Nexum: Living Roman law, and why we are all in Prison!

reply to post by JakiusFogg


Thanks for the recommendation on getting a digital copy of blacks law. If I get new Ipod i will plan on getting a copy.
Hmm very few responses well I guess thats typical of such subject matter on ATS.

I shamefully had to look up proletariat

Great post, I had never heard of nexum before. If you believe that story about the American people being pledged as collateral, then yeah, it makes perfect sense.

a star and flag, and an honest admission that the points brought forth cannot be argued against.....not by me at least!

i've always thought, then later voiced, that nations have sold the people to the bankers. now you've shown how that thought was fairly accurate...and sad.

reply to post by citizen6511


E-money

Interesting you should bring that up. Yesterday I was searching the term Nexus on the Bank of England Website. it brought up this white paper, on whether central banks can survive e-money, due to their NEED TO MANIPULATE the value of money! Their words.

Tacit admission?

I had a thought last night whilst half asleep. How could a link between the people / govenrment and seizure by a central bank be shown.

Well, working of the concept that registration of birth is an entry into a company list of assets. there must have been a trigger linked closely to the need for this, and the central bank.

Enter, the birth certificate.

UK
Bank Charter Act 1844 - The Bank of England starts to issue legal currency of behalf of the government
Registration of Births Started in 1837 although it became compulsory* in 1853

US
Registration was centralised to the US Public Health Service in 1946
I looked for a reference linking the Federal Reserve to this date. and came up with
Employment Act 1946

The Employment Act of 1946 ch. 33, section 2, 60 Stat. 23, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1021, is a United States federal law. Its main purpose was to lay the responsibility of economic stability of inflation and unemployment onto the federal government.[1] The act did not favor Keynesian policies; indeed, there were few policy consequences because as Stein (1969) notes, "The failure to pass a 'Full Employment Act' is as significant as the decision to pass the Employment Act."[2] The Act created the Council of Economic Advisors, attached to the White House, which provides analysis and recommendations, as well as the Joint Economic Committee. In practice the government has relied on automatic stabilizers and Federal Reserve policy for macroeconomic management, while the Council of Economic Advisers has focused primarily on microeconomic issues.[3]

wikipedia

How can a people in a country have full employment, when everyone is an employee of the country.

Now, in now way am I saying that these here are the defining links, but I feel at least that it shows a link between the requirements of the government to know by mandate the people within its jurisdiction. and the ascension of the central bank powers. i.e. they want to know who they own. A stock take if you like

* Compulsory

Compulsory, n. Eccles. law. An order that compels the attendance of a witness

Just as the registration of birth needs to be witnessed.

Compel

compel, vb 1. To cause or bring about by force, threats or overwhelming pressure. 2. to convince that there is only one resolution of a legal dispute.

This compels me to believe that being compelled is superseded by the right of man for self determination.

For example the UK registration information site states
you MUST register your baby within 42 days.

The great maxim states that if one equals another then the opposite is true,

Blacks does not list the word must. But it does list the word may

may, vb, 3 Loosly, is require to; shall; must - in dozens of cases courts have held may to be synonymous with shall or must, usu. in an effort to effectuate legislative intent.

So if may equals must, then must equals may. meaning although you are compelled to have the registration witnessed. it is not binding.

(nb. my opinion only. NOT LEGAL ADVISE. I AM NOT A LAWYER I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS)

Oh how droll,

Self determination

assisted self-determination. See assisted suicude under SUICIDE

this just gets sicker

And the final nail in the coffin for me (ex tags all from Blacks 9th)

Register

Register, vb. 1. To enter in a public registry.

Public and Registry are two separate linked words

Public (not what you think)

public, adj. 1, Relating or belonging to an entire community, state, or nation.

or

The people of a nation or community as a whole.

People

The citizens of a state.

Registry

registry, 2. Maritime law. The list or record of ships subject to a particular country's maritime regulations. A ship is listed under the nationality of the flag it flies. see certificate of registry.

OK there are two more links I want to see here.

Subject - This has two meaning. 1 is in reference to an object, i.e. the subject property, meaning the thing we are talking about. this does not fit

the other meaning is this.

subject, n. 1. One who owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by that sovereign's laws.

"Speaking generally, we MAY say that the terms subject and citizen are synonymous.

another link: Sovereign (again not what you think)

sovereign, n 1. A person, body or state vested with independent and supreme authority. 2. The ruler of an independent state.

