The world is changing thru redefintion?

[Gannon White]

From a blog I came across while researching another topic...(these are all snips, will post link later...)

A major blow to the demise of Democracy can be traced to the changing of one-word’s definition: Colore Officii or in English Colour of Office. The vast majority of people will have never heard of this word, and this reality was intentional. Lawyers and politicians hide their Achilles heel well. Changing the definition of this one-word can be called the smoking gun that destroyed Democracy itself. It’s totally irrelevant whether the definition change was pro-active or re-active to the truth. It’s the willingness of Public Officials to implement this new definition that is the crime of the Millennium.

Basic Legal Premise: NAFTA established a new ORDER in law – By the PEOPLE for the ECONOMY

Socrates founded our Democratic structures in Greece, as philosophical challenges that strive for an ideal to produce a balance in society of achieving peace and harmony with words, by striving for an administration structure that functions by consent to be governed in a free society, by the people, and for the people.

This foundation was caste on just 3 maxims, in ORDER to uphold ‘by the people for the people’.

1) Justice: We are all innocent until proven guilty.

2) Freedom: What is not directly prohibited cannot be implied,

3) Order through Equity: All laws rules apply to those who govern as well as those who are governed.

To guarantee that those who govern followed all 3 maxims, all Public Officials were sworn to uphold to a concept called: Colore officii, which for about the last 4-millennium (uptil it radically changed in 1991) has meant,

In a positive slant: The burden of all Public Officials to uphold the maxim of ‘by the people, and for the people’

Black’s 5th Legal Law Dictionary’s definition, clearly presents the negative historical slant of this maxim,

Colore Officii: By color of office. Officer’s acts unauthorized by officer’s position, though done by form that purports that acts are done by reason of official duty and by virtue of office. See colour of office

Colour of Office: Pretense of right to do acts made by someone who has no such right. An act of color of office is an act of an office that claims authority to do the act by reason of his office when the office does not confer on him such authority.

To guarantee this maxim’s effectiveness, colore officii was held to the standard of ‘absolute liability’, which means: there are no excuses, not even a good reason for acting outside your authority, and no authority can violate the maxim of ‘by the people for the people’. The penalty for violating this rule has always been harsh.


Some more....

The whole concept of Public accountability starts with this word. This word upholds the BAR’s fiduciary TRUST of: no ONE can serve two-Masters, which upholds the entire concept of Public Officials never acting out of their jurisdiction. Democratic societies function under a contract with words, and this one-word upholds the entire concept of the PUBLIC TRUST of Public Officials being accountable to the people

After over 3,000 years, the foundation of Democracy changed in the USA, in Black’ 7th Published 1991

Colore Officii: Latin ‘by color of office. See color of office

Color of Office: The authority or power that is inherent in an office especially a public office. Acts a taken under a color of an office are vested with, or appear to be vested with, the authority entrusted to that office.

There are two major components to this definition change, it no longer holds any Public Official to absolute liability; in other words- a good excuse for breaking this rule is all any Public Official need to not face liability for having made a wrong decision. But the true real change to the definition is the use of the word ‘vested’, and especially the term ’appear to be vested with’, are truly frightening. ‘Vesting’ means a coat of arms has been pressed, in other words: Someone in Authority is pressing a CLAIM of RIGHT, and, in law, until it has not gone through the steps of ‘perfection’ the definition will retain ‘appear to be vested with’ under ‘express color’.

Ps: all the historical legal ‘colorful’ terms returned in Black’s 7th (in other words they are active in law, again)

Furthermore, coincidently also in 1991, we in Canada published our first Canadian Law Dictionary, and it was hailed as a great day for Canada. We passed a law saying that if a word had a definition in our dictionary that varied from any other definition, then, only this definition applied. Sounds like a good thing. This call for a Canadian Dictionary caused some serious debate as to which definition would rule. The BAR clearly debated the change of this one-word before publishing it, as made evident in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary 5th edition, 1986.

Colour: 1) Colour of Office is always taken in the worst part, and signifies an act of evil done by the countenance of an Officer, and it bears a dissembling face of the right of the Office, whereas the Office is but a veil to the falsehood, and the thing is ground in Vice, and the Office is a shadow to it.

2) Express Colour is no longer necessary in any pleading, as to Common Law Procedure Act 1852.

Our enlightened Canadian Parliament ‘legislated’ this new definition of Colore Officii in 1991.

Colore Officii: Latin for colour of office. See DURESS

Colour of Office: Pretense of authority to carry out an act for which the actor has no such authority

Duress: Threats to another’s property, threats of physical violence or economic duress,

which includes a contract. See ECONOMY (Ps: Democracy is dead UNDER THIS NEW WORD ORDER)

Last snip:Economy: The acquisition, at the lowest cost and at the appropriate time, of financial, human and physical resources in appropriate quantity and quality. (Ps: I don’t want to speculate on what this means. It’s insane)

Ps: NAFTA was implemented in 1991, and if the timing of these word transformations has any meaning at all, it’s self-evident THAT: A CLAIM of RIGHT has been enacted, in the United States, (and not so)

Coincidently: Canadian Public Officials are, since then, upholding the ECONOMY as the PUBLIC TRUST

This definition establishes THE NEW WORLD ORDER: BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE ECONOMY.

If this is of interest the blog link is at http://www.remarcable.ca/

Under smoking gun...(lower on in the blog).

What say all? Is this of interest?

[mrg]

Democracy?!

Originally, those living with the Articles of Confederation who favored a national form of government, with a dominantly powerful centralized monolithic government called themselves "the federalists." and were led by a declared monarchist.

Those who wanted a federation with very limited funtional centralization of powers were labled anti-federalists.

So, from the beginning, those who opposed federation called themselves the opposite of what they were.

Good propaganda technique.

Nonetheless, this is a Republic with a constitution which limits agency of goverment by vesting a very few specific privileges for the furtherance of even fewer listed purposes.

That the constitutional republic has been overcome and conquered by traitors and is under foreign occupation does not neccesarily mean that the republic is non-existent, and has been replaced with democracy.

Democracy is the first step towards communism.

[Gannon White]

It was changing the definition of colour of office plus the changing of the oath...esp. inserting the word "person"....