Everyone keeps talking about words and language and verbiage and meanings and definitions. Well I'd like to put it my own way. I believe that they attempt to use words to fool us, entrap us, and in general mask the truth.
And the truth is, that NONE of their codes, ordinances, statutes, regulations, rules, decisions, directives, or proclamations are designed for, or are applicable to, your average American. They use words to get there and they count on our ignorance to keep you from discovering their "smoke and mirrors" trickery.
Well, I am not taking this lying down. I say, that for every word they have ingrained in our common speak and put within our grasp, we substitute NEW words to replace them, or at least define or explain the words that need it, so that when we are confronted by these idioms of confusion and deceit, we can counter with our OWN set of words in a common vernacular.
This will frustrate, confuse, alter and disturb their reality and their word games and force them to address the inherent conflict in any resulting challenge; BEFORE they can proceed past any supposed or assumed "jurisdiction". So in that vain, let's start with that word. Let's see if we can translate it to "Dumbed-Down" American.
They say, Jurisdiction = Juris+Diction. You say, People's Voice.
They say Drive. You say Perambulate.
They say Motor Vehicle. You say Perambulator.
They say Transport. You say have and hold.
They say Transportation. You say Transmogrification.
They say Passenger. You say Sitter.
They say Cargo. You say Stuff.
They say Carry. You say own.
They say Register. You think, (Regis+Ter), King's List.
They say Traffic. You say Travel.
They say Required. You say Show me the Law.
They say You. You say define You.
They say "sign here" you say NO!
So, the next time "THEY" say something, keep in mind, you are not required to accept their words, their definitions, or their bully tactics as unchangeable.
They use words to ensnare us. Let's turn the tables and when they get to court and have to prove jurisdiction or continue to prosecute their "criminal complaint", they will first have to deal with some word definitions at the very least.
For that, they will need an examination hearing. How many judges do you know today that will grant you one? Let's throw a monkey wrench in their works people.
Comments? Questions? Answers?