And the second
Certificate of registry

Maritime law. A document certifying that a ship has been registered as required by law.

So, from what I can see here this is a closed loop. public means government, people means subject, subject is allegiance to the sovereign.

Therefore;

When registered which you must (may / compelled as it is compulsory) enact, you belong to the state (as a ship') and as such are subject (citizen) to and owe allegiance to the laws of the sovereign as a requirement of law. and as such fly the flag (passport) when navigating.

But to do what?

Ship, n. A type of vessel used or intended to be used in navigation,

A vessel eh?

So a registered ship on a public registry would make this a public vessel, no?

Public vessel. A vessel owned and used by a nation, or government for its public service, whether in its navy, its revenue service or otherwise.

Owned we know but Revenue service???? really!

Revenue

Public revenue. A government's income usu. derived from taxes levies and frees.

And here we go, the last piece
Service

Service vb. To provide service for; specif., to make interest payments on (a debt) service the deficit.

This has taken a little under 1 hour. and a $50 copy of blacks law, and a little lateral thinking.

When you are registered by become a public vessel engaged compelled by law by your sovereign to generate service revenue. ie. pay interest on debt. this is your life. right here. But it is OK. you are not bound to this. you have the right to self-determinate. well, KILL YOURSELF.

As a layman I now want to cry,

Just to fully close this off. I got stuck on the words, Belonging to.

Belong

belong, vb. 1. To be the property of a person or thing. See ownership.

Ownership (own a ship?)

The bundle of rights allowing one to use, manage and enjoy property, including right to convey it to others,

bundle of rights

See property.

Property

Property, 1, The right to possess, use, and enjoy a determinate thing (either a tract of land or a chattel. The institution of private property is protected from undue governmental interference.

Convey

convey, vb. To transfer or deliver (something such as a right or property) to another, esp. by deed or other writing"

So is it that we are to be considered chattel, or personal property of the state. to use enjoy and convey as they see fit, by right of granted ownership?

However,

Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional powers of those who use it.

Dominion

1, Control; possession (dominion over a car), 2 Sovereignty

Could this be our doorway. Property belongs to a person

1, A Human Being. 2, The living body, 3, An entity such as a corporation recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. IN this sense the term includes partnerships and other associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated.

In our case the act of registry makes us the property of the Sovereign, but does not mean absolute dominion the more we are used for the benefit of the person (owner) by the public (government).

That being the more we act in revenue service as a vessel. the more we gain our own dominion.

That is to say, our job in the company is to service the debt. in my case as a UK citizen that is GBP 31,300

Is this my slave price. The price I have to pay to become a free man? it seems logical to me.

There are some who seem to try and extricate themselves by working the law. But what if my tax revenues are greater than my portion of the debt, that I service as a vessel. I have the right of citizenship, and nationality. as guaranteed by the UN rights of the child. I have the right to fly the flag (passport) even as a free man as I have been entered on to the registry. This as before was enshrined in Roman law. that only a free man was a Roman citizen, and could not have dominion put upon him.

If I serve my duty as a citizen. Do I not then have right of dominion over myself? Having paid my due, yet still guaranteeing my rights as a subject?

Would that stand in court? any experts here?

possible holy grail

bump!

bump

I guess you really can lead horses to water.

Casting Pearls before what......?

reply to post by JakiusFogg


My head hurts! That is a lot to take in. Are you saying that by having , or signing a birth certificate we sign away our lives and agree to the rules and laws of the people we make that agreement with? I realise I may be looking at this at a far shallower depth than this subject desrves , but this was the thought that came to me after reading .. thought i`d share.

reply to post by katseyes


Finally! thank you!

Yes that is what I am saying. in conjunction with my first part, the second is the effect of the first. In that the "act" of being compelled (requested under pressure) to enter (present before the the sovereign) your child for ownership (belonging to) by the state as a vessel for the purpose of service (of the debt) by way of revenue.

However, it remains that ownership does not mean dominion. And that the more a person is subject to the service of the public the more the original right of ownership is circumscribed. meaning, you buy OUT your allocation of debt.

My question is. How much is that debt we are ascribed. and who do I need to pay it to?

Others try to use words to circumnavigate statues by claiming common law. That is fine. My approach is to attain free man status as a citizen, as in roman times, whilst retaining the benefits of the sovereign,

If you like, early retirement.

