State

[palani]

http://i40.tinypic.com/rw52s1.jpg

[7th trump]

http://i40.tinypic.com/rw52s1.jpg

Hey no shit Sherlock...nothing new under the sun here.
What........trying to reinvent the wheel palani?
You're to late!
How many times have I told you that www.1215.org has the Senate document (from the horses mouth) telling you which of the Bill of Rights US citizens (subjects) get and which one they don't.
Bill Thornton of 1215.org has it already figured out (years ago).....even has it in graph form (The People vs US citizens).

US citizens..........get mainly Congressional civil rights (civil rights act of 1866).
The People..........have the Bill of Rights.



Way ahead of you palani...way ahead of you.


(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in § 1.931-1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

Gee golly gosh where did I read this before?

Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction

Ohh ya...its Section 1 of the 14th amendment.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What did the courts say who this 14th amendment applies to.
Here we go.

"No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.

You've seen these before cause I've posted them....but you contend to ignore them and revert back to your silly "lawful money" fallacy.

So why do you think no white man owes any allegiance to this 14th amendment palani?
Any guesses?
Because if the white man was forced into this second class (subject) citizenship of the 14th amendment it would be unconstitutional because no one white man could access the full Bill of Rights....they could no longer be ...The People!
Now what type of citizenship is on the SS5 form that everyone signs under penalty of perjury?
This is why Social Security is completely voluntary....having no law on the books stating every white man has to participate.
This is also why theres administrative regulation 301.6109-1(d) says Social Security is voluntary to participate in.

And you thought you had brains when you told me Social Security is a bunch of horse shit!
Hahaha...the horse shit is in your face palani!

Your lack of studying the statutes bites you in the ass.

Now you can close the thread.

[govcheetos]

^^That's a hell of a response to a one sentence cut and paste post.

[palani]

^^That's a hell of a response to a one sentence cut and paste post.

And yet he did not disagree with anything I posted.

[7th trump]

And yet he did not disagree with anything I posted.

Nor have you disagreed with what I posted.
Funny thing is I've posted this before which you disagreed with.

[palani]

Nor have you disagreed with what I posted

Why would I disagree with a mad man?

[palani]

Should you be a statute reader and discover the legal construction 'natural person' then be aware that they are electing all savages to this office.

http://i44.tinypic.com/344bm6x.jpg

[palani]

Persons are 'things identified' .... res .... ident .... resident in a political society. Sort of like telling your girl friend she is the OBJECT of your affection (is that a Johnson in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?)


http://i42.tinypic.com/152g8rn.jpg

[iOWNme]

http://i40.tinypic.com/rw52s1.jpg



Palani,

This is why my brain cringes when reading any type of 'Law'. There are contradictions here that need adressing.

If there is a 'Soveriegn' and a 'Subject' doesnt that imply that one has the Right to rule over the other? But yet, NO MAN has the moral Right to rule another man. NO MAN can be made into a Rightful Master, and NO MAN can be made into a Rightful Slave.

Logically, if one man AGREES to be the other man's 'subject, and the other man AGREES to be the first man's 'Sovereign' then this is nothing more than a VOLUNTARY transaction between 2 individuals. How does this create a legitimate 'Master/Servant' relationship?

If i hired you to mow my lawn, and you voluntarily wanted to mow it, in exchange for money, would you say that I was your 'Soveriegn' and you were my 'Subject'? Would i be 'ruling' over you?

In other words, if one man voluntarily WANTS to be another man's 'subject' and is acting on his own free will and consent voluntarily, then he really isnt a subject, he is 100% free by his own choice. The same can be said about the 'Soveriegn'. If a man voluntarily WANTS to be the 'Sovereign' over another man, and he is acting on his own free will and consent voluntarily, then he isnt a soveriegn, he has NO POWER over the other man that the other man did not agree to in the first place.

Think of ANY voluntary agreement between ANYONE. No matter what the agreement, neither of them are above the other one, because the entire transaction was VOLUNTARY.

