Pro Se Litigants

Introduction
This Blog entry will illustrate not only what a Pro Se litigant is, but will also tear apart those claiming to be sovereign or having a mythical strawman that acts in their stead. I will distinguish the difference between appearing Pro Se and In Propria Persona to make this point and end the above noted nonsense.

Some references in this Post are taken from trusted information off the Internet. Off course I created the memes that ridicule those practicing silly things. That being said, most assertions are mine based on observations and law study.

Thus, the purpose of this writing is to illustrate how the Rule of Law actually works so the dissidents stop with their meritless arguments. Like I have said, There is a right way to do things and a wrong way... It is best to do it right.

Really.

Kings & States
are considered
to be sovereign,
not individuals.

Pro Se and In Propria Persona
The Latin breakdown of terms makes it simply clear : the former accepts personal jurisdiction, the latter infers being able to challenge it.

Pro Se broken down in Latin basically means, To move forward or proceed as a litigant without the aid of an attorney or a lawyer as one's self...

Pro. Latin meaning: in front of, before, for, forward.
Se. Latin meaning: himself, one's self.

In Propria Persona broken down in Latin basically means, Moving forward as a litigant without the aid of an attorney or a lawyer as a particular "person"...

In Propria. Latin meaning: in their own.
Persona. Latin meaning: mask, character, personality.

This speaks to personal status or jurisdiction. Statutes are predicated to apply to certain "persons" or "things". This is grounded in what is referred to as private or special law. The term "person" is in relation to such law forms. In a sense, what "mask" is the man (or woman) wearing... is the "person" subject to it?

Simply stated, persona actually means mask... "In ancient Latin the word persona meant "mask." The word also can refer to a character played by an actor. While a persona is not considered a lie or a falsehood, its meaning implies that it is only part of the truth. Like all masks, there is "real" person beneath."

The mask may not apply to the man or woman in the realm of private and special law, but they are still persons. The question is: What "person" are they... In other words, Do they wear the mask for any particular statutory instance?

Other Relevant Factors
The "Law of Persons" is discussed in a book titled The Institutes of Roman Law by Rudolph Sohm. The book goes over in detail what the law industry toys with to maintain the gray area caused by the 14th Amendment legal system.

Pro Per can mean essentially the same and Pro Se. Latin construct is precise. Many don't understand the variance from the English... not even attorneys...

What does Pro Per and Pro Se mean? Pro Per and Pro Se are used interchangeably. They are both short for “propria persona”, which is Latin for “for oneself”. The terms Pro Per and Pro Se usually apply to a person who represents themselves in a lawsuit.
~Affordable Family Law

In personam, literally translating to “against the person”, refers to courts' power to adjudicate matters directed against a party. In personam jurisdiction is one of the two forms of personal jurisdiction with the other being in-rem jurisdiction. ~Cornell Law

In Rem is simply against one's property... of course such jurisdiction being against the "person". The mask principle still applies in the case of In Personam. And, the first definition watered down the Latin which perverts its meaning.

The Silent Army
As can be seen above, you can see the law industry likes to use words of specific nature "interchangeably". This is just one of the deceptions used to cover-up the deceit known by the Bar... being a private monopoly that I refer to as The Silent Army in my book, The Red Amendment. They maintain the 14th Amendment system put in place for the antagonists so they all get richer.

Another set of words they like to use interchangeably are attorney, lawyer, and counsel. All have a specific meaning. Current attorneys and lawyers were not around until the Bar Association was founded after "Reconstruction".

The point? In early constitutional development counsel was used, not those terms. Consequently, such terms weren't used thus counsel could simply be one of competence. And to keep the record straight, that assertion has nothing to do with the "Missing 13th Amendment" and titles of nobility... although a gaggle of Bar attorneys love to use Esquire behind their name illustrating nobility.

These agents of sophistry have setup the definitions in United States law to define people or legal entities as "whoever" to confuse the issues. Only those who study law can determine what the watered down terms actually mean.

