Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
USDA threatens $60,000 fine, federal raid against woman in legal possession of indoor lemon tree
#21
gems of the constitution you say?  that is why i asked... i thought you may be thinking of using it...  ok... let me explain...

first thing is first, as far as the Con-stitution is concerned:

THE CONSTITUTION.

a)  You  (ie most people in Australia or any other nation-STATE including the US) are not one of the "People" claimed in the Con.

any Con is a temporary testamentary Trust...   that is what a Constitution is in essence, truth and fact... it is a trust constructed as a WILL...

... and all trusts have Grantors... and YOU are not its Grantor... which then makes YOU... the Grantee... and the RIGHTS pertained therein... are NOT intended NOR bestowed upon the Grantees... they are FOR the GRANTORS... ie the underwriters... the SIGNATORY/S... the settlor/s of any given trust... including the Con.  

and in your case... that is the Queen, representing the Monarchy... where therein it quotes phrases or sections that have the wording of, "We the People of such-and-such State".. ie NSW... QLD etc...  means members related to the Royal family that live in any state of Australia... it is only for THEIR posterity... not yours or anyone not related to the Royal family by blood...  it does NOT mean citizens that live in every state.... she signed/created it for all HER people's posterity, not yours and your peoples... they are the only WE THE PEOPLE therein... YOU... are the citizen... ie... the SLAVE.

so any time...  some dingbat... claims their RIGHTS as per the Con in any court... they are claiming NOTHING... because slaves have no rights... and the magistrate acts accordingly.... he treats them in honor of the law of slaves, even though they think they're being dishonored.

sorry if this is startling or confusing anyone reading this... but I am not here to talk fairy tales and delusions of the incompetent at law and ENGLISH.... because if you could truly comprehend English, you would know what I'm talking about.  It's all there in plain black and white... only.. it is not in the Con... which is why you must exercise your due diligence and find it in other laws that overstand the Con...

... all the Con has to say is WHO is the Grantor/Settlor of that trust... and it does... as all TRUSTS do...  just look for the one titled "GRANTOR" or "SIGNATORY" therein...

... to obtain the proper definition of "We the People"... because it does NOT mention it in the Con... you have to read up on the LAW/jurisdiction that allows, and is used, to CREATE the Con... and any other Con for that matter, anywhere in the world.  It does not matter if you talk about the Australian or American Con... they BOTH stand by the SAME jurisdiction... ie International Law... the LAW OF NATIONS... written by vittel... and the UN laws/treaties/conventions.  And they all stem and were created by the imposition of the Lieber Codes... that came out as soon as the Continental Convention was suspended in the mid 1800's... and still so to this day...

...with the suspension of the Continental Convention, there have been NO organic govts or judiciaries anywhere in the world since... ie... NO TRUE JUDGES & NO TRUE COURTS ie De Jure...   The Lieber Code allowed for the creation of STATES and all countries soon relinquished their organic-nation status, replacing them all with nation-STATES.

...once having initially respectively implemented their STATE... they slowly and progressively did away with all rights and MANNERS of their organic nation's constituents... that's why everything started to change around the early 1900's... Gold/tender, inception of Birth Certificates to mark an EVENT, not a the born of a new living child... but the birth (berth) of a new vessel at sea...... you name it... anything pertaining to the nation STATES all started to be implemented then.

then... questions were arising as to WHAT rights exactly did the individuals within these STATES have... and they defined them CLEARLY... as per the attached jpeg below...

therein picture... overstands ALL other statutes and laws in place today anywhere in the world... because it comes from the Supreme Law of the Land... ie International Law... NOT Common Law... as Common Law is NOT what most people think it is... Common Law that is written... means Common [Case] Law... which is predominantly cases that have set precedent under Statutes, or statute law....

...so guess what?

every time someone walks into court and demands their Common Law rights... you now know WHAT they GET.  ie... Slave rule... because their demanding what they already have... which is why NO magistrate will ever deny you Common Law that is written out of existing Common Law books/text...  the Common Law which most people think is Common Law... in in fact... a form of CHANCERY... ie equitable jurisdiction... but you cannot invoke Chancery by demanding Common Law... that's obvious...

so as you can see from the included extract (jpeg)... every man and woman that is a member of any given STATE... whether they have Living status or NOT... and whether they are Citizens or " a natural"... have NO RIGHTS to demand anything from the STATE NOR do they have any rights to SUE any officer of the STATE for any reason.... 

