Submit To Being Governed By others ... Or NOT!!

[palani]

"As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within, a sovereign can not make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him, and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest."

Theodore Roosevelt
Jamestown Exposition 1907

[palani]

Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature.
Letters to Atticus[?], Marcus Tullius Cicero

[Hatha Sunahara]

Palani, are your own laws written down? Or are they 'etched in your mind'? And how much deviation can you have between your own laws and those of your government? If your government tells you polygamy is illegal, and you are able to be successfully polygamous, would you abandon polygamy to obey the government's laws? Or would you claim your right because you are practicing it responsibly, and there are no complaints? One of your constant themes is to be cognizant of your own behavior. Do you consider any behavior to be a crime if there is no victim? Or, more specifically, how much would you allow your government's laws to influence your behavior if you were behaving in a way directed by reason, and the government wasn't?


Hatha

[palani]

Palani, are your own laws written down? Or are they 'etched in your mind'?

Laws that I adapt are generally written by someone. The adaptation is unwritten.


And how much deviation can you have between your own laws and those of your government? My government is in touch with to my laws and is incapable of deviating.


If your government tells you polygamy is illegal, and you are able to be successfully polygamous, would you abandon polygamy to obey the government's laws? This does not happen when you are self-governed. As to polygamy one wife seems more than sufficient to inflict enough pain and suffering without requiring assistance.



Or would you claim your right because you are practicing it responsibly, and there are no complaints? I feel I would be the one with the complaint.


One of your constant themes is to be cognizant of your own behavior. Do you consider any behavior to be a crime if there is no victim? With a body politic of unity there is no injury unless it is self-inflicted. Anything damage self-inflicted is also self-punished. There can be no crime until two or more people join into the same body politic.


Or, more specifically, how much would you allow your government's laws to influence your behavior if you were behaving in a way directed by reason, and the government wasn't? Laws are always directed by reason and when the reason goes away the law also goes away. I am not responsible for foreign governments actions but I will say I accept no gifts from foreign potentates and always deal with principals.

[palani]

Every man is where he is by the law of his being; the thoughts which
he has built into his character have brought him there, and in the
arrangement of his life there is no element of chance, but all is
the result of a law which cannot err. This is just as true of those
who feel "out of harmony" with their surroundings as of those who
are contented with them.

James Allen .. As A Man Thinketh

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

One of your constant themes is to be cognizant of your own behavior. Do you consider any behavior to be a crime if there is no victim?


With a body politic of unity there is no injury unless it is self-inflicted. Anything damage self-inflicted is also self-punished. There can be no crime until two or more people join into the same body politic.

You seem to have lost me. Would physical assault not warrant a response if the two parties were not part of the same body politic?

[palani]

Would physical assault not warrant a response if the two parties were not part of the same body politic?

Criminal laws are intended to be directed at people within the same body politic. Your laws don't apply to any other than yourself so the concept of a criminal law directed at yourself is ludicrous, especially if you only count those acts as crimes that are attended by injuries. If an act is outside your own law just don't do it.

If someone injures you not in your own body politic wouldn't this be cause for war? Or at the very least initiate diplomacy that eventually could lead to war.

[Awoke]

I'm sorry, nice theory, but not practicable.

The NWO pigs will tazer people into submission and kidnap them and lock them up and force them into a court system, no matter if that person asserts they are "a body politic of unity" or whatever other term they choose.


EDIT - Do we not have a "Beating a dead horse" emoticon?

[Twisted Titan]

Every man is where he is by the law of his being; the thoughts which
he has built into his character have brought him there, and in the
arrangement of his life there is no element of chance, but all is
the result of a law which cannot err. This is just as true of those
who feel "out of harmony" with their surroundings as of those who
are contented with them.

James Allen .. As A Man Thinketh


I read as a man thinketh waaaaaaay back in the day.

That's a bunch of hogwash now.

I don't care for the blame the rape victim because they had a short skirt on that day meme.




Each of us have been "raped" by a small group of sociopaths who have set up.a cottage industry to make sure you never become a threat to their reign of terror over the masses and should you become aware there are effective means to quickly squelch your ability to resist them.

I hate books that gloss over the fact that most of us were born into bondage and its our fault that we got slapped with that raw deal.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I'm sorry, nice theory, but not practicable.

