Marc Stevens

[dys]

I'm sure a lot of the people on this forum have heard of him. He is an advocate for people that are oppressed by the judicial branch of government. I'm posting a link that I would HIGHLY recommend listening to- it includes tape recordings of calls to various government officials and various hearings in which he challenges the veracity of tax assessments. To summarize, his method for exposing government corruption is the best I've ever seen. Instead of arguing law, or making arguments interpreting law, he simply asks questions pertaining to facts that cause the people that answer them to expose themselves. He is very skilled at being unassuming and avoiding conflict; also, he knows when to back off when the conversation gets heated. The reactions of government officials tell a very compelling story; when there are no facts to back up their legal assertions, they invariably either go on an unprovoked attack or make arguments of 'authority' to which he will usually respond: "I am not questioning your authority, I am just asking for relevant facts". His questions are usually beyond reproach in their simplicity and relevance. Questions such as "Do you have any witnesses?" or "Do you have any evidence."
The answers reveal the criminals for who they are.

http://marcstevens.net/cos

dys

[sirgonzo420]

He also has a book out: "Adventures in Legal Land"

Here's a PDF with some excerpts:

http://curezone.com/upload/Members/ChazTheMeatHe/Books/Adventures_in_Legal_Landweb.pdf

[iOWNme]

Marc also started the 'No STATE Project' in which he claims that the STATE does not exist. VERY good info here:

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/NoState_10.html

http://www.facebook.com/nostateproject

You can also find his videos on YT about traffic tickets, and other Lawful court room tactics.

[dys]

What's great about this guy is that he makes them expose themselves as the criminals that they are...take off their masks, if you will. What happens when judges themselves are forced to admit that there are no facts, no witnesses, and no legal basis to support their accusations? They resort to utilizing the true genesis of their power, brute force. It really is amazing to observe. I hope some of you will check out his calls of shame, some of them are very short anywhere from 2-8 mins. (some are longer, too)

dys

[Glass]

Interesting, because I sent a letter to the Government requesting some FACTS. I got told that it didn't matter about FACTS, they were confident that "the courts agree with them". Haven't been to court to find out though.

[letter_factory]

They resort to utilizing the true genesis of their power, brute force.
dys


So then what happens?

[palani]

I got told that it didn't matter about FACTS, they were confident that "the courts agree with them".
It doesn't matter what the courts agree with or not. Rather it is what you consent to that matters.

[dys]

So then what happens?

Well, it depends actually. Let me try and explain: Stevens doesn't ever protest or ignore anything. If it's a tax assessment, for example, he will appeal after trying to get it resolved with the IRS agent. That way, according to what the courts say are 'the rules', his client hasn't actually done anything wrong. By the time he gets to the first appeal or mediation hearing, he's already recorded the IRS agent admitting that there are no witnesses, they have no admissable evidence, and that the agent was not qualified to make the legal determinations that they made. Now comes the hearing, and according to the law, he has already won the case. The mediator or hearings' officer is then forced to either blatantly break the law by ruling in favor of the IRS that has no evidence, no witnesses, and no case whatsoever, OR abate the tax assessment. Of course he records the hearing as well....so the hearings officer usually just loses their composure and starts screaming because there is absolutely no rational way for them to justify a ruling against Stevens' client by this point. Amazingly, sometimes the officer even infers or admits that what they are doing is illegal! At this point he then brings this same recording into the next appeal/mediation to further prove that he didn't get a fair hearing and that the assessment is bogus. By the time he gets to court, it is obvious to anyone with half a brain- even the most braindead of braindead sheeple, that the judge is acting in a criminal capacity and the system is rigged.
It really is something to see. Again, I can't recommend those calls of shame enough.

dys

[Ares]

I've seen quite a few videos on Marc Stevens working his magic in the court room. It really is a sight to witness him exposing outright fraud and corruption for all to see.

[iOWNme]

This call is great. He is talking to an IRS tax agent and asking her about witness and facts. What follows in nothing short of CRIMINAL.

The IRS Agent lady starts out with, "I know your kind, you try and abate taxes, blah blah blah....." Marc remains calm and collected and continues his questioning to her. By the end of the call she ends with "I pay my taxes, and i want benefits and social services to continue, so you should pay them to".

This is a fucking IRS Agent! No Law, No Contrct, NOTHING but brute force like dys said.

WOW. Please listen:

http://marcstevens.net/cos/cos20111228.html

[palani]

I was at one of his seminars a few years back. He is quite a speaker. Most people don't think that well on the spot. He hones his skills by practicing in front of a mirror or with a friend.

He also has a script that he would make available at his seminars. People have sat in a courtroom reading the script verbatim and have gotten good results.

[palani]

"I pay my taxes, and i want benefits and social services to continue, so you should pay them to".
Some do not want benefits or social services. If you don't draw any are you expected to pay for others?

[dys]

Part of the power of what he does is that he uses the system's corruption against itself. For example, in tax cases (and in most court cases), the system uses multiple mediations and pretrial hearings as a method to beat the victim into submission, give up, and pay tribute. Marc opportunistically seizes on these multiple hearings and mediations to build a completely insurmountable and irrefutable case that can ONLY be defeated by force. And the win is so ridiculously lopsided and undeniable that even Joe6pack or your average Dancing with the Stars watching soccer mom can discern it.

Again, he makes no arguments- the prosecution does it all for him! It is almost impossible to claim 'frivolous argument' when one doesn't even make any argument, nevermind a frivolous one. "Can you please identify the argument I made that is frivolous?" One woman actually said something along the lines of "asking for evidence." Marc- "Wow, I've never heard that. You would have to cite a court case that identifies asking for evidence as a frivolous argument...I would think that would be a major shift in American Law..." LOL. Just great stuff.

dys

[dys]

Interesting, because I sent a letter to the Government requesting some FACTS. I got told that it didn't matter about FACTS, they were confident that "the courts agree with them". Haven't been to court to find out though.

On one particular call he cross examines an IRS witness (which they had previously said they didn't have) and asks for relevant facts. The attorney recites the code in her ear. The code/law/statute had absolutely nothing to do with the question, she had 0 knowledge of the facts, and her testimony blatantly contradicted what she had previously said in another phonecall. It was an awkward moment for the comptroller (who was presiding over the hearing); he clearly didn't know what to do or say to get the witness out of the jam she had got herself in while continuing to preserve the integrity of the hearing. Mind you, this guy had already blatantly admitted that there was a conflict of interest present in the hearing! That one he 'won' in that the guy never issued a ruling and they stopped chasing the guy for the money.

dys

[dys]

http://marcstevens.net/interviews/20120118legalwars.html

Great interview. A couple of great recommendations by this guy-
1. When in court, address the judge as "sir" or "ma'am" as opposed to "your honor." From a psychological standpoint, it knocks them down a notch.
2. (great idea) Go into a courtroom, walk up to the bailiff, and tell him/her that you are from the media and you are doing a series of articles related to judicial misconduct. Ask the bailiff to notify the judge as a courtesy.
This puts a little bit of fear into them and if enough people do it, it could really lead to substantive change.

dys

[Hatha Sunahara]

I checked out Marc Stevens' website, and it appears that he is carrying on the work of Eustace Mullins, who wrote a book in 1989 called The Rape of Justice. I like the anarchist/libertarian flavor of his ideas. He's a clever fellow. Like Mullins, he has accurately assessed the justice system, and it flunks all tests by reasonable people.


Hatha

[dys]

There was a website that went after him...a website that supposedly exposes 'tax avoider scams', called quatloos http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewforum.php?f=8&start=50 . The website is filled with your typical bottom feeding parasites like judges and lawyers.
All it takes is one look at the Marc Stevens threads to realize how powerful his arguments really are. Ninety percent of what they do is simple 3rd grade name calling and ridicule. The other 10%, well it is pure crap. Let me boil their arguments down to a few pathetic sentences:

1. Courts and judges have no limits to their power.
2. Neither does the IRS.
3. Their 'proof' of anything being legal or illegal is simply that a judge or the IRS does it!
They then go on to write long, complicated, esoteric, and convoluted abstractions to justify these ridiculous premises.

Great job, Marc Stevens.

dys

[DMac]

Show me the case #'s he has argued and won and I will start listening to him.


While it is easy to see the quatloos people use ad hominem as the primary argument tool, the 1 thread I found over there started by Stevens went nowhere fast - as in Stevens did not put up any meat or potatoes.

[dys]

Show me the case #'s he has argued and won and I will start listening to him.


While it is easy to see the quatloos people use ad hominem as the primary argument tool, the 1 thread I found over there started by Stevens went nowhere fast - as in Stevens did not put up any meat or potatoes.

I don't think he DOES win tax cases (although in certain cases they stop chasing those that supposedly owe money, here is a tape recording of one like that- http://marcstevens.net/cos/cos20110126.html). That to me just proves the criminality of judges and the court system. On quatloos, the case they really focused on was one that Marc lost. Here is what Marc had to say about it:


After I made another public offer for members of quatloos to come on my radio show and forum, one member who falsely accused me of limiting dissent, “wserra”, actually joined and started posting. He was also honest enough to admit he had falsely accused me. Seems he did no investigation at all before posting on quatloos; there was a software problem and instead he basically accused me of somehow being able to know when a quatloos member was trying to register and I purposely blocked them.



But that’s the way they do things over there. That says a lot about their credibility. They have their opinion first: Marc Stevens is an idiot. Then they spin the facts, if any, to conform to their opinion. We, the members of quatloos cannot register on the forum: Stevens, sitting at his computer, ever vigilant to not permit dissenting views, somehow knows our IP addresses and blocks us from posting. He must also have our phone numbers because we can’t even call his radio show.


In the forum, I recently posted a federal docket number for an IRS attack I helped a friend with. Because the trial judge rejected everything as did the appellate judges, “wserra” takes that as evidence what I put forth was incorrect. He predictably left out some pretty important facts. Again, the quatloos guys have to get the facts to fit their opinion. I will explain what happened briefly, then you can decide if the judges’ decision has any merit at all. This is not intended to change the opinion of the quatloos guys, only to demonstrate they have no credibility.


The IRS filed a civil complaint asking a federal judge to enforce an IRS summons. The complaint was only a request for relief and did not allege any wrongdoing whatsoever. That should raise a red flag already.


The jurisdiction of federal courts, per the constitution, is: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases…” It does not say to all complaints and with good reason. Governments have one legitimate function, per the PR, “to protect and maintain individual rights.” The US supreme court has held: “Properly understood the general principle is sound, for courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.” United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949]. To have a justiciable case or controversy according to the US supreme court, not me:


“The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others collaterally. A federal court’s jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered “some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action . . . .” Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 (1973). See Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 151 -154 (1970).” Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490 (emphasis mine).


But, despite the federal court’s being limited to only protect against injury, the IRS complaint presented no injury and no “illegal action” at all. Regardless of this basic law, the trial judge ruled against our motion to dismiss for failure to present a justiciable controversy. The appellate judges also rejected the supreme court’s argument (I didn’t write Warth v. Seldin) the federal courts “judicial power exists only…to protect against injury to the complaining party…”


No explanation whatsoever was given why the federal courts have jurisdiction outside of the limitations set forth above. That’s all quatloos members need to blast me as an idiot, moron and an ass. Quatloos, same as the courts, misdirect your attention by claiming the judges rejected my argument and that’s just not true. The trial and appellate judges rejected the supreme court’s opinions. What do you think? If the IRS filed a complaint alleging no injury, should the trial judge have rejected the complaint in accordance with Warth v. Seldin? If you think the judge should have ruled consistent with Warth, then you to can be the subject of a personal attack by quatloos.


What “wserra” also neglects to mention is when the IRS agent was on the stand, the trial judge declared the agent incompetent to give legal opinions. The judge flew into a rage when my friend asked the judge to strike the agent’s legal opinions and refused. That’s right, a judge took the testimony of a witness he declared incompetent. For those who may not know, the IRS is required to file an affidavit of good faith when they file a complaint to enforce a summons, if not, the courts may not enforce the summons, United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964).


Do you think decisions based on an incompetent witness have merit? Quatloos members do. Why focus only on the judges’ opinions and not what led to them? An honest investigation into the truth looks something like this:


1. The IRS files a complaint seeking relief only, no allegations of injury or illegal activity.
2. The constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to only cases.
3. The supreme court held: ”The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party.”
4. Man moves for dismissal because the complaint alleges no injury or illegal activity.
5. Trial judge rejects motion, calling argument “sophistry”.
6. Trial judge declares IRS agent incompetent in court.
7. Man requests the judge to strike testimony of agent, an essential element of maintaining complaint.
8. Judge becomes enraged and denies request, letting testimony stand.
9. Judge rules against man.
10. Same issues raised on appeal, judges affirm and sanction man for $6000.


Did the quatloos guys ask why/how the court may hear a complaint alleging no injury? Did they ever examine the limitations of the courts and compare them with the complaint? No, of course not. Why? Because they rely on condemnation without investigation. Apparently the thought of a federal judge being wrong on the law and my being correct, is so incomprehensible to the guys at quatloos, no investigation is necessary.


Quatloos is about personal attacks and not truth and justice. That’s why I’m constantly accused of making this stuff up as if I wrote the constitution and opinions such as Warth v. Seldin. Quatloos will only address points 5, 9-10. Focusing on everything though, especially 1-4, 6-8, makes it more difficult for them to maintain any credibility when attacking me as a moron. The fact they only look at the judges’ opinion and nothing else, is evidence enough of their intent and it certainly isn’t about the truth.


If quatloos were truly interested in scams and had any credibility, then they would investigate how governments operate. If they did, they would see government is the biggest scam going. They force people to pay them under the guise of protection. If you disagree with the IRS and don’t pay, the only “remedy” is with men/women (judges) who are paid directly from the money forcibly taken.


And what credibility do judges have? How many voluntary supporters do they have? Zero, everyone is forced to pay them. Pretty easy to see why a judge would allow a complaint without allegations of injury despite the “law” requiring it: ”The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party.” There’s a conflict of interest and I had a hearing officer (lawyer) with the Maryland comptrollers office admit it this year. Funny enough, he thought he could still be fair. He then took the testimony of a witness who admitted, under oath, she was not competent to do the assessments. Apparently we have differing ideas on what is fair.


And for those quatloos guys who think though there’s no bias because judges are paid from what the IRS takes, how would you feel about Larken Rose sitting as a judge in a tax dispute? Think about it for a minute and try to deny that deep seated emotional response; maybe the light will go on.


What is so bad about them, is quatloos seem to act without a sense of right and wrong, instead they use legal and illegal. And that has brought the world more misery than anything else I can think of. Right and wrong don’t enter into it, the decision of men/women no one voluntarily supports is what dictates right and wrong, truth and fiction.


Quatloos are the guys who stand around insisting the “emperor” has clothes. While those who see the irrefutable truth - governments have no voluntary support – are denounced as liars, idiots and morons. Yeah, facts really are stubborn things. Despite all the name calling, governments still have no voluntary support. Spin that. Telling me to move will not change the facts either.


