Bankruptcy

[palani]

BANKRUPTCY. The state or condition of a bankrupt.

BANKRUPT. A person who has done, or suffered some act to be done, which is by law declared an act of bankruptcy; in such case he may be declared a bankrupt.

PERSON. An act, a word or representation.

A bankrupt is a person. Specifically a bankrupt is an action that creates a person while bankruptcy is the state or condition of that person.

Everyone that has an 8th grade education knows what being bankrupt is. It is when your debts exceed your assets. WRONG!!! A bankrupt is one who performs some action to avoid taking responsibility for his/her obligations. BANKRUPT DESCRIBES AN ACT. Such as hiding money or machinery. Refusing to pay an obligation when the means are available to do so. Filing a petition to engage in bankruptcy IS an act of bankruptcy. You might not have been one before but you certainly are one after filing the petition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-j8wAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bankrupt&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cAJYUoDFAsnkyQGZooCgDQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bankrupt&f=false

http://i44.tinypic.com/2wnoa4i.jpg

Refusing to pass an extension of the debt limit so that the INTEREST may be paid on the national debt ... that would be such an act of bankruptcy.

Whether one has enough money to meet obligations or not is not an element of bankruptcy. An action must be performed to keep assets from a creditor.

Oh ... and the oath ... states are prohibited from doing anything to interfere with the obligations of contracts. That is a federal function per the u.s. constitution ... so the bankrupt must show a connection to the federal government and the oath makes this connection.

Isn't it interesting that you cannot become bankrupt until you tie yourself to the so-called 'law of the land'? This begs the question .. if you don't have an oath or are not willing to take an oath then you CANNOT become a bankrupt? Or stated another way ... Has anyone with an oath to the U.S. has placed himself on the path of bankruptcy?

[7th trump]

From 1867.................things have changed since then palani.........like a whole new different money system....the fed!
I dont know why you think something thats 147 years old applies today....in todays system.
You should be looking at what bankruptcy is defined forin todays money system?

I'm sure the something has changed since then....but hey keep looking at outdated legal definiitons if you like.

[Glass]

In Australia the situation is exactly as described. It is the act of refusing to pay is one way of becoming bankrupt. The bankruptcy is the process of "Administering" the financial affairs of the bankrupt. There was a recently news report of a court case here of someone interesting, being declared bankrupt and the Judge was reported to have made the record with comments along those lines.

Does the allegience give you protection from your creditors? Otherwise they would top you and take your stuff?

Or are they "joining" to the US bankruptcy with the oath. Interesting idea. The "Administration" is in place for the bankruptcy. It is an interesting positition to be in, being always able to avoid acts of bankruptcy by always creating the money when needed. Except I guess if that money needs to be clipped a couple, 2-3% (via FRB) to make it come into existence but suddenly it was double that or worse, or no more clipping at all by the FRB, therefore no money. What would you do? Run around like headless chickens and make a lot of noise perhaps? Something more is up with their ability to get this debt thing done. I think no more clipping.

If I were Administering, would I want to take an oath to the thing I was Administering? I'm not sure I would if being bankrupt myself were the consequence. But then would I care about the consequences for others who did take that oath and were now subject to "administration"?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Let me get this straight. Bankruptcy entails a refusal of a debtor to repay a loan or other obligation that has come due? If you are insolvent--i. e. you have no money, and cannot pay, you are not bankrupt? You have to refuse to pay on top of being insolvent? According to Wikipedia, there are voluntary and involuntary bankruptcies. People voluntarily file for bankruptcy to get some relief from their creditors, legally. Creditors can initiate involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against a debtor who does not voluntarily declare such a state.

When a bankruptcy is declared, voluntarily or involuntarily, the court sets up an 'estate' of the debtor. What is in that 'estate' is what is available to pay the creditors. A debtor may agree to use future earnings to repay an unpaid debt. I am not sure what a court can do to force a bankrupt to use future income to repay debt. I think it has to be voluntary and agreed to.

