It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?

page: 22
153
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Excellent advice. Though again, its really hard for any one person to tackle this, its so risky. They need organizations in every community, presence, educational force, and community teamwork, buddy system.

And again, I so completely renounce their authority, I would just tell them what I think so the momentum needs to be done with others.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
OP, I believe what is being suggested here is for you to be very careful and consider possible ramifications that can befall you.

You are proposing opening Pandora's Box, challenging the Constitutionality of legislation. I feel this is something that must be done, but it must be organized and executed by an organization or group.

What is happening is we are living within a Matrix, a man created Matrix. Our being asleep at the wheel has allowed evil persons to sneak in and basically enslave us.

The poster Duality90 is basically saying this. All the posts calling Free Men crazy are saying this. If it is being said that our government can create legislation that we MUST live by what else can our society be described as if not enslaved?

I brought up that issue on another board I visit. The situation is here in Florida a child was killed during a soccer game and what I heard on the news is that the State capitol is now meeting to suggest legislation. What will come from that meeting is some new legislation (law?) which the citizens of Florida must now live by.

I ask, "What gives them the Right/Power to do such a thing? Do the representatives not have to present their ideas to the public for a vote or at least a look over? I'm sorry but if the answer is they do not, my brothers/sisters we are living under a dictatorship!

I wonder if the Dualty90 guy realizes what is happening in this thread? He is arguing from the perspective of someone who, as has been suggested, isn't being taught the real picture. He's fighting HARD for the side of the Matrix. Somewhere along the line, apparently, we informed our government that we want them to RULE OVER us?

This Matrix we are living in is too powerful to have been created by mere men.

God help the man who actually brings light to our Matrix alone!


With hindsight, I can see how that could be extrapolated from what I am saying. Perhaps it is correct.

Unfortunately, although the constitutionality of legislation has been challenged (and overturned), as far as I am aware, noone has ever successfully challenged a state or federal legislature's competence to enact new law by way of legislation. At least not in the UK - to my knowledge.

What I find problematic about the freeman argument is that what I gather are it's fundamental arguments which attempt to displace the longest-held theoretical underpinnings of our legislative systems. The enormity of that challenge is not to be understated.

Given that many of the arguments seem to be founded on an extremely dubious interpretation of the law in various areas, and several outright lies, I remain extremely sceptical.

I am of course open to seeing new evidence which would show the validity of the arguments, but that clear and unambiguous evidence has not yet been forthcoming.

Edit: just did a bit of poking about on arguments of the English freeman movement, notably s.61 Magna Carta (1215).

www.worldfreemansociety.org proclaims that s.61 (right of lawful rebellion) is both still in force and gives people the right to engage in lawful rebellion if displeased with the monarch.

As far as I can tell (of course I cannot look at the physical text of the Magna Carta to be 100% certain, only going off what I can gather on the internet), that is pretty much just a complete fabrication of what s.61 Magna Carta was about and neglects to inform readers that the vast majority of that statute has been either explicitly or implicitly repealed down the line.

There are of courses some acts from that long ago that still apply (Statute of Quia Emptores 1290) is still one of the principle laws governing tenure and estates. That does not mean that all are, and it is exceedingly rare to see such an old statute still applicable.

s.61 only ever actually made mention of Barons having the right of rebellion, and as far as I can tell, even this was later repealed in English history.

I suspect that many of the movement's arguments are just an extension of what people want the law to be, rather than actually reflecting the realities of the situation.


edit on 15-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)


I placed a few court cases here that have successfully challenged subject matter jurisdiction + other cases that clearly state that a law without an enacting clause is null and void as well as any judgments entered.

Do you think that these judges were wrong? & if so, how?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90
 





I am of course open to seeing new evidence which would show the validity of the arguments,


I laughed out loud hard when I read that... Thanks I needed a good laugh today...



Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90
 





I am of course open to seeing new evidence which would show the validity of the arguments,


I laughed out loud hard when I read that... Thanks I needed a good laugh today...


Laugh all you want. I am open. Such evidence has not yet been forthcoming from you. If I recall correctly, all you had to offer on your line of reasoning concerning corporations was an out-of-context quote from (if I recall correctly) a federal statute, ignoring the fact that 'corporation' has several meanings.

You simply see what you want to and provide nothing which either supports nor detracts from your argument - you have thus far neither provided nor added anything to the discussion on the merits of the freeman movement's arguments other than your personal opinion and interpretation of various laws and definitions.

Theoretically, on the rights of man, you raise various interesting points. But again, myself and other posters have made reference to various portions of the United States Constitution which expressly grants Congress the power to make law. I understand what you're trying to say about consent, but in both legal and practical reality, the necessity for that constant and unflinching consent of each individual is vitiated by implied consent. As far as I know, most 'citizens' of the US are governed by the federal government not through direct applicability of themselves to the federal government personally, but by being residents (citizens?) of states which, in their constitutions, make themselves expressly subject to federal law, provided those laws do not encroach upon rights reserved to states.