If I presented my services to the market the way governments do, quatloos would denounce me as a criminal, at least until I labeled myself a government.

http://marcstevens.net/?s=quatloos

dys

[iOWNme]

Show me the case #'s he has argued and won and I will start listening to him.

You dont fight for yourself to win, you fight for yourself because its the right thing to do.

These Kangaroo courts are de facto administrative fictions. I would NEVER try and win, for i would have to resort to immoral and unjust practices to do so. And my conscience just wont let that happen. I do whats right and let the Creator sort out the rest.

[dys]

I have to laugh at the quatloos assertion that the IRS needs no witnesses! Based on that logic, what would prevent me, for example, from replacing the information of an employee of mine with someone I don't like..say, Skyvike? According to these guys at quatloos skyvike would then automatically owe the tax. Just ridiculous.
Forget the law, just use some common sense.

What if there were a computer malfunction?
What if the person that inputted the data made a mistake or typo?
The guys at quatloos also routinely claim that IRS code is law. LMAO. A private corporation that has the power to make laws. Again, based on that logic, why don't I just incorporate and make a law that says that all politicians need to pay me tribute of 1000 bucks/per to prevent me from suing them for misrepresenting my interests?

This is the stuff that makes my mind go wacko. Regardless of law, how in the world could any jury, we'll say, convict someone of anything like this?

dys

[palani]

Facts are on the moon.

Face it. Contracts were restated in the '30s. The old rules don't apply to the new system. Now notice and right to inquire (aka due process) is all that is of importance. If you don't play by these rules then you probably do owe something because of your mismanagement. If something as basic as due process is not properly applied then you cannot expect to avoid liability for much of anything.

As to facts, it is more about behavior and response rather than witnesses to events. Learn to agree with your opponent and you will find how agreeable he/she can be.

[dys]

Facts are on the moon.

Face it. Contracts were restated in the '30s. The old rules don't apply to the new system. Now notice and right to inquire (aka due process) is all that is of importance. If you don't play by these rules then you probably do owe something because of your mismanagement. If something as basic as due process is not properly applied then you cannot expect to avoid liability for much of anything.

As to facts, it is more about behavior and response rather than witnesses to events. Learn to agree with your opponent and you will find how agreeable he/she can be.

I stab a loved one of yours. A witness sees everything. At trial, the prosecuting attorney asks the witness "what happened?"
Witness: "The law says it's illegal to stab someone."
Attorney: "I know that, I mean what are the facts as to what happened?"
Witness: "The facts are on the moon. The law says it's illegal to stab someone."

What else you got, Palani?

dys

[palani]

I stab a loved one of yours.

Are you trying to put an actual crime in the same category as administrative law? I can assure you that there are criminals in society and their BEHAVIOR is what is going to be punished.

[palani]

You do have to know some of the basics of the system you are complaining about.

Common law pleading (a good system by the way, if a bit time consuming) was on its' way out in the 1860s. It was replaced by code pleading until around the 1930's. Code pleading is just reading code (statutes) and trying to fit facts (evidence) to law. What replaced code pleading is notice pleading. No common law contracts anymore, right? So the basis for taking someone to court is due process, in which one party receives notice, goes quiet for 72 hours and then falls into dishonor by denying the other parties position. I suppose notice pleading works on rather dull people who think that the system should be out there working for them and they have this magic shield that protects them from injustice. Notice pleading fails miserably with someone who responds to all notices and asks discerning questions.

Why else would you think that Marc Stevens method succeeds?

[dys]

Are you trying to put an actual crime in the same category as administrative law? I can assure you that there are criminals in society and their BEHAVIOR is what is going to be punished.

It doesn't matter whether it's a crime OR administrative law. All that matters is that the accuser has to prove whatever it is they are accusing. Without that burden, there is absolutely no need for courts or judges or even law for that matter. There is no way to prove anything without at least one witness and without evidence (and there is no way to have evidence without a witness). This is the very heart of the matter.

dys

[palani]

It doesn't matter whether it's a crime OR administrative law.

Hearings are of two sorts: evidentiary and argument.

Evidentiary hearings are as rare as hens teeth.

When arguments are heard facts take a back seat.

Have I indicated anywhere that I believe this is an ideal situation?

You refuse to pay for justice with gold or silver and "his honor" and court must provide a song and dance for their three hots and a cot. How does this leave you in a position where you are entitled to complain?

[Hatha Sunahara]

I started reading Marc Stevens book Adventures in Legal Land. I'm about 20 pages into it. I think this will be one of those books I'll devour in one sitting--likely two. This book sets your perspective outside the make-believe world that is called the 'state'. I already feel like I'm getting a better understanding of what drives the criminal justice system, and how dangerous it is to everyone's lives and property. This is truly a 'wake-up' book. When I finish the book, I'll post my comments on it.


Hatha

[lapis]

Please do Hatha.

[dys]

"Their purpose (beaurocrats) is to steal as much property as possible, using the least amount of violence."
Marc Stevens

dys

[dys]

Arguing law on some other forums that have nothing to do with politics, I have to say that I am shocked and alarmed as to how many people believe 2 things:
1. Judges and courts should have unlimited power
2. The standard for what the law is is predicated on what judges and courts do, not what the law actually says.

I've asked people, "so if a judge ordered you to eat nothing but mice turds for the rest of your life, and anything else you eat will get you thrown in jail, what would you say?"

Extreme example, and of course people say that's ridiculous. I guess it's the slow slide into outright tyranny that gets people. TPTB know how to play this game.

dys

[Hatha Sunahara]

I finished reading Adventures in Legal Land, and here is my review of it.

Marc Stevens examines the fundamental relationship people have with their government. It is in the Courts--most frequently with traffic 'violations' and in tax courts. In Legal Land logic is as flexible as it was in Alice's Wonderland. In reality, however, Marc Stevens details in this book how all the courts in the entire country are really Kangaroo courts.

He exposes the game played by the lawyers in Legal Land. It is a public relations ploy that makes violence legitimate, necessary, and even respectable while maintaining the illusion that one can get a fair trial, and that the court acts 'in good faith'. These two ideas cannot coexist, and cannot be reconciled. Marc Stevens exposes this concealed reality in language that everyone can understand.

What Marc Stevens describes is a way to expose this charade by asking some basic questions. Not by arguing, but by questioning what the facts are. He does this in a context that exposes how the system is really driven by unrestrained violence by the police at the orders of robed lawyers called 'judges' who use the mystical and hypnotic word 'law' to give weight to their outrageous desire to steal people's property and control their lives. He refers to the employees of the 'criminal justice system' as bureaucrats. He describes how these bureaucrats present opinions and assert they are facts. He defines the term 'jurisdiction' as the right to control you. He defines the 'state' as a mental construct that does not exist in the real world. For example, the 'State of Arizona' is different from 'Arizona'. The 'State of Arizona' is the name of an organization--much as General Motors is the name of a corporation--it is a legal entity--not a physical entity. Arizona is the name for a geographical area that is the ground and is a physical entity. So when a cop says you were in the State of Arizona--he is wrong because you cannot be in an entity that does not exist in the physical world. And the ground called Arizona cannot bring charges against you.

He attacks 'jurisdiction' by asking cops how they acquired jurisdiction over you. What gives them this 'jurisdiction'? He tries to get cops to make 'legal interpretations' in their testimony because the judges and prosecutors will not allow it because only members of the bar are allowed to make legal interpretations in a court of law. This is how he discredits the cop's testimony--and that is the only evidence they have that you committed a crime, so the judges either have to dismiss the case for lack of evidence, or use physical violence against you and nakedly deprive you of your right to a fair trial and lose the case on appeal. What it boils down to is making the judges make a choice between abandoning the pretense that you are getting a fair trial, or abandoning their efforts to prosecute you. He makes it abundantly clear that they are running a racket and it is all supported by the threat of unrestrained violence, and opinions that are presented as facts.

This book is a must read for everyone who wants to make sense of their relationship with the government. It helped me understand Palani's assertion that the courts need your consent to 'proceed' (and to maintain their PR swindle of the public). This need for consent is to present the face of legitimacy and is based on the words in the Declaration of Independence that says the Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. An honest government gets voluntary consent from its people. A dishonest corrupt government threatens people with violence, and consent is granted by having a gun pointed at you. Marc Stevens exposes this fraud in a way that the judges cannot easily circumvent. It is like he is teaching people how to throw a monkey wrench into the work of the courts, and make their own processes and their corruption work to free you of the damages they can impose on you with their use of unlimited and illegitimate force.

I know I'm not doing this book justice. It is a shining light in a sewer of corruption. It explains to me the mentality of the police, the prosecutors and the judges. They want, as in the post above to inflict the least amount of violence to extract the maximum of money and power from the population. I started reading the book, and could not put it down until I finished it. I have a great thirst for explanations of reality that conform with my experience of reality.


Hatha

[dys]

I finished reading Adventures in Legal Land, and here is my review of it.

Marc Stevens examines the fundamental relationship people have with their government. It is in the Courts--most frequently with traffic 'violations' and in tax courts. In Legal Land logic is as flexible as it was in Alice's Wonderland. In reality, however, Marc Stevens details in this book how all the courts in the entire country are really Kangaroo courts.

He exposes the game played by the lawyers in Legal Land. It is a public relations ploy that makes violence legitimate, necessary, and even respectable while maintaining the illusion that one can get a fair trial, and that the court acts 'in good faith'. These two ideas cannot coexist, and cannot be reconciled. Marc Stevens exposes this concealed reality in language that everyone can understand.

What Marc Stevens describes is a way to expose this charade by asking some basic questions. Not by arguing, but by questioning what the facts are. He does this in a context that exposes how the system is really driven by unrestrained violence by the police at the orders of robed lawyers called 'judges' who use the mystical and hypnotic word 'law' to give weight to their outrageous desire to steal people's property and control their lives. He refers to the employees of the 'criminal justice system' as bureaucrats. He describes how these bureaucrats present opinions and assert they are facts. He defines the term 'jurisdiction' as the right to control you. He defines the 'state' as a mental construct that does not exist in the real world. For example, the 'State of Arizona' is different from 'Arizona'. The 'State of Arizona' is the name of an organization--much as General Motors is the name of a corporation--it is a legal entity--not a physical entity. Arizona is the name for a geographical area that is the ground and is a physical entity. So when a cop says you were in the State of Arizona--he is wrong because you cannot be in an entity that does not exist in the physical world. And the ground called Arizona cannot bring charges against you.

He attacks 'jurisdiction' by asking cops how they acquired jurisdiction over you. What gives them this 'jurisdiction'? He tries to get cops to make 'legal interpretations' in their testimony because the judges and prosecutors will not allow it because only members of the bar are allowed to make legal interpretations in a court of law. This is how he discredits the cop's testimony--and that is the only evidence they have that you committed a crime, so the judges either have to dismiss the case for lack of evidence, or use physical violence against you and nakedly deprive you of your right to a fair trial and lose the case on appeal. What it boils down to is making the judges make a choice between abandoning the pretense that you are getting a fair trial, or abandoning their efforts to prosecute you. He makes it abundantly clear that they are running a racket and it is all supported by the threat of unrestrained violence, and opinions that are presented as facts.

This book is a must read for everyone who wants to make sense of their relationship with the government. It helped me understand Palani's assertion that the courts need your consent to 'proceed' (and to maintain their PR swindle of the public). This need for consent is to present the face of legitimacy and is based on the words in the Declaration of Independence that says the Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. An honest government gets voluntary consent from its people. A dishonest corrupt government threatens people with violence, and consent is granted by having a gun pointed at you. Marc Stevens exposes this fraud in a way that the judges cannot easily circumvent. It is like he is teaching people how to throw a monkey wrench into the work of the courts, and make their own processes and their corruption work to free you of the damages they can impose on you with their use of unlimited and illegitimate force.

I know I'm not doing this book justice. It is a shining light in a sewer of corruption. It explains to me the mentality of the police, the prosecutors and the judges. They want, as in the post above to inflict the least amount of violence to extract the maximum of money and power from the population. I started reading the book, and could not put it down until I finished it. I have a great thirst for explanations of reality that conform with my experience of reality.


Hatha

Very good explanation of what he does. This dude has a talent for breaking things down to the least common denominator. Not only that, he does it quickly, and (the key) he is unassuming in his manner. People that know NOTHING about the law or the system can tell something is wrong just based on the reactions of judges/beaurocrats. If the system is legitimate, why would they be getting so angry and getting all bent out of shape over simple and relevant questions?

dys

[Hatha Sunahara]

For people who are interested in how corrupt their courts are, here are two links that explore it:

This is Eustace Mullins on the Justice System:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44448290/Eustace-Mullins-The-Rape-of-Justice-America-s-Tribunals-Exposed-1989

And here is a web page that I thought was very succinct and corresponded with my experiences. There are several articles on this page:

http://www.intmensorg.info/corruptusacourts.htm

I will voluntarily obey God's laws. As for Man's laws, it will take men with guns to make me obey them.

Hatha

[iOWNme]

Thank you for that summary Hatha, well written and a good overall breakdown. I am going to read this book now! I think i may have even already found a copy and downloaded it a couple years ago when i was heavy into the traffic stuff.

Thanks again!

[dys]

This call is gold. The woman from the California Franchise Tax Board admits that there are no witnesses and NO EVIDENCE that there is a tax owed.
Beaurocrat: "Quit using the word evidence."
Stevens: "That's what you used."

http://marcstevens.net/cos/cos20061116.html

dys

[iOWNme]

This call is gold. The woman from the California Franchise Tax Board admits that there are no witnesses and NO EVIDENCE that there is a tax owed.
Beaurocrat: "Quit using the word evidence."
Stevens: "That's what you used."

http://marcstevens.net/cos/cos20061116.html

dys

INCREDIBLE.

Stevens: "Is there a flesh and blood human being that is a witness?"
Beaurocrat: "No. There is a computer program that said so."
Stevens: "If there is no witness, then you should withdraw this case."
Beaurocrat: "I have the authority to say who pays and who doesnt."

This is a Soviet mentality. I work for the STATE, and I am GOD.

These maggots have no respect for the Rule of Law, Due Process or this great Republic. They are enemies of them.

How can you turn your back on this great system our founders created?

[dys]

INCREDIBLE.

Stevens: "Is there a flesh and blood human being that is a witness?"
Beaurocrat: "No. There is a computer program that said so."
Stevens: "If there is no witness, then you should withdraw this case."
Beaurocrat: "I have the authority to say who pays and who doesnt."

This is a Soviet mentality. I work for the STATE, and I am GOD.

These maggots have no respect for the Rule of Law, Due Process or this great Republic. They are enemies of them.

How can you turn your back on this great system our founders created?

Sui Juris you know I respect you. If you don't know, I respect you...
but Founders? Do you think this was ever any other way save for convenience and/or necessity?