The NWO pigs will tazer people into submission and kidnap them and lock them up and force them into a court system, no matter if that person asserts they are "a body politic of unity" or whatever other term they choose.




I think you just made Palani's point. If you govern yourself in a way that gives them no reason to use their unlimited force, then you have nothing to fear from external laws.

I was just exploring to what extent Palani has 'internalized' those external laws within his own self governing body politic. Limited of course to his own body. Specifically those laws that criminalize certain behaviors which hurt no one. I used polygamy as an example, but it could have been driving without a license, or driving a motorcycle without a helmet, or visiting a prostitute, or smoking controlled herbal substances. If your own internal self government is identical to what the external government enforces, then perhaps you are considered a 'law abiding citizen' because you never get in trouble. Your agreeable self government should earn the esteem of the government that has all the power. However, I would point out, that if you obey all their rules, aren't you fooling yourself by thinking of yourself as 'self-governing'? This sounds to me a rationalization for sycophancy. Yowsah, baussss! How does one see ones self as a 'sovereign' when one makes ones self subject to the laws of the external government? Or, does a sovereign individual unitary law unto himself get to pick and choose which of the external government's laws he will not obey? And which of his unitary internal laws must the external government obey?

Does a sovereign individual get to arm himself if his internal law dictates that for his safety? Must the government respect this 'internal' law of his? And what if it doesn't? Does the individual sovereign get to disobey the external government's laws? I think what we are dealing with here is the 'social contract'.

Or maybe I'm bringing up something that is way beyond the scope or even the intent of the OP?

Hatha

[Awoke]

I think you just made Palani's point. If you govern yourself in a way that gives them no reason to use their unlimited force, then you have nothing to fear from external laws.


You just touched on my point.
You can "govern" yourself however the hell you want, but if a NWO pig decides to fuck with you, he doesn't need a "reason" to use his force.

I have seen people get taken to jail for walking down the sidewalk. Cop sees them, doesn't like them, engages them with questions, doesn't like them, arrests them, hauls them off. I have SEEN IT HAPPEN with my own two eyes. To people that did nothing at all.

This stuff is fun to talk about, and fun to read about, and fun to understand, but it is not realistically usable in a real life scenerio with a pissed off NWO pig.

[Serpo]

In a simple form its the same as ....

I want you to govern me

or

you can be in control of me

the whole thing has been made up to CONTROL

one person is controlling another person......it just dosnt make sense whatever way you look at it.....

[palani]

I'm sorry, nice theory, but not practicable.

The NWO pigs will tazer people into submission and kidnap them and lock them up and force them into a court system, no matter if that person asserts they are "a body politic of unity" or whatever other term they choose.


In my studies nowhere have I found any indication that you are responsible in any way for the actions of others EXCEPT perhaps where your own behavior/actions stimulates others to their actions. Should some action of yours actually cause another to react then the responsibility is yours.

Should a NWO enforcer come upon you with a baton raised to strike and you make a motion as to protect yourself then you have in one manner or another accepted his offer of mortal kombat. Such a motion is instinctive but must be suppressed if joinder is to be avoided. [Note if there are no witnesses then have at it ... several witnesses are required to avoid one testimony offsetting another where the badge counts for more points]

[sirgonzo420]

You just touched on my point.
You can "govern" yourself however the hell you want, but if a NWO pig decides to fuck with you, he doesn't need a "reason" to use his force.

I have seen people get taken to jail for walking down the sidewalk. Cop sees them, doesn't like them, engages them with questions, doesn't like them, arrests them, hauls them off. I have SEEN IT HAPPEN with my own two eyes. To people that did nothing at all.

This stuff is fun to talk about, and fun to read about, and fun to understand, but it is not realistically usable in a real life scenerio with a pissed off NWO pig.

That's pretty much it.

And I have avoided hassles by talking to cops, and there have also been times when I knew that they would do what they wanted anyway, and I would find my remedy in court.

You would do well to study law, and how to navigate through it, but of course it goes without saying that some people (often times cops, for example) violate the law on a regular basis. Sometimes if a law is to be enforced, it will be up to YOU to enforce it, and some times are better for that than others.

Arguing with a cop at the roadside could get you in jail, tazed, or killed.

Sometimes it's best to wait and fix things in the courtroom, or with paperwork before court.

[palani]

I read as a man thinketh waaaaaaay back in the day. That's a bunch of hogwash now.
Reading is not understanding. Try absorbing the Trivium before reading this book again.

