0

Common Law: Questions & confusion regarding the Strawman, liability, commerce etc.

I have done my best to explain the difference between the real human being (comprising man & woman), and the created legal-entity called the 'person' (Welcome Page)...

...but still there is much confusion. Who owns what? What is the Common Law and where'd it go? What does a "Claim of Right" do? Should I separate myself from the Strawman or take control of it? (Yes to both!) How do I act under limited liability?

Your ALL-CAPITALIZED name is your Strawman (also known as your Trade Name or your Artificial Person).

This Strawman is a vehicle or vessel you use when you act in commerce. - The ALL-CAPITALS name is also known as the 'Capitis Diminutio Maxima' name. Videos >here<. (And some forums.)

Some questions and answers follow, I changed and tidied up a little from recent discussion (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5) following...

permalinkreply

moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago[+] (0 children) moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago[-]

5.

Further questions were asked and answered to some degree in a previous post.

permalinkparentreply

moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago* [+] (0 children) moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago* [-]

4.

Additional...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch out for... "the color of law".

There is THE Common Law - as applies to real human beings.

And there is Common Law precedence and "under the color of law" - this was the Common Law that they copied into their own jurisdiction "under the color of law", and it looks like the common law in appearance - as it was a good starting point, but it is their own law entirely under their control and acts on the artificial entities.

It's like my friend has rules in his house, and he copies Napoleon's Laws into his house rule and applies them to guests who come in. It isn't really the Napoleon Laws - it's just a copy of them he pulled into his jurisdiction and is applying to the fiction he has called 'Guests' instead of French Citizens in France. He can then change his version of his Napoleon Law under his jurisdiction, but the original certainly don't change.

I hear, but have not checked myself, that even murder can come under their jurisdiction under the "color of law". For instance, they copied all the rulings of Common Law regarding murder of one human being by another into their own jurisdiction, then they started changing their version of it which acts on 'persons'. - Of course the Common Law outside didn't change, but they made it look like they have the power to change the Common Law.

The US FEDERAL GOV got a slapping by the supreme court in 1938 for exactly this. The US Federal Gov had their own jurisdictions and they called one of them FEDERAL COMMON LAW, which is a copy of the Common Law, and they started changing it. But the Supreme Court in 1938 revealed that this is only their rules inside their jurisdiction and the Common Law still exists and is unchanged by their rule. (Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938))

In the Common Law, when one man (human being) murders another, if he claims innocence, he will be tried in a Common Law court.

But that's not very profitable nor controllable, - the judge can't decide and they cannot direct the people (nor profit from it, perhaps?).

So, now they have one 'person' (commercial-entity) murder another 'person' (commercial-entity) and go to a commercial court, and the Judge (who is really an administrator regarding the commercial law) can bring in a whole bunch of 'Acts' and 'Statutes' that applies to the Artificial Persons, and even ignore the jury as they are only there for advisement (as it is all commercial but "under the color of law" made to seem like the Common Law in appearance only to keep the people happy and not thinking "holy crap, where'd the rule of law go!?"). In this way, they can make any judgement in accordance with their own system (as they only went to commercial court and discussed the damage to commerce - another 'person').

Amazing isn't it!

permalinkparentreply

moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago* [+] (0 children) moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago* [-]

3.

Regarding Australia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q.3.

Is not the whole point of this to protect the human being that is you or I from being acted upon by random laws acting on the strawman? That is what I mean by limited liability. I am a bit confused as to what a claim of right does, even after watching the videos. Don't humans like you or I want to distance ourselves from the strawman, not take ownership of it? That is, say a law is passed that taking photos in public is prohibited, and they say as a citizen you are bound by law, and face consequence for taking photos. Don't you say that 1. JOHN X is not me, I am John X 2. JOHN X is a company, act upon them. I am just an agent representing the company, but having no liability for it. Am I right? By the way, I'm so sorry if I am taking up too much of your time. I understand if you are busy. Just not a lot of people in the world understand and discuss these things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.3.