Presumably, 'consent' is given (at least in texas) by maintaining a system of republican government which is subject to the federal government. Again, I am not certain about this, because in England/Wales/ the UK the power to govern emanates from the Crown, so if anyone can enlighten (that is enlighten - not proffer your personal opinion) me, then please show me where I'm going wrong here.

If you have anything substantive and you are able to objectively demonstrate the merit of your argument, I will happily concede that victory to you. Subjective opinion cannot be a substitute for objective fact, however.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
OP, I believe what is being suggested here is for you to be very careful and consider possible ramifications that can befall you.

You are proposing opening Pandora's Box, challenging the Constitutionality of legislation. I feel this is something that must be done, but it must be organized and executed by an organization or group.

What is happening is we are living within a Matrix, a man created Matrix. Our being asleep at the wheel has allowed evil persons to sneak in and basically enslave us.

The poster Duality90 is basically saying this. All the posts calling Free Men crazy are saying this. If it is being said that our government can create legislation that we MUST live by what else can our society be described as if not enslaved?

I brought up that issue on another board I visit. The situation is here in Florida a child was killed during a soccer game and what I heard on the news is that the State capitol is now meeting to suggest legislation. What will come from that meeting is some new legislation (law?) which the citizens of Florida must now live by.

I ask, "What gives them the Right/Power to do such a thing? Do the representatives not have to present their ideas to the public for a vote or at least a look over? I'm sorry but if the answer is they do not, my brothers/sisters we are living under a dictatorship!

I wonder if the Dualty90 guy realizes what is happening in this thread? He is arguing from the perspective of someone who, as has been suggested, isn't being taught the real picture. He's fighting HARD for the side of the Matrix. Somewhere along the line, apparently, we informed our government that we want them to RULE OVER us?

This Matrix we are living in is too powerful to have been created by mere men.

God help the man who actually brings light to our Matrix alone!


With hindsight, I can see how that could be extrapolated from what I am saying. Perhaps it is correct.

Unfortunately, although the constitutionality of legislation has been challenged (and overturned), as far as I am aware, noone has ever successfully challenged a state or federal legislature's competence to enact new law by way of legislation. At least not in the UK - to my knowledge.

What I find problematic about the freeman argument is that what I gather are it's fundamental arguments which attempt to displace the longest-held theoretical underpinnings of our legislative systems. The enormity of that challenge is not to be understated.

Given that many of the arguments seem to be founded on an extremely dubious interpretation of the law in various areas, and several outright lies, I remain extremely sceptical.

I am of course open to seeing new evidence which would show the validity of the arguments, but that clear and unambiguous evidence has not yet been forthcoming.

Edit: just did a bit of poking about on arguments of the English freeman movement, notably s.61 Magna Carta (1215).

www.worldfreemansociety.org proclaims that s.61 (right of lawful rebellion) is both still in force and gives people the right to engage in lawful rebellion if displeased with the monarch.

As far as I can tell (of course I cannot look at the physical text of the Magna Carta to be 100% certain, only going off what I can gather on the internet), that is pretty much just a complete fabrication of what s.61 Magna Carta was about and neglects to inform readers that the vast majority of that statute has been either explicitly or implicitly repealed down the line.

There are of courses some acts from that long ago that still apply (Statute of Quia Emptores 1290) is still one of the principle laws governing tenure and estates. That does not mean that all are, and it is exceedingly rare to see such an old statute still applicable.

s.61 only ever actually made mention of Barons having the right of rebellion, and as far as I can tell, even this was later repealed in English history.

I suspect that many of the movement's arguments are just an extension of what people want the law to be, rather than actually reflecting the realities of the situation.


edit on 15-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)


I placed a few court cases here that have successfully challenged subject matter jurisdiction + other cases that clearly state that a law without an enacting clause is null and void as well as any judgments entered.

Do you think that these judges were wrong? & if so, how?


Hey OP, apologies, I was referring in isolation to what the other poster was saying there.

Let me have a bit more of a snoop and I'll get back to you?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
With hindsight, I can see how that could be extrapolated from what I am saying. Perhaps it is correct.

Unfortunately, although the constitutionality of legislation has been challenged (and overturned), as far as I am aware, noone has ever successfully challenged a state or federal legislature's competence to enact new law by way of legislation. At least not in the UK - to my knowledge.

What I find problematic about the freeman argument is that what I gather are it's fundamental arguments which attempt to displace the longest-held theoretical underpinnings of our legislative systems. The enormity of that challenge is not to be understated.

Given that many of the arguments seem to be founded on an extremely dubious interpretation of the law in various areas, and several outright lies, I remain extremely sceptical.

I am of course open to seeing new evidence which would show the validity of the arguments, but that clear and unambiguous evidence has not yet been forthcoming.

Edit: just did a bit of poking about on arguments of the English freeman movement, notably s.61 Magna Carta (1215).

www.worldfreemansociety.org proclaims that s.61 (right of lawful rebellion) is both still in force and gives people the right to engage in lawful rebellion if displeased with the monarch.

As far as I can tell (of course I cannot look at the physical text of the Magna Carta to be 100% certain, only going off what I can gather on the internet), that is pretty much just a complete fabrication of what s.61 Magna Carta was about and neglects to inform readers that the vast majority of that statute has been either explicitly or implicitly repealed down the line.

