legislation is not law, a common error which disrupts our ability to go peaceably about our business.

The judiciary then went further still, and said that it is the people who create the law of the land through the independent judiciary, after all, as the Act of Settlement (1700) clearly states: “…the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof.”

Hence, from an argument between the government and Parliament as to who is the boss, it transpires that the court has restored the position that it is we, the people, who are the boss, in keeping with our founding constitutional documents.

Indeed, when viewed from on high, our forebears bequeathed an incredibly elegant system of lawful governance whose beating heart is to do no harm. However, before we explore this any further, it is necessary to bring God into the courtroom.

Simply put, until such a time as we can bring the Creator (howsoever you may see it,) into the court, to provide firsthand, cross-examinable witness testimony that any individual, or group of individuals, can impose their will upon another, then it is self-evident that all are equal under the law, and that no one is above the law.

To understand what it means to be equal under the law, you need to apply one simple question: can I also do that? If the answer is no, then the action to which you are applying the question is unlawful. That no one is above the law simply means that we are all accountable for any harm we cause.

In 2019, when those 11 Supreme Court justices, flanked by an expensive retinue of silks, delivered a verdict that Boris Johnson was not able to prorogue Parliament, they would no doubt have arrived more promptly at the same verdict had they simply asked whether they themselves – or indeed, you or I – are able to do similarly. Clearly, I cannot prorogue Parliament, and consequently, neither could Boris Johnson.

‘What one can do, all can do’ is the simplest and most efficient test of whether something is lawful or not.

Turning back to our lawful governance arrangements, with a fuller understanding of its central tenets in hand, we can now sketch out how the monarch swears to govern us according to our laws and customs, by instituting a government controlled by an independent Parliament.

And it is a Parliament constrained to do no harm to the people, and whose every act is subject to the independent judiciary to determine whether they are acting lawfully or not. Following this, and understanding that we are all equal under the law and nobody is above the law, it is illegal for any individual or group of people (for instance, Parliament) to knowingly impose their will upon any other person without first obtaining their consent, freely given.

In this way, and only in this way, are our duties, rights, and obligations created, i.e., by contract.

Clearly, if I cannot tell you what to do without first having reached an agreement, then neither can anybody else.

Not one item of parliamentary legislation has the people as a contracting party, due to the impossibility of obtaining the consent of all the people.

Similarly, the judiciary, the police, and all officers of the state are bound under contract of their oaths, attestations or affirmations, through which their respective duties, rights and obligations are created.

These contracts are the social contract, and unless you are in possession of one, then you have none of those duties, rights, or obligations bar one, to do no harm.

Our constitutional arrangements are an elegantly designed contractual set of arrangements such that the parties to the agreements are bound over to keep the peace (do no harm), corralled by an independent judiciary in which the people create the law.

It is precisely here where our collective obligation arises.

Should we wish to properly restore the one right that is foundational to us all, the right to do whatever we wish, save that which causes another harm, then we are obligated to act, in the face of harm, to see that the peace is kept.

by LANCE PEATLING

Natural Law is based on principles of truth while man’s law is based on beliefs and claims to authority.

Embodying, harmonizing, complying, aligning and living according to principles of Natural Law has been done by people like Gandhi who had recognized this knowledge, while most of us are living in the illusion of a myriad of law volumes that we are expected to understand.

They fabricate nonsense into existence with rules and regulations to confuse and complicate our lives.

We comply for fear of punishment if we do not.

We can choose to become enlightened through an understanding of the forces of the universe as they are, or we can stay out of the prison cell of punishment by complying and basing our actions from the lowest modality of consciousness: fear.

Man’s law is based on the dictates of men given power to create rules of conduct.

These laws can be different from one time to another or one place to another, so how are they supposed to be based on right and wrong if they are always changing?

Choosing what is right and wrong instead of recognizing right from wrong is moral relativism.

Universal Cosmic Natural Moral Law is sourced from the cosmic forces of creation. Which force do you want to align yourself with?

In society there are some who are punished and lose their freedom for not having harmed another, while others who engage in harm against another are never acted upon and stopped.

In order for someone to violate Natural Law, another must be violated or harmed, and then action can be taken against them to stop this harm.

No imaginary rights can be invented or granted to individuals or groups where they did not exist for every other individual.

For example, can you imagine giving someone a right you do not possess?

If one person can’t steal from others, who then can take from the labors of others?

No one.

No amount of people collected into a group can assume or grant such a right that does not exist.

If 1000 people don’t have the right to take the labor of others by threats, (which is what taxation is), then a group of those 1000 people calling themselves “government” can’t invent or assume a right that does not exist.

Granting something you do not possess yourself is an illusion.

You cannot ‘grant’ what isn’t yours to ‘grant’.

A right cannot be assumed if it does not already exist.

So why can’t we write laws into existence?

Because we are not “God”.

Man’s law is irrelevant in light of the revelation and recognition of Universal Cosmic Natural Moral Law.

If man’s law is in contradiction with Natural Law, it is false and immoral and cannot be binding upon anyone.

Harmful Actions:

• Murder / Assault – Ending a life without the right to do so. If a being is killed in the act of somebody defending themselves, it is not murder. Under no possible circumstance does the “right to murder” or the “right to assault” exist. However, the right to defend oneself through physical force exists at all times.

• Rape – Coercing the free will of another person, and making them sexually associate with whom they wish not to.

• Theft – Taking what somebody else has created or acquired through lawful means, which is their property for as long as they are using it and being responsible for it. You have no right to just take something that does not belong to you.

• Trespass – Every person has the right to set aside a (reasonably sized) space for themselves. And invading this area without permission or consent would be invading their privacy and their personal space, while taking away their security in the process.

• Coercion – Forcing somebody through threat of violence to have their will comply with yours, whether they wish that to be the case or not. Making somebody do something against their will is not a right.

Although this is already a short and seemingly simple list, all these transgressions can ultimately be narrowed down to just one wrong-doing: Theft.

Every harmful action that a person is capable of taking is a form of theft; some form of property is always being stolen when a wrong-doing is committed.

• Life is a form of property.

• Rights are a form of property.

• Freedom is a form of property.

• A person’s own body is a form of property.

A living being or their property must have been harmed or damaged in order for a violation of natural law, or a wrong-doing to have taken place.

Any action which does not cause such harm to other sentient beings is a right.

No victim, no crime.

This is the fundamental crux of natural law; what is right behaviour, and what is wrong behaviour.

There is no such thing as the delegation of a wrong-doing.

