(Thanks, Cl. :)

Reader Charles write and sends us:

=====

Dear Hobie.

I was driven to comment.
I received the below article in an email. My first thought was of Mike Lindell’s fatally defective and embarrassing so called Supreme Court Election Law Suit which I commented on prior.
The tie between the the two is the phrase “ My People perish for lack of knowledge. “
My monograph below in comment is intended to start dialogues and personal research guided by some “think different”.
The “Think different” intent in any discussion dissolves the lies and misconstructions We the People have been fed and digested because the herd as captured is the self actuated ignorance resulting in the current country wide confusions.
The confusion sellers are selling SLAVERY in the same context of Bill Murray picking up the Baby Ruth from the pool in Caddy Shack movie.

Appearances and beliefs do not ever result in substance being recognized.
Style never supersedes substance no matter how hard one tries.

Major Premise.
When an alleged country does not own and control its own money and money transfer system, there is no political jurisdiction, which is what a country is at its root, there is a commercial operation disguised as country. God did not create mans money system nor our government. Trump Prayer link below pretty well defines the Source of Authority issue.
Minor Premises:
The article below, while on point with its major premise, private money use establishes jurisdiction over commerce issues, misses a few critical elements.
First. Money is a man created system. The creator of a property, mankind, the concept, application and use of money is always the owners responsible to and for the creation.
Second. The Federal Reserve system and its ownership of the United States monetary system is illegal, void for criminal negligence.
Congress abandoned its duty to regulate the value of money, a constitutional TORT, when it created the FED and then adding insult to injury grated the nul tiel, void, entity of the FED power to issue private money.
Thus the commercial jurisdiction incrementally superseded and covered over law and equity jurisdictions.
The commerce clause in the constitution is misapplied intentionally through legislative and judicial pontificating that have no source for authority identified by constitution.
When any act of government or act by a public servant does not serve the best interest of the People it is void for breach of contracted services as paid for and a conversion of trust authorities from the benefit to the People for benefit of the servants.
Congress holds no authority the create any artificial entity except government service providers with in very specific, limited and well defined venues and subject matters.
All government applied powers from top to bottom are valid only when the trust document creating governments, constitutions, are provably from public record, in compliance with not only the specific language of the Public Trust, yet more important the intent of the trust declared by preamble.
The Preambles define who the creators are and ratifies for all time who the true owners of governments are, the People.
The Preambles are Documents of Title in the current commercial system.
Ownership over governments rests with the People.
Third. All operating systems that are alleged to be enforceable upon any one engaging with that system are required to recognize relief or remedy or both in order to be considered enforceable.
Congress covered this point almost 20 years before silver coin was removed from circulation and then buried its chicanery in the restructuring of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Bankruptcy Rules in 1982, almost 20 years after removing silver coin.
The below good standing federal statute controls access to remedy and relief of law and equity.
28 U.S. Code, section 1333, Admiralty, maritime and prize cases.
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:
(1)Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.(2)Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 79, 63 Stat. 101.)
This reservation of rights is good any where in all circumstances involving public servants under the federal Commerce Clause jurisdiction.
Subject matter required to establish Admiralty jurisdiction is required to be declared prior to application of that jurisdiction.
Admiralty jurisdiction covers, shipping; navigation; waters; commerce; seamen; towage; wharves, piers, and docks; insurance; maritime liens; canals; and recreation. Piracy (ship hijacking) is also an aspect of admiralty.
When the subject matter jurisdiction capturing an issue is not declared, due process, the opportunity to know and respond and know the adversary is exposed as the fatal defect.
Conclusion. Failure to understand the true and full nature of any issue always results in less than satisfactory results.
The links to a RMN publish quite some time ago provides some very powerful mechanisms to identify public servants loyalties and demands for production of authorities which set the stage for possible solutions both great and small.

