NONE ARE MORE HOPELESSLY ENSLAVED THAN THOSE WHO FALSELY BELIEVE THEY ARE FREE – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
SHOCKING: Leaked DHS Drill Military, Veterans, Capitalists are the Enemy
Note. Ignorance is the Enemy
The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed – Adolf Hitler
PUBLIC SERVICE – A MEANS TOWARDS UNKNOWINGLY DESTROYING YOUR OWN FREEDOMS AND PEOPLE
A Mechanism As A Means Of Creating Compliant Public Servants for Public Service Through The Misconception Of Principles/Law
( Or, Unknowingly Participating In The Means Of Destroying Your Own Freedoms & Propagating Slavery) –
Definition of Public Service
‘A public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing private provision of services.’
The Corporate Sectors of Public Service –
The Sectors Of Public Service And Where Public Servants Are To Be Found
THE TERMS LAW AND LEGAL
On the whole, those in public service are dedicated well meaning people, committed to protecting and improving the lives of the people they are there to serve and rightly taking pride in doing so. And just like everybody else, they also desire and are inspired to want to improve their own lives.
Like all of us public servants, without doubt, wish to enjoy their ‘innate freedoms’ as is their prerogative to do so, and as nature’s God or nature’s Cause of Laws intended, by equally endowing everyone with ‘freewill’.
In wanting to make decisions for themselves public servants, like the rest of us, also are made to pay imposed artificial debts and bills to benefit bankers and their ambitions. However, theirs is a unique position in that, public servants have the ‘belief’ that what they do is unquestionably right and lawful, and therefore, they feel that they are in a position to impose injury on others for non-compliance.
What is to be discovered is that public servants, like everyone else, are misinformed as to the extent or even reach of their authority when they demand or impose compliance on anyone outside of the jurisdiction in which they serve.
This can also apply to those within the jurisdiction in which public servants operate, nevertheless, a clearer case is to be made for those people outside of government jurisdiction.
[ Note.- Jurisdiction is ‘a place or space that is fictional or real, a submission to claims of authority, or an agreement to being controlled’. Of the three elements, ‘place’ must be present in order for jurisdiction to have somewhere to operate. ‘Place together with submission or agreement to control’ is considered to be territory or a territorial jurisdiction where those whom admit of it, are subject to it.
Since no one can claim to literally own the land or planet as exclusively theirs, with everyone else in it as a slave, everyone if they so choose, is in a position of deluding themselves into thinking that ‘where they are’ is subject to some sort of controlling authority, or that they ought to submit to some sort of authority.
When ‘ownership’ is spoken of, what is meant by it is – a right of use to a thing or property. See, REFERENCE MATERIAL ]
To be clear, public servants operate within government territorial jurisdiction and it is there, within that jurisdiction, that their authority is limited to those whom admit of that jurisdiction.
PUBLIC SERVANTS – UNKNOWINGLY PROPAGATING SLAVERY AND THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION
Taking the definition of ‘Public Service’ once again as,
‘A public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing private provision of services’;
we must then go on to ask – where is that territorial jurisdiction, public servants providing public service to those who are living within it, to be found ?
Public servants, as is plainly made clear by the definition of ‘a public service’, are to be found within government’s jurisdiction. Their role extends no further then to those whom are within governments jurisdiction, that is, they themselves and anyone who admits of that territorial jurisdiction.
Once again, where ‘is’ the territorial jurisdiction of government to be found ?
This is an important question in order that those in public service are not misled, and are acting in good faith, good conscience and indeed lawfully, in the execution of ‘their duties’.
LAWFUL versus LEGAL (or Legislative) – A HISTORY OF BLURRING THE LINES
Arriving To Legality
The term ‘contract’ refers to agreements that people ‘freely’ choose to enter into with each other, that are then considered as either ‘legal or legislatively-legal documents or evidence, depending on ‘where’ their construction with regards to territorial jurisdiction was made, from which are then taken the parties separate duties and obligations to be fulfilled towards each other, having knowingly and freely entered into and agreed upon them.
Legislatively-Legal Documents or Evidence are –
contracts with private corporate government. See REFERENCE MATERIAL)
The terms legal or legislative are then used to express the legitimacy of an agreement, that had been ‘freely’ entered into as a consequence of an individual agreeing or assenting to contract.