I don't care for the blame the rape victim because they had a short skirt on that day meme. I am enough of a fisherman to know that the better bait catches the most fish.

Each of us have been "raped" by a small group of sociopaths who have set up.a cottage industry to make sure you never become a threat to their reign of terror over the masses and should you become aware there are effective means to quickly squelch your ability to resist them. Resist or not. There are alternatives.

I hate books that gloss over the fact that most of us were born into bondage and its our fault that we got slapped with that raw deal. Learn to overcome your programming. Don't always choose the easiest path. Just because welfare is handed out doesn't mean you need to have your hand out to get your "fair" share.

[palani]

If you govern yourself in a way that gives them no reason to use their unlimited force, then you have nothing to fear from external laws.

The code or statute law of a state is what is used to control their own employees and citizens. An alien who maintains no domicile for commercial purposes might get by claiming "in itinere" status should an enthusiastic thug attempt to force code on him. Under the system as it presently operates (in insurrection to the constitution) there is no involuntary servitude. This means you must volunteer to serve. If you don't volunteer and don't have any account to charge they are going to eventually get tired supporting you with three hots and a cot with nothing coming back to pay for it.

[palani]

Cop sees them, doesn't like them, engages them with questions, doesn't like them, arrests them, hauls them off. I have SEEN IT HAPPEN with my own two eyes. To people that did nothing at all.


Your eyes lie to you. There are no arrests because none of these actors are authorized to arrest. The sheriff of a county has no authority to arrest and he has title to being the highest law enforcement officer in a county. In order to act in this manner these enforcers NEED a little document called a WARRANT.

Call it what it is. KIDNAPPING. This is a FEDERAL rap. File a verified complaint with the federal prosecutor and if he doesn't do his job you charge HIM with misprison of felony. In order to proceed you might need to be your own prosecutor in federal court. If you aren't enjoying yourself in this capacity then you are doing something wrong.

[Awoke]

It doesn't matter what they or you call it, in the eyes of the NWO court system, you are wrong and they are right, and the fanciest talk in the world isn't going to change that.

To this day, after looking for one success story regarding sovereigns/freemen/body politic of unity or whatever the fuck you want to label it as, I still have not found one that can be substantiated.


Gonzo: I never said anything about arguing with a cop.

Palani: I call bullshit on you for this:



In my studies nowhere have I found any indication that you are responsible in any way for the actions of others EXCEPT perhaps where your own behavior/actions stimulates others to their actions. Should some action of yours actually cause another to react then the responsibility is yours.


Either you didn't read my post, or you are dense, or you are just plain lost in the english language intricacies you wallow in. I don't mean to disrespect you. I am just losing patience with your circle talk on total bullshit that will only serve to get people here KILLED or JAILED if they try to assert this crap in the streets.

The NWO doesn't give a shit how pretty you make your sentences look on paper. If they want you, brutality will prevail, and as we ALL KNOW BY NOW, the court system will back the NWO pigs up without question.

I need to take a break from this topic. It's like I'm talking to a woman suffering battered wife syndrome: She'll continue to take beatings and insists that he loves her, right up until he beats her to death.

If you or ANYONE ELSE can show me a SINGLE CASE of this Palanese circumlocution actually winning over the court system, a case that can be proven, I will put my foot in my mouth and walk away.

(Yes, on one foot. I'm talented)

[Hatha Sunahara]

Palani, do you have a fee schedule? Do you send cops a bill for your time when they detain you?



Hatha

[palani]

It doesn't matter what they or you call it, in the eyes of the NWO court system, you are wrong and they are right, and the fanciest talk in the world isn't going to change that.

Say you are charged with being absent without leave from Ft Hood. The facts are you are not at Ft Hood and you have no leave to be absent from Ft Hood. If you argue these facts then you are wrong because the facts don't lie. If you successfully argue non assumpsit by way of confession and avoidance (presuming this plea is available) then you win. By doing so you traverse the facts to get down to the basic law; i.e., you aren't in the army and are not required to either be present at Ft Hood or to have leave to be absent.

Aside from this aspect, as a defendant you are always going to be classed a debtor and debtors don't ever get to win. You need to be a plaintiff to fit into the winners circle.



To this day, after looking for one success story regarding sovereigns/freemen/body politic of unity or whatever the fuck you want to label it as, I still have not found one that can be substantiated. Don't stop looking.




