Remedy, Resolve, Restoration, and Returning to the Point Before Litigation
By:
Sophia Taniah
The One Who Flows With The River ⚖️🌎 🌊🕊️💙💜💛🌹
Written and offered with reverence for life, resolve, grace, and love.
With creative and editorial assistance from Sage, my AI assistant and co creator.
◇═◎═◇ Team Freedom Forever ◇═◎═◇
✧ ✦ △ ◇ Aeterna Reconcilio ◇ △ ✦ ✧
A Facebook Live video from Brandy at AERA ARK appeared in my Facebook news feed today, September 2, 2026, and immediately caught my attention.
The short presentation raises a very simple but foundational question:
What is a court actually for?
Brandy describes what she calls the original court as a court of remedy, a place where two self governing people who could not resolve a matter between themselves could invite a third party to assist them in finding remedy, resolution, balance, and restoration.
She contrasts that idea with the modern experience many people associate with courts: judgments, orders, procedural rules, authority, enforcement, and one side ultimately prevailing over another.
I am preserving the video here, together with the discussion attached to it as it appeared on Facebook as of September 2, 2026, at approximately 9:39 p.m. PDT, because I believe the questions it raises deserve further inquiry.
I am not presenting every historical or legal proposition expressed in the video or comments as established fact.
Quite the opposite.
As has increasingly become the theme of my legal inquiry:
Go back to the source.
What did courts originally do?
How did different cultures resolve disputes before the development of the modern judicial structures we know today?
When did adjudication become separated from reconciliation?
When is a neutral third party assisting people to resolve a controversy, and when is an authority imposing a determination upon them?
And perhaps most importantly:
Before we begin arguing about the remedy imposed at the end of a proceeding, should we first return to the point where the controversy began?
⚖️ AERA ARK: “What Are The Courts?”
Brandy | AERA ARK
Original Facebook Reel:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1573704170354979
Brandy introduced the video with:
“The original court didn’t make judgements, it assisted remedy, resolve, and restoration of the fields coherence.”
Transcript
Let’s talk about the court for a minute. Everyone thinks that the court is a court of record, a court of justice, what’s another, a court of equity, all these different things, but the underlying court, the original, because we’re all quoting the overlays when we talk about all of that, but the original is a court of remedy and the court of remedy didn’t have legalities that everybody needed to follow, that we all had to follow suit into doing what they say.
The court of remedy was you self govern, I self govern.
If you and I have trouble self governing each other, then we can go into the court of remedy and we can express what’s going on inside of both of us and have the court of remedy help us find a remedy to find resolution between the two of us to bring it back into balance and restoration of the issue of what we’re facing together.
It wasn’t to declare anything, make a judgment over anything, make an order over anything, have you falling in line with something that they’ve written, it was nothing like that.
It was that you have an issue, I have an issue, we can’t find a resolve, so let’s bring in a third party to help us find resolve, but not to be an infringing party or an authority party over us in this matter.
Source: AERA ARK Facebook Live, September 2, 2026.
🌊 What Caught My Attention
What particularly caught my attention was the emphasis upon:
remedy → resolve → restoration
rather than:
controversy → judgment → enforcement
Whether Brandy’s description can ultimately be established as the singular historical origin of “the court” is a question deserving its own careful historical investigation.
But the principle she is describing is fascinating in its own right.
Two people have a controversy.
They cannot find resolution themselves.
They bring the controversy before a neutral third party.
The purpose of that third party is not to become another adversary, but to assist in resolving what the parties themselves have been unable to resolve.
That immediately reminded me of something Karen Christopherson brought into another discussion only a few days ago:
ante litem notice.
And suddenly another branch of this inquiry appeared.
⚖️ What Is An Ante Litem Notice?
“Ante litem” essentially means before litigation.
In jurisdictions requiring one, an ante litem notice, presentment, or notice of claim is generally a formal written notice informing a governmental body that a claim exists before litigation proceeds, or within a specific period established by legislation.