Next is the issue of 'Natural Rights'. The contradiction here is NO MAN can give away his 'Natural Born Rights'. Thats what the term 'Rights' means. A 'Right' is something that can not be abolished, altered, transferred, amended, increased, decreased, etc. Yet, under the 'Law' man can do the IMPOSSIBLE. If a man wants to give up his 'Natural Rights' he will have to give up his life in order to do so. Otherwise he is just an individual voluntarily transacting with other individuals, nothing more, nothing less.


I see this as a MASSIVE contradiction, as i see all 'Government' fallacies.

Can you attempt to explain these contradictions to me?

[Hatha Sunahara]

There are two kinds of 'laws'. Natural laws, and man-made (legislated) laws. All man-made laws are codifications of what the 'elite' have been able to pull off on the masses, and expect to continue doing so. All man-made laws are perversions of natural law--either negating it, or corrupting its plain meanings.

I think we have a problem with language that leads to this. Calling 'legislated' edicts "laws" is what confuses the masses. At best, all legislation is the policy of the elite. Not laws--policy. Real laws--natural laws--are enforced by everyone--as in common law. Policies require 'police' to enforce them--because they are not natural--but learned--and they change, wheras natural laws don't change. As long as the masses remain confused about the distinction between real laws and policies, we will have 'government'.

This has been a topic of philosoiphers for millennia. Philosophy is training in clear thinking. It is no accident that philosophy is held in very low esteem by governments and the elite. When the masses can manage to do some clear thinking, (as they did at the time of the American revolution) the world will change for the better. Meanwhile we are doomed to live in the age of government and elite sponsored muddled stupid thinking--led by the mainstream media.



Hatha

[palani]

If there is a 'Soveriegn' and a 'Subject' doesnt that imply that one has the Right to rule over the other? But yet, NO MAN has the moral Right to rule another man. NO MAN can be made into a Rightful Master, and NO MAN can be made into a Rightful Slave.
Ok. Stop right there.

A State consists of a sovereign attribute and a subject attribute by the snippet I posted. Nobody said that these two attributes cannot or are not contained in the same man. Compare to ownership and possession. These two attributes can be tied together in one man and you have the highest form of private property relationship. When the sovereign and the subject are joined together you have the highest form of state. Now if you choose to take your sovereign portion and bequeath/donate it to someone else for whatever reason then you are only going to retain the subject portion.






[/B]Logically, if one man AGREES to be the other man's 'subject, and the other man AGREES to be the first man's 'Sovereign' then this is nothing more than a VOLUNTARY transaction between 2 individuals. How does this create a legitimate 'Master/Servant' relationship? The sovereign/citizen relationship is not the same as a master servant relationship. Different words. Different definitions.


If i hired you to mow my lawn, and you voluntarily wanted to mow it, in exchange for money, would you say that I was your 'Soveriegn' and you were my 'Subject'? Would i be 'ruling' over you? Commercial transactions cannot be considered equivalent to sovereign and citizen.


In other words, if one man voluntarily WANTS to be another man's 'subject' and is acting on his own free will and consent voluntarily, then he really isnt a subject, he is 100% free by his own choice. The same can be said about the 'Soveriegn'. If a man voluntarily WANTS to be the 'Sovereign' over another man, and he is acting on his own free will and consent voluntarily, then he isnt a soveriegn, he has NO POWER over the other man that the other man did not agree to in the first place. Quite true. However it seems once the power and authority of a sovereign is assumed the citizen/subject portion can have quite a hard time cancelling the relationship. Not that this cannot be done though. Complete administrative process. Send out a notice, followed by a fault and a default. In the notice you ask some hard questions and when no answers come back to you then you might effectively regain the status of 'state' with the sovereign and the subject joined. If interested in this concept you might want to contact L.B.Bork at pacinlaw.


Think of ANY voluntary agreement between ANYONE. No matter what the agreement, neither of them are above the other one, because the entire transaction was VOLUNTARY. A transaction might be voluntary but there is the concept of 'quasi contract' which requires only one man to provide services to another for the appearance of an agreement to exist and which is enforceable.