"limited liability" can apply to some created entity (such as a 'person' or 'corporation') so that that entity doesn't have to take full responsibility/liability.

The point is to protect the human being. The human being uses his vehicles (his 'person' or a 'corporation' that he has made) for his own advantage - the advantage of the human being - the real man or woman.

This is why it's first important to understand that the real physical you is not a 'person', but a 'person' is merely a vehicle you use under the legal system (in various ways - jurisdictions & names).

The Common Law is the most fundamental and applies to the human being directly.

The Common Laws are basically that you cannot kill/murder other human beings, cannot hurt them, cannot steal their property - including the property they claim is theirs (such as an actual Trade Name being property).

The Common Law also allows you to agree new rules between people - to contract in order to make new laws between the two+ parties that are in agreement to the laws. If you are in agreement with the law, then you "understand" that law.

If you are going to agree to a law of a society (like a 'Statute'), then you are clearly giving up some rights...

For example (1), one rule of a friend's house is that I must take my shoes off to come in. - I agree (have a nice chat and coffee on the inside - a benefit), but I have to give up my right to wear shoes in his house. I give up my rights every time I agree to a set of rules. My friend has title to his property and can dictate his rules to me.

For example (2), I sign to become a private member (by my own free will) of BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO to get the benefit of borrowing DVDs from them - my benefit, and they get the benefit of payment from me to make a

profit. But the terms & conditions that I signed up to and submitted myself to are... I must obey their rules certain payments indicate certain durations of rental, also if I am late I have to pay the fine. - I voluntarily gave up the right to keep their DVDs for a longer period (if you really call that a right). You can claim anything as a right.

For example (3), you submit an application for registration to get a 'driver' license so that your 'person' (ALLCAPS name that is held by AUSTRALIA on your behalf) may have permission to do commerce on the highway obey the speed limit, must signal and obey signs that they put there, stop when a policeman acting the role of a "Law Enforcement Officer" tells you to do for the collection of commerce etc. You really did give up the right to use the highways freely as you choose. - If you want this right back, then you (the human being) should put a "Claim or Right" on your Strawman/Trade Name and to reserve the right to use the highways freely again as the Common Law permits, and state this in a "Notice of Understanding and Intent" - what rules you stand under and what you intend to do or how you intend to use your Strawman.

You - the human being - is the real thing, and the Common Law is the most fundamental basis upon which everything is built, along with Contract (equity) to come into agreement with another party. This allows you to contract with the examples above, and every time you contract, you are giving up your freedoms - your rights to act more freely, you are confining yourself to an additional set of rules and regulations. This may well be for your benefit (like the BLOCKBUSTER example), or dubious benefit, like getting a drivers license and being over taxed.

If you (the human being) want your rights back that you have given up, or to just affirm the rights that you think you have and you want to make it clear to others, then this is where you need to make a "Claim of Right" and a "Notice of Understanding and Intent".

Then when you enter a commercial court (if you do so for your own benefit), it is important to first state any Claims or Rights that you - the human being - have whilst operating your vehicle - the 'person' - on the high seas of commerce.

We (the human being) want to be the controller of the Strawman with its name in ALL-CAPITAL letters.

The law passed that stops JOHN SMITH taking photos is probably an Act or Statute and is probably some kind of commerce that is only disguised "under the color of law" as something else. It certainly isn't the Common Law.

If JOHN SMITH (the legal-entity) is registered and controlled by AUSTRALIA, then it is up to AUSTRALIA to define what 'Acts', 'Statutes', 'Rules' and 'Regulations' that JOHN SMITH must obey. Such as not taking photos in public. haha! - they can do this, because they are in control of that legal-entity; JOHN SMITH. - The creator controls the created.

So, as a free thinking human being with awareness, put a "Claim of Right" (under the Common Law) on the name JOHN SMITH, so that it is your property and yours to control - you have the right to use this name.

You can then decide what rules it obeys - state a "Notice of Understanding and Intent" of what rules or freedoms this vehicle - the name (JOHN SMITH) - has.