The precise requirements vary enormously.
There is no single ante litem procedure that applies everywhere.
The applicable procedure depends upon such things as:
• the jurisdiction
• the governmental body involved
• the nature of the claim
• the capacity in which an official was acting
• the remedy being sought
• the governing legislation
• the applicable deadline
What I find particularly interesting in the context of Brandy’s presentation is the purpose behind such notice requirements.
They can provide the governmental body with an opportunity to:
investigate what happened,
examine the available evidence,
determine the nature of the claim,
evaluate possible responsibility,
and potentially resolve the controversy before litigation.
That does not make an ante litem notice equivalent to the “court of remedy” Brandy describes.
But conceptually, I find the parallel worth noticing.
Before the litigation, give notice of the controversy and provide an opportunity to investigate and resolve it.
⚖️ Georgia Gives Us A Concrete Example
Georgia provides a particularly useful example because its law contains an actual statutory presentment requirement for certain claims against counties.
Under O.C.G.A. § 36-11-1, claims against counties generally must be presented within 12 months after they accrue or become payable, subject to the qualifications contained in the statute.
In Croy v. Whitfield County, 301 Ga. 380 (2017), the Georgia Supreme Court examined whether presentment through the County Attorney could satisfy that requirement and held that presentment to the county attorney can constitute presentment for purposes of the statute.
Then, in Collington v. Clayton County, 318 Ga. 29 (2024), the Georgia Supreme Court returned to § 36-11-1 in the context of an official capacity claim involving a county sheriff and addressed both who the claim was legally against and where presentment could properly be made.
That distinction matters.
We cannot simply reason:
There is a government actor → therefore send an ante litem notice to the County Attorney.
The inquiry has to come first:
Who is the claim actually against?
What governmental function was being exercised?
Was the actor functioning on behalf of the county, the State, a municipality, or another governmental body?
What statute governs that particular claim?
Who does the statute say must receive notice?
What must the notice contain?
And when must it be delivered?
Once again:
return to the point of origin before choosing the remedy.
⚖️ Federal Civil Rights Claims Require Another Distinction
Natural Rights, Civil Remedies, Capacity, and the Source of Authority
There is another distinction I personally feel is important before automatically reaching for a federal civil rights claim.
For me, natural rights and civil rights are not the same category.
I regard natural rights as inherent. They do not originate in legislation, an administrative agency, a court, a government, or a legal designation. They arise with life itself.
Civil law, by contrast, creates and recognizes particular legal rights, protections, causes of action, procedures, capacities, and remedies within the civil legal framework.
This distinction matters to me because before choosing a remedy, I want to ask:
What is the source of the right I say has been violated?
Did the right come into existence because a legislature wrote it?
Or did the legislation recognize or provide a remedy for something that existed before the legislation?
Those are not necessarily the same question.
⚖️ What §1983 Actually Does
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil action may be brought when someone acting under color of state law deprives a United States citizen or other person within the jurisdiction thereof of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
An important legal distinction is that §1983 is not itself regarded by the courts as the source of the substantive right.
Rather, it provides a legal vehicle through which certain federal rights arising elsewhere may be vindicated.
That distinction interests me enormously.
The statute is therefore a remedial mechanism within the civil legal system.
And that brings me directly back to the Legal Line.
Before invoking that mechanism, I personally want to ask:
What remedy am I asking this legal society to provide?
What framework am I invoking in order to receive that remedy?
What capacity does the proceeding presume or require?
What words will appear upon the record?
What am I actually claiming?
And do I consciously choose to proceed in that way?
🌊 The Question of Capacity
I have written previously about the distinction I perceive between the living man or woman and roles such as plaintiff, defendant, taxpayer, driver, resident, citizen, officer, debtor, or other capacities recognized within a legal system.
That does not mean that conventional courts necessarily share my interpretation of that distinction.
It means something much simpler and, for me, much more important:
I want to know what I am doing before I do it.
