LEGAL FICTIONS - NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS. OR IS IT?

IN THIS VIDEO I HOPEFULLY, HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A LEGAL FICTION IS, THAT LAW IS FICTION AND FICTION IS METAPHOR AND METAPHOR IS LIVE OR DEAD, THAT METAPHORS ARE PERSUASIVE THAT PERSUASION IS RHETORIC AND RHETORIC IS WRITTEN OR SPOKEN WORD. THEREFORE WRITTEN THINGS ARE FICTION, LEGAL THINGS ARE WRITTEN, WRITTEN THINGS ARE FICTIONS. THEREFORE, THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS A FICTION.
Links: Rhetoric as an Art of Persuasion. From the Standpoint of a Lawyer. By An Old Layer. 1880.
archive.org/de...
Anatomy of the Law, Lon L. Fuller.
archive.org/de...
Legal Fictions, Lon L. Fuller
spcuniversity....
Constitutional Law as Fiction, Larue,
archive.org/de...

[@josephsmyth832]

The three methods of persuasion is logos, ethos, and pathos. The number three is very important as it pertains to rhetoric and logic.

[@khaliqel6711]

I appreciate your integrity, Nobility, and courage to share the lights of intrigue with the discerned ones. Peace and Be well.

[@JennWest-Liberty]

❤️❤️❤️

[@josephsmyth832]

This relates to the Trivium and Quadrivium. The Trivium does include rhetoric along with logic and grammar. The laws of logic date back to Aristotle. Rhetoric has three branches which is past, present, and future. It’s also considered the three branches of government including judicial. The Quadrivium is numbers in space and time in relation to reality. Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. This isn’t taught in public schools. A legal fiction involves the social sciences and game theory (economics)

[@JLova82]

The "laws" of "logic" predate Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle 's a poor imitation to that ancient priestly class called the Yeihu aka the Therapeutae. Not "Jew" _[sic];_ Yeihu. They're not the same.

[@josephsmyth832]

@@JLova82 What makes Aristotle’s laws of logic a poor imitation?

[@garywilliamowski2610]

I enjoyed your video. If the people just read the administration act of 1975 and the 1967 Congress finding that the 14 amendment is not lawful. They might understand what your saying Where did you fine your information and can I use some of the wording in your video

[@christianapiago1995]

Mar-riage, mar-itime, mer-maid, mer-chant, com-mer-ce are all water based, mare and mere.

[@normanpearson8753]

No lawyer in the land will deny legal and lawful are just about the same word .

[@JennWest-Liberty]

Probably. But they are different when... Legal must conform to what is lawful. Lawful is the real laws or True Laws.

[@chadkline4268]

Lawyer is anyone practicing law. Attorney is licensed by the BAR.

[@jarjar3143]

Just about ...as in almost ... as in nearly...as in basically..as in essentially...as in NOT .

[@JennWest-Liberty]

👍🏻👍🏻 No two things are exactly alike.

[@JLova82]

@@chadkline4268 Not quite

[@jayd515]

thank you!

[@christianapiago1995]

Look up the word 'joker' in the Black's law ;-)

[@christianapiago1995]

JOKER In political usage, a clause in legislation that is ambiguous or apparently immaterial, inserted to render it inoperative or uncertain without arousing opposition at the time of passage (Blacks law dictionary 3rd edition pg1021).

[@shokprof1313]

?OPINION PERSUASION LAW VS OPINION PERSUATION LEGAL? / LEGAL EN(FORCE)(MEN)T VS LAW EN(FORCE)(MEN)T ⚖️✌🏽✌🏻✌🏿💞🌎💞✌🏿✌🏻✌🏽⚖️

[@joro2743]

Gut feeling senses that the alleged premise of this video presentation is off the beaten path in that it appears to be missing the mark for the information provided within this video appears to be overcomplicating and confounding the concepts discussed with regard to the concept of "Legal" vs "Lawful" and "Fictions... instead of referring to "Fictions" as artificial constructs as explained below. The more and more the concept of "legal" vs "lawful" gets bandied about by aspiring law/legal scholars the more and more I am drawn to accept the word "legal" as being the same and/or similar as "lawful" in my personal opinion. Law is based on bonds, covenants, obligations, promises, and trusts. These items (bonds, covenants, obligations, promises, and trusts) are considered to be legal constructs and/or legal things aka legal fictions stemming from the law. Obligations and promises are contract law. Contracts are the law and are legal and lawful. Legal is a derivation of Law. Contracts are the law of the case. As for the term "Fiction"... What if there is no such actual thing as a so-called "Legal Fiction" in law or at law other than as previously mentioned as being bonds, covenants, obligations, promises, and trusts? But rather, legal/lawful constructs, legal/lawful entities "ALL" of which are merely real "artificial legal/lawful constructs" such as a corporation, a partnership, a trust, etc. with real interests, rights, and titles with corresponding duties, obligations, and responsibilities. Therefore..., law = legal... and there is no distinction between law and legal, both are similar and/or the same. Law is law is law and is legal, and so too legal is legal and is law. It would be most appropriate for us to simplify our understanding of lawful/legal matters under the law in terms of their lowest common denominator in order to cancel out and subdue all the confusing noise that has crescendoed via aspiring law/legal scholars in the past several decades throughout the internet regarding this so-called non-existent distinction between law and legal when they are both the same... law = contract... legal = contract. *** ** * The following comment by Bryan Parker in response to my comment above which states as follows: "correct, the contract makes what is legal, and contracts can be amended. The source of Law is found in Natural Law, this is unchanging and not amendable."

