Things were tough by the time Emperor Justinian and his wife, Empress Theodosia, rose through the ranks of the late Roman Empire, around 1,500 years ago.
The coffers were slacking and the bills were backing up. There weren’t nearly as many slaves and subject nations paying “tribute”— also known as taxes and tariffs.
So they came up with a scheme to enslave more people, even Romans, who happened to be illiterate.
They would create a “non-grammatical” name styled in all capital letters, and anyone who accepted this would be identified as a “voluntary slave” of Rome.
And would be taxed and forced to contribute free labor to Rome accordingly.
This is the origin and rationale behind names like ANTHONY ALAN BOWMAN being misapplied to Americans today. It’s also the genesis of Parse Syntax and American Sign Language and all similar efforts using words, including names, as signs.
This brings us to my old friend, Peter of England, and his area52.life efforts across the pond, and to the use of Clausula Rebus Sic Standibus as a reply to the grasping paws of what is left of the Roman Empire.
First of all, what is a rebus?
It’s a combination of words and pictures somewhat still commonly used to teach children how to read.
An example might be the words “He gave his” followed by a picture of an elderly man substituted for the word “Grandfather” and then “a” and a picture of a basket of fruit and so on.
Rebuses commonly show pictures of things with the actual noun or phrase in small print beneath the pictured items — a wedge of cheese with the word “cheese” under it, a picture of a basket of fruit with “fruit basket” underneath so that new readers make the associations between the picture(s) and the word(s).
This creates an odd hodge-podge “language” of pictures and words put together to form an overall story or message using both “signs” — meaning drawings or photos or other visual representations of physical things — and written words.
The same thing occurs when you receive a Court Docket from one of the Territorial District Courts and what appears to be your name expressed in all capital letters is embedded in the text. This “representation” of your name is not being used as a word nor as a name, but is instead a sign, and the resulting document is a rebus.
This is explained in The Chicago Manual of Style under “American Sign Language”.
So the Clausula Rebus Sic Standibus is a document and declaration that gets into the spirit of the thing and turns it back around to create a “spell” as in spelling, refuting the presumptions attached to the use of such NAMES, that is, signs used as names of the ignorant, for the purposes of enslavement.
You will note the tedious, repetitive, incantation-like nature of the verbiage used to “dispel” the communications of the municipal district and similar courts, which are seeking to enslave and entrap the unwary victims.
The C.R.S.S. basically says, “Avast ye, Air Pirates! I know what you are doing. I am not your ignorant dolt. Bugger off.”
And that is always fine to say in whatever language.
So, no, I don’t have any problem with anyone using the C.R.S.S. to whump the weasels, but you still have to be able to grasp the underlying concepts and stand in your own defense, or, no matter what words or language you speak, the King’s Dogs will continue to hound you.
Similarly, the rest of Peter’s process is aimed at the Catholic Municipal Government which considers your baptism your entrance into their world, and your communion as your “marriage” to Christ, and now that you are “married” in this manner, you must be subject to Christ and to his Vicar, the Pope, and on and on and on in this same vein of marital subjugation.
This then, provides the background of Peter’s additional rather odd (but informed) use of a Divorce Declaration to repel these additional presumptions of perpetual private contract and “voluntary” enslavement to the Church and its Roman municipal government.
Is there any harm in doing this? No.
It simply adds to your overall objection to the various municipal government presumptions against you and your estate.
Still, the crux of the matter is you, your own understanding and ability to rebut these monsters.
Even after you have discouraged the running dogs of the Pope, you have to face the perils of the British Admiralty.
In one case, which Peter of England is trying to cover for the People of England, you have to rebut the idea that you are a married slave of Rome, attempting to evade your private contract to pay tribute.
In the next instance, you are assumed to be the representative of a “missing” British Merchant Mariner, a Warrant Officer signed on to be a volunteer Taxpayer (that is, a person who collects taxes and remits them to the Crown and King).
The take home message is that no matter how you deal with this, it’s all self-interested fiction, all bunk fit for a Bunko Squad.
Beyond just saying “No!” with certainty, we do have to start organizing our communities to repel these white collar criminals and make short work of all their Imaginary Friends— these Legal Fictions named after us without our knowledge or consent.
—————————-
See this article and over 4700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.