In other words, if a specific action is not a right for any individual, then that action cannot be “delegated,” “granted,” or “licensed” to any other individual, or group of individuals, and suddenly be called a right.

That action forever remains wrong under natural law.

Rights can’t be granted to human beings by other human beings, because rights don’t come from human beings; everybody is born with the exact same rights.

Natural law (the difference between right and wrong behaviour) always holds true regardless of a population’s belief systems (culture).

This means that it doesn’t matter how many people agree that a wrong action can be turned into a right action, or that a right action can be turned into a wrong action.

Such things can never be done in reality.

People can only believe they can claim such reversals and that this will in some way make it so.

Unfortunately, at this moment in time most people do erroneously believe that it is morally possible for some groups of people to create and delegate “rights” which do not exist, or to take away rights which do exist.

When in doubt as to whether an action is, or is not in harmony with natural law, visualise the scenario of a world with only two people.

If the behaviour is a right or a wrong in that instance, it shall forever remain a right or a wrong in any size population; regardless of how many people may believe otherwise.

So, if the action is a right for one person to do toward another, it shall always remain a right.

And if the action is a wrong for one person to do toward another, it shall always remain a wrong, regardless of the number of people involved.

For example, let’s examine Taxation
for what is really is, without euphemising.

Taxation is the claim that a group of people who call themselves ‘government’ have been given or delegated the “right” to (forcibly) confiscate an arbitrarily chosen percentage of the product of another individual’s labour (a form of property), whether or not that person agrees to share that product voluntarily (coercion is involved).

Taxation is enforced by the threat of theft (seizing property that is rightfully a person’s possession), the threat of imprisonment (taking away the physical freedom of movement), or even the threat of violence (behaviour resulting in bodily harm) if those from whom the product is being seized attempt to resist the confiscation.

This practise is always “justified” by those who claim that such practises are necessary and required to uphold the common good.

The word ‘Justified’ etymologically derives from the Latin noun ‘Jus / Juris’ which mean ‘Right / Law,’ and the Latin verb ‘Facere’ which means ‘to Create / to Make.’

Therefore, ‘to Justify’ etymologically means ‘to Create right / to Create law.’

If we define the concept of slavery as: the involuntary confiscation of 100% of the product of labour of another person, we can clearly see that there is no percentage to which we could lower this number (other than 0%) that would no longer constitute slavery.

Many people try to justify this by saying this money is used for different services.

However, we aren’t able to refuse most of these “services.”

Imagine, you have a computer at home; one day a computer technician knocks on your door and tells you: “I am now your computer technician, and you are not allowed to refuse my services.”

Immediately the right to choose (free will) has been taken away.

Then he tells you “Whether you want or don’t want my technician services, I’m going to need $300,- every year, I’ll come over every two months to collect my money.

I do not care if you are happy with my service or not, and if you refuse to pay me, I will take your computer.”

Does it seem like the computer is truly yours, if you are living under that kind of coercion? Or does it seem more like a violent criminal telling you: “I am going to steal your possessions if you don’t give me what I tell you to.”

That sounds more like a form of extortion or duress, and that is what all forms of taxation fall under; duress.

If we are being completely honest with ourselves, taxation is merely a euphemism for theft, violence, and slavery; these are the three practises on which it is actually truly based.

Since no individual anywhere on Earth has the right to claim ownership of the product of another person’s labour, such behaviour can never be delegated to a group of people, and called a “right.”

Therefore, all forms of taxation
are always wrong
according to natural law.

Another important example of something to examine for what it actually truly is, is Prohibition.

Whether regarding drugs or junk-food, ingesting anything harmful into the body is strongly opposed, hopefully for obvious reasons; purification of the body is an important part of purification of the mind.

It is crucial to recognise that anyone should be allowed to put anything inside their body, because they own their body.

If an individual, for whatever reason, wants to ingest any given substance they always have the right to do so; because their body is their property.

People easily tend to overthink the concept when confronted with the question whether their body is theirs or not.

They often pause and ask themselves questions like: “Am I going to own my body forever? I’m going to die someday, does that mean I don’t own it now?”

This is a complete over-mystification of the concept. All sensible people recognise that they will die someday, and that their consciousness will then leave their bodies. Does that mean they don’t own their body right now?

Your consciousness inhabits (lives- / exists inside) your body, which is one of the specific reasons you own your body, the other is that you are using your body right now.

Specifically, because your conscious inhabits your body, and you are using it as the vehicle for the expression of your consciousness; your body is yours.

Continuing on the topic of prohibition, it is the claim that a group of people who call themselves ‘government’ have been given the “right” to prevent others from putting any given substance into their own bodies, and if those people refuse to comply with those terms, they will be fined or imprisoned.

It should be self-evident that since an individual’s body is their own property, that individual always maintains the natural right to decide what will or will not be put into their own property.

In this instance, their own body.

Imagine another person telling you that you aren’t allowed to put your jacket into your car, or that you can’t put a certain piece of furniture inside your home.

Why is it that most people would not accept that, but do accept this concept regarding their own body?

Because people can’t seem to separate the act of imbibing the substance, and the action that someone may subsequently take, which are two different things.

A person may have some drinks, and get drunk if they wish to; but if that person goes out on the street afterwards and starts beating somebody up for no reason, they obviously have no right to do that.

However, an individual maintains the right to go drinking, or use cocaine, or even inject heroine into their arm.

They obviously aren’t good ideas, but every individual has the right to do so if they please; as long as their subsequent behaviour isn’t immoral and wrong.

And if it is, they are still fully accountable for the actions they took, that’s what personal responsibility is.

The two separate acts of a person having the right to put whatever they want into their own body, and still being personally responsible for whatever he or she may do with their body afterwards, need to be clearly delineated, and separated from one another.

Understanding this, we can easily see that the claim of “right” to dictate what will or will not be put into the body of another person amounts to a claim of ownership upon the other person’s body.

Imagine somebody telling you that you aren’t allowed to eat carrots or drink orange juice for example.

The claim of
ownership upon another
person’s body is slavery.

Therefore, prohibition is merely a euphemism for slavery, backed by violence, regardless of the justifications made by those who claim such practises are necessary to uphold the common good.

Since no individual anywhere on Earth has the right to claim the ownership of another person’s body, such behaviour can never be delegated to a group, and called a right.

Therefore, all forms of prohibition are always wrong according to natural law.

Lastly, we will examine Licences and Permits, keep in mind to also visualise the same scenario with only two people as was mentioned before.