[@JennWest-Liberty]

I address most of these issues in other videos. But no, legal is not lawful. There are many issues you brought up that are quite legitimate issues but the devil is sometimes in the details.

[@joro2743]

@@JennWest-Liberty... thank you for your response. And please know that your sincere attempted efforts at breaking down the understanding of law for clarification and comprehension are greatly appreciated. HOWEVER, the information presented/provided in this video is without merit as proven by the simple premise that all "legal" issues derive from the source of "law" and therefore "legal" is the same as "lawful"... and all so-called "fictions" are not "fictions" because "fictions" are things that do NOT exist... and thusly legal "fictions" are actual "ARTIFICIAL" (not fiction) legal entities and or actual "ARTIFICIAL" (not fiction) legal constructs with "actual" existing rights, titles, interests and corresponding duties, obligations, and responsibilities. And such misinformation as presented in this video only serves to confound and confuse your sheep (viewers who are aspiring law scholars) and which such misinformation inevitably will lead your sheep (aspiring law students) to the slaughter.

[@JennWest-Liberty]

Unfortunately all legal issues do not derive their source from law. Much of what is legal is not in accordance with natural law or custom and therefore are not "lawful." There are far too many ways in which proof can be shown that legal is not always lawful, it is suppose to be lawful but often is not as law encompasses moral and many contracts are deceitful, contain legal language which kost do jot understand, allow for too much interpretation by bought and paid for judges, etc. legal is simply mans law. Lawful is what is natural law, divine law. Many law books and legal text books show the breakdown into types of law and the breakdown is not what you suggest; that legal and law are one in the same simply because there are many types of law. When the legal system does not conform to certain laws then it is not lawful. Legal systems MAY be lawful when they actually conform to "law." If legal and lawful were exactly the same, we would not have to distinguish between the two by using two different words. The difference is made also in latin where the words are different and i would suppose the difference is made in other languages also and that the concepts of freedom, and being bound, are also written about since the inception of language.

[@JennWest-Liberty]

@@joro2743 the information in this video is accurate. It has always been know that what is legal must conform to The Law as opposed to "the law." Fictions in the legal sense, as many words have a different use in Law, means man made. Man made laws can either conform to what is Natural or dont. When they dont they are "legal fictions" .... not "fictions" but "legal fictions." There are also of course, figurative law and metaphorical law. The book shown here is from a law review from 1930's. I also have a more recent book by LaRue an attorney who has a book called Constitutional Law as Fiction. Law without being Lawful is arbitrary and without sense, such as what is listed in the Declaration of Independence. Arbitrary. You could say arbitrary "law" is then "fiction" and not law at all. Arbitrary law not following what is Lawful is a dictate likely by force and without authority or reason. Therefore its just BS. Most laws are BS. They come from a government that only exists because we sign their papers, it is a fictional government and we make it real by contracting with them. The legal constructs you mention above sound like contracts. At this point that is all the corporate government is. It exists in contemplation. Your reply may seem sensical but when you add all the other logical information it actually is very elementary. I cannot in any way ever be capable of giving all information on Law or law in one single video. Leading sheep to slaughter? Thats silly. Your use of ... "as-if" & "to be" lacks "to me."

[@onewiselady6412]

@ Jo Ro Interesting that your main concern is misleading potential law students… 🤔 Yet no concern over the real living men and women being railroaded and deceived into a belief or better yet - a big fat lie and epic scam Show me one “legal jurisdiction/statute/legislation” that applies to living wo/men. I’ll wait ….. ⏰ Show me where any of these FICTIONS or AUTHORITIES ever disclosed just one of the following facts - our FICTIONAL SIGNATURE creates credit, banks don’t loan/Lend anything, everything is commerce/contracts, debased dog Latin IS NOT PART OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, legalese & the 4 corner rule all trick/deceive us into thinking we know what a document actually says/means, personage/barratry is fraudulent and criminal, lawyers need a license to legally lie, we are our own attorney, The Unam Sanctum owns our souls/soles, each derivative of your “name/person/fiction” is a trust account, your state birth certificate is not you,l (he who creates, owns) they need our consent to act as trustee, “legal jurisdictional courts” practice administrative/maritime/admiralty/law of the sea, income tax is voluntary….. I think you get the picture! Once you get this far down the bunny hole - there is no going back. Our governments are pure theatre - corporations with ABN numbers basically masquerading as a Parliament. Evil men and women who sold themselves out for a title/prestige/power/fiat. The most disgusting species on the land. All of this madness stops when we start saying no! It will only stop when you realise that YOU are enabling it by attempting to censor/filter essential information. I had to read your comments a few times before making the effort to write this one. It’s people like you that are the problem !!! Sending you some balls and guts so you too can own this lifetime of fukery and take responsibility to DO-SOMETHING-ABOUT-IT instead of pretending to know better. You obviously have never been dragged into family court or comprehend that you created the credit for that “mortgage” and are REPaying these numbers on a screen, plus interest because you obviously enjoy being FINANCIALLY-R*PED. Yeah no thanks. Go read a Blacks Law Dictionary instead of a government sponsored/funded interpretation and babble 🤦‍♀️ Or …. You could just simply shut up 🤷🏼‍♀️