I say no way. Ours is not a nation that was once great. Ours is a nation that was never great.

dys

[iOWNme]

Sui Juris you know I respect you. If you don't know, I respect you...
but Founders? Do you think this was ever any other way save for convenience and/or necessity?

I say no way. Ours is not a nation that was once great. Ours is a nation that was never great.

dys

I didnt say the system was perfect, but was based on some type of moral absolute.

Wouldnt you agree that this system would be at least attempting to be lawful and moral if it did seek to provide flesh and blood witness and victim in all criminal cases against all individuals? As this was the base for our system for at least the first 100 years or so. This system prevents Government and bureacrats from using plunder on their own citizens in the name of the collective STATE.

But your point is well taken....

[dys]

I didnt say the system was perfect, but was based on some type of moral absolute.

Wouldnt you agree that this system would be at least attempting to be lawful and moral if it did seek to provide flesh and blood witness and victim in all criminal cases against all individuals? As this was the base for our system for at least the first 100 years or so. This system prevents Government and bureacrats from using plunder on their own citizens in the name of the collective STATE.

But your point is well taken....

Of course I agree. I just don't believe that was ever the true intent of the founding fathers. I believe they intented to establish pretenses around which there would be a never ending expansion of waivers and exemptions thereof.

dys

edit to add: Marc Stevens talks a lot about the true nature of taxation- which is at its very core, theft. He also talks about how taxation via excise taxes or sales taxes is not somehow more moral than income tax.

[7th trump]

Of course I agree. I just don't believe that was ever the true intent of the founding fathers. I believe they intented to establish pretenses around which there would be a never ending expansion of waivers and exemptions thereof.

dys

edit to add: Marc Stevens talks a lot about the true nature of taxation- which is at its very core, theft. He also talks about how taxation via excise taxes or sales taxes is not somehow more moral than income tax.
The income tax is an "excise tax".
26USC 3111 specifically addresses that the employer is taxed an excise tax for having employees who participate in Social Security (in respect to 3121(b) "employment") who earn 3121(a) "wages".

(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—


The income tax you file a 1040 is based upon 3401(a) "wages". 3401(a) "wages" consists of 3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment".
Dont participate in Social Security and your earnings are not in any way in respect to 3121(b) "employment" (not associated to Social Security) and thusly not reported as they are not taxable.

[Awoke]

Put simply, income tax is illegal and unconstitutional.

Great thread, thanks everyone. I need to read this book!

[7th trump]

Put simply, income tax is illegal and unconstitutional.

Great thread, thanks everyone. I need to read this book!
No, the income tax is not illegal.
You dont have to participate in Social Security. Social Security is the mechanism that reports what you earn to the feds and also classifies your earnings as taxable income.

[Awoke]

Blah. It's unconstitutional to tax a mans labor.

I apologize for errantly stating that it is "illegal". String me up.

[sirgonzo420]

Blah. It's unconstitutional to tax a mans labor.

I apologize for errantly stating that it is "illegal". String me up.

Actually a string likely won't hold your weight. A rope would be better!

;D

Just messin' with ya, brother.

Gotta love splitting hairs, especially in the hairy "legal" realm.

[Awoke]

It's another language, completely. Palani has shown me that. It's a language I can't seem to speak either.
(I attribute that to the fact that it is basically endless circumlocution used to disguise deception, instead of simple language that represents the simple truth.)

They use complicated language to obfuscate simple things, so that things seem insurmountable, if they are even remotely understandable. It keeps blue-collared sheep away from trying to win, and scares them into compliance.

[sirgonzo420]

It's another language, completely. Palani has shown me that. It's a language I can't seem to speak either.
(I attribute that to the fact that it is basically endless circumlocution used to disguise deception, instead of simple language that represents the simple truth.)

They use complicated language to obfuscate simple things, so that things seem insurmountable, if they are even remotely understandable. It keeps blue-collared sheep away from trying to win, and scares them into compliance.

All the more reason to know what you're up against.

And when somebody in a black dress on a high chair asks if you "understand" say no!

[Awoke]

I will always remember that one. I do not stand under it.

[palani]

It keeps blue-collared sheep away from trying to win, and scares them into compliance.
You win by not appearing. You will never win by arguing. That requires a BAR card (license to lie).

[MNeagle]

You win by not appearing.

Yeah right. And your reward is a summons for your arrest!

[palani]

Yeah right. And your reward is a summons for your arrest!

The only magistrate with the authority to summons me is the chief magistrate. That would be the governor of my state. This is a tidbit from Roman law.

Recall your "Sound of Music"? How was the captain to be summoned with a bosun's whistle?

[7th trump]

It's another language, completely. Palani has shown me that. It's a language I can't seem to speak either.
(I attribute that to the fact that it is basically endless circumlocution used to disguise deception, instead of simple language that represents the simple truth.)

They use complicated language to obfuscate simple things, so that things seem insurmountable, if they are even remotely understandable. It keeps blue-collared sheep away from trying to win, and scares them into compliance.
Its not a different insurmountable language Awoke.
It quite simple to understand if you stop and just let the law tell you instead of predetermined conclusions from people like Stevens, Schiff, and Hendrickson.
Stevens doesnt understand the origin of tax law on labor, so he uses tricks to try and get a technicality so the case is thrown out of administrative court.
And the funny thing is every convicted tax evader who won the administrative case by techniclity has never ever won the civil action against them.
That female pilot who got off for tax evasion over millions lost her civil action against her and ordered to pay every cent back.

[palani]

And the funny thing is every convicted tax evader who won the administrative case by techniclity has never ever won the civil action against them.

The basis for taxation is using another entities credit (aka federal reserve note) not whether you have a SSN. Nobody has a SSN. It is an account that belongs to the Social Security Administration. It is not yours. There is nothing you can do to terminate, eliminate or cancel this account. Don't even bother trying. But you can respond "I don't have a SSN" and mean it.

Lose the card. Don't bother applying for a new one.

[lapis]

Lose the card. Don't bother applying for a new one.

That's what we need: a "Lose Your Social Security Number" movement!

[7th trump]

The basis for taxation is using another entities credit (aka federal reserve note) not whether you have a SSN. Nobody has a SSN. It is an account that belongs to the Social Security Administration. It is not yours. There is nothing you can do to terminate, eliminate or cancel this account. Don't even bother trying. But you can respond "I don't have a SSN" and mean it.

Lose the card. Don't bother applying for a new one.
Read the law palani!
Fiat reserve notes have absolutely nothing at all to do with the federal income tax imposition found 26USC 3402.
Chapter 24 which where you find section 3402 is under Subtitle C-Employment Taxes.
Social Security defines "employment" at 3121(b) in chapter 21 of the same Subtitle C- "Employment taxes".
Furthermore, millions of Americans werent taxed until 1940....... one full year after chapter 21 (social security) was introduced into Subtitle C "employment taxes" (1939 tax code).
So Palani, if you want to beleive that fiat reserve notes are the crux to taxation then by all means explain why millions of Americans, having fiat in their pockets, from 1913 (when the reserve act came into being) to 1940 werent taxed??????
Please explain because even the legally incompetent David Merrill (Van Pelt) who concocted this lame theory, with no evidence or facts, cant explain why millions of Americans werent taxed from 1913 to 1940 yet having billions of fiat dollars in their pockets.

Good luck Palani!

[palani]

if you want to beleive that fiat reserve notes are the crux to taxation then by all means explain why millions of Americans, having fiat in their pockets, from 1913 (when the reserve act came into being) to 1940 werent taxed??????

I have seen a brochure from the 1913 era showing tax rates. If memory serves at that time if you made $600,000 the tax rate was 1%. I expect if the same rates were still in effect today there would be few complaints.

A federal reserve note is a corporate coupon. They are exchanged between corporations. Real men and real women don't have anything to do with them. It has taken 100 years for the frogs to notice that the water is boiling but you are just told that is the effect of global warming.

If you want to read the U.S. code and attempt to make any sense of it I wish you best of luck. When so much energy has been expended with the sole intent to misrepresent material matters of fact don't feel bad because you got the message wrong.

From what I have observed David Merrill has some solid arguments. On the other hand anyone who believes he/she can read the "code" and beat it is insane. Your most optimistic outlook is to be able to hold on to your scalp.

Are you a Patrick Devine devotee?

[7th trump]

I have seen a brochure from the 1913 era showing tax rates. If memory serves at that time if you made $600,000 the tax rate was 1%. I expect if the same rates were still in effect today there would be few complaints.

A federal reserve note is a corporate coupon. They are exchanged between corporations. Real men and real women don't have anything to do with them. It has taken 100 years for the frogs to notice that the water is boiling but you are just told that is the effect of global warming.

If you want to read the U.S. code and attempt to make any sense of it I wish you best of luck. When so much energy has been expended with the sole intent to misrepresent material matters of fact don't feel bad because you got the message wrong.

From what I have observed David Merrill has some solid arguments. On the other hand anyone who believes he/she can read the "code" and beat it is insane. Your most optimistic outlook is to be able to hold on to your scalp.

Are you a Patrick Devine devotee?
Just please explain and give facts to why millions of Americans weren't taxed between 1913 and 1940 and yet had billions of fiat reserve notes in their pockets.
You can beat it quite simply by not consenting. You never argue. The law will apply if you participate in it in such away it effects you like participating in Social Security does.
And no I havent a clue who Patrick Devine is.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Its not a different insurmountable language Awoke.
It quite simple to understand if you stop and just let the law tell you instead of predetermined conclusions from people like Stevens, Schiff, and Hendrickson.
Stevens doesnt understand the origin of tax law on labor, so he uses tricks to try and get a technicality so the case is thrown out of administrative court.
And the funny thing is every convicted tax evader who won the administrative case by techniclity has never ever won the civil action against them.
That female pilot who got off for tax evasion over millions lost her civil action against her and ordered to pay every cent back.

These people are bureaucrats. They speak bureaucratese, which is political speech. It is designed to make lies sound truthful, and murder respectable and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind. Because they administer 'the law' the law is whatever they say it is. Marc Stevens sees this and asks questions that give them a choice--either they look at the facts, or make it obvious to the world that they deny you a fair trial. Whatever their answer, or if they are unresponsive, you win.

Hatha

[palani]

Just please explain and give facts to why millions of Americans weren't taxed between 1913 and 1940 and yet had billions of fiat reserve notes in their pockets.
See what I mean? If you cannot read what I wrote and form an opinion then how are you going to stand a chance reading and complying with statute law?

If the threshold to pay taxes were set at $600,000 and I happened to make $599,999 in 1913 then I would not be expected to pay taxes, would I?

And no I havent a clue who Patrick Devine is. That is a point in your favor then, although Patrick does things that SOUND reasonable, he hasn't achieved the threshold yet where he goes to jail.

[7th trump]

These people are bureaucrats. They speak bureaucratese, which is political speech. It is designed to make lies sound truthful, and murder respectable and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind. Because they administer 'the law' the law is whatever they say it is. Marc Stevens sees this and asks questions that give them a choice--either they look at the facts, or make it obvious to the world that they deny you a fair trial. Whatever their answer, or if they are unresponsive, you win.

Hatha
Actually if Stevens knew what hcaused the income tax on labor he'd tell his clients to pay up. He'd tell them to pay up because participating in Social Security is no different than the concept of car insurance.
You participate in Social Security and by participating you are covered with unemployment, as one example, in case such an event happens where you find yourself unemployed.
You dont ask the car insurance company you insure your vehicle with to send back your premium for the month if you didnt get in a wreck for that month would you.?
No different with Social Security and the income tax.
You participate and pay the 26USC 3101 tax (ss tax) for participating and contributing. By participating in SS you earn 3101(a) "wages" of chapter 21 which are also 3401(a) "wages" of chapter 24 for the deduction of the income tax (26USC 3402).
You cant participate in SS and not ask for the premiums back because even though you didnt file for unemployment or any other handout through SS you were still "insured" just in case you had to go to the unemployment office.
You cant have it both ways as most tax protesters want it.
So if Stevens was anything he claims he is would know theres no fighting the IRS to get back your vehicle insurance monthly premiums because you didnt get into a wreck.
Hes playing semanitcs to try and get a technicality that wont help you in the end anyway.
The civil action from the feds always wins.

[7th trump]

See what I mean? If you cannot read what I wrote and form an opinion then how are you going to stand a chance reading and complying with statute law?

If the threshold to pay taxes were set at $600,000 and I happened to make $599,999 in 1913 then I would not be expected to pay taxes, would I?
That is a point in your favor then, although Patrick does things that SOUND reasonable, he hasn't achieved the threshold yet where he goes to jail.
No you didnt write anything about why you cant explain income taxes werent imposed on millions Americans between 1913 and 1940 even though they had billions of fiat in their pockets.
Nice try trying to cover up you dont know anything about fiat and the income tax.
But your willing to listen to someone (Merrill) who hasnt any evidence to prove his theory that having fiat in your pocket is the reason for the income tax.

[Awoke]

You win by not appearing. You will never win by arguing. That requires a BAR card (license to lie).

Yeah right. And your reward is a summons for your arrest!


The only magistrate with the authority to summons me is the chief magistrate. That would be the governor of my state. This is a tidbit from Roman law.

Recall your "Sound of Music"? How was the captain to be summoned with a bosun's whistle?

I'm not sure about the USA, but if the Canadian pigs want you in court and you fail to appear, they will issue a warrent for your arrest.
Then what? Accuse them of kidnapping and forcible confinement?
How do you win, if the beast has already layed hands on you and drug you into the system?

[palani]

I'm not sure about the USA, but if the Canadian pigs want you in court and you fail to appear, they will issue a warrent for your arrest.
Then what? Accuse them of kidnapping and forcible confinement?
How do you win, if the beast has already layed hands on you and drug you into the system?

Would they issue the warrant for arrest on the basis of not appearing in response to their summons? How can they do that? Have you given them authority to command you to appear? I am not saying they won't do that but if there was no crime committed (failure to bow to their presumed authority?) you plead non-assumpsit by way of confession and avoidance.

"I didn't appear but that is not a crime. Show me the law."

If they don't like that plea you plead guilty to the facts but not the controversy. Same thing.

[palani]

Nice try trying to cover up you dont know anything about fiat and the income tax.
You are right. I plead guilty to not knowing anything about fiat or income tax. I bow to your superior knowledge and wish you luck (you'll need it).

[Ares]

No you didnt write anything about why you cant explain income taxes werent imposed on millions Americans between 1913 and 1940 even though they had billions of fiat in their pockets.
Nice try trying to cover up you dont know anything about fiat and the income tax.
But your willing to listen to someone (Merrill) who hasnt any evidence to prove his theory that having fiat in your pocket is the reason for the income tax.

