As to so-called "Quantum Syntax Grammar":

See for example:
[lb7.uscourts.gov]

Note: .gov

There is more to this than that which appears on the surface.

However, the fact that the law of the land was, is, and will be the people represented through their trial juries is the same thing in English as it is in "Quantum Syntax Grammar."

The label can be representative of the thing labeled, and the label can MISS represent the thing labeled.

Why?

If the law of the land is as the data shows, data such as the Bill of Rights, and the example Declaration of Independence (original draft), then The People decide what is the law, what is a fact, and they do so while they deliberate as jurors in a Court of Law (common law, law of the land, legem terrae).

If that is true, that the law of the land in English is the law of the land, and in Latin it is legem terrae, and The People decide what is the law as they deliberate as jurors, then who needs "Quantum Syntax Grammar" to spell out that fact as a fact? Just go right ahead and "vote" in a jury, do it, find out what it is in fact, on your own authority using whatever language works when you deliberate the data during the trial. If "Quantum Syntax Grammar" helps during deliberation, then it does, if you study and learn Latin, the same advantage over English may be realized during that trial, or not. The point is to point out that the labels are not the things.

The law is not the word in English "The Law," no more than the law is the "Quantum Syntax Grammar" version of "The Law" in English or Legem Terrae in Latin.

The counterfeit MISS represented symbol (label) for The Law is any of a million falsehoods that can be people parroting (unknowingly, out of ignorance) a falsehood, or people do know they are MISS representing some THING with a false word.

Case in point:

Federation means Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (exemplified in America between 1774 and 1789), and that is a fact that matters.

Nation-State is not a Federation, so why would someone MISS represent a Federation (the thing is a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association) by labeling a Nation-State with the MISS label "Federation."?

If that person in that video is authoritatively explaining how things went bad and how things can be made better, and his key point is MISS representative LANGUAGE, then why does he fail to see the Bait and Switch that happened in 1789? Taking out a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, Free Market Government Services, Higher and Higher Quality Government while Costs of Government Lower and Lower over time, because of Free Market Forces Forcing adaptation, improvement, as people choose better for worse money, insurance, medical care, science, knowledge, instruction, education, information, and LAW POWER.

Taking out The Law in 1789.

Placing in place of The Law in 1789 a counterfeit version.

Why can someone who knows not know that fact that matters?

Time 15:50...or so

The speaker speaks about the end of the Constitution of 1789 being dated at 1999.

That is clearly false from a principled viewpoint, meaning a viewpoint other than the viewpoint claimed by the criminals. The criminals use words to deceive.

Remember at the start of this presentation the man mentions Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry was one of the group of people who were opposing the move from a Federation to a Nation-State. Another member of that group (belonging to that group because he too was against the move from a Federation to a Nation-State) was George Mason.

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen."

June 04, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

How will they do it George Mason, how will these people turn the Federation (voluntary association of free market government services under the common law) into a Dictatorial Nation-State?

George Mason, 1788:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"

Thanks George for setting the record straight. So...George, why are those criminals perpetrating the fraud by using the good name of Federalism? Why don't they just go ahead and call themselves Communists, or Monarchists, or Central Banking Frauds, or Slave Traders? Why are they calling themselves Federalists? Why are those criminals calling you guys Anti-Federalists?

"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

That message above was recorded and published by someone at the Con-Con in 1789: Dr. James McHenry.

So...the Constitution of 1789 gave the criminals all the power they needed to do anything they wanted, as warned by George Mason. If people argue that the Bill of Rights prevented that from happening, then people are once again ignoring, or failing to learn, or are deceived about actual history, such as the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation where King George Washington conscripts a National Army of slaves to invade the former Independent (sovereign) State of Pennsylvania to enforce an extortion payment (excise tax on Whiskey) which was then a money competitor in competition with the newly created Central Bank run by the "Federalist Party" member Alexander Hamilton: The First Bank of The United States. And if the Bill of Rights protected people then how do you explain the "Federalist Party" member John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, hauling people into "Federal" court for persecution because the TARGET of persecution dared to speak ill of the "Federal" government run by John Adams as John Adams maintained very close ties with England as England was at war (or soon to be) with France. The same France that aided the "rebels" during the War of Aggression perpetrated by England. So...if you were on the side of actual Federal (voluntary) government, and you sided with France, and you said anything against total commitment to England, you were punished through "Federal" Summary Justice Court. So...what happened to trial by jury according to the common law?

