Without prejudice to the living whatsoever,
This story is about legal fictions, imaginations and those ACTing as things that in reality do not exist; and, it is our duty to inform the public of the truth; after all, it is the “that without which not” of any dispute;
We, the well-intentioned, but ill-informed Southern Africans, like other nations, have also been lied to; and, have also been deliberately confused, especially the last 24 years; so much so, that those who are supposedly educated in law, don’t even know which end is up; and, everyone is even more confused because we cannot read the differences between: legalese and plain language; the law-of-the-sea and law-of-the-land; and, the boundaries and limits of their jurisdiction; we are truly lost at sea;
The following is critical in order to grasp the What and Why and When and How and Where and Who of how the UNITED STATES OF SOUTH AFRICA came about;
1955 Freedom Charter and the 1994 RDP policy framework
The 1955 Freedom Charter and the 1994 RDP policy framework established the last lawful intent and will of we, the people ON [not “in”] the land of Southern Africa;
Both called for direct democracy, meaning THE PEOPLE SHALL GOVERN!!!
And, ALL the people, not just a few; absolute power corrupts absolutely;
Instead, in the words of Ronnie Kasrils [from his book “Armed & Dangerous”], “our people were sold down the river” for representative democracy; meaning, a greedy and power-hungry 1% get to rule over the 99% for the benefit of the 0, 1% foreign elite; in some circles it is called neo-liberalism; in truth it is nothing more than feudal occultism of secret societies;
It was the final push by the United Democratic Front that paved the way for our liberation; the UDF was a non-political assembly of grass roots movements from across Southern Africa; our biggest mistake was not to continue with the UDF systems of local self-governance; instead, the ANC elite, who were groomed by the “illuminati” into secret societies while in luxurious “exile”, took over the reins and diverted our course from the Freedom Charter to the Washington Consensus.
Now, the two main evils are the privately-owned Rothschild/Rockefeller federal reserve banking system, a global ponzi scheme; and, the BAR legal system, a non-entity that cannot be sued; both operating out of City of London, also a privately-owned foreign corporation, outside any canonical jurisdiction;
The European Monarchies, the Vatican and Secret Societies of Freemasons are the beneficiaries of this global fraud; together they hide behind the masks of corporations; today this is no such thing as lawful government – not for any country in the West; today, all “governments” are all merely corporations fronting as governments; and, departments are merely private franchises; all they do is collect our valuable signatures on money bills and trade them for huge profits to the elite through the fractional reserve banking, multiply-it-by-ten-as-you-trade-it-up scheme; operating under revolving rehabilitation bankruptcy maritime salvage rules;
The truth is our Republican government by, for and of the people has been left vacant, but the first educated and informed sovereign people have started filling the first positions as living people by the living law-of-the-land;
According to the 1994 RDP, to break the hold of the Freemasons, Southern Africa is supposed to have developed:
- community banks run by the people;
- community courts free from the divided BAR;
- oversight committees in SARB and an open board of directors;
- local self-governance;
With the power of banking and creating interest-free value-backed currency back in the hands of the people; and, community courts wherein all are equal before the law and bankers can be held accountable; in this way will the people truly govern; and, in this way will customary law and common law be restored; the law-of-the-land will be restored; and, this is what the cabal fear most;
Republic versus DEMO[NO]CRACY
We never hear RSA being referred to as a “Republic”; we always hear “democracy, democracy, democracy” as part of the indoctrination propaganda;
According to international legal citation our political system is: Republic; in a Republic the people are sovereign; in a Democracy THE STATE, a legal fiction, is “sovereign”;
“The words “sovereign state” are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property.” Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.
The CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996 states in CHAPTER 1 – FOUNDING PROVISIONS – 1 Republic of South Africa – The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state…
It is NOT what we voted for; this means the CON-stitution and RSA INC. is an absolute despotism, as we will further explain;
CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA
Before we continue, it is key to grasp the difference between Republic of South Africa and REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Black’s 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.
Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.
CAPITE. Lat. By the head.
Tenure in capite was an ancient feudal tenure, whereby a man held lands of the king immediately. It was of two sorts,—the one, principal and general, or of the king as the source of all tenure ; the other, special and subaltern, or of a particular subject. It is now abolished. Jacob. As to distribution per capita, see Capita, per.
We say that feudalism is alive and well in the 21st century; and, hiding behind its many masks: capite-lism, colonialism, communism, corporatism, demo[no]cracy, federalism, imperialism, politics etc.;
So, when you see ALL CAPITAL LETTERS you know it is commerce under admiralty/maritime/roman/dutch mercantile law-of-the-sea for corporations and ships;
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996
Now, if one downloads the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa pdf from the Constitutional Court page, the first line on the first page reads:
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996
[ASSENTED TO 16 DECEMBER 1996]
[DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 4 FEBRUARY 1997]
(Unless otherwise indicated — see also s. 243(5))
(English text signed by the President)
as amended by
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Here we find the first deception:
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996 …as amended by
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
So, the ALL CAPITALS CONSTITUTION, a CORPORATE charter was amended by ANOTHER Constitution? A law-of-the-land Constitution? Are there two Constitutions?
Well, let’s not forget that the Constitution is formally entitled the “Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.” It was previously also numbered as if it were an Act of Parliament—Act No. 108 of 1996—but, since the passage of the Citation of Constitutional Laws Act, neither it nor the acts amending it are allocated act numbers.
