December 11, 2019

The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show 1142 - 2019.12.10


Andrew Carrington Hitchcock (born ca. 1973) is the author of the widely imitated and hugely influential modern historical work, "The Synagogue of Satan", which has been translated into numerous languages and featured on bestseller lists worldwide. His second book is entitled "In The Name of Yahweh". "The Synagogue Of Satan," was an education in who controls the world and how they do it, "In The Name Of Yahweh," shows us why they are in control, and how their control can be broken.

Paul English – All Rights Reserved With Special Guest Brizer

Info Page

Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.com
The Synagogue Of Satan.com
EuroFolkRadio.com
 




Download

12 comments:

Albert said...

“I reserve all rights.”

“Did I call you?”
“Are you addressing me?”
“Are you asking me to testify against myself?”
“Are you baring false witness against me?”
“Is this a civil, or criminal matter?”

“Am I free to go?”

“All Rights Reserved Return To Sender,”

🌝 🌚 🌞

Legislation is not Law.

Adanac said...

The commercial world We live under is a difficult place to navigate.
I enjoyed the show and I do like the common sense simplicity of Brizer's message. I agree that you should avoid contracting at all costs and always throw the hot potato back to them for as long as you can. The problem arises when statutes are in play and that you have used your corporate legal fiction to contract into at some earlier date. Almost always it is here that people surrender their God given rights. That's the time they contract into that water tight statute.

Initially you can "play the game" but sooner or later you will have your day in court. The act of standing and repeating that you "reserve all rights" begs the question OKay what rights are the speaking of? It is imperative to understand that many statutes have been designed to be water tight in favour of "the Crown". It redefines you within the statute as a new artificial person such as "driver" under the motor vehicle act for example. Now you are no longer the flesh and blood person made by God. You are the legal fiction created by the government. To deny this you must challenge the whole system without a lawyer because they will not argue this for you. You may even get lucky and the judge may find some other reason to let you off if he/she likes you. The point is it is at "their" discretion as to weather or not they are going to find any merit in your argument. Or they may call for a psychiatric evaluation as has happened many times in the so called "Freeman on the land" cases.

Over the years i have been looking at this material I have seen many people claim the remedy exists (for Americans) in UCC 1.207 / 1-308 or other international UCC equivalents in other countries. I don't know its seems like you are still playing their game. I think the only real way out is a mass awakening to the shady tacit nature of our systems. The exposure of the laws they have put us under that rely on the maritime laws of abandonment and salvage rights of your person that the bankers have stolen from us has removed what it means to be a MAN under the common law. Unfortunately we just can't figure it out. All these notions of injured party are meaningless until we can expose the legal fiction scam. I warn against not paying property tax or income tax until you really understand what is at stake IMHO. You can play this game in traffic court if you want to dip your toe in. That's my advice. Freedom of speech is in transition right now. There certainly will be changes coming unless there is a huge global awakening to this stuff. I can't see it happening though, sorry to be a cynic.

Here are a couple of link added for fun but are by no means the last word. Just interesting info. I do agree with Brizer, that ultimately it will be a simple matter of us all remembering who we are as children of God not of the bankers and rejecting this corupt system.

Without Prejudice UCC 1.207 / 1-308
https://moor4igws.org/uploads/3/4/4/2/34429976/reserve_my_rights_without_prejudice_ucc_1.pdf
International UCC Equivalents
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/articles/13084/international-ucc-equivalents/

Brizer said...

@Chainsawmillerman
Check out "revocation". https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/revocation
Yes you are right that we have contracted into the system unknowingly. We made an honest mistake. We cannot undo past mistakes but we can make sure we don't make the same mistakes again.
Revocation is about revoking all powers of attorney and rights that we gave away in the past and to make sure we don't make the same mistakes in the future and the best way to do that (revocation) is to reserve ALL rights.
Keep it simple because life is essentially simple. It's just us who make it difficult for ourselves.

Liam said...

"you have used your corporate legal fiction to contract into at some earlier date."

Does a contract entered into at an earlier date, be it a presumptive adhesion contract, as in lacking full disclosure, have standing when rebutted as it was entered into "under duress" with fear to physical violence being perpetrated against me. "I don't think so, grandad".

