Bernard Weckmann: "Throw off the chains! Remember who you are!"
Few who walk through life with eyes open could have any doubt that the world is owned and run by a numerically small but obscenely rich and powerful self-appointed "elite."
Near the top of the societal pyramid, you find a motley assortment of sordid creatures drawn from all races and ethnicities and from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds! One feature, however, they all have in common: they are psychopaths!
Is there at the apex somebody or something even more sinister than a psychopath? Satan and his fallen angels, perhaps? Reptilian shape-shifting aliens? I do not know! But whoever or whatever they are, they are very few in number, so the implementation of their agenda and the day-to-day management of the world is left to an army of bribed, blackmailed, or dumbed-down minions.
To name just a few: politicians of every stripe; public servants in education, police, and judiciary; employees of the mainstream media and the entertainment industry; activists in the service of politically correct bleeding-hearts multi-cultural liberal causes; celebrities press-ganged or volunteering into some do-gooder NGO; professional death dealers such as the medical and pharmaceutical mafia; flim-flam New Age cults, etc., etc. ad nauseam.
As educated and empowered people will not allow themselves to be turned into slaves, these agencies of the NWO are working hard to distract and confuse, keeping you focused on trivial matters to dumb you down and keep you ignorant. They are busily embroiling you in a never-ending womb-to-tomb-dog-eat-dog struggle in order to wear you out by sapping your physical, mental, and spiritual energies and thus weakening both your resolve and your ability to resist.
The enemy, like the Wizard of Oz, is a mountebank, a trickster manipulating from behind a curtain. Lacking true intelligence, he employs the only skill he really excels at: deception! His weapons of choice are a) control of a nation's currency via privately owned central banks and b) control of the law via his puppets in parliament. Of these, the law is the more potent tool. How so? You can opt-out of the money system by bartering or creating an alternative medium of exchange. But you cannot opt-out of the law! Or can you?
"What can we do?" you may ask.
Petition the government? Write to your local representative? The government is part of the problem! Why would you expect it to provide the solution? They probably won't even read your letters and emails.
Protest? If protests and demonstrations really worked, we wouldn't be in the mess we find ourselves in, and many of the wars of the recent past would not have happened. The most brilliant protest I have ever seen, the spectacular Canadian truck convoy, ended in, well, spectacular failure. In fact, governments welcome protests; they are easy for an agent provocateur to infiltrate and manipulate and easy to escalate into riots which provide the pretext needed to bear down on us even harder.
My answer to the problem?
We, the People, have the real power, and we can wield it by wresting from them their most potent weapon and turning it against them - the law! The so-called Powers That Be (in my dictionary, they are the Psychopaths That Be) have no power other than what we grant them via our explicit or tacit consent to their laws. All law contracts.
They know it!!! But do you?
A) Nature's Laws
Self-explanatory! Jump off a high building without a parachute, jump into a river infested with crocodiles, stop eating and drinking, touch a high-voltage live wire, and you are flouting Nature's laws, and she will sort you out!
B) Admiralty Law (aka The Law of the Sea - Equity Law - Commercial Law - Maritime Law)
The types of law mentioned above, often used interchangeably, are "color of law," i.e., they are not laws but statutes made to appear to be law. Never mind their highfalutin designations: statutory
law is nothing more than the rules and guidelines of societies, organizations, and commercial companies and thus lawfully binding only on members of that society/organization/company whether it is the boy scouts, the local orchid club, Rotary Club, McDonald's or, yes, the political entity that you think of as your country and your government!
McDonald's, for instance, cannot compel you to abide by their rule to wear their work uniform unless you are one of their employees, i.e., you have a contract with the company. Right? Right! And your government cannot compel you to abide by its "company rules" to wear a seat belt or pay taxes or accept a vaccine or what have you - unless you have a contract with it! Surprise, surprise! You do have a contract with your government - albeit undisclosed!
"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc., can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795
Living men and women are subject only to Nature's laws and Common Law.
To legally interface with living men and women, the government - a fiction - has to turn us into fictions, too. Thus, we have been made citizens, vessels, persons, corporations: in brief, we have become dead things, mere resources. Having been transformed into fiction with some legalese mumbo jumbo, the government can now interact with us via its corporate rules - statutory law.
Flout the government's corporate statutes, and you will be dealt with in court because you have been turned into a corporation without your knowledge and consent and have become liable for breaches of a contract that you never knowingly and voluntarily signed!