In that sense, most people can readily see that no single person, or group of people is able to legitimately make these claims towards another person; regarding taxation, prohibition, licenses and permits.

We have gotten to the point where most people actually believe that certain groups of people have created rights for themselves that other people don’t have.

Licences and permits
are claims that a group of people
who call themselves ‘government’
have been given the “right”
to prevent other people from
exercising specific behaviours,
even if such behaviours
cause no harm to others,
or their property.

Unless those people petition (definition of petition: “a formally drawn request, that is addressed to a person or group of persons in authority or power, soliciting some favour, right, mercy, or other benefit.”), or pay the government for permission (where the word ‘permit’ is derived from) to be allowed to exercise those behaviours.

This amounts to the claim that rights are merely privileges that may be granted or taken away by government at any time, based upon the people in government’s preference or discretion.

Remembering that the definition of a right is: ‘any action which does not cause harm to another sentient being or their property.’

It can be readily seen that there is no such thing as the “right” to stop someone from exercising a right, since rights cause no harm.

The claim over the rights of another person is called slavery, regardless of the justification made by those who claim such practises are necessary to uphold the common good.

Since no individual anywhere on Earth has the right to claim the ownership of another person’s rights, such behaviour can never be delegated to a group, and called a right.

Therefore, all forms of licensing and permits
are always wrong according to natural law.

This may suggest Britain, but it applies to ALL peoples of the British Commonwealth.

The US is a Commonwealth, as you know from your Historical Training and Education here on this Channel. Remember 1871 and 1873.

Please download and study a copy of this for future reference, as it applies to ALL Kingdoms and People’s, including Americans, Aussies, Canadians, et al.

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.

The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.

The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54)

Government is merely a legal fiction which was created solely to protect peoples’ rights, property and natural resources; and, to provide the people with services, not to lord over them.

Ask yourself, how can a
piece of paper rule over
real living tangible people?

It cannot, dear people;
only by our consent;

It has no jurisdiction over the tangible as affirmed by the above ruling.

What is the essence of government?

After you cut through the rhetoric, the doublethink, and the smokescreen of altruism that surround the subject, you find that the essence of government is force…and the belief it has the right to initiate the use of force whenever expedient.

Government is an organization with a monopoly, albeit with some fringe competition, on the use of force within a given territory. As Mao Zedong said, “The power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun.”

There is no voluntarism about obeying laws.

The consent of a majority of the governed may help a government put a nice face on things, but it is not essential and is, in fact, seldom given with any enthusiasm.

“GOVERNMENT”
IS JUST ANOTHER RELIGION

The word ‘government’ comes from the Latin verb gubernare which means “to control” (also the root for the word ‘gubernatorial’), and the Latin noun mens, mentis which means “mind.”

Put them together.

In colloquial English, the suffix ‘-ment’ means “the state of or condition of,” but all things must first begin in the mind.

Those who formulated the English language knew this which is why they used the Latin word for “mind” to mean this.

All creation
emerges first from thought.

So, if you want the world to be a certain way then you have to steer and control how people think.

If they think and believe what you want then that is the reality they will manifest.

So yes, “government”
does mean mind control.

Through the control of our thoughts with false ideologies (religion, culture, statism, solipsism, scientism, and other erroneous and dogmatic beliefs) resulting in Wrong Action in the world, we are – as a species – manifesting a reality of suffering and slavery.

Government cannot protect you
from Violence and Chaos
because government
IS Violence and Chaos.

“In as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.

The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.

The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”

We have inherent natural pre-existing inalienable unalienable Creator-given rights that existed thousands of years before the fiction called “government”.

Now, ask yourself: Then how can a fiction rule over a living wo/man? And, the answer is by numerous frauds of conversion and semantic deceit (legalese)

Theory of Government

The theory of government is supposed to be that we have surrendered some of our rights to government so that the government protects the rights that we have not surrendered; that is the sole purpose of government: to protect our rights!

Not lord over us.

The government derives its powers from the consent of the governed; the fiction is that we have consented to the surrender of ALL our rights; the reality is that our rights have been stolen from us because the government monopolises force; it’s a sad and terrible reality;

The government must stop! When it wants to touch our natural rights, whatever we think our natural rights are; because these are the things that we all yearn as human-beings to do; to be free from interference by the government;

If my rights belong to me as my fingers belong to me then they cannot be taken away by majority vote; they cannot be taken away by legislation; they cannot be taken away by command of the executive; they can only be taken away if I give them up myself.

Since mankind lived in co-operative, non-coercive, non-hierarchical, self-organizing and self-governing tribal societies we were never without a common law – which means to exchange together;

If, our Creator has made us with reason to govern ourselves, then it makes no sense at all for corporate fictions fronting as government and for London, Rome, Washington DC and New York to interfere with our independence and claim authority over us with unrestrained power;

When rights become subjected to unrestrained power, respect for natural law and natural justice is destroyed, and rational self-government is impossible.

-0-0-0-0-0-

Un-alienable rights
are in-born-at-birth-rights

In Natural Law, you were created equal to any other man or woman, and you were endowed with certain inherent Un-alienable Rights that you possess as your lifelong private property.

Your Unalienable Rights were not given to you by any man-made authority, nor can they be taken away by any man-made authority.

The State, as a creation of the People, can only acknowledge, uphold, and protect your Unalienable Rights.

However, your sovereign nation has been usurped by YOURNATION (INC.), which is bankrupt and using a debt-money system – (but that’s another story).

The real property, wealth, assets and productivity of the People have been pledged as Surety for the corporate national debt.

This was done, and is perpetuated, by offering contracts to the private sovereign People.

By contract, your private Rights and Properties can be exchanged for public Privileges and Benefits offered by YOURNATION (INC.).

By contracting into a foreign jurisdiction (Admiralty Maritime, the Law of the Sea), the sovereign People remove themselves from the protections afforded by their sovereign nation in the Common Law jurisdiction, the Law of the Land.

For example, if your country has a “Bill of Rights” or a “Constitution” they do not apply to a normal living man or woman – only ‘corporations’ and your ‘common-law rights’ are not affected by them.

The corporate takeover of your sovereign nation, and the subsequent denial of your Unalienable Rights by non-disclosure, is treason.

Freedom, like truth, is not inherited.

It must be learned and preserved by each generation.

The pursuit of truth, freedom and happiness is every man’s birth-right and individual responsibility.

It cannot be transferred or deferred to another or to a government.

People who don’t accept individual responsibility, and won’t strive for their own freedom, are known as slaves.