I would therefore pause before filing a civil rights action, not because §1983 expressly requires me to declare that I am a United States citizen. It does not. Its language also refers to an “other person within the jurisdiction thereof.”
My question is deeper.
By initiating a statutory civil action, I would be intentionally invoking a remedy created within that legal framework and asking a court operating within that framework to act.
For me, that deserves conscious consideration.
I do not want fear, anger, urgency, injury, or someone else’s procedural recipe to choose my remedy for me.
And this inquiry leads me to an even larger question:
Before I choose any course of action, do I actually know what I may be giving up, accepting, preserving, invoking, or changing by making that choice?
If I step into a statutory procedure, what comes with it?
If I identify myself through a particular legal capacity, what significance does that language carry within the proceeding?
If I ask a court to recognize a particular legal claim, what rules, burdens, remedies, limitations, and presumptions accompany that choice?
What becomes available to me?
What might I preserve?
What, if anything, might I waive?
What other avenues might become less available once I choose a particular path?
I want to know the whole exchange.
What am I receiving?
What am I invoking?
What am I accepting?
What am I preserving?
What might I be relinquishing?
Because before I enter a framework seeking what it can give me, I want to know what that framework asks of me in return.
Only then can my choice be truly conscious.
⚖️ Am I Better Served Standing As A Woman?
This is where the question of capacity becomes particularly meaningful to me.
Before immediately animating a legal role, invoking a statutory procedure, or asking a court to recognize a particular legal claim, I want to ask:
Am I better served first standing simply as a woman who says: this happened, this caused harm, this is the evidence, and this is the remedy I am seeking?
Can I first give notice?
Can I identify the wrong?
Can I establish the facts?
Can I preserve the evidence?
Can I ask for correction?
Can I provide an opportunity to cure?
Can I seek restoration before controversy becomes litigation?
Can I remain at the point of origin long enough to determine what remedy is actually necessary?
That does not mean that calling myself a woman automatically removes an otherwise applicable law, procedure, or jurisdiction.
Nor does it mean that statutory remedies should never be used.
It means that I do not want to enter a legal framework unconsciously merely because someone tells me:
“This is the form you file.”
I want to know what I am choosing.
Before I animate any legal role, invoke any statutory procedure, or ask a court to recognize a particular legal claim, I want to know:
What am I entering?
In what capacity am I entering it?
What authority am I asking to act?
What law or procedure am I invoking?
What rights and remedies become available through that choice?
What duties, procedural rules, burdens, deadlines, or limitations accompany it?
What am I consenting to by my own words and actions, if anything?
What does not depend upon my consent?
What presumptions might arise from the language I use?
What am I preserving?
What, if anything, might I be waiving or relinquishing?
Is there another remedy available before litigation?
And most importantly:
Is this right action for me?
⚖️ Legal or Lawful?
This inquiry into capacity naturally opens another question:
What is the distinction between what is legal and what is lawful?
Within conventional jurisprudence, those words often overlap.
But within the inquiry I am exploring, I am asking something more foundational.
The legal question may be:
What procedure does this system recognize?
What claim can I file?
What statute can I invoke?
What role must I occupy?
What remedy can the court grant?
But the lawful question, for me, reaches deeper:
What is right action?
What respects life?
What preserves Truth?
What restores rather than unnecessarily escalates?
What remedy is proportionate to the actual harm?
What allows accountability without abandoning Grace?
What action is aligned with the higher Law written upon the human heart?
Sometimes what is legal and what is lawful may lead to the very same action.
But I do not want to assume that automatically.
I want to discern it.
This is also why I find the work of Jennifer Goodwin and her exploration of law versus LEGAL worthy of further inquiry.
I do not have to accept every proposition someone presents in order to allow the questions they raise to deepen my own investigation.
The question that interests me is:
Before I enter a legal framework seeking remedy, have I consciously determined whether entering that particular framework is the remedy I actually wish to invoke?