You - the real human being - are always acting under the Common Law, and you have all the rights and freedoms that you claim to have.

So...

JOHN SMITH is not "I", is true, if you have a "Claim of Right" then; JOHN SMITH is mine, but not "I" (for I am a man, my name is John Smith, I am not a 'person').

JOHN SMITH is an Artificial Person, a vehicle, a legal-entity, a legal-fiction, a corporate-entity, a 'corporation'.

Anyway, by your "Claim of Right and Notice of Understanding and Intent" [1] [2] [3] then you should have Claimed to 1. own this vehicle (name), 2. hold title to this vehicle (full and outright ownership), 3. stated what rules the vehicle follows, what freedoms it has and what rules it does not stand under, and 4. Reserve All Rights that are not stated explicitly.

So, own your 'person', JOHN SMITH, if you want to take full liability/responsibility/control. If you want to make money through a company and want "limited liability", then JOHN SMITH SYSTEMS Inc. can continue to get the limited liability of AUSTRALIA, but it must follow the rules of AUSTRALIA and pay taxes to it.

If you are traveling in your conveyance (car[riage]) on the highway and have full liability, be prepared to be held liable though. Know how to issue bonds - again, see the Winston Shrout stuff for an introduction.

There are two roads with these CORPS / PERSONS: 1. Full ownership/liability/responsibility/control, or 2. Limited liability, partial control, paying taxes and being subject to AUSTRALIA and the international financial system BIS, IMF, World Bank etc.

- you can have a mix of the two using different entities. A fully liable JOHN SMITH that is your own private 'person', and a "limited liability" JOHN SMITH SYSTEMS which employs a bunch of people to make money and operate within the system.

permalinkparentreply

moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago* [+] (0 children) moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago* [-]

2.

Regarding Australia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q.2.

This name - your ALL-CAPITALS name ( - the 'Capitis Diminutio Maxima' name) was created for you at birth and is held in trust by them as you were/are a "child" (a "ward") of the state - i.e. you do not have awareness. As this is your name, then claim and reserve the right to use the name in the way you choose and show that you are now aware and take full responsibility.

See, this is interesting, because I wasn't born here, but moved here when I was a child - but I did become a citizen though, although AFAIK my name is in caps on my citizen certificate. This is very intriguing, from what I understood from several sites (and correct me if I'm wrong), to party protect myself I need to register a Limited Liability Company, with trading names as my name, my caps name, and various variants of caps/uncaps "my name" as it appears in name documents, yes? So any matters dealing with me will be handled by attacking the company, which will assume limited liability, yes?

...Australia was never created as a free land, a new start of sorts, like America. It was always a prison, and I wonder if this has an effect on current government policy direction.

Interestingly, a basic bill of rights exists for the tiny relatively new state of ACT - Australian Capital Territory which plays host to our 'white house' equivalent, and most government and military leadership infrastructure in it's city Canberra - the nation's capital.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.2.1.

...although AFAIK my name is in caps on my citizen certificate. This is very intriguing, from what I understood from several sites (and correct me if I'm wrong), to party protect myself I need to register a Limited Liability Company, with trading names as my name, my caps name, and various variants of caps/uncaps "my name" as it appears in name documents, yes? So any matters dealing with me will be handled by attacking the company, which will assume limited liability, yes?

your ALL-CAPS name is used as a corporate-entity for acting in commerce. Most of the rules under AUSTRALIA will be commerce, although it is disguised "under the color of law" to look like the Common Law etc. - But really they are acting on your Artificial Person.

to party protect myself I need to register a Limited Liability Company

...to party protect in what in what way? You mean insurance?

Make sure you lay claim to your ALL CAPS name - See the "Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right"s, and this will be done signing under your natural name "John-Middle: Smith" (the man) laying claim to the Strawman / Trade Name / Artificial Person "JOHN SMITH" & "JOHN MIDDLE SMITH", and get three signatures on this Claim of Right by real men/women with their natural names and then signatures, or a Notary Public signature.

