When I was on the last time. I was asking the question of the status of "so called" black people in this country.
Black people are a fiction and therefore there can be no law that applies to blacks because there is no land called black associated with that people. The conclusion, as long as there is no land associated with a people, then that people are "subjects" and "subjected" whatever people capture that people or persons, like when being captured by the police.
Today we are going to take a look at jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction, what is it? Who has jurisdiction over a thing or a people? Jurisdiction according to the BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 4th EDITION-it is the authority, capacity power of RIGHT to act. The word RIGHT according to the same book states-as a noun and taken in the abstract sense justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law....as a noun taken in the concrete sense of the word, a power, privilege, faculty or demand inherent in one person on one incident upon another. Rights are defined generally as powers of free action and the primal rights pertaining to men.
The question is then, who has the "right" of jurisdiction of one people over another, and where do they derive these rights from?
In the case of the United States , for practical purposes, the rights of the state are derived from the agreement of the people that reside in that state by way of contracts. Driver's license, mortgage, job, marriage certificate, and the list goes on.
How does this tie into rights?
These are all contracts, the drivers license,marriage certificate, mortgage note, all these give jurisdiction according to the terms and agreements and these documents are presented by the state of Georgia or whatever state in which you reside, to you.
You then agree to the terms and conditions in exchange for the ability to be able to drive, in the case of a drivers license when the right to drive is just that a RIGHT backed by supreme court rulings.
Christy vs Elliot, 216 I 131,74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905-1910: California v Farley 98 CED Rpt. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032 (1971)
Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health and constituted no hazard to the public, and such a traveler owed no other duty to the public (eg. the State);he/she and his her auto having equal right to and on the roadways/highways as horses and wagons, etc. this same right is still Substantive Rule, in that SPEEDING, RUNNING STOP SIGNS traveling WITHOUT LICENSE PLATES or REGISTRATION ARE NOT THREATS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THUS ARE NOT ARRESTABLE OFFENSES.
The above Supreme Court case ruling would mean that there is no reason that anyone should be stopped and harassed or arrested for any violation of the roadways or highways as these are not threats to public safety and are not emergencies. Where does the authority derive that gives these police officers the ability to be able to stop and kidnap people and torture them?
Now you may be wondering "Well then how come they stop people and arrest them and throw people in jail and issue tickets etc." If Im playing a game of Spades and you dont know that Im cheating, its not my job to tell you. Its your job to stop me from winning! The courts are not amendable to you nor are they to help you unless you know how to make them work for you.
This is just one example using the DRIVERS LICENSE of how they get the authority, you GAVE it to them. When you got the drivers license you agreed that driving is not a RIGHT that it is a privilege that can be taken away and that you can be jailed if you violate the terms and conditions of the LICENSE is not held up. The DDS Department of Driver Services gives you a card the same way a corporation gives you a card to get in the building, you are now amendable to your job and you are amendable to the state as well by way of the card called a LICENSE.
This is one way that jurisdiction is gained from you.
They way that you gain it back is to resend yourself back to a document that "trumps" the jurisdiction of state. The document that does that is the Constitution, there is only one people that are able to claim the Constitution as a document that they can stand on that is weightier than the policies and statutes, and ordinances of the state.
Those people are Moors.
That is the correct status of our people. That is the correct name of our nation of our people. This is the title that gives back the LAW that we are to be adjudicated to.
As long as there is no name that is given to a people that ties that people to a place of origin and a land and a culture, then that people does not exist at law. They are called Civil Liter Mortuse. It means dead in the eyes of the law.
This is what the majority of black people are at law. They are dead and not in full life, (opposite of Civil Liter Mortuse)
To correct this situation you must NATIONALIZE you must declare who you are, what rights you adhere to and what LAW governs you, not ACTS, CODES, CANNONS, STATUTES but LAW.
Most of you may be thinking that the title MOOR has to do with Morocco, or Spain. It does not. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship which is the Treaty that recognizes the colonies as a nation was from the Emperor of Morocco. It references using currency from Mexico which means that they were here and not in Spain across seas, that was done to continue to displace the Moors that were here, on this land. The other attempt was to call the mullatos here Indians, and then Native Americans and then say that we came from Africa.
It was clear that Columbus was not in India, so what did the people that he came across call themselves? It could not have been Indian, as they were not in India. The people of India today do not call themselves Indians they are called Singh. In reference to the Moon and that is where you get the word SIN from as it is in reference to a moon cycle and another name of the moon is called SIN being born in SIN is in reference to a time not a condition of ones soul. Look it up before you challenge, present the facts and then we can reason together.
Back to my point; the jurisdiction is given by the true sovereigns and that is you and I. We gave the jurisdiction to the states by agreeing to the contracts of the state in exchange for goods and services.
These "benefits" must be resent and the instruments used for commerce and commerce only, the rights of the indigenous people have to be reserved.
In conclusion, jurisdiction comes as a result of inherent right as was explained in the beginning of this contact. INHERENT that means that if the people that are assuming jurisdiction have no INHERENT right, then they can have jurisdiction unless the true sovereigns give it to them.