by Anna von Reitz
Lately, the alternative news world has been awash with talk about "Human Rights" and "Natural Law" and quite a number of people have been misled about this and are parroting it as the Next Great Thing. In fact, it is old as the hills and nothing you want to be involved in, much less subjected to. Let me explain.....and bear with me.
Bankers and lawyers don't like the Ten Commandments, the Bible, or the Land Law that goes with it. They may individually subscribe to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam --- all of which are supposed to function under the Law of Moses --- but for very practical reasons they want to waffle and weasel around the requirements of Land Law when it comes to business dealings.
Land Law doesn't allow binding contracts. It respects the Law of Free Will. It forbids usury and insurance. And it is frustratingly local and subjective in nature.
That, in a nutshell, is what has driven the wholesale shift into Admiralty/Maritime Law.
The bankers and lawyers and their servants, the politicians, want binding contracts that can be insured and guaranteed, they want profit on whatever risk is left, they don't give a crap about free will and they want something that is "standardized" to work with as a form of law so that they don't have to cope with any irritating local laws or restrictions when it comes to administering the courts----and shoving all this down your throat.
And so, that is what has come to be in this country, despite the fact that virtually all the men responsible for this travesty know full-well that the American people are owed not only Land Law but the Law of the Land, and even though at least 90% of them confess belief in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
It appears that our hypocrisy knows no end.
Land Law functions on covenants, like marriage, and good faith agreements---neither of which are contracts.
Covenants are of a sacred nature, because they are entered into with God as a Witness and Party to the agreement. It becomes a sacred matter as a result and no man may change or abrogate or interfere with it as a result. Covenants are binding for that reason, but they are not contracts.
Good faith agreements are exactly as they say--- agreements made between men, either verbally or most often in writing, which may bear an appearance similar to contracts, but they are only subject to "good faith performance".
Jeremiah as in "Book of Jeremiah" is very instructive on this point in two respects. As the prophet laments, it is not given to man to know or control even one step. We don't know and can't guarantee what happens to us or around us for the next ten minutes, much less the next thirty years, so it is apparent that we cannot reliably make contracts promising future repayments or performance of service, either.
Jeremiah, the prophet, also does something peculiar that sheds more light on the topic. He buys a plot of land that he has good cause to think that he will never be able to enjoy in his lifetime. This is instructive, too, because it highlights the "faith" part of "good faith agreements".
Good faith agreements rely upon our will and good intent to carry through and do whatever it is we agree to do, perform whatever service we agree to perform, and to do so without fail to the extent that we are able. It also implies our faith that God will allow us to carry through on our good intentions, subject to His Will. That in turn implies that we can't make Good Faith Agreements to do things that are immoral or unlawful or just plain bad.
These "moral entanglements" are bad enough, but it is the "to the extent that we are able" portion of Good Faith Agreements that hangs up the bankers and lawyers to a point of apoplexy.
They don't want to accept the limits of human abilities and the unknowns and variables of all our lives, even though they know full-well that these are the conditions we actually live under. They most certainly don't want to rely on the honesty and good faith of their customers and neighbors and they don't want to admit that we all need the support of what our Forefathers called "Divine Providence" to make good on our agreements. That makes things too uncertain. Too variable. Too....well, dependent on luck, faith, good weather, God, and other things that lawyers and bankers and politicians can't control.
Worst of all, in this shifting, changeable, stubbornly willful world of external realities, Land Law doesn't allow usury or insurance.
Usury is the profit made off of lending. Jews are forbidden from making profit from lending to another Jew, but not from lending to Christians, Buddhists, and so on. The same basic kinds of considerations extend in Sharia Law. You can cheat an infidel if you want to, but not another Muslim. Actual, sincere, observing Christians can't practice usury at all against anyone. We are not only called upon to lend freely and without profit to ourselves for doing so, but to give freely with no thought of return.
So that is why certain "Christian" kings during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages forced Jews into the banking business, to do the dirty-work of usury for them against their own Christian subjects. Got that? "Christian" kings can't profit from lending money to other Christians or anyone else, but Jews can lend the King's money to anyone but another Jew and profit from the transaction and divvy up the proceeds with the King. No problem.
The Jews didn't get into the banking business because they wanted to practice usury. They got into the banking business because the so-called "Christian" Monarchs of feudal Europe wanted to profit from usury and needed agents to do their dirty work. These Kings and Queens didn't want their only hands dirtied with usury --- though they wanted the profits--- and they didn't want to be besmirched with the gambling aspects of insurance schemes, but they wanted to be insured....