Unalienable Rights are the Inherent, Sovereign, Natural Rights that existed before the creation of the State, and which, being antecedent to and above the State, can never be taken away, diminished, altered, or levied by the State, except by Due Process of Law.

Nor can any Unalienable Right be fundamentally removed or waived by contract, whether by non-disclosure, which is fraud and unenforceable in Law, or knowingly by sufferance, which is contrary to the Spirit of the Law and prejudicial to Sovereignty.

The Original, Permanent, Unalienable Rights
of every Man or Woman, include:

What are some of the crimes
the political parties have
committed against us under
their Admiralty Law?

Among the many actions they have taken that have destroyed our once productive and wealthy nation are:

• They have implemented punitive fines against us without our permission.
• They have sold off our Publicly owned utilities and services to private corporations, (they usually have a financial interest in).
• Unlawfully taxed us without a referendum, as required by our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.
• Raised taxation to such a level that our once thriving manufacturing industries were forced to relocate overseas, which has weakened our nation so that we are unable to produce goods for our own needs, and protect our nation from invasion.
• They have set aside our Constitution and deprived us of the lawful protection of the Crown and our Common Law.
• They have created a false Queen, THE QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA (which is NOT the Queen of England), and registered this entity in their corporate entity in the USA.
• They have forced us to vote into power over us political party representatives who are employees of a private corporation registered in the USA and known as THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT.
• They are forcing medical procedures on us, a clear violation of the 1946 Constitutional amendment (51 [xxiiiA] that We, the People of the Commonwealth of Australia voted on to allow the government to provide medical services, but with the proviso that they cannot force any procedure on us.
• They have attempted to socially distance us, force us to wear masks, and force us to be ‘vaccinated’ with an unknown and untested ‘vaccine’ (in reality an experimental DNA altering cocktail)
• They have destroyed our right to Freedom of Movement by locking us down, and trying to introduce a ‘Vaccine Passport’, forcing us to accept their ‘vaccination’ before we can fly anywhere.

These are just some of the many TREASONOUS ACTS the political parties have enacted against us.

The only reason they have got away with bringing in so many laws and destroying our rights and freedoms that actually harm We, the People, is because we were not informed and therefore we were blind to their criminal actions.

You can choose to ignore this or, maybe, it’s time to have a look at what’s been going on.

It’s a theory that courts applying maritime law were created by Satanists.

Apparently, when a judge, (or any other person in situation of apparent ‘authority’), bangs a gavel 3 times it’s a celebration of the nails that Jesus experienced when he was crucified. (One in each hand and one in the ankles).

There is NO allodial/allodium title in English Law as all land is held in right of another in a hierarchy with the top titles held in ‘the common law ‘ ….which is ultimately held in the life of the reigning monarch of England! ( hence English law).

The highest and largest freehold estate in land a man can hold is termed (‘suo demeneco’ by Blackstone) Fee simple absolute in demesne as of fee.

The person holding this ‘interest’ in land is a freeholder and assuming the land is not under the historic seignory of an intermediate ‘lord’ holding in bloodline feetail one then is holding directly of the Monarch in common law.

This species of fee simple (as opposed to the one purchased under governments subject to the law of property 1925) is a legal title …and the common law only recognises the one ‘seised’ of the legal title.

This word seisin is the bedrock of English Law and from around 1066 to 1535 statute of Uses the only way land could be transferred was through ‘Livery of seisin’…or by inheritance.

The above mentioned statute of uses was when Henry Viii enacted law to try to curtail ‘Uses’ which were beneficial equitable titles not seen in the strict common.law system adjudicated by the Kings Barristers of the Bench and Court of common pleas etc.

The Chancery courts were the ones that provided remedy for Use to land issues.

The early Uses saw the Roman Church corporation as benefactors from senior Barons and Lords transferring land to it … as they were trying to avoid the’ death duties’ and other incidents associated with their legal title estates.

The Roman Church even founded Oxbridge universities to train their own lawyers to protect their equitable interests in land ! (forerunners of todays Bar union ?!).

There is a strict separation between legal/ common law interests and beneficial/ use / equitable interests.

The common law was perfected and settled at the Bill of rights 1688/89 and from this point on the main ‘law’ used was ‘ equity’ as it was easier to do business and transfer land etc for the growing populations and industrial revolutions etc.

Still today this strict separation exists and is even mentioned in the Settled Land Act of 1925 (same year as Law of property) as the ‘Strict settlement’.

Government and citizens can only interact in equity as the common law interests are kept separate but all court issues have at their root a particular land interest that the parties have an interest in.

Law and equity are not rules over people they are systems to administrate agreements between parties of interest in a particular land interest subject matter.

Both parties in equity are legal personages either sole corporate or aggregate corporate as law and equity does not deal with sentient men and women (they have dominion and free will).

Hence jurisdiction is created by the subject matter and the status of the parties … who have an interest in the agreement relating to the subject matter.

THE REAL LAW The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land; the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law.

Legislated statutes enforced upon the people in the name of law is a fraud.

It has no authority and is without mercy.

Justice without mercy is Godless, and therefore repugnant to our United States Constitution.

Lawmakers were given authority by the people to legislate codes, rules, regulations, and statutes which are policies, procedures, and “law” to control the behaviour of bureaucrats, elected and appointed officials, municipalities and agencies, but were never given authority to control the behaviour of the people—as we read in a US Supreme court decision: “All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

We are establishing Common Law Grand Juries in all 3,141 counties in the United States of America.

By doing this the people will move our Courts back to “Courts of Justice” and take 100% control of our government.

THE DUTY OF THE
“COMMON LAW GRAND JURY
is to right any wrong.

If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, the Grand Jury can restore them.

In addition, if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the Grand Jurors, the Sureties of the peace.

IN A US SUPREME COURT STUNNING 6 TO 3 DECISION JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government.

Your Public Servants include all oath-bound Officers of the Law.

Most frontline “Police Officers”, however, perform two roles:

As Peace Officers they uphold the law, discharging their impartial duties under Oath “according to law”, which is the de jure Common Law Jurisdiction, also known as the “Law of the Land”.

They swear to “keep the peace”, by doing their best to keep people and their property safe from harm.

They are protected by a Public Bond, having Limited liability.

They have Common Law powers (Constitutional) delegated by the People.

As Policy Officers they enforce statutes, which prescribe the legal terms and conditions of contracts with penalties etc., in the de facto Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction, also known as the “Law of the Sea”.

They do NOT swear an Oath to “enforce statutes” in commerce, and are NOT protected by a Public Bond, having Unlimited full commercial liability.