That's easy, because the government didn't tax incomes below 4,000 (for couples) 3,000 (single) a year. At that point in time, 4,000 a year was a good chunk of change. Given the rate of inflation that has completely decimated our purchasing power. 3,000 dollars in 1913 is equivalent to $66,100 today. So now you have an answer to your question to why a large segment of the population did not pay an income tax.

Contrary to what you believe, Federal Reserve Notes are PRIVATE CREDIT and endorsement of their use DOES obligate you to pay a fee for the "privilege".

The IRS tax code is PRIVATE law, it is not public. If it was it would be unconstitutional in many many regards besides the outright theft, it also imposes self incrimination.

To remedy this, restrictively endorse your checks.

Redeemed in Lawful money,
Pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. 411.
True name D/B/A Legal Name

[dys]

Marc Stevens identifies the crux of the issue:

It doesn't matter what bogus law or bogus claim or bogus assertion these criminals use. They must prove their accusations regardless of what they say the law is. Again, if they need not prove their accusations, there is no need for judges or courts and the system is already exposed as pure totalitarianism.

To 7th and Palani: are beaurocrats required to prove their accusations, or are they not required to do so? Very simple and you can talk all day long about whatever flavor of disinformation you are serving today; and you can talk as long and as esoteric and as convoluted as you desire; but you can NEVER obfuscate the fact that accusation without proof can NEVER be confused with justice regardless of the rules or regardless of 'the law', NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY THE RULES OR THE LAW IS.

dys

[7th trump]

Marc Stevens identifies the crux of the issue:

It doesn't matter what bogus law or bogus claim or bogus assertion these criminals use. They must prove their accusations regardless of what they say the law is. Again, if they need not prove their accusations, there is no need for judges or courts and the system is already exposed as pure totalitarianism.

To 7th and Palani: are beaurocrats required to prove their accusations, or are they not required to do so? Very simple and you can talk all day long about whatever flavor of disinformation you are serving today; and you can talk as long and as esoteric and as convoluted as you desire; but you can NEVER obfuscate the fact that accusation without proof can NEVER be confused with justice regardless of the rules or regardless of 'the law', NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY THE RULES OR THE LAW IS.

dys
They can easily prove it by looking at the Social Security file in the system which the employer sends a W3 to the SSA.
The SSA inputs the W3 info which the IRS uses to update their filing system.
Stop the reporting (dont consent to participating into Social Security) to the SSA and the IRS is defanged.
They have no reason for any court action against you.

Marc Stevens is there only to take your money and hope he gets a technicality to throw the case out.

[dys]

They can easily prove it by looking at the Social Security file in the system which the employer sends a W3 to the SSA.
The SSA inputs the W3 info which the IRS uses to update their filing system.
Stop the reporting (dont consent to participating into Social Security) to the SSA and the IRS is defanged.
They have no reason for any court action against you.

Marc Stevens is there only to take your money and hope he gets a technicality to throw the case out.

Looking at the file you describe doesn't prove a damn thing. Besides the obvious fact that a computer file can't be cross examined, consider:
1. The employer sent the form you described under duress.
2. Even if the employer sent the form willingly, the employer is never qualified to make legal determinations. Easily impeached witness.
3. The person that inputted the data did so under duress.
4. Even if that person did so willingly, the form is not admissable because the person that inputted the data had no firsthand knowledge of what they were inputting (hearsay).
5. The person wasn't qualified to make legal determinations, anyway.

And forget the law. Through simple logic it is self evident that a computer file is not proof of anything under any law or any system or any set of rules, no matter how contrived or how bogus or how staged.

dys

[Ares]

Stop the reporting (dont consent to participating into Social Security) to the SSA and the IRS is defanged.

Which you cannot do, businesses get tax breaks for taking part in the system. Why they REQUIRE a social slavery number upon being hired on for employment.

The crux of either of those 2 is the Federal Reserve Note. Neither the IRS, or Social Slavery can exist without it.

You have the unlimited right to contract, the nature and business of the contract was ever explained. But for me, I no longer use FRN's and demand lawful money at any and every exchange. I've even filed paper work with the U.S. District Court making my demand known as my Credit Union didn't want me to correct my signature card. After they received my Notice and Demand they defaulted and that every check that is electronically filed is no redeemed in lawful money.

[dys]

Which you cannot do, businesses get tax breaks for taking part in the system. Why they REQUIRE a social slavery number upon being hired on for employment.

The crux of either of those 2 is the Federal Reserve Note. Neither the IRS, or Social Slavery can exist without it.

You have the unlimited right to contract, the nature and business of the contract was ever explained. But for me, I no longer use FRN's and demand lawful money at any and every exchange. I've even filed paper work with the U.S. District Court making my demand known as my Credit Union didn't want me to correct my signature card. After they received my Notice and Demand they defaulted and that every check that is electronically filed is no redeemed in lawful money.

In order for any contract to be valid the elements of disclosure and consideration must be present. Right from the mouths of the bad guys (read: judges).

dys

[Ares]

In order for any contract to be valid the elements of disclosure and consideration must be present. Right from the mouths of the bad guys (read: judges).

dys

I wholeheartedly agree with you there. But they also turn around and say Ignorance of the "law" is no vice. ;D

[palani]

are beaurocrats required to prove their accusations, or are they not required to do so?

No they are not. Neither are you. Facts and evidence are out of vogue. You will find it hard to get an evidentiary hearing scheduled as all they want to have are agument hearings.

Common law pleading was on its' way out around 1850. It was replaced with code pleading. This left the scene in the 1940's and was replaced with notice pleading. With notice pleading they can throw the kitchen sink at you and if you rebut all but the faucets then that is what you will be found guilt of. Due process is a combination of notice and right to inquire. If you go silent on notice or stop inquiring then off you go to hearing. If you show up at hearing without your due process complete (substantive answers to your question) then you should inform the judge that your due process has been violated and why you believe this. If you cannot articulate a trespass in this area then you get to go stand in the losers corner.

[palani]

In order for any contract to be valid the elements of disclosure and consideration must be present. Right from the mouths of the bad guys (read: judges).

dys

Don't mix old law and new law. Contracts were restated in the 1930's. The new contracts are not based upon substance because there is none. There is no remedy in Law. There may be a remedy in Equity (called an injunction or injunctive relief).

[7th trump]

Which you cannot do, businesses get tax breaks for taking part in the system. Why they REQUIRE a social slavery number upon being hired on for employment.

The crux of either of those 2 is the Federal Reserve Note. Neither the IRS, or Social Slavery can exist without it.

You have the unlimited right to contract, the nature and business of the contract was ever explained. But for me, I no longer use FRN's and demand lawful money at any and every exchange. I've even filed paper work with the U.S. District Court making my demand known as my Credit Union didn't want me to correct my signature card. After they received my Notice and Demand they defaulted and that every check that is electronically filed is no redeemed in lawful money.
What do you mean "cant do"?
I did!
Even saved the employer 6.2% and 1.45% of my pay he'd have to contribute to Social Security if i participated in the program.

See your lawful money beleif didnt work, so naturally it defaulted. This "lawful money" crap has no bases.............and you are deducted taxes arent you?

[dys]

No they are not. Neither are you. Facts and evidence are out of vogue. You will find it hard to get an evidentiary hearing scheduled as all they want to have are agument hearings.

Common law pleading was on its' way out around 1850. It was replaced with code pleading. This left the scene in the 1940's and was replaced with notice pleading. With notice pleading they can throw the kitchen sink at you and if you rebut all but the faucets then that is what you will be found guilt of. Due process is a combination of notice and right to inquire. If you go silent on notice or stop inquiring then off you go to hearing. If you show up at hearing without your due process complete (substantive answers to your question) then you should inform the judge that your due process has been violated and why you believe this. If you cannot articulate a trespass in this area then you get to go stand in the losers corner.

Oh, I see. The law does not require anyone to prove anything, so therefore I can make an accusation against my local judge and have him/her locked up for life? Correct?
Or is it that the law does not require anyone to prove accusation, but that of course is a SECRET? Because if it weren't a secret, the judges and beaurocrats would surely not react the way that they do as evidenced by those calls of shame I linked.

Palani, you don't fool me and you never have.

dys

[palani]

This "lawful money" crap has no bases.. Basis? 12 USC 411 is wrong? If you believe this then why aren't you pointing out that fact to your federal representative? Can't have them going around promoting wrong law can we?

[palani]

Oh, I see. The law does not require anyone to prove anything, so therefore I can make an accusation against my local judge and have him/her locked up for life? Correct?
Or is it that the law does not require anyone to prove accusation, but that of course is a SECRET? Because if it weren't a secret, the judges and beaurocrats would surely not react the way that they do as evidenced by those calls of shame I linked. Let's put it this way. A lady down in Florida had her house foreclosed on. At one time there were three banks each claiming to own the property. Do you suppose they were all lying?


Palani, you don't fool me and you never have.

dys Maybe because I haven't been trying to fool you? I don't argue with fools because I might be mistaken for one.

[Ares]

What do you mean "cant do"?
I did!
Even saved the employer 6.2% and 1.45% of my pay he'd have to contribute to Social Security if i participated in the program.

See your lawful money beleif didnt work, so naturally it defaulted. This "lawful money" crap has no bases.............and you are deducted taxes arent you?

Ok, but you're already employed. Try getting hired without it in a business. I'll wish ya luck. The employer may have 1-2 employees who aren't using their social slave number. Now it gets tricky if the business has ALL of it's employees not using their social slave number. Even their accountant will tell them that they'll lose their business tax breaks if they continue operating outside of "their" system.


I guess I should of clarified. I gave them 21 days to contest my Notice and Demand. Keep in mind that if they contested it they could of lost their charter. As their charter states they HAVE to follow federal banking laws. All I'm doing is demanding lawful money they cannot lawfully contest my Notice and Demand, so they defaulted. I AM redeeming lawful money. I however haven't changed my deductions, and will let all of you know how it goes with the IRS next year on what I get back. This is an endeavor after reading a lot into it and about it and seeing a lot of others employing this method and are not behind bars talking about it tells me that it isn't a load of crap.

If you read Title 12 USC 411 you'll see that Federal Reserve Notes aren't even meant for you. So why are you using them?

[7th trump]

Basis? 12 USC 411 is wrong? If you believe this then why aren't you pointing out that fact to your federal representative? Can't have them going around promoting wrong law can we?
Lawful money has its place otherwise 12usc 411 wouldnt say you could redeem, but lawful has no relation to income taxes that you are attesting to.

[7th trump]

Ok, but you're already employed. Try getting hired without it in a business. I'll wish ya luck. The employer may have 1-2 employees who aren't using their social slave number. Now it gets tricky if the business has ALL of it's employees not using their social slave number. Even their accountant will tell them that they'll lose their business tax breaks if they continue operating outside of "their" system.


I guess I should of clarified. I gave them 21 days to contest my Notice and Demand. Keep in mind that if they contested it they could of lost their charter. As their charter states they HAVE to follow federal banking laws. All I'm doing is demanding lawful money they cannot lawfully contest my Notice and Demand, so they defaulted. I AM redeeming lawful money. I however haven't changed my deductions, and will let all of you know how it goes with the IRS next year on what I get back. This is an endeavor after reading a lot into it and about it and seeing a lot of others employing this method and are not behind bars talking about it tells me that it is a load of crap.

If you read Title 12 USC 411 you'll see that Federal Reserve Notes aren't even meant for you. So why are you using them?
Better reread 411:

"The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues".

"Receivable" &" Public dues".........just what do you think that is?
When reading this code all national and member banks are to accept them for what ever nature it may be AND (in addition to) all taxes , customs, and dues.

[palani]

lawful has no relation to income taxes that you are attesting to.
As I cannot find an appropriate definition of lawful money that means anything (try this experiment ... go to the bank and exchange a $20 for lawful money ... see what they give you) then I am forced to use my own definition. Here it is:

Lawful money .... money that comes to you with no strings attached.

Granted it is a circular definition (lawful money is money) and it really doesn't settle the issue of what money actually is but I find the distinguishing feature is "no strings attached". By holding it you don't owe anybody anything.

[Ares]

Better reread 411:

"The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues".

"Receivable" &" Public dues".........just what do you think that is?
When reading this code all national and member banks are to accept them for what ever nature it may be AND (in addition to) all taxes , customs, and dues.

Correct... IF YOU ENDORSE Private Credit.

I am NOT endorsing Private Credit and instead redeeming lawful money.

[Ares]

Palani-

Here is the definition I've seen before which breaks it down so that anyone can understand it.


Definition of 'Lawful Money'
Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."
Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains 'Lawful Money'
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in direct transactions between parties anymore.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp

[palani]

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."
Actually there is a single court case (Kentucky I believe) that says that specie is gold or silver.

This is from Bouvier 1856


SPECIE. Metallic money issued by public authority.

2. This term is used in contradistinction to paper money, which in some countries is emitted by the government, and is a mere engagement which repre-sents specie. Bank paper in the United States is also called paper money. Specie is the only constitutional money in this country. See 4 Monr. 483.

4 Monr. 483 is the cite. I looked it up 3-4 years ago. It is quite short and sweet.

[sirgonzo420]

Actually there is a single court case (Kentucky I believe) that says that specie is gold or silver.

This is from Bouvier 1856



4 Monr. 483 is the cite. I looked it up 3-4 years ago. It is quite short and sweet.


That reminds me of this Section of the Kentucky Constitution:


Kentucky Constitution. Section 244. Wage-earners in industry or of corporations to be paid in money. All wage-earners in this State employed in factories, mines, workshops, or by corporations, shall be paid for their labor in lawful money.

I like Section 2 also:


Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

[7th trump]

“United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.”
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103

[palani]

. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.”

Things that are not said speak volumes more than that which is actually articulated.

If foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender then what are they? My guess would be "lawful money".

Also you need to know that the several States are foreign with respect to the United States. If Colorado minted silver coin then that would not be legal tender for debt either.

[palani]

Legal tender is something a creditor is forced to take. It is not that he wants to take it but rather that he is required by law to take it. A debtor can offer whatever he has but the creditor can refuse to accept anything but legal tender.

When you sell your labor for a wage and you accept a federal reserve note have you become a creditor? Were you forced to take the note by the legal tender laws? Did you look the debtor (your boss) in the eye and say "Thanks, but I would rather you paid me in lawful money." Most debtors don't have specie on hand and you are going to make them feel badly when they have to state "All I have is this promise to pay you sometime in the future. Take it or leave it." Are you breaking the legal tender laws if you don't accept this?

[7th trump]

Things that are not said speak volumes more than that which is actually articulated.

If foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender then what are they? My guess would be "lawful money".

Also you need to know that the several States are foreign with respect to the United States. If Colorado minted silver coin then that would not be legal tender for debt either.Problem is the US Constitution forbids the several states from minting coin.
The reason foreign coin is not legal tender is because its not minted nor backed by the US government.........credited!

[7th trump]

Legal tender is something a creditor is forced to take. It is not that he wants to take it but rather that he is required by law to take it. A debtor can offer whatever he has but the creditor can refuse to accept anything but legal tender.