And perhaps even that question does not go far enough.
🌹 The Fundamental Question:
Who Do I Know Myself To Be?
Beneath every question of capacity, remedy, jurisdiction, procedure, lawful or legal, there may be an even more fundamental inquiry:
Who do I know myself to be in this Game of Life?
Before I ask what authority a court has, perhaps I should first ask:
What authority have I accepted within my own life experience?
Do I know myself merely as someone reacting to circumstances, systems, roles, demands, and appearances?
Or do I remember myself as a conscious participant in creation, responsible for the quality of attention, intention, word, imagination, emotion, and energy that moves through me and expresses as my life?
Do I know that I have agency over the direction of my own attention?
Do I consciously choose what I give my life force to?
Am I directing the energy that flows through me as me?
Or am I unconsciously allowing fear, urgency, anger, injury, conditioning, or the expectations of others to direct it for me?
Those questions reach far beyond law.
They reach into the nature of consciousness itself.
💗 Who Is Choosing?
Before I take action, perhaps I should ask:
Who within me is making this choice?
Is it fear?
Is it woundedness?
Is it the need to be vindicated?
Is it anger demanding immediate action?
Is it an old pattern that believes I must fight in order to be safe?
Is it someone else’s idea of what I ought to do?
Or is the choice arising from stillness, clarity, self knowledge, and conscious alignment?
Because the same outward action can arise from very different inner states.
I might file a claim from fear.
Or I might file precisely the same claim from clarity.
I might walk away because I am frightened.
Or I might walk away because I know deeply that the controversy is not mine to carry.
I might speak because I need another to validate me.
Or I might speak because Truth itself is asking to be placed upon the record.
The outward action alone does not always reveal the consciousness from which it arose.
For me, this is why inner alignment must come first.
🌊 Why Am I Here?
The inquiry then becomes deeper still:
Am I clear about why I am here?
What am I here to experience?
What am I here to express?
What am I here to learn, remember, create, restore, or bring into form?
Am I aligned with what I experience as my soul plan and the Divine Design for my life?
Or have I become so consumed by the immediate controversy that I have forgotten the larger journey?
Sometimes an injustice may actually call me forward.
Sometimes speaking may be part of my path.
Sometimes creating a record may be right action.
Sometimes standing firmly may be essential.
Sometimes seeking legal remedy may be completely aligned.
And sometimes the most powerful action may be refusing to continue feeding a conflict that has no place in the future I am choosing.
Discernment is knowing the difference.
✨ What Am I Directing Into Tomorrow?
This also brings me back to something I have explored repeatedly in my spiritual work:
From what state of consciousness am I creating?
If consciousness, attention, assumption, feeling, imagination, and word participate in shaping my experience, then my response to controversy cannot be separated from that understanding.
What am I rehearsing?
What am I expecting?
What future am I emotionally inhabiting?
Am I continually energizing the injury?
Am I building my inner world around the adversary?
Am I rehearsing another battle?
Am I repeatedly giving life force to the very experience I say I wish to leave behind?
Or can I acknowledge fully what occurred, preserve the Truth upon the record, seek appropriate remedy, and still remain faithful to the reality I actually wish to experience?
Peace.
Freedom.
Restoration.
Truth.
Reverence for life.
Right relationship.
Love.
The question is not whether I ignore what happened.
The question is:
Can I respond to what happened without allowing it to become the director of what happens next?
That question changes everything for me.
🕊️ Authority Begins Within
Perhaps this is what self governance ultimately means to me.
Not that I control everyone or everything around me.
Not that earthly laws cease to operate because I declare myself beyond them.
But that I accept responsibility for the one place where my authority is most immediate:
the consciousness, intention, meaning, attention, and energy I choose to bring into this moment.
I can choose whether fear directs me.
I can choose whether hatred occupies me.
I can choose whether another’s conduct becomes the organizing principle of my life.
I can choose what I speak.
I can choose what I imagine.