Next is the issue of 'Natural Rights'. The contradiction here is NO MAN can give away his 'Natural Born Rights'. Thats what the term 'Rights' means. A 'Right' is something that can not be abolished, altered, transferred, amended, increased, decreased, etc. Yet, under the 'Law' man can do the IMPOSSIBLE. If a man wants to give up his 'Natural Rights' he will have to give up his life in order to do so. Otherwise he is just an individual voluntarily transacting with other individuals, nothing more, nothing less. Remember these are the laws man has established for man. Sovereign and citizen are two concepts that men typically have gone to war for. Deciding to terminate this relationship in the middle of a pitched battle is not going to be well received by the other parties represented on the battlefield. That is to say, the one attempting to terminate this agreement at such an inopportune time will likely have his brisket split on the spot and this would be done without violating any of his 'natural' rights.



I see this as a MASSIVE contradiction, as i see all 'Government' fallacies. State and government are not identical entities either. Should you desire to be self-governing then you will be acting in your own sovereign capacity to do so.


Can you attempt to explain these contradictions to me?
I cannot explain history to you. These are all constructs and ideas that have evolved over several Millennium. I merely try to pick at the scraps of information that our ancestors have provided.

[palani]

There are two kinds of 'laws'. Natural laws, and man-made (legislated) laws. All man-made laws are codifications of what the 'elite' have been able to pull off on the masses, and expect to continue doing so. All man-made laws are perversions of natural law--either negating it, or corrupting its plain meanings.
Natural laws need to be 'discovered'. What you term 'man-made' laws or legislated laws are just a specialty of contract law. Relations between man and government and between man and man all fit into the field of contract law. These relationships are not perversions but rather agreements.

[Hypertiger]

The subjects of every state (Bottom) ought to contribute towards the support of the government (TOP), as nearly as possible in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations 1776

"Governments of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise are administration systems of the enterprise constructed and sustained by the bottom or employees at the demand of the top or owners of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise"--Hypertiger

The easiest prey of the hunter gatherer is the farmer and the simplest operation is the protection scheme.

The purpose of the police and military is to protect the cause...From the consequence.

All money is decreed money...fiat...

The top or master says this is money...Or else...period end of story....

You Farmer are on the Land owned by the LORD of the land and will pay tribute to the LORD of 1 Gold coin a year...

Where do I get this GOLD coin?

You can take one short ton of grain to the grainery of the LORD and there you will be given a GOLD coin for it and then you can give the gold coin to the servant of the LORD who will then supply it to the LORD of the land.

What if I refuse?

Then the LORD will drive you from the Land that the LORD is the LORD of...

There you go an abundant supply of free food to power your wildest hopes (lies) and dreams (delusions)...

22 And The LORD said, Behold! The man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and also take from the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever,
23 The LORD sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground out of which he was taken.
24 And The LORD drove the man out. And He lodged the cherubs at the east of the Garden of Eden, and the flaming sword whirling around to guard the way of the Tree of Life.

Well what is done with all that Food the tillers of the LORD's land give the LORD as Tribute?

It powers the Absolute capitalist hierarchical food powered make work enterprise...

The city state...Or Civilization state of mind or existence...The thing you were created out of thin air within...The lie you believe is Truth that you worship.

"When plunder (absolute capitalism/taking more than you give) becomes a way of life for a group of men (absolute capitalists) living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal (Rule) system that authorizes it and a moral code (Religion) that glorifies it."--Frederic Bastiat..The LAW.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master" - George Washington.

“The study of money (Power), above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.”--John Kenneth Galbraith Money: Whence it came, where it went - 1975, p15

"All the perplexities, confusions and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." (Absolute capitalist economics)--PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS

"Simplicity (order) adds up to the multiplication of complexity into perplexity (chaos) which is divided unequally then subtracted to supply the required yield of power the absolute capitalists demand to manipulate the Universe how they desire."--Hypertiger

[Hypertiger]

People have no power to make or break LAW

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

But if a rule attempts to break LAW

LAW will break the rule.