There are of courses some acts from that long ago that still apply (Statute of Quia Emptores 1290) is still one of the principle laws governing tenure and estates. That does not mean that all are, and it is exceedingly rare to see such an old statute still applicable.

s.61 only ever actually made mention of Barons having the right of rebellion, and as far as I can tell, even this was later repealed in English history.

I suspect that many of the movement's arguments are just an extension of what people want the law to be, rather than actually reflecting the realities of the situation.


edit on 15-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)




(How the heck do you separate the quoted material?)
It is an enormous feat to wrap my mind around what is being said in this thread, imagining it as being correct.

The things which are being stated by those pro-Free Man, sound and feel correct, but the way it would affect the world if it was ever proven correct is UNBELIEVABLE! So unbelievable that I don't think it would ever see the light the day.

I live in America and do any of you know what would happen if it was proven that legislation isn't law? Our government would go bankrupt from litigation! We would have to lay off tremendous numbers of law enforcement. There would be enormous numbers of prison inmates needing release!

After writing that, I can say this truth(?) will never emerge.

Perhaps this is the doomsday scenario that is 2012?
edit on 15-3-2011 by DZAG Wright because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2011 by DZAG Wright because: trying to fix the quoted material



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright


(How the heck do you separate the quoted material?)
It is an enormous feat to wrap my mind around what is being said in this thread, imagining it as being correct.

The things which are being stated by those pro-Free Man, sound and feel correct, but the way it would affect the world if it was ever proven correct is UNBELIEVABLE! So unbelievable that I don't think it would ever see the light the day.

I live in America and do any of you know what would happen if it was proven that legislation isn't law? Our government would go bankrupt from litigation! We would have to lay off tremendous numbers of law enforcement. There would be enormous numbers of prison inmates needing release!

After writing that, I can say this truth(?) will never emerge.

Perhaps this is the doomsday scenario that is 2012?
edit on 15-3-2011 by DZAG Wright because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2011 by DZAG Wright because: trying to fix the quoted material


Hey man. [ quote ] (without the spaces) and [ / quote] open and close the italicised area.

My point basically accords with what you are saying. If legislation wasn't law then there would be insanity. That is why it is evident in state and federal constitutions that they are empowered to enact such laws. What several people have argued is that (at least in America) the fundamental worth of the individual and the role he plays in relation to society (i.e. by giving legitimacy, both practical and legal to government) means that a government cannot pass a law which governs an individual without his consent. One effect of that argument of course would be to invalidate and render useless most governments in the world, including the US government.

The US constitution does of course proclaim that power is inherent in and derived from the people. As a Republic, this much is obvious. What people here are attributing to the people (and words which are not contained in the relevant sections of the US constitution) however, is the notion that the authority of the federal government is predicated on the consent of the people. America, like most, if not all other democracies in the world, is not a direct democracy as would be the theoretical ideal - it is a representative democracy. Because of the infeasibility of having a direct democracy, we delegate our power (sort of...given that they are elected by majority and not unanimity) to representatives (legislators) who then act on our behalf.

A law does not require the consent of those it seeks to govern in order for it to be lawful, and that is what I think the main problem in this thread is. That much is plain from the text of the constitution. Lack of unanimous consent vitiating the effectiveness of legislation would of course obviate the entire purpose of having a government.


edit on 15-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 





I live in America and do any of you know what would happen if it was proven that legislation isn't law? Our government would go bankrupt from litigation! We would have to lay off tremendous numbers of law enforcement. There would be enormous numbers of prison inmates needing release!


Settle down, relax and take a deep breath. You are allowing your emotions to overtake any sense of reason you have. Asserting that a common understanding that legislation is not law would result in the chaos you are suggesting misses several points.

First of all, what you are suggesting is tantamount to the planet earth disintegrating into chaos because people have come to understand that gravity was not enacted by Isaac Newton and that his mathematical equations were merely descriptions of the law of gravity.

Secondly, in the United States, the Framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing and it is fairly presumed that they successfully predicted that Congress would legislate acts of bogus legislation and this is why they made sure when constructing the Constitution to protect Congress from the type of litigation you are speaking to. The United States has to agree to be sued before anyone can bring suit against them. You are mistaken, and the truth being known is not what will bankrupt America. Quite the contrary, it is the truth being suppressed that is bankrupting America.

The point that legislation is not law, merely evidence of law is to make clear that law exists outside the realm of mere mortals and is a phenomenon existing in the universe. Murder on the planet Jupiter is just as unlawful as it is on the planet Earth, but "jay walking" or the prohibition of "illicit drugs" is an entirely different matter. The former speaks to law, the latter speaks to legislation.

The only thing that will descend into chaos if and when the people come to understand the distinction between law and legislation is the priest class lawyer set, as they will no longer have the mystical hold on their laity that they have enjoyed for so long.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





My point basically accords with what you are saying. If legislation wasn't law then there would be insanity.


The very reality that legislation is treated as if it is law is precisely what has made the United States a demonstrably insane nation. The United States presents itself as a "super power protecting freedom" across the world, while at home this nation imprisons more people per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. They imprison more people per capita than China does, and imprison more people than the Soviet Union ever did at the height of their tyranny.

