Results 21 to 30 of 36
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks-
06-12-2006, 10:14 PM #21Banned
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Well, Xanadu, multiple jurisdictions may occur within a given geographical area. For example, the Constitution makes clear that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over both domestic law and the Admiralty, which is the maritime law merchant. the law merchant would not have applied to a citizen living in Boston who did not engage in international commerce or shipping, but may affect his neighbor whose lagan cargo was recovered. What we have is a situation in which international jurisdictions have been surreptitiously applied to the native citzenry. Note that I do not use the term "domestic citizenry," because from a federal perspective, "domestic" indicates that subject to the federal zone and NOT to the citizens of the states of the organic republic.
Originally Posted by xanadu
Yes, I was not certain of the date, but this is a provision the UN has been trying to ramrod through for several years now. Originally Posted by xanadu
The authority is our signature on the UN treaty. As I pointed out, treaties are included in the laws of the land according to Art. VI. Originally Posted by xanadu
Yes. One veto kills any Security Council action. Then again, the UN would not ostensibly have any power over states that are not members of the UN or signatories to its treaties. But of course history is replete with examples of invasions of sovereign states without any written authority. Originally Posted by xanadu
So our perminent membership and our veto power is the argument for the United States to remain in the U.N.? By remaining in the U.N. we have the power to control or at least attempt to control events which affect this nation. Right? You'll have to bring me up to speed on U.N. protocol. I haven't read the charter of our new master yet.CrocketsGhost wrote:
I'm not sure about UN codes, but obviously the UN has previously claimed the authority to move troops against nations that violate its dictates. As long as the US has veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council and as long as our own administration does not turn on us, this is unlikely.
Does one veto from a perminent member kill the deal?
I guess I missed the Clinton reference, but we cannot assume that all globalists are members of a single cabal. For example, the EU and the UN often have conflicting interests. One movement may be manipulated or attached by another because doing so promotes its goals, but that does not preclude power struggles between entities or conflicts of interest. Originally Posted by xanadu
Voting machines are a state and sometimes local issue, depending upon where that authority lies from one state's constitution to another. I think it is best to keep it there. My suggestion is that you hound your own state legislature or election board if your dictrict is using the machines and you feel that they may be compromised. In my district, we use electronic readers, but the ballots themselves are paper and are retained in case of a recount or other controversy. Originally Posted by xanadu
Well, I don't think that invasion by UN troops is in our near future, but it remains a possibility that cannot be overlooked. I question the necessity of any of the various trade agreements for the US, given that we represent the largest consumer market in the world. Any attempt to use trade against the US would probably be more detrimental to the trading partner than it would be to us. I believe that the trade agreements have more to do with undermining our laws and sovereignty than with actual trade. Originally Posted by xanadu
The most troubling aspect of our current trade situation is our exportation of manufacturing and heavy industry. we currently have the closest thing to an invulnerable military as there has ever been, and that is true without even considering our nasty weapons, such as our nuclear arsenal and our Tesla weapons systems. But we cannot be too smug about our ability to project our power, as nations like China are rapidly closing the gap on us. Yeah, they're still probaby decades away, but decades do not represent so large a cushion, particularly when our economy is becoming increasingly precarious and dependent upon the whims of nations and groups beyond our control.
Personally, I would not trust an attorney to look over my will, much less craft a document meant to undermine the illicit power over the citizenry that the government has gathered unto itself. Many states allow people to practice law without being members of the Bar or obtaining a law degree from one of the Bar's programs. Texas, for example, requires only demonstration of equivalent knowledge, which is usually simply passing the Bar exam. Originally Posted by xanadu
If you understand the basics of Common Law, drafting such a document is pretty simple. Just remember to point out the factors that negated knowledge, will, and/or intent (such as false claims that application for an SSN was mandatory in order to work or any other condition of duress). The document should be accusatory and directed at the SSA or other relevant agencies that may have misrepresented facts, and it should place the burden on the SSA or other relevant agencies by stating the claim of fraud as fact and asserting the right to rescission, contingent upon the government's rebuttal. When so accused, a person or entity has an obligation to answer an accusation when it comes in the form of a sworn statement. Should it remain silent where it has an obligation to speak, you have a default judgment. That places the burden back on the entity in all future litigation. This is also why you should never simply discard any legal presentment, no matter how absurd. Refusal to answer where there is an obligation to speak can result in default judgment against you and entitle other to your property unless and until you subsequently can disprove their claim.
As to citizenship status, the natural status is as a sovereign citizen of one of the several states, but not of one of the corporate States (such as The State of California, which is a corporate subsidiary of the federal entity). So a sovereign would a citizen of California, republic state, while a subsidiary resident would be a citizen of the State of California or of the United States. Now, there is precedent in the old republic for a sovereign citizen to claim to be a citizen of the republic of the united States, but if you are making that claim, you had better be specific that you mean the old constitutional republic.
No. We are citizens of the states in which we are born, not residents. The term "resident" can refer to any citizenship status physically living on the soil of a given state or other geographical entity. The state is non-resident to the federal zone, but the State (as in State of California) is subsidiary to the federal zone, and is abbreviated with its federal zone identifier (such as CA). Originally Posted by xanadu
Amendment XIV begins, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Originally Posted by xanadu
Now, we have already addressed who it is that is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," as applies to the United States as an entity. That is those in the federal district and its possessions and territories, administered as a legislative democracy. So what the amendment has done is to make the freed slaves, naturalized citizens, and anyone else "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" subjects of the federal legislative democracy. That this entity referred to is separate from the republic of the several states is clear by the fact that it is mentioned as contradistinct from the "State," where "State" is capitalized. You see, the several states are states, but the federal possessions are States as well. That's why many of the statutes that apply only to the federal zone specifically state that the term "state" within their context is meant to "include" Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and other US possessions and territories. It is a well-settled matter of law that the term "include," when used in the context of an enumerated set of persons or entities to which a provision is applicable, is an exclusionary term. That is to say, such provisions are limited to the enumerated items or entities they are said to include. So Amendment XIV changed the law such that naturalized citizens and other classes were subjects of the federal zone rather than citizens of the state of the republic in which they domiciled. Later, after the corporate states became territories of the federal zone, those types of citizens were residents of a state but citizens of the United State and a State. Yeah, I know it's confusing. It's meant to be.
Anyone self-identifying as a United States citizen rather than as a citizen or sovereign of one of the several republic states is a subject of the federal zone, which is the federal legilsative democracy, as are the citizens of the possessions and territories or of the District. Originally Posted by xanadu
I have answered this one above. Originally Posted by xanadu
No. ANY individual human being born on the soil of one of the several republic states is a natural inhabitant (sovereign citizen) of that state. Because the parents nowadays almost certainly immediately register the child as federal chattel, he or she remains such until reaching the age of consent or until the parents make the claim that they were defrauded into so registering the child. That's where the notice comes in. Originally Posted by xanadu
Okay... I think my assimilation factor just melted down. Tell me if I have misunderstood and then draw me a picture pleaseCrocketsGhost wrote:
That's why we are constantly told that we live in a democracy despite the fact that the Founding Fathers specifically rejected the mob rule of democracy and guaranteed a republican form of government. this is done in multiple ways, including the provisions of everything from your bank signature card to being a statutory condition for the receipt of many federal benefits. How many documents have you signed asserting your status as a resident of the United States (which refers to the federal entity, not the republic, as defined by every edition of Black's until the latest one, which was revised immediately following the receivership of 1997)?
Let me feed this back to you and see if I understand it. A person born to two parents both citizens of the United States is automatically a citizen of the Federal. It is up to that person to rescind the Federal through public notice and appropriate documents.
The republic most certainly stillexists under the federal overlay. I would avoid capitalizing it though, as a matter of form. Capitalized names of things are generally titles, while lower case names simply identify the organic entity. Never refer to yourself or any entity to which you claim citizenship with all caps, by the way, as that form is generall presumed to refer to a business entity or other artificial person. The state has direct authority over all artificial persons. Originally Posted by xanadu
Residency is generally applied to one's relationship to a state, altough it may sometimes be applied in blanket fashion to the United States, as in legal disclaimers or regulations. At any rate, you don't want to even get into residency. Your claimed status should be that of sovereign citizen or sovereign natural inhabitant of a given republic state or geographical region (such as America). Originally Posted by xanadu
The Byzantine nature of the fraud is intentional. That's why laws used to be a few paragrphs or at worst a few pages long. Now they are literally thousands of pages long with entrapment clauses that may represent a single sentence buried somewhere in the middle. Originally Posted by xanadu
-
06-13-2006, 12:00 PM #22Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Iowa
- Posts
- 958
Good morning CrocketsGhost :P
Thank you again! This may well be the most informative conversation I have ever had in my entire life! I think we should dub this discussion as “Pealing away the layers of entrapment”.