Admiralty Law is administered in de-facto courts!
De-facto courts, aka courts of summary judgment, are courts that operate without a jury and exclusively based on statutory laws. Unlike a de-jure court, a de-facto court requires your clear and unequivocal consent, and unless such consent is given, either expressed or implied, the court has no authority. Proceeding without your consent, which they almost always do, is a criminal act and opens the magistrate or judge to prosecution.
C) Common Law (aka the Law of the Land)
We are - all of us! - sovereign men/women, and as such, we are making law all the time without even thinking of it as creating law.
These laws are private laws. For example, in my house, you cannot smoke because I say so; that is one of my laws. You must abide by it or leave when asked. If you were an honored guest, I might make an exception and allow you to smoke - but that is a privilege that I can revoke at any time without having to give an explanation. In your house, of course, you make the laws.
In the public arena, however, neither you nor I nor anybody else can impose his/her laws on others. Here we need to get together, formally or informally, and work out acceptable solutions to all. The result is Common Law. Not common as in: "vulgar", "unrefined", "inferior" but common as in: "shared", "belonging to a community". Each and every human community, from the most archaic to the most advanced, has its own Common Law.
Common Law is an unwritten social contract with our fellow man in which we pledge to act in such a way that each of us can enjoy maximum freedom while respecting the rights of others to do the same. We were born into the contract and raised in it. As we were not in a position to give our consent, our parents stepped in, assumed responsibility and taught us the rules and guidelines, the Common Law, of our society.
Under Common Law, you are free to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, property, and rights of others. In other words: my rights end where yours begin. You may ask: what about the psychopaths amongst us who opt out of this unwritten contract? Yes, you can opt-out! But if you do not honor the laws designed to protect all of us, you will no longer be able to claim the protection of the laws that you opt-out of or violate. You have become an outlaw - fair game for, well, anybody! That's what outlaw really means!
Common Law is administered in Common Law Courts, aka as de-jure courts by juries, i.e., by a panel of 12 jurors, selected from amongst our fellowmen. Before the word "juror" was adopted, the jury was even referred to as the judges! This is the sanest and most balanced form of justice because it does not depend on the idiosyncrasies, prejudices, or agendas of single judges.
"It cannot be denied that the practice of submitting causes to the decision of twelve men was universal among all the northern tribes (of Europe) from the very remotest antiquity."
Crabbe's History of the English Law p. 32.
"...the judges, for so the jury were called." Crabbe's History of the English Law p. 55
The magistrate/judge is no more than an umpire. No magistrate or judge can lawfully interfere with a jury, and no government can interfere with Common Law, let alone abrogate it. Common Law, however, is not static; it can and does evolve but only according to the will of the People!
Common Law is binding on all of us. Intentional violation of Common Law constitutes a breach of the peace, i.e., it is a criminal act and is punishable in Common Law courts. You do NOT have the option of denying consent to the jurisdiction of a Common Law Court.
The True Nature Of Courts
In ages, past rulers were not only makers of law but interpreters of law and dispensers of justice. Subjects would go to the place where the ruler resided, i.e., the "court," to present petitions, settle disputes, and seek his decisions. A court was thus a) the dwelling of a sovereign ruler and b) the place where justice is administered.
Later the authority to dispense justice was delegated to institutions which we still refer to as "courts." Now as then, however, a court's power to adjudicate is NOT inherent but derived from the sovereign! It is people who create courts!
"Who then is the sovereign?" you may ask.
You are! You were born free, and unless you have knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily signed away your sovereignty and your inalienable rights and agreed to be the subject/slave of another man or group of men, you are still a Sovereign.
This fact is intentionally hidden from you!
Forsaking our God-given intelligence and free will, we have allowed ourselves to be tricked into trading our status of sovereigns for the lesser status of citizens; as citizens, we are now subject to the inferior jurisdiction of de-facto courts!
For a court to take up a matter, one party must make an accusation against another. The claim MUST be backed up a) by an AFFIDAVIT, i.e., a statement as to harm suffered, sworn under oath and signed by the plaintiff, or b) by a lawful contract, signed by the parties to the contract. It is important to note that only living men and women can sign an affidavit or enter into a contract. Without either an affidavit or a contract, the court cannot proceed!
But this is not all! Even when someone has created a court by filing a writ or claim, the court is not free to do as it pleases. More people power is needed: ALL parties MUST consent to the court's jurisdiction. If even one of the parties' refuses, then the court cannot lawfully proceed!
