Unmasking Hidden Truths: An In-Depth Conversation on Authority, Propaganda, and Legal Maxims
Welcome to “For the Love of Truth,” where I’m joined by my esteemed guest, Sui Generis, for a detailed, no-fluff discussion on the power of maxims, propaganda, and navigating corrupt systems. Our conversation explores how these undeniable presumptions affect our lives and offers valuable insights into reclaiming our inherent rights.
Key Points & Timestamps:
0:00 – Introduction by Adrian Roscow
1:09 – The Decline of Attention Spans and Media Manipulation
1:23 – The Importance of Context Over Headlines
3:55 – Understanding Internal Propaganda
7:07 – Government’s Strategic Use of Undefined Terms
9:52 – The Role of Subject Matter Specialists in Government
16:11 – Legal Consequences of Accepting Definitions at Face Value
19:01 – Identity and the Power of Presumption in Law
23:06 – How Generations Have Been Conditioned
27:33 – The Timeless Relevance of Legal Maxims
31:05 – The Role of Evidence and Legal Fictions
37:41 – Importance of Rebutting Presumptions
43:18 – The Distortion of Organ Ownership and Status
50:46 – Diplomacy and the Exercise of True Sovereignty
58:07 – The False Assumptions of Government Regency
1:08:56 – Piracy and Legal Fiction in Modern Governance
1:19:03 – Importance of Peaceful and Rational Approach
1:24:56 – Closing Thoughts and The Importance of Reflecting on Reality
1:27:10 – End of Discussion
The books Sui mentioned (please note the following are affiliate links):
Legal Fictions by Lon Fuller
Maxims of Law by Charles Wiseman
Qui non improbat, approbat: He who does not disapprove, approves.
The other interviews I have done with Sui can be found here:
https://fortheloveoftruth.co.uk/2023/06/01/ep-291-sui-generis-are-you-a-biological-reality-or-are-you-identifying-as-literary-artwork/
More content with Sui including him on Crrow777 and talking with Kurt Kallenbach can be found on the resource page – https://fortheloveoftruth.co.uk/resources/. Scroll down to the section “The Birth Certificate Fraud”.
What follows are Sui’s notes for our discussion.
I (Sui) skipped some and you can find the translations easily for the ones that are only in latin. I think we just got to the latter part maxims which are in English. Those are from the Charles A. Weisman book.
Adrian callnotes 27 oct 2023 maxims
• definition and citations
- Sir William Blackstone ▪ somewhat like axioms in geometry
- Sir Edward Coke ▪ A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority the most certain, and because it is universally approved by all.
- Black’s Law 1st ed, p 762
- ▪ An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeable to natural reason.
- ▪ Coke defines a maxim to be ‘conclusion of reason,’ and says that it is so called ‘quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, et quod maxime omnibus probetur.’ Translation above. • Sources
- usually listed in law books, either separately or alphabetically alongside the terms.
- Some sources I use ▪ Black’s, Bouvier’s, Guide to Latin in International Law, Maxims of Law by Charles A. Weisman
• In evidence
◦ Court is a ‘tribunal of truth’
▪ sounds trivial, but how do you find out what is the truth, or what actually happened? • Facts, intentions, assumptions / presumptions
◦ Modern Law of Evidence, OUP, p 99
▪ Where a presumption operates, a certain conclusion may or must be drawn by the
court in the absence of evidence in rebuttal.
• f.ex. A person is dead if he has been missing for 7 years ◦ Rebuttable presumption / irrebuttable presumption
▪ irrebuttable
- Praesumptio iuris (et de iure) ◦ “Presumption of law (and by law).”A presumption as a matter of law that applies by default. In some cases, the presumption is irrebuttable; in others, it may be defeated by a showing of sufficient contrary evidence.
- Definition logically and technically same as that of a maxim • Maxims
- “Nemo plus iuris transfere ad alium potest quam ipse habet – No one can transfer more rights to another than he himself has.”
- Primus in tempore, potior in iure – First in time, greater in right.
- Ex nihilo nihil fit. “A maxim meaning that legal rights cannot arise from an invalid or illegitimate source.” and
- Ex injuria jus non oritur. “a legal right or entitlement cannot arise from an unlawful act or omission.”
- Impossibilium nulla obligatio est – The impossible is no legal obligation.
- Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu impossibilia -> The law compels no one toward vain or impossible things
- Nullum tempus occurrit regi – no time runs against the king ▪ time [statute of limitation] does not apply to the king
- Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur quotiens de commodis eius agitur ▪ “An unborn child is considered born when his interests are taken into account.” A maxim, originating in Justinian’s Digest (1.5.7), meaning that a person’s interests
define his or her relevance to the law and no interest can be disregarded once some interests are taken into account. It follows from this maxim that a person is defined from the law’s point of view by the whole of his or her rights (and, correspondingly, duties).