LAW is a word that you do not know the meaning of and abuse it every time you use it...Sorry.

Like all the words you abuse trying to acquire what you want...power.

I have to supply power to the lies you demand I believe are Truth...The cherished delusions you are here to promote or seeking support for.

"The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determines whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true."--Sophistry A.K.A Democracy or Truth by Popular delusion/consensus

"We must win the war of democracy"--Vladimir Lenin

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."--Vladimir Lenin

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”--Adolf Hitler

“Presidents are selected, not elected.”--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."--Winston Churchill

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."--Joseph Stalin

"A lie which is finite and fragile (variable) is designed to masquerade as Truth and since Truth is infinite and indestructible (constant) and never changes...Must mimic Truth by Not changing."--Hypertiger

[7th trump]

What you read that palani is pasting doesn't necessarily apply here in the states.
What you are reading comes from an 1873 book about "Public Municipal Law of England"..........also titled "The Development of the British Constitution" and "Public International Law".
The author is David Nasmith......of middle temple who's a barrister of law....todays equivalent of a lawyer of the bar association.
I wouldn't get your hopes up to high....some of its idea of law is used here in the states and some of it isn't.
Be careful what you allow palani to brainwash you with.

We do have the Common law form in practice here in the states......and we do have the Roman Civil law form as well....its a mix.
Its mixed more now than the time when David Nasmith wrote that book.
At his time the 14th amendment (a Roman Civil law form (subject)) was relatively new and mainly applied only to the freed negro.
Some of whats in that book doesn't apply today because most of the population we see today are subject "US citizens" (treated no different than a freed negro)......the Common Law doesn't necessarily apply where (subject) Roman Civil law is in practice.

Palani is not one to decipher when one form of law is in practice from the other for you.....he doesn't read the statutes.
Palani cannot take what little is in that book and apply it to todays laws.....that book is outdated.
He cannot guide you access to the Bill of Rights to once again be The People.

[palani]

What you read that palani is pasting doesn't necessarily apply here in the states.
Trivium is a combination of rhetoric, logic and grammar. I recommend everyone knowledgeable in these three sciences to come to their own conclusions as to what words and sentences mean lest confusion result.


What you are reading comes from an 1873 book about "Public Municipal Law of England"..........also titled "The Development of the British Constitution" and "Public International Law".
The author is David Nasmith.
Actually it is entitled THE INSTITUTES OF ENGLISH PUBLIC LAW but you did come very close. I award you one point for effort.

[palani]

http://i44.tinypic.com/rhk58x.jpg

[palani]

http://i39.tinypic.com/s1kh02.jpg

[palani]

Palani cannot take what little is in that book and apply it to todays laws.....that book is outdated.
English common law only applied to the U.S. up to 1776 anno domini. After this year the English lost all ability to change the common law as applied in the several States. English common law is the law in effect in England prior to William the Conqueror arriving. Truly the English had statutes but those statutes never had any effect upon common law. You are the one arguing that statutes can modify common law so you do get to contend with all the English statute law between 1200 anno domini and 1776.

When it comes to history if you don't know it then you are going to be doomed to repeat it.


He cannot guide you access to the Bill of Rights to once again be The People.
If you were one of the People then why would you need guidance at all? The People know what to do and when they choose not to do it then they have charted their own political course.

[7th trump]

English common law only applied to the U.S. up to 1776 anno domini. After this year the English lost all ability to change the common law as applied in the several States. English common law is the law in effect in England prior to William the Conqueror arriving. Truly the English had statutes but those statutes never had any effect upon common law. You are the one arguing that statutes can modify common law so you do get to contend with all the English statute law between 1200 anno domini and 1776.

When it comes to history if you don't know it then you are going to be doomed to repeat it.


