Wickedness of govern-ment

The information presented is not intended to encourage terrorism or a disregard towards the law or government.

Here is just one example of absolute evil and the inversion of Reality within the legal realm; man’s law, Satan’s world, hell.

In setting up a fiction, the law requires us to take an actual situation and imagine it to be different from what it really is, either by thinking of nonexistent elements as added to it or by thinking of existing elements as removed from it, so as to permit the application of legal maxims which refer only to the situation as thus transformed. Its purpose in doing this is to make it possible to decide cases according to analogy when a direct ruling does not apply. The whole nature of legal fictions is determined by this purpose, and they are sustained only so far as it requires. The legislator and the judge always remain aware that the fictitious situation does not correspond to reality. So it is also with the so-called dogmatic fiction that is employed in jurisprudence to permit legal facts to be systematically classified and related to each other. Here again, the situation is thought of as existing, but it is not assumed to exist.“— The Theory Of Money And Credit by LUDWIG VON MISES

“legal fiction
nsomething asssumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption.”— Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, 1996

“legal fiction:
a rule assuming as true something that is clearly false. A fiction is often used to get around the provisions of constitutions and legal codes that legislators are hesitant to change or to encumber with specific limitations. Thus, when a legislature has no legal power to sit beyond a certain midnight but has five hours more of work still to do, it is easier to turn back the official clock from time to time than it is to change the law or constitution.

In ancient Rome, where every family needed a male heir, the lack of one was overcome through the legal fiction of adoption. In England, when courts handling civil cases were full, the Court of Queen’s (or King’s) Bench, a criminal court, could take some of the load by pretending that the defendant in a simple civil suit had been arrested and was in custody.

Almost any legal fiction can be stated in terms of fact. Thus, the fiction that a corporation is, for many purposes, a person separate from its members is equivalent to saying that, for those purposes, the law deals with the group as a unit, disregarding for the moment the group’s individual members as such.”— Universalium, 2010

“Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum, ex nigro album, ex curvo rectum, ex recto curvum. A thing adjudged makes what was white, black; what was black, white; what was crooked straight; what was straight, crooked.” — Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution of the United States, 1856

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
“— Isa 5:20

Legal maxims are essentially foundational rules the magi-strates and legislators follow when administrating their artifice. This Beast System needs wickedness to live, for if they are made to adhere to actual Truths of Reality, instead of playing pretend adhering to fictions and artifice, the legitimacy of its sorcery would dwindle and fail.

Welcome to the ‘baly’. I hope you like enduring ‘danger’.

(1) Evil; sorrow.
(4) Dominion; government.”

(1) Lordship, or dominion; the power which the feudal lord has over his vassals.”— A Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words: Obsolete Phrases, Proverbs, and Ancient Customs, from the XIV Century, 1904

“danger (n.)
mid-13c., daunger, “arrogance, insolence;” c. 1300, “power of a lord or master, jurisdiction,” from Anglo-French daunger, Old French dangier “power, power to harm, mastery, authority, control” (12c., Modern French danger), alteration (due to association with damnum) of dongier, from Vulgar Latin *dominarium “power of a lord,” from Latin dominus “lord, master,” from domus “house” (from PIE root *dem- “house, household”).”— https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=danger

2. A subject; a dependent.”— Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
[Citizens are considered subjects. The term “nationals” is now used in place of “subjects” according to American Law and Procedure: Constitutional Law Vol. 12]

“… it is to be noticed that the term subject is capable of a different and wider application, in which it includes all members of the body politic, whether they are citizens (i.e., subjects stricto sensu) or resident aliens. All such persons are subjects, all being subject to the power of the state and to its jurisdiction, and as owing to it, at least temporarily, fidelity and obedience.”— Black’s Law 9th

A public civil officer, invested with the executive government or some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate as is the President of the United States. But the word is more particularly applied to subordinate officers, as governors, intendants, prefects, mayors, justices of the peace, and the like.”— Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Judicial proceedings = A stage play. A “person” is an artificial construct created by government.

The information presented is not intended to encourage terrorism or a disregard towards the law or government.

According to Carl Jung, and Fowler’s Modern English Dictionary, a legal person is:

“‘The individual’s system of adaptation to, or the manner he assumes in dealing with, the world [the legal world, world of nations, man’s law]…
One could say, with a little exaggeration, that the persona [legal person] is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is’. It would seem therefore, so far as the ordinary man can understand these things, that a persona is much the same as an image.” – The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious by C G. Jung, Oxford Fowler’s Modern English Usage Dictionary 1985

Every person in the legal matrix carries artificially bestowed obligations such as knowing and following the laws and codes that are influenced by the roman pagan law, paying taxes to the sovereign, contracting their time, mental and physical energy to be used (employed) in order to obtain ‘legal tender’ to participate in commerce so they can ‘legally’ pursue (right to peruse happiness) basic life amenities without restraint. Those kinds of obligations are not real, self-existent, or necessary to live peacefully in this world. They derive from the artificial construct of government, The Beast System.