In the aforementioned, there is then an ‘implied condition’ in the terms legal and legislative – that the terms require an individuals freely given assent for the terms to be legitimate or have any legitimacy.
The meaning of ‘freely’, it must also be made clear, is a ‘condition’ which has not been forced, through either intimidation, fear, coercion of any sort, hidden meaning or, a condition that does not distort an individuals decisions through lack of fair, full and open disclosure. Lastly, it applies to a condition that may not take advantage of an individuals ignorance. Those of us who make ‘impositions’ that are contrary to this notion of ‘freely’, are reminded that – ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one’.
The term ‘freely’ only has sense, and makes sense, if used in a ‘universal way’ that applies equally to all people in the context of Natural Law; which is that law as an Effect that stems from nature’s Cause and that provides for ‘freewill’ by endowing a prerogative for people to freely choose to do as they wish in so far as they cause no harm, injury, or damage to others and their property, and that they do not endanger or disrupt the well-being of others by behaving recklessly. It is in this ‘light’ or context that ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one’ is to be found and where it attaches to ‘freewill’ before it is restrained by ‘willing agreement’.
As To Where Natural Law Is To Be Found ?
It is to be found in the territorial jurisdiction of nature, that is, the ‘places’ where people ordinarily occupy and dwell, as well as where people transverse. Where ever the reach of people may extend in the physical world, is where Natural Law is to be found. Natural Law can be seen as those laws we are all equally and naturally subjected to.
Therefore, it is a gross mistake to think that the principle of ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one’, is to be only found to apply in the realm of ‘legal agreement’.
Agreement forms, and is the basis of legal documents and legislative-legal documents. Legal and legislative-legal documents become ‘legal’ through, an individuals ‘freely’ given consent to them, without which consent, they would otherwise necessarily remain mere ‘presumptions to an agreement’ or, would in other words be, just bits-of-paper not to be taken seriously – that is to say, to be easily dismissed through the use of ‘negative averments’.
Negative Averments – An Example Of Their Use
COURT CASE FACTS with MARC STEVENS and COMMONLY KNOWN AS DOM
Adventures in Legal Land (with Marc Stevens)
(See for examples, ZUS – A HEAVENLY BENEFACTOR, published June 25, 2013)
The principle of ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one’ applies to all individuals prior to there being an agreement or assent to legal or legislative-legal documents. It necessarily applies to any action taken that prevents individuals from making decisions ‘freely’, before legislation or legislative documents, or any other documents, can take effect as individually agreed to contracts, and up to the time of their presentation for acceptance, and until such time that they are finally accepted.
Legal or legislatively drawn documents come into effect when acceptance is ‘freely’ given from the position of the jurisdiction in which all people naturally stand, that is, the jurisdiction given by nature’s Cause, as the Effect of Natural Law where freewill has been endowed and resides.
Until such time, those legal or legislative documents remain mere documents, and only when an individual assents to them do they become ‘legitimately’ legal or legislatively-legal documents or law.
The principle of ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one’ and that attaches to the term ‘freely’, maybe made forfeit if one chooses to enter into, and contract with, a fictional or corporate territorial jurisdiction that uses the words of that principle of ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one’, to mean something else in a different context to that attached to the term ‘freely’ in the jurisdiction of Natural Law.
This being the case, when acting out your life by making contracts within the fictional or corporate jurisdiction of a country, the principle of ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one’ alters, and takes on a different context or dimension from that of it being applied to ‘freely’ in a natural law territorial jurisdiction. Its context becomes not one of ‘freely’ but – ‘from being unknowingly bound to’.
In such a fictional jurisdiction as a country, the entire principle becomes – ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one from being unknowingly bound to’ whatever authority says and does, as and when it wants.
That is to say, any further contracts you enter into when living and acting out your life in the territory of that fictional corporate jurisdiction of a country, will ‘unknowingly bind’ you to whatever is decided by the legislature and judiciary of that jurisdiction, who represent the Owners of that corporate countries jurisdiction.
When people act out their lives in a corporate territorial jurisdiction, they case maybe that it has rules (constitution), policies, laws and so on, regulating or governing the conditions that apply to the behaviour of people within it. Those rules, policies or laws could at anytime come under the influence of those who own the corporate entity that forms the territorial jurisdiction to which people have freely contracted to.