The United States has not become a prison nation because the American people are a bunch of criminals. The United States has become a prison nation because legislation is treated with the reverence it is, and because petty tyrants have usurped that nations governments, tragically with the consent of the people. All governments exist by consent of the governed, and as long as Americans continue to consent to this insanity, things will not get saner any time soon.

Let me be clear here, I am not arguing that legislation requires the consent of every individual before it can find jurisdiction over these individuals. What I believe the freeman movement is getting at with this contention is the dubious licensing schemes that have been thrust upon the American people. The several states declaring that "driving is a privilege and not a right" is just one example. The states do not have the authority to declare driving a privilege or a right. Driving is quite simply a right. It was when the automobile was first invented and it remains so today.

It is not as if prior to the invention of the automobile there was a Department of Horse and Buggies, (DHB), declaring riding a horse, or driving a horse and buggy a privilege. It was understood then that this action was done by right, and not by some perverse permission granted by the state. There is no crime in driving a vehicle, and because there is no crime there is no legal authority to impose licensing schemes upon drivers. What makes the licensing schemes legal is the voluntary application for license by the people. At some point, this en masse voluntary application of a license became construed as meaning that "driving was privilege and not a right".

It is merely a construct of the system, but has no basis in law. I have read countless posts in various threads in this site aghast at the notion that people have the right to drive. I have read absurd arguments, such as the regulation of traffic and parking could not be enforced if people just simply had the right to drive, but such an argument gets to the heart of the prevailing insanity. People have become so disconnected from the law, they no longer understand its basic premise.

The law is simply a set of phenomena regarding the individual rights of people. While people undoubtedly have the right to drive, they do not have the right to use this action to harm others. Thus, vehicular homicide remains unlawful with or without a licensing scheme. The same holds true for unlawful parking. No one has the right to park their vehicle in a way that obstructs the right of way of another. This holds true with or without licensing schemes.

Legally speaking, a license is a grant of permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Driver licensing schemes is just the tip of the iceberg, and the insane notion that a shoemaker must obtain a license to make shoes is patently absurd, and in fact, the notion that a lawyer must obtain a license to practice law is equally as absurd. People have the right to earn a living and need not ask the state permission to do so. Just because so many people, en masse, have applied for business licenses does not in anyway obligate an individual to do so. If I want to make shoes and sell those shoes to people, I do not have to apply for a license to do so just because so many others have done so.

This, I believe, is the heart of the argument made by the freeman movement. If I am charged with a "crime" simply because I began selling shoes without a license to do so, whatever legislative act that is used to declare I am obligated to obtain a license has no legal authority over me, unless I voluntarily agree to contract under those conditions.

Would the world descend into insanity if shoe makers began rejecting licensing schemes and simply just made shoes and sold them to people? Would the world descend into insanity if doctors began practicing medicine without first obtaining a license to do so?

Of course, the world has all ready descended into insanity and this is while doctors do obtain a license to practice medicine, but this licensing scheme has done nothing at all to protect a public from bad medicine. If licensing schemes did protect the public then the term iatrogenicide would have no meaning, but it has so much meaning that Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, published a peer reviewed study over a decade ago in the Journal of The American Medical Association that asserted that nearly a quarter of a million deaths were caused each year from death by doctoring...so much for licensing schemes.

The long list of insanities that are the current paradigm are overwhelming in their scope. Government lackeys from the Federal Reserve declare that corporations have become "too big to fail" and that the American people must dig deeper into their own earnings to bail out these failed monstrosities, but this unofficial policy of "too big to fail" flies in the face of anti-trust laws, and this, in a large part demonstrates just how insane your argument that any and all legislative acts carry the force of law. The anti-trust laws are rooted in law, and in fact are legislative acts that seem to inherently understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and how that simple law very easily translates to economies. The corporatism that has reared its ugly head this past 100 years is closed system that has demonstrably tended towards entropy. The anti-trust laws are rooted in a much more capitalistic law, where open systems of business are encouraged and protected.

The bogus licensing schemes are a part of the closed system that has clearly become entropic. This is why the black markets are flourishing while the so called "free" markets are in a tail spin. The priest class lawyer set can deign to lecture the people all they want about what is sane and what is insane, and they can amusingly do it while donning black robes and powdered wigs, happily prancing about in their costumes under the delusional belief that this is somehow fooling a public. It may have, for a time, fooled the public, but those were different times, and we live in these times today, and the mystical incantations of an obsolete priest class lawyer set have less and less sway on people.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


The most recent thing I could find on the public record about Mr Thompsons case is this:


GUELPH — A city man whose initial court proceedings were videotaped and uploaded on YouTube has 15 days to pay a $260 fine.

Keith Thompson failed to show in Guelph’s provincial offences court Thursday but his trial proceeded in his absence. The court found him guilty of two offences of illegally parking a car outside a driveway or a legal off-street parking area.

On each offence, Thompson was fined $130.

Source.

