I wish people would not lock their threads.

[Awoke]

When you lock threads, they can never get bumped, and just fade into the background and get lost.

Just my opinion.

EDIT - I considered locking this, just to be funny, but no.

[palani]

I prefer not to but when presented with controversy that never resolves itself ... well, the discussion has to end at some point ... and who better to terminate it than the originator?

[Awoke]

If by "Controversy that never resolves itself", you mean Joelololo, then yeah. I get it.

[platinumdude]

IBTL



Just in case.

[Awoke]

I could lock this thread at any time. MuWAhahahahahahaaaaa!

[Hatha Sunahara]

I prefer not to but when presented with controversy that never resolves itself ... well, the discussion has to end at some point ... and who better to terminate it than the originator?

Better to shut down your own thread than to let a troll inflict a death of a thousand cuts on it.

Hatha

[Joe King]

I prefer not to but when presented with controversy that never resolves itself ... well, the discussion has to end at some point ... and who better to terminate it than the originator?Especially when the originator gets put on the spot with no easy way out. lol

[palani]

Especially when the originator gets put on the spot with no easy way out. lol

Rather when one has explained his position fully and keeps being presented the same question with different wording expecting a different outcome ... not one time, not a dozen times but ad infinitum.

[ximmy]

Rather when one has explained his position fully and keeps being presented the same question with different wording expecting a different outcome ... not one time, not a dozen times but ad infinitum.

something like this??
http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1416&d=1319664964

[Joe King]

Rather when one has explained his position fully and keeps being presented the same question with different wording expecting a different outcome ... not one time, not a dozen times but ad infinitum.I was trying to get a clear and concise answer from you.

You explained that your position is based upon your opinion and nothing more. What I was asking for, was a clear and concise answer from you about where it says in the Constitution that Congress has any duties beyond presenting a Bill to the POTUS for signing. Once that's done, their duty is fulfilled.
ie I asked for you to show where in the Constitution it imposes a duty on Congress to do anything to a Bill once signed. Or to show where it says a new law is to be returned to Congress, and what are they to do with it?

You provided your personal opinion instead.....after supposedly trying to show advanced knowledge in law. lol

[palani]

You provided your personal opinion instead.....after supposedly trying to show advanced knowledge in law. lol
Unbelievable. You still want to argue. I have claimed no advance knowledge in law and in any event the word you are searching for is legal rather than lawful. And to forestall your next outrageous statement, I claim no advance knowledge in legal either.

[Bigjon]

I was trying to get a clear and concise answer from you.

You explained that your position is based upon your opinion and nothing more. What I was asking for, was a clear and concise answer from you about where it says in the Constitution that Congress has any duties beyond presenting a Bill to the POTUS for signing. Once that's done, their duty is fulfilled.
ie I asked for you to show where in the Constitution it imposes a duty on Congress to do anything to a Bill once signed. Or to show where it says a new law is to be returned to Congress, and what are they to do with it?

You provided your personal opinion instead.....after supposedly trying to show advanced knowledge in law. lol

You have to be kidding or trolling, the language of the statute is very clear if the congress adjourns there is no law. And in the case presented the congress was adjourned before the bill was returned to the congress signed or unsigned, therefore no law, but yet we are using those same statutes as law.

[Joe King]

You have to be kidding or trolling, the language of the statute is very clear if the congress adjourns there is no law. And in the case presented the congress was adjourned before the bill was returned to the congress signed or unsigned, therefore no law, but yet we are using those same statutes as law.
Please show where the Constitution says that signed Bills are required to be returned to Congress. Once presented to the POTUS, Congress' job is done.

[palani]

Please show where the Constitution says that signed Bills are required to be returned to Congress. Once presented to the POTUS, Congress' job is done.

Here is what the supreme court decided in LA ABRA SILVER MINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U. S. 423 (1899)


Whether the President can sign a bill after the final adjournment of Congress for the session is a question not arising in this case, and has not been considered or decided by us.

[DMac]

something like this??
http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1416&d=1319664964

Don't you agree? lol.

[Joe King]

Here is what the supreme court decided in LA ABRA SILVER MINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U. S. 423 (1899)

That does not say he can't sign after the Congress is adjourned.

Please provide text from the Constitution that supports your assertion.

[palani]

That does not say he can't sign after the Congress is adjourned.

Please provide text from the Constitution that supports your assertion.

The supreme court WOULD NOT DECIDE THIS yet you want ME to decide? What more evidence do you want that you have been granted the government you deserve?

[Joe King]

The supreme court WOULD NOT DECIDE THIS yet you want ME to decide? What more evidence do you want that you have been granted the government you deserve?You've been saying that it's a foregone conclusion that Congress must be in session for the POTUS to sign a Bill into law.