As I read through your responses, I cannot help but think the information you are so generously providing SHOULD BE REQUIRED CURRICULUM in all schools before we allow our children to venture out into this world!
What I am hearing in our conversation is that there are layers of definitions which are critically important to understand if one is to survive this mess as something other than property of the state.
I think it best for me if we stop and assess how well I am understanding terms used in this conversation. So I'll make my own pop quiz in a moment. Grade it ruthlessly a lot depends upon it.
We are back to the fact “The Byzantine nature of the fraud is intentional.”CrocketsGhost wrote: with regard to overlapping jurisdictions
...the Constitution makes clear that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over both domestic law and the Admiralty, which is the maritime law merchant. the law merchant would not have applied to a citizen living in Boston who did not engage in international commerce or shipping, but may affect his neighbor whose lagan cargo was recovered. What we have is a situation in which international jurisdictions have been surreptitiously applied to the native citzenry. Note that I do not use the term "domestic citizenry," because from a federal perspective, "domestic" indicates that subject to the federal zone and NOT to the citizens of the states of the organic republic.
POP QUIZ TIME for Grasshopper
Betcha there will still be questions amongst my display of understanding. LOL
There are two types of states. One is a corporate state. One is a republic state. I KNEW IT! darnit question time. Which takes presidence the place of birth or the residence as far as a definition of the type of citizenship.
When you refer to a republic state, I understand that to be the original states that signed the republic constitution or states which joined before the Federal (democracy) United States was created.
On top of the states, irregardless of what type of state, are overlaid Federal zones. If Federal zones are designated by state abbreviations such as IA or CA doesn’t that imply that each state is a distinct separate Federal zone? Somewhere in this discussion I got the impression a federal zone incorporated more than one state or territory. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I can’t imagine why that would happen. LOL
Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court is over all period - end of story nothing more to be said. UNLESS (boy I hate that word) we join the world court in which case it would trump the Supreme
Various types of laws:
Which type of law is applicable depends upon the location as well as the activities engaged in. One may find ones self subject to international law (irregardless of citizenship) merely by actions performed in a specific location or simple by receiving goods which traveled across state borders or from other nations.
Maritime law is international law. Maritime law may or may not apply depending upon the action and the location.
State as well as local law may be applicable to an action but at the same time the action may also be subject to federal law.
Federal Law can be both domestically legislated as well as Maritime law. So theoretically (like every other thing in this government) one might find one’s self affected by multiple layers of laws at the same time. Or does the applicable law default to the highest tier of this mess?
I assume if there is a conflict of which jurisdiction is applicable it defaults to the higher level. I.e. state law defaults to domestic law defaults to international law. What happens when state laws contradict Federal or International law? Which one takes precedence? [I am afraid to hear this answer since sanity still seems to abide at the state level]
The applicability of different types of law also depends upon how one defines one’s self. Is my understanding of this correct?
If so, it would seem to be of critical importance for one to clearly under stand the meaning of the citizenship terms they use to describe themselves.
Native citizenry: citizens who are born in one of the states of the organic republic. “Organic republic” as defined by the original constitution. If I understood you international law should not apply to this individual but it can apply based upon not only the action but the location the action occurs in. IS that correct?
Sovereign Citizen Is a “natural inhabitant” born on the soil of a given republic state. This would be the type of citizen referred to as “native citizenry” provided they defined themselves as a citizen of a “republic state”. Note: one would not want to state United States but a state a general location like “America”. Correct?
Domestic citizenry: subject to Federal zone: This person is subject to international law irregardless of the action because of the “zone” they claim “residence” in. Aren’t we all domestic citizenry since we all live within a federal zone defined by state abbreviation?
Naturalized citizens: I assume this is a term used to define those who have legally immigrated. It also refers to people who by virtue of living in a possession or territory of the United States. These people are subject to federal law. Does this apply if the person was born in a state of the republic but simply resides in the possession or territory?
The term “state” without a capital refers to a territory or possession. The term “State” refers to a state within the republic United States. i.e. Iowa. Is that correct?
Subsidiary resident is a citizen of the United States of corporate state. Can a person also be at the same time a “native or sovereign citizen” by virtue of birth in a corporate state? How does one determine if they were born in a “corporate state”? Is there a book that lists them by catagory?
So if a person is born in a corporate state but lives in a republic state does the residence location alter the state of citizenship?
Whoops this was suppose to be a quiz and here I am asking questions again.
Okay I get it … at least part of it … every person residing within the boundaries of this nation needs to have a lawyer attached at their hip before they sign ANY document which defines either their citizenship or their location of residence.
Now with regard to the irritating label of “chattel”, if I understand this correctly:
If one is born in a state of the United States, when signing a document that specifies the signer as a resident of the United States, one should qualify that “label” to read not resident of the United States” but (name) … a sovereign citizen of the republic state of ( ...... ) OR if it were a corporate state it would read a sovereign citizen of America.
If one is a naturalized citizen it seem there is no escape. Do I understand that correctly? They refer to themselves as a citizen of the United States (implying the Federal)
WHY would anyone want to immigrate here? Yes I know its worse every where else but I wonder … is it really?
(Pass or fail grade on this understanding please and thank you
)
[IF I fail then perhaps I need to find an undiscovered island where the only law applicable is the Natural Law
]
Please define further the “corporate States”. Does this depend upon their state constitution or the date that they became a state? Is there a list that separates Corporate States from republic states ?
Other topics in this post beyond citizenship and the disgusting term “chattel”.
I don’t know why I should have been shocked by your statement with regard to lawyers in Texas. It’s the same thing with education. Iowa has rather strict requirements with regard to qualifications for teachers in public schools when compared to some of the other States. (capital right?) I was appalled to find out in some of the southern states a teacher is only required to have a high school education.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Personally, I would not trust an attorney to look over my will, much less craft a document meant to undermine the illicit power over the citizenry that the government has gathered unto itself. Many states allow people to practice law without being members of the Bar or obtaining a law degree from one of the Bar's programs. Texas, for example, requires only demonstration of equivalent knowledge, which is usually simply passing the Bar exam.
I have read that the majority of our congress did not read the Patriot Act nor did they read the trade agreements. One has to ask why. They have staffers whose job it is to do this very thing.CrocketsGhost wrote: current practice in legislation
“The Byzantine nature of the fraud is intentional. That’s why laws used to be a few paragraphs or at worst a few pages long. Now they are literally thousands of pages long with entrapment clauses that may represent a single sentence buried somewhere in the middle.”
I wonder if ANYONE in congress has ever contemplated legislation that would require all proposed legislation to be limited to only one subject and a maximum of twenty five pages. Less would be fine but NO more than 25 pages. That’s enough room to slip in the entrapments and give others a fair shot at discovering them.
I wonder how that concept would be received by our esteemed representatives… no more pork. Would they reject the idea or relish it? Their response would be an indication of their true motivations and sort the wheat from the shaft far better than their votes I would think.
In my district we also use electronic readers with paper ballots. I agree it should remain a state issue but I question local issue. There should be some uniformity across the state if one is have any hope of a legitimate election process.CrocketsGhost wrote: with regard to questionable voting machines
Voting machines are a state and sometimes local issue, depending upon where that authority lies from one state's constitution to another. I think it is best to keep it there. My suggestion is that you hound your own state legislature or election board if your dictrict is using the machines and you feel that they may be compromised. In my district, we use electronic readers, but the ballots themselves are paper and are retained in case of a recount or other controversy.
Do you know if there is any effort on the part of the Feds to “take over” and establish one vote method for all states? Given the mounting concern of the citizens with regard to the legitimacy of the national vote it would seem to me that topic is ripe for interference at a federal level.
With regard to membership in the U.N. It is now my understanding that no matter how much I wish we would remove ourselves from this and other world organizations that we cannot. We must remain a player in order to preserve what we have but at the same time it seems to me that by remaining a player in this arena we are destroying what we have. Or is that simple the product of lazy representatives?
It would seem the world as well as the Federal government subscribes to layers and layers and layers of convoluted head games as well as entrapments. What is a simple peasant to do?