Seeing that Mr Thompsons Myspace does not mention anything about it, and that the trail does end there, I feel he probably paid the fine. Of course, others will conclude the opposite. I have means of searching US court records (to a degree) but not Canadian records. So this is as far as I can research.

It does bear mention that Mr Thompson was in court for a parking violation, a very minor trespass. The OP is discussing, by his own admission, child support. A very different situation, legally speaking.

~Heff




Do you World Freeman Society?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
You have to decide whether you want to play the game or not...

What I mean by this is, persons who wish to utilize the Free Man technique must realize that they are basically separating themselves from a Matrix that has been created. What we call modern society. You can't sit on the fence with one leg in society and the other in Free Man Land. It's too difficult to walk that thin rail, you will slip and fall on to the Societal side and they will then crush you!

If you want to be a true Free Man you have to give up all the niceties you're enjoying, find some land and start your life there. You can't go to your job as a IT, driving your car on this societies roads, living in this societies property, eating its food, etc., and think you're going to thumb your nose at them anytime you want AND get away with it.

Either disconnect yourself from the Matrix or play by its rules. This is what's not shared by Free Men on the Land.

TPTB have created this matrix for us to dwell in and they'll be darned if they're going to allow one of their subjects # on them.


Read this my friend, you CAN be in both places at the same time, you are an "actor" for the strawman/surety. YOU are the beneficiary of the trust. When the gold was taken from the publics hands in 1933, it became illegal to pay a debt. THAT is a fact.

freedom-school.com...

And then we have this!!


The Promissory Note To Pay Our Debts

HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 is the promissory note (the promise of Abraham) the government issued to balance the exchange to credit the people. The Promissory note is on the debit side of the United States Governments ledger, which was a debited from their credit, created by the Executive Order of April 5, 1933 when they took the gold out of circulation. Public Policy is rooted in HJR-192 and is Grace that creates our exemption. This is your temporal saving grace. Under grace, the law falls away to create a more perfect contract. Public Policy removed the people's liability to make all payments by making a contract null if it required the payment to be in substance, because the people didn't have any money to pay with. All that must be done now is to discharge the liability. Pay and discharge are similar words but the principles are as different as Old and New Testaments. The word "pay" is equated with gold and silver, or something of substance like a first-born lamb, which requires tangible work to be invested in it to remove the liability because an execution must occur. The word "Discharge" is equated with paper, or even more basic, simple credits and debits, that exist on paper only, like the slate held by the agents/angels of heaven that get swiped clean. You cannot pay a bill with a bill and you cannot pay a debt with a debt.
What HJR-192 did was, remove the liability of an obligor (someone obligated to pay a debt) by making it against Public Policy to pay debts. All that needs to be done now is discharge the debit with an appropriate credit "dollar for dollar." Debt must be discharged dollar for dollar in the same sense, as sin was discharged on the Cross. The moment a debt exists, it must be written off. The catch is, we can't write off the debt because we are not in possession of the account in deficit; our fiduciary agent is in possession of the account so we must provide him with the tax return (by the return of the original offer) so the fiduciary can discharge the liability through their internal revenue service (the bookkeeper). Most feel that when the money was taken out of society, the people became the slaves, this is not true, the people were freed from every obligation that society could create thus freeing the people from any obligation which they may incur simply because we cannot pay a debt. Ask yourself the question, What are you charging me with? And how do you expect Me to pay? Simply said, there is no money, plain and simple for me to make the payment with and on top of that, if I were to pay, who is paying Me to pay that guy and who's paying that guy and so on... Public Policy is the supercedious bond because it limits our liability to pay. It is the more perfect contract because it operates on grace to pay our debts after we have done all that we can. We go as far as we can to fulfill the obligation (acceptance and tax return) and after we have done all we can, mercy and grace kick in being our exemption to make the payment. Grace creates our exemption in the industrial society so long as we accept the charge.


I don't think you have that right.
You are the executor/executrix not the beneficiary.

Have you heard of Mr. Clarence?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


Duality does bring up some interesting points.

According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to do whatever it wants. (within certain limits, such as they cannot constitutionally impose a direct un-apportioned tax upon the people, although the 16th Amendment is just that).

The first Ten Amendments to the Constitution were written with the expressed intent to limit the power of Congress, or should I say the entire Federal Govt.
The Bill of Rights was demanded by the anti-Federalist, mostly Thomas Jefferson, and they were limits placed upon the central Federal Government that were enacted in order to ensure that the Federal Government could not make laws that restrict the inherent God Given rights of the people.

You have to always remember that our rights were never intended to be legislated.
They are God-given and a product of the gift of life.

This was reaffirmed in the decision of Barron v. Baltimore; however ironically, it was the catalyst for the creation of the 14th Amendment.
(Most people will say that Dred Scot was the reasoning for the 14th Amendment, but they are only partially correct and woefully misinformed)

But this ALL changed with the 14th Amendment.
Let me bring up a point about the 13th and 14th Amendment

The 13th outlawed slavery and "involuntary servitude".
My question is why even state "involuntary servitude". It seems a bit redundant to me. Isn't that just slavery?

Well the answer to that comes with the 14th Amendment, which essentially allows for voluntary servitude.