Because consent is vital, "authoritative" processes have been put in place to mislead, intimidate and manipulate you into accepting the role of the court. One of their most beloved tools to manufacture consent is to trick you into agreeing with something they say in what you think is English when in reality they are speaking legalese, a language designed to confuse and mislead, a language where even the most innocuous everyday word can be made to mean something entirely different.
There are two kinds of legal actions:
CRIMINAL and CIVIL. In a nutshell: criminal cases are based on a breach of the peace; that means I need to have harmed somebody. Civil cases are based on contracts and breaches thereof. To establish whether there is a criminal or civil case, I need to ask myself two questions.
First question: "Did I cause harm to somebody and/or his/her property?"
If I didn't cause harm, there is no victim = there is no crime = there is no criminal case.
Second Question: "Is there a lawful contract?"
If there is no contract = there is no breach of contract = there is no civil case.
Court Room Architecture
Courtrooms are divided into two sections: a) the public gallery (where the audience sits and where the defendant waits until his case is called) and b) the area where the proceedings take place. The boundaries are always clearly marked by some sort of barrier. The two sections are connected either by a simple opening as shown below or an actual gate.
A typical courtroom
Unfortunately, too few people are aware of the significance of this architecture. The treacherous legal fraternity is hiding something important from you:
The public gallery represents "dry land." Here you are under the jurisdiction and protection of Common Law. Under Common Law, you are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and furthermore, you have the inalienable right to trial by jury.
The other part of the courtroom represents a "sea-going vessel." Here you are under the authority and jurisdiction of Admiralty Law. Things are turned upside-down: you are considered guilty unless you can prove your innocence, and the right to trial by jury has been abolished.
You will be asked to step from the public gallery into the other part of the courtroom. A simple and harmless request, isn't it? Wrong! If you cross the barrier that separates the two parts of the room, you are considered to have boarded a ship; you now come under the jurisdiction of admiralty law, administered by the captain of the imaginary vessel, the magistrate/judge.
Needless to say: no member of the legal profession will tell you about this fraudulent switch of jurisdictions, and that includes your own lawyer if you have one! Telling you would give the crooked game away, wouldn't it? – and anyway, a lawyer's allegiance is to the court, not to his clients!
This imaginary ship is flying false colors, i.e., it is making itself out to be a lawful court when it is actually nothing more than a commercial outfit operating for profit/plunder. Put bluntly: you have fallen amongst pirates!
If you, from the safety of the public gallery and the protection of Common Law, clearly and unequivocally tell the magistrate/judge that you do not consent to the court's jurisdiction – guess what – it does not have jurisdiction!
The court will almost certainly attempt to manipulate you into thinking that you are misinformed. You may also be threatened with arrest or with a contempt-of-court charge. That is nothing but bluff and bluster.
Contempt of court is an invention of the judiciary designed to gain control over anyone who challenges them. Should that happen, ask them: "Is this criminal or civil?" A criminal offence needs to be based on an affidavit of probable cause (who was harmed? what is the harm done?) A civil offence needs to be based on a lawful contract.
Needless to say, they will not be able to produce either an affidavit or a contract to back up an offense that does not exist. Stand your ground! You ARE free to walk out! If they touch you after you have denied consent in order to drag you into their jurisdiction, they are committing a crime, i.e., assault and kidnapping.
Let me give an example:
Let's say somebody attempts to drag me into court on the "hate crime" charge of Holocaust denial. What would I do? Let me begin by clarifying what I will NOT do:
A) I will not hire a lawyer! It would be a waste of time, money, and energy to hire a lawyer; his loyalty is first and foremost to the BAR association, i.e., his professional organization and to the court. In view of the fact that a disproportionate number of the members of the legal profession (probably most of them!) are Jews or Freemasons (and oftentimes they are both), I could not reasonably expect a fair trial because both elements operate outside natural justice, to wit: Jews have the duplicitous Kol Nidre and Freemasons have their equally duplicitous secret oaths. They cannot be trusted with something as valuable as truth and justice! Period! Furthermore, a Jew could not be considered unbiased in a case that touches on things Jewish, could he?
B) I would not invest any of my precious time, money, and energy going into court to defend the case on the basis of truth. That has been done before and does not work. Modern courts are commercial outfits. They are in the business of making money for their principal, the government. They are not especially concerned with truth and justice. The holocaust is a matter for historians and forensic scientists to deal with. Not for courts.