I have never heard of a requirement to take an oath of allegiance to the state in order to file for bankruptcy. I would presume that this is to cement your natural person's obligation to act in good faith for one's strawman's dire straits. How on earth does this oath apply to corporations or banks? Does a corporation have to take an oath of allegiance? Or does their corporate charter include such an oath?

Bankruptcy has, at least in my lifetime, been a refuge for people hounded by those to whom they owe money. People filed for bankruptcy to get relief, and to take advantage of laws that allow them to keep some of their asets, such as their home and their cars. Recently, however, the elite have been active in passing laws that protect the elite from bankrupts. I think I have seen a shift from bankruptcy being a protection from creditors to it being an opportunity for creditors to strip debtors of assets, or to enslave them, or to jail them. I have read recently that we now have 'debtor's prisons'. People who cannot or will not pay debts can now be thrown in jail. Also, I have sensed another shift. We now have entities that are 'too big to fail' TBTF. I view this as a suspension of the bankruptcy laws on account of one's size, or 'perceived' importance. Big banks cannot fail because the whole system will come down with them, and by god we cannot allow this rotten system to fail, can we? I think the same is true for governments--regardless of size, because government is 'just too damn important'. BTW, don't people who administer governments take oaths to obey the laws? They have certainly succeeded in changing the laws so that their oaths no longer mean anything. I think because of this, we are headed for a collapse of biblical proportions.


Hatha

[palani]

From 1867.................things have changed since then

You seem to have the opinion that things change in Law. They don't. Bankrupt is an ACT. Generally it is an ACT of attempting to avoid responsibility for a contract. Has little or nothing to do with whether you can pay or not.

The oath of allegiance is required to become a bankrupt. Ok ... I'll come right out and suggest it ... the oath of allegiance is the first ACT of a bankrupt.

[palani]

Let me get this straight. Bankruptcy entails a refusal of a debtor to repay a loan or other obligation that has come due? An ACT of a bankrupt might be to hide machinery from a creditor. An ACT of a bankrupt might be to flee to another country. An ACT of a bankrupt might be to pass a bad check. Any number of ACTIONS might be construed to be that of a bankrupt.




If you are insolvent--i. e. you have no money, and cannot pay, you are not bankrupt? INSOLVENCY is another status. Here you desire to make good on your contracts but don't have the assets to do so. In order to stay out of debtors prison you turn over all your assets to the court for distribution to creditors and continue to perform on all your obligations. THERE IS NO ACT REQUIRED TO BE AN INSOLVENT SUCH AS THERE IS FOR BEING A BANKRUPT.




You have to refuse to pay on top of being insolvent? If you don't have the ability to pay you turn over your assets. REFUSAL to pay is the act of a bankrupt.


According to Wikipedia, there are voluntary and involuntary bankruptcies. People voluntarily file for bankruptcy to get some relief from their creditors, legally. Creditors can initiate involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against a debtor who does not voluntarily declare such a state. Personally I would prefer to put the debtor into INSOLVENT status. All of his assets are still seized by the court but for the rest of his life he is still on the hook for the remainder of the payments.


When a bankruptcy is declared, voluntarily or involuntarily, the court sets up an 'estate' of the debtor. What is in that 'estate' is what is available to pay the creditors. A debtor may agree to use future earnings to repay an unpaid debt. I am not sure what a court can do to force a bankrupt to use future income to repay debt. I think it has to be voluntary and agreed to. Some assets seem to be untouchable ... such as OJ and his retirement fund from football.


I have never heard of a requirement to take an oath of allegiance to the state in order to file for bankruptcy. I would presume that this is to cement your natural person's obligation to act in good faith for one's strawman's dire straits. How on earth does this oath apply to corporations or banks? Does a corporation have to take an oath of allegiance? Or does their corporate charter include such an oath? All corporations are formed under the executive branch and I would presume that creation under these conditions precludes oaths.