Palani: I call bullshit on you for this:
That is the easiest path for you then.


as we ALL KNOW BY NOW, the court system will back the NWO pigs up without question.
THEIR courts pretty much agree with THEM.



If you or ANYONE ELSE can show me a SINGLE CASE of this Palanese circumlocution actually winning over the court system, a case that can be proven, I will put my foot in my mouth and walk away.
If you had actual proof you still would need to BELIEVE. You have been a doubter/procrastinator/easy path follower so long that is now your nature. (no offense intended .. my posts are directed at those who are capable of having an open mind)

[palani]

Palani, do you have a fee schedule? Do you send cops a bill for your time when they detain you?
I have only had one detention and I was still dealing in fiat at the time. Now that I accept only constitutional money I am pretty sure none of these agencies have any at their disposal. Should I ask for fiat I would be sucked back into their sand lot.

[Libertytree]

What a load of shit! Palini/Percy is working overtime to dupe whoever will listen to these nonsensical riddles and tales from the far side. Beware folks, beware.

[sirgonzo420]

What a load of shit! Palini/Percy is working overtime to dupe whoever will listen to these nonsensical riddles and tales from the far side. Beware folks, beware.

Palani is not Percival.

[palani]

whoever will listen

You still hearing voices? In this event I too urge caution.

[Libertytree]

You still hearing voices? In this event I too urge caution.

Not hearing, just reading. Urging caution is the most salient thing I've seen that you typed.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Look, it is entirely fair to criticize administrative remedy/freeman/sovereignty as being hard or impossible to utilize in the face of an NWO thug

But it is inaccurate and unfair to say that it is wrong - because it's not. Palani and other free men are RIGHT about the way the law is supposed to work.

It's not their fault that the NWO doesn't follow the law, and it's not their responsibility to provide you with solutions when a lawbreaker is trying to physically assault you.


I for one can respect that Palani is right about the state of the Law while at the same time understanding that I may need to go above and beyond what is detailed here to protect myself.

I furthermore see no reason to call him a shill for merely posting factually correct information about the law.

Don't get angry at him because he's not giving you 100% of the solutions you need.

[Awoke]

Say you are charged with being absent without leave from Ft Hood. The facts are you are not at Ft Hood and you have no leave to be absent from Ft Hood.

OK, my turn.

Say you are walking down the street and you are suddenly accosted from behind.
Say it happens so fast that even if you were armed, you had no chance to defend.
Say you went to the ground in a scuffle, and there was no way out.
Say you ended up on top, fighting for your life, and a cop finally walks by.
Say he thinks you're the aggressor, and tazers you.
Say you twitch on the ground, and between gasp, you try to explain.
Say he takes this as resisting arrest.
Say he tazers you again, then beats you with a stick for good measure (in his eyes)
Say you try to get up to speak with reasonable diplomacy to the pig and explain that you are Palani (Hawaiian for freeman or whatever)
Say he shoots you in the face and you die because you are not laying on the ground in compliance, even though he never told you to.
Say your wife is distraught, and broke and your kids are left behind, and the man who accosted you walks free.


At what point do you not engage in contract with the criminal who is accosting you?
Or would you wait and try to disengage or refuse contract with the NWO pig?
When would you do that? While he ran up behind you, just before he blindsides you, or later, after you have been tazered and beaten with a club?

I don't know when you would pull out your CoR or Fee Schedule or whatever the fuck you think you think you're going to use, but I know that in this scenerio, you only have until up to the point when you get shot in the face.



* Waiting in anticipation of the usual cryptic old english brush off *

[Hatha Sunahara]

C'mon LT, lighten up on Palani. I haven't had so many laughs here in a long time. Palani doesn't just know his stuff, he's got a great sense of humor too. I have somewhat of an admiration for the Sovereign/Freemen. It's like Braveheart screaming Freedom in your ear. Plus, I know Palani has both his middle fingers up pointing at his critics. The worst he's doing is proselytizing an attitude--a healthy one.


Hatha

[Awoke]

Look, it is entirely fair to criticize administrative remedy/freeman/sovereignty as being hard or impossible to utilize in the face of an NWO thug

But it is inaccurate and unfair to say that it is wrong - because it's not. Palani and other free men are RIGHT about the way the law is supposed to work.