With regard to gun legislation: I am comforted that one veto blows all BADl treaties out of the water.
So if I passed the citizenship definition quiz maybe I can go back to the post prior to these two and pull out the remaining questions I had on other subjects."Liberty CANNOT be preserved without general knowledge among people" John Adams (August 1765)
-
06-13-2006, 12:27 PM #23Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Iowa
- Posts
- 958
Oooops! One more question
With regard to citizenship.
Would it be advantagious to purchase a large boat and sail to the middle of an ocean and drop anchor?
I suppose then you would be by virtue of residence a citizen of the world and confiscated as property of the U.N.
geeeesh!"Liberty CANNOT be preserved without general knowledge among people" John Adams (August 1765)
-
06-13-2006, 09:15 PM #24Banned
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Well, that depends on the person in question. A human being is naturally born on the soil of a geographical area or, potentially, of a state if an organic governmental system exists there. All the original states whose representatives compacted with the federal corporation via the Constitution were organic states whose inhabitants uniformly accepted commonality of moral and ethical codes and defined the extent of the geographical range of the laws and institutions created in pursuance of those moral and ethical codes. All human beings are born free of encumbrance as natural inhabitants of the land of their birth. Originally Posted by xanadu
Good morning CrocketsGhost :P
Thank you again! This may well be the most informative conversation I have ever had in my entire life! I think we should dub this discussion as “Pealing away the layers of entrapment”.
As I read through your responses, I cannot help but think the information you are so generously providing SHOULD BE REQUIRED CURRICULUM in all schools before we allow our children to venture out into this world!
What I am hearing in our conversation is that there are layers of definitions which are critically important to understand if one is to survive this mess as something other than property of the state.
I think it best for me if we stop and assess how well I am understanding terms used in this conversation. So I'll make my own pop quiz in a moment. Grade it ruthlessly a lot depends upon it.
We are back to the fact “The Byzantine nature of the fraud is intentional.”CrocketsGhost wrote: with regard to overlapping jurisdictions
...the Constitution makes clear that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over both domestic law and the Admiralty, which is the maritime law merchant. the law merchant would not have applied to a citizen living in Boston who did not engage in international commerce or shipping, but may affect his neighbor whose lagan cargo was recovered. What we have is a situation in which international jurisdictions have been surreptitiously applied to the native citzenry. Note that I do not use the term "domestic citizenry," because from a federal perspective, "domestic" indicates that subject to the federal zone and NOT to the citizens of the states of the organic republic.
POP QUIZ TIME for Grasshopper Betcha there will still be questions amongst my display of understanding. LOL
There are two types of states. One is a corporate state. One is a republic state. I KNEW IT! darnit question time. Which takes presidence the place of birth or the residence as far as a definition of the type of citizenship.
The corporate State is an artificial entity. No human being is the subject of a State or of any artificial entity unless and until he compacts with that entity or engages with that entity via some contract or agreement.
It is any of the natural (under Common Law) or geographical entities that exist beyond the purview of the corporate state/s or other artificial persons or entities. Originally Posted by xanadu
There are ten federal regions. It is interesting to note that the Rockefellers' New States Constitution also eliminated states in favor of ten federal zones. (Note also that the Beast has ten "kings" that join with him at the end of his reign.) The states are subdivisions within the federal regions, and are identified as subdivisions through their two-letter capitalized abbreviations. You can probably do a simple wev search and find out all you want with the keywords, "ten federal regions." Note that the website for the federal National Response Center (http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrsinfo.html) makes specific mention of the ten federal regions: Originally Posted by xanadu
On top of the states, irregardless of what type of state, are overlaid Federal zones. If Federal zones are designated by state abbreviations such as IA or CA doesn’t that imply that each state is a distinct separate Federal zone? Somewhere in this discussion I got the impression a federal zone incorporated more than one state or territory. Perhaps I misunderstood. I can’t imagine why that would happen. LOL
"The RRT's are the next organizational level in the federal response system. Currently, there are 13 RRTs, one for each of the ten federal regions, plus one each for Alaska, the Caribbean and the Pacific Basin. Each team maintains a Regional Contingency Plan and both the state and federal governments are represented."
Okay, you seem to have a pretty good handle on these definitions. With regard to jurisdiction in your final question, the issue of which jurisdiction trumps which depends on numerous factors. If, and I say "if," you are NOT a federal citizen or a foreigner and the action being tried occurred on soil of one of the several states, then regardless of the existence of a federal overlay applicable to federal citizens and foreigners, the federal government does not have jurisdiction unless there is subject-matter jurisdiction as defined within the Constitution, which is to say that you must have either been engaging in one of the activities whose regulation is reserved to the federal government or that an accused crime was international or interstate in nature. Originally Posted by xanadu
The same principle applies to the corporate layers of government and jurisdiction down at the state and local level. If, for example, you are among those subject to a state's vehicle licensure requirements (and most of us, believe it or not, are NOT subject to those commercial codes by the mere act of travelling about in our personal automobiles), then the traffic codes do not apply to you, and you could only be tried under common law for a crime committed while undertaking that action, such as reckless endangerment or some-such. Do you understand the theory?
Actually, that's not necessarily true. There are very few cases in which a human being acting the pursuit of his day to day life would do anything that would create a primary federal or international jurisdiction if not for the plethora of agreements and contracts he has signed without making a reservation of rights. did you know that the primary law enforcement of any portion of any of the several states is your county sheriff? The feds are not allowed to serve a warrant or undertake any legal action on private property without the permission and assistance of your local sheriff. Originally Posted by xanadu
Well, it depends on how one is accurately legally defined, yes. Originally Posted by xanadu
Absolutely Originally Posted by xanadu
Correct. Originally Posted by xanadu
Better yet, state that you are a natural citizen of (for example) Virginia, free republic state of the United States of America. Originally Posted by xanadu
Okay, "domestic," as used in federal law or the regulations of the corporate states, means domestic to the federal entity, its territories and possessions, or to the corporate states. The federal zone does not really co-exist with the organic state. the federal zone is artificial and exists only for those subject to it. Though the federal government may claim that a person who has identified himself as a federal citizen yet is living geographically within one of the several states is also living in a federal region that it has created, it may not be able to make the claim of his next-door neighbor if he has no claim of federal citizenship and has not otherwise contractually bound himself to the federal entity. For him, the federal zone is nothing more than a legal fiction. Originally Posted by xanadu
A natural citizen of a state (a sovereign) can live as a resident alien in a given territory or he could live there as a sovereign of one of the several states as provided by law. There is no reason that he would have to be naturalized. Originally Posted by xanadu
Well, the capitalization in question is more standard convention than anything else. For example, the Founding Fathers capiltalized anything they thought to be significant. In today's idiom, however, the de facto standard is that "state" can refer to a republic state such as one of our several states, to a standalone sovereign state (such as South Africa), to a corporate state, or just about any other definition of the term. The capitalized "State," however, almost uniformly applies to the title of a corporate state or other artificial entity. In other words, using lower-case does not necessarily confer any specific definition of the term, while using capitalizing the first letter generally narrows the term to corporate or artificial entities. Originally Posted by xanadu
If you are born on the soil of one of the several states of the republic, there is no need to ever consider that you were born into one of the overlying artificial entities unless you so desire. There must be an overt action that places you in a corporate state, because it is not a real place, but rather a legal creature. Technically speaking, you as a flesh and blood human being are never a subsidiary. To be precise, what happens is that a franchise is created as a straw man and you then bind yourself, either intentionally or through error, to the legal fiction. Originally Posted by xanadu
Again, there is no "corporate state" to be born in, as it does not physically exist. Your registration as a corporate citizen is undertaken by your parents or yourself unless you happen to have been born in a federal territory or possession or the federal district. Once you have accepted your status as a subject of the federal zone, you are not an actual citizen of a state, but rather a resident of the state or a citizen of the State. Originally Posted by xanadu
Well, this one gets complicated, because many documents to which you may be referring would not be signed by anything but chattel. The less stuff you attach your signature the better. For example, I rarely if EVER sign a standard governmental form or document. I will (if I must submit something) generate a substantially similar document whose terminology is matched to my status. A free citizen of one of the several states has precious few reasons to file documents with the government. Originally Posted by xanadu
Whoops this was suppose to be a quiz and here I am asking questions again.
