Most of the current jurisdictions under which people choose to operate are structured competitively and therefore inevitably result in poverty, environmental degradation, debt, and mental suffering; such has been the matrix for a long time.

Within this section we will explore, define, and explain the Four main Jurisdictions of Law which exist and can be utilized.
They are:

1. “Law,” i.e. common law (Scientific Law), which involves unalienable rights, substance, full capacity to contract, and individual sovereignty, and is based on people’s identity as real, bio-spiritual beings (people) and not legal fictions (persons). Includes "Private Contract" law, other people not party too or affected has legal right to impair the obligation of a contract.

2. “Equity,” which derives from the ancient English courts of chancery in which a judge is delegated—by contract with all of the disputing parties—to hear and entertain a civil dispute and formulate a final ruling as to which parties prevail and who owes whom what. In equity, the judge is the unquestioned final arbitrator of the matter and is free (given his authority by contractual agreement from the parties) to use his professional expertise to form a “fair, expert, and unbiased” resolution of the dispute that might involve many more considerations than common law can provide (including things such as compassion and extenuating circumstances outside the purview of common law) for reaching his decision.

3. “Admiralty,” which is the law of the high seas and in which the captain’s word is law. It is Roman Civil Law operating on shipboard. The purpose of all ocean voyages is commerce, i.e. transporting goods or passengers across oceanic waters from port A to port B.

A voyage is a “mission,” a term meaning a “venture in commerce,” concerning which all considerations are sacrificed to the good of the voyage. On board ship the captain is king—sole dictator and decider of all matters—and no one on board possesses any independent rights, standing in law, capacity to contract, etc. This is because everyone on board is presumed to be there because he voluntarily executed a common law contract on land to go on the voyage, surrendering all his rights in exchange for benefiting from the venture. Once on board the ship, however, no one has any right whatsoever to engage in any action without the approval of the captain, nor any right to refrain from complying with any order of the captain. All such rights were contractually surrendered when boarding the ship.

4. “Ecclesiastical law,” which is the law of spiritual or religious realms, in which law is not a function of one’s contracts with secular states, but is formulated and administered in accordance with the contract of the people involved with God (however they conceive of Him/Her/It) and the religious organization/hierarchy. A climate in which civil law and ecclesiastical law jurisdictions have no influence over each other is described by the phrase, “separation of church and state.”

When people do not know and understand what jurisdiction they are subject to and how they got there it creates negative consequences of various degrees, you may even find your physicals life and accumulated wealth (sacred labor) have been taken by a legal process.

You may find yourself asking where did my freedom go. Let's break this down with a little history and introduction to law, starting with the two types from which the Jurisdictions listed above evolved.

The "Founding Fathers" of Americatook care to create a new country founded on the principles of scientific law (also called common) instead of the Political law imposed by the King of England. While successful for a time, the system of scientific principles is no longer utilized in today's legal system, what we are subjected to is political law.

To understand the differences between a scientific legal system and a political one, it is necessary to know how scientific law developed.

Scientific Jurisprudence Fifteen centuries ago the Roman Empire had collapsed. Barbarians had overrun Europe and set up feudal governments. These feudal governmentsbrutal, but they had little interest in the day-to-day affairs of the common people. As long as the commoners paid taxes and fought wars, their new governments left them alone.

This meant in many kingdoms there were no government court systems. Whenever two individuals had a dispute, they had to work it out on their own. We can imagine what happened. Disputes often led to brawls or worse. After several bloody incidents, the commoners would begin looking for ways to avoid violence. When two individuals had a dispute, their families and friends would gather round and tell them to find some neutral third party to listen to their stories and make a decision.

Legal historians tell us the most highly respected and neutral third party in the community was usually a clergyman. The disputants would be brought before this clergyman and he would listen to both sides of the story. The clergyman would then consult moral guidelines, and make a decision. This decision would become a precedent for later decisions.

As decades passed, the precedents were written down and kept in a safe place. Persons who were not too clear about how to handle an unusual business transaction or some other sticky matter could consult them to better plan ahead and avoid problems.

