INVISIBLE CONTRACTS - By George Mercier

[ShamanSaid]

http://www.constitution.org/mercier/incon.htm

Here is an excerpt:

"The word PERSON is of particular legal significance in American

Jurisprudence; it is distinguished from the word INDIVIDUAL, with

the semantic differential in effect between the two being

inherently Status oriented.  Although sounding innocent under

common English semantic rules, on the floor of a Courtroom these

semantic rules take upon themselves deeper significance, as it is

quietly known by all Judges that PERSONS are clothed with multiple

layers of juristic accoutrements giving that PERSON'S presence in

that Courtroom a special and suggestive flavoring to it.  On the

one hand, PERSONS have special legal rights, benefits, and

privileges originating from a juristic source; and on the other

hand, PERSONS also carry upon themselves various obligatory duties

(some of which, if not handled properly, can be very self-damaging

at times) -- but both rights and duties are often invisible.  In

contrast to that layered state of juristic accoutrement

encapsulation, INDIVIDUALS walk around without any such

accoutrements [they would be "liberated" as the contemporary

vernacular would characterize it].  As a point of beginning,

PERSONS can be either natural human beings like you and me, or

artificial juristic entities (such as foreign governments,

Corporations, Agencies, or Instrumentalities) and the like -- at

least, here in 1985, those are the only two existing divisions of

PERSONS presently recognized by the Judiciary (i.e., human beings

and paper juristic entities).



  "Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person

  may be defined as an entity that is subject to a right.  There

  are good etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral

  definition.  The Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to

  DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman Law the term was adapted to

  refer to anything that could act on either side of a legal

  dispute...  In effect, in Roman legal tradition, PERSONS are

  creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the

  legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to

  have, or only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside

  of the legal sphere.  The law, on the Roman interpretation, is

  systematically ignorant of the biological status of its

  subjects."


  -  Peter French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16

  American Philosophical Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979)."

[targa2]

Yes but this is where the argument begins and ends for most patriots.  The " I am not the stawman/person " so therefore there is no jurisdiction.

If you read the rest of Merciers book you will see that this is only a window into the real attachment that the law has upon the man. I had a hard time with his concepts years ago when I first came across them, but now I can see their operation at work in court decisions and administrative proceeding.  It is very transparent now.  It has little to do with what is written down and everything to do with what is implied through our actions.  " Actions speak louder then words "  Ain't it the truth in Admiralty Law.

This IS  " the great Beast that came out of the sea " in Rev 13.  The " sea " being a double metaphor for the " great multitudes of man " and " the law " that would eventually come to enslave us.  The NWO is a not future.  Is is now and has always been.

I hope you will read further , if you haven't already, and share your point of view with myself and others.

[ShamanSaid]

Lol, I don't know if you assumed I hadn't read it because I posted only that small snippet but I have read it several times.

If you want to get a deeper understanding perhaps you can lookup Winston Shrout and his seminars - I have heard a rumor once that he is a Freemason actually from Randy Kelton who I don't trust in the slightest bit.  

My take on the whole thing is that it's a Judeo legal system and the bottom line rule is YOU LOSE. The minute you crack the system and try to use the rules to win they will change them and not even notify you of it. The best you can do with it is know enough to opt out of standing in as surety when the S**t hit's your strawman.

[mobes]

Put it this way.....In all those 'documentaries' they talk about the ages of Pisces and of Aquarius. Pisces is depicted as a fish and Aquarius is depicted as a man pouring a pitcher of water. Here's how I see it:

In Pisces, those who obey the government and go along with what the government says, pays their taxes, go to work everyday, earn a paycheck, spend it on the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing etc....) are acting like fish in water, hence the birth (berth) certificate (certificate of manifest). According to maritime admiralty / commercial law, we are operating like fish in the water. As the population grows (like the number of fish in a tank), the temperature rises. This is what Al Gore REALLY means when he says global warming. It's not about the Earth, it's about commercial law. As the tank seems to get smaller due to overcrowding, the fish (symbolically speaking) start to get agitated and keep moving around faster and faster to fight everyone off and to keep distance. This creates conflict due to the lack of resources available. Can you picture that in our world today? I don't need to answer that for you, you can figure it out....

The transition is somewhat confusing to me. The way I see it, is that this 'man' will proclaim himself as the saviour of the world. He will take the tank filled with water and fish (symbolically speaking) and pour it out.....could this be our money system?

[targa2]

Uh oh....looks like we are going to have to put this Mithraic Sun God thing to rest once and for all.

Listen to this guy Mobes.             http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8158785917

I always ask people that have been poisoned by Zeitgeist and other " Sun God  " vs " Son of God " parallelisms one simple question.  Do you think the words   SUN  and   SON were rhyming words with such close parallels in spelling in the languages of the days of antiquity when these texts were written?  Not a chance.

I figured you had read it Shamansaid. Mercier is brilliant.

[§N9sh2bj]

Can't get past the guy looks like a chewer. Everyone has their own agenda...

[ShamanSaid]

This is off topic but if you really want to know, I suggest to have a look at the Bibles predecessor book "The Book of Jubilees" aka "The Lessor Book of Genesis" (failed imo because the Jews couldn't convince people that deers, squirrels and all animals originally spoke haibaru aka hebrew) and see also the book from Donald Teeter at the Ambrosia society. He does an excellent job of piecing together exactly where the Jew cult stole most of the stories contained in the Bible from - he does a side by side comparison.