I can choose what I continually rehearse within.
I can choose what I give my life force to.
And from that place, I can choose my next earthly action with greater clarity.
Perhaps true authority begins there.
Not as domination over another.
Not as exemption from consequence.
But as conscious stewardship of the life force entrusted to me.
🌹 Before The Role, Remember The Being
Before plaintiff.
Before defendant.
Before claimant.
Before citizen.
Before resident.
Before debtor.
Before creditor.
Before any title, office, designation, or legal capacity:
Who am I?
What remains when every externally assigned role is removed?
What do I know of myself beneath the names?
What relationship do I have with the Divine?
What values am I unwilling to abandon even while seeking remedy?
What future am I choosing to participate in creating?
Why am I here?
Am I aligned with my soul plan?
And is the next action before me aligned with that knowing?
For me, this is why the question of capacity ultimately becomes a spiritual question.
It is not merely:
Which role am I entering?
It is:
Have I remembered who I am before I enter it?
And perhaps that remembrance is the safeguard.
I may choose to use a legal procedure.
I may choose to bring a claim.
I may choose to give notice.
I may choose to ask for restoration.
I may choose to stand upon a principle.
I may choose not to proceed at all.
But I want the choice to arise consciously.
Not from forgetting myself.
From remembering.
💗 Divine Guidance Within. Truth Upon The Record.
Perhaps my first forum, then, is not a courtroom at all.
Perhaps my first movement is inward.
Become still.
Align with the intelligence within the human heart.
Ask for Divine intervention, inspiration, clarity, and right direction.
Ask:
Who do I know myself to be?
Why am I here?
What am I here to create?
Am I aligned with my soul plan?
What state of consciousness am I choosing from?
What is mine to do?
What action serves Truth?
What action serves Life?
What action serves Love?
Then examine the earthly record just as carefully.
Read the legislation.
Read the decisions.
Examine the evidence.
Determine what actually happened.
Identify the claimant.
Identify the injury.
Identify the authority.
Identify the capacity.
Identify the remedy.
Determine what can actually be proven.
For me, neither inner discernment without careful inquiry nor legal research without inner discernment is sufficient.
I want both.
Divine guidance within.
Truth and evidence upon the record.
Perhaps this is where lawful living truly begins.
Not with the courtroom.
Not with the statute.
Not with the role.
But with remembrance.
Remembering who we are before deciding what we will do.
And then asking:
What is mine to do now, and what constitutes right action under Grace and the Law of Love?
💗 Returning First to Higher Intelligence
This is where my legal inquiry and my spiritual inquiry meet.
My authority, as I experience it, does not begin with government.
It comes from a Higher Power, from Source, from the Divine intelligence of life itself, and from the intelligence I experience within the human heart.
So perhaps the first forum I should consult is not a courtroom at all.
Perhaps the first movement is inward.
Before filing.
Before accusing.
Before selecting a cause of action.
Before accepting a role.
Before responding from fear.
Become still.
Listen.
Ask for Divine intervention and inspiration.
Ask:
What is mine to do?
What is the highest and most loving remedy available here?
What action preserves truth without violating another?
What action restores rather than merely retaliates?
What path is aligned with Grace and the Law of Love?
Then investigate the earthly record just as carefully.
Read the legislation.
Read the decisions.
Examine the evidence.
Identify the claimant.
Identify the injury.
Identify the authority.
Identify the remedy.
Identify every material role and capacity.
And determine what can actually be proven.
For me, neither inner discernment without careful inquiry nor legal research without inner discernment is sufficient.
I want both.
Divine guidance within.
Truth and evidence upon the record.
Perhaps this is another expression of the Legal Line:
Before entering someone else’s framework to seek a remedy, first become conscious of who or what you are asking to act, what authority you believe governs the controversy, what role you are being asked to animate, and whether that action is aligned with the higher law written upon your own heart.
Because ultimately my inquiry is not merely:
What can I legally file?