Why didn't someone indict the traitor John Adams?

Time 13:00 or so...

As expected (I am taking my time listening to this presentation) the speaker ignores the original Federal Government between 1775 and 1789. That time period is extremely important: vital knowledge. So why is that time period so routinely ignored? Is it ignorance? Or is it willful censorship of vital knowledge?

Edit 1:

At least the speaker mentions Patrick Henry as one of those in opposition to the Con Con Con Job of 1789, but again the speaker (so far) makes no mention of the existing Federal Government leading up to the Con-Con in Philidephia in 1787.

There were 12 relatively organic Constitutions in 12 states, one state had no constitution, and many states had bills of rights between 1774 and 1789. There was an existing Federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a voluntary association for mutual defense UNDER the common law, with trial by jury (trial by the country, not trial by the government) in what was (and is) known as a Court of Law; not Court of Equity, Court of Admiralty, Court of Exchequer, or any other Summary Justice Court where the "government" dictates dictatorial decisions.

Why is this glossed over as if it wasn't a fact that matters?

Edit 2:

Then the speaker claims that the Bill of Rights prevented dictatorial powers dictated by the dictator upon the dictator's victims (my words not his), but that is false. The speaker then jumps ahead to 1999.

There is a very clear series of events that show how the dictators took over America and it happened in 1787 through 1789, not 1999.

Shays's Rebellion proved that the Federation was one: Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, as the President presiding over the Association of Sovereign people in Sovereign States did not have the power to conspript a National Army of slaves (conscription is a dictatorial power executed by dicatotors upon slaves) to crush the Last Battle of the Revolutionary War (Shays's Rebellion) in Massachussets.

Clearly the original Federation was a Federation, not a Nation-State Dictatorship at the time the criminals (British Tories) in Massachussetts turned Massachussetts into a Dictatorship, causing the Rebellion in Massachussetts, with standard dictatorial proceedures: counterfeit central banking fraud, exise taxes, national debt, asset siezures, Summary Justice Courts (Equity, Admiralty, Fraudulent Debt Collection Agency) and Central Control crushing competition Nation-wide (Massachussets was a Nation-State).

The last battle of the revolutionary war was lost by the Rebels in Massachussets, but proof of the legitimacy of a truely Federal Association (voluntary) was proven as some of the slaves who rebelled in Massachussetts were able to escape to find sanctuary in Vermont (another independent State, soon to join the association).

Proof positive of the Free Market of Government Service Providers (Federation) was thereby proven in 1787 as runnaway debt slaves (who rebelled against a tyrannical criminal government in Massachussetts) ran to Vermont where freedom and defendable liberty was still a competitive option.

Those events in Massachussetts rang the death bell for Central Banking Fraud in America. That was why Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, and other British sympathizing Central Banking Frauds went to their Strong Man George Washington to lead the criminal usurpation of the existing Federal (voluntary) government.

So you have a clue now, please use it. The clue is to listen for the words spoken by speakers claiming to know the facts that matter, and listen for the misuse of the word Federal.

If people claim that the National government (started in 1789 with the Constitution of 1789) is a Federal government, they are either ignorant, deceived and/or they are deceiving whoever buys into that demonstrable treasonous fraud.

The nature of a federal compact (aggreement) was spelled out during the first congress in America during the deliberations on the decision to write and publish a Delcaration of Independence (a common law legal document):

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

If the above confuses you, then my suggestion is to work at the causes of your confusion, so as not to be confused. If the vital information of exactly when, where, and how the criminals took over America are not discovered, acknowledged, and then employed to see how things got the way they are now - if the vital information is ignored or missing - then confusion is almost certain to be the result of that failure to employ that vital information.

A pack of lies grows exponentially. Why give it credit?