Re: Justinian Deception Channel ( Romley Stewart)

by **Lopsum** Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:02 am

a comment and reply on the youtube...

Todd C
17 hours ago
have you been able to claim your dominion over the land, sea?
if so what does that mean?
Have you make a land claim on "crown land" - obtaining full equity title ( not legal title )?
Do you currently have access to the wealth held in your creditor trust?
Do the courts recognize you have a creditor trust and grant you access to it as its beneficiary?

Your videos never seem to confirm how you, in YOUR life have claimed your dominion.
i understand the idea of returning all ID issued in the surname, close all bank accounts
and learn to barter, and live in the woods.

you should be a multi-millionaire living like a king tell people step by step how to access their christian trust
if you succeeding in doing this. So what is the bottom line?

is it to use the info to protect yourself by not bearing arms ( the surname ) if you get dragged into their maritime court?
1
Justinian Deception
Justinian Deception
14 hours ago
In the Court yes! but their court is not the court of the land or a common law court, the common law courts and the organic common law governments are long gone from what I can see and it has left the foreign private contracting governing agencies in charge without any lawful directive control deriving from any true Australian from what I can see! In the last court hearing, (End of 2016) Magistrate Comens admitted that even though he did not agree with my political stand, standing under the Certificate of Birth, standing as the Creditor and not holding the Surname State birth Certificate, he said that the court would find itself in "grave danger" if he did not uphold such a political standing but he warned that it will be a hard road dealing with the ignorance and misconduct of the governing agencies. He refused to uphold any state charges against me but provided no compensation or remedy stating that I will more than likely be dealing with the ignorance of governing agencies for a long time to come. I was bashed, locked in the watch house for 3 days and many overnight stays, had my cars taken by police at gunpoint, no signed paperwork!, no arrest warrants, no signatures on search warrants, harassed and threatened by police as well as the head of CIB, and such threats extended to my daughters, drugged while in the watch house before a court hearing, computers, phones, cameras all taken, closed down social media like facebook and youtube and all court hearings without any court file number!!!, no record!!!! .. no charges for driving without a so called driver license, yet no compensation for the theft of my property or false imprisonments or for the damages to my work or the loss of my cars... no lawful or legal paperwork, just threats by police that refused to identify themselves.... so yes, court refuses to charge me but the agencies ignore the courts and act in contempt of both the courts and the people....

Its a criminal robbery on a massive scale... The trick is the name: "John Henry Doe" is the state property and if you assume you are "John Henry Doe" you become assumed as their property because the only evidence of your name is on the Birth Certificate, as: "John Henry" there is no surname on your name! ... The other scam is the "Date" of birth, the born date is not the date of birth! ... the date of birth relates to the filing date of the certificate, not the date they thing was created.... The greatest scam on the grammatical side is "THIS TYPE OF TEXT", it is simply not English and is only used for satire or comic or "fictions" in relation to Trust Law from what I assume, it has no jurisdiction with English and can only render any document housing such a text, if used as a charge or note such as money, as a massive counterfeit. We are being fooled into handing our "birth right" (Common law Dominion) over to a foreign criminal banking cartel for fake money that is worth nothing!... mafia, whatever, its a criminal takeover and theft of common law rights, piracy by foreign corporations run by criminal experts in counterfeiting... (Whatever you buy with their money still belongs to them because its a promise to pay note, its not real!) I think the military is there to uphold the fraud and not to protect the "people"... The military and the masses have become too stupid to understand the complexity of the crime that they have been subjected too, but too stupid from being dumb or have the masses been brainwashed from birth!!! ??? .... Once people see the truth they may have hope of understanding the nature of this criminal system of control...

by **daveiron** Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:59 am

Its clear from what romley states ,the only cure is to make as many people as possible aware of the fraud. Because like so many subjects dealt with on this and other sites its always going to be a numbers game.

by Ausk Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:32 am

ROHAN; I suspect you already know this but just in case you dont, NO law since the fake "Australian Parliament" came into operation, are enforceable in a court.

None of these "laws" have been proclaimed in the manner laid down in the constitution in Section 58 Royal Assent to Bills. None of them have a proclamation certificate and many of them do not have date when they come into operation.

there are two high court cases that are relevant, Justice John Latham, High Court of Australia, HCA (High Court of Australia) 1942 (65 CLR 373 at 408)

Said (short version) A pretend law made in excess of power (to make law) is not and never has been a law at all.

Then in Wakim [1999] HCA 27; 198 CLR 511; 163 ALR 270; 73 ALJR 839 (17 June 1999) the judge said

"A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitutional power where none exists at - 193 [239]."