Anyway, all insurance is commerce and will act on your commercial-entity - the ALL-CAPS name, or an entity that is created by you (a registered company/corporation whose traded name is ALL-CAPS).

BTW. A company's Traded Name is always All-Capitals, even though its logo does not have to be. Logos can use any characters and even colors and shapes. You would make a corporation or registered company under that ALL-CAPS name, and then the corporation you made can register/reserve/copyright the logos under its corporation name. ...the corporation in-turn owned by you.

Same if you copyright anything. This is commerce, so you'll be acting in commerce on behalf (as an agent) of your ALL-CAPITALS name.

After you have put a Claim of Right on your Strawman/Trade Name, then you will own this outright - you will hold title to it. So, you - the human being - will own the Artificial Person, and then you will be acting as an agent for the Artifical Person (that you own) when you operate it and sign for it.

In this way, when you sign for this name, be sure to reserve all rights and sign as an agent of the ALL-CAPS name.

See the PDF: "Signature Without Liability Primer" [PDF] by Michael H. Keehn.

The 'person' by itself cannot sign, - it is a fictional-entity; a legal-entity or legal-fiction that exists on paper and in the minds of humans beings only.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.2.2.

...limited liability,

I tend to stay away from courts so this is my week spot, and secondly, laying a Claim of Right on my Trade Name and stating my Understanding also declares that I have full liability and am fully responsible.

So I don't know much about operating under limited liability. I recommend seeing the Winston Shrout seminars who takes this direction instead of taking the full liability / full responsibility direction.

Yes, I would imagine you'd have to register your Trade Name under some terms and conditions and also be liable to the rules & regulations to gain limited liability for the commerce done by that name, but this is giving something (taxes etc.) for safety in return (not being fully responsible or liable).

You can have full responsibility/liability for your own Trade Name (JOHN SMITH), and still have limited liability for your registered company or corporation (JOHN SMITH SYSTEMS).

permalinkparentreply

moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago* [+] (0 children) moneyprinter 2 points 1 month ago* [-]

1.

Regarding Australia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q.1.

I am rather worried about Australia and human rights here. We do not have a bill of rights, weapons were banned under suspicious circumstances, and increasing police powers have been progressing over the past few years. I have been following these issues very closely for years now, and Australian information has been very hard to come by.

...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.1.

We do not have a bill of rights, weapons were banned under suspicious circumstances, and increasing police powers have been progressing over the past few years.

Yes, but you have the same underlying Common Law which protects your human rights. Australia is just an Incorporated Government (AUSTRALIA) built upon the Common Law, and uses its own Acts, Statutes etc. that acts on the legal-fictions, just like the UNITED KINGDOM and the UNITED STATES.

The police play a dual role, 1. as the Peace Officer (acting to maintain peace - maintain the Common Law and interacting with human beings - men & women), and 2. as a Law Enforcement Officer (to maintain the law of the Corporate Society with its own Acts, Statutes, Rules & Regulations that act on the 'person' - the commercial entity).

Check out the Winston Shrout videos >here< for how to correctly act and control your 'person' (Artificial Person) if you are acting under commerce.

People gradually give up their rights in many ways. Then they start acting as their 'person' which is a created entity (a name) with only the rights granted to it by its creator. The 'person' is not a human being - not a man or woman. It is the man or woman who has full rights under the Common Law if you claim or reserve that right.

That's why it is necessary above all to first put a "Claim of Right" on your 'person', a.k.a the Strawman, Trade Name etc. So you can then choose to use this vehicle - the 'person' - to interact with the law in the way you choose.

This name - your ALL-CAPITALS name ( - the 'Capitis Diminutio Maxima' name) was created for you at birth and is held in trust by them as you were/are a "child" (a "ward") of the state - i.e. you do not have awareness. As this is your name, then claim and reserve the right to use the name in the way you choose and show that you are now aware and take full responsibility.

permalinkparentreply