Due to the 14th Amendment we are all citizens/employees of the Federal Govt. who have our rights (privileges) legislated to us, and they can be taken away at will.
That was NOT the original design.

The first supreme court justice, John Jay, stated in his first case as a judge when addressing the jury that they, the jury, had the DUTY to judge the LAW as well as the accused. BOTH.

The Founding Fathers were deathly afraid of a direct democracy. They saw that as the tyranny of the masses. Read Federalist Paper Number Ten.
So one of the very first judicial precedents that was established by common law precedent was the power of judicial review. This was decided in a very famous case, you might have heard of it....

Marbury versus Madison

Duality is correct by stating that the congress can legislate whatever the hell it wants, but that does not necessarily make it constitutional.

This precedent states that no matter what is legislated by congress, it can still be vetoed as unconstitutional. Not only by the sitting President, but by judges during the adjudication stage and by jurors with their right to jury nullification.

So... While Duality is correct that Congress has the power to legislate whatever they wish to legislate, I can think of three very important decisions where acts legislated by Congress were declared unconstitutional and null and void by some type of judicial review.

The first and second have to deal with the topic of jury nullification.

The first is the John Zenger trial

The second is the 18th Amendment, which was overturned by the 21st Amendment due to the fact that juries simply were not convicting anyone.

The previous two examples are jury nullification at work, which honestly is probably the last and best hope that we have to take our country back.

The third example is the marijuana tax act that Timothy Leary successfully defeated by claiming that it required us to violate our 5th Amendment right to self incrimination. This nullification of law due to judicial review was the work of the Supreme Court this time however.

@ greenovni:

I am not sure what the chances are of you taking this to a jury trial. Hell, I don't even know if juries in the state of FL can render a judgment regarding constitutional issues, but it is worth it to check out.

If I were you, and I had to take my chance on a bench trial or a jury trial, then I would FA SHO go with the jury trial.

Now... Once again, I am not familiar enough with the exact nature of the case or how family law works in FL... or if a jury decision on the constitutionality of this issue is even a possibility.

From what I have read, I think that hawkiye has given you the best advice.

Try to expose their charade through as many procedural issues as possible.

Be such a procedural pain the butt by threatening to expose their charade that they drop the charges and forget about you so as to not cause any further damage.

AND ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, MAKE SURE THAT A COURT REPORTER IS PRESENT SO THAT ANYTHING THE JUDGE SAYS CAN BE USED AS LEVERAGE AGAINST HIM/HER LATER.
edit on 3/15/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by thegoods724
...... sounds to me like you are trying to figure out a way to get out of some ticket, by saying the system is faulted. If that was feasable then everyone would do it.....


That sounds to me like another reason the system never gets fixed; acquiescence.

Perhaps the law should be logical - consistent - and clear..... If we haven't the right to question it; it should say so in the law itself. To paraphrase a line form a historical figure "I prefer my despotism pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

If we are to be subject to laws based upon the foundation proclaimed by the government, then they need to define where they decide to limit the citizens rights... not pretend we have them and then bury the reality behind walls of authority and layered bureaucratic policy disguised as "law."

.... Frankly, the reason "everybody doesn't challenge the nature of the court" is because lawyers ALWAYS advise against it. It's a BAR thing.
edit on 8-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)


Before you go so incredibly rudely insulting the professional organization of the legal profession in each state, you and every other person who has posted utter tripe on this thread should go and do some legal research into what a STATUTE is and what the COMMON LAW is.

You would also do well to avail yourself of knowledge of secondary legislation - a vast number of by-laws are enacted on the basis of primary legislation. Can you imagine how grossly inefficient state legislatures would be if they had to personally approve every single legal rule in enforcement in any given jurisdiction? Nothing would ever get done.

Before you all mouth and off and whinge about the lawyers being so 'evil' (despite lawyers being those same people who stand up in court and try to save you from the execution chamber, in the face of overwhelming hatred from the public and from the needlessly politicised judges on the bench) you should do some god-damned research. The level of ignorance and bare-faced rudeness towards members of the legal profession in this thread is both breathtaking and disgusting.


Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
edit on 3/12/2011 by maria_stardust because: (no reason given)


Why are you so angry and unprofessional in your onion?

The very reason your profession was created wasn't to settle a dispute judiciously in a court of law...No. It was designed to double speak words that to them have ironically a duality of sorts with respect to their meaning.

Of whom do you owe your allegiance to?

(1) The system?
(2) The people you defend?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 





According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to do whatever it wants. (within certain limits, such as they cannot constitutionally impose a direct un-apportioned tax upon the people, although the 16th Amendment is just that).


Respectfully, the 16th Amendment does not do what you say it does. Two seminal Supreme Court Cases, Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad, and Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., both explain fairly clearly what the 16th Amendment does do and its purpose.

To better understand the 16th Amendment it is important to understand the history behind it. It was in Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., where a previous non-apportioned tax on income was struck down as unconstitutional because that particular court viewed that particular income tax as a direct tax on income without apportionment. Congress, in response to that ruling, and flexing their own muscles created the 16th Amendment, not to relieve themselves of the rule of apportionment - had they done so that Amendment would have most assuredly been struck down as unconstitutional - but instead to prevent future courts - as well as the people - from ever viewing a non-apportioned income tax as a direct tax again.