When you sell your labor for a wage and you accept a federal reserve note have you become a creditor? Were you forced to take the note by the legal tender laws? Did you look the debtor (your boss) in the eye and say "Thanks, but I would rather you paid me in lawful money." Most debtors don't have specie on hand and you are going to make them feel badly when they have to state "All I have is this promise to pay you sometime in the future. Take it or leave it." Are you breaking the legal tender laws if you don't accept this?
Which is it............."forced to take" or "can refuse to accept"?
No, the minute you work and arent paid makes you the creditor until payment received, not when you accept money in exchange.
When you receive your paycheck there is no creditor nor debtor relationship.

[palani]

The reason foreign coin is not legal tender is because its not minted nor backed by the US government.........credited!


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin

When they regulate the value of foreign coin don't you believe they are making it legal tender? Or are they establishing that foreign coin has ZERO value?

[palani]

When you receive your paycheck there is no creditor nor debtor relationship.
So you are paid at the end of each day or do you extend credit to your employer to permit him to pay you at the end of the week?

An employer-employee relationship is one of trust. The employee is the fiduciary in this relationship.

[dys]

Anyone that wants to see a classic example of how disinformation agents work on message forums, look closely at pages 7 through 10 of this thread.

dys

[Awoke]

My settings are set so there are 60 posts on each page, and this thread only has 4 pages.

[Glass]

When you receive your paycheck there is no creditor nor debtor relationship.

There is, it is just that the relationship changed. The debtor palmed off his debt to another. He did a setoff.

He (employer) was holding (in credit) the debts of another (US treasury via FRN's) which his creditor (employee) accepted as setoff for the debts his creditor (employee) was holding for him.

[lapis]

My settings are set so there are 60 posts on each page, and this thread only has 4 pages.

Dys may be looking at the forum on his cell phone, because I think the default setting for mobile view is only four or five posts a page. It's what drives me nuts about looking at GSUS on my cell phone's browser.

Hopefully he'll clarify which pages we should look at!

[dys]

Dys may be looking at the forum on his cell phone, because I think the default setting for mobile view is only four or five posts a page. It's what drives me nuts about looking at GSUS on my cell phone's browser.

Hopefully he'll clarify which pages we should look at!

All of it....look at all of it. It's right there in front of everyone. The 25 rules of disinformation:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/


1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

dys

[7th trump]

All of it....look at all of it. It's right there in front of everyone. The 25 rules of disinformation:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/



dys
Who you refering to as a "disinformationist" Dys?

[dys]

Who you refering to as a "disinformationist" Dys?

Let's let everyone decide for themselves.

dys

[7th trump]

Let's let everyone decide for themselves.

dys
Well then...from past discussions with you about the Bible I'd say from that list you provided you qualify for over half of them.

[Glass]

fruitful discussion. I've seen no dis info in this thread yet.

[Hatha Sunahara]

One of the tactics of disinformation agents is to steer a thread off course so that people argue about distractions and fail to get a good understanding of the issue in the thread. I haven't seen anything Marc Stevens has to say about lawful money or the money system itself. His forte is 'damage control' when one is dragged into court. For those who haven't bothered to inform themselves what Marc Stevens actually does, here is a link to a Synopsis in his Wiki:

http://marcstevensadventuresinlegalland.wikispaces.com/A+Synopsis+%28read+first%29

I saw somewhere (possibly in one of the comments in his forum) that the first question you should ask the judge when you are brought up before him is: "Do you claim any authority over me without my consent?"

Here's the link. Read the comments.

http://marcstevens.net/articles/black-robed-psycho.html

Think about that. That is a huge monkey wrench.


Hatha

[7th trump]

Let me inject this again.
Marc Stevens does not understand the tax laws. Marc Stevens is at best hired to trip up the judicial system.
If Marc Steven had a clue about how the tax laws on labor work (form 1040) he wouldnt even attempt doing what he does.
I'm not sticking up for the IRS or for Stevens.
I'm saying if Stevens understood how the tax laws work he's know his clients were guilty from the start, and they are guilty, and wouldnt attempt throwing spit balls at the court system.
Hes there just to take your money in a chance to trip up the courts.

[Glass]

Let me inject this again.
Marc Stevens does not understand the tax laws. Marc Stevens is at best hired to trip up the judicial system.
If Marc Steven had a clue about how the tax laws on labor work (form 1040) he wouldnt even attempt doing what he does.
I'm not sticking up for the IRS or for Stevens.
I'm saying if Stevens understood how the tax laws work he's know his clients were guilty from the start, and they are guilty, and wouldnt attempt throwing spit balls at the court system.
Hes there just to take your money in a chance to trip up the courts.

I think Marc understands what law is. It doesn't matter if it's "Tax" law or "Traffic" law. He gets that it is operating under "color of law". It appears to be a law but it is not law. For tax law it is voluntary but compliance is required. That's an oxymoron but that's how the law operates.

It is also at odds with, and repugnant to the common law which is (still but only just) the supreme law which states that no man can be deprived of liberty or property without a jury trial. This applies in all cases where someone is being deprived of their libery or property. That includes taxes.

[7th trump]

I think Marc understands what law is. It doesn't matter if it's "Tax" law or "Traffic" law. He gets that it is operating under "color of law". It appears to be a law but it is not law. For tax law it is voluntary but compliance is required. That's an oxymoron but that's how the law operates.

It is also at odds with, and repugnant to the common law which is (still but only just) the supreme law which states that no man can be deprived of liberty or property without a jury trial. This applies in all cases where someone is being deprived of their libery or property. That includes taxes.
No, Social Security is voluntary.
And by participating in Social Security you are required to pay income taxes.
If Marc Stevens had a clue he'd know this and wouldnt argue like he does and goes for the throat but yet he doesnt!

Also, if knowing what I said above Stevens would know the difference between a "US citizen" and the "People" when it comes to jurisdiction.
BUT HE DOESNT!

[Hatha Sunahara]

It helps to understand where he's coming from if you read his book.

The only book other than Adventures in Legal Land I've read about the law that was consistent with my experience with it was the Rape of Justice by Eustace Mullins. I think I wasn't more than 10 years old when I figured out that the law was administered by really mean people. If you had a streak of meanness in you when you were a kid, you probably got attracted to the criminal justice system--on either side of the law. The law is what they use to beat people with. The law justifies the use of force. The word 'law' casts a hypnotic spell on the population. We're all law abiding citizens--whatever the laws are. And the result is that we have insane laws administered by really mean people. And legally all these people are so corrupt in their administration of the law, that it is something they do not want exposed to public scrutiny. Eustace Mullins wrote a wonderful description of this corruption in The Rape of Justice, but didn't provide a lot of practical advice about how to deal with the system other than his own experience and what he generalized from it. Marc Stevens gets to the heart of this corruption, and offers a way to deal with it that will get your case dismissed by exploiting the fear of the Judges of having their corruption exposed. What gives them power is the perception people have of the law. If people knew how corrupt the entire system is, it would have no power at all. It's like what would happen if all the people had listened to what the boy who said the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes. But people don't want to admit that their emperor is a fool. It's the same thing with the 'law' and the 'justice system'. People want to believe they can get a fair trial. They only accept the abuse the bureaucrats heap on them because 'it's the law'. Marc Stevens is the guy who says "I'm going to keep on asking embarrassing questions if you don't spit me out of your system and leave me alone." The only thing that holds the system together is widespread public ignorance of the depth of corruption in the 'justice' system'. And Marc Stevens shows you how to protect yourself from it by threatening to expose it.

Everything else I've ever read about the justice system is from the viewpoint that the law is sacred and those who administer it are pure and noble. And that insane things are perfectly rational if you are enforcing the law.

Hatha

[Glass]

No, Social Security is voluntary.
And by participating in Social Security you are required to pay income taxes.
If Marc Stevens had a clue he'd know this and wouldnt argue like he does and goes for the throat but yet he doesnt!

Also, if knowing what I said above Stevens would know the difference between a "US citizen" and the "People" when it comes to jurisdiction.
BUT HE DOESNT!

Maybe he is just not as informed as you are. Perhaps he will piece those things together but I see no issue with what he is doing if it is helping people in eliminating or reducing claims against them by the govt. It's also possible, just slightly that some of these people he talks to might also wake up.

I don't see any issue, hypocracy or anything else wrong with what he is doing.

[palani]

Everything else I've ever read about the justice system is from the viewpoint that the law is sacred and those who administer it are pure and noble. And that insane things are perfectly rational if you are enforcing the law.

Hatha

Most people aim their dislike at the judge. If you want to find the evil behind the throne take a long look at the clerk. They have the ability to help people but would rather mess with them instead. Complete psychopaths.

[Awoke]

Great thread. Keep it going guys.

[dys]

Do accusations require proof, or do they not require proof? Palani wants us to believe that accusations require no proof to convict and punish (he actually said it on this thread). If that be the case, why bother to have courts and judges? There is absolutely no need for them if that be the case.

Does proof require evidence? Does evidence require at least one witness with first hand knowledge of the evidence? 7th wants us to believe that evidence requires no witness in order to qualify as 'evidence'! According to him, I can make a computer printout and use it as 'evidence' of whatever false accusation I want, on whomever I want.

This is where facts come in. We don't need to argue over 'law', like Palani and 7th have been doing on this very thread. We either need things like courts and judges and trials and burdens and evidence and witnesses, or we don't. If we don't, the system is exposed as the pure, raw, brute force that it is. If we do, the feigned argument between Palani and 7th is totally irrelevant.

dys

[palani]

the feigned argument between Palani and 7th is totally irrelevant.

dys

Facts are irrelevant. Consent is not.

How would you like to go to a gun range and are told to shoot the target. A piece of paper with concentric circles drawn on it is conveniently posted 25 yards downrange.

After shooting off your box of ammo you recorded a perfect score of zero because the actual target is a tin can at 30 yards.

That is the situation in court. You expend your ammo fighting a battle that isn't even an issue.

Why do you believe there is so much in the way of plea bargaining going on? The chips are put on the table, the bet is 25 years to life, but if you blink we are willing to collect on your bond for 10 years instead, you serve 1 year and the rest of your life in probation.

The only dis in this thread is spelled "dys".

[dys]

Facts are irrelevant. Consent is not.

How would you like to go to a gun range and are told to shoot the target. A piece of paper with concentric circles drawn on it is conveniently posted 25 yards downrange.

After shooting off your box of ammo you recorded a perfect score of zero because the actual target is a tin can at 30 yards.

That is the situation in court. You expend your ammo fighting a battle that isn't even an issue.

Why do you believe there is so much in the way of plea bargaining going on? The chips are put on the table, the bet is 25 years to life, but if you blink we are willing to collect on your bond for 10 years instead, you serve 1 year and the rest of your life in probation.

The only dis in this thread is spelled "dys".

They made us an offer we couldn't refuse.
Consent, my ass.

dys

[palani]

They made us an offer we couldn't refuse.
Consent, my ass.

dys

What other offers are you presented with that you cannot refuse? You wish to play games without knowing the rules so you can later complain? Perhaps you should just not play instead?

[dys]

What other offers are you presented with that you cannot refuse? You wish to play games without knowing the rules so you can later complain? Perhaps you should just not play instead?

Palani is my name,
blame the victim is my game.

dys

[palani]

Palani is my name,
blame the victim is my game.

dys

You are just full of errors today.

palani is a status rather than a name. It means "freeman" in Hawaiian.


victim
late 15c., "living creature killed and offered as a sacrifice to a deity or supernatural power"

Notice that the creature must be living to qualify? A person cannot be a victim. No deity would want one.

[Awoke]

No need to be at each other. Legalese is a difficult language, and Palani has a real knack for putting up vague answers. Don't get sidetracked by the definition of "victim" when the courts and cops and polititcians change definitions as they please.

I encourage you guys to keep digging into this discussion, because even though you may or may not agree, I am still learning, and that's why I joined GIM from the start!

I think we can all agree that the system is beyond corrupt. Defending ourselves from it in as many ways as possible is an important thing to talk about.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Here's what Marc Stevens is exposing:


2315


Hatha

[iOWNme]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrp5pFMbYx0



If you consider yourself a citizen of the United States of America, or of any other country, you should not watch this video until you have mentally prepared yourself to have everything you believe in challenged. You have been warned.
What if everything you believed in turned out to be just a set of delusions programmed into you from early childhood? How would you react upon learning this? Most people will go into denial and get very highly emotional, even to the point of violence. You are probably no exception.

[Awoke]

Most people will go into denial and get very highly emotional, even to the point of violence. You are probably no exception.


Sounds like Dysgenic's friend.

[palani]

[/B]Sounds like Dysgenic's friend.

Marc Stevens would be more believable perhaps if that were his real name. He seems to want to destroy previous programming without offering much practical to replace it.

[iOWNme]

In that video Stevens premise is the fact there are no citizens.

He cites numerous cases were the Supreme Court of the US, as well as several states have ruled that the police/Government has NO DUTY to protect you. And if there is no duty to protect, than there is NO ALLEGIANCE due. And the definition of a citizen is a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection, there are no citizens, and NO body politic, and hence.......NO STATE.

[Glass]

Marc Stevens would be more believable perhaps if that were his real name. He seems to want to destroy previous programming without offering much practical to replace it.

sounds a bit like George Gordon's MO.

[palani]

the definition of a citizen is a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection, there are no citizens, and NO body politic, and hence.......NO STATE.

The duty of allegiance is from the government. The government is not the state. The state is still in existence (because YOU exist). The government just ignores its' duty to perform as the state expects it to.

To say there is no state is to deny one's own existence. The other way to eliminate yourself is to be irresponsible. Carry a bag of unequal measures (aka FRN's). Purchase insurance so that someone else can be responsible. Choose liars for representatives. Hire a lawyer when you cannot handle your own affairs.

Do you have allegiance to yourself? Then you owe yourself the duty of protection.

[palani]

sounds a bit like George Gordon's MO.

I always thought that George Gordon was using his own name. I might be mistaken though.

As you have listened to his program then you know he proclaims himself to be a Hebrew. You don't suppose he is advocating these principles to replace stat-ism?

[Hatha Sunahara]

I have developed a curiosity about Freemen and Sovereigns lately. I'm learning a lot about the law lately. One big push in that direction was SirGonzo's link to Freedom-school.com. I never paid attention to the Freeman/Sovereign stories before because I wasn't aware how the law operates to negate your existence and fraudulently enslave you. But, as I have said elsewhere, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I know the establishment considers the Sovereigns to be a big scary threat because they can monkey wrench the whole system with their knowledge of the law and their critical thinking ability.

I reread this thread just now, and I'm getting a deeper perspective about what Palani has said his name means in Hawaiian. That escaped me at first--but as my knowledge grows, it makes perfect sense. Wasn't it Voltaire who said "It's dangerous to be right when your government is wrong." It's best to be discrete when this issue stares you in the face.