They have Corporate powers (Contractual) which are subject to Consent.

Peace Officer = “Constabulary Powers” = Constitutional

Policy Officer = “Corporate Powers” = Contractual

Revenue gathering for YOURNATION (INC.) in the Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction is not part of the sworn duty of a “Peace Officer/Constable”.

Officer conducting legal fiction commerce in support of the private debt-money system of bondage can be described as a private mercenary abdicating their Oath.

“Police Officers” enforcing statutes in legal fiction commerce have NO JURISDICTION over any living man or woman unless that man or woman consents to that jurisdiction.

All legal jurisdiction over a man or woman requires their consent, and so all presentments from of a “Police Officer” are a “service” offered by “consent”.

The police cannot stop you, question you, detain you, arrest you, search you, or charge you, without your consent, if there is no victim.

Ultimately, the “administrative courts” cannot fine you or imprison you without your consent.

But if at any point you “understand” (stand under their authority), agree to anything, or give them the artificial legal “person” NAME, you are consenting. THE TWO BASIC TYPES OF ENCOUNTERS:

`

1. Consensual, in which you are free to leave at any time.
2. Detention/Seizure/Arrest, in which you are held by “an assertion of authority”, or by physical restraint, against your will.

In any detention/seizure/arrest the “Peace Officer/Constable” MUST have “probable cause” and/or a “reasonable suspicion” that you are committing, or are about to commit, a CRIME against a victim.

The accuser bears the burden of proof to reasonably establish your CRIME. In any detention/seizure/arrest the “Police Officer” MUST establish that you are “acting” in “joinder” to an artificial legal “person” NAME created by the State and controlled by prescribed statutes.

The Officer bears the burden of establishing your informed and voluntary CONSENT. No “Police Officer” is vested with the Common Law power (Constabulary power) to randomly detain or arrest you for the purpose of asking questions.

“[Police Officers] have no power whatever to arrest or detain a citizen for the purpose of questioning him or of facilitating their investigations.

It matters not at all whether the questioning or the investigation is for the purpose of enabling them to ascertain whether he is the person guilty of a crime known to have been committed or is for the purpose of enabling them to discover whether a crime has or has not been committed.

If the police do so act in purported exercise of such a power, their conduct is not only destructive of civil liberties but it is unlawful.”

Regina v. Banner (1970) VR 240, at p 249, the Full Bench of the Northern Territory Supreme Court.

“It is an ancient principle of the Common Law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police, or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right.

The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the Common Law for centuries.”

Judge Stephen Kaye, Melbourne Supreme Court, 25 November 2011.

“There is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details. Nor is s.59 of the (Road Safety) Act a statutory source of such power.”

Magistrate Duncan Reynolds, Melbourne, July 2013.

An Officer who stops you in the course of your lawful business, without your consent, or “articulable probable cause”, is assailing you. DEALING WITH ASSAILANTS:

1. Identify your assailant, their motive and jurisdiction.

2. Require verification of a CRIME (no crime = no jurisdiction).

3. BE POLITE, STAY ON POINT.

You have the Right not to be “arbitrarily” stopped, detained or arrested [by chance, whim, or impulse].

There must be an “articulable” and “reasonable suspicion” that you are involved in a CRIME against a VICTIM, and a WITNESS [can be a “Peace Officer”] with first-hand knowledge and evidence who is willing to write an affidavit under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability, making the accusation of the crime.

You have the Right not to answer questions.

You have the Right not to provide government issued ID.

You have the Right to ASK QUESTIONS.

To control people, the Police rely on:

“Ignorance of the Law is no excuse”

We need to use the
Baron David Ward Affidavit
to stop the fraud when it comes to debts
and other legal injustices says
Kirsty, my guest and advocate
of the lawful system.

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

Rod Culleton finally got a reply to the FOI request written 2 months ago to the Attorney – General for legality of the removal of the Great Seal of the Commonwealth in 1973.

The Great Seal is required to make Commonwealth law.

It is the most central thing to run Government and Parliament under the Constitution.

The answer came in yesterday morning

They have now admitted that they *DID NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY* to remove the Great Seal In 1973.

That means it’s ‘ILLEGAL & DONE IN TREASON* & every ACT since is NOT VALID LAW, NO AUTHORITY means there is NO LAW ever since.

The document received is the single most important thing to do blow every current government and parliament in Australia out of the water.

FRAUDS:

Federal Judges must be appointed by the Governor-General and Stale Judges by the State Governors who must have been appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

However, Privy Council and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London confirm that the Queen docs not and can not appoint the Governor-General nor the Governors because she is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and has no executive powers exercisable in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Therefore, any appointments made by these false representatives of the Queen are also fraudulent and those “Judges” have no authority or jurisdiction, whatsoever.

LIARS:

Common Law demands that an essential element in the creation of a contract is “certainty of terms”.

Variable interest rates render a contract void for uncertainty because ‘Variable” means “uncertain” and “certain” means “not variable” (Oxford English Dictionary).

However, Australian Judges say and maintain that variable interest rates are indeed certain.

That is a lie with which they conceal the illegality of variable interest rate loan contracts.

CRIMINALS:

Australian Judges conceal 2 major counts of fraud committed by Banks.

The first is the fraud of variable interest rate loan contracts (above) and the second is the fact that Banks create money for themselves “out of thin air’ and inject it into the economy as loans, which they recoup with interest.

Judges work for banks and
receive payment for all
property foreclosures
and penalties they collect.

These fraudulent practices amount to hundreds of billions of dollars and have resulted in the illegal dispossession of homes and businesses as well as bankruptcy, family breakdown, suicide and hardship to many ordinary Australians.

Australian Judges aid and abet in this atrocity.

TRAITORS:

Australian Judges swear to well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.

In the Queen’s Coronation Oath, she promised to execute Law and Justice with Mercy in all her Judgments.

Apart from the Queen being the Head of State of a foreign power, Australian Judges betray that allegiance and betray the Australian People through their Corruption and the denial of Justice.

FOOLS:

Listed in Australia’s Constitutional Enactments are Magna Carta 1297, Petition of Right 1627, Habeas Corpus 1640 and Bill of Rights 1688 which guarantee the Right to Trial by Jury – the denial of which is punishable by 5 years imprisonment (Imperial Acts Application Act 1969, section 43).

Bill of Rights 1688 actually says that “counsellors, judges and ministers” who “subvert and extirpation the laws and liberties of the kingdom” are “evil”.

All evil-doers are fools.