Finally, there is actually a clause in the 14th Amendment that disallows those serving government to talk about the damage "Reconstruction" does. Section 3 of the amendment is what lawyers are using against Trump and his "Make America Great Again" campaign. Section 4 suppresses those serving government in going against the amendment's political rebellion.

Person Verses Thing
A little while back, I did a Post titled, One Being A Thing Too. To better understand this section, it would be best you review that particular writing.

Things are property. Persons are people (natural persons) or corporations (artificial persons). Corporations are actually things because they are property and they are birthed by the "State". Slaves were/are property, i.e., things.

The above holds true under the 14th Amendment system. Sohm noted in his book that the lawyers of the Roman Empire brought corporations under the "Law of Persons". The same thing was done under the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the amendment states "all persons born or naturalized are citizens.".

This is just a sample of the perversion of these 14th Amendment insurgents. The Bar Association keeps the operation in full swing to the detriment of Americans.

Congress has defined corporations as citizens for certain instances. A citizen can vote... corporations cannot. There is a major political problem here, but no one discusses it except me. It is my contention that the "citizen" was brought down to the level of a legal entity or a corporation. These 14th Amendment citizens are the "slave", i.e., thing, noted in Section 4 of the amendment.

No. People aren't corporations. They are legal entities like corporations. Again, persons are people (natural persons) or corporations (artificial persons).

Although both legal entities are referred to as "persons", they're actually things. Per Section 4 of the amendment, as they are slaves is why the "public debt shall not be questioned". This stealthy, embedded formula allows for unlimited debt which causes inflation and also allows for a perpetual, higher debt ceiling.

To understand more about the average American national (n.) being a federal person, go over Part 6 and Part 7 of PAC's 14th Amendment presentation. Law reviews illustrate how the "person" language created corporate domination.

The Marriage License provides government Equity Jurisdiction.

Everyone Consents
There are a lot of people termed Sovereign Citizens that pull the "I don't consent" card. Well, that is going to be an automatic FAIL. A thing called the Social Contract pulls them into the system of federal-state statutory wizardry.

That established, there are two types of consent:

Explicit. Also sometimes referred to as express consent.
Implicit. Also sometimes referred to as implied or inferred consent.

To expand on implicit, the verb imply means “to indicate or suggest something without actually stating it.” The verb infer commonly means “to guess or use reasoning to come to a conclusion based on what has been suggested.”

As you can see from these definitions, imply and infer are often used in the same context. And that’s why they can be confused— because they’re often used at opposite ends of the same situation. When someone implies something (suggests it without saying it explicitly), you have to infer their meaning (conclude what they mean based on the hints that have been given).

There are a plethora of ways to consent implicitly, and also explicitly.

I have gone over this with people for 25 years. The federal citizenship is somewhat implicit, but not really. Everyone that votes as a U.S. citizen has an express consent. Others perhaps are considered to be of an implied consent as the 14th Amendment naturalizes everyone at birth. Voting is an act of rebellion. Those not voting are in bed with those who are as citizens... and on the dole.

Being on the dole is having a Social Security Number, getting a passport, signing any kind of government form, and so on and so forth. Judges will take silent notice of this and will walk over anyone that claims not to be a "citizen and national of the United States". This is the reason why so many "Sovereign Citizens" get railroaded. They've been had by Clowns Who Swindle.

Oh, one more thing here. People think government is a fiction. Have you ever seen a strawman in jail/prison? The person – man or woman – takes the punishment. Because that principle is nonsense, as shown herein.

Fictions – legal fictions – are presumptions made based on the lack of a perfect set of facts but there's a strong belief the item presumed can be proven true.

Government knows the status for those who believe that they are "sovereign". The Illuminati makes sure of that with its created sting operations put forth by the Anti-Defamation League and its Southern Poverty Law Center.

Great Scott My Son
The court case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) effectively slammed the door on all persons, i.e., foreigners, with the exception of Anglos. The person created by the 14th Amendment gives all those people their Civil and Political Rights.

Although such lawful citizens were exempt – or more so immune – from it, slowly they took the doles sucking them into the Red Vortex that the amendment created. Soon every so-called American was tagged a political slave...