I wonder if there is any connection between a growing Sovereign movement and the government's desire to do away with trials altogether. Indefinite detention and the power to execute people without due process might be a reaction to the growing ability of the rabble to tie the legal system in knots with its own processes. We seem to be entering a dark period that might involve the suspension of civilization itself. I applaud Marc Stevens for his clear view of what the government is, and his willingness to share with people the knowledge he has for doing damage control when you have to deal with this dangerous self-serving legal system. His argument of how the state does not exist is compelling. But apparently not to people who cannot imagine how an orderly society could exist without a government. Of course you don't have to go very far to see how my views are shaped. Just look at my avatar.


Hatha

[palani]

We seem to be entering a dark period that might involve the suspension of civilization itself.

Didn't you know that this was what the movement to retain common law was all about? Words are symbols that have specific meanings. Civilization itself is a process, a change from one thing to another. This is from etymology online:


civilization
1704, "law which makes a criminal process civil"

One can infer that the root word "civil" refers to one of the two principal lawforms in existence (Roman civil law and common law). Civilization is the process of making a common law crime a civil law crime. It has nothing to do with how far the nearest Starbucks is.

[Glass]

One can infer that the root word "civil" refers to one of the two principal lawforms in existence (Roman civil law and common law). Civilization is the process of making a common law crime a civil law crime. It has nothing to do with how far the nearest Starbucks is.

This is correct. People believe civilisation is about getting along better, being more encompassing, having high ideals that we all live by, improving the human race. It is really the commercialisation of all criminal acts. Funny that it's Roman. The great commercializers of sin.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Commercialization of criminal acts? Like fines, forfeitures, and servitude? Give me an illustration of commercializing criminal acts?

I think what Palani is saying is that the laws are written down. There are statutes. Common law is based on human experience, it isn't written down anywhere. It's all the do's and dont's of people living together. Then some dictator comes along and says "I get to say what's right or wrong, and I'm going to write it down so all you slaves will know what to do or not do." And then writes the laws to favor himself, or his friends. Is that what you mean by the commercialization of criminal acts? Please do explain this.

Hatha

[Glass]

Thats pretty much it Hatha. Man has many many laws. We even seem to be very close to the point where the fact of you mere existence will be a statutory crime. You've heard of Statutory Rape. What is it called that?

Under UCC all crimes are commercial in nature. It says that in the code itself.

I could give you the catholic purgatory interpretation being as all of this comes from Rome. You know you can buy you way out of any sin? You might have to do some purgatory but you can still buy your way out of sin. This is basically the same principle. Judges are merely priests of the temple.

[Hatha Sunahara]

So, when everything becomes illegal, we will all become criminals, and the people in power can pick and choose which crimes to prosecute us for when they don't like our behavior? Is that what you mean by commercialization of crime?

By that measure, we must be at the height of our civilization right now. I spend most of my day breaking laws left and right. Some recent law made it illegal to grow food in my back yard.

Somehow, I would prefer to live in a less civilized world. We are not yet nearly as civilized as Nazi Germany was, where it was a capital crime to tell jokes about Hitler. But we're close. Better think twice about Obama jokes. You just might find yourself in a pile of ashes after he's sent the predator drones for you.


Hatha

[Libertytree]

The last airport I was in the loudspeaker kept repeating that "terrorist humor" or "anti-TSA humor" will get you detained or booted from the airport.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Aha! The height of civilization must be when we are all expected to abandon our sense of humor? No more laughing at the buffoons. That's an order.



Hatha

[iOWNme]

The duty of allegiance is from the government. The government is not the state. The state is still in existence (because YOU exist). The government just ignores its' duty to perform as the state expects it to.

To say there is no state is to deny one's own existence. The other way to eliminate yourself is to be irresponsible. Carry a bag of unequal measures (aka FRN's). Purchase insurance so that someone else can be responsible. Choose liars for representatives. Hire a lawyer when you cannot handle your own affairs.

Do you have allegiance to yourself? Then you owe yourself the duty of protection.


Where is the Governments duty to protect?

You claim the STATE exists, because i do? LAUGHABLE. The STATE is a fiction, i am human. Can you prove otherwise?

Am maxim in Law is "I AM WHO I SAY I AM".

[Hatha Sunahara]

MS argues in Adventures in Legal Land that the state is a mental construct. As opposed, perhaps to a tangible, palpable thing. I wonder if that puts it on the same plane with a religious 'mental construct' such as 'God' or "allah' or 'Yaweh'?

I recently bought a book called The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose. I haven't read it yet but the scanning I have done through the book tells me that he is dealing with the issue of a mass delusion--the kind that makes it so if you believe it is so--the belief in the authority of the state. If enough people believe it, it is, de facto, real--despite the fact that it is just a mental construct.

here is his main premise:



The belief in "authority," which includes all belief in "government" is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality. and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in "authority" is the arch-enemy of humanity.

His book is a little more than 200 pages long. This quote appears on page 2. So, I conclude there are about 200 pages of examples of how this is true.


Hatha

[palani]

Where is the Governments duty to protect? Before you agreed to be represented by agents you were both the State and Government rolled into one neat little package. After you agreed to representation (hopefully with a little forethought and some negotiation) your representative Agents handle all of your Governmental affairs.

If you failed to negotiate a suitable agreement my best guess is that you entered into a unilateral contract where you have all the duties and none of the benefits. Protection would be classified as a major benefit wouldn't you say?

If this is the sort of arrangement you have found yourself engaged in then my belief is that it is unconscionable. It might not be for you but it would be for me.


You claim the STATE exists, because i do? LAUGHABLE. The STATE is a fiction, i am human. Can you prove otherwise? Does the Queen of England represent the Soil of England or the People of England? If She is said to represent the People what if there were no People left in England? Does she have to turn in Her Crown? If She represents the Soil of England does she represent Dirt?



Am maxim in Law is "I AM WHO I SAY I AM".
Extra territorium jus dicenti non paretur impune. One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory is not obeyed with impunity.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

[dys]

Blah blah blah...

No dislosure, no consideration, no choice,
No contract.
Period.

dys

[palani]

Blah blah blah...

dys

Well begun is half done.
Aristotle

On the other hand ... poorly begun is as useless as tits on a boar.

[dys]

Well begun is half done.
Aristotle

On the other hand ... poorly begun is as useless as tits on a boar.

"The bad guys always try to complicate the simple."
dysgenic

And that is what you do. You also love to blame the victim, and I've seen that one before- it's masonic.

dys

[palani]

You also love to blame the victim, and I've seen that one before- it's masonic.

dys

Yet I have never been attacked by a "friend" with a machete. Doesn't that make you stop and think a bit?

[iOWNme]

Before you agreed to be represented by agents you were both the State and Government rolled into one neat little package. After you agreed to representation (hopefully with a little forethought and some negotiation) your representative Agents handle all of your Governmental affairs.

So there are citizens, but you are saying they didnt look at their contract very well or they would have noticed there was only 1 signature?


If you failed to negotiate a suitable agreement my best guess is that you entered into a unilateral contract where you have all the duties and none of the benefits. Protection would be classified as a major benefit wouldn't you say?To trade allegiance for protection might be considered a major benefit. But trading allegiance so i can be PLUNDERED and put into a lifetime of bondage, doesnt seem all that beneficial. Wouldnt you say?


Does the Queen of England represent the Soil of England or the People of England? If She is said to represent the People what if there were no People left in England? Does she have to turn in Her Crown? If She represents the Soil of England does she represent Dirt?I have never read her oath, so i cant comment. But how would the dirt proclaim allegiance in this scenario?

[palani]

So there are citizens, but you are saying they didnt look at their contract very well or they would have noticed there was only 1 signature? I'll have to go with Lysander Spooner on this one. Agency is one thing but oaths blown away by the wind and for which there is no accountability suxs bigtime.


To trade allegiance for protection might be considered a major benefit. But trading allegiance so i can be PLUNDERED and put into a lifetime of bondage, doesnt seem all that beneficial. Wouldnt you say? I would say examine your options. Expressum facit cessare tacitum. What is expressed renders what is implied silent.

But how would the dirt proclaim allegiance...?
Lex non intendit aliquid impossibile. The law intends not anything impossible.

[dys]

Said another way, Palani is suggesting that we are to blame for our oppression. Our oppressors? It's not that they are a criminal junta of murderers and thieves. It's that we somehow consented to oppression by implication. And of course we should have known what we were getting ourselves into even though there was never any disclosure or consideration, there was never any real choice except 'do this or go to jail', and there was never any force of law that allowed for the abrogation or limitation of rights. Regardless, it is still our fault.

Right, Palani?

dys

[7th trump]

Said another way, Palani is suggesting that we are to blame for our oppression. Our oppressors? It's not that they are a criminal junta of murderers and thieves. It's that we somehow consented to oppression by implication. And of course we should have known what we were getting ourselves into even though there was never any disclosure or consideration, there was never any real choice except 'do this or go to jail', and there was never any force of law that allowed for the abrogation or limitation of rights. Regardless, it is still our fault.

Right, Palani?

dys
Who the heck do you think you are Dys?
Palani is correct 100%!
Read your Bible!
God says anyone caught taking the number of the beast even though they were front row pew sitting church goers their wholes lives isnt getting in Heaven.
Just because you didnt read up on the laws doesnt mean you are innocent.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse and you are looking for that excuse!
What an ego Dys ...what an ego!

[palani]

It's that we somehow consented to oppression by implication. ... Regardless, it is still our fault.

Right, Palani?

dys

You? A victim? I had no hand in making you irresponsible. Your seeking to blame others for your misfortune would seem to say it all.

[dys]

You? A victim? I had no hand in making you irresponsible. Your seeking to blame others for your misfortune would seem to say it all.

Not me. WE...as in all the people being oppressed by the oppressors.
Are you an oppressor, Palani?

dys

[palani]

Not me. WE...as in all the people being oppressed by the oppressors.

No one has anointed you to speak for any People. Let the People speak for themselves. How have YOU been oppressed?

The Army can train a raw recruit to charge a machine gun nest in less than 90 days. The same recruit will blanch at the thought of exercising the right to travel without permission from the State. What we have here then, is a failure to communicate.

[dys]

No one has anointed you to speak for any People. Let the People speak for themselves. How have YOU been oppressed?

The Army can train a raw recruit to charge a machine gun nest in less than 90 days. The same recruit will blanch at the thought of exercising the right to travel without permission from the State. What we have here then, is a failure to communicate.

You speak of 'the people' as if you are not one of us. I speak on behalf of the good guys. WE are tired of being oppressed and even more tired of being blamed for it by people like you.
Who do you work for, son?

dys

[iOWNme]

I'll have to go with Lysander Spooner on this one. Agency is one thing but oaths blown away by the wind and for which there is no accountability suxs bigtime.



You should watch that last video i posted, as he is quoting directly from Lysander's 'No Treason'. I would like to hear your take on it.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I think Palani is offering some valuable lessons here on how the law really works and how to play the game. The law makes you assert your rights in order to have them. If you do not assert your rights, you do not get them. We all have a choice. We can assert our rights, or we can waive them. Whose 'fault' is it when we waive our rights?




Hatha

[palani]

You speak of 'the people' as if you are not one of us. Perhaps I am just a tad more selective about who I hire to represent me than you are.


I speak on behalf of the good guys. Yes, I know the group well. They are your best friends as long as you have money to buy beer but run out and see how long they hang around.


WE are tired of being oppressed and even more tired of being blamed for it by people like you.
Yet you cannot clearly define HOW you are being oppressed. I will gladly assume responsibility for your oppression but first need to have you define the PHYSICAL extent of your injuries.

[7th trump]

Yet you cannot clearly define HOW you are being oppressed. I will gladly assume responsibility for your oppression but first need to have you define the PHYSICAL extent of your injuries.

Hahahahahaha .........good one palani!
You do have a sense of humor dont you?

You live probably an hour and some minutes from me........we need to sit down and chat.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Didn't you know that this was what the movement to retain common law was all about? Words are symbols that have specific meanings. Civilization itself is a process, a change from one thing to another. This is from etymology online:



One can infer that the root word "civil" refers to one of the two principal lawforms in existence (Roman civil law and common law). Civilization is the process of making a common law crime a civil law crime. It has nothing to do with how far the nearest Starbucks is.

I think I'm grasping this better. Took a while to digest. What was once a crime is now a 'tort'--it has money consequences. You can be punished not just by going to 'gaol' but by having your assets seized.

I wonder how much of our law in English speaking countries has been influenced by principles from the Talmud? It has to be a lot considering how the legal profession is heavily represented by Hebraic lawyers.


Hatha

[Carl]

Lysander Spooner was wrong then, just as Marc Stevens is wrong now.

It was never the intent behind the constitutional formation of government/s to "protect you", which would make you a subject citizen of the state. The intent is/was to uphold the laws, the first of which is the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, under which all other laws (Federal, State and Local) are subordinated. You are a State and U.S. Citizen by constitutional law and not a "protected" subject citizen of the state. (The state did not create you and it is not by its will you exist.)

The Constitution is an enforceable contract between the states and the federal government it creates, duly ratified (signed) by the original 13 states, and every state that has entered the union since its adoption, and codified within each state's constitution. Every elected person, and some appointed, who enters into government office swears and signs an oath to uphold the Constitution, from the President of the U.S. down to your local Notary, validating it as a Lawful Contract in good standing.

The Federal Government is contracted, with enumerated duties, to protect the environment within which the states are formed and you reside.

You are a citizen of the state within which you reside and a U.S. citizen while outside your state of residence or the Nation of states. (un-amended constitutional status)

The first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) to the Constitution codifies individual, unalienable rights into the environment (Nation of States and the Laws) formed by and under the Constitution. The number one priority of the Federal Government is to "Protect The Environment" within which you exercise your liberty.

[osoab]

Lysander Spooner was wrong then, just as Marc Stevens is wrong now.



It's been almost a year since you last posted on the forum Carl. How have things been?

[Carl]

It's been almost a year since you last posted on the forum Carl. How have things been? Thanks for asking, I've been existing, with little desire to do otherwise.

[Neuro]

Thanks for asking, I've been existing, with little desire to do otherwise.

The mark of a good deflationist! ;D

Welcome back!

[iOWNme]

Lysander Spooner was wrong then, just as Marc Stevens is wrong now.

It was never the intent behind the constitutional formation of government/s to "protect you", which would make you a subject citizen of the state. The intent is/was to uphold the laws, the first of which is the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, under which all other laws (Federal, State and Local) are subordinated. You are a State and U.S. Citizen by constitutional law and not a "protected" subject citizen of the state. (The state did not create you and it is not by its will you exist.)

The Constitution is an enforceable contract between the states and the federal government it creates, duly ratified (signed) by the original 13 states, and every state that has entered the union since its adoption, and codified within each state's constitution. Every elected person, and some appointed, who enters into government office swears and signs an oath to uphold the Constitution, from the President of the U.S. down to your local Notary, validating it as a Lawful Contract in good standing.