This does not necessarily mean that Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act No. 108 of 1996 is no longer in use; when we discover the extent of the fraud it more than likely is being used as a shell company for other nefarious activities; only access to information will determine the true extent of the fraud; and here SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES will be our best ally in exposing the rats; just follow the tax filings and the money;
Further, not only is there a company registered as REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, but also as SOUTH AFRICA; doing an online company search indicates that RSA is a U.S. federal-owned entity while SA is a U.N.-owned entity;
And, the Constitutional Court is known as “Constitutional Court of South Africa”;
Should it not be “Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa”?
And, on CON-COURT legal documents they refer to themselves as CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA;
Firstly, those ACTing as Justices are BAR members; the highest ranking Justices are oathed to the TEMPLE CROWN of CITY OF LONDON; they swear an oath to never reveal their secrets and to keep them to their death-beds; so, their allegiance is to a foreign feudal system; the masters and lords are the 0, 1% and the ACTing Justices are the ranking knights, the “agents” of the “principal”, the “subjects”, the servants;
HOWEVER, in SCHEDULE 2 – OATHS AND SOLEMN AFFIRMATIONS
6 Oath or solemn affirmation of Judicial Officers
(1) Each judge or acting judge, before the Chief Justice or another judge designated by the Chief Justice, must swear or affirm as follows:
I, A.B., swear/solemnly affirm that, as a Judge of the Constitutional Court/Supreme Court of Appeal/High Court/ E.F. Court, I will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa, will uphold and protect the Constitution and the human rights entrenched in it, and will administer justice to all persons alike without fear, favour or prejudice, in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
(In the case of an oath: So help me God.)
Now, in a Republican form of government the people are sovereign; in a feudal system the Pope is the head of Church and State; these are two contradistinct systems; no man can serve two masters:
Luke 16: 13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other: you cannot serve God and Mammon.
This, amongst other things, brings their very legitimacy into question; and, has been echoed by others as revealed by the Mail Guardian:
JSC conflict laid bare by inconsistency
12 Apr 2013 08:14 Niren Tolsi – “Plasket had said it was “very healthy for a body such as [the commission] to be introspective and try to examine issues around its legitimacy. It can only do its job properly if it is legitimate.” This appeared to be interpreted by people like Justice Minister Jeff Radebe as a questioning of the very legitimacy of the current commission itself.
Minister of Justice Jeff Radebe un-successfully tried to pass the Legal Practice Bill, 2012 through Parliament. It is the biggest single threat to an independent legal profession, and so to the courts, in South Africa’s legal history.
UZA – Preliminary Conclusion
By legal definition those ACTing as Justices of CON-court have no apparent authority, merely an assumed and presumed authority; in truth UZA has filed no less than 10 Constitutional Court cases against the ACT-ing CON-court Justices themselves; and, they gave us a no-hope-of-remedy verdict, giving no reasons, nor rebuttals; they have remained silent; he who leaves the battlefield first loses by default;
Maxim – He who is silent is supposed to consent. The silence of a party implies his consent. Jenk. Cent. p. 32, case 64; Broom, Max. 138, 787.
Between 2013-2015, UZA has had no less than four hearings on Constitutional Hill without permit and without paying; the protectors of Constitutional Hill, SAPS Hillbrow 1IC and 2IC were notified beforehand to protect UZA in doing their duty; they took leave of absence and shirked their duties;
The ACTing Justices were summoned to appear and re-oath themselves to we, the people the 99%; and, on all four occasions they failed to appear; and, because so few people were unaware of our actions there were only ever between 20 and 50 people present;
We had a few meetings with the then Registrar and she took retirement because she knew we are S-E-R-I-O-U-S; and, fully in our lawful right; we want our court back; we want our hill back; and, we want to institute Justices who serve us; they pose a threat to the safety of the Republic;
THIS IS NOT AMERICA – OUR LIBERATION STRUGGLE HAS PAVED A HIGHWAY OF FREEDOM!!!
For two years now the Constitutional court has been coasting along WITHOUT A REGISTRAR!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE COURT!!! WITHOUT WHICH RULINGS ARE NULL AND VOID;
Further, since 2013 we have demanded a TRC into the banking system and since then the Rand has halved; meaning, half of ALL our value was eroded; gone; this is a threat to the peace, prosperity and sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa; we have the full and lawful right to peacefully perform a citizen’s arrest and institute lawful Justices;
The necessity of the self-preservation of the 99% is now at stake;
law of necessity is the law of the time; that is, of the instant, or present moment. Hob. 159.
Necessity is the law of time and of place. 1 Hale, P. C. 54.
Necessity excuses or extenuates a delinquency in capital cases, which has not the same operation in civil cases. Bac. Max.
Necessity makes that lawful which otherwise is not lawful. 10 Coke, 61.
Nothing is more just than that which is necessary. Da y.Ir.K.B. 12; Branch, Princ.
Bac. Max. 25. Necessity gives a privilege with reference to private rights. The necessity involved in this maxim is of three kinds, viz.:
(1) Necessity of self-preservation;
(2) of obedience; and
(3) necessity resulting from the act of God, or of a stranger. Noy, Max. 32.
Necessity has no law. Plowd. 18a. “Necessity shall be a good excuse in our law, and in every other law.” Id.
Necessity is not restrained by law; since what otherwise is not lawful necessity makes lawful. 2 Inst. 326.
Necessity overrules the law. Hob. 144; Cooley, Const. Lim. 4th Ed. 747.
Necessity overcomes law; it derides the fetters of laws. Hob. 144.
That is necessary which cannot be otherwise.
Look out for Part II coming up soon;
Sincerely, administrator UZA