Is Holocaust denial a crime? Let's see! Who is the plaintiff? A Jewish organization such as the ADL? Organizations are legal fictions, not living beings, and can therefore not sign an affidavit.
Did I breach the peace by causing a Jewish individual harm? If so, what exactly is the nature of the harm done? Mind you: we are talking about real harm here, i.e., harm to life and limb and/or property. A bruised ego does not qualify.
Do I have a contractual obligation to accept the holocaust as truth? Have I agreed never to ask awkward questions?
No Victim and No Contract = No Case
But why would I go to court if I do not have to?
As I have not committed a crime and as there is no contract, there is neither a criminal nor a civil case to answer. A summons is - according to the legal profession's own definition - nothing more than an invitation. Invitations can be lawfully declined.
I do NOT have to physically appear in any court.
Everything can be done in writing, either to the plaintiff, his legal counsel, and/or the court. In fact: it is the paperwork, the affidavit process, that actually constitutes the court!
If, however, I decide to go into the court building, for whatever reason, here is, in a nutshell, what I will or will not do:
- I never walk into a courtroom without witnesses, i.e., the general public + the friends I bring along.
- Given half a chance, the crew of the pirate ship will tamper with official records; therefore, I always make sure to independently record the proceedings or get my witnesses to record them.
- I do not enter a plea (not even "not guilty"; by pleading, I would accept the court's jurisdiction)
- I do not carry out any order or instruction (that will give them jurisdiction!)
- I do not take anything they say at face value (they speak legalese; I compel them to use my language, plain everyday English)
- I do not enter their jurisdiction by stepping from the public gallery onto their pirate ship but remain in the public gallery, i.e., under the protection of Common Law.
- I do not argue with them nor discuss anything (remember they have no case, and therefore there is nothing to discuss!).
- I clearly and unequivocally deny them consent to the jurisdiction
After denying consent, I will warn the court not to touch me nor to interfere with my leaving. I then walk out of the courtroom and no longer respond to anything more coming from the court.
You may ask: "It can't be that simple, can it?"
Lawyers would have you believe that the law is a complex maze or, perhaps, a dangerous minefield that only they can successfully navigate. They would say that, wouldn't they? The longer the journey through their fantasy world, the more they like it – because you pay for it! You are their meal ticket! You pay for their bread and butter – and Mercedes, beach villas, ski chalets, and mistresses.
And yes, it is that simple!
All I am doing is to assert my rights! Isn't it time you did the same for your rights?
Freedom in any form is anathema to the promoters of the NOW, and that is why they have usurped the real law, Common Law, and created their self-serving statutes in order to lord it over us.
Throw off the chains! Remember who you are!
Arthur: Bernard Weckmann
In fact this website is so plain, and uninviting, you'll be wondering why you are here. So I'll tell you.
You are here to receive the best gift I, or anyone else, could give you. Freedom. Freedom to be yourself. Freedom to take full responsibility for your own life and - provided you do not encroach on anyone else's freedom - to have a sweet life for the rest of your days.
We all need, to get the Word out. Mother Earth herself, is dying for us to speak in her behalf with a grain or two of common sense.
You won't know what you can accomplish, until you give it a good try taking it to the next level. We are here to support you overcoming the technical hurdles to sharing your thoughts, wisdom, art, vision, with the world via the internet, the most powerful communication medium in human history.
The best way to get started, is to load your MyRR Arsenal with ammunition, posting content here exactly like you would on FB and Twitt. When you are ready to jump into Citizen Journalism, publishing your articles, research, art etc as articles and features in Top Stories and other RRM Categories, it's time to join the Creators Guild becoming an RRM Author and Editor!
One of our authors has an RRM article that popped past 80k hits, while we were still testing the site. Seeing your FB or Twitt posts languishing as usual at one or two dozen engagements, watching the same posts on RRM pulling thousands of hits, you'll get quite clearly why we built this.
If you haven't already begun your RRM adventure:
This commment is unpublished.· 2 months agoVery interesting article and well thought out. Thank you for sharing, Beverly!
This commment is unpublished.· 2 months agoHave heard for many years about the hidden Admiralty Law behind the BAR. We must help our fellows learn about this which public educators seem to make a point NOT to teach. Furthermore, are there any post secondary educators teaching this?