Humanity’s state has been of artifice in that the system we live under, follow and consider daily is a clever deception. We’re raised to put on pretend-masks to be recognized and governed by an artificial system of man-made laws that molds us into indentured personhood servitude. This system supports and protects actions of wrong doing through made-up concepts like legalizing and licensing, allowing mercenaries (soldiers) to kill, historical and modern slavery, restricting your natural right to travel freely or obtain food from nature by hunting or farming, etc. This can only be possible when we “voluntarily surrendered” our Natural borne Rights and equip the legal persona to play in their theater of life.

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted [referring to Natural borne Rights] only to the extent they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.” – City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

Overall the term “person” appoints any being capable of having rights (humans, corporations, municipalities, institutions, communities, etc); furthermore they are distinguished between artificial persons and natural persons. According to the American Law and Procedure book the true meaning of the term in jurisprudence, when referring to a human, is understood when investigating how it was used in the Roman and English law. Although this book was published in 1910, the inquiries are still valid in describing what a person is today.

This “person” is an artificial construct created by government. The law can be compared to a tabletop role-playing game which is a man-made concept that has players act out it’s characters. Both create characters that are taken by volunteers and governed by it’s rules. By obedience to the rules the players breath life into it, thus the game is in play. Or one can think of the governance system like an adult version of playing pretend (the “fine arts” of theatre) when their own writings metaphorically appoint the term person to “each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage”, and in doing so the man “resembles a player in a comedy or drama.” It’s all a show.

“… the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage… In this sense the same man can have several personae at the same time. In this respect he resembles the player in a comedy or drama.”

The author deciphers the inquiries from legal philosophers and professors and applies them to the American law, and apparently all other nations appointing status to people under their jurisdiction.

“The word ‘person’ does not in the language of law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man… In fact, law, by its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it creates things, which do not exist in nature.

“… man and person cannot be synonymous for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons… the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality, which we [the law] see and by which we are affected… While the idea may be difficult for the tyro to grasp, the personality, i. e., this condition or status of man, is entirely the creation of law.

“This word person and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently [in appearance only] natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word IN ALL THE PHASES OF ITS PROPER USE… A person is here not a physical or individual person, BUT THE STATUS OR CONDITION WITH WHICH HE IS INVESTED… Not an individual or physical person, but the STATUS, CONDITION OR CHARACTER BORNE (carried) by physical persons…. THE LAW OF PERSONS IS THE LAW OF STATUS OR CONDITION.” – American Law and Procedure: Constitutional Law Vol.13

These definitions clearly state what a person is from the American law standpoint. Note that Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was adapted to the Constitution of the United States.

“person – 1. the exhibition or representation of a character in dialogue, fiction, or on the stage.
2. The part or character which any one sustains, either by office or in the ordinary relations of human life.” – Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language 1865

“person – 1. This word is applied to men, women, and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and persons are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether may be a member of society or not, whatever the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, etc. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place be holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person.
3. But when the word “persons” is spoken in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to the artificial persons.” –Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856

By their definition of legal terms we are considered “actors” or “agents” of the “per-son” we identify as which is a creation and property of government. In law books they metaphorically describe juridical proceedings as a “comedy or drama.” We are considered the vulgar masses, vulgar meaning the common illiterate people because we don’t understand the law and we ‘need’ an attorney to re-present us, to act as our person. Unless you can prove in court that you are well versed in the legal language and proceedings you are viewed, by default, as an insane lunatic. Demeaning, but understandable when pondering… The law sees the average person as not being fully familiar with the laws and procedures, and when he is in court he “might”, “by taking reasonable pains”, ‘have acquired the necessary knowledge of the law’; thus, he is voluntarily ignorant. When he communicates the common vulgar language in court, the magistrate hears a “mentally deranged” individual speaking words “that have no foundation in reason or reality [in law]”. The law only comprehends it’s terms of art. That is why legal professionals suggest having an attorney re-present you.

Legal Maxim: “Lunaticus, qui gaudet in lucidis intervallis. A person is (still) a lunatic who enjoys lucid intervals.

LUNATIC. An insane person. See INSANE.

INSANE. Mentally deranged; suffering from one or more delusions or false beliefs that (1) have no foundation in reason or reality, (2) are not credible to any reasonable person of sound mind, and (3) cannot be overcome in a sufferer’s mind by any amount of evidence or argument.

LUCID INTERVAL. 1. A brief period during which an insane person regains sanity sufficient to have the legal capacity to contract and act on his or her own behalf.” – Black’s Law 8th

It surely is extremely foolish (insane) to voluntarily alienate your Natural borne Rights to take on artificial ones like exactions, pains, and punishments in order to use the government’s natural person status to participate in their enter-tain-ment (to enter and hold the mind) govern-ment (to control the mind) production live action role-play. One must be mentally ill (a lunatic) to assume that participation in this Beast System is a natural part of life.

Part 2