The Owners of a corporate territorial jurisdiction have every right and entitlement to ‘reserve the right’ to enact, whatever laws they deem necessary, as measures that are enforceable, with regards to their hidden or private interests, and which laws would become automatically antecedent and have primacy or precedence to anything or any contract people would make with each other in living out their lives in somebody else’s corporate territory.
The Constitution of such a corporate entity, ‘making of itself’ its own territory and therefore jurisdiction , would fall under the same hidden or private ‘reservations of rights of ownership and entitlements’, that could change, alter or replace the corporate entities constitution with what ever the Owner or Owners of that corporate jurisdictional entity found was necessary to suit their purposes.
Clearly, a constitution to a corporate entity could be easily subject to hidden terms, conditions or arrangements that preceded it in bringing it into existence.
Nevertheless, in the context and circumstances of a corporate territorial jurisdictional entity, made up of ‘itself’ and any claims it may have to territory ‘outside of itself’ that does not infringe on people, whose innate rights are not contracted to it and therefore bound to it and its territorial claims, and whose innate rights also abide to natural law and its territories in the physical world, then,
‘ignorance of the law excuses no one‘, becomes –
ignorance of the law excuses no one, from the rights of that corporate fictional jurisdiction, to reserve the right to make arbitrary impositions on whomever admits of its jurisdiction, and arbitrarily bind whomever admits of its jurisdiction,
to whatever that corporate fictional jurisdiction deems necessary, in upholding the interests of the Owners of that corporate fictional jurisdiction,
within whose territorial jurisdiction anyone that chose to live out their life,
by further creating and entering into further contracts with others,
while admitting to doing so within that very same territorial jurisdiction,
would bind them to honour those arbitrary impositions and fulfil their performance.
Ignorance of the law would then truly mean, ignorance of the laws written or not (for that corporate territorial jurisdiction) that –
excuse no one from the rights reserved, to apply contracts or private understandings, that are or can become antecedent to all others, and have primacy over all others.
It can now be clearly seen that, further contracts people may then enter into, having contracted to live and act out their lives within somebody else’s territorial jurisdiction, would then be mere secondary and inferior contracts, or considerations, to those antecedent contracts or private understandings they unknowingly bound themselves to, when they entered the territorial jurisdiction of somebody else’s corporate country that regulates or governs their behaviour.
Taking into account the above considerations, we can clearly say that, it is reasonable to assume that the Owner or Owners of a corporate fictional country, would no doubt not be so foolhardy as to not reserve themselves the right, to create new contractual laws or understandings which would also become antecedent and superior to whatever contracts people acting out their lives in the corporate country had with each other, or would establish with each other, if those people continued to remain and contract in the corporate countries jurisdiction.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one, in the context of a corporate territorial jurisdictional country, it is reasonable to deduce, means that if you admit of such a jurisdiction, you are unknowingly bound to honour anything it decides you ought to fulfil. In a word – you are a slave.
‘Freewill’ and its condition of ‘freely’ would not then apply to such a jurisdiction.
The standard that would apply to such a jurisdiction, would become one of –
‘know your place,’ and its condition of ‘insubordination’.
Inversely, ‘know your place’ and ‘insubordination’ would not apply to those people to be found in the jurisdiction of Natural Law. The standard that would apply in a Natural Law jurisdiction, would be Freewill’ and its condition of ‘freely’.
The facts finally present themselves, to mean that –
public servants in public service have no jurisdiction and therefore have no authority, whatsoever, over those who do not admit of government jurisdiction,
which it is clear amounts to a private ‘fictional’ corporate jurisdiction just like any other private ‘fictional’ corporate jurisdiction of a corporation that anyone may care to name.
The question to ask that remains, as a matter of full disclosure which is an absolutely unbreakable cardinal rule and requirement of contract, is –
where are we to find the claims to territory and the actual territories themselves, that private corporate government jurisdiction claims to control ?
A good place to start, would be with the article,
WHERE AM I, published March 20, 2013 (See, REFERENCE MATERIAL, for website link to article)
The Principle To Be Upheld With Regards To The Meaning Of Freely –
The principle to be upheld with regards to ‘freely’ is to be found in its primacy, in the immutable jurisdiction of nature’s Effect or nature’s Law of Effect known as Natural Law, whose origins are with nature’s Cause or nature’s God, and not the written word of man or the ‘traditions of men’. The primacy of this principle as the Natural Law of Effect in man, is endowed equally to all men by nature’s Cause or nature’s God as the gift of ‘Freewill’.
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for “ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one”) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.
