Group wall post by Jody Davies

Hello to all. This is my first visit to this group (I am using my wife’s FB account I don’t have one.) after reading through a few post and finding them to be very informative.
I have some questions that I asked my lawyer a couple of years ago but didn’t receive a reply. I am still interested in what the answers would be, even though my case is ended. Any help would be greatly appreciated, please excuse my spelling and grammar it’s not my strong point, spell check can’t even work out what I trying to spell a lot of the time.

If you need more information from me about my case to answer the questions I will do my best to give it. My case was under criminal law but I am interested in any areas of law that my questions are applicable to.

Could you please read the following excerpts and answer any question, if able. Thank you in advance.

Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.
Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalisation, e.g. John Doe) – The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered.
Capitis Diminutio MEDIA (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalisation, e.g. John DOE) – A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalisation, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) – The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave.
There are four different levels of capitalisation used in names of ‘persons’:
• john doe (shane davies) We start with the human-being
• John Doe (Shane Davies) Capitis Diminutio Minima. This is the natural-person.
• John DOE (Shane DAVIES) Capitis Diminutio MEDIA. This is the quasi natural/artificial person
• JOHN DOE (SHANE DAVIES) CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA. This is the corporation / artificial-person
Here is a summary of the rights and freedoms of the above ‘persons’:
• The human-being has all the unalienable rights and freedoms as provided by God and protected by common law.
• The Natural-Person has the rights and freedoms as provided by man with the Magna Charta, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights. All these documents state is the obvious –that we are all free and equal.
• The Quasi-Natural/ARTIFICIAL-PERSON has lost some rights, but not all rights. At this time it is not evident how to quantify which rights have been lost.
• The CORPORATION/ ARTIFICIAL-PERSON has benefits and privileges as provided by the creator of the Corporation (government).

• The prosecutor must create legal joinder between us (the human being) and our artificial persons. There are a variety of ways that individuals have dealt with standing in court and dealing with this subtle deception. Some refuse to accept joinder, some accept it and assume the position of Executor of the Trust (the strawman), some simply take ownership of the strawman and proceed from there.
• The New Zealand courts have confirmed on public record that they are courts for the purpose of administering New Zealand Statue Law under the District Court Act 1947, and have stated that they are not there to determine human rights.
• These are human rights including the right to choose the jurisdiction that one wishes to stand in, and other inalienable rights repeatedly documented throughout history beginning with the Charter of Liberties and the Magna Carta at the beginning of last millennium, carrying through to our own Bill of Rights in 1990.

Here is a legal Maxim: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius – Definition: The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
Question: can you tell me what definition of person I am been charged under? The answer to this question I think will impact my next question?
Right to justice
(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the princi¬ples of natural justice by any tribunal or other public author¬ity which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
Question: is the chargers (case) against me been brought against me under statute law, common law or another law?

I hope my question make sence I am just trying to get my head around this. I am trying to understand definitions and interpretations of legalese which is of course very hard when the definition of Legalese is as follows: The technical talk of the legal profession, the argot of lawyers; Wording that resembles how a lawyer writes, especially such that is confusing to the layperson. Also to interpret Statutes you must be aware of the principles of interpretation. A lot of words are re-defined in statutes so they may have a meaning different from their ordinary Legalese meaning. The layperson or common man cannot read this language. It is for the sole purpose of confusing and hence controlling

Question: how can the law say ignorance of the law is no excuse? When the law is purposely mad to be complicated
"They" can not prove jurisdiction, it is, as is statute, an assumption. Your questions relate to the fraud of the cesttui que vie trust created in commerce realm when you live birth record was usurped. Canon Law holds the hidden details of the fraud and redemption process.
I had an encounter with a officer of the law who asked me for my name..i just said.."me"..I do not have a name. it was usurped by the registration of my birth and bonded for 3 million dollars so i have no legal name"....and i questioned his right to stop me and even ask my name...he has no jurisdiction over me as he is a member of a corporation and as such is only answerable to his shareholders and I am not one of his shareholders...he did'nt question me further or arrest me for obstructing the law....he had not charged with any offence but wanted me to provide proof I had a right to be where I agreed to get the proof provided he also go proof he had authority to stop me and question me......needless to say it went nowhere and we each went our separate ways,
Max and Moyra, thank you both for your comments. When time permits I will look into further I have found some information at
Treat your self to a package of info with servant king you tube series, my wife and I bee absorbing these as they identify and address the fraud.
Necromancy is in essense what the judishyouall system is trapping us in. Ah haa. Wheres the real life?
Thanks Max I have started watching the Confusion of Being series from the servant king, It is very interesting.
Just a thought , analyzed , judged , charged under the mental health act . Lol
encourages jody to pursue social research regarding all things connected to what, who and where, furthermore max (tobin) observation is spot on and we would suggest referencing bill turner, youtube; jurisdiction, rebutting presumptions and lawful vs legal.
Kate of Gaia is well worth to listen to too. There be Tutu wearing fraudsters hijacked the waka and engine room.