Either it is, or it isn't. The wording of the Constitution implies they do not have to be, and does say that if they aren't, the Bill fails to become law.
Why would it not say that a Bill fails to become law either way if they be adjourned? {as opposed to only in the case of a Veto?}

[Awoke]

You make Joelolo look like a snotty crumpled up kleenex, Palani. With every post. Don't let him bait you in.


Rather when one has explained his position fully and keeps being presented the same question with different wording expecting a different outcome ... not one time, not a dozen times but ad infinitum.

That's why he's on my ignore. The only person on my ignore.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

I prefer not to but when presented with controversy that never resolves itself ... well, the discussion has to end at some point ... and who better to terminate it than the originator?

I would prefer to see more unflammable posts and fewer inflammable posts.

Someone got you to censor yourself before others could learn and contribute.

Many here do value what you post - know that.

[Ponce]

Or Ponce's stupid postings.......sure wished he would take them all out........dumb Cuba.............HEYYYYYYYYYY wait a minute, I am talking about myself........old age will play tricks on you hahahahahahahah.

[Joe King]

I would prefer to see more unflammable posts and fewer inflammable posts.

Someone got you to censor yourself before others could learn and contribute.No one "got" him to censor himself.
Rather, he simply got himself into a position that he couldn't answer a legitimate question about his asertion that Congress is required to be in session when a Bill is signed.

Originally, he posted that a particular law was in-valid due to it having been signed while Congress was adjourned and in trying to contribute to the thread I asked him to provide verbage from the Constitution that states Congress must be in session for a Bill to be able to be signed into law.

Instead, all I got was a run-around that consisted solely of his own personal opinion and then when asked further he acts like Cartman and storms off after locking the thread. ::)

He cannot provide the answer I was asking for because that requirement does not exist in the Constitution. Congress has been adjourning prior to Bills being signed for as long as there's been a Congress.

If Palani is so correct, he should sue the gov and get all the laws overturned where Congress was adjourned when the POTUS signed them.

[Bigjon]

Please show where the Constitution says that signed Bills are required to be returned to Congress. Once presented to the POTUS, Congress' job is done.

Well I read a piece somewhere, sometime that said before a bill could become law it had to be read out loud on the house floor while the house was in session, but of course, I can't find it now.

While I was looking I ran into this interesting tidbit.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/dennis-craigs-documents/#comments



Darell Mckissick

July 19, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Very interesting stuff. I have read most of the documents, but not listened to any radio appearances because of the time constraint. Hopefully one day I will have time. I have bookmarked and will be looking here. Thanks Adam for all you do.

Now for my 2 cents worth on the subject.

Some time ago I read an article by someone claiming to be a former judge who provided the key??? to getting out of the “system”.

Simply put, it is to identify yourself as a BENEFICIARY of the trust established by and through the Constitutions, fed and state.

I also noticed in Dennis’ papers that the exact same declaration was made, that he was a BENEFICIARY of the trust, as opposed to an officer/trustee.

It was suggested that if you ever got to court, identify yourself as the beneficiary and appoint the judge as trustee in the matter, along with a demand that he discharge whatever business they are trying to involve you in. making sure, of course, the court is of record.

Whether or not that will work, who knows. But it seems to me that since the system HAD to be established as a trust, you can only be two things in relation to it.

An officer/trustee of the trust, OR a Beneficiary. SSN’s etc just make you an officer/employee of the trust instead of a beneficiary.

There is no way to be both simultaneously, unless you choose to do so in a PRIVATE trust YOU established. Apparently we are all assumed to be officers of the trust, while the court appoints itself as trustee to decide your punishment for acting improperly as an officer of the trust. It is presumed there only officers of the trust present, unless an injured victim is present to be the beneficiary. If not, The State is the presumed beneficiary for purposes of litigation.

I don’t think that most of what is in Dennis’ papers is necessary. Less is more in some cases.

Notwithstanding, when you “appear” in any of the corporate courts you are doing so as an officer of the corporation the court administrates on behalf of.

I have researched things as thoroughly as time permits for the last several years. Still, nothing is totally clear. It appears, however, that the way to remove yourself from being an officer is to identify yourself as a beneficiary and let them disprove it. All Men are beneficiaries of the trust, all gov corp officers are trustees/employees.

As officers hired by the trust, all officers work for the trust in a general nature (enforcing Trust rules against other officers) unless specifically directed by a beneficiary to handle a specific matter on their behalf. That places a fiduciary responsibility to YOU on the officer to act as trustee on your behalf, who can then be held accountable when that fiduciary duty has been violated. Furthermore, you can appoint multiple trustees and make one out of every officer that you encounter. Until such time as the matter has been discharged by the trustee(s), they are beholding to you and not the corp.