Okay I get it … at least part of it … every person residing within the boundaries of this nation needs to have a lawyer attached at their hip before they sign ANY document which defines either their citizenship or their location of residence.
Now with regard to the irritating label of “chattel”, if I understand this correctly:
If one is born in a state of the United States, when signing a document that specifies the signer as a resident of the United States, one should qualify that “label” to read not resident of the United States” but (name) … a sovereign citizen of the republic state of ( ...... ) OR if it were a corporate state it would read a sovereign citizen of America.
Do you understand why that is? Those of us born on the soil of one of the several states of the republic were born freemen. Those born on the soil of other nations were already subjects. They are the chattel of one or another entity, and most likely of one or another of the states of the Holy Roman Empire. That's why it is that as soon as this nation fell under the concurrent power of the HRE, the HRE demanded that its claims on its other chattel be protected against flight to free lands, such as the states of America. Hence Amendment XIV. Originally Posted by xanadu
You're asking the wrong guy. Originally Posted by xanadu
I'll give you a b-minus, as a few of the terms still seemed to be throwing you a curve, but you seem to have the basics. Originally Posted by xanadu
(Pass or fail grade on this understanding please and thank you )
[IF I fail then perhaps I need to find an undiscovered island where the only law applicable is the Natural Law ]
No. Each of the several states created a corporate State to manage its affairs, just as the union of the states created the federal corporate entity to manage their joint affairs. For the most part, the state is the organic body politic and the geographic region, while the State is the government and its offices and agencies. Originally Posted by xanadu
Why mess up a perfectly good teacher by requiring 12 years of indoctrination? (LOL!!!) Originally Posted by xanadu
Other topics in this post beyond citizenship and the disgusting term “chattel”.
I don’t know why I should have been shocked by your statement with regard to lawyers in Texas. It’s the same thing with education. Iowa has rather strict requirements with regard to qualifications for teachers in public schools when compared to some of the other States. (capital right?) I was appalled to find out in some of the southern states a teacher is only required to have a high school education.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Personally, I would not trust an attorney to look over my will, much less craft a document meant to undermine the illicit power over the citizenry that the government has gathered unto itself. Many states allow people to practice law without being members of the Bar or obtaining a law degree from one of the Bar's programs. Texas, for example, requires only demonstration of equivalent knowledge, which is usually simply passing the Bar exam.
Seriously, I have a problem with anyone having any job for any reason other than personal merit. I don't like professional licensure except in the most public of public service jobs. I believe in free enterprise and the rule of caveat emptor. I believe in personal responsibility, and I do not believe that the government should or can legislate it. I believe that the correct venue to pursue professional incompetence is in civil court, and that the award limits for that venue should be vastly increased as they have not come close to keeping pace with inflation. If you ask me, all that licensure and state certification do is provide a protective layer of bureaucracy for inadequate professionals.
I have actually reaised the potential for such legislation with several lawmakers, including my previous representative (prior to redistricting). The answer is that there is not an ice cube's chance in Hell of such a provision passing, because the vested interests that own the legislators would not be able to accomplish even a tiny portion of their deceptive evil were such limitations in place. That's the reason that, if I am ever selected as a delegate to a constitutional convention for any new government, it's one of the first first provisions I would insist upon, along with one outlawing the Bar or any other such legal monopoly. Originally Posted by xanadu
Why? Uniformity means that if a given process is flawed, then the flaw is universal. Better to have a whole host of systems so that any group contemplating vote fraud would have to divide their energy amongst an endless array of obstacles rather than finding a single back door. Originally Posted by xanadu
Well, the feds" is not a term I can wrap my head around, as there are many diverse and competing interests encompassed within that general description. I do recall that the Deomcrats have been harping on the subject since the 2000 election. The funny thing is that they want uniform voting machines, allegedly to avoid voter fraud, yet utter not a peep about regiatration fraud that saw hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes in heavily Dmocratic districts in places like Pennsylvania, where some Philadelphia area districts reported turnouts in excess of 100%. Because they were minority districts, political correctness insure that there would be no serious investigation or reportage. Originally Posted by xanadu
Do you know if there is any effort on the part of the Feds to “take over” and establish one vote method for all states? Given the mounting concern of the citizens with regard to the legitimacy of the national vote it would seem to me that topic is ripe for interference at a federal level.
Oh, I believe that there would be some repercussions to exiting the UN, but I say that it is a "must-do." Lie with dogs and you'll end up with fleas. Originally Posted by xanadu
There is a reason that lawyers go by the title of Esquire. Do you remember what a squire was? He was the guy who attended to the martial needs of the knight or lord. Today, the bankers are the lords (both figuratively and, often, literally). The Esquires are their servants, only today they do not work with swords but rather with pens, proving the adage that the pen is mightier than the sword. Those attorneys who pen the ever more intrusive legislation that is stealing our lands and our freedoms accomplish with the treachery of the pen that which swords could never accomplish. The same goes for the barrister judges whose pens scribe the absurdist bench legislation and judicial constructions that accomplish the same. Originally Posted by xanadu
Okay, but don't panic if I take a bit of time to answer. I have a pretty hefty burden of work out here in the real world, and this is a pretty busy week. Also, I will be out of town and incommunicado next week and part of the following. Originally Posted by xanadu
-
06-13-2006, 09:26 PM #25Banned
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
LOL!!! Originally Posted by xanadu
-
06-14-2006, 11:20 AM #26Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Iowa
- Posts
- 958
(((( Crocket ))))
I hope those following this thread are copying it and saving it. I am going to respond quickly to this post. I am up to my ears in information coming out of Canada and Britain and I am also short of time.
IF I hear you correctly for my families sake I need to create the recisiions (excuse spelling please) and post them. I'll take a B- I was expecting a d+ this is absolutely the most treacherous trap of layers of definitions that I believe could ever be conjured by a human mind!
Okay my understanding is correct on this. I begin to doubt myself because of the complexity (and no doubt a level of stress I am not used to)CrocketsGhost wrote:
There are ten federal regions.
Therein lies the urgency to rescind all documents signed in ignorance or on your behalf when you were a minor. Crocket, the taking of this action assumes there will exist a respect for the rule of law. Correct me if I am wrong. You said previously regarding another topic "In what court would you try it." Your statement carries an implied meaning that for me this morning is grim.CrocketsGhost wrote:
If, and I say "if," you are NOT a federal citizen or a foreigner and the action being tried occurred on soil of one of the several states, then regardless of the existence of a federal overlay applicable to federal citizens and foreigners, the federal government does not have jurisdiction unless there is subject-matter jurisdiction as defined within the Constitution,
I am not sure if I do. Let me take a shot at this.CrocketsGhost wrote:
If, for example, you are among those subject to a state's vehicle licensure requirements (and most of us, believe it or not, are NOT subject to those commercial codes by the mere act of travelling about in our personal automobiles), then the traffic codes do not apply to you, and you could only be tried under common law for a crime committed while undertaking that action, such as reckless endangerment or some-such. Do you understand the theory?
We are not subject to those codes because some of them are from Federal level (seatbelts for instance) or we are not subject to them because we have not crossed a state line (again it would be some miserable Federal thing to do with interstate commerce) OR is it because we are in our "personal property"?
Question for you regarding an action I took on behalf of a company. I signed a UCC agreement using my name as the agent for the company. It is the company that is “captured” as a chattel right? Please say yes!CrocketsGhost wrote:
very few cases in which a human being acting the pursuit of his day to day life would do anything that would create a primary federal or international jurisdiction if not for the plethora of agreements and contracts he has signed without making a reservation of rights. did you know that the primary law enforcement of any portion of any of the several states is your county sheriff? The feds are not allowed to serve a warrant or undertake any legal action on private property without the permission and assistance of your local sheriff.
What about soldiers who enlist? I would assume those that were drafted (when it existed could claim coercion existed. What about government officials (the ones who are innocent?) They take an oath to the constitution but they execute the actions of the Federal government? The oath IF it is to the republic constitution and I believe it is… I read the original oath and if memory serves me it is the same oath today. But memory will not pick up any tiny nuance of difference so who knows what they took an oath to.
No I did not know about the County Sheriff. So in fact that is the most important position we vote on when it comes to protecting personal rights and state rights am I correct?