- Sublato fundamento, cadit opus – Upon removal of the foundation, the work collapses.
- Rei turpis nullum mandatum est – There is no mandate in connection with an immoral matter.
- In dubio haec legis constructio quam verba ostendunt – When in doubt, the construction of the law is the one that the words indicate.
- Ex nihilo nihil fit – out of nothing, nothing is created.
- Expressio unius, exclusio alterius Latin maxim meaning that the expression of one thing excludes others. ▪
- Nulla pactione effici potest ut dolus praestetur. ▪
- Jus in re. ▪
- Nulla impossibilia aut inhonesta sunt praesumenda; vera autem et honesta et possibilia. ▪ Impossible or dishonest things cannot be presumed, only honest and possile ones can.
- Jus accrescendi inter mercatores, pro beneficio commercii, locum non habet. ▪
- Nulli enim res sua sevit jure servitutis. ▪
- Jus accrescendi praefertur ultimae voluntati. – ▪
- Nulle terre sans seigneur. – no land without a lord ▪
- Fictio cedit veritati.
▪ Fiction yields to truth
▪ this can be invoked with any legal fiction - Fictio iuris non est ubi veritas.
▪ There is no legal fiction where there is truth - Pirata non mutat dominium.
- ▪ Piracy does not change dominium / ownership
- ▪ pirate etymologically: a trier, someone who attempts to steal unnoticed
• if you don’t protest and expose the piracy, you can be presumed to imply your consent to it
◦ Idem est facere et nolle prohibere cum possis.
▪ It is the same thing to act and to refuse to prohibit when you can.
• only thing required for tyranny to arise is for good men to stay silent
- “Summum ius (summa injuria est) – The greatest right (is the greatest injury)” [I would actually suggest the order of the words works in reverse in Latin, and the more clear meaning is ‘greatest injury is the greatest right’. This fits the nature of the maxim]
▪ “… granting a party the maximum extent of its rights may do an extreme injustice to the party against whom the right is asserted.” - “Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit (Latin, “whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil”) is a legal Latin principle related to fixtures which means that something that is or becomes affixed to the land becomes part of the land; therefore, title to the fixture is a part of the land and passes with title to the land. Consequently, whosoever owns that piece of land will also own the things attached.”
◦ In dubio haec legis constructio quam verba ostendunt – “When in doubt, the construction of the law is the one that the words indicate.” A maxim meaning that when the meaning or intent of a law, agreement, or treaty is uncertain, the words should be read according to their plain meaning. (Fellmeth, p 131)
▪ this is tricky when read together with the Wigmore citation on evidence / meaning or words
• “The ordinary standard, or ‘plain meaning,’ is simply the meaning of the people who did not write the document. The fallacy consists in assuming that there is or ever can be some one real or absolute meaning. In truth there can be only some person’s meaning; and that person, whose meaning the law is seeking, is the writer of the document.” – Wigmore, Evidence § 2462 (Chadbourn rev. 1981).
- ▪ note that the uncertainty only arises when the author is not present to confirm the intended meaning
- ▪ compare also to case law, where the ‘parliamentary intention’ is sought when the wording of statutes is unclear
• this is done by researching the preliminary work and the debate transcripts from
the HoL and HoC
• Maxims of law / Charles A. Weisman
◦ Agreement
- ▪ 5a. When there is a disagreement in the substance, it appears that there is no acceptance.
- ▪ 5b. An agreement induced by fraud cannot stand
- ▪ 5h. There is no doubt that the rights of others cannot be prejudiced by private contracts.
• This is directly contrary to the presumption of a ‘social contract’
▪ 5l. The expressed agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law,
because the agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract.
- Ambiguity ▪ 6g. In cases of ambiguity, such an interpretation should always be made that what is inconvenient and absurd may be avoided.
- Annul, revoke
- ▪ 7c. It is a perpetual law that no human or positive law can be perpetual; and a clause in a law which precludes the power of abrogation is void ab initio.
- ▪ 7e. Laws are abrogated or repealed by the same authority by which they are made
- ▪ 7i. All shall have liberty to renounce those things which have been established in their favour.
- Abrogation of inherent rights? – when implied…
- Renouncing the welfare state?
- Arms [ think of arms as limbs → organs… 2nd amendment: right to bear arms]
▪ 9c. It is a liberty of free citizens to retain arms for their protection and according to
their condition
• condition → state → capacity
▪ 9f. The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state
• bear arms → use a limb as a form of identification (expressing ones capacity) ◦ Authority and power
- ▪ 11 b. The derivative power cannot be greater than the original from which it is derived.