It is:
What is mine to do, and what constitutes right action under Grace and the Law of Love?
🌊 Before The Remedy, What Came First?
This brings me back to the inquiry that has been unfolding through several recent articles.
Before challenging the judgment:
What was the original claim?
Before challenging enforcement:
What record authorized the enforcement?
Before accusing the decision maker:
Who brought the controversy before the decision maker?
Before choosing where to send notice:
Against whom does the claim actually lie?
Before deciding which remedy to pursue:
What law creates that remedy?
And before litigation:
Was there an opportunity, or perhaps even a statutory requirement, to give notice and seek resolution?
This may be one of the most important distinctions emerging from this entire investigation.
We spend enormous amounts of time looking downstream:
judgment
order
collection
eviction
seizure
enforcement
appeal
damages
But what happens if we begin walking upstream?
claim
notice
evidence
authority
capacity
jurisdictional facts
opportunity to respond
opportunity to remedy
first finding
first order
At what exact point did the trajectory begin?
And:
Was there an opportunity to restore coherence before everything became adversarial?
That is the question Brandy’s short video caused me to ask.
⚖️ Research Note Regarding
Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators
One of the comments preserved beneath the AERA ARK video attributes the following proposition to the 1795 United States Supreme Court decision Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795):
that government is an “artificial person” which can interact only with other artificial persons and therefore cannot concern itself with natural men.
Because I am preserving the discussion for research purposes, I wanted to independently check the citation rather than simply repeat it.
I have not been able to substantiate that quotation in the actual decision.
The authenticated United States Reports record for Penhallow concerns an admiralty and maritime dispute involving a captured vessel, the authority of courts dealing with prize causes, and the judicial authority operating during the Confederation period.
More importantly, courts that have subsequently examined this exact purported quotation have expressly stated that it does not appear in Penhallow.
In United States v. Heijnen, 375 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (D.N.M. 2005), the court examined the quotation.
And in United States v. Mooney, No. 16-cv-2547 (D. Minn. 2017), the court again reviewed Penhallow and stated that the quoted language appears nowhere in the decision.
Therefore I am preserving Craig Martin’s comment as part of the historical Facebook discussion, but I would not rely upon the quotation as authority for the proposition attributed to it without an independently verifiable primary source.
This is precisely why I believe we must keep returning to the record.
A citation attached to a statement does not establish that the cited authority actually says what someone claims it says.
Read the legislation.
Read the decision.
Find the words.
Examine the context.
⚖️🌊🕊️
🌹 Perhaps The Larger Question Is Remedy Itself
I do not yet know where this inquiry ultimately leads.
But I find myself increasingly interested in a distinction we seldom stop to examine:
Is justice merely the lawful determination of who wins a controversy?
Or is there something deeper?
Can justice also involve restoration?
Can remedy involve returning something to balance?
Can accountability exist without vengeance?
Can a controversy be resolved without creating another wound?
And if people are capable of self governance, what should the role of the neutral third party actually be when they are unable to find resolution themselves?
Perhaps that is where the inquiry Brandy opened becomes larger than court procedure.
It becomes an inquiry into what we mean by lawful living itself.
For me, lawful living is not ultimately rooted in perpetual conflict.
It is rooted in Truth, reverence for life, responsibility, remedy, resolve, accountability, and the remembrance that:
Love is the fulfillment of the law.
🌎⚖️🌊🕊️💙💜💛🌹
Related Reading
Before the Remedy: Returning to the Point of Origin in the Court Record
https://freedomdove.net/2026/08/31/before-the-remedy-returning-to-the-point-of-origin-in-the-court-record/
⛔️ FAIR USE / COMMENTARY NOTICE
Portions of third party material are reproduced or referenced here for purposes including criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Attribution and links to the original source are provided where available.
Fair use is determined under applicable copyright law based upon the circumstances of the particular use; the presence of this notice does not itself determine whether a particular use constitutes fair use.