What the 16th Amendment does is demand that all incomes taxes passed without apportionment or any regards to a census of enumeration be viewed as an indirect tax "where all income taxes inherently belong", and one only need look at the tax code to understand that this is indeed the case with the current and so called "Personal Income Tax", to understand that it is functioning as an indirect tax on some sort of activity. The entire tax code is uniform - per instruction by Constitution - across the several states.

The 16th Amendment is wholly harmonious with the Constitution and is not the problem regarding the so called "Personal Income Tax". The problem is that it is being enforced as if income is the subject of the tax, but this is demonstrably not so, and income is not the subject of the income tax. The big question, for the vast majority of people filing a valid tax return, is what precisely is the subject of the tax?




You have to always remember that our rights were never intended to be legislated. They are God-given and a product of the gift of life.


The Ninth Amendment stands as a constant reminder of this.




Duality is correct by stating that the congress can legislate whatever the hell it wants, but that does not necessarily make it constitutional.


Duality is only making claims in regard to the former part of your assertion and is, at best, disingenuously avoiding speaking to the latter part of your assertion. Duality is attempting to convince people that they have an absolute responsibility to adhere to any legislation what-so-ever regardless of its legality and lawfulness.




So... While Duality is correct that Congress has the power to legislate whatever they wish to legislate, I can think of three very important decisions where acts legislated by Congress were declared unconstitutional and null and void by some type of judicial review.


Duality is not correct that Congress has the power to legislate whatever they wish to legislate. The First Amendment does not begin by saying:

"Congress can legislate whatever they wish to legislate but if they pass legislation violating the freedom to worship religion, or if they pass legislation declaring a national religion, or if they pass legislation chilling speech, or if they pass legislation censoring what is published...." The First Amendment begins:

"Congress shall make no laws..." It is a clear and undeniable prohibition placed upon Congress and the 14th Amendment has not changed this nor could it if it was intended to.

With all due respect to you, my brother, it is important to clarify these things.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thank you for summarizing my argument in such an eloquent matter.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Not to try to correct you correcting me, but congress has passed acts that directly contradict the 1st Amendment.

Most notably, besides the PATRIOT ACT, were the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that were passed by Congress and signed into law by then President John Adams.
I do not think that these were ever actually declared unconstitutional, but they were only set for a temporary timeframe, which has already passed.


Vice President Thomas Jefferson denounced the Sedition Act as invalid and a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, which protected the right of free speech, and a violation of the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson also secretly drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions denouncing the federal legislation. These reflect the Compact Theory, which holds that the United States is made up of a voluntary union of states that agree to cede some of their authority in order to join the union, but that the states do not, ultimately, surrender their sovereign rights.

Federalist-dominated state legislatures rejected Jefferson's position through resolutions either supporting the Acts or denying the ability of Virginia and Kentucky to circumvent them. The Alien and Sedition Acts were, however, never appealed to the Supreme Court, whose right of judicial review was not established until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The Court in 1798 was composed entirely of Federalists, all appointed by Washington. Many of them, particularly Associate Justice Samuel Chase, were openly hostile to the Federalists' opponents. Individual Supreme Court Justices, particularly Chase, sitting in circuit, heard many of the cases prosecuting opponents of the Federalists.


link to source

My what a tangled web US Law weaves.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 





Not to try to correct you correcting me, but congress has passed acts that directly contradict the 1st Amendment.


This is understood. It is also why it is imperative that the people understand that such odious legislation is not law and should not in any way shape or form be given the credence of law. It is the moral and legal responsibility of the people to stand firm in the face of unlawful legislation and to reject it unfailingly.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Josephus23
 





Not to try to correct you correcting me, but congress has passed acts that directly contradict the 1st Amendment.


This is understood. It is also why it is imperative that the people understand that such odious legislation is not law and should not in any way shape or form be given the credence of law. It is the moral and legal responsibility of the people to stand firm in the face of unlawful legislation and to reject it unfailingly.


I could not agree with you more JPZ....

That is the entire reason for the idea of jury nullification, but most jurors are so blinded by the smoke and mirrors of court protocol that they do not realize that they have the right to judge the law as well as the person. Take the jury oath for instance. WTH is that about?

Anyone on any jury can vote however they wish, despite the law.
The jury oath is just a big mind game created by the kangaroo courts that exist in our cities and towns.

Jury Nullification gives each citizen the ULTIMATE power over all legislation.

Because it only takes ONE person to hang a jury.

The sad part about this issue is that if one is to merely mention the idea of jury nullification in a courtroom, then the judge will IMMEDIATELY have the individual jailed for contempt of court.

I have thought about going to a courtroom building one day and passing out fliers informing people of their right to jury nullification on the courtroom steps.
I would do it hoping to get arrested because the flier then MUST be admitted as evidence during the discovery period of the trial. It would force the jury to read their rights to nullify laws.
Granted it's a big gamble, but times are getting to the point where...

"freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"

As always... Excellent replies JPZ.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 





That is the entire reason for the idea of jury nullification, but most jurors are so blinded by the smoke and mirrors of court protocol that they do not realize that they have the right to judge the law as well as the person. Take the jury oath for instance. WTH is that about?


This is precisely why I have shown zero tolerance for the Duality in this thread, and why I continue to insist on using the phrase "priest class lawyer set" to the point of ad nauseum. While Duality is merely a law student, wasn't it you that pointed out that he was arguing the merits of a legal system and not law?

Duality seems to have no regard for law what-so-ever and instead believes he is entering a profession where he will legally baby sit clients and scold and lecture them as needed about the legal system and how they have no authority and simply must do what they're told to do, regardless of the consequences.

There is the old fable of the great and wise king who left his kingdom one day to get a better view of the world. While he was gone, his enemies poisoned the well of the kingdom so that when the people drank the water they went insane. By the time the king returned, his subjects were all insane. Bemoaning the situation, he lamented that he could no longer reasonably rule his kingdom because everyone had gone insane, and his court jester, insane himself, and only in jest, recommended the king drink from the well. The king took this advice, and the next day when the people awoke, they rejoiced because their great and wise king had finally returned to them.

I think of this fable and I think of it in reverse. I see people such as the O.P., hawkiye, Lightrule and yourself as the enemies of the insane king and his sycophants, and what you are doing is putting an antidote in the well so that people, upon drinking the water, will be cured from their insanity, and one day, the people will awake and rejoice because their sanity has returned to them, and with that sanity they have come to understand that they need no great and wise ruler to rule over them, and only need to govern themselves as just people do.

It is still a fable, but a much better one, in my not so humble opinion.

I am glad you are making the time to post in this thread Josephus. I am grateful for you, hawkiye, Lightrule and the many others who have drunk the antidote and have had their sanity returned to them.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


JPZ, here: Child Support Statutes


There is the old fable of the great and wise king who left his kingdom one day to get a better view of the world. While he was gone, his enemies poisoned the well of the kingdom so that when the people drank the water they went insane. By the time the king returned, his subjects were all insane. Bemoaning the situation, he lamented that he could no longer reasonably rule his kingdom because everyone had gone insane, and his court jester, insane himself, and only in jest, recommended the king drink from the well. The king took this advice, and the next day when the people awoke, they rejoiced because their great and wise king had finally returned to them.

I think of this fable and I think of it in reverse. I see people such as the O.P., hawkiye, Lightrule and yourself as the enemies of the insane king and his sycophants, and what you are doing is putting an antidote in the well so that people, upon drinking the water, will be cured from their insanity, and one day, the people will awake and rejoice because their sanity has returned to them, and with that sanity they have come to understand that they need no great and wise ruler to rule over them, and only need to govern themselves as just people do.

It is still a fable, but a much better one, in my not so humble opinion.


I've never been involved in a fable until today!

Greenovni, JPZ, hawkiye, Lightrule et al fought the insane king until the people saw the light

edit on 15-3-2011 by greenovni because: Fable



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What most here do not/can not comprehend nor do they understand it for obvious reasons, is that the "Federal Constitution" IS a corporate contract between the founding fathers. They did not trust each other. It was a very hard fought victory to get the Bill of Rights added at the end, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worked hard to get it included TO PROTECT the actual and real people of America.

If you read the contract as it is written you will see the nuances in it that SHOW it to be just that, a contract for corporate control. This was the idea of the imperialists. SO, in that the "powers of the legislature" are supposedly vested IN the PEOPLE, which is not true, the powers are vested in the elected "people" and not the general population. Were ALL laws presente dto the people, like it should be, government would be limited, as it should be, and people would actually be free and the country would prosper.

BUT, through subversion and deciet, we have been enslaved the world over. That said, how do we address the OP's situation? Well, I think a review of the "statutes" are in order and the Inclusio unius est Exclusio Alterius.

We are flesh and blood living souls and NOT "persons" which IS corporate fictions, ALL law is commerce law/equity law. That is a fact no matter what anyone else thinks or states. I have posted cases that show this to be the case. WHY would there be, incapsulated in the definition of "person", "it has been held to also include foreign and domestic corporations"? That says it all, there is a difference between Natural Persons and "persons".

Symantics be damned. If the statute reads "any person", "a person" or "no person", IT DOES NOT APPLY TO FLESH AND BLOOD ACTUAL PEOPLE!!!! That's it.


Since common law courts no longer exist, we know that the case never has anything to do with “facts” or live men and women and so, anyone who testifies (talks about the facts of the case) is doomed. ALL courts operate in trust law, based upon ecclesiastical canon law–– ritualism, superstition, satanism, etc.––which manifests as insidious, commercial law and we are in court to take the hit, if they can get us to do so. They use every trick in the book––intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses, in order to change the jurisdiction, when they know they are losing, in order to make us admit that we are the name of the trust. When we do so, we are deemed to be the trustee––the one liable for administering the trust. Ergo, until now, it has been a waste of our time, energy, and emotion to go to a place where it is almost certain that we will be stuck with the liability.



new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join