(sovereign) “in modern democracies the peoples will is in theory sovereign , therefore claiming your god given right to claim ownership of yourself , your body your mind and your soul, rebutting the presumption of unam sanctum and Justinian .

For no man or entity can claim ownership over another as this will be considered forcing slavery, as according to the slavery act 1995 sec 268.10 and sec 268.15. as and according to genesis 1:26.

Being sovereign is the recognition of being living breathing sentient being , with supreme authority over yourself and standing under no-one but god the almighty creator.

Therefore one cannot be a sovereign citizen, as citizen means bond, dead entity, lost at sea, fictional name, fraudulent chattel identity ie birth certificate.

For we are not birthed we are born or borned, as ships are birthed not people .

the term birthed was created to contract the people by deception to maritime admiralty laws, which rightfully belong 12 nautical miles out at sea therefore by you claiming to be birthed they can identify you as a non living ship, hence the words citizenship, relationship, fellowship , kinship, partnership and all words ending in ship .

Therefore it is not possible to be a sovereign citizen, this is an oxymoron, as one cannot be living and breathing and dead lost at sea, at the same time .

The mainstream media is trying to label all those claiming their god given rights and rebutting the systems of forced slavery as terrorists .

And also vilifying those who reserved and continue to reserve their right to bodily integrity and labelling them the fictitious term, sovereign citizens.

this is disgusting and an act of discrimination and a blatant targeting of all those not willing to consent to contract to their corporate new world order slavery systems.

Disclaimer: for I the sovereign man
rebut the term sovereign citizen
and deem that terminology
to be completely incorrect.

I am morally opposed to violence and terrorism or any given form of lawlessness against any laws derived from the laws of god the almighty creator .

I am strongly opposed to any and all persons or people claiming to be sovereign citizens in order to devoid themselves of accountability to the laws set down by god the almighty creator .

True sovereign man stand in honour and good will without malice nor ill intent.

Without prejudice nor vexation, with pledge to help all deserved man in need as and according to the teachings of Jesus Christ our saviour as I do.

True sovereign man should avoid at all costs suffering any deserved man harm loss or damage, and display a right standing character in all mannerism.

The right to defend ones god given freedom is not a crime, but to presume the right to unlawfully take from that man his god given freedom is!

All man are subject to Gods laws, therefore all laws created by man cannot simply be delegated without the consent of the people by referendum, nor created by corporations /entities or people without any ascent .

To simply claim a law to be true and correct is not a god given right.

All authority authenticity must be proven by confirmation of that authority as per requests to confirm that presumed authority .

to date the countless requests of confirmation to confirm that authority has not been met.

Therefore silence and or failure to reply to these simple requests can only be considered tacit agreement by default through acquiescence .

it is not an unreasonable ask for someone claiming authority to confirm that authority , and this is in no way defined as domestic terrorism.

As moral representatives of the people its not only our right but our god given duty to question all claiming authority without proof .

As written by those claiming authority: rights and protections.

In Australia, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a number of protected attributes including age, disability (status), gender (identity ) and sexual orientation in certain areas of public life, including education and employment as and according to the anti discrimination act 1997- and amended act 2011.

Therefore those who claimed authority to have created them laws are now bound by them.

And yet here we have the mainstream media such as the ABC, the Australian, seemingly without any accountability ignoring these laws and obviously being allowed to do so by those claiming to have the authority to uphold these laws .

They are generalizing to vilify those who question the integrity of this corporate system .

They are using the CIA term conspiracy theorist to do so, and yet ignoring all and any solid evidence that is being presented to back all claims of those they label.

By using the term anti vaxxer they are claiming that people do not have a right to their own bodily integrity, and to slander those identifying as sovereign is denying people the right to protect their god given freedom .

(Discrimination of identity).

And yet a fully grown man can throw on a dress and identify as a woman and use a ladies room .

You, the mainstream media are formally put on notice for your discriminatory behaviour, and all who are proclaiming to be representatives of your delegated laws are bound by oath to put a stop to this behaviour.

Sovereign citizen is = oxymoron,
Sovereign person = oxymoron,
sovereign is born ‘unalienable’ rights
should be pronounced
un-a lien-able rights

a ‘lien’ = a right to keep possession
of property belonging to another person
until a debt owed by that person is discharged
as there is NO ‘lien’ on your rights under god,
the unfettered right to travel throughout this land,
the right to be free to be owner of ones self
and the right to control your own affairs.

A Citizen = a Bondman a slave, one who owes his fidelity to the state, and this is the stupid uneducated term that is being used to cover up the corporate fraud throughout this land, did you know that the corporation of NSW police force (force = apply pressure to achieve desired results, is actually operating under Roman law, and that is is the eagle in the insignia, well last time I checked this isn’t Rome, imagine if we went to Rome and said you are now subject to Australian laws.

You can only be a
Sovereign MAN
or a
Sovereign WOMAN

A ‘person’ is also a corporation

Did you know that the state of NSW is registered to Washington DC on the securities exchange commission sec cik 0000071545.

Without the people
of this land consent.

Meaning that all corporations operating under the state of NSW are foreign vested corporations, meaning they require the following ASIC licenses.

ASIC memorandum, ASIC 402,403,404,405. to which have been requested on many occasions to the NSW police force and the NSW courts along with a plethora of, in fact an A to Z of questions to prove their authority and their jurisdiction and to date they have all remained in acquiescence to all that has been proposed, acquiescence is tacit binding agreement by default that they are unable to produce what has been requested.

Did you know that the Commonwealth of Australia is also registered to Washington DC without the peoples knowledge or consent sec cik 0000805157.

That is treason.

Did you know that the Queen / King of Australia is non existent, and is only an A4 document which jurisdiction is limited to Norfolk Island, Christmas island and certain parts of the Coccus islands.

That is also treason .

Did you know that the Australian courts are operating under unum sanctum and 12 (presumptions) of roman court as and according to what’s known as the Justinian deception.

This is carried out by the birth certificate fraud.

Originating in 1483 (1 rich. 3c. 1)

So what is cestui que vie
trust you may ask?

Well that was the cestui que vie act 1666 whereas 3 crowns were created and all of mans inheritance from their fore families was ceased and divided into 3 trusts.

And due to the birth certificate fraud as to where your mother and father were tricked into signing you over as corporate wards of the state, state meaning dead, as in lying in state.

Therefore these foreign vested corporations declare themselves executor (de son tort) by presumption and administer your trust without your consent, this trust is also known as commissary fide trust or hidden trust, have you not ever wondered with thousands of years of generations, where is all your inheritance?