As I see it you should be able to go them for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention.

by **Lopsum** Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:31 pm

ive renamed this thread so its easier to find.

by **daveiron** Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:41 am

A quick explanation .

by Ausk Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:34 am

What Romely has to say is all well and good and I dont nesessarily disagree with any of what he says, in fact I agree with most of it.

I am in the business of learning whatever I can about how the world works. I also note that Anna Von Reitz has given Romely a big push too.

However; what is the chances of any real change occurring?

I'm a fan of the Know Your Rights Group in Aus they are in the business of teaching people their rights within the system that currently exists. As they say, the system works very well for 'them' so we need to lean those parts of it which relate to areas we will most likely to run up against and need to know the most. Examples are debts, infringements, and big brother.

If we can educate people on how to defeat unjust fines, invasions of privacy, smart meters etc by teaching people the relevant law and how to defend themselves in courts then we have a better chance. Note that this, for example, includes how to put courts into their correct jurisdiction and how to the get the Attorneys Generals into court to be questioned and soforth.

They and I happen to think we have a far better way of freeing ourselves from the problem Romely and Anna describe by using the system back against them. Its what they respect, expect and react to.

However; if people like Know Your Rights Group are pushing water up hill what chances have people like Romley and Anna Von Reitz, got of making headway to any significant extent. Know Your Rights Group through their radio broadcasts on RATFM on Tuesday Nights struggle to motivate people to take action based upon what they learn, how are people like Romely and Anna going to make any significant headway?

The govt and big brother are still just steam rolling on. I doubt they are even finding the going more difficult than its been in the last 50 years I know of.

From the foray I've made into learning the commercial remedy (contract law) way of dealing with the system and pushing back, it seems this is by far the simplest and easiest thing for the masses to learn and use.

Under contract law there is little need for courts because the contract makes the law. The problem is that it creates wins for those who become good at it but fails to add anything to the push to free ourselves from everything people like Romely, KYR and Anna are spending their lives and physical and mental health fighting.

IMO if I can help people defeat debt collectors and fines then I'm helping people learning knowledge, skills and above all helping gain CONFIDENCE to fight.

As one person said in a testimonial, when they beat a speeding charge in court, its the first time in their life they have FELT like a citizen who has rights.

That to me is the direction to go in and where we should direct all of our energies.

by **Society of the Spectacle** Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:12 pm

Ausk wrote:What Romely has to say is all well and good and I dont nesessarily disagree with any of what he says, in fact I agree with most of it.

I am in the business of learning whatever I can about how the world works. I also note that Anna Von Reitz has given Romely a big push too.

However; what is the chances of any real change occurring?

If we can educate people on how to defeat unjust fines, invasions of privacy, smart meters etc by teaching people the relevant law and how to defend themselves in courts then we have a better chance. Note that this, for example, includes how to put courts into their correct jurisdiction and how to the get the Attorneys Generals into court to be questioned and soforth.

They and I happen to think we have a far better way of freeing ourselves from the problem Romely and Anna describe by using the system back against them. Its what they respect, expect and react to.

IMO if I can help people defeat debt collectors and fines then I'm helping people learning knowledge, skills and above all helping gain CONFIDENCE to fight.

As one person said in a testimonial, when they beat a speeding charge in court, its the first time in their life they have FELT like a citizen who has rights.

That to me is the direction to go in and where we should direct all of our energies.

I would like to point out how much it costs the system when people simply Ask the questions they are allowed to,
and request the information in writing.

by Ausk Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:59 am

Society of the Spectacle wrote:
Ausk wrote:What Romely has to say is all well and good and I dont nesessarily disagree with any of what he says, in fact I agree with most of it.

I am in the business of learning whatever I can about how the world works. I also note that Anna Von Reitz has given Romely a big push too.

However; what is the chances of any real change occurring?

If we can educate people on how to defeat unjust fines, invasions of privacy, smart meters etc by teaching people the relevant law and how to defend themselves in courts then we have a better chance. Note that this, for example, includes how to put courts into their correct jurisdiction and how to the get the Attorneys Generals into court to be questioned and soforth.

They and I happen to think we have a far better way of freeing ourselves from the problem Romely and Anna describe by using the system back against them. Its what they respect, expect and react to.

IMO if I can help people defeat debt collectors and fines then I'm helping people learning knowledge, skills and above all helping gain CONFIDENCE to fight.

As one person said in a testimonial, when they beat a speeding charge in court, its the first time in their life they have FELT like a citizen who has rights.

That to me is the direction to go in and where we should direct all of our energies.

I would like to point out how much it costs the system when people simply Ask the questions they are allowed to,
and request the information in writing.

Exactly, thanks for rasing that Society of the Spectacle.