I wonder how many county sheriffs really are aware of that? Given current events any of them worth their salt are finding out. This is why the Country Sheriff in Arizona is able to pick up immigrants; he is executing a state law and is not subject to federal control. I LOVE IT! There’s one for our side. :P
PAY ATTENTION THOSE WHO ARE FOLLOWING THIS he just gave us the key to the republic! (((( Crocket ))))) I am assuming in the rescission statement that you have to state the SN or do you just say something like,CrocketsGhost wrote:
Better yet, state that you are a natural citizen of (for example) Virginia, free republic state of the United States of America.
“I (name…) a natural citizen of (state), free republic state of the United States of America. as of (date ) do hereby rescind all implied or real obligations to any entity or State other than the state of Iowa which may have resulted from involuntary consent to such obligations or citizenship through actions of parents taken on my behalf prior age of consent, who believed at that time the action taken was required by law or obligations which may have arrisen by my own signature made without full disclosure of the obligations implied at the time of signing. ” then sign it with the same qaulification of type of citizenship stipulation underneath the signature line one and have it notorized and published in the paper. To whom would we send this docuemnt? and does it need to be a simpler statement?
So if one rescinds all previous documents signed for reason of fraud (not fully informed at the time of signature or because of the obligation placed upon them by a parent then that person would also be free from the ramifications of the federal zone overlay... correct? This action should still allow the person to vote in national elections because we vote at a state level… correct?CrocketsGhost wrote:
Though the federal government may claim that a person who has identified himself as a federal citizen yet is living geographically within one of the several states is also living in a federal region that it has created, it may not be able to make the claim of his next-door neighbor if he has no claim of federal citizenship and has not otherwise contractually bound himself to the federal entity. For him, the federal zone is nothing more than a legal fiction.
So if I were to sign a document that was the state of Iowa it implies the republic state of Iowa of one of our several states as a sovereign state .. as opposed to signing it the State of Iowa or the STATE OF IOWA which makes it corporate and implies federal jurisdiction. Duh !!!! something just hit me ..I wonder how many times have I seen 'THE STATE OF IOWA" within the title or description of a document.CrocketsGhost wrote:
the de facto standard is that "state" can refer to a republic state such as one of our several states, to a standalone sovereign state .....
while using capitalizing the first letter generally narrows the term to corporate or artificial entities.
YES! I so desire not to be defined a "chattel". I have been told I was a free person from as far back as I can remember. I refuse to alter my self concept for the benefit of crooks and liars and frauds and greedy robber barrens.CrocketsGhost wrote:
If you are born on the soil of one of the several states of the republic, there is no need to ever consider that you were born into one of the overlying artificial entities unless you so desire.
That's why this conversation is so important to me and everyone else I care about which includes ALL the Americans who have NO clue what is happening. God protect them please.
But I revert to one once I rescind past signatures correct?CrocketsGhost wrote:
Once you have accepted your status as a subject of the federal zone, you are not an actual citizen of a state, but rather a resident of the state or a citizen of the State.
My personal life experience would tend to support your opinion. Don't talk to me about business lawyers LOL that's a topic best set aside like Dulles.CrocketsGhost wrote:
If you ask me, all that licensure and state certification do is provide a protective layer of bureaucracy for inadequate professionals
Grasshopper understands the logicCrocketsGhost wrote: regarding election tampering
Uniformity means that if a given process is flawed, then the flaw is universal. Better to have a whole host of systems so that any group contemplating vote fraud would have to divide their energy amongst an endless array of obstacles rather than finding a single back door.
I'm glad you said "must-do" that's what my gut has told me for a number of years.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Oh, I believe that there would be some repercussions to exiting the UN, but I say that it is a "must-do." Lie with dogs and you'll end up with fleas.
Now with regard to, the actual act of the exodus. That is going to take a bit of preparation on our part. Are there those in positions of power or authority that have entertained this scenario so we are not caught up in a situation which the People are totally unprepared for? My gut tells me we need to bring our troops home and get them back into their respective states. I do not trust the 2008 election to produce from either party a government that would take this action. Tancredo needs to create a third party NOW and take with him those who are loyal to our constitution.
With regard to 2008 between vote tampering and propaganda and limited party selection I just don’t see it being the key to this country's salvation. When I say to someone disregard the party! Pay attention to the vote record. I see far too many eyes roll in laziness.
I am very concerned Bolton might fold on the proposed U.N. Global Gun Ban. After all he is an “appointee”. IF the U.S. were to sign on to that treaty, I think the situation would be jumpstarted before any organization would have taken place which would lead to a disaster.
So Grasshopper wants to know, if you know if there are any contingent plans should we find our selves ousted from the U.N?
That's why I ranted in the paragraph above. Yep I am very aware of the tools used to erase our nation.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Those attorneys who pen the ever more intrusive legislation that is stealing our lands and our freedoms accomplish with the treachery of the pen that which swords could never accomplish. The same goes for the barrister judges whose pens scribe the absurdist bench legislation and judicial constructions that accomplish the same.
Guess you got me pegged. LOL CrocketsGhost wrote:
Okay, but don't panic if I take a bit of time to answer. I have a pretty hefty burden of work out here in the real world, and this is a pretty busy week. Also, I will be out of town and incommunicado next week and part of the following.
Hope you were around to at least review the bill I sent to you for your opinion. Be safe!"Liberty CANNOT be preserved without general knowledge among people" John Adams (August 1765)
-
06-14-2006, 06:10 PM #27Banned
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Therein lies the urgency to rescind all documents signed in ignorance or on your behalf when you were a minor. Crocket, the taking of this action assumes there will exist a respect for the rule of law. Correct me if I am wrong. You said previously regarding another topic "In what court would you try it." Your statement carries an implied meaning that for me this morning is grim.[/quote:j8b4fdri] Originally Posted by xanadu
Actually, regarding your last comment, the situation is not as bad as you may imagine. For whatever reason (probably arrogance), the powers that be seem to take delight in perverting or confusing the rule of law rather than ignoring it. It's almost like some perverse game. For example, the UCC, which has been used to subject Americans to international law, contains a provision that requires that it harmonize with Common Law. What this means is that there still must be an underlying contract before you can be made subject to UCC agreements and their provisions on sovereign soil of one of the several states. There are also courts that still may hear cases at Common Law. US District Court handles only administrative law, for example, while District U.S. Court may hear Common Law. Don't get me lying about how to file the correct case in the correct venue; I have enough trouble figuring that out for my own purposes. But be aware that there are correct venues and correct filings. Also be aware that most people can't steer you in the right direction and that almost all lawyers will intentionally steer you in the wrong direction.
It is because you are pursuing your right to freedom of travel on the public byways in your own poperty IF your car is your own property. Part of the "title" scam that states pull is to get you to surrender the actual title (usually the car's Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin) and then provide you with an inferior instrument, the Certificate of Title. A C of T is not itslef a title, but is rather an instrument allowing the person named therein use of a piece of porperty for which there is title. Because the state holds equitable title to your car, the state may regulate how you use that car. I have reams of case law and other documentation that proves that you have a right to the use of your own car for your own travel, so long as it is not being used in commerce. All Drivers Licenses are by definition commercial. Originally Posted by xanadu
For my own purposes, I have a disclaimer I file when I purchase a car that file in lieu of the title application which states that I wish to have the car registered so as to avoid harassment from government agents potentially unfamiliar with my rights and the law, but that I grant no title interest to any other party and retain full equitable and negotiable title for myself. I also swear that it is not my intent to use the car commercially, but rather have purchased it with the sole intent of enjoying my right to freedom of locomotion. There are a number of other specifiers and disclaimers, and the thing concludes by stating that if the State contests any of the claims or does not agree to any of the terms stated therein, it is to cancel the transaction and return my payment in full. I also state that, to my knowledge, and according to the bill of sale I received when purchasing the car, I am the sole titleholder to the property and that no other person or entity possesses any title interest in whole or in part, and I demand that the State produce any contrary information it may have and produce any claims that it may hold to title interest in the property or forever hold its peace.
I think that this subject is somewhat off-topic, but I can provide other information you may desire on this subject via email or pm.
An agent is only an agent. Just as a person with power of attorney for a person or entity may act on bahalf of the entity but is not liable for entity, so is an agent empowered to speak or act for an entity while maintaining little or no liability (depending upon his contractual or agreed relationship with said entity). Originally Posted by xanadu
Enlistment requires the signing of an agreement with specific terms, and it is voluntary. An enlisted member of the military is both responsible for his actions (except as specifically exempted by law) and responsible for upholding the terms of the enlistment. A drafted serviceman, on the other hand, may claim duress and thereby be absolved of actions he opposed but may have been forced to take by direct order. Originally Posted by xanadu
I can't answer your question regarding the oath.