Did you also know that
maritime law jurisdiction
starts 12 nautical miles out at sea.

But by calling this land a nation = birth they are deeming the land to be floating or a ship, therefore presumed subject to maritime law which is revenue based slavery laws, as and according to the slavery and servitude act 1995 sec 268 10 and 268 15, and the modern day slavery act 2018 sec 270.

Did you also know that a corporation cannot contract with the living , therefore by declaring you birthed as and according to the fraudulent chattel document aka birth certificate , they are deeming you to be a vessel a ship, hence citizenship.

So as a vessel you are non living to them, a bond on the stock market, as and according to the slave name or surname as written in black = dead and in a contractual black which is a contract border.

The last line reads: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

It is not only the first trust deed in history but also the largest trust ever conceived, as it claims the whole planet and everything on it, conveyed in trust. Triple Crown of Ba’al, aka the Papal Tiara and Triregnum In 1302 Pope Boniface issued his infamous Papal Bull Unam Sanctam––the first Express Trust.

He claimed control over the whole planet which made him “King of the world”.

In celebration, he commissioned a gold-plated headdress in the shape of a pinecone, with an elaborate crown at its base.

The pinecone is an ancient symbol of fertility and one traditionally associated with Ba’al as well as the Cult of Cybele.

It also represents the pineal gland in the centre of our brains––crystalline in nature–– which allows us access to Source, hence, the 13-foot tall pinecone in Vatican Square.

Think about why the Pontiffs would idolize a pinecone.

The 1st Crown of Crown Land

Pope Boniface VIII was the first leader in history to create the concept of a Trust, but the first Testamentary Trust, through a deed and will creating a Deceased Estate, was created by Pope Nicholas V in 1455, through the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex.

This is only one of three (3) papal bulls to include the line with the incipit “For a perpetual remembrance.”

This Bull had the effect of conveying the right of use of the land as Real Property, from the Express Trust Unam Sanctam, to the control of the Pontiff and his successors in perpetuity.

Hence, all land is claimed as “crown land”. This 1st Crown is represented by the 1st Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born.

It deprives us of all beneficial entitlements and rights on the land.

The 2nd Crown of the Commonwealth

The second Crown was created in 1481 with the papal bull Aeterni Regis, meaning “Eternal Crown”, by Sixtus IV, being only the 2nd of three papal bulls as deeds of testamentary trusts.

This Papal Bull created the “Crown of Aragon”, later known as the Crown of Spain, and is the highest sovereign and highest steward of all Roman Slaves subject to the rule of the Roman Pontiff.

Spain lost the crown in 1604 when it was granted to King James I of England by Pope Paul V after the successful passage of the “Union of Crowns”, or Commonwealth, in 1605 after the false flag operation of the Gunpowder Plot.

The Crown was finally lost by England in 1975, when it was returned to Spain and King Carlos I, where it remains to this day.

This 2nd Crown is represented by the 2nd cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born and, by the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the nation, depriving us of ownership of our flesh and condemning us to perpetual servitude, as a Roman person, or slave.

The 3rd Crown of the Ecclesiastical See

The third Crown was created in 1537 by Paul III, through the papal bull Convocation, also meant to open the Council of Trent.

It is the third and final testamentary deed and will of a testamentary trust, set up for the claiming of all “lost souls”, lost to the See.

The Venetians assisted in the creation of the 1st Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540, to use this papal bull as the basis of Ecclesiastical authority of Henry VIII.

This Crown was secretly granted to England in the collection and “reaping” of lost souls.

The Crown was lost in 1816, due to the deliberate bankruptcy of England, and granted to the Temple Bar which became known as the Crown Bar, or simply the Crown.

The Bar Associations have since been responsible for administering the “reaping” of the souls of the lost and damned, including the registration and collection of Baptismal certificates representing the souls collected by the Vatican and stored in its vaults.

This 3rd Crown is represented by the 3rd Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is baptized.

It is the parents’ grant of the Baptismal certificate––title to the soul––to the church or Registrar.

Thus, without legal title over one’s own soul, we will be denied legal standing and will be treated as things––cargo without souls––upon which the BAR is now legally able to enforce Maritime law.

The Cestui Que Vie Trust

A Cestui Que Vie Trust is a fictional concept.

It is a Temporary Testamentary Trust, first created during the reign of Henry VIII of England through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 and updated by Charles II, through the CQV Act of 1666, wherein an Estate may be effected for the Benefit of a Person presumed lost or abandoned at “sea” and therefore assumed “dead” after seven (7) years.

Additional presumptions, by which such a Trust may be formed, were added in later statutes to include bankrupts, minors, incompetents, mortgages, and private companies.

The original purpose of a CQV Trust was to form a temporary Estate for the benefit of another because some event, state of affairs, or condition prevented them from claiming their status as living, competent, and present, before a competent authority.

Therefore, any claims, history, statutes, or arguments that deviate in terms of the origin and function of a CQV Trust, as pronounced by these canons, is false and automatically null and void.

A Beneficiary under Estate may be either a Beneficiary or a CQV Trust.

When a Beneficiary loses direct benefit of any Property of the higher Estate placed in a CQV Trust on his behalf, he do not “own” the CQV Trust; he is only the beneficiary of what the Trustees of the CQV Trust choose to provide.

As all CQV Trusts are created on presumption, based upon original purpose and function, such a Trust cannot be created if these presumptions can be proven not to exist.

Since 1933, when a child is borne in a State (Estate) under inferior Roman law, three (3) Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created upon certain presumptions specifically designed to deny, forever, the child any rights of Real Property, any Rights to be free, and any Rights to be known as man or woman, rather than a creature or animal, by claiming and possessing their Soul or Spirit.

The Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate willingly and knowingly:

1. convey the beneficial entitlements of the child, as Beneficiary, into the 1st Cestui Que (Vie) Trust in the form of a Registry Number by registering the Name, thereby also creating the Corporate Person and denying the child any rights to Real Property; and,

2. claim the baby as chattel to the Estate. (See HEELING – it still happens)

   The slave baby contract is then created by honouring the ancient tradition of either having the ink impression of the baby’s feet onto the live birth record, or a drop of its blood, as well as tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record which is a promissory note, converted into a slave bond, sold to the private reserve bank of the estate, and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate CQV Trust, per child, owned by the bank.

   When the promissory note reaches maturity and the bank is unable to “seize” the slave child, a maritime lien is lawfully issued to “salvage” the lost property and is monetized as currency issued in series against the CQV Trust.