Public Servants Letter and Pledge. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive2.cgi?noframes;read=133216

Clarifying Jurisdiction In Open Court. https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=168445

Begin at the beginning. Trumps Prayer for our Country. https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=176930

Readers, please enjoy the reads and I will meet at the middle of the battlefield as We the People crush our adversaries through simple application of our Original Jurisdiction over our law.
> 
>
> 26 November A.D. 2021 [GMT]
>
> The NM S.Ct. did not break the law: https://rumble.com/vpozgn-did-the-nm-supreme-court-just-break-the-law.html
>
> The "citizen's grand jury" people did, and how.
>
> Here's the fundamental problem. He who supplies the "money" is the "king." That's just "how it is." The banking cartel supplies the "money." Therefore, the banking cartel is, effectively, "king." That means that the banking cartel decides what is this "territory's" and what is that "territory's" foundational choice of law.
>
> It's precisely because there's no compulsion to decide which (type of) medium of exchange to use that we know there's always been a choice. We've always had the option of continuing with honest weights and measures. We still have that option. It doesn't feel that way, but that's because the small business owners haven't yet been as complete in their study into this very issue as a great many more of them are going to be in the rather near future. Just watch this as America awakens from our nightmare of paganism. It won't happen overnight, but it has already started. Several small businesses across our nation have long since already been accepting honest weights and measures in exchange for the goods and/or services provided.
>
> At present, there are two options for our foundational choice of law: (1) The banking cartel's maritime / commercial standards or (2) the Common Law. These do not mix. It's one or the other. There cannot be a system with "both."
>
> To know which is operative in any particular jurisdiction, all one needs to determine is which type of medium of exchange is in general circulation in that "territory." The fastest way to determine that is to find out what medium of exchange is accepted for payment of fees, fines, and "taxes."
>
> NM, as with every other "state," is banking cartel "territory." The foundational choice of law is not the Common Law, but rather the maritime / commercial law provided by the banking cartel.
>
> Despite this deluge quantity of evidence, there are still great numbers of people who advocate application of the Common Law in such "territories" as NM. Thus, they (still) have no clue that to have the Common Law, there must be a medium of exchange of the form of honest weights and measures in general circulation throughout that particular jurisdiction. Since the people in the "territory" called New Mexico continue to use the banking cartel's "money," the people are still consenting to the banking cartel's "choice of law," which is the commercial / maritime schtuff, not the Common Law. NM is just one of the "territories" "marked" (think dogs, cats, wild animals) by the banking cartel, as proved by the general circulation and use of the banking cartel's "funny money."
>
> As these well-meaning, pro-America, but incredibly un-informed and/or misguided, "citizen grand jury" types go rushing into the banking cartel's "territory" intending to tell the banking cartel's "governmental" minions that the foundational choice of law is not what the banking cartel is saying that it is, they generate against themselves a problem that is apparently well beyond their ability to grasp.
>
> That is to say that while they want to have the law applied for truth, justice, and the American way, they have no idea what our present legal reality amounts to. Those intending to advocate the superior application of the Common Law over the commercial / maritime schtuff promulgated by the banking cartel for use in the banking cartel's system, are, ultimately, going to end up in a banking cartel run jail (or worse).
>
> "Choice of law" is one of these things that is a "choice." While the people in this community and that community have 100% authority for "Choos[ing] ye this day" whether to remain Caesar's, by the general circulation and use of the "funny money," or God's, by the general circulation and use of a system of honest weights and measures, for so long as they say they're Caesar's, by continuing to circulate and use the "funny money," there will be no Common Law activities or practices throughout that "territory."
>
> Key, and the ultimate point to understand for this very (type of) situation, so as to have this reality perspective in the front of the mind, to try to compel a change in "choice of law" is, quite literally, under ancient, long-standing, applicable legal standards, as fully recognized internationally, an "act of war."
>
> To be almost as painfully clear as is humanly possible to be, with the full intent of encouraging immediate cessation of all of such hair-brained activity, Know All Men and Women by these Presents, that by intending to hold the "Beast" system's minions accountable under the Common Law, via "citizen's grand jury" activity, those "citizen grand jurors" are engaging in war against this "Beast" system. That's not merely total and complete folly; it's borderline clinical insanity. And, either way about that, it is 100% criminal activity per the applicable laws, as provided by the banking cartel, throughout this entire "funny money" dependent / addicted nation.
>