I don’t think it is about claiming Sovereignty or that you are superior to the officers. It seems to be more about your relationship to the trust that is most important. As a beneficiary, you have the lawful right of Discharge, as debts can no longer be paid. The officer/trustee has an obligation upon your DECLARED and or written appointment to discharge it on your behalf.

I know Adam got on the trust kick in the Anti-Shyster reports. I think that is the way to go. Appoint any and all officers standing against you as Trustees, giving each a demand to discharge the matter they have presented you with.

Dennis, you have put in a lot of work and I commend you for it. But I think, at this time, it is nothing more than on which side of the Constitutions you place yourself. Officers have no rights, beneficiaries can do no wrong (outside of injury) and can not be held accountable for the officer/trustees actions and charges. The fiduciary responsibility lies with the officer, beneficiaries are Sovereign.

Your papers accomplished that, and I think that is ALL they needed to do.

All opinions are greatly appreciated. Our battle against evil is made harder because the evildoers do not recognize their own evil deeds. Fortunately, I know that God will not recognize them when the time comes.

[Bigjon]

No one "got" him to censor himself.
Rather, he simply got himself into a position that he couldn't answer a legitimate question about his asertion that Congress is required to be in session when a Bill is signed.

Originally, he posted that a particular law was in-valid due to it having been signed while Congress was adjourned and in trying to contribute to the thread I asked him to provide verbage from the Constitution that states Congress must be in session for a Bill to be able to be signed into law.

Instead, all I got was a run-around that consisted solely of his own personal opinion and then when asked further he acts like Cartman and storms off after locking the thread. ::)

He cannot provide the answer I was asking for because that requirement does not exist in the Constitution. Congress has been adjourning prior to Bills being signed for as long as there's been a Congress.

If Palani is so correct, he should sue the gov and get all the laws overturned where Congress was adjourned when the POTUS signed them.

Well to be fair, the constitution is vague on that particular item. But I read that originally before a bill could become a law it had to be read out loud on the house floor while the congress was in session. This reading put it into the congressional record. They probably changed that law or they just dropped the practice.

[Book]

The wording of the Constitution implies they do not have to be, and does say that if they aren't, the Bill fails to become law.



http://www.getoffmylawn.org/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/64/rice-christopher-grasping-grammar-imply-infer.jpg

Joe Kingstein Esq. himself infers (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer) then pretends our Constitution implies it.







::) yet another example of his projection (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Psychological_projection) here at GSUS

[po boy]

You make Joelolo look like a snotty crumpled up kleenex, Palani. With every post. Don't let him bait you in.



That's why he's on my ignore. The only person on my ignore.

Don't be a pussy. lol

[po boy]

http://www.getoffmylawn.org/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/64/rice-christopher-grasping-grammar-imply-infer.jpg

Joe Kingstein Esq. himself infers (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer) then pretends our Constitution implies it.







::) yet another example of his projection (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Psychological_projection) here at GSUS


Book your a practicing communist and you have supported in your posts in past.

You just may be a stiff necked fool.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCiotYOYMwE&feature=related

[palani]

The reason of the law is clear ... Congress enacts laws and they do it while in session. Be careful when following wording when intent should rule:


The following was an expedient worthy of Tiberius: custom not permitting him to cause a virgin to be strangled, he ordered the executioner first to deflower the young daughter of Sejanus, and then to strangle her.13 To violate the spirit of the law while we pretend to respect the letter, is a fraud no less criminal than an open violation of it: it is equally repugnant to the intention of the law-maker, and only evinces a more artful and deliberate villany in the person who is guilty of it.

[Joe King]

Well to be fair, the constitution is vague on that particular item. But I read that originally before a bill could become a law it had to be read out loud on the house floor while the congress was in session. This reading put it into the congressional record. They probably changed that law or they just dropped the practice.
I don't think it's vague at all. The intent is clear, if the context in which the words are used, is followed.

Uncle Salty explained it well in the following two links.
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?55024-Summoned-How-to-Send-em-Packin-!!!&p=476154&viewfull=1#post476154
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?55024-Summoned-How-to-Send-em-Packin-!!!&p=476583&viewfull=1#post476583

It's all about the meaning of the word return.
...and it's clear that a returned Bill is a Vetoed Bill, and if it's signed as opposed to Vetoed, there's no need to return it.
ie at that point the POTUS sends it the next step along its way to the appropiate Executive Branch agency for its implimentation.

As for reading Bills aloud in Congress, if that ever was a requirement, it would mean the Bill were to be read aloud prior to Congress voting on it. ie to make clear what it says.
Why would they need to hear it again with the only difference being that it has a signature on it?

However, if that were a requirement, it is not a Constitutionally mandated one.
ie if that ever were the case it was most likely an Administrative rule that Congress itself wrote, and can therefore change.

Personally, I think it would have been a good thing if the Founders had included a Constitutional mandate to read all Bills aloud prior to vote and that all members of Congress must be present for the entire reading.