3. claim the child’s soul via the Baptismal Certificate. Since 1540 and the creation of the 1st CQV Act, deriving its power from the Papal Bull of Roman Cult leader Pope Paul III, 1540, when a child is baptized and a Baptismal Certificate is issued, the parents have gifted, granted, and conveyed the soul of the baby to a “3rd” CQV Trust owned by Roman Cult, which has held this valuable property in its vaults ever since.

   Since 1815, this 3rd Crown of the Roman Cult and 3rd CQV Trust representing Ecclesiastical Property has been managed by the BAR as the reconstituted “Galla” responsible, as Grim Reapers, for reaping the souls.

Each Cestui Que Vie Trust, created since 1933, represents one of the 3 Crowns representing the three claims of property of the Roman Cult: Real Property (on Earth), Personal Property (body), and Ecclesiastical Property (soul).

Each corresponds exactly to the three forms of law available to the Galla of the BAR Courts: corporate commercial law (judge is the ‘landlord’), maritime and canon law (judge is the banker), and Talmudic law (judge is the priest).

What is the real power of a court ‘judge’?

Given what has been revealed about the foundations of Roman Law, what is the real hidden power of a judge when we face court? Is it their superior knowledge of process and procedure or of magic?

Or is it something simpler
and far more obvious?

It is unfortunate that much of the excitement about Estates and Executors has deliberately not revealed that an Estate, by definition, has to belong to a Trust––to be specific, a Testamentary Trust or CQV Trust.

When we receive legal paper or have to appear in court, it is these same CQV Trusts which have our rights converted into the property contained within them.

Instead of being the Trustee, or the Executor, or Administrator, we are merely the Beneficiary of each CQV Trust, granted only beneficial and equitable use of certain property, never legal title.

So if the Roman Legal System assumes we are merely the beneficiary of these CQV Trusts, when we go to court, who represents the Trustee and Office of Executor?

We all know that all cases are based upon the judge’s discretion which often defies procedures, statutes, and maxims of law.

Well, they are doing what any Trustee or Executor, administering a trust in the presence of the beneficiary, can do under Roman Law and all the statutes, maxims, and procedures are really for show because under the principles of Trust Law, as first formed by the Roman Cult, a Trustee has a wide latitude, including the ability to correct any procedural mistakes, by obtaining the implied or tacit consent of the beneficiary, to obviate any mistakes.

The judge is the real and legal Name.

The judge is the trust, itself.

We are the mirror image to them –– the ghost –– the dead.

It is high sorcery, trickery,
and subterfuge that has
remained “legal” for far too long.

The fraudulent system makes claim to (a dead placenta) and that it was weighed and record of that placenta made by the maternity doctor nurse they have never said where it was deposited to ??? (who knows with occultists…(perhaps adrenochrome was extracted who really knows ) mothers know that the placenta was examined and recorded (Some hospitals keep the placenta for a period of time in case the need arises to send it to pathology for further analysis?

Why! DNA records?

In any circumstances the placenta is not “alive” but is a dead part of the berth/birth” and as a DEAD PORTION it is claimed openly by the Vatican they claim dead souls…so what ACTUALLY came “alive first” the baby clearly came first and there is the FIRST EVIDENCE of a living child The PLACENTA is the SECOND part to exit the mother and this is where the Vatican steps in and makes claim as a DEAD SOUL part of you once the umbilical chord is severed

….now here is created the PERSON and it is openly declared in the legislation by the Blair Administration (Births,deaths,Marriages and Relationships Act 1995 it does NOT include Live babies conclusion Blair is a confirmed occultist and advocate of collecting “dead souls” . This is where all gets confusing to unravel the mystery of the dead legal world?

All should by now realise that baby came first placenta second….under the laws of nature and god no living baby can be claimed except by mum and dad by an occult legal system deliberately and by design to trick mum and dad unto not knowing what had just happened.

What mother or father ever asks the question “what am I registering here?” a dead placenta (claimed by the Vatican Crown ) or the live born …..simple answer THEY DONT …because they are elated with happy emotions and they want to care for their live born bundle of joy…so your placenta is “the person” not you or your baby…but for decades they apply the deception to you as a baby, toddler, teenager, adult OAP because they don’t want you to recognise their scam …they give low education …they want THE PERSON(legal entity) without rights freedoms and to be able to own property oh no they want to steal it all….. not the LIVE BEING that has rights ….can own property and more as it does NOT create profits for governments and the Vatican a living being keeps what it reaps.

The only entities Rishi Sunak has an “authority” over is DEAD SOULS and breaks SUPERIOR LAWS to get what bankers want (YOUR ENERGY) and fat fingers Charlie agrees break SUPERIOR STATUTES to let Sunak carry on the greatest deception inflicted upon living kind (men women and children)

What is written on the Pics is:
“separation from the umbilical chord
creates TWO ENTITIES.

A. Live Born and …

B. Placenta/afterbirth . ” afterbirth/berth ” = (admiralty law terms) Berth IS TO ABANDON and the PLACENTA is a “dead entity ” that is the only entity actually claimed by the Occult Vatican and registered with governments” and cannot have any rights or own property because it is DEAD!

The Birth Registration Certificate of death of the part of the PLACENTA is the only part subject to LEGISLATION (see Births, Deaths Marriages and relationships Act 1995) defines STILL BIRTH (placenta) includes a “still birth” and EXCLUDES all else including LIVING Babies and LIVING Beings the placenta is INCAPABLE of being living or dead.

By agreeing to “sign” a birth certificate is a certificate of a dead placenta and mum and dad have agreed to sign that certificate agree part of the birth is DEAD and has no rights and this is how the vatican and governments have operated for centuries ON ONE BIG LIE …this is the reason they say “get a solicitor” as they know the fraud …but with understanding we wake up to it all…(part copied from a recent piece of research).

Text on images

Image 1 – Single live entity

Still joined and until the act of separation the governments being in league with the Vatican cannot claim the placenta.

Then mother and father are tricked/deceived into registering and naming a dead placenta in the belief it, (the registration), means the living child.

Image 2 – TWO entities

Separation from the umbilical chord creates TWO entities Live Born Placenta – After Birth After Birth/Berth is to abandon and is a dead entity that is the only entity claimed by the Vatican that has NO rights AS IT IS dead.

The birth registration then becomes subject to legislation and is called a ‘STILL BORN’ by being a dead placenta without legal rights.

Governments and the Vatican claim jurisdiction over the ‘dead soul’ claimed and recorded at the hospital.