Eventually, some of the clergymen became so skilled at listening to cases that they acquired considerable prestige. Demand for their services grew, and they became full-time judges. The body of precedents they produced became the law of common usage, the "common law".
In its early years, common law was a private legal system completely independent of government. This is important. Students are taught that law and government are virtually the same thing, but this is quite wrong. Law and government are two very different institutions and they do not necessarily go together. Law is a service; government is force.

Two Fundamental Laws A major problem a common law judge encountered was disputes between persons from different communities or of different religions. Guidelines on which cases were decided had to be those which all persons held in common.

There are two fundamental laws on which all major religions and philosophies agree: (1) do what you have agreed to do, and, (2) do not encroach on others or their property.
Common law was the body of definitions and procedures growing out of these two laws: "Do what you have agreed to do" was the basis of contract law. "Do not encroach on others or their property" was the basis of criminal and tort law.

This is how common law became the source of all our basic laws against theft, fraud, kidnapping, murder, etc. These acts were not made illegal by Congress; they were prohibited by centuries-old common law principles.

Legal Consistency A skilled common law judge would try to make all his decisions logically consistent with the two fundamental laws. Common law was not only a private legal system, it was a scientific one. Abraham Lincoln considered `Euclid's Geometry' to be one of his most important law books; he studied it to be sure the logic of his cases was airtight.

One of the most important characteristics of common law was its certainty. It had evolved very carefully over many centuries, changing little from one decade to the next. The two fundamental laws remained always in place, a stabilizing force. The community could expect their legal environment to remain reasonably orderly.
In fact, common law was so logical and sensible that the typical American could study and understand it! It was regarded as a source of wisdom. The great British statesman Edmund Burke said of early America, "In no country, perhaps, in the world, is law so general a study." He observed, "all who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business... were so many books as those on law exported to the colonies."

A British general trying to govern America in the 1700s complained that Americans were impossible to buffalo; they were all lawyers.

Political Law Political law is the opposite of common law. Based on political power – brute force – not on the two fundamental laws. It is crude and primitive. It has no requirement for logic or morality. It changes whenever the political wind changes. Fickle and tangled; no one can completely understand it. Democracy or dictatorship, it doesn't matter; political law is arbitrary. You do whatever the powerholders say, or else. Right or wrong. This is why majority rule is mob rule. The majority is as human as any dictator. Like the dictator, they do not necessarily vote for what is right; they vote for what they want.

Their wants change constantly; so political power destroys businessmen's ability to plan ahead. James Madison asked in the `Federalist Papers', "What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?"
The American Revolution was fought over the difference between scientific law and political law. Government officials had encroached into the private business, lives, and property of the colonists, and the colonists resented this. "All men are created equal". God has given no one special permission to encroach on others, government included.

The leaders of the American Revolution believed common law was superior to political law. After the revolution, they created the Bill of Rights and other documents based on common law principles. The goal was to make the superiority of these principles permanent, and to restrain government's efforts otherwise.

Discovery vs. Enactment The founder's understanding of the scientific nature of common law can be seen in this statement by Thomas Paine: "Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them." Common law was a process of discovery: There were courts before there was law.
The premise of common law was that there is a Higher Law than political law; the judges tried to discover and apply this Law. It was carefully, logically, worked out, case after case, century after century, much like the laws of physics or chemistry.

Political law is an enactment process. Legislators – lawmakers – make changes according to whatever political pressures they happen to be feeling at the moment. Something that seems right today can be very wrong tomorrow. In fact, under political law the frequent redefining of right and wrong is considered necessary; during re-election lawmakers proudly boast of the number of new laws they have enacted.

In short, we now live in a world where it is assumed politicians have some divine power to make law. In 1788, Patrick Henry realized this could happen. During his struggle to prevent creation of a federal government he warned, "Congress, from their general powers, may fully go into the business of human legislation."
Henry's warning was ignored, of course, and today's legal system is the consequence. `Business Week' says that each year in the U.S. there are more than 100,000 new laws, rules and regulations enacted. This is a primary reason the economy is a shambles. Tax rates, money supply, trade restrictions, licensing laws, and thousands of other factors are stirred around in a witch's brew of regulation.

Much of this brew is lunacy. In `The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation', newsman Dick Hyman cites 600 examples of our political law. In Massachusetts, says Hyman, it is illegal to put tomatoes in clam chowder. A Texas law says that when two trains meet at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop and neither shall proceed until the other has gone. The Arkansas legislature once enacted a law forbidding the Arkansas River to rise higher than a certain limit.

