Capitis Diminutio - Maxima - Minima - Media

Published on Mar 30, 2008
Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines
Capitalize adj. as… "To take advantage of - To use to ones
own advantage."
Blacks Law Dictionary • Revised 4th Edition 1968,
provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …
Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status
through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A
diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or
curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal
attributes and qualifications.
Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss
of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John
Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss
of status. This occurred where a man's family relations
alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation
[pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui
juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or
upon the emancipation of one who had been under the
patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of
liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2,
3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.
Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of
status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John
DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred
where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without
losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss
of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN
DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most
comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's
condition was changed from one of freedom to one of
bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Taken from Esoteric Agenda - The New World Order



http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/...

http://www.natural-person.ca/

http://www.slaveshipamerica.com/

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

http://www.illuminati-news.com/072206...

---

Published on Sep 9, 2018
Please watch: "THE US BANKRUPTCY AND THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (SOVEREIGN CITIZENS)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCvND... --~--
Audio Book- Cracking the Code Chapter 10 (3rd Edition)
http://www.welcometothefoundation.com...

SPC University:
http://spcuniversity.privatesidesolut...

EMAIL LIST: https://tinyurl.com/y7ye7dys

DONATION HERE:
https://paypal.me/yusefel

---

Also See:
Published on Oct 29, 2010
The Secret of Oz won best documentary of 2010 at the Beloit International Film Festival.

It won the Silver Sierra Award for Excellence in Film making at the Yosemite Film Festival. It won the Award of Merit at The Accolade Competition in La Jolla, California. It won the Silver Screen Award at the Nevada Film Festival. It's received an excellent review on Nathan's Economic Edge, one of the world's top economics blogs. It's British premier was at the prestigious Bromsgrove conference on Oct. 1. What's going on with the world's economy?

Foreclosures are everywhere, unemployment is skyrocketing - and this may only be the beginning. Could it be that solutions to the world's economic problems could have been embedded in the most beloved children's story of all time, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz"? The yellow brick, the emerald city of Oz, even Dorothy's silver slippers (changed to ruby slippers for the movie version) were powerful symbols of author L. Frank Baum's belief that the people - not the big banks -- should control the quantity of a nation's money. The bottom line: No More National Debt. All our money is created out of debt. But nations don't have to borrow money from banks. Sovereign nations can create their own money -- debt free -- just as Abraham Lincoln did.
Link to full video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71-Ks...

PERSON - Land of the Dead

The key to defining your legal character is the word “person”. Regulations created by government agencies and statutes and/or ordinances passed by elected legislators are all written for legal “persons”. Therefore it is crucial that we understand what a “person” is . . . and what it is not. Here are legal definitions:
Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations (44 U.S.C. Chapter 15 § 1501.Definitions
”person” means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation (4 artificially created legal entities – not one a living being!)
California statutes:
Government code Section 1-26
17. “Person” includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company (9 artificially created legal entities – not one a living being!)
Ohio statutes:
Statutory definitions 1.59
(C) “Person” includes an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association (7 artificially created legal entities – not one a living being!)
Uniform Commercial Code Article 1 – General Provisions
Sec 1-201 General Definitions
(27) “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity. (14 artificially created legally created entities – not one a living being!)
Legal “persons” are not flesh and blood living men and women.
Proof that our laws/statutes are written for legal fiction “persons” and corporations – not for flesh and blood living men and women – can also be found in the legal process by which courts interpret and apply statutory legislation. Sometimes statutes have straightforward meanings, but in many cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the verbiage that must be resolved by a judge. To interpret applicability, judges use various tools and methods, including traditional canons. The judiciary may apply rules of interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated-legislation such as administrative agency regulations.
Here are three prominent rules considered by judges when they interpret the applicability of statutes/rules:
1) ejusdem generis – rules only apply to persons or things of the same kind or class.
Of the same kind, class, or nature. In statutory construction, the “ejusdem generis rule” is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned.
2) expressio unius est exclusio alterius – one thing having been mentioned, the other is excluded
Is a rule of construction, applying both to statute and legal writings, that states that one thing having been mentioned the other is excluded. Thus, following this rule, ‘no dogs allowed’ means that lions are allowed but guide dogs are excluded.
3) noscitur a sociis – meaning understood from accompanying words
Means comprehended from accompanying words, perceived from accompanying words, realized from accompanying words, recognized from accompanying words, understood from accompanying words
If any or all of these rules are applied to federal regulations, state statutes and the Uniform Commercial Code, it becomes even more apparent that they are not written for living men and women. Corporations are chartered, regulated and taxed by the State, therefore they must use the same legal definition for their customers.
In America the states have authority over relevant matters in their respective jurisdictions, unless the state’s definitions of their statutes conflicts with those recognized federally. This explains why both California and Ohio define “persons” almost identically with the Federal Register and the Uniform Commercial Code.
While the term “character” includes both men and persons, the
way the term “person” is used in statutes – preceding a list of non-living
legal entities – precludes it from referring to living men and women . . . unless the Uniform Commercial Code rule regarding “presumption” is applied! It is presumed that you and I have agreed to represent the non-living legal-fiction “person”, unless we rebut that presumption.
§ 1-206. Presumptions.
Whenever the Uniform Commercial Code creates a “presumption” with respect to a fact, or provides that a fact is “presumed,” the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence.
The difference between legal “persons” and men (or women) is as significant as the difference between life and death and they are expressed differently. JOHN DOE and JANE DOE are “persons”, John Doe is a man and Jane Doe is a woman!
legal “persons” can’t walk
legal “persons” can’t talk
legal “persons” have no gender
Section 1-106. Use of Singular and Plural; Gender.
In the Uniform Commercial Code, unless the statutory context otherwise requires: (1) words in the singular number include the plural, and those in the plural include the singular; and (2) words of any gender also refer to any other gender.
In legal-land, “persons” aren’t real – they are artificially created legal entities/corporations!
One way to rebut the presumption that we have agreed to be a non-living legal-fiction person is to post a Notice of Condition Precedent.
https://anticorruptionsociety.com/person-2/