And THIS... is what the judiciary will NOT tell you when you start to carry on before them... it's not their job to teach you the law... and it is their job to make as much money out of you as they can... they are not there for justice, they're there for business.... it is in their oath to the Vatican...

we continue...

b)  You are not a Party to the Compact.
c) You are not a signatory to the Contract.
d) You are not "of the Posterity” of the Signers of the People.
e) You are a "constitutor", -  see Black's Six Edition
f) You are The Bankruptcy Guarantee
g) International Treaties are the Supreme Law.
h) They have the Power to punish offenses against the LAW OF NATIONS... and refusing to pay a fine etc... is an offense against the nation-STATE... no matter what else you try to say or invoke... this jurisdiction stands over anything else within a STATE...

l) Power to pass all laws necessary.

ie executive orders... which are in truth... an order given by the designated military leader of an army... ie... the President or Prime Minister... and with executive orders... they have everyone exactly where they want them.... which is why they have maintained a Declared State of War upon the public since the mid 1800's...

... ever wondered what was really discussed in the round table meeting then?  now you know...  irrespective as to what people like icke and others have been erroneously told... it was not for culling lives... it was for harvesting money from the people...  a corpse cannot pay anything...

The only solution... is to create your OWN Constitution and your OWN STATE... thereby removing yourself from the jurisdiction of your existing STATE and placing you under YOUR OWN international jurisdiction as one of the World STATES... one of the UNITY-STATES.

... but that is not an easy feat for the majority of the population... you have to be self sufficient in ALL you needs and necessities as well as knowing the RELEVANT laws inside out...

... I suggest you keep well away from seeking remedy within your constitution...  it is a true Con meant for conning the people/citizen...

... there is no remedy there...  TRUSTS is the answer...  but you need to learn all aspects of TRUST LAW... it will not be an easy road...  as I already mentioned to you...

r


Attached Files Image(s)
   
“THE FEDERATED STATE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW IS VIEWED AS A SOLE PERSON.” - 7th Inter­na­tional Con­fer­ence of Amer­ica States
Reply

#22
previously i did not have time to address your other items namaste... and do so now..


Quote:'The supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people.'

when reading any constitution... we need to know and keep in mind the TWO distinct and different terminology definitions associated with the word, "people" therein...

...1 being "We the people"...

the other... simple... "people"... or "the people"...

the first defines the SIGNATORY/S AND THEIR "POSTERITY"... ie the GRANTOR'S people  in perpetuity...

the latter... defines the remainder of people living in the respective constitution's State... ie.. the CITIZEN/S... ie the SLAVE/S... ie.. the GRANTEES...

with that in mind... i have no doubt that your existing understanding of the terms within the Constitution will take on a differing light...

... so the phrase "The supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people"... is one of TRUTH... but it is NOT referring to the people of "We"... it is referring to the grantees... the masses...  the slaves... and in a way... it is a slander... a SLAP... in all their faces... by the implication therein, that they are incapable of "controlling" themselves... which again... as slanderous as it may be... it is the TRUTH...  otherwise why would they seek, as they do, that others protect and provide for them if they could do it themselves...

Quote:The acknowledgement of a Supreme being and the mind of God and many other references to a higher authority; God; also found in the preamble.. Also, the perfect gem for using Gods law: 'The Federal Parliament is a legislative body capable only of exercising enumerated powers. Its powers are determined and limited by actual grants found within the Constitution.

Anything not granted to it is denied to it. If it is not granted the power to deal with religion, it cannot legislate concerning religion. It is superfluous to deny to it what is not granted- what it does not possess.'

again namaste... refer to the proper definitions of the word "people"...   "Its powers are determined and limited by actual grants found within the Constitution..." ... and those powers being ONLY for the GRANTOR/S... not the GRANTEES...

"If it is not granted the power to deal with religion, it cannot legislate concerning religion. It is superfluous to deny to it what is not granted- what it does not possess."...

last night I read your entire constitution... and its associated definitions act...  the statement above is not one to imply that your Constitution does NOT grant any power to deal with religion... because it CLEARLY does...