It's not their fault that the NWO doesn't follow the law, and it's not their responsibility to provide you with solutions when a lawbreaker is trying to physically assault you.


I agree with this completely.
That is not the point.

To keep things simple, I think even the "freeman" or "sovereign" movement is destined for failure, because they are all basing their "law" on laws that were created by man.

Only God's laws, that He has written on our hearts, have any bearing. Anyone who refers to "organic law" or the Magna Carta or the Constitution is already diffusing their sovereignty, simply by allowing man-made limitations and boundaries to be placed on them. Once you place value on ANY ONE of those things, over the Will and the Word of God the Father, you are following man made laws.



I for one can respect that Palani is right about the state of the Law while at the same time understanding that I may need to go above and beyond what is detailed here to protect myself.

I furthermore see no reason to call him a shill for merely posting factually correct information about the law.
I never once called him a shill.
I like and respect Palani, and enjoy reading his fictional scenarios of applying ancient man made laws against current tyranny. It may not seem like I like and respect him right now, but that is because I can only sit around and watch a certain amount of misleading shit before someone confuses this fiction for fact, and gets killed trying to apply it against the bloodthirsty NWO cult called the "justice system"


Don't get angry at him because he's not giving you 100% of the solutions you need.
When has he EVER provided an actual, tenable, useable, applicable solution?

Please. Show me.

[Awoke]

THEIR courts pretty much agree with THEM.


Which you would be forcefully subject to, like it or not. Pretty english or not.



If you had actual proof you still would need to BELIEVE. You have been a doubter/procrastinator/easy path follower so long that is now your nature. (no offense intended .. my posts are directed at those who are capable of having an open mind)

It wouldn't take much. Just one case where a sovereign forced the court to recognize that their system is either (A) Subordinate to a freemans sovereignty, or (B) Not applicable to a man because he claims to be sovereign.
I won't even bother addressing your "easy path follower" comment, because you really don't know me. Obviously.

[Libertytree]

C'mon LT, lighten up on Palani. I haven't had so many laughs here in a long time. Palani doesn't just know his stuff, he's got a great sense of humor too. I have somewhat of an admiration for the Sovereign/Freemen. It's like Braveheart screaming Freedom in your ear. Plus, I know Palani has both his middle fingers up pointing at his critics. The worst he's doing is proselytizing an attitude--a healthy one.


Hatha

Mayhaps you're right? The comedic value is priceless but the trouble is the tragedy that occurs when good people get suckered into this crap and it gets their asses kicked or killed.

[Gaillo]

Anyone else here get the feeling that Palani is serving up an interesting (yet nutritionally empty) word salad? ???

I knew a guy many years ago who spouted legalise of a similar "flavor" - he's now in prison serving 15-20, for something that started out as a license plate infraction. Very sad... he was quite likeable and seemed to have a good mind, before the system and his own "knowlege" finished destroying him.

My only "advice" to those who want to "fight the power"? Stay the hell OUT of the courts.

[Carl]

C'mon LT, lighten up on Palani. I haven't had so many laughs here in a long time. Palani doesn't just know his stuff, he's got a great sense of humor too. I have somewhat of an admiration for the Sovereign/Freemen. It's like Braveheart screaming Freedom in your ear. Plus, I know Palani has both his middle fingers up pointing at his critics. The worst he's doing is proselytizing an attitude--a healthy one.

Hatha The problem with that assessment is that; success at evading government force does not make anyone a Sovereign/Freemen. The government force is still there and one is still subject to it, regardless of any attitude one may hold to the contrary. Believing youself to be sovereign is not enough, others around you, especially the government, must believe it as well and if nobody does, then you're not. It's as simple as that.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Anyone else here get the feeling that Palani is serving up an interesting (yet nutritionally empty) word salad? ???

I knew a guy many years ago who spouted legalise of a similar "flavor" - he's now in prison serving 15-20, for something that started out as a license plate infraction. Very sad... he was quite likeable and seemed to have a good mind, before the system and his own "knowlege" finished destroying him.

My only "advice" to those who want to "fight the power"? Stay the hell OUT of the courts.

