The road to Perdition
~ #22 On governance, Mayhew, and hitting the ditch!
~ Preamble
Once again I find myself beating the drum of language, meaning, interpretation, and most importantly - implementation of that which has become knowing. The Father gives us the free will to learn and act in whatever way that One sees fit. There are of course consequences for the choices that we as men, women, kings, or GOVERNORS make. Currently, the “Rulers” that we seem to find ourselves under, I posit, are not the “ministers of God” nor the purveyors of righteousness!
Proverbs 16 KJV:
12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness.
Romans 13 KJV:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. (emphasis added)
~ In the Flavour of Jonathon Mayhew
It was with Jonathon Mayhew’s sermon, and publication of a leaflet of that sermon, that is credited with swaying a significant portion of the American People, to move to freedom, from under the then ruler George III King of England. It was Mayhew’s sermon given January 30, 1750, that opened up a portal in the public consciousness, to question, and in time to revolt against, the Government of that day. His sermon, opens up the Biblical Directive to adhere to the “powers”; as they are in position, with authority and by the sanction of God. Mayhew’s argument was, that if the “powers”/King acted in pursuit of evil - or was not acting in the interests of the good of the governed, then the power that They, the rulers, wield does not have the Godly primacy pointed to in Romans 13. This passage, has been over-simplified if not abused by the spiritual leaders of today, directing their congregations to go along with the “Government”, as it is by God’s will that they are in power. The problem with this position, is that then: everything that happens on this earth in this dimension, is ordained, authorized, and approved of by God. Murders, theft, slander, torture, etc. is then to be accepted and allowed, as — “if God didn’t want it to happen, then he wouldn’t let it happen”. Now, this goes down the rabbit hole of rabbit holes; that question of free will and agency. We can go further on that another time.
What Mayhew petitioned for, was that following blindly in submission, giving One’s self and authority over to a ruler, must sometimes be questioned and possibly abnegated when appropriate. When it comes to what I have put forward in my previous posts, and of course a position that I hold; is that here, we are dealing with two separate issues.
The domain of the living:
Romans 13 tells us that the rulers, are acting as and ruling over - men and women. Further, in 1 Peter Chapter 2, the actual distinction is made:
1 Peter 2 verses 13 - 14 KJV: 13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (emphasis added)
The living word of God, tells us that the ordinances of “man” are to be followed. Now this all lines up. That is to say: what is morally and biblically correct is to be viewed and followed with complete conviction: all that which is good, right, and true. There is a distinction here that I will go deeper into in future, wherein - men answer to other men and most importantly God; but a dead CORPORATE entity only answers to itself, or perhaps as I have mentioned before, Not God, The Father of Lies.
And on the other hand; the domain of the dead:
Who are the Governments of today governing? Men and women, the people; or, the CORPORATE NAME/dead fictions? If the Government, is governing with FULL AUTHORITY, operating as a CORPORATION, which as I have previously discussed, is in deed the case; then what authority gives them “powers” over a man? Has God ordained and authorized CEOs, CFOs, Board Directors, CORPORATE OFFICERS, etc. and given them authority over each such an One/soul/man/woman? The answer is, of course not! This is currently being proven in the “Legislative Branch”, the Courts. Where statute code/legislation; created, written, and enforced by GOVERNMENT, is conflated and described as “LAW”! Where there is a special manner of language and behaviour when “playing” the game of the LEGAL SYSTEM. They in deed do not have authority over any such an One who stands as a man or woman, separating themselves from, and clarifying and stating that: I am NOT a PERSON(!) and I cannot with clear conscience act as or for a PERSON as my God directs me to — “not have respect for persons”!
While I agree with the basic tenet of Mayhew’s argument: that governments pursuing evil ends or not acting in the interests of the people of the nation, must cause the people of that land to examine their hearts, and if appropriate, change the governance by whatever means might become necessary. I do not think, that the GOVERNMENT and the “powers”, referred to in Romans, necessarily equal the same thing. We are simply looking at two separate domains.
It is becoming clearer to me, as I write this, that this fully is, the crux of the matter. If I tell the “Government” to take a leap, and I go on to follow my moral compass written in my heart by The Father, I am not in breach of Paul’s directive to the Romans nor God’s directive to me. I, my soul, will follow the ordinances of men ordained by The Father and supply tribute where and when due. However, Romans 13 has nothing to do with the “Upside Down World” order of Kings and Governors, that we find ourselves in at present, other than to clearly declare, that it, the upside down world of GOVERNMENT, has nothing to do with those that choose to follow the directives of The Father.