- Nemo plus iuris….
- Government cannot have more powers than the people, from whom they claim to have derived the powers from.
- ▪ 11i. Where there is no authority for establishing a rule, there is no necessity of obeying it.
• The problem is, it’s too slow to test whether there is authority when a quasi- official security guard approaches you with a pepper spray….
▪ 11w. In the presence of the superior power, the inferior power ceases. The less authority is merged in the greater.
• Is this what happens when an unabrogated capacity is expressed in a court?
◦ Benefits
▪ 12f. He who receives the advantage or benefit from a thing should also bear the
burden or disadvantages attending it.
• …the social benefits are paid to the registered persons… ◦ Buying and Selling
▪ 13s. No rule of law protects a buyer who wilfully closes his ears to information, or refuses to make inquiry when circumstances of grave suspicion imperatively demand it.
• You need to inform them about the impossible presumption regarding your
capacity
- Certainty ▪ 15d. The law requires, not conjecture, but certainty
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture ◦ 1a: inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence - Confirmation
- ▪ 20c. He confirms the use of a thing who removes the abuse of it.
- Abuse → piracy → false presumptions. Protesting against the abuse confirms your possession of the rights, your capacity
- Act in the capacity of a state
- ▪ 20h. Confirmation is void where the preceding gift is invalid.
- Church confirmation?
- What was granted to the church, to give them the right to ‘name a child’, which is ‘their member’? (member – limb – organ, not the possessive form ‘their’)
◦ Reveals the presumption that the material proof of your origin, the placenta, is assumed by the church as a gift to them (with the authority that comes with its possession). Otherwise the church could not have ‘named the child’.
- ▪ 20c. He confirms the use of a thing who removes the abuse of it.
- Consent
- ▪ 21c. He may consent tacitly who may consent expressly
- ▪ 21f. He who does not forbid what he can forbid, seems to assent.
- ▪ 21h. Long sufferance is construed as consent.
- ▪ 21i. Nothing is so contrary to consent as force and fear.
- ▪ 21j. It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.
• Implied consent from conduct
- ▪ 21k. He who consents cannot receive an injury.
- ▪ 21l. The silence of a party implies his consent when his interest is at stake.
• You have to know your interests and protest against the attempted piracy!
- ▪ 21p. Consent is the united will of several persons interested in one subject-matter.
- ▪ 21r. He who does not disapprove when he can approves.
- ▪ 21s. Consent removes mistake or error.
• The error is in the Certificate of Live Birth, which omits the placenta, and therefore gives rise to a false presumption about your status.
- 29b. It is safer to be deceived than to deceive. [Those who knowingly deceive will face the consequences, while a deception does not change your rights]
- 29g. Out of fraud no action arises; A right of action cannot arise out of fraud. Phelps v Decker, 10 Mass. 276. [You cannot be brought to court based on (an identity) fraud.]
- 29h. Gross negligence is equivalent to fraud. Black’s 2nd, 698. [Treating the placenta as separate from you, and omitting it from the paperwork is gross negligence]
- 29j. What otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud, becomes bad and unjust. 3 Coke, 78. [Presuming your identity from the cut and misleading paperwork is unjust – against justice]
- 29r. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Story, Eq Jur s 389, 390. [If an official conceals what has actually happened, they are liable for the fraud committed.]
- 29w. No one is considered as deceiving those who know and consent to his act. Bouv, 141. [Note, you have to know and consent, not just consent. That’s why informed consent is crucial. Consent alone does not let them off the hook.]
- 48a. He who gives a thing by mistake has a right to recover it back; but, if he gives designedly (with knowledge of the facts), it is a gift. Dig. 50, 17, 53 [this is in line with the Bible on those who know]
- 48b. One who gives and yet retains does not give effectively. Or, one who gives, yet retains, gives nothing. Tray. Leg Max. 129.
- 48d. No man can give that which he has not. [this is a well known maxim. the implication is, a republic cannot gain sovereignty from men who are not sovereign. Also, it means that if church assumes the placenta as a gift, it has to originate from a man.]
- 48g. A bequest is not rendered void by an erroneous description. Broom, Max. 645. [the paperwork can (and is) misleading, but they assume the effect]
- 48j. Whatever is received is received according to the intention of the recipient. [This maxim seems incriminating to the church, since they are the ones who assume the gift, and the notification to the register implies that their intention is to treat the gift as valid.]
- 48q. A gift is not presumed. No one is presumed to give. Haren v Forster, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 128. [That’s why they have to transfer the property first to the state as a ‘lost property’, so that the gift from state to church can be assumed to be valid.]