Gaillo--I've found what Palani has said here to be very nutritious. I've developed an interest in the law. Not from a perspective of how to 'beat it', but from the perspective of how the lawyers and judges and prosecutors think. And the sort of tricks they use to establish their jurisdiction over people. And the way they get you to waive your rights. Palani has confirmed for me the idea that I got from Eustace Mullins that it is really risky to show up in court--and to be forewarned is to be forearmed. And of course, the law has been a huge component of human history, and it is not taught in school in any meaningful way. There seem to be at least two areas of human knowledge that our public school systems avoid like the plague--the law, and the money system. It's because these two areas just reek with disinformation. Understanding these two areas of human knowledge would make it transparent to anyone what kind of relationship exists between the elite and everyone else. So, like most things, if you want to know the truth about it, you have to go and dig it up for yourself.

Palani has done that, and he leaves pointers for the rest of us. He's opened up an entire new world for me--the world of the Freeman--which I think is a far more attractive world than the zombie world which the elite encourage us to live in. Plus, I think Palani is a good teacher. He has that Socratic method where he teaches by posing questions with embedded clues needed to answer them. This works well with me, but as I see here, not with everybody. And Palani's real value is that he doesn't tell you what to think, but how to think for yourself in the environment he is familiar with. When I read what Palani writes, it is vaguely reminiscent of John Houseman in them movie The Paper Chase.

And Gaillo, your advice to stay the hell out of the courts seems to be exactly the same as what Palani suggests. I don't think he is trying to embolden fools. His suggestions are honest and pragmatic.


Hatha

[palani]

OK, my turn.
* Waiting in anticipation of the usual cryptic old english brush off *

You have a right to self defense.

Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia peragenda. The law forces no one to do vain or useless things.

[palani]

When has he EVER provided an actual, tenable, useable, applicable solution?

Please. Show me.

Hopefully a historical perspective is provided that will suggest solutions to future problems. Otherwise show where I have established a DUTY to provide an actual, tenable, useable or applicable solution.

[palani]

Which you would be forcefully subject to, like it or not. Pretty english or not. The world is full of artificial borders that one might inadvertently cross in his travels. That is why I carry a document that has been apostiled that requests anyone to whom it is presented assist me in my journeys. I have no means of actually enforcing this request though a diplomatic solution is far superior to reverting to arms.




It wouldn't take much. Just one case where a sovereign forced the court to recognize that their system is either (A) Subordinate to a freemans sovereignty, or (B) Not applicable to a man because he claims to be sovereign.


If that is all you are after then here ... this is a case of a sovereign communicating successfully her point of view (in response to a written communication regarding unsecured debt):


Dear Xxxxxx,
Thank you for your recent correspondence to
H M Treasury. However, the matter you refer
to did not originate from H M Treasury. I am
returning the documents to you with confirmation
that H M Treasury will not be taking any action
on them. Please note that we will not be entering
into further correspondence on this issue and
therefore ask that you do not send any further
documentation to H M Treasury.
Regards, John Adams, Manager, Correspondence
and Enquiry Unit, H M Treasury.

To aid in your understanding this response is from an agent of "the" queen to a court established by a private man. Rather than accepting full responsibility the queen's agent seeks to terminate this communication as well as any possible future communications on the subject. Essential the queen has taken the door of dishonor. Notice was given as well as the opportunity to inquire and no counteroffers were suggested.

[palani]

My only "advice" to those who want to "fight the power"? Stay the hell OUT of the courts.

Precisely what I posted here:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?60161-Rules-of-the-Court&highlight=rules+court

BE SAFE! PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

[palani]

Believing youself to be sovereign is not enough, others around you, especially the government, must believe it as well and if nobody does, then you're not. It's as simple as that.

I let Hatha's comment slide and perhaps I should not have done this. You will hopefully never catch me stating that I am sovereign. As far as I am concerned God is the only sovereign around. But law is supposed to reflect reason and unless reasons are discussed then many would be suckered into assuming statutes are law. That is the purpose of these posts: to examine REASON.

Many of you are venturing into an arena called NECESSITY by your examples. Once you arrive here then you can kill with impunity. You will still have to defend your actions but whenever NECESSITY appears violence follows because that is what NECESSITY is all about. Governments these days operate in this arena and no doubt you may find yourself there as well. If you do you can kill and you can be killed. Centuries ago this concept was termed "wager of batel" and the successful outcome was decided by God.

[Awoke]

The usual cop-outs.

[palani]

The usual cop-outs.

Scire proprie est, rem ratione et per causam cognoscere. To know properly is to know the reason and cause of a thing.