On December 22, 1799, Sands informed her cousins that she was fleeing that night with a classmate named Levi Weeks. In fact, it appears that Oklahoma laws state that the use of a “fictitious name” either in an indictment or in a piece of information (prosecutor`s office) is forgivable after the facts have been corrected. Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to a “legal” definition. Legal. In accordance with the law of the land; in accordance with the law; Eligible, sanctioned or legally justified. “Lawful” in the strict sense means something that is in accordance with the law or prescribed by law; “Legal” means something in the form or nature of the law or binding by law. A court-issued statement or warrant for an arrest is a “legal” process, no matter how imperfect. See “Legal notice”. If there is a “legal” surname in strict English law, it can easily be changed. In the words of an American and English law dictionary: “Anyone can take any surname or as many surnames as he wants, without a legal license.” [7] This does not always seem to have been true for the names given at baptism. As Sir Edward Coke noted in the Institutes of the Lawes of England, “a man may have different names at different times, but not different Christian names.” [8] But in modern practice, all names are freely changeable. [9] No one.
I. A human being (a “physical” person). 2. A company (an “artificial” person). Companies are treated as persons in many legal situations. In addition, the word “person” includes businesses in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other “being” entitled to take legal action as a legal person (a government, an association, a group of trustees, etc.). 4.The plural of person is persons, not persons (see this word). [Oran`s “Dictionary of Law”, West Group (1999)] In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson failed to persuade Congress to accept his desire to arm American ships passing through hostile German waters before the United States entered World War I, so Wilson simply invoked “policy” through an executive order.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941, which forced 100,000 Japanese Americans to be rounded up and sent to concentration camps while all their property was confiscated. Is it any wonder that Congress, which the president “legally” controls, did not impeach President William Jefferson Clinton when the evidence of impeachment was overwhelming? With that in mind, why did the presiding prosecutors make the most use of executive orders? Who, if he were not a lawyer, would know and understand the legal rules best. Unfortunately, they apply what is “legal” and ignore what is legal. In fact, they do not have access to what is legitimate, since the entirety of their “authority”, which is ethically and existentially fragile, comes from the belligerent powers. Note that the basis of the common law is a law approved by the people of Florida by resolution of November 6, 1829, before Lincoln`s Civil War. Also note that due to the Florida legislature and the laws of the United States, subsequent “laws” now take precedence over Florida common law. In April 1861, American and English common law was abolished and replaced by fictitious legal “laws,” also known as statutes, rules, and codes, based on decrees rather than due process provided for in the organic constitution. They exist and operate under the law of necessity from the beginning, are all non-legal and cannot assert competence, authority or demand for compliance by anyone.
They are completely “rules of domination”, that is, organized piracy, privileges, plunder and slavery, invented and applied by those who would like to rule over others, by legalized violence in the total absence of moral authority, adequate knowledge and natural law mechanisms to achieve results other than disruption, conflict, evil and devastation. The established maxim of law applies: the non-existent law, the legal condition that prevails universally in the official systems of today`s world, means that there is no legal basis on which anything can be created or realized, on which fidelity and obedience can legitimately be demanded. Acting according to the law of necessity, that is, of anarchy, gives everyone the full and complete right to ignore all allegations of a legal, verifiable and legitimate jurisdiction over anything or anyone. Anyone who acts against someone under such a lawlessness professes to be a criminal aggressor and a blatant fraudster who has lost all credibility and any right to demand loyalty, obedience or respect for any jurisdiction he may assert. If you are a real being in the real right and it is impossible for a lawyer or judge to recognize or access it, you are not in their jurisdiction (and cannot be subject to it). The crucial question then is how to notice them from your position and reputation. In fact, Lincoln`s second decree abolished the English common law recognized in America and replaced it with “laws” based on a fictitious legal basis, that is, decrees and directives executed under the “authority” of the belligerent powers.