So all these people running around blaming Jewish and Muslim bankers for the situation need to look deeper and higher, and realize that it is their own "Christian" leaders and politicians who have failed them. If the so-called Christian Monarchs and politicians were actually acting as Christians and according to the standards established by Jesus, none of these evils would exist.
All Christian banks would function as non-profit institutions and Good Faith Agreements would be the only rule. Insurance wouldn't even be necessary.
When disaster struck, the worldwide Christian community would pull together to repair the damage and make good the losses for free. And because there would be no usury allowed, only service fees, banks would be capitalized by governments and by donations from philanthropists who were willing to accept the risks of lending in good faith with no profit to themselves.
This change, in turn, would bring back morality and nobility to Mankind, and a sense of community and "joint venture" --- where each man and each woman would feel the desire to succeed, to hold their head up high and contribute to the best of their ability --- and when they were defeated in that effort by time or fate, would equally feel no shame about turning to everyone else and saying, "Please help me! My daughter is sick.... I need a car so I can join a car pool to get to work.....an early frost wiped out my crops in the field.....a wildfire burned down my home....."
And as for the Jews and the Muslims?
If Christians actually lived up to being Christians, the Jews and Muslims would quickly observe the health and love of the Christian community, the good service and kindness given to everyone---including Jews and Muslims-----and they would think: well, I can practice usury against people of other faiths, but there isn't much market for it and I don't feel good about it. It's dirty somehow. Not worthy of my soul's highest calling.... I want to be free and big enough in my soul to lend without profit and give without taking back.....
Land Law is an attempt to bring these three great faith communities together under a common standard that all can use and thrive under. Land Law is the only truly fair, truthful, and realistic form of Law that there is, other than the Law of Heaven. Yet, for six generations, our governments have avoided and weaseled around using Land Law.
How have they done that? By impersonation.
The corporations providing us with government services have arbitrarily given us a "PERSON" so that we can operate in commerce (business conducted between incorporated entities) as their very own franchises and share our profits with them as taxes and mortgages and licenses and fees in exchange for the "privilege" of being able to borrow money at interest, obtain insurance policies to cover our risks, and secure bankruptcy protection under their limited liability provisions. Also in "exchange"--- though we are never told any of this --- we become subject to them and obligated to obey their every law and statute.
Which points up the tip of the iceberg.
Maritime and Admiralty Law deals exclusively with unincorporated businesses known as "Persons" operating in international trade and with "PERSONS" which are incorporated businesses operating in international commerce. There isn't a single provision anywhere in Maritime or Admiralty Law for any judge in that entire system to address a living man or woman. That's why the perpetrators and proponents of Maritime and Admiralty Law have to distribute all these "Persons" and "PERSONS" named after us, and get us to accept them and assume that they are our responsibility.
They literally cannot address a living man or woman as a living man or woman, because living people don't exist in their court system. That's why they get so testy when you show up claiming to be a living man or woman and talking about the "Constitution" which has nothing to do with them. What they call ---when forced to do so--- "private natural persons" -- are not subject to their jurisdiction and, what really frosts their cake, neither are the assets of private, natural persons.
The Territorial United States shanghaied the lawful Trade Names of Americans and arbitrarily redefined them all as Territorial Foreign Situs Trusts. This happened under FDR in the single biggest act of treason, unlawful conversion, Breach of Trust, and brute criminality in human history.
In a twinkling, with nobody's understanding or consent, the Trade Name of "John Henry Markham" a farmer from Purdy, Ohio, was magically redefined as a "vessel" in the Queen's Merchant Marine Service also, by coincidence of course, named "John Henry Markham" --- and what happened to the living man?
He was also redefined as an unpaid volunteer Warrant Officer known as a "Withholding Agent" responsible for paying all the upkeep on "John Henry Markham" and collecting taxes from "John Henry Markham".
Besides giving the rats a claim on all of the "John Henry Markham" assets, including his name, body, copyrights, home, and land, this action by FDR subjected "John Henry Markham" to the statutory law of the Territorial United States.
FDR had absolutely no authority to do any of this, granted or otherwise; apologists have tried to excuse him and the Democratic Party and the King of England by pleading "emergency powers"---- but in fact there are no provisions for the existence of any emergency powers then or now, and it just comes down to Breach of Trust, embezzlement, betrayal, and treason.