> "Choice of law" is exactly that, a "choice." This is precisely why it's still our national reality that using the "funny money" is 100% "voluntary." We've always had the choice. Treasury has continued to mint gold and silver Coin; these are just simply not what's in general circulation. Because "no one" understands the connection between the medium of exchange and the applicable "choice of law," we've been fish in the rain barrel "fished" out of that rain barrel via a Gatling gun. The use of "funny money" has never been compelled, for it's the very act of compelling the "choice of law" that activates the reality of it's being an "act of war." The banking cartel has, quite brilliantly and successfully, made using the nation's original medium of exchange inconvenient, but "inconvenient" isn't anything like "prohibited."
>
> We haven't been "taken over." We've been "competed against." That's all that this apparent system has ever done, namely "compete," in the marketplace. They've competed by setting up an entirely separate marketplace while making access to the original marketplace "inconvenient."
>
> Since the banking cartel didn't "take over," any measure of activity by the "patriots" down such path as "retaking" is magnificently misplaced. We're not looking at an "either or" situation. As some Indian cultures describe it, it's the "black dog, white dog" option. The thing about the "black dog, white dog" vignette is that they both exist at the same time. They're competing against one another. It's not the one or the other; it's both, simultaneously. The prevailing one is the one that gets fed (whether fed more or better).
>
> Let's apply this reality. Shy of homicide, e.g., war, the banking cartel can't stop Americans from competing against the banking cartel. To start to drive out the "Beast" system from this community and from that community, this community and that community have to circulate, generally, honest weights and measures. Exclusively. Period. For so long as there's any use of the banking cartel's "funny money," the "Beast" still has authority in that community. Period.
>
> Said in other words, we may develop into two nations in the very near future. There's the nation that hangs onto the "funny money" system, looking to "government" as their "savior," and then there's the nation that, from the grass roots level, simply moves back into the Common Law marketplace by using exclusively honest weights and measures in that reactivated marketplace. As the Common Law marketplace reemerges from the dust that has collected on it since the end of 1964, the rest of what we, the God-fearing "deplorables," do will simply take care of itself.
>
> It's not a matter of "taking back over" that which is presently controlled by the banking cartel. They never "took over" in the first place. They've simply "competed," with the mentality of a monopolist. For those all the more motivated by this "death jab" reality, it's simply a matter of taking our preferred choice of law right back to the marketplace. Where there are needs for decision-making in and concerning the reemerging Common Law marketplace, decision-makers will step forward and start making decisions.
>
> Keep fully in mind, though, that in all communities in which the banking cartel's "funny money" still circulates, generally, the "Beast" has its full, God-"commissioned" authority. Period.
>
> Picture Western Europe. People there, at least up until fairly recently, with the vaccination passport insanity, could have breakfast in one country, lunch in another, and dinner in a third. Let's say they transact business at each meal. It's conceivable that they've engaged commercially in three separate "jurisdictions," e.g., France, Germany, and Belgium.
>
> In this same way, we may find ourselves, during the transition, here, trading for some things in "this state," with the "funny money," and other things in Common Law Texas, or Common Law New Mexico, etc., via honest weights and measures. There's no practical expectation except this, for there is no way the Common Law medium of exchange can arrive in sufficient quantity to satisfy the whole of the marketplace. That just won't happen. So, there'll be a transition. During this transition, we will find ourselves trading in two separate "places," i.e., the banking cartel "marketplace" and the Common Law marketplace. The more (small) businesses that allow / encourage trading with honest weights and measures, the more we'll be able to trade with God's system of honest weights and measures.
>
> Until there's another marketplace competing against the banking cartel's "marketplace," there's one "marketplace." In that one "marketplace" in NM, then, to see this for exactly what it is, what the Governor in NM is doing is "suppressing insurrection and repelling invasion." And, there's 100% support via NM's S.Ct. All of that is 100% consistent with the current legal policies applicable throughout our nation where what circulates generally as the medium of exchange is the "funny money."
>
> These "citizen grand jury" types are what produced such personalities as "fake judge Anna" a decade or so, ago, and they mean well, but they're totally and completely "out to sea" when it comes to comprehending our present legal reality. The fact they may never comprehend is this: There is no "law of man" or "politics of man" solution to Law of God problems. They're still throwing "arm of the flesh" responses at a problem we're living through, well, at least the non-"death jab" takers among us are living through, because God has thrown us up under the bus of the "Beast" system that God Almighty, Himself, has "commissioned" to carry out His Judgment. What is the primary job of all "Beast" systems throughout history? To devour and to destroy the rebellious. Therefore, there are two general solutions here for being removed from God's "List of the Rebellious:" (1) Passing away or (2) Repenting.
>
