Whereas the people
The Government by fear: the War on Terror
The war on the subjects of the Commonwealth was started in 1973, when a member of the lawyers cartel became Prime Minister in Australia, changed the Royal Style and Titles, elevated himself temporarily to the office of Lord Protector, and led an erratic and controversial government defeated when on the same day of the month WWI ended the 11th November 1975, he was made subject to the Constitution, and a caretaker Prime Minister was appointed to take the matter to the big jury, the combined electorate of the Commonwealth.
The people of Australia overwhelmingly opted for the Constitution, but since the new Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser was a Rhodes Scholar, indoctrinated at Oxford, as was the Silver Bodgie, who succeeded him as Lord Protector, the politics of fear continued, and gradually the States tightened the screws on the public. The gradual tightening of the rope around the necks of ordinary subjects continued, and as more and more lawyers were elected to the Parliaments, the stranglehold on freedom, by that profession, continued to tighten.
In a properly functioning society the fear is in the government not in the people, and the Quaker saying, prominent in the United States of America was “Trust in God, but keep your powder dry.” In fact the Dollar in the United States of America, the famous Greenback, has the words: IN GOD WE TRUST written on it. In the United States it is possible to continue to trust God, because the seventh amendment, of their Constitution guarantees that any dispute of an amount over twenty dollars, has as of right, the mandated requirement for, at the option of either party, the calling together of a gathering of the people, called a jury, and the ultimate power is vested in that body.
The change in the system, effected without a referendum, was commenced with S 30 (3) Bankruptcy Act 1966. It was enacted six months after Sir Robert Menzies retired as Prime Minister, and started the attempt to establish a communist republic by stealth. Communism and Feudalism, have much in common, because neither can validly continue under Christianity. When Tyndale started translating the Holy Bible into English, and Caxton started mass producing books, the end of feudalism was ensured, in England. At the time, the largest landowner in the United Kingdom was the Roman Catholic Church. On its land about half the population labored under feudal conditions.
Henry VIII following the lead of Henry VII adopted the New Testament as His guiding philosophy, and continued the principle enacted in 4 Hen 7 Ch 20, [1487] of prohibiting Judges, granting dispensations from obedience to the law, a law that came to Australia, with the Australian Courts Act 1828, was in force in 1900, when the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was enacted, and was disregarded by Judge Philip Misso despite being cited to him, and a copy supplied. A number of the individuals seeking to hold the Commonwealth to account, in Glouftsis and ors v The Commonwealth [2010] have been made bankrupt by lawyers, to prevent an account being taken of Commonwealth misdeeds.
The Commonwealth, as a corporation is a criminal organization. The three Acts that created the Commonwealth, make it accountable, but the seeds of the State of Fear, were sown when in June 1966, the first case of Judges and Magistrates becoming de-facto Gods, was enacted without being reserved by the Governor General to a referendum. Bankruptcy was originally a fearful state, much to be feared. Until paid, debts resulted in an indefinite period of imprisonment, in a jail that did not supply food.
This of course was attacked by the common law, and replaced by an open prison, in which the civil rights of the victim are curtailed. In S 30 (3) Bankruptcy Act 1966, the fundamental right to justice was vested, for the first time in a Judge. While the Commonwealth and States maintain Judges and Magistrates and vest the judicial power of the Commonwealth in them they are criminal corporations.
Judge Philip Misso as a person entitled to exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth provided he abided the provisions of the County Court Act 1958 was charged with ending this tyranny. The Commonwealth, represented by two lawyers, Richard Knowles and John David Brown, from the Australian Government Solicitor made application to the County Court in Victoria to strike out the claim for a Declaration and consequential relief. The consequential relief put the fear of God, in the hearts of the Commonwealth, currently led by a Slater and Gordon Partner, and an atheist.
There is nothing wrong with being a lawyer or policeman provided they know the law. Most do not. The vesting of the judicial power of the Commonwealth in lawyers, exclusively, without requiring them to consult with twelve common sense individuals, drawn from the larger community, and free from indoctrination, in Satanic worship, and or membership of secret societies, is an infringement of S 116 Constitution. The use by Police of their services creates the State of Fear. The Commonwealth must not legislate to establish any religion, but religiously adheres to Judges and Magistrates, whose State of Fear, is and must remain high. They must know that every time they merge Church and State, by sitting as a Priest, on behalf of the State, they are offenders and at any time can be stripped of all their privileges and be imprisoned.
It is not just meanness that persuades the Commonwealth Judges and Magistrates to refuse to allow arguments in the federal courts, by refusing to file proceedings. It is Fear. Secretly they know, that at any time, the Government can imprison them, and a jury would convict them. S 80 Constitution will not help them. The only defence they have is the cartel. If they can exclude ordinary people from the courts, and prevent choice of advocate, then they may live in fear without fearing retribution.
183 people were part of lodging a prayer in the County Court in Victoria. The cartel in Melbourne would not file it. However a Registrar in Geelong did. He did because he saw the justice in a declaration. The prayer lodged was for a Declaration, and the application of the liquidated penalties established in 1914, by the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) to the Treasury of the Commonwealth, as provided by the Judiciary Act 1903.
The Judges and Magistrates of Australia do not fear Almighty God. They like the war criminals brought to account from the Bosnian war, are eventually facing the prospect of trial and ruin, in the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court Act 2002 was made to implement the War on Terror. Its provisions should shift the fear from the people to their governments. Start joining the revolution. Find a church, and become planted in the House of the Lord. This is the only type of One World Government that will free individuals from fear, and cast the fear on government: Government of the people, by the people for the people. The word people, is the third word in the preamble of the Australian Constitution. Whereas the people.