Absolutely. Your Sheriff can save your bacon or he (or she) can sell you out. It is the most important office that exists with regard to your own personal existence and you personal property. Originally Posted by xanadu
You may be surprised how many are aware, and equally surprised at how many are aware but don't care, or still wish to be the errand-boy for other law enforcement agencies. Originally Posted by xanadu
That's a pretty good declaration. I would probably leave out the part excepting obligation to the state of Iowa. A freeman's only obligations are to his Creator and his fellow man. I would probably also state that I was rescinding my signature on all contracts and agreements previously signed and would state that I was a natural human being, not a franchise, corporation, or other artificial person, and that I was not a surety or guarantor for nor knowingly obligated or indentured to any person or entity. Originally Posted by xanadu
Correct. You have a natural right to vote for all such offices as are specified as being subject to a vote of the People by the federal Constitution and the constitution of your state. I also have some homework for you. See if you can find the difference between a voter and an elector (and I am not limiting this term to the special electors of the Electoral college). Originally Posted by xanadu
Better yet, look at how many times their documents to you identify you as (for example) JOHN Q. PUBLIC, rather than your flesh and blood name of John Q. Public. They are referring to any artificial person that may have been created in your name, such as the straw man created when your birth certificate was filed when the government made a claim on you as chattel at birth. Originally Posted by xanadu
You may remember that I had earlier mentioned defunding the Beast. Maybe now you are understadning how this could be possible. Originally Posted by xanadu
YES! I so desire not to be defined a "chattel". I have been told I was a free person from as far back as I can remember. I refuse to alter my self concept for the benefit of crooks and liars and frauds and greedy robber barrens.CrocketsGhost wrote:
If you are born on the soil of one of the several states of the republic, there is no need to ever consider that you were born into one of the overlying artificial entities unless you so desire.
That's why this conversation is so important to me and everyone else I care about which includes ALL the Americans who have NO clue what is happening. God protect them please.
You have always been one. Fraud negates any contract, and an unconscionable contract is null and void from its inception, as though it had never existed. Originally Posted by xanadu
Grasshopper understands the logic Originally Posted by xanadu
I'm glad you said "must-do" that's what my gut has told me for a number of years.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Oh, I believe that there would be some repercussions to exiting the UN, but I say that it is a "must-do." Lie with dogs and you'll end up with fleas.
Now with regard to, the actual act of the exodus. That is going to take a bit of preparation on our part. Are there those in positions of power or authority that have entertained this scenario so we are not caught up in a situation which the People are totally unprepared for? My gut tells me we need to bring our troops home and get them back into their respective states. I do not trust the 2008 election to produce from either party a government that would take this action. Tancredo needs to create a third party NOW and take with him those who are loyal to our constitution.[/quote:j8b4fdri]
With regard to your question as to whether anyone has considered the scenario, I believe there have been a few. Ross Perot was for disentangling us from our many foreign entrapments, and Pat Buchanan has taken the position that we needed to get out of the UN. There are many others, like Texas Rep. Ron Paul.
Well, there has been a very successful campaign to simultaneously breed apathy and to sew antipathy for "conspiracy nuts." If you are masterminding a conspiracy of global propoertions, wouldn't the best gambit be to convince everyone that the idea of such a thing is ludicrous? I am reminded of the old line about Satan's greatest trick being his convincing the world that he didn't exist. Originally Posted by xanadu
I'm not sure what you mean by "ousted from the UN." Originally Posted by xanadu
As for a gun grab, the first thing anyone should remember before trying to grab a man's gun is that the man has a gun!
Guess you got me pegged. LOL Originally Posted by xanadu
That's why I ranted in the paragraph above. Yep I am very aware of the tools used to erase our nation.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Those attorneys who pen the ever more intrusive legislation that is stealing our lands and our freedoms accomplish with the treachery of the pen that which swords could never accomplish. The same goes for the barrister judges whose pens scribe the absurdist bench legislation and judicial constructions that accomplish the same.
[quote:j8b4fdri] CrocketsGhost wrote:
Okay, but don't panic if I take a bit of time to answer. I have a pretty hefty burden of work out here in the real world, and this is a pretty busy week. Also, I will be out of town and incommunicado next week and part of the following.
Hope you were around to at least review the bill I sent to you for your opinion. Be safe![/quote:j8b4fdri]
Oh, I'm still around for a few days, but I'll be globehopping on and off all summer. I'll try to check in as much as possible.
-
06-14-2006, 09:22 PM #28Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Iowa
- Posts
- 958
Point made and remembered! The UCC thing has been satisfied so I am not going to worry on that. I was just double checking and your information is how I understood the legal relationship to be .CrocketsGhost wrote:
Almost all lawyers will intentionally steer you in the wrong direction.
Has this ever been challenged in a court? And yes maybe we did diverse in a small way but the subject is still on how people are "hoodwinked". The information you have provided is absolutely beyond value! Thank you!Crocket Wrote:
Part of the "title" scam that states pull is to get you to surrender the actual title (usually the car's Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin) and then provide you with an inferior instrument, the Certificate of Title. A C of T is not itself a title, but is rather an instrument allowing the person named therein use of a piece of property for which there is title. I had to get up and walk away from the computer on this bit of enlightenment! The smoke has stopped rolling from my ears. Now I just have this almost permanent look of pure unadulterated disgust!
[quote:2qafoh4z]CrocketsGhost continued...
Because the state holds equitable title to your car, the state may regulate how you use that car. I have reams of case law and other documentation that proves that you have a right to the use of your own car for your own travel, so long as it is not being used in commerce. All Drivers Licenses are by definition commercial.
Out of curiosity what kind of reaction do you get when you present the disclaimer LOL I bet that person receiving the document thinks twice the next time they purchase and register a car. LOL Thanks Crocket!
If a person, who has enlisted, fulfills the obligation, is honorably discharged and has not received any benefits as a veteran; would they still be able use the rescission document with regard to SN?CrocketsGhost wrote:
Enlistment requires the signing of an agreement with specific terms, and it is voluntary. An enlisted member of the military is both responsible for his actions (except as specifically exempted by law) and responsible for upholding the terms of the enlistment. A drafted serviceman, on the other hand, may claim duress and thereby be absolved of actions he opposed but may have been forced to take by direct order.
The national identity card is being pushed pretty hard, now I understand why. It is not to identify people who are here illegally. It is to increase the borrowing potential by increasing the human collateral of this nation. Listen to that statement! The words are so cold and inhuman they nearly freeze the page but it is how governments view their citizens. WE must save our nation and our Constitution!
Gotcha... "other than the state of Iowa" is out.CrocketsGhost wrote:
That's a pretty good declaration. I would probably leave out the part excepting obligation to the state of Iowa. A freeman's only obligations are to his Creator and his fellow man. I would probably also state that I was rescinding my signature on all contracts and agreements previously signed and would state that I was a natural human being, not a franchise, corporation, or other artificial person, and that I was not a surety or guarantor for nor knowingly obligated or indentured to any person or entity.
Your final suggestion prompted a question. If one has a balance on a mortgage on their home they are obligated to that holder of the mortgage. In that statement would is it necessary to exempt that specific entity? The contract to purchase is limited by time and eventually is fulfilled. Does that singular obligation in any way tie you to the fed as a "chattel"? Banks are by their charters tied to the fed. I would assume a mortgage company is also since they all sell off the original mortgage most likely to the feds.
My first response was the electors of the Electoral College... so I'm off on that task.CrocketsGhost wrote:
I also have some homework for you. See if you can find the difference between a voter and an elector (and I am not limiting this term to the special electors of the Electoral college). Am I going to be shocked again? LOL
I don't think I have ever seen that... but then would I have been looking for it a week ago? I think not. I will keep my eyes open.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Better yet, look at how many times their documents to you identify you as (for example) JOHN Q. PUBLIC, rather than your flesh and blood name of John Q. Public.
Yep …that light bulb went on immediatelyCrocketsGhost wrote:
You may remember that I had earlier mentioned defunding the Beast. Maybe now you are understanding how this could be possible.
Duh! I knew that! I don't think my mind has accepted the concept of a person as a property and considered in terms of contract law. It just did not register. I will never be able to accept that concept of people as "chattel". I can't find the words to express just how deep my anger is regarding the use of "that term" and the concept of people as property!CrocketsGhost wrote:
Fraud negates any contract, and an unconscionable contract is null and void from its inception, as though it had never existed.