Bankruptcy has, at least in my lifetime, been a refuge for people hounded by those to whom they owe money. People filed for bankruptcy to get relief, and to take advantage of laws that allow them to keep some of their asets, such as their home and their cars. Recently, however, the elite have been active in passing laws that protect the elite from bankrupts. I think I have seen a shift from bankruptcy being a protection from creditors to it being an opportunity for creditors to strip debtors of assets, or to enslave them, or to jail them. I have read recently that we now have 'debtor's prisons'. People who cannot or will not pay debts can now be thrown in jail. Also, I have sensed another shift. We now have entities that are 'too big to fail' TBTF. I view this as a suspension of the bankruptcy laws on account of one's size, or 'perceived' importance. Big banks cannot fail because the whole system will come down with them, and by god we cannot allow this rotten system to fail, can we? I think the same is true for governments--regardless of size, because government is 'just too damn important'. BTW, don't people who administer governments take oaths to obey the laws? They have certainly succeeded in changing the laws so that their oaths no longer mean anything. I think because of this, we are headed for a collapse of biblical proportions. Continue to play with fiat money and you involve yourself with a system that is entirely bankrupt from the beginning. Stay away from fiat money and deal with responsible people instead and you will be more likely to be unconcerned with the general deteriorating state of society.

[7th trump]

You seem to have the opinion that things change in Law. They don't. Bankrupt is an ACT. Generally it is an ACT of attempting to avoid responsibility for a contract. Has little or nothing to do with whether you can pay or not.

The oath of allegiance is required to become a bankrupt. Ok ... I'll come right out and suggest it ... the oath of allegiance is the first ACT of a bankrupt.

Where and who told you that things in law don't change?
Any proof that things in law don't change?

The original revenue act of 1862 imposed taxes on government employees only. Today the very same revenue laws that originated from that 1862 act imposes taxes on the nongovernment employees.......the private sector.
Pete Hendrickson believes things in law don't change also and wrote a book about taxes are only imposed on government employees and lost his case in court causing him to have a stint in the grey bar hotel.
Where did you get the idea things in law don't change?

[palani]

Where did you get the idea things in law don't change?

That is where you are all wrong with your outlook.

Law is based upon reason. When the reason is gone so is the law.

If you can find a reason for an old law then it is still active.

You might call this part and parcel with necessity as well. Necessity imports privilege and reason generally is the root cause for necessity. The privilege becomes the law but the privilege comes from necessity which ultimately is derived from reason.

[7th trump]

That is where you are all wrong with your outlook.

Law is based upon reason. When the reason is gone so is the law.

If you can find a reason for an old law then it is still active.

You might call this part and parcel with necessity as well. Necessity imports privilege and reason generally is the root cause for necessity. The privilege becomes the law but the privilege comes from necessity which ultimately is derived from reason.

So where did you get the idea that law is based on reason?
Who or what told you law is based on reason?
You keep saying that the income tax is imposed because of the use of fiat reserve notes when the law states its because you participate in Social Security and earn "wages" that can and are any medium that are reportable for the purpose of SS.
Its right there in black and white and yet your "reasoning" is based on your interpretation its from fiat notes.
Why in the fuck would anyone believe you without confirming?

So I take it you want everyone to believe in your interpretation that law is based on reason.
So where can I find this "Law is based upon reason" in the law books so we can confirm this isn't your interpretation....aka hearsay!

[palani]

So where can I find this "Law is based upon reason" in the law books so we can confirm this isn't your interpretation....aka hearsay!

All you have to do is ask (nicely).

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_r.htm


REASON. By reason is usually understood that power by which we distinguish truth from falsehood, and right from wrong; and by which we are enabled to combine means for the attainment of particular ends. Encyclopedie, h. t.; Shef. on Lun. Introd. xxvi. Ratio in jure aequitas integra.

2. A man deprived of reason is not criminally responsible for his acts, nor can he enter into any contract.

3. Reason is called the soul of the law; for when the reason ceases, the law itself ceases. Co. Litt. 97, 183; 1 Bl. Com. 70; 7 Toull. n. 566.