Loading ...
July 16th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Whats the Legal Lawful definition of the words, Man and Woman,Question is dose the word “people”, mean = Real Living Man and Woman, or artificial persons, persona
look up Words “God”, “people” persona, person, entity, Government, corporation, constitution, State, Country , Nation,
[ {Latin} persona.= false mask worn by a player on stage, is root word for person],
person = a Legal entity, Artificial person, fictitious person, a corporation,
The Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People – Supreme Court of the United States 1795 “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, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795 [--Not the "United States Supreme Court" –ed.]
people noun citizenry, commonality, community, community at large, country, general public, inhabitants, multitude, nation, national group, nationality, persons, populace, population, race, society, state.
34. Full disclosure of the word, legal person (Latin: persona ficta), (also artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has a legal name and has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of a legal person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law) (the law of business associations).
35. Full disclosure of the word, An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, although it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate.
36. Full disclosure of the word “person [ Weiss’s Concise Trustee Handbook, by Carlton Albert Weiss 2nd ed 2008]
The word ‘person’ defined; that jurisdiction over natural and artificial persons is
distinguished without a fundamental difference. This stems, surprisingly, from the operation of in rem jurisdiction which underlies all Civil Law. Though all courts are familiar with the action in personam (against persons), it is the action in rem (against things) which, though practiced only in Maritime Law, stealthily operates in every civil and criminal court. This principle is one of the least understood in its entirety.
In rem jurisdiction over a man or woman can only exist if the man or woman is a slave, i.e., property or res (an object), in which case his or her disposition at law is no different than if he or he were a horse or other goods. See
THE ZONG (GREGSON V. GILBERT), 99 E.R. 3:233 (K.B. 1783). In nature, in rem jurisdiction is exercised over men and women by their Creator, exclusively. Governments can therefore gain only a fictional in rem jurisdiction over men by creating various legal devices (personas) for those men to assume limited control of (e.g., citizen, taxpayer, driver, etc.). Since the device is legal fiction, a falsehood made true by force of law, this persona is in-fact a legal object or res. Just as in theatre, the persona (“person”) is separate from the man or woman playing the part; therefore, there may be artificial persons, but not artificial men; natural persons, but not natural men. AMERICAN LAW & PROCEDURE, vol. XIII, ch. V, § 65, pp. 156-157:
“The word ‘person’ defined. Gaius says ‘De juris divisione’ (the divisions of law) immediately preceding
his division of the law; then follows, ‘De conditione hominum’ (meaning the condition or status of men).
“In the Institutes ‘De jura personarum’ precedes the expression ‘all our [civil] law relates either to persons,
or to things, or to actions.’ The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals.” [Citations omitted; bold and italics emphasis added.]
In footnote 33, we get at the modern application and its implications:
“. . . The word ‘person,’ in its primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These pieces were played in public places, and afterwards in such vast amphitheatres that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard by all the spectators [and later by all judges]. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the part he was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox peronabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask which facilitated the resounding of his [legal] voice. The name persona was afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken to play, because the face of the mask was adopted to the age and character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in society,
abstractly, without considering the individual.” 1 Bouv. Inst., note 1. [Bold and italics emphasis, and bracket information added.] Logic follows that if the man plays no part in a society, then he has no personal attachment or obligation thereto. The trustee(s) under a declaration of an Express Trust are only persons in the private sense because he is only a person once he has accepted the role offered to him by the settlor. Private persons may also pursue constitutional protection as natural persons, “citizens” within the meaning of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, and may thereby claim entitlement to all the “privileges and immunities” of same. See generally PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 75 U.S. 168 (1868). Even though, in today’s economic situation the term “citizen” is presumed to signify the 14th Amendment citizen, the term cannot be applied to Express Trusts when administered properly. In contrast,
corporations, as artificial persons, are “citizens of the United States,” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment
per SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886).
40. Full Disclosure of Capitis deminutio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Capitis deminutio (lit. “decrease of head”) is a term used in Roman trials referring to the extinguishing, either in whole or in part, of a person’s former legal capacity.
There were three changes of state or condition attended with different consequences, maxima, media and minima. The greatest, capitis deminutio maxima, involved the loss of liberty, citizenship, and family (e.g. being made a slave or prisoner of war). The next change of state, capitis deminutio media, consisted of a loss of citizenship and family without any forfeiture of personal liberty. The least change of state, capitis deminutio minima, consisted of a person ceasing to belong to a particular family, without loss of liberty or citizenship.[1]
BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 8th ed
Capitis deminutio Latin “reduction of status” Roman law, A diminution or alteration of a person’s legal status,
”Capitis deminutio is the destruction of the ‘caput’ or legal personality, Capitis deminutio, so to speak, wipes out the former individual and puts a new one in his place, and between the old and the new individual there is , legally speaking, nothing in common. A juristic personality may be thus destroyed in one of three ways: (1) by loss of the status libertatis. This is capitis deminutio maxima; (2) by loss of the status civitatis. This is the capitis deminutio media (magna); (3) by severance from the agnatic family, This entails capitis deminutio minima.
Capitis deminutio maxima [Latin Maximum reduction of status] Roman law
The diminution of a person’s legal status as a result of being reduced to slavery.