Yep, one person with power gave his all and this nation had no clue. I've thought of him often the past few years.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Ross Perot was for disentangling us from our many foreign entrapments
Yep and yep. In fact I had a couple of disbelievers in this house until I printed the history from highly credible sources. The term Chattel does hit one square between the eyes. That shocker opened their minds.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Well, there has been a very successful campaign to simultaneously breed apathy and to sew antipathy for "conspiracy nuts." If you are masterminding a conspiracy of global proportions, wouldn't the best gambit be to convince everyone that the idea of such a thing is ludicrous ? I am reminded of the old line about Satan's greatest trick being his convincing the world that he didn't exist.
I had them at a disadvantage I had passed through the shock and disbelief and was acting on the information. They are each working through the expected stages. In fact I heard the words you used above almost verbatim. Hand them the North American Union community developement document for bed time reading. They don't sleep. They WAKE UP and their mind set shifts.
I've come to the point if any member of the administration attempts to discredit someone, it validates that persons credibility and I then go and try to confirm. Sometimes that is pretty hard if not impossible to do but their credibility attained by the mere fact the administration tries to discredit them never leaves me. I think people in general are beginning to realize that any one on the hit list must be honest and being discredited to cover up.
[/quote:2qafoh4z]CrocketsGhost wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "ousted from the UN."
As for a gun grab, the first thing anyone should remember before trying to grab a man's gun is that the man has a gun!
“Ousted from the U.N.” I’m still in the mind set that we are there because of the old adage “keep thy enemy close”. By having some say in how that governing body works we can disrupt their agenda. I know the phrase is "permanent member" but these people have a way of changing the meaning of words. (that too is a subject for another day LOL)
Anyway... there could come a time they would decide it would be in their best interest not to endure our presence. I certainly would not weep over that but I would want this nation prepared for the predictable consequences. Thinking on that… we belong and we are still facing the consequences of their agenda.
As far as the man with the gun LOL Well that statement pretty well sums it up. However, it could boil down to who had the bigger gun. That worries me.
Thanks Crocket!!! I'll get on the home work but I may not be in tomorrow. same problem here - demands for my time from the rest of the world
"Liberty CANNOT be preserved without general knowledge among people" John Adams (August 1765)
-
06-14-2006, 10:44 PM #29Banned
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
1 Has this ever been challenged in a court? And yes maybe we did diverse in a small way but the subject is still on how people are "hoodwinked". The information you have provided is absolutely beyond value! Thank you! Originally Posted by xanadu
Point made and remembered! The UCC thing has been satisfied so I am not going to worry on that. I was just double checking and your information is how I understood the legal relationship to be .CrocketsGhost wrote:
Almost all lawyers will intentionally steer you in the wrong direction.
[quote
0bacbqq]Crocket Wrote:
Part of the "title" scam that states pull is to get you to surrender the actual title (usually the car's Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin) and then provide you with an inferior instrument, the Certificate of Title. A C of T is not itself a title, but is rather an instrument allowing the person named therein use of a piece of property for which there is title. I had to get up and walk away from the computer on this bit of enlightenment! The smoke has stopped rolling from my ears. Now I just have this almost permanent look of pure unadulterated disgust!
[quote0bacbqq]CrocketsGhost continued...
Because the state holds equitable title to your car, the state may regulate how you use that car. I have reams of case law and other documentation that proves that you have a right to the use of your own car for your own travel, so long as it is not being used in commerce. All Drivers Licenses are by definition commercial.
2 Out of curiosity what kind of reaction do you get when you present the disclaimer LOL I bet that person receiving the document thinks twice the next time they purchase and register a car. LOL Thanks Crocket!
3 If a person, who has enlisted, fulfills the obligation, is honorably discharged and has not received any benefits as a veteran; would they still be able use the rescission document with regard to SN?CrocketsGhost wrote:
Enlistment requires the signing of an agreement with specific terms, and it is voluntary. An enlisted member of the military is both responsible for his actions (except as specifically exempted by law) and responsible for upholding the terms of the enlistment. A drafted serviceman, on the other hand, may claim duress and thereby be absolved of actions he opposed but may have been forced to take by direct order.
The national identity card is being pushed pretty hard, now I understand why. It is not to identify people who are here illegally. It is to increase the borrowing potential by increasing the human collateral of this nation. Listen to that statement! The words are so cold and inhuman they nearly freeze the page but it is how governments view their citizens. WE must save our nation and our Constitution!
Gotcha... "other than the state of Iowa" is out.CrocketsGhost wrote:
That's a pretty good declaration. I would probably leave out the part excepting obligation to the state of Iowa. A freeman's only obligations are to his Creator and his fellow man. I would probably also state that I was rescinding my signature on all contracts and agreements previously signed and would state that I was a natural human being, not a franchise, corporation, or other artificial person, and that I was not a surety or guarantor for nor knowingly obligated or indentured to any person or entity.
4 Your final suggestion prompted a question. If one has a balance on a mortgage on their home they are obligated to that holder of the mortgage. In that statement would is it necessary to exempt that specific entity? The contract to purchase is limited by time and eventually is fulfilled. Does that singular obligation in any way tie you to the fed as a "chattel"? Banks are by their charters tied to the fed. I would assume a mortgage company is also since they all sell off the original mortgage most likely to the feds.
My first response was the electors of the Electoral College... so I'm off on that task.CrocketsGhost wrote:
I also have some homework for you. See if you can find the difference between a voter and an elector (and I am not limiting this term to the special electors of the Electoral college). Am I going to be shocked again? LOL
I don't think I have ever seen that... but then would I have been looking for it a week ago? I think not. I will keep my eyes open.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Better yet, look at how many times their documents to you identify you as (for example) JOHN Q. PUBLIC, rather than your flesh and blood name of John Q. Public.
Yep …that light bulb went on immediatelyCrocketsGhost wrote:
You may remember that I had earlier mentioned defunding the Beast. Maybe now you are understanding how this could be possible.
Duh! I knew that! I don't think my mind has accepted the concept of a person as a property and considered in terms of contract law. It just did not register. I will never be able to accept that concept of people as "chattel". I can't find the words to express just how deep my anger is regarding the use of "that term" and the concept of people as property!CrocketsGhost wrote:
Fraud negates any contract, and an unconscionable contract is null and void from its inception, as though it had never existed.
Yep, one person with power gave his all and this nation had no clue. I've thought of him often the past few years.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Ross Perot was for disentangling us from our many foreign entrapments
Yep and yep. In fact I had a couple of disbelievers in this house until I printed the history from highly credible sources. The term Chattel does hit one square between the eyes. That shocker opened their minds.CrocketsGhost wrote:
Well, there has been a very successful campaign to simultaneously breed apathy and to sew antipathy for "conspiracy nuts." If you are masterminding a conspiracy of global proportions, wouldn't the best gambit be to convince everyone that the idea of such a thing is ludicrous ? I am reminded of the old line about Satan's greatest trick being his convincing the world that he didn't exist.
I had them at a disadvantage I had passed through the shock and disbelief and was acting on the information. They are each working through the expected stages. In fact I heard the words you used above almost verbatim. Hand them the North American Union community developement document for bed time reading. They don't sleep. They WAKE UP and their mind set shifts.
5 I've come to the point if any member of the administration attempts to discredit someone, it validates that persons credibility and I then go and try to confirm. Sometimes that is pretty hard if not impossible to do but their credibility attained by the mere fact the administration tries to discredit them never leaves me. I think people in general are beginning to realize that any one on the hit list must be honest and being discredited to cover up.
6 “Ousted from the U.N.” I’m still in the mind set that we are there because of the old adage “keep thy enemy close”. By having some say in how that governing body works we can disrupt their agenda. I know the phrase is "permanent member" but these people have a way of changing the meaning of words. (that too is a subject for another day LOL)CrocketsGhost wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "ousted from the UN."
As for a gun grab, the first thing anyone should remember before trying to grab a man's gun is that the man has a gun!
Anyway... there could come a time they would decide it would be in their best interest not to endure our presence. I certainly would not weep over that but I would want this nation prepared for the predictable consequences. Thinking on that… we belong and we are still facing the consequences of their agenda.
As far as the man with the gun LOL Well that statement pretty well sums it up. However, it could boil down to who had the bigger gun. That worries me.