If you were one of the People then why would you need guidance at all? The People know what to do and when they choose not to do it then they have charted their own political course.

Ohh.....I get it....nobody is responding to your posts so you want to argue with me.

I never argued statutes modify the common law.
What I said was these cites you are posting dont give any clue to anyone on how to become "The People" again.
You have no substance other than reciting ancient words of a foreign politician that has virtually no effect on US law today.
My point is show everyone where the rubber meets the road and show them how to get themselves out of the clutches (subject) statutes.

I show the statutes that effect most people and thses statutes have no compelling authority behind them.
Then I explain why there is no compelling authority behind them because if there were then they couldnt access the full bill of Rights which is denying the Constitution from the People.

You do not do this....you're no leader....just regurgitating what most already know.

[palani]

Ohh.....I get it....nobody is responding to your posts so you want to argue with me.
You chose to respond. I chose to rebut.


I never argued statutes modify the common law. You glorify statutes. I avoid them for the most part except where reason dictates or necessity becomes self-evident.


What I said was these cites you are posting dont give any clue to anyone on how to become "The People" again. Those 'People' have been dead and gone lo these past 200 years. Would you like to be part of dead people?



You have no substance other than reciting ancient words of a foreign politician that has virtually no effect on US law today. It is called 'English' because that is the language of the British isles. Who better knows how to speak it than the British?


My point is show everyone where the rubber meets the road and show them how to get themselves out of the clutches (subject) statutes. So you have an agenda? What is your charge for this service?


I show the statutes that effect most people and thses statutes have no compelling authority behind them. If statutes have any authority that authority is reason. I have no objection to following a reasonable course. Reason might even be found in documents that are over 100 years old and purport to describe English public law.


Then I explain why there is no compelling authority behind them because if there were then they couldnt access the full bill of Rights which is denying the Constitution from the People. And if you succeed doubtless you will hop into a Cessna 185 without any flight preparation, take off and announce to O'hare airport approach control that you would like to practice touch and go's in the pattern because that is one of your rights? Does that sound reasonable? Sounds pretty dangerous to me. There is a place for rights and a place where they have no application. Your playing with paper money is incendiary. You support wars and go to church on Sunday. You drop change in the Salvation Army kettles while your union rate is $35 an hour. Somewhat hypocritical aren't you?


You do not do this....you're no leader....just regurgitating what most already know. To lead is to suppose that there is someplace to be led to. Where do you suppose this someplace is that I am attempting to lead to?

[iOWNme]

Ok. Stop right there.

A State consists of a sovereign attribute and a subject attribute by the snippet I posted. Nobody said that these two attributes cannot or are not contained in the same man. Compare to ownership and possession. These two attributes can be tied together in one man and you have the highest form of private property relationship. When the sovereign and the subject are joined together you have the highest form of state. Now if you choose to take your sovereign portion and bequeath/donate it to someone else for whatever reason then you are only going to retain the subject portion.


I did. How can the same man be the 'Soveriegn' and the 'Subject'? You compare it to ownership and possession, which is another contradiction, because you never mentioned CONTROL. If you OWN something, and I POSSESS it, how are YOU in CONTROL of your Private Proerty?

When it comes to Private Property, CONTROL is all that matters. If you own something and you posess it, but I control it YOU ARE A SLAVE to me. This is why all the people in this country think they 'own' their stuff because their name is on it, but they DO NOT control it. Just like all the rich people DO NOT have their stuff in their own names, they have them under vrious companies and trusts THAT THEY CONTROL.




The sovereign/citizen relationship is not the same as a master servant relationship. Different words. Different definitions.

Plese enlighten me. Explain to me in detail how the 'subject' of a 'Soveriegn' is not the servant. The 'Soveriegn' has the Right to boss you around and steal your money any time he chooses. Just because you IMAGINE that he is 'wroking for you' does not alter the fact that he is your master and you are his slave.



Commercial transactions cannot be considered equivalent to sovereign and citizen.

So your saying the 'Soveriegn' and the 'Subject' both operate in the PRIVATE world? This is another contradiction.