The quote directly below is from my third post,
As per Section 2 of THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA :
“every one, person and owner, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization”
6. It is agreed by you (Robynn, the Prosecutor) that you have knowledge and awareness that I, the man, Arlen-Paul: am not in that list. I am not “Her Majesty” and I am not “an organization”, and I do not volunteer nor agree to act as, or be surety for, either as those are persons of law I cannot be forced to submit to.
As per the ICCPR, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory to and thus is upheld as Federal Law:
Article 1: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 18: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
. . .”
In an attempt to make this even clearer, I am adding here below Article 16 as well, from the ICCPR:
“Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”
What does all of this mean? In Article 1, above, we see that the Ones being described are “All peoples …”. So the “subject” (grammar-wise) of that Article and sentence is described as “peoples”. In Article 18, the subject is described as “Everyone”. Article 16 describes the subject again as “Everyone”, and then differentiates that it, the subject of the sentence, has a right to recognition as something other than a “people” or a “One”, but “as a person before the law”. This spells out, in a little bit of a convoluted manner, that these terms: Everyone, peoples, and person(s) do not mean the same thing. If they did mean the same thing, Article 16 could be written as: All persons shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Or: Everyone shall have the right to recognition as everyone … . Or: All people shall have the right to recognition everywhere as people … . It has become our lazy speech, improper use of language, lack of clarity, and assumption that leaves one standing confusedly or even confoundedly around this notion of who One is and who One is acting as or for. These are two utterly different entities: man = living soul, child of God, sentient conscisous being (that which One “is”) — vs. — person = legal fiction, Registered Corporation (NAME), CITIZEN, etc. (that which One can ONLY act as or for as it is impossible for any such an One to “BE” a CORPORATION).
It is us, we the people, who are failing our Father, not our Governments who are failing us. 195 Countries have signed/ratified the ICCPR, which clearly gives all of God’s children the ability to adhere to One’s faith and convictions.
As I proofread this post, another little convolution has shown itself. In Article 18:1 noted directly above, we see “ … either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” Now, I know this goes by really fast, however, it speaks to the observance, and practice of One’s religion or belief in two different realms. In addition to “individually or in community with others”, it then states specifically “in public or private”. Although it is often unclear as to what capacity or jurisdiction One is applying Oneself in or to, this Article 18:1 is talking about One’s right, as a people or a One (man), to manifest his belief and religion in the public, which can simply mean ‘in the company of others or many’ the public. However; in this case in a Covenant on Civil and Political Relations, it is the Corporate Domain of Governments and Statute Code/Legislation that is being referred to as public and differentiated from the private. The Public Servant or Officer, by this Covenant to which They are bound, must go to pains to allow for and respect One’s belief and religion. There are many times where the two domains: private vs. public, living vs. dead, or, man vs. CORPORATION cannot be recognized in the same breath or jurisdiction, but here we find that the One’s bound by this Covenant, the men and women acting as Public Servants or Officers must give way to One’s belief and conviction within their public realm.
In our times, this speaks directly to Romans 13, as well as the directive of the first and second commandments. It is us, we the people, who are failing our Father; not our Governments who are failing us. 195 Countries have signed/ratified the ICCPR, which clearly gives all of God’s children the ability to adhere to One’s faith and convictions. Those same Governments are bound by that Covenant! It is us who fails to hold them to the adherence of that Covenant so that we may freely live by the commands and directives laid out so clearly in God’s Covenant, which wholly applies to all men and women: made with his children through the sacrifice of His son, Jesus Christ, our redeemer.
I will be going deeper into this application of public standing as a man very soon, as this point is new to me and those who I know who study these issues. The notion that I, or any One, as a man/child of God, can have standing in a CORPORATE Jurisdiction, not only as standing above, beyond, or outside that jurisdiction; which was the comprehension that I had of this point thus far, but to be recognized within/inside that Jurisdiction is fabulous!! This opens up many more possibilities of interacting with the dead. Jesus and his disciples attempted whenever possible to convert the dead to become alive in him; by His love and the love of The Father! It is not that we, as his ministers, are to avoid the dead, but to not show respect/preference for them or their ways.
~ An intimate vignette
It was back in 2010, when Cynthia and I were getting in deep with all things Commerce, Law, and Banking. We were travelling back and forth once a month to study with a group in LA and were also attending a few other events and conferences. I met with my brother at a Costco food court to have a hotdog and a pop (soda for you Americans) and a short visit to catch up. For various reasons, our paths were not crossing as often as they once had. As I explained to him the highlights of my newfound knowledge, and clarified how I could travel about in our truck without a Driver’s License, he leaned back in his chair with a look of serious concern. Now — this is the big brother that saved me from the fish hook in my finger, play wrestled with me letting me ‘win’ 30% of the time, taught me many things about mechanics and construction — he even taught me how to ride a bike! What came out of his mouth next, which wasn’t the hotdog nor the pop, has stuck with me ever since. “Arlen, as long as you stay between the ditches” was his comment. He brought up Romans 13 at that meeting and he could not abide that all of the things I said were true, and that, I was straying too far into “dangerous territory”. Dangerous territory has been the ground Cynthia and I have often found ourselves on since. And as I have noted, The Father and His angels have always somehow brought us through.
~ “Staying between the ditches”
I knew what my brother meant when he made this comment. He, my brother, has modelled this tack in his own life, for the most part anyway. Depending on whether you live in a big city, or different parts of the world, One may not comprehend the significance of these ditches. Cynthia and I grew up on the prairies of Western Canada, and long straight roads, often as far as the eye can see, were paralleled by ditches dug on either side of the road. Now back in the day, these dirt roads were nothing more than cart tracks through whatever ground, soil, or rock One came upon to traverse from place to place. The driver of a cart, or the lead of your brigade, would choose the path based on those variable ground and soil conditions that presented. The best road to go, was not always straight nor the shortest distance between two points. It was with the surveying of the land that created these imaginary straight lines separating one land title, again imaginary, from another. The march westward in North America brought development and agriculture to lands that were wilderness and untamed prairie. Comparing the roadworks system in the first settlements of North America, both the U.S. and Canada, found roads that went every which way, attempting to negotiate the streams, valleys, mountains, or even just existing homesteads, hither and thither. Out west, the survey was done prior to the influx of the settlers and as a result, roads were predefined on a map, between titled properties. Together with endless prairie, this made for long, straight as an arrow, roads. Concurrent to the westward expansion of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we see the invention and implementation of machinery for this task of road making. What had been an extremely laborious task, done with “20 Mule Teams” or strings of oxen etc. became an exercise of diesel and hydraulic power. Incidentally, when building a long straight road across the prairie, the technique of moving the top soil over to the sides out of the way, then plowing and piling up the subsoil/clay from the ditch areas, onto the road area building it higher, and then replacing the top soil over the newly formed ditch achieved many of the goals of the job that a road and ditches are to do for the traveller. The road became elevated above the surrounds, hence the term “Highway”, which offered a quicker drying time in bad weather as the ditches also assisted in the carrying away of water making the roads less of a muddy challenge. Ditches, believe it or not, have saved many lives. If someone falls asleep at the wheel, they often wake up with their car in the ditch. In bad weather conditions of blinding rain or whiteout blizzards, the ditches help to guide the travellers when the road can almost disappear in front of them. Truckers know, that if you get in trouble of almost any kind, head for the ditch. So this issue of ditches and when to leave the “highway” has a lot more going on than One might first think.
And what if the road, that Highway or Freeway, that the powers/Government are taking you down, or at least the one that they have built for you to travel upon, is, in truth, a road to perdition? What if going along that road, They want to take your children from you if you attempt to intervene in your six year olds wish to take puberty blockers or identify as something other than what God made. What if staying on that road means that you are required to inject a substance into your body, your temple, which you may not want? What if Their statute code/laws make it legal to commit murder (MAID, medical assistance in dying)? Or, what if They say you cannot convene with other believers to praise and worship in the way that you see fit? Is One expected to “stay between the ditches” and follow the ordinances, not of men, but of CORPORATIONS??? Sadly, my brother has done just this to date. Perhaps for those who are able or who have the courage; leave the road, hit the ditch and on to … who knows where. The Holy Ghost will move you in the correct direction, if you put your faith in the one true God; and trust that the seemingly dangerous territory you are headed for, has already been prepared by the Almighty. One can accept His proffer, to act as his representative, his minister, here and now.
~ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers…
PEOPLE (!!); are we actually reading our Bibles?? The third word of Romans 13 verse 1 is: “soul”! Throughout the Bible, the words chosen, just as in our lives today, are chosen to clearly and specifically convey a message. As I wrote in one of my agreements with the prosecutor (point #10 specifically), “Man and woman nor men or women do not equal person(s), Biblically or at Law”! So what entity do the “powers” have power or authority over? Is it One’s soul, a man, a woman, or is it legal entities that are fictitious and are persons? If the authority that is claimed by the Government, is only to do with a “TAXPAYER”, “CITIZEN”, “PERSON”, or as stated in the Criminal Code of Canada - “… His Majesty or an organization” (point #6 of this linked document). That’s it! Nothing about man, woman, or people! The “Government” is not governing or guiding men, women, people, or souls! It only has authority over NAME and any other sub CORP, and thus, any man or woman that volunteers to act as or for NAME and are attached to it by that performance of volunteering. (For any new readers who are not familiar with NAME/sub CORP/ Corporate fiction, attachment, etc. please click on these links to previous posts covering these topics).
