Does it really matter how precisely the words are assembled
Kingsman Funding
Someone one another forum asked:
I am wondering about the usage of common law words. When I listened to the October 1st call, I heard phrases like "i've been wronged" "i've been trespassed" etc.
So this is confusing. Does it really matter how precisely the words are assembled and if they're in past tense -- how critical is this?
It is extremely important especially when you are in hearing before the court. If you don’t make clear the terms you are using they court and the appellate court can construe them in a different way than you want and need.
This is especially true in distinguishing the difference between which state of XXXX or which United States you mean. The powers that be have essentially built their whole power using the deception of the same terms we are all familiar with from civics class in high school when they mean something entirely different.
Excerpts from our oral arguments on this will demonstrate:
First, if you are federal court in discussion you may try to question the distinction of which United States is being referred to by the court when they do that.
- If judge tries to ignore distinction
[[ As we have shown in law ]]
[[The Supreme Court and statutory law recognize ]]
the term " United States " identifies more than one legal jurisdiction.
We have a right under the rules to know
which one and what authority and jurisdiction of government the Court professes to exercise ?
The Court is proceeding without its jurisdiction established under the rules if it does not distinguish on the record which one.
We have numerous references to this. Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) “The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States...... Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 – 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820)]
“Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district.
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 “we have in this country substantially ...two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise
We ask the Court establish its jurisdiction now,
[[ and tell us who and what its oath is to, and what government this court is a legal entity of, ]]
is this Court of a jurisdiction in and on California, , one of the 50 states of the constitutional republic, United States of America having jurisdiction over California citizens on the land thereon?
OR Is its jurisdiction over federal possessions and territories of the United States whose citizens are under exclusive authority and jurisdiction of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, which is not jurisdiction on the 50 states of the republic or their citizens thereon?
OR is its oath to some other entity that is not that government directly created through the sovereign electors on the several states of the constitutional, republic United States of America ?
OR [vacate its orders,] dismiss this case from its Court and recuse itself from trying to rule impartially on such questions that obviously threaten its ability to hold its office in conflict with its own interests.
The court may say-“I don’t have to answer your questions” -because they know they cannot let the distinction be made on the record. Your response needs to be very precise:
Your honor, the Supreme Court has rulled “Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be resolved.” Hagins vs Levine 415 US 533 note 3 (1974) before the case can go any further” The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 709.
By law I am entitled to know what authority and jurisdiction of government this Court professes to exercise.
Again, I ask the court tell us, Is its jurisdiction on the 50 states of the constitutional republic, the United States of America??
the federal United States of possessions and territories, or some other jurisdiction “United States” not directly created through the sovereign electors on the several states of that constitutional republic,
which are not jurisdiction of the constitutional republic, the United States of America ? [....pause...]
OR we ask that it dismiss this case from its Court and recuse itself from trying to rule impartially on such a question that obviously threatens its ability to hold its office in conflict with its own interests.
You need to use it this way as leverage to pressure the court always seeking what you want in this hearing.
The court may try to avoid your question just proclaiming
We have jurisdiction --“It is established”--
At this point you’re in to what we call a circular dialogue that goes on the record as far as the judge lets it go somewhat like the old ‘whose on first’ routine:
Then] what/which is it your honor?
Is its jurisdiction on the 50 states of the constitutional republic, United States of America??
the federal United States of possessions and territories, or some other entity that is not that government directly created through the sovereign electors on the several states of the constitutional republic,
[[ as the federal corporation United States created by statutory law ??]]
--equivocation, evasion—go to [final thrust short]
He may try to avoid the issue by pulling rank on you:
--“I don’t have to answer your questions” -your response:
Your honor, the Supreme Court has rulled “Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be resolved.” Hagins vs Levine 415 US 533 note 3 (1974)
before the case can go any further” The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 709.
By law I am entitled to know what authority and jurisdiction of government this Court professes to exercise.
Again, I ask the court tell us, Is its jurisdiction on the 50 states of the constitutional republic, the United States of America??
the federal United States of possessions and territories, or some other jurisdiction “United States” not directly created through the sovereign electors on the several states of that constitutional republic,
which are not jurisdiction of the constitutional republic, the United States of America ? [....pause...]
OR we ask that it dismiss this case from its Court and recuse itself from trying to rule impartially on such a question that obviously threatens its ability to hold its office in conflict with its own interests. {Again, keep asking for what you want }
You can raise this issue at any time he uses the term with no clarification
--uses “United States” no clarification--
Which one your honor? The Supreme Court and statutory law recognize there is more than one jurisdiction entitled “United States ” ::
Is it the federal United States of possessions and territories, or the federal corporation United States created by statutory law and its political jurisdictions, which the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly are not the 50 states of the union,
OR is it the constitutional republic of the 50 states, United States of America??
Which one?
answer--“United States”
Yes your honor, But which jurisdiction of it?
The United States supreme Court has ruled in Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) the term United States means any one of three different things.
The United States is also a corporation by The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871 at 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62 and reorganized June 11, 1878 with all federal territories and possessions..
So which United States, your honor?
Is its jurisdiction on the 50 states of the constitutional republic, the United States of America??
the federal United States of possessions and territories, or some other jurisdiction “United States” that is not government directly created through the sovereign electors on the several states of the constitutional republic,
[[ as the federal corporation United States created by statutory law ??]]
--equivocation--
answer--“United States”
Your honor, as we have shown in law, the term " United States " identifies more than one legal jurisdiction.
The Court is proceeding without its jurisdiction established if it does not distinguish on the record which one.."
We move that it dismiss this case from its Court and recuse itself from trying to rule impartially on such a question that obviously threatens its ability to hold its office in conflict with its own interests.
---denied-[ to cut off denials]
So you can very easily make a huge issue of supposed simple language because the distinction is not simple at all. I realize there may be questions about how to take advantage of their attempted deception on terms in other situations also and we will try to address whatever those are, Dr Weatherly
On another very important subject let me add something.
Most people don't understand this, but God was in Christ paying for all our sins on the cross and its over and done and finished and He's not angry with us about anything any more.
The Bible says, He is for us, not against us.
He died in our place to purchase us for Himself and if you'll give in to Him, there's nothing He won't be able to do in your life.
I know, I have been with Him for 40 years.
And when we finally leave this world, we'll live with Him forever,
if we belong to Him.
If you need to think about that or you have someone in mind that does, I'll be glad to talk with them. My number again was 1-662-489-6554. I just wanted you to know that.
Dr. Weatherly