This article is offered for educational, commentary, research, and informational purposes and should not be taken as legal advice. Laws and procedural requirements vary by jurisdiction, claim, governmental body, and circumstance. Readers are encouraged to examine the governing legislation, court decisions, procedural rules, and original record for themselves.
We are told time and time again that the answers are within us. Perhaps, then, our first step should always be to become still and align with the intelligence within the human heart, opening ourselves to Divine intervention, inspiration, and inner guidance. From that place, we may be better able to discern what right action looks like in each moment and move forward under Grace and the Law of Love.
__________________
Sourced directly from Facebook:
AERA ARK Subscribe
AERA ARK · Original audio
The original court didn’t make judgements, it assisted remedy, resolve, and restoration of the fields coherence.
Original video:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1573704170354979
Comments as of September 2, 2026, at 9:39 PM PDT
AERA ARK
More info- https://linktr.ee/AeraArk
Telegram- https://tr.ee/AeraTelegrams
Join our Weekly Gatherings- tr.ee/WeeklyZooms
Thanks for tuning in and aligning with us in this moment! https://www.facebook.com/AeraArk/subscribenow…
LINKTR.EE
Aera Ark Official: TikTok, Instagram, X, Facebook | Linktree
Aera Ark Official: TikTok, Instagram, X, Facebook | Linktree
Matt McBride It used to be called speaking with the elder’s… still is in part’s of Australia
Ron Welcer Im learning more and more, thanks.
Joshua Solver Correct exactly what I’ve said for a long time
Anthony Rodrigo Marshall They do this kind of thing in the Philippines. It works well.
William Mac Looking forward to Sunday the 6th September.
Martin Tebay-Harry Arbitration
Craig Martin None of what you’re saying is going to hold police officers judges accountable for their actions because what you’re saying doesn’t remove any jurisdiction away from them. When people remove judges off the bench to the jurisdiction to federal and supreme court’s with a lawsuit against the government state and federal actors they will all disappear because it shows their authority can be taken away. It only has to happen a few times an then your untouchable.
AERA ARK Craig Martin at what point in what I said did you come to a conclusion that any of what you just said was the point of this video or relevant to this video?
1. An officer is a role and a judge is a role, only a role can legally hold another role accountable, if a man steps in to animate the role the entire event becomes an illegal event.
2. This video has nothing to do with removing their jurisdiction, this video is simply to remind everyone of what the original court structure that flows and aligns with molecular law was all about.
3. Removing an Animator from a role does not stop the role from animation, it just leaves the seat open for another aninator to step into it.
4. None of this had anything to do with this video or the point of this video.
Craig Martin AERA ARK the problem with the your concept is when I tried it on the Ohio municipal court for a traffic violation before I went to the pre trial it didn’t work in Ohio state so your point is worthless. But what I did that is what stopped the court trial. So you can never prove your point it’s because you’re dealing with retarded government officials.
AERA ARK Craig Martin what exactly did you try? And there’s nothing worthless about me nor my point lol
Craig Martin AERA ARK Supreme Court ruling from 1795, specifically from the case Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54;
1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54). The ruling states that government, being an “artificial person” or abstraction, can only interact with other artificial persons, such as corporations. It argues that government and its laws cannot concern themselves with “natural men” or individuals, but only with corporate entities and contracts between them. This interpretation suggests a limitation on governmental power, restricting it to the realm of corporate entities and their agreement’s while excluding jurisdiction over individual citizens.
Tony Holley Exactly
_________________
End Comment(s)
#LawfulLiving #RightAction #NaturalRights #SelfGovernance #Remedy #RestorativeJustice #ConsciousChoice #ConsciousCreation #LegalInquiry #KnowTheLaw #TruthOnTheRecord #DivineGuidance #LawOfLove #Grace #SpiritualAlignment #SoulPurpose #InnerAuthority #ReverenceForLife #AeraArk #FreedomDove
Freedom Dove 
Leave a comment