European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law) or ignorantia iuris nocet (not knowing the law is harmful).
What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.
Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) German-born American political philosopher.
Hypocrisy in anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised.
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) Russian writer.
For neither man nor angel can discern hypocrisy, the only evil that walks invisible, except to God alone.
John Milton (1608-1674) English poet.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809) English intellectual.
With affection beaming in one eye, and calculation shining out of the other.
Charles Dickens (1812-1870) British novelist.
The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!
Tennessee Williams (1911-1983) American playwright.
Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practiced at spare moments; it is a whole-time job.
W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) British novelist and playwright.
THE HYPOCRISY OF NOT TELLING PUBLIC SERVANTS WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW
The Question We Must Then Ask Is, Where Is The Jurisdiction Of Government To Be Found ?
The Answer To The Question, Where Is The Jurisdiction Of Government To Be Found –
Political Charters Create Corporate Countries As Fictions
Surveillance zones and protected areas
MARITIME ZONES AND BOUNDARIES
List of countries and territories by maritime boundaries
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Note. From exploring and understanding principles that relate to how relationships are formed, we can see and understand that countries, governments or states are in fact private fictional corporate entities that can only ‘claim’ jurisdiction or control of territories where people do not ordinarily dwell. These ‘claims’ are claims that amount to ‘unchallenged claims’, as we have discovered, to the territories of the waters and limited lands in close proximity, to the sea-bed, and when ‘land’ is mentioned, it is in-fact ‘the underworld’ or subsoil that is only to be considered as the land territory claimed to be in a states control or jurisdiction. The reasons for this have been made obvious by articles within http://www.thereisnodebt.wordpress.com , and therefore it can be seen that when countries or states are spoken about, what the country or state really is, is a private fictional corporate coastal country or private fictional corporate coastal state with mere ‘claims’ to having jurisdiction to the waters, the sea-bed, and the land (that is, the under-world or subsoil). Private coastal fictional states making mere unchallenged claims – wake up and stop deluding yourselves. –
Note. There is great care taken, not to mention which land (subsoil) or any land when a fictional states jurisdiction is discussed. –
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW
Marc on Mysteries of the Mind – Feb 12, 2004
(A MUST LISTEN TO INTERVIEW – DO NOT IGNORE)
MARC STEVENS ADVENTURES IN LEGAL LAND FULL VERSION
DEFINITIONS – WHAT IS BEING DONE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS
make a fool –
3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe
make a fool of (out) of someone –
to make someone look foolish
2. a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person
Verb (used with object).
3. to make a dupe of; deceive; delude; trick
2. a person who unwittingly serves as the tool of another person or power
3. ( transitive verb ) to deceive, esp by trickery; make a dupe or tool of; cheat; fool
( transitive verb ) to trick someone into believing something that is not true or into doing something that is stupid or illegal
Terms and Conditions May Apply – How Web Companies Steal Your Rights and Information
Obedience to authority experiments
1962 Yale University Obedience, The Milgram Experiment (Full Original Footage)
Understanding The Slave Mentality
How DNA Proves God Made All Creatures Great and Small
Facing taxes, Spaniards tear down their solar panels
Euro Area’s Recession Seen Over as Champagne Kept on Ice
“Talk of an economic recovery, to say nothing about a sustainable one, when domestic demand is still contracting, government debt levels continue to surge and the economic and institutional reform agenda is unraveling, is wide of the mark,” said Nicholas Spiro, managing director of Spiro Sovereign Strategy in London. “Germany may be pulling ahead, but the bloc’s other main economies, including France, remain in dire straits.”
The Terrifying Future of The United States (And All of Us)
Storm Clouds Gathering
As in Russia, the terror threat has become the excuse to curtail our rights
Cop Records Police Chief Pushing Ticket Quotas, Boasting About Always Finding a Reason to Stop Someone
All presidents bar one are directly descended from a medieval English king
Is it natural for humans to make war? New study of tribal societies reveals conflict is an alien concept
Who Funded Hitler? (video) Approx. 28:12 min.
DC’s Revolving Door is Fascism, Pure and Simple
Why Government Regulation is a Lie (and what you can do about it)
The history of the law merchant and negotiability (1904)
An essay on the early history of the Law Merchant (1904)
An Essay on the Early History of the Law Merchant: Being the Yorke Prize Essay for the Year 1903 (1904)
Ministry of Plenty
Ministry of Truth