Stay out of court, I have shown I am dishonourable by stepping in there.
I paraphrase; "Settle with my brother / neihbour, before I go to court, if I go to court, I must be prepared to go to jail." It is in the "script" / scriptures.

Liam said...

Hey Brizer, Good start, my brother, but, (just a 'but' not a rebut) you have a long way to go and a short time to get there.

Could it be the fermented pee drinking that has cleansed your mind of the potentially eternal parasite, and we both know where it went. lol .

Liam said...

@Chainsawmillerman - I respectfully encourage you to look at Merchant Law, Lex Mercatoria, older and higher jurisdiction that lowly statutes. Truly biblical and no pun intended.

Liam said...

Hey Brizer, I mean a long way to go convincing people, not you individually.

Brizer said...

No worries Liam lol. Yep you're right. Stay out of the courts unless brought there under duress. You have no business being there because it's a dead entity and who speaks to the dead? I certainly don't (well not anymore lol) but sadly most people still do.

Adanac said...

I agree with you about staying out of court. The problem is that you need some way of uncoupling from the system. Say for example you don't pay your property taxes.Several years pass then the make a move to put your house up for tax sale. Its your legal fiction on the title/deed. You entered into this contract unknowingly but the is a legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse. There is also the concept of voluntary servitude. Have you ever questioned what you know and why you know what you think you know? 87% of people create their beliefs based on the opinions of others.13% use deductive reasoning.
Have you ever noticed that everything that has caused grief in your life from the PTB you had to apply for? The Magna Carta had some good sections 39 and 40 that i can think of right now.
Judges have used the Magna Carta in Canada fairly recently so its still a living legal document that can be invoked. I maintain that we are now at a place where might is right and although not impossible it has become very difficult for the common man to navigate this stuff.
The legal maxim "Actus legis nemini facit injuriam" translates to "An act of law does injury to no man" So how come we feel like slaves under our system of laws? There is another legal maxim - "Omnis privatio est homo sed non vicissim" translation- Every person is a man but not every man is a person. The duality of the person is what everyone really needs to completely understand. the word corporation was used long before we had actual incorporated companies. It was used simply to identify an artificial person. We have all been converted into artificial persons and debt slaves to finance the bankruptcy of our nations.

The formal name formation does not matter until you get into contracts. If you are trying to find out if its a natural person or an artificial person you must find the source of the creation of the name. People also must realize the concept of legal joinder. Its essentially the joining or coupling together two or more constituents or elements into one, uniting another person in some legal step or proceeding union concurrence. How must occur?
Vouluntary. So the whole of the word person comprises natural and artificial persons. There are very few natural persons left in our society.In Canada the artificial persons include but are not limited to citzen, driver, voter,taxpayer,director,officer,owner, etc etc etc.
In Canada the income tax is neither fraudulent or unconstitutional.It has been proven in Canada the Income tax is a federal "internal tax" making it a indirect tax, which is only applicable to a federally created artificial person known as an "officer". You are defined as an officer in Canada in many ways but for the purposes of the slaves the joinder is the social insurance card/number. You basically have to go into the federal jurisdiction to receive the "benefit" of CPP. So you voluntarily represent an officer to hold an office for the federal government. In doing so you are a federal employee and so are subject to the internal tax that only federal employees are subject too. So to hold the office income tax is the partial consideration for holding the office and when you are inside that box you are in their control.
So this is one example of how you become coupled to the system by use of joinder. It can be complicated to uncouple but one of the best ways is to be self employed. Most Canadians believe they need a SIN number to work. In many ways they are right but even today you still have to "apply" for one. Its all very underhanded and fascinating.

Adanac said...

@Liam Ill look into Lex Mercatoria. I remember hearing that that is the basis of law used in the District of Columbia. no? I cant remember for sure.

Adanac said...

Also i was not clear above when i said, judges used the Magna Carta. They used it in a court case that they used against the federal government. I cant remember the details but at the time thought it was interesting because the courts would have you believe its archaic and no longer applies in any real application in legal proceedings.

Adanac said...

@Brizer "revocation" is an interesting idea. I agree with everyone that staying out of court is best however they usually will force your hand if it any significant property issue. Then you must establish jurisdiction, standing etc Its a daunting task for most. Thats why if people are interested in experimenting with jurisdiction play in traffic court first.