> The Law of God solution of "repenting" shows up in what may appear to many to be a "law of man" and "politics of man" solution, which it isn't. Picture a banking cartel NEW MEXICO and a Common Law New Mexico. Picture a banking cartel TEXAS and a Common Law Texas. Etc. The act of repenting involved is that of getting away from picking "Caesar" as one's god, which we do by using "Caesar's" "funny money," and moving toward picking God Almighty as one's One, True, Living God, which we do, in part, by using His system of honest weights and measures. Yes, there'll be some "law of man" and "politics of man" in support of this particular act of repentance, but it's the repentance aspect that starts the ball rolling.
>
> Here's a very real application. There are still a great number of Americans living in Comm*nist, banking cartel controlled CALIFORNIA, who want to separate from the banking cartel's "union." They are going about this 100% "law of man," "politics of man" style. They're doing everything they've been raised in the banking cartel's educational system to think to do, which means that there is, to this author's awareness, not one solitary word's being spoken about changing out the medium of exchange (except for this author's notes to various leaders in that effort, which notes have, to date, fallen on blind eyes and deaf ears). "All" they need to do is, among themselves, set up the Common Law marketplace, and start trading, among themselves, with honest weights and measures. By so repenting, they will have, rather instantly, "separated" themselves, at least in part, from the banking cartel controlled "union." They will finally be applying Scripture's private property and free market economics reality to their problem. Once they set up that marketplace, they'll realize that they need a means by which to set up dispute resolution forums, e.g., courts, and they'll have to decide who all is qualified to be a judge, and then they'll simply develop from there into forming a system, with Separation of Powers, under the Common Law, in direct competition with the banking cartel's "funny money" system.
>
> Always keep in mind that by setting up a competing marketplace, none of those participants, by participating in a new / different marketplace, are, by that fact alone, in any way terminating any of their "gotcha agreement" obligations to / under the banking cartel's system. God, Himself, enforces such "gotcha agreements" against those with such. The benefit is that their children won't be born into the banking cartel's system, meaning that their children won't grow up "attached" to or obligated to the banking cartel's system.
>
>
> Now, as for the additional concepts mentioned in the very original note in this thread (farthest note below), the statement about the limit on the legislative power is 100% correct. What we'll find as the better / preferred way to describe this and to think about this is this: There is no such thing as Mandamus legislative or executive power. Mandamus is a judicial remedy. A court (of competent jurisdiction) may order a party to an enforceable agreement to perform according to the agreed-to terms. There is no legislative or executive authority to compel anyone to do anything. Prohibit? Yes. But compel this or that affirmative act or line of conduct? No. And, the only things that any court has authority to compel anyone to do are things that party has already agreed to do.
>
> That said, there is 100% executive authority to enforce "gotcha agreements" that this individual or that individual has been suckered into by the "government." This is why this author's perspective about the executive "mandates" is that all of that is smoke and mirrors cover story for what this author expects is happening, which is the enforcement of some "gotcha agreement" or other. Down this path, one of the "defenses" or "responses" is that illegal agreements cannot be enforced.
>
> In other words, to solve a problem, it must first be identified correctly. And, while there is no "constitution," national or state, it's still the reality that whatever is posing as a "legislature" or as an "executive" has zero authority to compel anyone to do anything or even to agree to anything. There is no Mandamus legislative power. There is no Mandamus executive power. Again, though, in this very same breath, while the judiciary do have Mandamus authority, even that doesn't exist to compel performance of illegal agreements. So, while the statement below, that no executive has the authority to make law, is 100% correct, the executive (or any executive branch "agency") may propose "gotcha agreement" language to which the people may agree (for so long as such agreement doesn't violate "public policy"), and that same executive may take those who have agreed into court to get the court to tell each suckered party that such party will be compelled to abide by the terms of the "gotcha agreement."
>
> Thus, we do well to toss all this "constitutional-ist" thought out the first available window and to start thinking in terms of how this present "Beast" system functions, which is "federally," as in "by agreement." In this perspective, which is consistent with our present legal reality, we're not looking at whether any legislature or executive has authority to "dictate" a law, for they don't, and that's not even a question. The question is along this line: What is "out there" to be "agreed" to that anyone can actually be compelled to perform, if s/he's been suckered into the "gotcha agreement?" And from here, the answer is to ask whether the socially and politically pressured line of conduct is something that constitutes a term of an agreement that can be enforced under current "public policy?" In other words, is the "performance" that's being "compelled" socially even possible to include in a lawful, binding agreement? Where the "gotcha agreement" amounts to intentional injury to a child, or to the elderly, or along the lines of "suicide," then such "gotcha agreement" terms are facially illegal, thus, are unenforceable.