All such federal persons have constitutional liberty, not freedom. And like everything else the Luciferian Bunch accomplishes, it was Great!

Seriously.
Do you really know who you follow on the Internet?

Review Of The Subjects
Finalizing those "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" under the 14th Amendment body politic, there are a few things to consider for subject/citizens... which are actually denizens of a foreign corporation. Why? Strictly, the United States of America is not a nation under the Law of Nations, the several states are.

See. I really did mean subjects. Not subject.

Yes, Sir. The chumps who dwindle have been taken by clowns who swindle which takes all persons qualified to have constitutional status deeper into the Red Vortex. It is sad for true Americans that people are the way they are.

Like Jurist/Judge Robert Bork said: "I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself." Simply, reading case law is not knowing law. It is my position that the use of case law is a violation of Due Process.

As a matter of fact, there is this in support...

FEDERAL COMMON LAW: A concept intriguing to legal scholars,
strictly speaking, a nonentity. —15 Am J2d Com L § 4

Common law is based on applications to the status quo public. Since the 14th Amendment and its Communist Association is voluntary for Anglos, there is a slim chance they may not be subject. After 150 years, a very slim chance.

There is one way out from under the Liberty of "Reconstruction" in order to take back true Freedom under the Constitution proper. I brought the remedy forward over 25 years ago, but the adversary with their Operatives and the incompetent types – i.e., Opportunists – have overshadowed the Godly mission.

All such types have kept people in the system dealing with costly appeals. They have bought into a belief that defense is better than a good offense. Moreover, the Operatives and Opportunists create their own governments – which really amounts to a Mickey Mouse Club – for United States persons, among other nonsense, that makes them believe they are free from government.

It is truly a sad state of public affairs... Pun intended.

I see his corpus is covered, but where is his mask?

Really.

The Summary
NO. There is no cestui que vie trust in your "all cap name" that is going to make you rich. Like I noted, U.S. citizens are slaves to the public debt. Like I've said before, people love America for its Marxist Materialism grounded in debt. The complexity of this RED Nightmare accelerated in the 1960's with added civil rights and immigration flooding the federal states with more foreigners.

Seriously. What makes you think that there is a pile of money for you to claim? Especially when you are in bed with a body politic of rebelling criminals.

The all caps is no doubt a style that references Private Roman Civil Law. It's kind of an ode to Roman letters, which were all caps. What is really sad is partaking of the dole system of Reconstruction's Communist Association...

Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum.
He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.

So, there is simply a quid pro quo present. Protection and benefits from the United States for one who fits a statutory definition thus wearing the mask. And as it is said, "Like all masks, there is "real" person (i.e., man) beneath."

And go ahead. Claim to be Sui Juris. You'll be assumed to know everything within this writing and also agree to being a citizen who is subject to all civil law.

To put a cherry on it— There is no cake and eat it too served-up by government.

Simply, proceeding Pro Se is acknowledging jurisdiction and entering court In Propria Persona gives rise to challenge the court's personal jurisdiction. However, most defendants will not have the lawful status to do so.

Now that the Insurgency/Rebellion is over 150 years old, there is little to no chance for defendants to get by the courts with nonsense in the future.

IT'S NOT MY GOVERNMENT. IT'S NOT MY REBELLION.

Learn More About Your Consent
The fact is, most people – or rather persons – could not pass the Title 5 USC litmus test or would fail the Duck Rule test which encompasses the Ashwander Rules that were set forth by the Supreme Court during the 1930's.

See more here on the PAC Alliance site... The Duck Rule

Understand the Red Nightmare, read... The Dual System of Law

————————————————

Leave The Woke-Awake PsyOp Circus Behind...

Get AWARE With The PAC Alliance

Marxist Twaddle... https://pacinlaw.us/twaddle
Join us in Godly Evolution... https://pacinlaw.us/ring

Those are PDF Booklets. You are free to download them and print them out to share. We ask all references to People's Awareness Coalition please remain.

Now Please Get Busy With Us