TPUC

A lot of work has been done by many members of that site in understanding legalese and the effects it has on all of us.

It's a UK site but the legal systems of the UK and US are very closely tied together so much of the information is applicable to both countries.

Thanks very much for this informative thread, you've put in some great research.

reply to post by SkyBluePegasus


I am indeed familiar the work of the TPUC.

Indeed they are the inspiration of what got me started on this subject. However I feel they ignore certain truths and realities in definition and citation of Blacks law, to the point of only using definitions where it suites.

The above, IMO, is a pathway to obtaining freedom, if possible, within statutes, by using the definitions as prescribed in the latest revision of the law dictionary.

As I work day to day with revisions of documents. I know that use of a previous revision of regulation is null and void. as it has been superseded.

i.e. currently Black defines statue as a law.

In John Harris' presentation he defines it as a rule given force of law.

I dont know is this came out of a previous revision, but it no longer stands.

However it must be said that an instrument. ie. a statutory instrument when taken in the literal meaning of the word, still means a contract.

And that a S.I. is an administrative regulation empowered by a statue.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
I guess you really can lead horses to water.

Casting Pearls before what......?

I'm pretty sure everyone has been conditioned by the internet Meme of
"I am not a Lawyer", or IANAL. Particularly when giving advice.

This thread is simultaneously asking people to consider the law as a subject worth being informed on,
while breaking their conditioning to hate lawyers and lawyerly subjects. The natural reaction is
to feel that the subject is either above their pay grade, or has no viable alternative.
I think most of the smarter members are avoiding posting because,
they don't know what to do with the information, what it means,
or how to anticipate it's implications. The citing of ancient
Roman Law, just reinforces how ancient this stuff is
and makes it feel all the more inevitable.

This is a failure is similar to the paradox of having buyers remorse from too many choices.

So let's drill down to one specific point a little bit.

My complaint: TPTB do not know my name. Not from memory. Not in a personal way. I'm little more than a number to them. Computers are being used to collect all our faces, and names and match them up so that
and automated system can tell them who we are. This further dehumanizes us.

Your citing of the Birth Certificate as the foundation of financial ownership cements this.

I want my town mayor to know my frikkin name, the sound of my voice, and feel my concerns. But the only way TPTB will ever learn my name is if I become famous or comit a heinous crime. This incentivizes people acting out, and punishes those who quietly hold society up.

It's all so impersonal and dehumanizing. The digitized systems are accelerating the reduction of people, and their feelings, to meer statistics and trends. Adding money to the discusion does nothing to express my feelings. It just reminds me that I don't even have a place at the table.

Isn't it ironic that the best way to get someone interested in these Legal Traditions,
is to have someone famous start talking about them.


David Grouchy

reply to post by JakiusFogg


Yes, John does define statutes as 'the force of law'. The trouble is, it seems that a new edition of Black's can always change definitions to suit themselves.

What is your take on Lawful Rebellion? It seems that you're taking a different approach to the usual 'Freeman on the land' type thinking. I believe that it's difficult to free yourself from the system by playing it at it's own game, although some people claim to have done just that.

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
I guess you really can lead horses to water.

Casting Pearls before what......?

I'm pretty sure everyone has been conditioned by the internet Meme of
"I am not a Lawyer", or IANAL. Particularly when giving advice.

Indeed, but this is a litigious society where one always seeks to delegate responsibility, which in not possible, but is held up time again in court. So bum covering necessary.

This thread is simultaneously asking people to consider the law as a subject worth being informed on,
while breaking their conditioning to hate lawyers and lawyerly subjects. The natural reaction is
to feel that the subject is either above their pay grade, or has no viable alternative.

I would say more playing the game using their rules rather trusting it. But I agree with the last sentiment.

I think most of the smarter members are avoiding posting because,
they don't know what to do with the information, what it means,
or how to anticipate it's implications. The citing of ancient
Roman Law, just reinforces how ancient this stuff is
and makes it feel all the more inevitable.

Again you are most likely correct, however do you ever get the feeling that you stumbled on something so important, but especially in this forum, it lacks attention grabbing headlines as it it is admittedly not as sensational as major disasters, death, destruction or earth swallowing aliens. but at the same time is a corrosive as salt water on aluminum, hence my frustration. I just want to help.

This is a failure is similar to the paradox of having buyers remorse from too many choices.

Caveat emptor.

So let's drill down to one specific point a little bit.