Thanks Crocket!!! I'll get on the home work but I may not be in tomorrow. same problem here - demands for my time from the rest of the world[/quote0bacbqq][/quote0bacbqq]
Okay, this is getting a little convoluted format-wise, so I have taken the liberty of numbering the questions I see and answering them below:
1. Yes, this has been challenged, but you must understand the format for challenging it. Most of the regulations that you would be entrapped by occur under a jurisdiction that is foreign to a sovereign citizen of the republic of the several states. You don't use those courts and you never (if you can help it) enter a plea in one of those courts, because the entering of a plea constitutes acceptance of the jurisdiction. In such a case in a foreign court (such as an administrative law court), you would appear as "special, not general" and state the reasons for your appearance. Everything in such a case is handled in pre-trial motions. What will usually happen is that a judge in such a case will attempt to concoct a reason to dismiss the case pre-trial if it's clear that you know your stuff because they don't want such information on the public record in open court.
2. The more interesting reaction is when you get pulled over and the officer radios in what you tell him regarding your status and that of your car. Most officers return and do as they are told, which is to give you your documentation back and apologize for interrupting your day. Some want to ask you what the hell just happened (I have actually had conversations with officers in Texas and California for as much as 45 minutes after the stop explaining a good deal of what I have been explaining to you -- when I have the time to actually spend that much time on the roadside or in a parking lot). Most officers are decent folks who are astonished at what you are telling them and even more astoinished that the dispatcher told them to leave you alone. A very small minority will get indignant or even offensive.
3. I don't know the specifics of the enlistment agreement. I would review that if I were you. Unless there is specific language stating the potential change of status, you simply use the same argument that you were never apprised of such conditions and proceed as if the agreement had no such provisions, placing the burden on the government to provide you with the underlying document or provision of that agreement that they claim altered your status or otherwise bound you to the federal government in perpetuity.
One of the things that you always want to remember is to word any challenge so as to place the burden on the government. Be honest, stating that you are/were unaware of any provision that did whatever it is that you are trying to liberate yourself from, and demand that they provide the specific instrument and point out the specific provision that had the given effect. They won't answer and you have what amounts to a default judgment or at least de facto evidence in support of your own contention. Remember that there is always an obligation to respond to any claim made by another party against you.
4. Well, if you have a major and legitimate debt, rather than specifically exempting it from your revocation of your signatures, specify that anyone believing he has a valid debt should present you with paperwork for you to re-sign and re-submit if you find it to be valid, but remember to include all your rights reservationss and disclaimers. Better yet, if there are any provisions that still trouble you or if the provisions of the agreement state that they are incomplete (there is often a disclaimer to the effect that the full provisions of the agreement are available on request), ask to have a new and complete agreement drawn up that you may go over point by point, striking any provisions to which you do not agree. It is likely that the original agreement has made presumptions about your status and so assumed that you had subscribed to the Uniform Commercial Code without reservation of rights. You'll have to set them straight on that.
In the case of any credit agreement for which an outstanding debt or obligation is claimed, demand an affidavit showing that the "lender' in question actually provided compensation or value to yourself or a thrid party (generally the seller of whatever you are buying on credit). What you will find is that in most credit trnasactions, actual value exchange never occurred. In most credit transactions, your signature was monetized. That means that the lender did not provide the seller with of the lender's wealth, but rather transferred to the seller what amounts to a credit backed by your signature. Unless the lender provided actual value, your revocation of your signature means that not only has the lender not paid any debt for which you are responsible, but he has tried to charge you for credit that you gave to him via your signature, not vice versa. How you wish to handle such a case in which an alleged lender claims to have provided positive value but will not back the claim by affidavit is up to you.
5. Remember that it is not only this administration, but rather that it has been almost every administration since the Reconstruction that has been duplicitous.
6. No, the UN wants the US to remain a member. It's their best bet for keeping us in check. Besides, who would fund the UN of the US opted out? What credibility would it have?
The thing that we want to be wary of, however, is the increasing chorus of calls to eliminate the permanent members of the Security Council, instead rotating members periodically. The only thing worse that staying in the UN is staying in the UN without veto power.
-
06-15-2006, 09:48 AM #30Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Iowa
- Posts
- 958
BRILLIANT JUST PURELY BRILLIANT I love this! It gives natural born citizens (including myselfCrocket wrote (and I agree with the new format! Much easier to follow and respond to
4. if you have a major and legitimate debt, rather than specifically exempting it from your revocation of your signatures, specify that anyone believing he has a valid debt should present you with paperwork for you to re-sign and re-submit if you find it to be valid, but remember to include all your rights reservationss and disclaimers. Better yet, if there are any provisions that still trouble you or if the provisions of the agreement state that they are incomplete (there is often a disclaimer to the effect that the full provisions of the agreement are available on request), ask to have a new and complete agreement drawn up that you may go over point by point, striking any provisions to which you do not agree. It is likely that the original agreement has made presumptions about your status and so assumed that you had subscribed to the Uniform Commercial Code without reservation of rights. You'll have to set them straight on that. )tools to fight back with! I can guess one of two reactions will occur.. 1. they will try to intimidate by suggesting an increase in interest. Which I suspect is illegal or at this point in my confidence level I could certainly convey enough information to them that they might think it illegal and at least check that aspect out. LOL. or 2. they will immediately run to their in house lawyer asking serious questions. Either way if they happen to be a natural born citizen of this nation LOL the education will be passed along. ::REALLY BIG GRIN that is not represented accurately in our selection of smilies )
Triple Brilliant! This brings up the legality of the interest rates charged.continuing in 4 CrocketsGhost wrote:
In the case of any credit agreement for which an outstanding debt or obligation is claimed, demand an affidavit showing that the "lender' in question actually provided compensation or value to yourself or a thrid party (generally the seller of whatever you are buying on credit). What you will find is that in most credit trnasactions, actual value exchange never occurred. In most credit transactions, your signature was monetized. That means that the lender did not provide the seller with of the lender's wealth, but rather transferred to the seller what amounts to a credit backed by your signature. Unless the lender provided actual value, your revocation of your signature means that not only has the lender not paid any debt for which you are responsible, but he has tried to charge you for credit that you gave to him via your signature, not vice versa. How you wish to handle such a case in which an alleged lender claims to have provided positive value but will not back the claim by affidavit is up to you.
I am personally at a time in my life where I do not have the need for futher credit. I simply have to pay off the remaining balance of the mortgage. However, having said that I do use a debit card which in fact probably holds the same miserable trap as anything else. So I will need to resign the bank documents which are associated with it.
They are currently making the transition and enticing people if not forcing people to use plastic as a convenience. I believe the final entrapment will come in the form of everyone gets a plastic card to conduct transactions and physical money will be phased out.
As with most Americans during the years I raised my family I used credit. This could be another multiple page topic but I'll limit my thoughts on that. First the fact that credit is used as a measure of the person is a crock! They trap people by that requirement. If you pay cash for everything you have in the world you have difficulty attaining credit should the need arise for a serious purchase such as real estate. Bingo they gotcha! I already know the solution and that is contract purchases but then the choice of property would be limited to the sellers who were willing to conduct that form of transfer.
Secondly, it is purely evil the way credit card companies throw out these cards to people knowing full well the trap they are setting. People who obviously do not have the ability in their income to justify the credit extended are not only trapped into the federal chattel misery but find themselves crushed under debt they were never prepared to handle and the card company maximizes the interest rate charged with other fees should that person fall behind. The actions of the card company extending credit is blatant entrapment as well as exploitation! Which brings to mind "required insurance" talk about being held hostage! Even if you have the funds available to cover any liablity you might incur while driving you are required to have an insurance! Insurance companies along side credit card companies are legalized extortion machines!
Thirdly, how on earth will one ever survive the final plastic trap. The original constitution spells out that silver and gold are the legal tender. But it also spells out that the congress establishes the value of the tender. If congress has legislated plastic (as they legislated the illegal Federal Reserve) oooops... trap alert! How can that be handled without using barter?
I want to come back to the rest of your answers and comments later. Unfortunately for me, the day calls but I enter it with a big mischievious smile on my face as my knowledge increases. THANKS TO YOU!!
I almost relish getting pulled over when I get all this straight in my life. LOL
"Liberty CANNOT be preserved without general knowledge among people" John Adams (August 1765)
Reply With Quote
San Diego Sector of Southern Border Reaches Top Spot for Illegal...
05-11-2024, 02:51 PM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports