Anti-Globalist Forum

[IxCimi]

Constitutional law lies within framework of the older Common law.
They apply to flesh and blood human beings. There, the two main points are;

1.) Do no harm (injury) to another or his or her property, the law of torts.

2.) Do as you agree to do, as you agree to do it, the law of contracts.

Everything else is the operation of commerce in fiction. It does NOT apply to you, directly. But they have made it so it seems so. Unwittingly people assume the fictional idemsonan, the JAMOKE, rather then the jamoke is them. It is not. It's a legal fiction the banksters and legal world want you to accept, identify and interact with.

That IS the Matrix.

It's the difference between being shopper at Wal-Mart And a Wal-Mart employee. Who has to follow Wal-Mart corporate policy? The shopper? Or the employee?

Only the employee of course!

Shoppers are free to do as they please as long as the do no harm, and pay their bill (contract to an exchange of goods and services for currency). They are the tabacco chewin', tube top wearin' Sovereign public.

Employees MUST follow corporate regulations while at Wal-Mart. They gotta live up to the dress code and corporate policy. They are "U.S. citizens" of Wal-Mart. You are a state Citizen at best in reality. A shopper under no obligation.

Got it?

You NEVER want to enter a plea. A plea ACCEPTS the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject matter jurisdiction is then challengeable.

If they say this is a matter at law, my defense against this jurisdiction is whether or not there is a damaged party. (No charging instrument, no crime.) 

If they say this is a matter in hustings (which is the true nature of action of all administrative law), your defense against this jurisdiction is that you are not an artificial person (unless a federal citizen - but that is quite another matter entirely), unless they can show from the records in the Secretary of State's office that you have charted as such.

If they say this is an admiralty matter, your defense against this jurisdiction is whether the offense was committed on federal territory over which the state has retained concurrent jurisdiction (although one has to wonder how the state exercises an admiralty jurisdiction in light of 28 USC § 1333).

If they say this is a military matter, your defense against this jurisdiction is that,

1.) I am not a member of their military, 

And  2.) the nation is not under martial law (or is it?). 

And there you have it.