My complaint: TPTB do not know my name. Not from memory. Not in a personal way. I'm little more than a number to them. Computers are being used to collect all our faces, and names and match them up so that
and automated system can tell them who we are. This further dehumanizes us.

Indeed, but I suspect it is a mechanism that is put to a more industrious use than simple statistics. indeed the first census in the US were used to identify who were eligible for military service.

Your citing of the Birth Certificate as the foundation of financial ownership cements this.

I like or in this case am afraid to think so

I want my town mayor to know my frikkin name, the sound of my voice, and feel my concerns. But the only way TPTB will ever learn my name is if I become famous or comit a heinous crime. This incentivizes people acting out, and punishes those who quietly hold society up.

The oily wheel gets the grease as it were.

It's all so impersonal and dehumanizing. The digitized systems are accelerating the reduction of people, and their feelings, to meer statistics and trends. Adding money to the discusion does nothing to express my feelings. It just reminds me that I don't even have a place at the table.

I decided long ago, when dealing with people of power to remember that they wake in the morning and go to the toilet. As crude as this is. it reminds me that every one is born a screaming sack of water. and returns to the earth as such. by a mans deeds (legal term) shall ye know him.

Isn't it ironic that the best way to get someone interested in these Legal Traditions,
is to have someone famous start talking about them.

I know what you are saying, as anything else is out of limits of the average persons normalcy bias. once that is broken anything is possible, by the downside is it drives you mad. I cannot count the times today that when reading this stuff, i physically felt tears welling up.

David Grouchy

Cheer up chum

At he end of it. I understand that this is some heavy weight stuff, and sometimes it is easier to stick to the lights in the sky, or the earthquakes, or ghosts, or shadow government conspiracies. Where as this, has the basis of proof, even by a layman, although maybe misguided and wrong (I am willing to accept) of actual deception by the civil service. Before we just suspect to try to prove conspiracy. Here it is written and explained. and seems to have been going on.

The ancestor effect apparently enables us to perform better, that is, if we think what our grandfathers achieved it supposedly improves our own performance. But what, if in this case, it just highlights their impotence. And that which brings in to high relief our own.

However I believe that we are now at a point in our history where this is ready to be turned on its head. mainly due to the arrogance of TPTB. but that is my honest opinion. and it may prove to be incorrect. However the words still hold true. and I hope, against all hope that the solution I propose can be shown by someone here with a legal education to have basis in law.

Just like 1989. let the wall come down,

reply to post by SkyBluePegasus


The lawful rebellion is fine in essence. The major problem I have with it, in the mainstream, That is to say youtube is that it is used for the purposes of one of the following.

1, Not paying council tax
2, Not paying license fees
3, Smoking of Cannabis
4, Generally arguing and getting one over on the Police.

All of the above are fine, And I agree with the concept of rebelling against what is seen as a corrupt and traitorous government. However by his own admission, Society is the will of the majority, And nothing will change until the majority get on board with the right of self-determination (suicide!!!!!)

I would say responsibility to the self.

The FMOTL mechanism for this, is to simply withhold consent to contract, and deny the person (fiction) which is their right, Only as long as you can stand being compelled to comply (look up comply) comes from complicit, to act in agreement. with the offer. many people I see trying this, I see faltering, or arguing amongst themselves, or generally not having their ducks in a row.

My take, IF and its a big if, is to play the rules to our benefit, to obtain and earn freedom by fully complying with the regulations.

Of course they won't tell you what the goal posts are, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. To demonstrate that I am capable of living as an Adult without supervision.

I have seen other Free man videos that take this stance.

But in short, what I think I found here, is firstly the reasoning behind why things are the way they are. i.e. seizure of sovereign ownership by the banks. (i.e. The Crown, Look up The Temple Bar). and how I can legally fulfill my obligations under legislation as a vessel to service the debt, to obtain legal retirement, or decommissioning whist still retaining rights and privileges under the state.

Where as the TPUC act to forcibly retake the rights of man, as truths that are self evident. The problem being that the enforcers no longer know the difference. and to be honest I don't need that hassle.

But lets just say that I have successfully stopped paying tax, whilst still earning, and remitting to the UK, and had previous payment reimbursed. So the theory of playing the game does work. For this, I had to leave th country

BUT, if it were possible to remain, and have fulfilled by tax obligation as a vessel, that would be awesome.

So the question is. What is my debt to be repaid?