Common law was not perfect, but it was consciously aimed in a specific direction, that of truth and justice. Political law has no aim at all, other than to obtain and use political power for whatever purposes the powerholders decide. Common law historically has had strong popular support; indeed it was the principle upon which this country was founded. It weathered continuous political assault until the politically manufactured exigencies of the New Deal finally overwhelmed it.

Liberty vs. Permission We deserve to know the truth, that under political law people have no genuine liberties, only permissions. We do not have freedom of speech – we have permission to speak. We do not have freedom to trade – we have licensed permission to trade. These permissions can be restricted or revoked at the whim of the powerholders.

Under scientific law, the individual's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property were held to be gifts granted by the Creator; they could not be infringed. Says Arthur R. Hogue in `Origins of the Common Law', "The common law is marked by a doctrine of the supremacy of law... All agencies of government must act upon established principles... The king, like his subjects, was under the law."
Our attempt to rescue civilization will fail if we continue living under political law. Even if hundreds of reforms are enacted, the next group of politicians can easily use political law to overturn them.

Generally speaking, the most important thing to know about jurisdiction is this:

This means that whatever money you use in your interactions with others defines what laws are attached to the transaction - what governance system. If you use a U.S. Dollar (Federal Reserve Note) you are invoking (choosing) their laws attached to the use of their money, which you are using and paying a use fee for in the form of taxes.

Alternatively a local exchange for time, points, congregation credits, shells, whatever the people involved agree on can be used as long as people agree to use it; including creating a FREE global currency everyone can earn into. We expect that to happen in the Information Age, making sovereignty a viable topic today - the potential of a global cyber-space free jurisdiction allows sovereignty to be relevant for the first time since man walked out of the Wilderness and began the Agricultural Age.

By definition, if one wants to live as a Free and Sovereign being, they need a non-governmental legal vehicle with which to interact with the commercial world as non-competitive non-combatants, such as a Church like the Vatican does - they have a contract under God; without which pre-existing contract you are by default placed/perceived to be on the Ship (Citizenship) of State in Admiralty Law where the Captains word becomes/IS the law, and you have freely forfeited your rights.

The adjacent video explains about the "Citizen of the United States" as denoted by an uppercase "C" at Article 1 Section 2 of the organic or original Constitution, and which remains to be the inherent right of every "Natural Person" in America per Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 first adopted in 1787; versus....

A secondary and subclass of citizen known as a "citizen of the United States" as denoted by a lowercase "c" under the 14th Amendment, which was ostensibly drafted to provide the same "rights" to recently freed slaves that were secured to free Citizens by the Bill of Rights, and extended to every free Person in the several States by Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1.

Was there such thing as a "U.S. Citizen" or "Citizen of the United States" prior to 1868 ? Of course there was.


However, the founding fathers of America designed the citizens sovereignty to be derived from one's native State first and foremost (and not the federal government as 14th Amendment citizenship is) and then by virtue of that primary State Citizenship, to extend access (for appeals and joint security, and interstate commerce) federal protections should a state violate a persons natural rights. The organic constitution of 1787 officially recognized natural sovereign rights of the individual - these are rights; all else are privileges.

Bu understanding what jurisdiction you are operating in legally, as well as the rules (written laws) of that jurisdiction, You will be far more prepared to live a free life. By using various legal vehicles from the four jurisdictional options described above, you can construct many alternatives to achieving your life goals,with limited use of your nation Citizen (your NAME). Some options include Trusts, Churches, Corporations, Foundations, and private contract associations such as fraternal brother/sister hoods.

We are free will beings, with the capacity to be self-responsible; we only need do it! By our actions we invoke the jurisdiction we want to police/adjudicate/govern our transaction. For example a Corporation has by-laws for internal governance laws, they report to their Secretary of State (include State Laws), the State is pledged to the Federal Government so federal laws also apply. On the other hand a private church association for example is a jurisdiction created by contracts, unto itself; expressly separated fro the corporate jurisdiction. There are many jurisdictions, and sub-jurisdictions through which you may express your-self. Choose them wisely as means tofreely express the various dimensional aspects of your Self, Community, Family, and Soul.