4. In Pennsylvania, the judges are required in giving their opinions, to give the reasons upon which they are founded. A similar law exists in France, which Toullier says is one of profound wisdom, because, he says, les arrets ne sont plus comme autre fois des oracles muets qui commandent une obeissance passive; leur autorite irrefragable pour ou contre ceux qui les ont obtenus, devient soumise a la censure de la raison, quand on pretend les eriger en re-gles a suivre en d'autres cas semblables, vol. 6, n. 301; judgments are not as formerly silent oracles which require a passive obedience; their irrefragable authority, for or against those who have obtained them, is submitted to the censure of reason, when it is pretended to set them up as rules to be observed in other similar cases. But see what Duncan J. says in 14 S. & R. 240.

[ximmy]

All you have to do is ask (nicely).

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_r.htm


REASON. By reason is usually understood that power by which we distinguish truth from falsehood, and right from wrong; and by which we are enabled to combine means for the attainment of particular ends. Encyclopedie, h. t.; Shef. on Lun. Introd. xxvi. Ratio in jure aequitas integra.

2. A man deprived of reason is not criminally responsible for his acts, nor can he enter into any contract.

3. Reason is called the soul of the law; for when the reason ceases, the law itself ceases. Co. Litt. 97, 183; 1 Bl. Com. 70; 7 Toull. n. 566.

4. In Pennsylvania, the judges are required in giving their opinions, to give the reasons upon which they are founded. A similar law exists in France, which Toullier says is one of profound wisdom, because, he says, les arrets ne sont plus comme autre fois des oracles muets qui commandent une obeissance passive; leur autorite irrefragable pour ou contre ceux qui les ont obtenus, devient soumise a la censure de la raison, quand on pretend les eriger en re-gles a suivre en d'autres cas semblables, vol. 6, n. 301; judgments are not as formerly silent oracles which require a passive obedience; their irrefragable authority, for or against those who have obtained them, is submitted to the censure of reason, when it is pretended to set them up as rules to be observed in other similar cases. But see what Duncan J. says in 14 S. & R. 240.

That makes sense for Jury nullification, to determine if a law is reasonable or not.

Jury Nullification A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.
The traditional approach in U.S. court systems is for jurors to be the "triers of fact," while the judge is considered the interpreter of law and the one who will instruct the jury on the applicable law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict. The most widely accepted understanding of jury nullification by the courts is one that acknowledges the power but not the right of a juror or jury to nullify the law. Jury nullification is most often, although rarely, exercised in criminal trials but technically is applicable to civil trials as well, where it is subject to civil procedural remedies such as the Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Judgment+Notwithstanding+the+Verdict).
In criminal cases, however, the Fifth Amendment (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fifth+Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution makes final a jury trial that results in an acquittal, and it guarantees freedom from Double Jeopardy (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Double+Jeopardy). This gives juries an inherent power to follow their own consciences in reaching a verdict, notwithstanding jury instructions or charges to the contrary.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification

[palani]

This is from the last cite given by the Bouvier definition I previously quoted

http://i43.tinypic.com/27yzksi.jpg

Note the judges use reason when coming up with their jury instructions.

Also note Cicero's expression on reason.

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

7th would have you substitute the following


Wise men are instructed by STATUTE;

Which is nonsense on its face!!!

[Hypertiger]

People have no ability to make or break LAW.'

All that people have the ability to do is make and break rules and call rules LAW.

But if a rule attempt to break LAW

Law will break the rule.

Allow me to take more power from another than I give and I care not who or what makes the rules of the game you all are playing.

Because eventually the power will be taken from the hands of the many and supplied into the hands of the few or one.

and then they which have the power will make and break the rules of the game you all are playing.

[Hypertiger]

Knowledge of Good and Evil or bad

One and Zero

1 and 0

TRUTH and Lies

POSITIVE and Negative

LAW and Rules

GOD and Satan

LOGIC and Reason

KNOWLEDGE and ignorance.

LOVE and Hate.


Absolute capitalists search for reasons or excuses to make mistakes and then for reasons or excuses to attempt to limit or escape the consequences.

Opinion is based on a French word...The antonym or opposite of opinion being FACT

Opinion is another word for Fiction

Maybe eventually becomes certain