The Federal Government is contracted, with enumerated duties, to protect the environment within which the states are formed and you reside.

You are a citizen of the state within which you reside and a U.S. citizen while outside your state of residence or the Nation of states. (un-amended constitutional status)

The first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) to the Constitution codifies individual, unalienable rights into the environment (Nation of States and the Laws) formed by and under the Constitution. The number one priority of the Federal Government is to "Protect The Environment" within which you exercise your liberty.

Whats the Lawful definition of a contract? How many elements are there to a valid contract?

[Carl]

Whats the Lawful definition of a contract? How many elements are there to a valid contract?Contract legal definition (http://law.yourdictionary.com/contract)
noun

Any legally binding agreement voluntarily entered into by two or more parties that places an obligation on each party to do or not do something for one or more of the other parties and that gives each party the right to demand the performance of whatever is promised to them by the other parties. To be valid, all parties must be legally competent to enter a contract, neither the objective nor any of the obligations or promised performances may be illegal, mutuality of the agreement and of its obligations must exist, and there must be consideration.

THE ELEMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0070961379/580512/Willes_2Ce_03.pdf)

The creation of a binding contract that the courts will enforce requires the contracting parties
to meet a number of requirements that are prescribed by the law of contract. While these
requirements are not numerous, they must, nevertheless, be met before the agreement creates
rights and duties that may be enforceable at law. These requirements are referred to as the elements
of a valid contract and consist of the following:
1. An intention to create a legal relationship
2. Offer
3. Acceptance
4. Consideration
5. Capacity to contract
6. Legality
In addition to the six basic elements, certain types of contracts must be in writing, in an electronic
substitute, or take on a special form, to be enforceable. But in general, all contracts must
have these six elements present to be valid and binding. In this chapter, the six elements are
examined, in order to identify the rules applicable to the establishment of these requirements
for a contract.

[palani]

The intent is/was to uphold the laws, the first of which is the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, under which all other laws (Federal, State and Local) are subordinated. You are a State and U.S. Citizen by constitutional law
Careful. Your programming is showing.

Charitable trusts last longer than 99 years. No other entity may ('course they ignore this rule when it comes to 115 y.o. old tymers). Nobody can be forced to do business with a charitable trust, either as a fiduciary (citizen/officer) or beneficiary (welfare benefit ... participate in "economy" ... use FRNs).

To engage in either fiduciary or beneficiary roles is entirely voluntary. That is where the choice comes in and which allows all these government employees to make claims that everyone participates voluntarily.

While I have no problem with the organization established by the U.S. constitution I frankly cannot afford the services they offer. The laws they promote (promoting baby killing, torture, going to war without Congressional proclamation and things of this sort) are foreign laws of which I am ignorant.

[dys]

Marc Stevens is not wrong, and this is evidenced by the arguments, reactions, and responses of those that oppose him.

If the law is on their side, why do they ('they' meaning all those that oppose him) continually resort to the tactics of strawmen arguments, ad hominem attacks, pat col's chutzpah maneuver, ridicule, and intellectualism in order to defend their respective positions?

Oh, and Palani- I didn't refuse to answer your question re: oppression, I went to bed. The answer as to how I am oppressed is as follows:
My money is stolen from me.
My labor is stolen from me.
My rights are not respected, taken from me, or limited when they shouldn't be.
That's a start.

dys

[palani]

The answer as to how I am oppressed is as follows:
My money is stolen from me.
My labor is stolen from me.
My rights are not respected, taken from me, or limited when they shouldn't be.
That's a start.

dys

Here is how your behavior was foretold in 1604 ...


So if theeves take a man, and compell him (by menace of killing) to sweare upon a booke to bring unto them a certaine summe of money, or other goods: and thereupon he goeth, and bringeth the same unto them: this is adjudged Robberie 44.E.3.14. and yet he was once at libertie and out of their hands, so as he might seeme to be freed of all the feare wherein he stood by them. But yet, who seeth not, that the same feare that made him to take the oath, did still follow him even to the performance of that which he had sworne and promised.

[Carl]

Careful. Your programming is showing. Right back at ya dude...

Could you please explain the contextual relationship between the quoted text from my post and the gibberish you posted as a response.

[Carl]

Marc Stevens is not wrong, and this is evidenced by the arguments, reactions, and responses of those that oppose him. ~

dysA rejection of an argument does not constitute its validation.

[iOWNme]

Contract legal definition (http://law.yourdictionary.com/contract)
noun

Any legally binding agreement voluntarily entered into by two or more parties that places an obligation on each party to do or not do something for one or more of the other parties and that gives each party the right to demand the performance of whatever is promised to them by the other parties. To be valid, all parties must be legally competent to enter a contract, neither the objective nor any of the obligations or promised performances may be illegal, mutuality of the agreement and of its obligations must exist, and there must be consideration.

THE ELEMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0070961379/580512/Willes_2Ce_03.pdf)

The creation of a binding contract that the courts will enforce requires the contracting parties
to meet a number of requirements that are prescribed by the law of contract. While these
requirements are not numerous, they must, nevertheless, be met before the agreement creates
rights and duties that may be enforceable at law. These requirements are referred to as the elements
of a valid contract and consist of the following:
1. An intention to create a legal relationship
2. Offer
3. Acceptance
4. Consideration
5. Capacity to contract
6. Legality
In addition to the six basic elements, certain types of contracts must be in writing, in an electronic
substitute, or take on a special form, to be enforceable. But in general, all contracts must
have these six elements present to be valid and binding. In this chapter, the six elements are
examined, in order to identify the rules applicable to the establishment of these requirements
for a contract.

Who signed the Constitution? Were they signatories to the agreement?

[dys]

A rejection of an argument does not constitute its validation.

He makes no arguments. Those that oppose him make all of the arguments for him.

dys

[Carl]

Who signed the Constitution? Were they signatories to the agreement? The signatures are found in the Ratification Documents submitted by each state and are revalidated by oral/signed oath of affirmation every election cycle thereafter.

[Carl]

He makes no arguments. Those that oppose him make all of the arguments for him.

dys Sorry but that's nonsensical.

I have submitted an argument against his position and it, most assuredly, does not lend any validity to his position.

[dys]

The signatures are found in the Ratification Documents submitted by each state and are revalidated by oral/signed oath of affirmation every election cycle thereafter.

5. Capacity to contract.

dys

[palani]

Could you please explain the contextual relationship between the quoted text from my post and the gibberish you posted as a response.

Your programming applies to you. Nobody else. I expect you don't have a clue as to what the United States actually is (a municipality). I expect you believe the United States is a sovereign entity (no federation is sovereign, the individual member states are), or why a municipality was needed and created by the U.S. constitution (to attach territory to).

In short you are far too foreign to me to undertake the task of educating you even if you have the capability to be taught. You will have to content yourself with your arguments and dishonor.

[dys]

Sorry but that's nonsensical.

I have submitted an argument against his position and it, most assuredly, does not lend any validity to his position.

I haven't heard your argument, and I disagree that it's nonsensical. But let's put that to practice. If you were a beaurocrat arguing in favor of a tax assessment, and I were to ask you a simple question- "Are there any witnesses that I owe this tax?" What would your 'argument' be? Absent an argument, what would your response be?

dys

edit to add:
What about you, Palani? You want a shot at the title?

[Carl]

5. Capacity to contract.

dysElected representatives of the people within each state possess the capacity to contract as part of their constitutionally delegated authority.

[iOWNme]

The signatures are found in the Ratification Documents submitted by each state and are revalidated by oral/signed oath of affirmation every election cycle thereafter.



From the US Con,


Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness where of We have here unto subscribed our Names,The men who signed the Constitution were merely WITNESS. Are witness signatories to a contract?

And just like LS says, how can you naturally and morally hold someone to a contract they didnt sign, were never asked about and didnt have the opportunity to challenge?

[dys]

Elected representatives of the people within each state possess the capacity to contract as part of their constitutionally delegated authority.

That is LOL. Pure baloney.

dys

[Libertytree]

Well....at the beginning and at the end of the day you're either free or ya ain't, everyone can squabble over arcane legal constructs all they want but we're all still just as fucked with or without them. Try having this debate with a gun pointed at your head. There is NO common sense driven law or rules and if it's too complex for the layman it's bullshit off the git go. Argue away.

[Carl]

I haven't heard your argument, and I disagree that it's nonsensical. But let's put that to practice. If you were a beaurocrat arguing in favor of a tax assessment, and I were to ask you a simple question- "Are there any witnesses that I owe this tax?" What would your 'argument' be? Absent an argument, what would your response be?

dys I'm sorry but I was addressing his Lysander Spooner induced theory of a "No State", not his arguments over taxes.

As for his taxing arguments; more power to him, I wish him all the luck in the world.

[dys]

Well....at the beginning and at the end of the day you're either free or ya ain't, everyone can squabble over arcane legal constructs all they want but we're all still just as fucked with or without them. Try having this debate with a gun pointed at your head. There is NO common sense driven law or rules and if it's too complex for the layman it's bullshit off the git go. Argue away.

I'll add that by using common sense, we can easily determine that the whole damn judicial system is the same as the state- it doesn't exist! If there is no burden to prove accusation, there is no need for courts or judges....it's all just a dog and pony show.

dys

[Carl]

That is LOL. Pure baloney.

dys OH, SNAP!!! Good comeback...

[dys]

OH, SNAP!!! Good comeback...

What in the world would make you believe that anyone can lawfully sign anything on my behalf?

dys

[Carl]

What in the world would make you believe that anyone can lawfully sign anything on my behalf?

dys The power is delegated by vote, your individual participation in that vote is accepted but not required. If you do not like the rules within your state, then work to change them, or you can always leave.

[dys]

The power is delegated by vote, your individual participation in that vote is accepted but not required. If you do not like the rules within your state, then work to change them, or you can always leave.

Why would that power be delegated by vote?

dys

[Carl]

Why would that power be delegated by vote?

dysRead your state constitution.

[dys]

Read your state constitution.

No need. Declaration of Independence:
The purpose of government is to secure rights.

Aside from that, common sense dictates the absurdity of such a notion. If I were elected mayor, could I contract my next door neighbor to work in Siberia while I stay in his house for free? Could I contract his wife to be my personal hooker for 1$/year? Could I contract the rest of the population to elect me as mayor for life?
C'mon now.

dys

[Carl]

From the US Con,
The men who signed the Constitution were merely WITNESS. Are witness signatories to a contract? OK: The signatures are found in the Ratification Documents submitted by each state and are revalidated by oral/signed oath of affirmation every election cycle thereafter. It's precepts are also incorporated into state's constitutions and laws.


And just like LS says, how can you naturally and morally hold someone to a contract they didnt sign, were never asked about and didnt have the opportunity to challenge? LS's diatribe is a perfect example of a Straw Man argument. Unless you're in government service, "You" are not being "Held" by the contract that binds the states and creates the Federal Government. You're are free to petition its change or leave.

[Carl]

No need. Declaration of Independence:
The purpose of government is to secure rights.

Aside from that, common sense dictates the absurdity of such a notion. If I were elected mayor, could I contract my next door neighbor to work in Siberia while I stay in his house for free? Could I contract his wife to be my personal hooker for 1$/year? Could I contract the rest of the population to elect me as mayor for life?
C'mon now.

dysReductio Ad Absurdum.

[Carl]

Your programming applies to you. Nobody else. I expect you don't have a clue as to what the United States actually is (a municipality). I expect you believe the United States is a sovereign entity (no federation is sovereign, the individual member states are), or why a municipality was needed and created by the U.S. constitution (to attach territory to).

In short you are far too foreign to me to undertake the task of educating you even if you have the capability to be taught. You will have to content yourself with your arguments and dishonor. Agian, right back at ya dude.

I hope you and your wheel-less band wagon have many happy trails....

[Carl]

I just do not understand those who argue their "sovereign standing" while bemoaning their accepted position as slave waiting for someone else to come along and free them...

You are as sovereign and free as you want to be, period.

[Awoke]

You are as sovereign and free as you want to be, period.

Until the NWO pigs tazer you, cuff you and throw you in a holding cell.

[Carl]

Until the NWO pigs tazer you, cuff you and throw you in a holding cell. Nothing is inevitable but even then, you still have a choice.

[Libertytree]

Until the NWO pigs tazer you, cuff you and throw you in a holding cell.

Me thinks I said the same thing earlier.

[Awoke]

Nothing is inevitable but even then, you still have a choice.

Comply or die. What a choice.

[palani]

Agian, right back at ya dude.
Agian?

Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest.

[Carl]

Comply or die. What a choice.It's the same choice given by tyrannical governments throughout history, why should now be any different.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk3sURDS4IA


There's still a chance, all "we" have to do is convince a few states to repudiate the 17th non-amendment and seat their selected senators.

[Carl]

Agian?

Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest.

And you've been on this thread bitching about what?

[palani]

And you've been on this thread bitching about what?

Glad you asked. People who think their sh*t don't stink.

[iOWNme]

It's the same choice given by tyrannical governments throughout history, why should now be any different.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk3sURDS4IA


There's still a chance, all "we" have to do is convince a few states to repudiate the 17th non-amendment and seat their selected senators.

I love how Carl in the same breathe says "Yes,Comply or Die has been the meme throughout history. But if we just vote our way out of this one, we can be free again".


Hello Pot, meet Kettle.

[sirgonzo420]

Glad you asked. People who think their sh*t don't stink.

Perhaps one's diet has to do with that.

[palani]

Perhaps one's diet has to do with that.

More likely they plug up their olfactory nerves with scent (or clutter their minds with idealism).

[Carl]

I love how Carl in the same breathe says "Yes,Comply or Die has been the meme throughout history. But if we just vote our way out of this one, we can be free again".


Hello Pot, meet Kettle. Sui Juris, I already know that I can expect that type of intellectual dishonesty from palani, but to have you stoop that low as well, I just don't know what to say.

But that's all right, have your fun shooting the messenger...

[Carl]

Glad you asked. People who think their sh*t don't stink. Odd comment, coming from a guy who has his head so firmly planted up his own ass.

[palani]

Odd comment, coming from a guy who has his head so firmly planted up his own ass.

I thought we would eventually get to the crux of your argument (aka babble and ad hominem).

[Carl]

I thought we would eventually get to the crux of your argument (aka babble and ad hominem).
I know that you don't what to discuss the facts simply because you don't know what they are. That's because you've wasted your time playing at trivial pursuit, educating yourself into a hole that has no escape for you and offers no escape for anyone else that you may entice into that hole with you. You just keep digging until one day the government will come along and bury you in the hole you dug for yourself, because they don't care how right you think you are.

Your greatest failing is that you do not know how to extrapolate.

[JohnQPublic]

Odd comment, coming from a guy who has his head so firmly planted up his own ass.

