Print this page
  Key Concepts are foundational legal concepts that are vital to comprehend when considering using the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll. These Key Concepts are reflected within the body of Divine Canon Law Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum, particularly Positive Law. Please Read Positive Law further for other Key Concepts not mentioned.  
     
  Vow and Oath  
  At the heart of Anglo-Saxon law from the 4th Century is the concept that “a mans’ oath is his bond” – in other words once a promise is given, it is expected to be kept. This of course is most often presented in terms of contracts. However, the foundation of law since these times and up to the present day is still based on oral testimony taking precedence over written documents (in memoriam).  
  What is an oath then? In accordance with Canon 1480 of Positive Law: “an oath is is a solemn appeal to the Divine Creator by invocation and the presence of at least two witnesses that a pronouncement is true or a promise binding”.  
  What is the difference between an oath and a vow? In accordance with Canon 1488 of Positive Law: “A Vow is a solemn engagement or undertaking made to the Divine Creator to perform some action, to make some gift or sacrifice in return for special favour”.  
  Now the difference then between Anglo-Saxon law and Roman (Western) Law formed by the elite anti-semitic parasites also known as the Venetian/Florentine Khazar Bankers/Slave traders is the dependence on vows and oaths being true, in order that they can be monetized and bonded. In other words, the law of the Roman Cult and the Bar Associations/Society depends on the foundation of Anglo-Saxon law as demonstrated through Positive Law to function.  
  It is a symbiotic relationship between the “host”, the living man or woman, functioning under ancient moral values and the parasitic court and banks then seizing that good will and energy to monetize it for their own benefit. This is also why consent is so vital. Without consent, this energy cannot be stolen and monetized.  
     
  Necessity and being "under duress"  
  The antithesis of a vow or oath given under consent is any vow, oath, sign or seal given by necessity under duress. It is the most feared of realizations of the courts and banks as it renders their monetized promissory notes null and void and therefore their court acts worthless and clear fraud.  
  What is necessity? In accordance with Canon 1403 of Positive Law: “Necessity is the unavoidable requirement of a Party to consent, act or perform in a manner that they would not otherwise do if not for the presence of some clear need, threat, coercion, danger or risk. Hence, any oath, vow, sign or seal given under Necessity has no legal validity or value”.  
  To trick people into believing that the law of necessity does not exist and that the principle of “under duress” no longer is honored, many courts, prosecutors, judges and attorneys try to convince people that any compliance is consent. This causes one of two actions – either people agree and do not appeal, nor evoke that such actions was clearly done under coercion and “necessity” or secondly some people refuse to comply and their dishonor is then used to condemn them.  
  In fact, many courts now actively seek those who have woken up to the fraud of the Bar to openly not-comply and demonstrate contempt, thus using such behaviour as a means of obviating the fraud of the court and action itself. Even worse, many people promoting advice and information continue to confuse people by telling them not to comply- thus guaranteeing the court is able to avoid rendering their actions null and void through the laws of necessity and thus easily using the delinquency of the defendant against them.  
  The great sadness of the promotion of dishonor and non-compliance is that supported exactly the strategy and desire of the Bar and the Courts for men and women not to evoke their right and profess that through necessity they have complied only “under duress”.  
     
  Consent  
  As outlined earlier, the courts of the global corporate/financial/legal system needs your consent (by tacit agreement or by declaring you incompetent) in order to underwrite their bonds and making money. But what do we exactly mean by Consent? And where is the consent of the judges, clerks and prosecutors in relation to any kind of Ecclesiastical Deed we issue?  
  In accordance with Canon 1408 of Positive Law: “Consent is the agreement of one Party to a claim presented by another. In the absence of consent of all parties, Justice does not exist”. Canon 1409 goes onto state “No Injury can be complained by a consenting Party” and Canon 1414 states “The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract”.  
  So Consent to the Bar and the Crown (Bank) is vital, not only to underwriting the value of any bonds created through their courts, but it is integral to making their administrative process both legal and lawful as a valid agreement. But how then does this work when we do not consent, or we refuse to comply?  
  Well in the case of when a man or woman stands their ground, respecting the law and states for the record that they do not consent to any punative sentences or orders, but they shall comply only under duress and necessity to any administrative procedure during the court procedure, then any bonds are rendered worthless- and the court process to the bank is a giant waste of time.  
  However, when a man or woman is tricked by disinfo into not respecting the law and refuses to comply to some administrative process (excluding sentencing) by not appearing, then the court can use its trustee powers to declare the man or woman delinquent and therefore incompetent. When this occurs, the court may “legally” steal the energy of the man or woman as consent literally as if you signed your name or stood in court and agreed. Thus, the very worst action any man or woman can do it deliberately place themselves in dishonor as it makes the process for the court straightforward and simple.  
  Yet there is an outstanding issue concerning consent and Ecclesiastical Deeds when considering how and when did the trustee(s), administrators or executors consent therefore making the Ecclesiastical Deed valid?  
  The answer exists in the canons concerning competence and consent.  
  In accordance to Canon 1418 “Natural birth of the flesh is proof of lawful conveyance from a Divine Trust to a True Trust as a result of willing consent by the Divine Person to be born in accordance with these Canons. Therefore, the existence of the body of a living flesh Homo Sapien is proof of their divine (ecclesiastical) consent to obey these Canons”.  
  Now lets consider Canon 1814, namely “As the Divine Person is also part of the Divine Creator, a Divine Person is aways considered competent”. Also consider Canon 1816, namely “While the Divine Person is always considered competent, it is possible for the True Person represented by the flesh to be incompetent” and Canon 1817 being “Only True Persons represented by the flesh of a living man or woman demonstrating knowledge and consent to these Canons and agreeing to obey statutes derived from the Canons may be regarded as competent”.  
  So what do these Canons tell us? Well for one, it explains why an Ecclesiastical Deed is so important as it is a Deed which evokes the tacit consent given by the living trustees, administrators and executors proven by being born, whether the flesh agrees or not. Now, if the flesh of the Trustee, Administrator or Executor disagrees then they have openly admitted they are incompetent and therefore incapable of administering trust law, nor any kind of property or fiduciary duties.  
     
     
     
Copyright © One-Heaven.Org Ab Initio. All Rights Reserved