A few years later, the Territorial United States allowed the Municipal United States to similarly impersonate the living people and states of the union, to create "Municipal franchises" operating as "JOHN HENRY MARKHAM" and now, most recently, "JOHN H. MARKHAM". These various incorporated entities can represent almost anything--- Cestui Que Vie trusts, construction trusts, cooperatives, LLC's, or Mr. Obama's favorite, public transmitting utilities.
The important take home point is that these "NAMES" are all being used to impersonate you. They are reducing you to a Territorial "Person" or a Municipal "PERSON" both of which are subject to foreign statutory law and which operate in international jurisdiction and neither of which are owed any protected status or constitutional guarantees at all. These "persons" are all operated under the Law of the Sea, not the Law of the Land.
Not being alive, these "persons" are not subject to the uncertainties of life. Known as "legal fictions" they only exist by a form of mutual consent akin to the suspension of belief required by Walt Disney animations. Also unlike you, these "persons" can enter into binding contracts, unilateral contracts, implied contracts, commercial contracts, maritime contracts, admiralty contracts galore--- which is what the lawyers like, because contracts generate controversies like cats generate kittens. There is far more work and finagling available under Maritime and Admiralty Law and less risk of hanging, so attorneys love it.
Unlike you "artificial persons" can be guaranteed and insured and licensed and bonded--- which is what the bankers and risk managers like. They can also be subjected to usury and taxation, which both the bankers and the politicians want. Such persons can be murdered, raped, robbed, defrauded, keel-hauled, kidnapped, press-ganged, and tortured without mercy----and all without accountability---and they routinely are subjected to such gross mistreatment.
Last but not least, the laws governing such "persons" can be standardized and made into a Uniform Code, so that the corporate tribunals responsible for administering such persons don't have to know any actual law at all. The vermin responsible can hire executive managers, teach them their own statutory law and code, and live totally outside the Public Law in a virtual kingdom created of pirates, for pirates and by pirates. This all enables a "judge" in their system to move from one state or county or even country to another, stealing homes and picking pockets as he goes, without the bother of learning a whole new system of local law.
Obviously, for many reasons having to do mainly with robbing you senseless and doing it safely and conveniently, criminally inclined interests have removed you from your native birthright political standing as an American owed the Law of the Land, and by force, fraud, and deceit they have entrapped you into "accepting" their gifts of "PERSONS" and have subjected you to their foreign Territorial and Municipal "law".
They use the process of impersonation to mischaracterize who and what you really are and also use it to hide behind themselves. Behind the mask of "personhood" the perpetrators can seek bankruptcy protection when they get caught poisoning the apple fritters for profit.
No honest man having good intent and being in his right mind would ever freely choose to operate under the Law of the Sea and that's why our Forefathers stipulated that we and our states all function under Land Law, and specifically American Common Law.
This is also why when employees of the foreign Territorial and Municipal governments "come ashore" they are required to observe what they call "The Law of the Land"---- that is, The Constitution, with respect to us and our property interests.
It is far more convenient and far more profitable for them to "mistake" us as either Territorial "Persons" or Municipal "PERSONS" than it is for them to deal with their obligations owed to the living, breathing people. So they put on their blinders every day and mount the Bench and act as criminals against us and they pretend that we agreed to this.
We've been trusting and gullible enough to let them get away with all this impersonation Shinola--- especially since they have operated under Color of Law, and have pretended to be or to "represent" our lawful government--- and have, thus disguised, been able to impose and presume upon us and also to liberally engage in extortionate racketeering against our states and people.
So--- bringing it all full circle with regard to "Human Rights" and "Natural Law"....
Look up the legal definition of "human".
There you will see that a "human" in legal terminology is not a man or a woman, but an animal or a "monster".
So if you allow the vermin to call you a "human" you are admitting to being far less than a man, and owed only such consideration as the King in his Mercy might grant a farmyard animal and such law as the SPCA might lobby for.
As for "Natural Law" that is another name for "Law of the Jungle" wherein the strong are allowed to mercilessly prey upon the weak and the only the tooth and the claw prevail and only the very fleet-footed escape.
Gee, we object to being impersonated and treated as incorporated legal fiction entities, so now they offer us the status of animals and monsters as remedy? We object to the despicable Law of the Sea, so now they offer us "Natural Law" instead?
I have a counter-offer for them:
We are living people, men and women, and we are owed the American Common Law.
Please take your Territorial and Municipal "law" along with your "human" rights and your "Natural Law" and shove all these up your butt, sideways, like an insurmountably large suppository.
Thank you, very much.
Thanks to Anna via facebook