Quite true. However it seems once the power and authority of a sovereign is assumed the citizen/subject portion can have quite a hard time cancelling the relationship. Not that this cannot be done though. Complete administrative process. Send out a notice, followed by a fault and a default. In the notice you ask some hard questions and when no answers come back to you then you might effectively regain the status of 'state' with the sovereign and the subject joined. If interested in this concept you might want to contact L.B.Bork at pacinlaw.


So the 'subject' has to ask permission from the 'Soveriegn' to be free? But you just said that they are one in the same? Does the 'Soveriegn' have to ask permission from the 'subject' to be free? Another giant contradiction.



A transaction might be voluntary but there is the concept of 'quasi contract' which requires only one man to provide services to another for the appearance of an agreement to exist and which is enforceable.

WTF? Are you serious? If i come to your house tomorrow and mow your lawn WITHOUT your consent and then send you a bill, would you pay it? Another massive CONTRADICTION Palani.


Remember these are the laws man has established for man. Sovereign and citizen are two concepts that men typically have gone to war for. Deciding to terminate this relationship in the middle of a pitched battle is not going to be well received by the other parties represented on the battlefield. That is to say, the one attempting to terminate this agreement at such an inopportune time will likely have his brisket split on the spot and this would be done without violating any of his 'natural' rights.[/quote]

A man CAN NOT establish a 'Law' that another man must obey, but you just dont get this, and you likely NEVER will. A man cannot delegate a Right he does not have.A man cannot delegate a Right he does not have.A man cannot delegate a Right he does not have.The SIMPLEST of ideas and concepts gets twisted and warped inside your own head because of the decades of scribble studying that you have done. At this point you would have to admit to yourself that you have been decieved, and we both know that is NEVER going to happen.

A man can be MURDERED and this would not violate his 'Natural Rights'? Are you for real? You are a fucking STATIST.


[quote]State and government are not identical entities either. Should you desire to be self-governing then you will be acting in your own sovereign capacity to do so.

They absolutley are identical when it comes to the moral principle. NEITHER of them can violate Natural Rights or Law/ Neither of them can delegate RIghts they dont have. Neither of them is funded by VOLUNTARY consent. Neither of them has the ability to alter human morality. Neither of them can change something bad (stealing) into something good (taxation).

What moral principles are you standing on for this statement?



I cannot explain history to you. These are all constructs and ideas that have evolved over several Millennium. I merely try to pick at the scraps of information that our ancestors have provided.

You mean you study the scribbles of 'Politicians' and 'Attorners'. HARDLY the study of 'history'. Why dont you try asking YOURSELF if something is Right or Wrong? Why dont you use YOUR OWN free will and conscience when trying to figure the world out?

Instead of throwing away your own free will and conscience, why dont you throw away all of your scribble books? (sometimes called 'Law' dictionaries).

[Hypertiger]

Posting this is an act of violence against your cherished delusions that you can convince me that lies can defeat Truth.

In the end it is might makes right and lies are finite while Truth is infinite.

Is this play school?

[palani]

I did. How can the same man be the 'Soveriegn' and the 'Subject'? You might take King Louis XVI as an example. This king was never hauled to the guillotine. Instead the head of Citoyen Louis Capet was removed. Get that? Citoyen = Citizen ... subject.... not sovereign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI_of_France

You compare it to ownership and possession, which is another contradiction, because you never mentioned CONTROL. If you OWN something, and I POSSESS it, how are YOU in CONTROL of your Private Proerty? Simple concept. Reification. If you own a piece of land you have a piece of paper that represents that land. You still hold that paper don't you even if someone else has possession of the land. You consented so the transfer of the paper to your 'ownership' and you still have possession of it as well.

[COLOR=#ff0000]When it comes to Private Property, CONTROL is all that matters. Indeed? Perhaps you ought to consider that your post 14th amendment society does not recognize private property at all. Even the pre-14th amendment society recognized that the sovereign owns all property. But hopefully you knew this when you signed up for 'citizen' status.

