Languages of Law

By Judge Anna von Reitz | Big Lake, Alaska

Today I have had three (3) questions that all revolve around the same issue — the languages of law.

It comes as a surprise to many people to learn that there is more than one kind of law. All their lives they have heard about “the” law, so they assume there is only one law, and everyone has to follow it.

There are many kinds of law, and in the modern world, they are basically separated into two kinds: pagan and Judeo-Christian.

The international jurisdiction of the sea and the global jurisdiction of the air use pagan law that is called “negative law” because it speaks in terms of negatives: Thou shalt not kill.

They also use negative averment: “Is it not true that you ate dinner at Dino’s Salad Bar on Friday, the eleventh of June, 2014?” And they even use contracts to guarantee true testimony: “I swear under penalty of perjury….”

Oddly, as noted above, The Ten Commandments are stated in negative terms in the Bible, but then, these are early laws, and laws back then were all cast in the negative form. You could just as easily (and more profitably in my opinion) recast “Thou shalt not kill.” to “Thou shall preserve life.”

The development of law and the languages of law and their development in our history of the world, parallels our experience of law in our early lives as children. One of the first words we all learn is: “No!”

In the same way, the earlier pagan law forms focus on negatives, on what you are not supposed to do.

One of our Coordinators asked — hey, why does the 1779 Declaration use penalty of perjury wording, when over here in the Jural Assembly Handbook, you say that we don’t use the perjury oath and use “to the best of my knowledge and belief” instead? Jurisdiction.

Because of what they have done to remove us from our natural estate, we are all starting out “at sea”, and the law of the international jurisdiction of the sea is pagan, negative law. It uses oaths and contracts to get things done. When you generate a document in that jurisdiction, you use its language because that is where you are. Thus, we use a perjury contract for the 1779 Declaration, but once we are back on the land, we use Good Faith affirmations.

The language you use, as much as anything else, determines the jurisdiction you are in.

I have a man who is attempting to claim his lawful estate, which in his case involves gold bullion. The bullion was left on deposit at a well-known bank. The bank acknowledges that yes, it is there and being held in his name, but they won’t give him access to it.

It’s his, but it’s not.

This is because his political status was changed and he was kidnapped and unlawfully converted into a citizen of the United States. As a citizen of the United States, he is a slave and has no property rights, and no ability to inherit lawful assets, that is, physical assets like gold or silver.

So we’ve helped him recoup his natural birthright political status, so that he can shove it up the bank’s nose, but he keeps straying back into their jurisdiction and keeps wanting to argue in their courts and use their definitions and language.

Yesterday, he berated me with definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary and wrote letters to Bar Attorneys, still thinking that getting control of his gold is a matter of what he does, rather than a matter of what he is.

I had to tell him that— big news— we don’t use Black’s Law Dictionary. That’s what they use in the international jurisdiction of the sea, and we are on the land, so we use Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.

Similarly, we use the Geneva Bible, not the King James.

If you use the language of the international jurisdiction of the sea and address their courts, use their dictionaries, and spout their Federal Code —- what can they assume from that? — That you are subjecting yourself to their jurisdiction, and that you belong in their jurisdiction. Why else would you be jabbering away in Legalese? And quoting Black’s Law?

The same thing happens with court citations. I’ve had more questions of the I-can’t-find-the-court-case-you-referenced kind. Why? Because people are hitting the internet search bar and bringing up resources like Cornell.law and looking for land jurisdiction cases among Admiralty and Maritime and Commercial cases.

Why would you look for land jurisdiction cases among sea jurisdiction cases?

To find these cases, you will need to go to a law library and look them up. It’s The United States Supreme Court deciding these cases, not the U.S. Supreme Court, not the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, not the Supreme Court of the United States….

Just like there is no such thing as “the” law, there is no such thing as “the” Supreme Court, either.

All these different names for what appears to be the same court exist for a reason. They exist because “the” Supreme Court decides cases that exist in diverse jurisdictions of the law.

By far the largest number of cases they consider are Admiralty, Maritime, and Commercial cases, but they do consider land law cases to the extent of determining what is in their corral and what is not. Because these cases are relatively few in number and foreign with respect to the vast bulk of Supreme Court case law, they aren’t lumped in with the rest.

Different language. Different jurisdictional considerations. Different subject matter.

It’s all part of being aware of the different languages and jurisdictions— and the simple fact that there isn’t one monolithic thing out there called “the” law. There are many variations and kinds of law — and we, Americans, need to learn the difference, so that we can make better use of our own Public Law.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.