Since I'm not any kind of lawyer, I don't know if this actually obliterates all the NWO manipulations being imposed in the US under the guise of the UN. Of course, our controllers are masters at promulgating laws/actions that will move their agenda forward unimpeded.
Another factor is the Maritime law aspect or Naval law - as in the gold fringe bordering US flags in courtrooms, etc. A whole 'nother can of worms.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I've taken a lot of interest in reading law over the past few years. One thing I learned is not to assume the meaning of any word - check it out in a legal dictionary, because what we think the law is saying can be very different to the legal interpretation. For example, the definition of
perception from
Blacks Law 4th Edition is "
Taking into possession. Thus, perception of crops or of profits is reducing them to possession. Used of money, it means the counting out and payment of a debt. Also used for food due to soldiers."!!!!
I don't think it obliterates the NWO manipulations because even despite the Supreme Courts acknowledging that Constitutional Law is the supreme law, people still have trouble getting remedy through it where they try to rely on it. If you think in terms of contracts it makes sense that they don't.
Say for example you buy a house and land. You decide that you want to do something with your land and there's nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights preventing you from doing that so you go ahead with your plans. Next minute, you have a county officer turn up and say, 'hey, you can't do that, it's against [insert the applicable Act that he's quoting] so pull it down now.' So you decide to challenge that and take it to court. In court they look at the Act and award to the county, so now you have to pay the counties court costs too. In that case, they are arbitrating or mediating a contract, not looking at precedent in case law in regards to Constitution or Bill of Rights.
So, the first thing that comes up is 'I didn't agree to any contract'. Well, you did because when you purchased the land you registered the title in your name and you received a
certificate of title. Thing is, certificate of title is not a title
deed. Back in the day when you bought property you got the
deed and that was proof of ownership. The bearer of the deed owned the land described therein. So govt introduces the titles office and instead of you exchanging your money for the property deed, the govt holds on to the deeds and issues a certificate of title or extract. Now the govt holds the deeds - they are the bearers of the deeds - so they own the property and they can make the rules about what you can and can't do with it. You didn't technically gain ownership of the property, you just purchased the use of it and the proof of that is that you pay tax/rates for it (or rent) to the owner (govt). When you then leave the property to someone in your will, it's the right to
use the property that is transferred, not the ownership. If you sell it, you sell the right to
use the property, not the ownership - the govt hangs on to ownership.
If you think of every single piece of paper or card that you've got from the govt, it's agencies or subsidiaries that has your name and a number on it (licences, permits, registrations, taxes, social security etc) a similar thing has happened with those. You've traded either property or a right/liberty for something from the govt - you've traded ownership for use. And that trade agreement is a private contract that you, or an agent for you, signed or expressed agreement with through actions. Under constitutional law you have
unlimited right to enter contracts - even if those contracts take away your Constitution/Bill of Rights. In court that means that the first thing they look at is if there's a contract before they decide whether they allow access to Constitutional/Bill of Rights justice. If there's a contract, then they adjudicate/mediate the case based on the terms and conditions of the contract. If there's no contract, then you are more likely to be able to access Constitution/Bill of Rights judgements
but they can only be granted in the Supreme/High Court. If the matter is being heard in local magistrates court with just attorneys and the judge then it's pretty much dealt with as arbitration of a contractual agreement with the fault falling on the one who didn't hold up their end of the terms and conditions.
The 'well, I didn't know' argument often doesn't work in and of itself in court because there are plenty of legal maxims that say something along the lines of 'too bad, not our problem', eg: equity does not assist a volunteer, the contract makes the law, let the purchaser beware etc. And then there's 'everyone has equal access to the law'. Many assume that means that they will be treated fairly in court under Constitution/Bill of Rights, but what it actually means when you look up the legal definition of the term 'access' is that everyone has the right to
read the law - access to all current and historical constitutional law, Acts, Statutes, By-laws, local codes, Supreme Court Judgement etc. documents!
The next thing is that if there is a contract involved through a govt agency/subsidiary and your govt has signed up to UNIDROIT/UNCITRAL then the contract is under the jurisdiction of International Private Law. Not the public law of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Australia signed UNIDROIT/UNCITRAL in the 70's during the Whitlam years. But signing that wasn't enough for him, he also bought in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 which basically declares all land that's up to 12 nautical miles (23kms) landward from any waters edge - coast, dams, lakes, rivers, creeks either natural or man made - to be
underwater and that created an 'Exclusive Economic Zone' in alignment with UN international law! There were moves towards this goal implemented before the '70's though.
With a few variations, the above pretty much works the same way in any country that's a part of the UN.