We must all inundate as many politiicans as possible with questions like:

On xyz date you did, stated, claimed or whatever. Could you please explain what authoirty you are relying on for making that statement, claim assertion, decision etc.

Not only is this taking up their time but its letting them know that we the great unwashed are watching them and that we know what they are up to.

In the mean time, we slowly little bit by little bit peg them back and increase our skills at the same time but moest of all we build our CONFIDENCE to take these people on and fight back.

Its this kind of thing that puts the firghteners on the powers that should not be. IMO its one of very few ways we can give them the message that we know their weaknesses.

Suggest the free PDF Your Will Be Done, its only about 8-10 pages long from memory.

The pen is mighter than the sword.

by **daveiron** Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:15 am

Hi ausk,

I totally agree with your post. However what romley & rohan have laid bare is the deception and fraud.
They have also shown that the route they have taken via the courts will only get you locked up.

I think the strength of their work lies in exposing it all . Change is only ever going to occur when enough
folk become aware of how they are being deceived by this corrupt system. As I have said before ,its only
ever going to be a numbers game.

by **Society of the Spectacle** Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:06 pm

Latest News on an Old scam,

by **Society of the Spectacle** Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:19 pm

BIRTHING-CERTIFICATES

by Ausk Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:44 am

This comes from “It's the Language and the Court, Or, Stop Being Stupid Part 20” by Anna Von Reitz.

Anna Von Reitz for those who are not aware of her is a judge from Alaska and writes extensively on how most of the worlds ‘government’ departments are merely privately owned companies.

This is just one jewel from the above article which she wrote to praise and expand on Romely Stewarts work.

Suggest knowledge seekers find and read this whole article.

Quote “In other words, the mortgage contracts are all void and fraudulent by nature--- obviously so, but the content of the contract is not what these thieves have relied upon. Instead, they have trademarked and copyrighted their "standard" mortgage contract forms and when the victim signs one of these without reserving their rights, the vermin seize upon their signature as "enclosed" property----and claim that it has become part of their trademarked and copyrighted document, owned by them, and they begin using the victim's signature as a rubber stamp for all manner of "derivative" contracts. This has the exact same affect as counterfeiting money.” Unquote.

When the victim signs one of these without reserving their rights.

Does this mean that if on the mortgage contract, perhaps near or under our signature, we wrote “Without Prejudice” and as a result of that; the bank refused to proceed with the loan, unless we signed another such document but without the words “without prejudice,” that this would prove that what Anna Von Reitz’s said above is in fact true?

My guess is that it would because by writing “without prejudice” on the document does not invalidate the document. It simply deprives the bank of the ability to use our signature as part of a trademarked and copyrighted document as Anna said.

by **Lopsum** Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:45 pm

does that not mean they wouldn't be able to use that piece of paper in a court?

without prejudice
a phrase written on correspondence to indicate that the contents are not to be founded upon in a court, particularly as an admission of liability. It is given effect in both England and Scotland but subject to some subtle exceptions.

i doubt they would entertain that .

by **daveiron** Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:02 pm

by **Lopsum** Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:14 pm

found this https://www.upcounsel.com/without-prejudice-clause-in-a-contract

What Is Without Prejudice Clause in a Contract?
A without prejudice clause in a contract ensures that each party in the contract maintains their legal rights and privileges.3 min read
A without prejudice clause in a contract ensures that each party in the contract maintains their legal rights and privileges. Neither party will have a loss of rights.
A without prejudice clause directly contracts with a prejudice clause, which states that one or more parties will have a complete loss of all rights, preventing them from taking any further action on a certain claim.
Without prejudice, clauses are most frequently used in British Commonwealth countries as a part of settlement discussions. However, they can still be found in some American contracts. One example of a without prejudice clause is:

"Without prejudice to the representations, warranties or covenants regarding the status of any party hereto as a Citizen of the United States, each of Owner Participant, Owner Trustee and Trust Company agrees that, during the Term, in the event its status is to change or has changed as a Citizen of the United States or it makes public disclosure of circumstances as a result of which it believes that such status is likely to change, it will ..."

The Without Prejudice Clause and Court Cases
For the most part, documents that have a without prejudice clause cannot be used in a court case as evidence. They also cannot be used as a precedent or as the signer's last word about the matter at hand.
However, if a case has settled outside of court, a document containing a without prejudice clause may apply. It all depends on how genuine the reconciliation effort is and whether or not the words "without prejudice" were actually used in the document.
What if You Add a Without Prejudice Clause to Your Contract?
If you add this type of clause to your contract, you'll be giving your assent to the agreement as well as reserving your right to later challenge the terms of the contract. For example, if you are working on a credit contract with a mandatory arbitration clause, you could add a without prejudice clause to protect your rights. This would enable you to challenge that specific clause of the contract if there are problems.
Typically, a without prejudice clause is not used with a noncontentious contractual negotiation. Mostly, lawyers use them when creating interparty communications for litigation or dispute purposes.
Without prejudice is an old-fashioned idea related to the bureaucratic instinct of other terms, such as "notwithstanding." Instead of using without prejudice in your contract, try a simpler phrase like "will not affect." You might also want to omit the idea altogether.

by Phillpots Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:31 pm

by Awoken2 Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:18 pm

Isn't all this stuff just a re-hash of what Veronica Chapman was doing years ago? The content is very similar.