>
> Thus, while it's 100% correct that there is no Mandamus legislative or executive authority, we need to stop thinking that there are "constitutions," for there are none. What is being used against us are these various "gotcha agreements." So, we do well to stop thinking in terms of "limits" on "government" in any context other than this: What is even legal to get the people to agree to? Here's just one of the many examples. In DC, via "ordinance," DC sought to seduce all residents to agree to be disarmed in their own homes. Heller challenged this, and in the final analysis, S.Ct.U.S. ruled, basically, essentially, as did the appellate court, that since defense of our domicile, and the people in it, and the property in it, is recognized as a right that existed at the time of the forming of this nation, that it's still a limit on banking cartel owned / operated "government." Therefore, no one may be seduced via (ordinance-based) "gotcha agreement" to be disarmed in one's own home. Practical translation: It's against "public policy" to try to seduce anyone into an agreement to being disarmed in one's own home. Once our minds are in the right starting place for competent legal analysis, the rest of the solution pretty well takes care of itself.
>
> While this commercial nexus angle is a "law of man" solution to this "death jab" concept, it's not a solution to why we're laboring in vain under the "Beast" system in the first place. If it's not this "death jab," it'll be something else of equal or worse consequence, until we repent of our rebellion against God Almighty. The sole solution to the larger problem is called "repentance," and what we've got to stop doing is rebelling. To stop rebelling, one starts with stopping one's participation in all the nationally syndicated and promoted pagan rituals, e.g., "valentine's" day, lent, easter, halloween, and christmas (and all their look-alikes in all the other faiths and religions).
>
> To expect to deal successfully with banking cartel owned/operated "government," at any level, i.e., to expect to tell this or that part of the "funny money"-based "government" where to get off the train, we have to deal with it in terms of exactly what it is. It is not a "constitutional" system that God has "commissioned" to rule over us. It's a "commercial" system. Until we think in terms of "commercial" activity, we're going to continue to be bulldozed.
>
> Once we start at least thinking "commercially," we'll start to realize just exactly how far behind the 8-ball we are. As a nation, we're so wrapped up in flypaper via these various "gotcha agreements" that we're mummified. To be very, very sure, even where there is a "new" Common Law New Mexico, or a "new" Common Law Texas, or a "new" Common Law California, etc., there's nothing about participating in that "new" Common Law New Mexico, or "new" Common Law Texas, or "new" Common Law California that will ever terminate one's existing obligations to the existing banking cartel owned/operated NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, or CALIFORNIA, etc. Not that such can't be terminated, for this author and his clients are living proof that they can, but one's mere participation in another marketplace, alone, by itself, in no way terminates any of one's existing "gotcha agreement(s)."
>
> It's not that we can't deal competently with our commercial reality; it's that to see how far behind the 8-ball we are is to see that if we have any realistic expectation of a solution this side of (at least) another couple of generations, it'll come through our competent and unceasing individual self-improvement under the Law of God. God and God alone has the authority to "fire" this "Beast" system. Thus, until there's no more rebellion against Him to suppress, which is possible to achieve via "the last great remake of Nineveh," there'll be a very vibrant "Beast" system to continue to do just exactly what God has "commissioned" it to do, namely suppress the rebellion against God Almighty.
>
> Where is the problem? In the mirror.
>
> Why are those who are still doing so blaming the "Beast" for being the "Beast?" It's not this political party or that political party. It's not this religion or that religion. It's God. As we put two and two together, we come to terms with the fact that since we are dealing with a "Beast," that means that we're under Divine Judgment, which means that we're viewed in God's eyes as being in rebellion against Him. Where, then, is the problem? In the mirror.
>
> What is the solution? Daily communications with God Almighty to provide guidance as to how to stop showing up as rebellious in His eye. The "Caveat" is this. One definitely should not ask God this (type of) question unless the answer is sincerely desired, because God does, fully, expect that once He starts providing guidance as to how to "stop" being rebellious, that the inquiring party, who is 100% responsible for that knowledge, start acting on His guidance. Fearful to fall into the hands of the Living God. Thus, it's far better not to start down this path than to start and then stop. Reality is a wicked paradigm shift. It's uncomfortable. We have to admit having "been had;" we have to change the way we think about some very foundational perspectives. Yet, we remain under the thumb of this "Beast" system until we make these paradigm shift, foundational changes in our thinking, thus in our conduct, toward God, others, and ourselves.
>
> Harmon L. Taylor
> Legal Reality

ll article:

*************************************************************