Carl- cool the insults. Stick to argumentation.

[palani]

Your greatest failing is that you do not know how to extrapolate.

You have been successful in pointing out my greatest strength.

[Carl]

Carl- cool the insults. Stick to argumentation. Thanks for the quote.

There was no argument to stick to.

Palini chose the low road by addressing me in a personal manner and not my points, I merely followed his lead, albeit in a more direct manner.

If you post with the intent of insulting someone's intelligence, man up and be direct about it.

[Carl]

You have been successful in pointing out my greatest strength. How is not seeing where you are going a strength?

[palani]

How is not seeing where you are going a strength?

Just look at where being able to extrapolate has gotten you. Explain how your life is better through extrapolation.

[dys]

Feigned argument designed to coverrup a very valuable thread, by Carl and Palani.

Hmmm, I wonder why Carl decided to reemerge on this thread....

dys

[Carl]

Feigned argument designed to coverrup a very valuable thread, by Carl and Palani.

Hmmm, I wonder why Carl decided to reemerge on this thread....

dysNo sinister plot on my part, just didn't appreciate the "No State" disinfo concerning the Constitution being presented by Marc Stevens.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

[dys]

No sinister plot on my part, just didn't appreciate the "No State" disinfo concerning the Constitution being presented by Marc Stevens.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

I call BS. It is very obvious what you are trying to do. You and Palani are 2 peas in a pod.

dys

[palani]

designed to coverrup a very valuable thread
Your threads are as valuable as your FRNs, oh Oppressed One.

[Carl]

Just look at where being able to extrapolate has gotten you. Explain how your life is better through extrapolation.The ability to extrapolate gets the majority of people through life.

For instance, one could extrapolate prior to reaching the curb of the street that continuing to walk into traffic could lead to bodily injury or death so they stop at the curb.

Or, one could extrapolate that, unless one is striving to be a lawyer, studying the nuances of law with the intent of using that information to pull a fast one on those who write and enforce the laws, or just to impress people on forums, will not change a damned thing.

[Carl]

I call BS. It is very obvious what you are trying to do. You and Palani are 2 peas in a pod.

dysOK, you're going to have to clue me in; what do you believe I'm/we're trying to do?

[Glass]

The ability to extrapolate gets the majority of people through life.

For instance, one could extrapolate prior to reaching the curb of the street that continuing to walk into traffic could lead to bodily injury or death so they stop at the curb.

Or, one could extrapolate that, unless one is striving to be a lawyer, studying the nuances of law with the intent of using that information to pull a fast one on those who write and enforce the laws, or just to impress people on forums, will not change a damned thing.

Carl must exist only in the world of forums. Knowing will help more than not knowing. Knowing that an attorney hold allegience to the court will help you and is not there for you. Knowing how you may achieve things without going to court is also useful.

See how quickly these techniques used by Carl can derail and potentially shutdown a useful thread. lesson to all here. Many of us have seen this before on other forums.

[FreeEnergy]

Can someone please ban carl from this thread, and clean it up?

[iOWNme]

Sui Juris, I already know that I can expect that type of intellectual dishonesty from palani, but to have you stoop that low as well, I just don't know what to say.

But that's all right, have your fun shooting the messenger...

I honestly wasnt 'stooping', and if you look at my post history here, i NEVER attack people. You have a real way of turning debating points into personal attacks, and that my friend is a sign of either intellectual lack, or purposeful disinformation. And since i know you are a smart guy, im leaning towards the latter.....

All i did was point out your blatant hypocrisy in what you said, and the contradictory nature of your comment, thats all.

Back on topic....

If Government has no duty to protect you, than you have no allegiance to them. And if nobody has allegiance to the government, there is no state.

Now, some guys could have gotten together, and created a fiction legally and called it THE STATE. But meanwhile, back in reality, the people that do not give their consent to be governed, cannot be compelled to submit to anything.

The only reason why, is because Government uses FORCE, when it cannot use fear to subdue you. A moral, just government uses REASON and voluntary actions to persuade you.

Now, if this were a free and open society, people wouldnt be coerced into being governed. Im sure your going to say these people signed contracts, and so now they must obey. Again, back in reality, if these people were not fully disclosed to that they were signing up for indentured servitude, they might have made a different choice. Im sure you'll say ignorance is no excuse. Except for when somebody else gets taken advantage of.....Notice how if the Government is the one taking advantage or using FORCE, "it is no excuse not to know the Law." Yet if i take advantage of you in the private world, well the government calls that 'Fraud'. and i get busted. Funny how that works.

[Carl]

Carl must exist only in the world of forums. Knowing will help more than not knowing. Knowing that an attorney hold allegience to the court will help you and is not there for you. Knowing how you may achieve things without going to court is also useful.

See how quickly these techniques used by Carl can derail and potentially shutdown a useful thread. lesson to all here. Many of us have seen this before on other forums.Why do you consider offering facts as presented in post #153, #158, #166 and others, as well as offering an opinion a "technique"?

If what I stated is false then argue that, don't attack me just because I proved Marc Stevens wrong about the Constitution.

"shutdown a useful thread"? The utility of this thread, if it had any, ran out around post #30 or so.

Besides, there is nothing of any great value being presented in this thread that hasn't already been presented dozens of times already.

[dys]

Why do you consider offering facts as presented in post #153, #158, #166 and others, as well as offering an opinion a "technique"?

If what I stated is false then argue that, don't attack me just because I proved Marc Stevens wrong about the Constitution.

"shutdown a useful thread"? The utility of this thread, if it had any, ran out around post #30 or so.

Besides, there is nothing of any great value being presented in this thread that hasn't already been presented dozens of times already.

If this thread is so useless why did you choose it to re-emerge?

dys

[Carl]

I honestly wasnt 'stooping', and if you look at my post history here, i NEVER attack people. You have a real way of turning debating points into personal attacks, and that my friend is a sign of either intellectual lack, or purposeful disinformation. And since i know you are a smart guy, im leaning towards the latter..... Quote anything from me that is directed at you that you consider to be a personal attack, if it is then I will apologize.

What information have I presented that is false that would qualify as "purposeful disinformation"?


All i did was point out your blatant hypocrisy in what you said, and the contradictory nature of your comment, thats all. No, You Did Not. You adlibbed/fabricated an argument in my name then proceeded to condemn me for your words.


Back on topic....

If Government has no duty to protect you, than you have no allegiance to them. And if nobody has allegiance to the government, there is no state. You need to be more specific, which government are you referring to, local, county state or federal?

What do you mean by "duty to protect you"? What constitutes protection or the lack thereof?

What do you mean by "allegiance to them"?


Now, some guys could have gotten together, and created a fiction legally and called it THE STATE. But meanwhile, back in reality, the people that do not give their consent to be governed, cannot be compelled to submit to anything.

The only reason why, is because Government uses FORCE, when it cannot use fear to subdue you. A moral, just government uses REASON and voluntary actions to persuade you.

Now, if this were a free and open society, people wouldnt be coerced into being governed.
Our Constitutional federal system of government wasn't created or designed to govern anyone, hince the often used term "that is unconstitutional".

Most of what we suffer today can be directly attributable to the unconstitutional 17th Amendment and the two party oligarchic democracy it created.


Im sure your going to say these people signed contracts, and so now they must obey. Again, back in reality, if these people were not fully disclosed to that they were signing up for indentured servitude, they might have made a different choice. Im sure you'll say ignorance is no excuse. Except for when somebody else gets taken advantage of.....Notice how if the Government is the one taking advantage or using FORCE, "it is no excuse not to know the Law." Yet if i take advantage of you in the private world, well the government calls that 'Fraud'. and i get busted. Funny how that works. That portion must be directed at someone else because it is totally alien to my way of thinking.

A people willing to take responsibility for themselves, the essence of living in liberty, do not need to be governed.

Our constitutional system was set up for just such people as it is ill constructed for any other purpose.

I think most people are still capable of governing themselves but are not allowed to do so.

This, is what needs to be changed.

[Carl]

If this thread is so useless why did you choose it to re-emerge?

dys I didn't say it was useless and I've already explained why, Marc Stevens tasked me.

[Glass]

Why do you consider offering facts as presented in post #153, #158, #166 and others, as well as offering an opinion a "technique"?

If what I stated is false then argue that, don't attack me just because I proved Marc Stevens wrong about the Constitution.

"shutdown a useful thread"? The utility of this thread, if it had any, ran out around post #30 or so.

Besides, there is nothing of any great value being presented in this thread that hasn't already been presented dozens of times already.

I don't think I mentioned Marcs position on the Constitution so not sure where that's from.

It's possible that both it's valid or relevant and it's invalid or irrelevant are correct but at different points on the time line. If it is ask he says, only witnessed and not joined by the framers then what does witnessing achieve. It shouldn't bind them. If it does then what of the aspect that they are all dead now.

If someone else should come along and hold up the Constitution, join to it and there was a counter party ready and willing to take the other side of the contract, then so be it. I see no problem with that. I don't think the Constitution is copyright or if it was then it has expired long ago. Anybody can grab a hold of it and use it as their template. Is it the only one? It's the most well known template. We know the counter party is willing and able. What about striking a deal in which one party was not willing, but able?

Generally if I disapprove of something I will ignore it so long as it isn't affecting me directly.

[Carl]

I don't think I mentioned Marcs position on the Constitution so not sure where that's from.

Post #118 by Sui Juris


It's possible that both it's valid or relevant and it's invalid or irrelevant are correct but at different points on the time line. If it is ask he says, only witnessed and not joined by the framers then what does witnessing achieve. It shouldn't bind them. If it does then what of the aspect that they are all dead now. The framers were not the government, they had no authority to do anything other than create and witness, it was up to the states to bind themselves to the contract via the ratification process and oath of affirmation.

The only parties bound by the Constitution are the States and the Federal Government.


If someone else should come along and hold up the Constitution, join to it and there was a counter party ready and willing to take the other side of the contract, then so be it. I see no problem with that. I don't think the Constitution is copyright or if it was then it has expired long ago. Anybody can grab a hold of it and use it as their template. Is it the only one? It's the most well known template. We know the counter party is willing and able. What about striking a deal in which one party was not willing, but able? As far as I know the document isn't copywrited, any people wanting to create a government by it should be free to do so, although Ruth Batty Ginsburg will advise against its use.


Generally if I disapprove of something I will ignore it so long as it isn't affecting me directly. About the only way you're affected by the Constitution is when government violates it.

Take, for instance, the commerce clause; it's purpose is to regulate commerce between states. That is, to regulate the state's activities such as the imposing of tariffs, duties or embargos placed by a state on goods shipped from other states,(the reason behind the war of northern aggression) it was never intended to regulate trade between people in different states.

[Glass]

Post #118 by Sui Juris


Ok. Sorry I'm Glass not Sui Juris.


Take, for instance, the commerce clause; it's purpose is to regulate commerce between states. That is, to regulate the state's activities such as the imposing of tariffs, duties or embargos placed by a state on goods shipped from other states,(the reason behind the war of northern aggression) it was never intended to regulate trade between people in different states.

Yes correct. It is intended to interdict TRAFFIC. This is what Govts do, they TRAFFIC or interdict other merchants TRAFFIC.

People were not intended to be merchants. People were not intended to be in commerce and people are not. However persons are merchants and are intended to be in commerce and this is at the crux of the situation. Are you a people or are you a person?

I think you can transpose people with man, men, woman/women.

I think you can transpose person with citizen, corporation, sole trader (soul)sic, merchant....plus a few others

So again, this is the crux of it. Are you in or out of commerce? What is your standing? How can you change your standing so you are not in commerce?

If you can't change your standing and you can't change the system, according to many people then there is only one choice left as far as I can see. It might look like there are only ones and twos out there who are having no success but it is bigger than that and the ideas are gaining traction. Beliefs are changing. People are feeling like a fight for their rights. It's clear no one can give you your rights, you have to take them and hold them.

The way the world works at any point in history depends on what the people of the world believe at that time. What they have believed before may have been discovered by them or fed to them. What they believe in the future will be determined the same way. Personally I prefer freedom beliefs way ahead of demonic beliefs. People are being fed demonic beliefs which leaves the field wide open for freedom beliefs.

When someone says "You can't do that" they are really saying "I can't do that". Its up to us to show them otherwise. To do nothing condemns us all.

[Carl]

Ok. Sorry I'm Glass not Sui Juris.
I never inferred that you were anyone other than.

I was addressing Sui Juris and his post within this thread.


Yes correct. It is intended to interdict TRAFFIC. This is what Govts do, they TRAFFIC or interdict other merchants TRAFFIC.

People were not intended to be merchants. People were not intended to be in commerce and people are not. However persons are merchants and are intended to be in commerce and this is at the crux of the situation. Are you a people or are you a person?

I think you can transpose people with man, men, woman/women.

I think you can transpose person with citizen, corporation, sole trader (soul)sic, merchant....plus a few others

So again, this is the crux of it. Are you in or out of commerce? What is your standing? How can you change your standing so you are not in commerce?
I don't think that's the crux of it at all. You either live in liberty or you don't. If you live in liberty then all of the legalistic descriptive verbiage designed to categorize and pigeonhole a person and their activities, are irrelevant. Of course, this is based upon the assumption that the object of life is to live in liberty, not as a legalistic entity, but as a free man.


If you can't change your standing and you can't change the system, according to many people then there is only one choice left as far as I can see. It might look like there are only ones and twos out there who are having no success but it is bigger than that and the ideas are gaining traction. Beliefs are changing. People are feeling like a fight for their rights. It's clear no one can give you your rights, you have to take them and hold them. Learning how to choose you own slave designation prior to them choosing one for you, does not make you any less of a slave.

Marc Stevens is attempting to guile people into believing that they can become a more successful slave, that's all.

Anyone who tells you that you can wrangle yourself a little piece of freedom by learning the language of the legal system, is blowing the smoke of slavery up your ass.

It's like believing that if you learn how to hiss like a viper, you'll have the ability to climb into a nest of them and not get bit.


The way the world works at any point in history depends on what the people of the world believe at that time. What they have believed before may have been discovered by them or fed to them. What they believe in the future will be determined the same way. Personally I prefer freedom beliefs way ahead of demonic beliefs. People are being fed demonic beliefs which leaves the field wide open for freedom beliefs. People believe different things in different parts of the world. I have no concern for what others may believe in their sections of it, I only care about the area known as the United States of America and the Constitutional Republic that formed it.

Liberty and freedom are not legal designations, they are a state of being.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" - Benjamin Franklin

[dys]

I never inferred that you were anyone other than.



"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" - Benjamin Franklin

Masons tend to quote their own.

dys

[Carl]

Masons tend to quote their own.

dys Is that it? That's all you got?

So now I'm a "bogeyman Mason" because I quote truth spoken by one?

[sirgonzo420]

Masons tend to quote their own.

dys

Well, umm, you just quoted Carl.


And I quoted you...
o.O