Plese enlighten me. Explain to me in detail how the 'subject' of a 'Soveriegn' is not the servant. The 'Soveriegn' has the Right to boss you around and steal your money any time he chooses. Just because you IMAGINE that he is 'wroking for you' does not alter the fact that he is your master and you are his slave. Consent has a lot to do with the relationship between sovereign and citizen. Consider the example given of a ship of state with the captain at the con and the seamen the equivalent of 'citizens'. The mutiny on the Bounty is an example of this relationship being strained beyond a breaking point. To the extent that to sovereign (captain in the example) is reasonable you (the seaman) follow his instructions so that the ship of state doesn't get a reef named after it. To me this sounds reasonable. Less reasonable is the concept of a fortune 500 company hiring a janitor to clean the latrines (a union position) and that janitor after several years decides he might be a better choice to lead said company to great heights by insisting his job be paid more.

So your saying the 'Soveriegn' and the 'Subject' both operate in the PRIVATE world? This is another contradiction. You will have to explain this statement as it makes no sense to me.

[B]So the 'subject' has to ask permission from the 'Soveriegn' to be free? But you just said that they are one in the same? Does the 'Soveriegn' have to ask permission from the 'subject' to be free? Another giant contradiction. You like due process don't you? Why don't you want to give the 'sovereign' due process as well? There is a connection between the nationality and the citizen. No matter where the citizen goes he owes a permanent allegiance to his country. If you were born in Arizona no matter where you might wander you take the laws of Arizona with you. Now possibly you would like to shake off these particular laws. There is a procedure you need to follow to do so. I will leave that to you to do your own due diligence.

WTF? Are you serious? If i come to your house tomorrow and mow your lawn WITHOUT your consent and then send you a bill, would you pay it? Another massive CONTRADICTION
Consent might be manifest by failure to respond. The county I am in annually posts a legal notice concerning noxious weeds. Landowners are required to control these plants and consequences for not doing so are the county sending a contractor in to perform this service. The landowner is then expected to pay the bill. He consented by failure to object timely to the legal notice. Beyond this I don't have a clue as to what example you are working from.

A man CAN NOT establish a 'Law' that another man must obey, but you just dont get this, and you likely NEVER will. A man cannot delegate a Right he does not have.A man cannot delegate a Right he does not have.A man cannot delegate a Right he does not have.The SIMPLEST of ideas and concepts gets twisted and warped inside your own head because of the decades of scribble studying that you have done. At this point you would have to admit to yourself that you have been decieved, and we both know that is NEVER going to happen. Did you not read any of these passages from THE INSTITUTES OF ENGLISH PUBLIC LAW. They state that by participating in the political arena as a citizen you actually lose all natural rights. DID YOU NOT AGREE TO THIS? Or were you ignorant that this was what you were signing up for?

You are a fucking STATIST. You are incapable of a simple discussion without becoming narrow minded? Ok then ... If I am a STATIST then you are a MORON. Care to accept that offer?

They absolutley are identical when it comes to the moral principle. Secular governments have no morals. I would have thought this was self-evident from recent events.

What moral principles are you standing on for this statement? I assume the statement you are referring to is that I consider the state and the government to be separate entities. Why would you assume morals need to be considered when the statement is a simple observation? If you choose to not analyze this concept then how is your ineptitude my concern?

You mean you study the scribbles of 'Politicians' and 'Attorners'. HARDLY the study of 'history'. [B][COLOR=#ff0000]Why dont you try asking YOURSELF if something is Right or Wrong? Why dont you use YOUR OWN free will and conscience when trying to figure the world out? My simple thoughts are hardly world shaking. In the search for reason all sources should be considered. These scribblings represent reason at the time they were written. If they did so then what changed that they no longer do so now?

Instead of throwing away your own free will and conscience, why dont you throw away all of your scribble books? (sometimes called 'Law' dictionaries). If I did so would I become narrow minded like you?