None of the below is legal advice and should not be repeated in court. What needs to be done and said in "court of law" is entirely different than what I am talking about below. This is my personal understanding of "the system" after 10 years of research into the fallacy of this "legal system" and cult. For real help see the JurisDictionary website at the bottom of this post.
Welcome.
Everytime you see or hear someone say, that this or that is "illegal", they have no understanding what they are talking about or are being deceitful.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat - the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who negates
The above quote comes from Wikipedia but very true.
He who claims has full burden of proof. And it is everyone's else's responsibility to question it and demand proof. It's not the responsibility of others to prove your correct or incorrect. If in court for example, you do have evidence to disprove the claims against you, by all means present them and get them on the record, but in the end, you still have no moral responsibility to provide such proof to make their claims against you as true or false.
If you make silly claims on the record such as you are not an illegal citizen for example, you have to prove it. But they are the ones assuming and making these claims and thus they have the burden to prove that you are illegal, and that you are a citizen (citizen of whichever corp is irrelevant).
If a united states court "judge" or prosecutor says,
"JOHN DOE", a CITIZEN of MEXICO entered ILLEGALLY into the UNITED STATES, etc etc", (Capitalized to show they are rat poisoned literature)
you already have enough ground to object their claim against you.
In fact, I see 6 claims already in the quote. 5 are obvious and the 6th is hidden. Here is the obvious 5:
- the name
- being called a "citizen"
- that JD a "citizen" of "MEXICO"
- that JD is "illegal"
- that JD entered into the "UNITED STATES" "illegally"
The statutes state in the USA that entering illegally is a crime(in the statist cult: a disobedient act towards a command that is backed by threat of violence for those who disobey).
We won't say this in court because it is useless. Remember, it is not our responsibility disprove their claims or prove them to be correct. In the latter sense, that is why they ask you questions. Their interrogating you. You shouldn't be acknowledging anything they ask you as legitimate.
You should take any conversations with them as interrogations. They are never having a casual talk with you. They speak legales and force their rules, beliefs, and ideas onto you, nothing else. Period.
The 6th claim they made is the hidden gem here.
- "Jurisdiction" over "John Doe"
They claim to have supreme right over you. Without proof of that, they have no realistic holding over you(this doesn't mean they won't deny it and use fear tactics to get you to comply). They won't be able to apply any of their codes and statutes without that right.
Although it is widely believed that they do have such a right, by themselves and their statist following, it is not so. And here's the juice, they can't prove it.
It would be absurd to even consider it but since they themselves are in a position where they "can not win but dare not lose", the only thing they have left is violence as their answer to commit you to obey and accept their delusional circus show.
And how is it that what I have said is true?
Well, dear reader, if you are capable of taking off your authority glasses, you will know and understand that slavery is on both unethical and bad morality foundations.
As I have gone over the topic over various times now,
Citizenship = Slavery
Do go over my previous posts in regards to this. But here I leave another example of how this is a fact.
Using the constitution of the US. Specifically the preamble and the 14th amendment.
The preamble is the powerhouse to the constitution. It clearly states who has the supreme power as declared in the parchment. What the philosophy is about and what it it is used for.
Take note of the preamble of the usa, it reads:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now the Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Questions:
What do they mean by "We"? That is exclusionary as is "ourselves". These aristocratic men where already declaring dominion over a free people. Who are the "We" here?
You think that "We the People " is you?
Look at the previous meme for a clue to my answer.
Why is citizen not included in the preamble?
And in the 14th it states, "..., and under the jurisdiction thereof,.." and just exactly under whome is the citizens under the jurisdiction thereof, hmm?
It's plain word trickery to get you to accept slavery. How is it that a person, barely born into this world, is already a servant of the state?
Easy, you the enslaved parents hand them over as collateral like sacrificial golden bull ceremonies, via the birth certificate.
In reality, they are not. We are not. If you choose to keep it that way.
It's quite clear right there their intentions for the free people and their future generations to come. They will be marked as citizens from birth, while those whoncall themselves "We the People" will recieve the fruits of the citizens labors. Thus all laws created apply only to "Citizens". This is why your always referred to as the name in all caps as it appears in the Birth Certificate.
Only citizens have names like JOHN DOE. Only slaves have their stuff registered in this fashion. If your property is registered under your all caps name, then you do not really own it. The bank does because the bank is the owner of the name you used. And so long as you keep applying the "NAME" to be you, then youneill have absolutely no more rights than a slave.
You will own nothing and be happy
Happy slaves will never rebel ™-antisocialist
A solution you can try:
Register your stuff in a "trust" instead. It's one of the loopholes to safe gaurd your stuff from repossession from the "government ". Jurisdictionary can help with that.
A trust is your safest bet to get your stuff back even if it forcibly repossessed. And the judge can't look at this contract except to maybe your lawyer if you choose to. If you need a lawyer and don't want to use their list of lawyers, tou can elect your family member. Jurisdictionary can help with that too and show you how to force those lazy lawyers to do their job.
Digressing. So how does something or someone become illegal or legal and vice versa again?
The answer is simple. It is impossible.
What I mean is, it is impossible because there is no legitimate act or ritual that makes the act true. Bone have the power to turn something illegal just as much as make it legal. This is because the required element of jurisdiction is missing from this equation. Zero plus zero is?
Zero authority plus zero authority is what?
What is authority?
The supposed moral right to rule over others.
What is jurisdiction?
A funny saying to say authority.
Their paperwork is always void from the beginning. From the moment they claim special ownership over you.
clickable images
Need a Blurt account?
Find me on telegram
ODYSEE Decentralized Video Platform
New to Blurt? Profit from your rewards with Non KYC Ionomy and StealthEX to keep your identity protected.