As far as Birth Certificates are concerned, isn't the contract of citizenship (Birth Certificate) unlawful as it breaks the maxim of law that any binding contract has to have full disclosure to both parties? Obviously we are not getting any disclosure as this contract is made on our behalf by our parents who are tricked I to thinking registering for a birth certificate is compulsory.

How do I opt out of citizenship? I refuse to hand over any part of the fruits of my labour to a morally corrupt corporation

by Ausk Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:18 am

Lopsum wrote:does that not mean they wouldn't be able to use that piece of paper in a court?
without prejudice

a phrase written on correspondence to indicate that the contents are not to be founded upon in a court, particularly as an admission of liability. It is given effect in both England and Scotland but subject to some subtle exceptions.

i doubt they would entertain that .

Ive been brought up (so-to-speak) that "without prejudice" simply means that I sign this but in doing so I do reserve all my rights at law, I do not surrender any of them."

I cant see why it should not be usable in court its still a contract but with less rights to the bank. i would imagine it would be relatively easy to get hold via disclosure in a court case.

My point is that if we wrote "without prejudice" on the banks mortgage template, the bank would unlikely give us the mortgage anyway but then again; who knows; a bucket with some holes in it will still carry water and 100k to a bank is better than nothing.

I suppose we wont know until someone tries it.

by Ausk Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:23 am

Awoken2 wrote:Isn't all this stuff just a re-hash of what Veronica Chapman was doing years ago? The content is very similar.

As far as Birth Certificates are concerned, isn't the contract of citizenship (Birth Certificate) unlawful as it breaks the maxim of law that any binding contract has to have full disclosure to both parties? Obviously we are not getting any disclosure as this contract is made on our behalf by our parents who are tricked I to thinking registering for a birth certificate is compulsory.

How do I opt out of citizenship? I refuse to hand over any part of the fruits of my labour to a morally corrupt corporation

The real issue here is that you and I do not know when we were born because, in my case, I did not look at a clock when I was born nor did i know what day, month or year it was.

I don't think you can opt out of citizenship and I'm not sure what is to be gained by doing it either but the thing to do is watch Romely's video on birth certificates and see how he does it.

Regarding your question; yes you are right and that would be the defence to use in court but bear in mind that in contract law the contract makes, or is, the law.

However; without full disclosure in a contract; fraud is much easier to prove and fraud vitiates all contracts and that itself gives you negotiating power.

Would also strengthen your defence and your hand, is the post on here a while back about getting the beneft of the use of the money. Find that and there is a good defence when the bank demands you refund the money they loaned you, to them.

It had something to do with the bank via their stuff up conferred a benefit on the customer.

by **Lopsum** Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:48 pm

ausk , if you check my next post it looks at the cause in contract law specifically which does offer the meaning we were after . It means different things depending who and where .So im correcting my prior post.

by **Lopsum** Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:51 pm

hes been busy this week Very Happy

by **Lopsum** Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:59 pm

V A T = VATICAN ADMINISTRATION TREASURY
D W P = DEBTOR WATER PLEBEIAN
B A R = BABYLON ADMINISTRATION ROME

by **Society of the Spectacle** Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:05 pm

Lopsum wrote:V A T = VATICAN ADMINISTRATION TREASURY
D W P = DEBTOR WATER PLEBEIAN
B A R = BABYLON ADMINISTRATION ROME

Read Right to Left Lops,

V A T = TREASURY-ADMINISTRATION-VATICAN
D W P =PLEBEIAN-WATER--DEBTOR
B A R =ROME-ADMINISTRATION-BABYLON
D H S S = SNAKE - SNAKE - HIERARCHY - DEBTOR,
P 45 = 5 - 4- PLEBIAN

by Ausk Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:29 am

Lopsum wrote:
hes been busy this week

going away for several days tomorrow but I'' watch this when I get back.

Romelys work certainly adds weight to what Anna von Reits says. I just wish Romely would not just point out the problems, as much as that is very important, but train us in what to do deal with it, that would add a lot to his work.

by **Lopsum** Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
- Edward Mandell House; in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson [President 1913-1921] - source unknown.

by Sponsored content