... in accordance with your Con... each and every judge and magistrate in australia is a delegate of Her Majesty Elizabeth the 2nd... and is bound as She is by the Coronation Oath 1688 (Imp).... the purpose and object of section 116 Constitution was to maintain Australia as a "Christian Country", under a "Christian Queen", with a system of courts, as were in place in 1903, maintained for the convenience of all "subjects"... ie CITIZENS and naturals of the STATE of Australia...

... so we need to look at WHAT EXACTLY is the purpose of the statement; "If it is not granted the power to deal with religion, it cannot legislate concerning religion. It is superfluous to deny to it what is not granted- what it does not possess."

from what I can gather... it is quite obvious that the illuminati's intent to unleash countless false religions was already set PRIOR to the scripting/enacting of your Con... thereby not allowing existing Christians, or any other religion or PERSON, to litigate any other religion in Australia... and by that I mean... FALSE religions... aka CULTS... I am not referring to the main religions like Islam, Hindu etc... it was created to protect the illuminati's objective of "progressively steering" the masses away from Christianity and the Bible... as well as the original scripture's which differ from the former...


Quote:I am not about to fight for same sex marriage if that is what you thought.

that did not enter my mind at all...

Quote:We have gone off topic and I will say that I know of no laws preventing anyone from growing any produce in their yard in Australia, unless it is declared a noxious weed or crosses some by-law. I know of no GM crops here except cotton. Some GM food is imported, but basically, the people don't want it.

final note... to allow this thread to keep on subject after this...

... the SAME law/s enacted in America that allow them to determine who can grow and what... are also in force in Australia... the difference is that unlike America... Australian authorities have NOT YET chosen to ENFORCE them... ... I refer to the CODE enacted a couple of years ago for ALL nation-STATES of the WORLD called "Codex Alimentarius"... it applies equally to all STATES of the United States... ie Unity-States... so it is ONLY a matter time before they do start enforcing it in Australia...

r
“THE FEDERATED STATE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW IS VIEWED AS A SOLE PERSON.” - 7th Inter­na­tional Con­fer­ence of Amer­ica States
Reply

#23
Ravvau, I did post a reply last night but with changes to forum, did not appear. I had trouble getting back into here but will respond (again) when I get the time. Iy is a bit hard to find my way around the forum as opposed to previous one. Dates are now out of chronilogicol order.
Ol, will respond later mate.
Reply

#24
Ravvau, After reading the definition given for 'The People' in the constitution, yes it does read as if tailored for royalty and the likes except where the absolute authority lies, that being a slap in the face.

I do not wish to use the constitution as I do not want to play in their sand pit, I just want to highlight that the highest statute in the land admits that there is a higher authority than itself; ie. a supreme being.

My understanding is that religion is beyond the parliaments jurisdiction and therefore it can be used in ones favor to have the freedom that is creator granted. It cannot legislate concerning biblical law, jewish law, islamic law and international law for that matter, if it is outside its jurisdiction. Hell! I could say that I smoke dope as part of my Raastafarian religion. Not that I do, but what I am saying is, biblical law can and has been used to win cases.

the SAME law/s enacted in America that allow them to determine who can grow and what... are also in force in Australia... the difference is that unlike America... Australian authorities have NOT YET chosen to ENFORCE them... ... I refer to the CODE enacted a couple of years ago for ALL nation-STATES of the WORLD called "Codex Alimentarius"... it applies equally to all STATES of the United States... ie Unity-States... so it is ONLY a matter time before they do start enforcing it in Australia...

True, alot of our laws model Americas and us, and especialy NZ, are used as testing grounds for many things to be used worldwide, including laws. I however do not see GMO mon a grand scale here anytime soon. The people don't want it.


Reply

#25
Would you like to start another thread on this topic or continue here? Let me know... I don't mind either way...
“THE FEDERATED STATE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW IS VIEWED AS A SOLE PERSON.” - 7th Inter­na­tional Con­fer­ence of Amer­ica States
Reply

#26
(10-18-2011, 12:32 PM)Ravvau Wrote: Would you like to start another thread on this topic or continue here? Let me know... I don't mind either way...

New thread sounds fine, the law of the lemon tree in this thread has gone beyond it's bitter story.
Reply

#27
(10-19-2011, 06:50 AM)namaste Wrote: New thread sounds fine...
ok... link me to it when ready...


“THE FEDERATED STATE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW IS VIEWED AS A SOLE PERSON.” - 7th Inter­na­tional Con­fer­ence of Amer­ica States
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 Melroy van den Berg.