Back to my “Preamble”. I referenced the issue of knowing. And, the application and implementation of that, “knowing”! So what is it that I expect, or am asking for, each such an One to realize and effectuate?! It is the simple veritable fact, that “woman/man/people” and “person”, when referred to in EVERY document, statute, or contract; that carries any depth and meaningfulness, are not — NOT — the same thing!! Two different entities - two different jurisdictions - two different domains: the living and the dead!
The Father has ordained his ministers, which have authority over men and women; it just seems at present, they are missing in action. And we are left with posers, actors, that claim to be your President, your Prime Minister, your Minister of something or other, your Congressman, or Legislators, etc. Now there’s that word again, I guess slightly different in this case, “your”. Like ‘you’ - ‘your’, can also be plural. So when we see this word, attempt to identify which parties or entities it could be referencing. Again, One can act in multiple capacities at the same time: child of God, wife, CONGRESSWOMAN, minister of The Father, MINISTER of EDUCATION, and so on. ‘You’ can be a wife or child of The Father, and act as a CONGRESSWOMAN concurrently. And thus ‘you’ or ‘your’ can be used to hook such an One into the assumption that One is a TAXPAYER/CITIZEN etc. Again, please reference my “You Performance Rule”.
The unwitting attachment that is created by performance by the man or woman, is the “secret sauce” of contract with the PERSON and all of statute/code/legislation!
~ rulers - kings, Governors, Ministers and ministers
Proverbs 16 verse 12 KJV: It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness.
This also pulls into question the interpretation of Romans 13. If the ‘powers’ are not acting in righteousness, then they are not establishing the throne, the seat of power! Therefore, direct biblical reference brings us, and currently commands One, to an uncomfortable and “dangerous territory”!
James 2 verse 9 KJV: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Our ‘leaders’, our whole Government and Courts have been playing a shell game. The use of the name for the office of a Government official as a “Minister” is but one. God has not ordained Ministers, as he has ordained ministers. Specified clearly in Ezra 7 verse 24 (thank you to minister Edward for connecting these dots), wherein ministers, small m, are described. (I think it appropriate to make a distinction: a title is something given to One who is acting in a position or office, hence the capitol “M” in Minister of a Government Office, or capitol “D” Dr. as a Doctor, or “E” Esq. for Esquire/Lawyer; it demarcates a title, the capitalized letter. When the Judge attempted to get me to perform as a capitol “M”, Mister in Court, and I declined her offer, the whole shell game was over. There simply is, what One is - vs. - what One is acting as or for. I am a child of The Father, One redeemed by Christ’s blood (should I accept the proffer, which I do), and a believer in Him. I am not, unless I accept the position, a Mister, or a Minister, or an Esquire, or a Doctor. I know this gets confusing when we capitalize names, as well as other grammatical use of capitals that are not “titles”.) I think that almost all of the players in Government and Courts are not aware of this shell game. It is clear to me that the Judges that I have come up against know this truth, and have been taught at ‘Judge School’, which all Judges from Canada and the US attend, to slyly and cleverly maintain jurisdiction over the unwitting ‘volunteering’ man or woman. When I was in court in Beverly Hills up against Bank of America, Judge Stone, the one who ordered Lindsay Lohan into rehab, knew the NAME game to some degree or other. When the lawyer for the Bank could not understand how I could appear in court without agreeing to, or offering that I was re - presenting the ‘NAME’ and objected, Judge Stone over-ruled him and we proceeded.
Cynthia suggested that I expand a little on this. Here we were: Cynthia, Stacey (a “friend, witness, and researcher”), and I, in the State of California Court where THE BANK OF AMERICA was suing me; and Regis, the lawyer for the Bank could not understand how I could stand in Court without agreeing to who I was “RE”- presenting! I believe now, that Judge Stone was giving me some leeway, or perhaps he did not fully comprehend the standing of a man in Corporate court. Either way, he spurned “Regis”, the attorney for Bank of America, for his suggestion that he could not proceed without having a clear knowledge of who was speaking. I might ad, that the significance of the lawyer for the 'Bank’s’ name happened to be REGIS!! I am not making this up. This is exactly what happened 13 years ago in the Beverly Hills Courthouse, right across the street from the “Beverly Hills Anti-Aging Clinic”!
He was also the judge, that when he refused to issue my “writ of Habeas Corpus”, and I asked him if he was prepared to face his breach of Oath, he leaned forward, looked me straight in the eye, and knowingly said “yes”.
~ Summary
This post is really about one thing — ditches. In most cases the ditch is not someplace One wishes to find One’s self: bumpy, perhaps muddy, slow going, etc. However, if the road you find yourself on, is not the road you wish to be on, then . . . hit the ditch. You never know where, once One leaves the highway, One will end up. If you’re lucky, you might just find the unknown and un-surveyed dangerous territory of wilderness, where the “nice” people never wander.
nice: (etymology) late 13c., "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing,"…
It is the pursuit of truth, no matter what the cost or sacrifice, that may one day lead you into that ditch and on to, . . . who knows(!), maybe a whole life that One did not expect or bargain for. The Holy Ghost, as God’s emissary in this realm, has the power to take you to places that you could never imagine! Perhaps risking your life to defend, to petition for, to fight for, — truth; no matter the cost! These are things that we, each such an One, have opportunity to “accept the proffer”. You receive offers every day, in all manner of forms: fiscal, political, ethical, spiritual, etc. One makes choices and sacrifices to pursue the perceived benefit of any offer that is considered and accepted. The Devil can’t “make you do it” and neither can The Father; it is up for you to choose which road you’ll go down.
Have it good,
Arlen
:Addendum
~ My take on breach of oath and Habeas Corpus.
Breach of oath: I have come to the opinion that if an ‘officer’ swears an oath to serve the people, men and women, that he would not be in breach of that oath when he serves a Corporation. The ‘swearer’ is not bound or held to a Constitution or Bill Of Rights or anything that pertains to men and women when wearing the mask of the ‘persona’/person; Particularly when he is presiding over PERSONS/CORPORATIONS. When we all get on the game board of the CORPORATOCRACY, it is only bound by the rules of that game - spelled out and defined in the rule book of the game/CORPORATOCRACY, not a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, etc. Those apply to the people and entities defined within each document, not Corporate employees of CANADA, USA Corp, GERMANY, etc. This points to capacity. As in: in what capacity is the Judge acting? Adjudicator of law and man, or OFFICER/PLAYER on the game board of CORPORATOCRACY? He can be sitting up at the bench (bank), and do either; just as One can be a child of God (a man) and act as a CONGRESSAMAN/CORPORATE OFFICER at the same time. I know this is getting a little hairy, but that is the intention of this mask of the persona. It leads us all to a belief that what we see in the mirror is real! One is real, the image in the mirror is a reflection, it is only an image, not flesh, blood, and spirit. Thus, One must consider in what “capacity” is the oath maker acting? Which domain, living or dead, is he, the Judge or anyone for that matter, standing in?
Habeas Corpus (latin): “produce the body”. It is a fundamental right at law, that One who is under scrutiny, for — anything, has the right to demand to see and be witness to, the “body”, that is the evidence, proof, and or substance of the claim/wrong doing. Most literally in a murder or wrongful death: produce the corpse! Thus in the court, before the eyes and living witness of the people, the victim, in bodily corpse presence, and the perpetrator, in living bodily presence, could be witnessed to and adjudicated. I believe it is a literal dumbed down version of this writ that is (mis)understood and (mis)applied in current ‘juris prudence’. The current execution of a writ of Habeas Corpus simply brings the accused, from whatever prison cell he might be held in, into the physical presence of the Court. I submitted this writ, “Habeus Corpus”, to Judge Stone when The Bank of America was taking me to court over a Bank owned foreclosed property that I was dealing with them, the bank, on. What I was attempting to do by this action, was to force the bank to bring the “body”, that was their proof that they had a right to ownership and upcoming sale of the foreclosed property. The “body” in this case, and in the case of every foreclosure, in America at least, is the promissory note that the previous owner/borrower had provided the bank for securing the mortgage (promissory notes are standard procedure for mortgages in America). This “note” is what brings authority to the Bank to (re)possess/seize the title to the foreclosed home and in deed the whole foreclosure action. Judge Stone was not jeopardizing his oath by refusing to issue this writ; as on the ‘game board’, he was not bound by the fundamentals of Law, but the rules of ‘statute code’, which, I believe, do not give me as a man, or as a Citizen/sub Corp the right to this writ. On the game board it would be perceived, understood, and considered as a privilege. I know that many lawyers and legal experts would contest me on this, however, how many of them truly comprehend the difference in status of a person vs. man? I explain some of this in a previous post, “Upside - Down World”.