Where is the evidence your Laws appply to me?

[iOWNme]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi4XDTyeHqA

"I confronted the Scottsdale city council 25 February 2014 and asked for evidence. They declined to answer. Can we be surprised though? Procedure will always be used to cover up a lack of evidence."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YFgKyTq0GU

"Marc is a stand-up guy - definitely one who strikes the root. and who helps diminish the legitimacy granted to the criminal organization called "government" one mind at a time."

[palani]

MUNICIPALITY. The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its interests.

[iOWNme]

MUNICIPALITY. The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its interests.

Is this a statrement or is this your answer? A definition to a word IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Why couldnt ANY of the 'elected officals' point to him where the evidence was that their 'State Constitution' applied to him? Why couldnt ANY of the IRS agents he has spoken to EVER given him ANY evidence that their 'Laws' apply to him?

Surely if the IRS had any EVIDENCE to support their claim they could present it, right? Marc has a ton of audio recordings on his site asking IRS agents, Judges and Prosecutors to simply show him the EVIDENCE that their 'Laws' apply to him. Not one single person has been able to present such 'evidence', Because it doenst exist.

[Ponce]

The only ones that can pass "legal" laws that we have to follow are the ones done by congress.......otherwise they are only the laws of the gun and nothing more......while I won't say that all laws passed by congress are legal I would say that they are the closest thing that we have to "legal" laws.

V

[palani]

Is this a statrement or is this your answer? A definition to a word IS NOT EVIDENCE.
Actually this definition goes a long way to determining who laws apply to. The laws of a state are described as 'municipal laws'. Even the laws of the United States are it's 'municipal laws'. The district of columbia was set up as a municipality. You need to have a municipality to attach territory to and that is why the district of columbia was necessary. Virginia was the largest state of that period. It gave up its excess territory to the U.S. to form more states out of.

If you want to avoid a law you just make a statement that you are not one of the officers of the municipality and PRESTO you avoid that law. Boy Scouts avoid the laws of Brownies by stating they are not girly men. You avoid state law by proclaiming yourself not a citizen. However, a better policy is to avoid making statements at all and ask questions instead.




[Why couldnt ANY of the 'elected officals' point to him where the evidence was that their 'State Constitution' applied to him? Why couldnt ANY of the IRS agents he has spoken to EVER given him ANY evidence that their 'Laws' apply to him? You give evidence that those laws apply to you when you accept a drivers license or a birth certificate or suck down any privilege at all from the state. Welfare. OSHA. Bankruptcy. Insurance. Use of highways.


Surely if the IRS had any EVIDENCE to support their claim they could present it, right? Marc has a ton of audio recordings on his site asking IRS agents, Judges and Prosecutors to simply show him the EVIDENCE that their 'Laws' apply to him. Not one single person has been able to present such 'evidence', Because it doenst exist.
I was at a Marc Stevens seminar a few years back in Minneapolis. He is a good speaker. If you find your way into court then there are 999 ways to lose and only 1 way to win. The game is confession and avoidance. You don't dispute anything. You just ask more pertinent questions. "Mr Stevens, is this your signature on this document"? "Why? Is there a deficiency with the document?"

In confession and avoidance no question ever gets answered. This is a game where your response does nothing to dispute the question asked and the other side confesses and avoids by not answering your question. It is an interesting game. You might try learning it.

[Libertytree]

A similar discussion is going on in a treasure forum I frequent and I thought I'd share this from a guy named Ripsaw.

"Forgot who asked, but Marijuana is not illegal to begin with, so why would it need to be decriminalized, and who gave anyone the right to tax it ? No drug is illegal, those so called laws are statutes...and statutes are not laws. It comes from the ancient Greek meaning,..'a law given without reason', but in this country, there must be a reason given for everything in court....WHERE IS THE VICTIM ?....There is no crime in dumping all the drugs you want into your body. It is your body, your choice.


If I didn't vote on something, does it apply to me ? I have never voted because that is the problem I keep trying to get across to you fine folks.

I will give you the example I gave a federal judge in court. If there are ten men in a room with your wife at the south pole, or on the moon, where there are no laws, and they all decide to hold a vote and 7 of them decide to vote and say it is okay to rape your wife, is it a crime when they do ? Does that new law apply to your wife ? How does she feel about it ? How do the three guys that voted no, feel about it, does it apply to them ? Can they be raped next and it be perfectly legal ? If they fight back, any of them, will you prosecute them for a crime ?"

[palani]

at the south pole, or on the moon, where there are no laws, and they all decide to hold a vote and 7 of them decide to vote and say it is okay to rape your wife, is it a crime when they do ?

Laws attach to you wherever you go. You could be in China and if you are there by U.S. passport you bring your laws with you. The same could be said whether you are on the S Pole or the moon. There are no laws attached to the soil that also attach to you.

[palani]

Missouri was made a state in the 1820s. The northern parts of the Louisiana purchase were ignored for the next 15 years. They were attached to the Territory of Indiana for a time and some laws made during that time and some French laws applied if anyone happened to know those laws.

Around 1832 a lead miner near Du Buque shot and killed his younger room mate. A miners court was formed and this old fart declared 'you can't prosecute me because there are no laws in this territory'. The miners court formed a jury and they asked the geezer whether he objected to any of them. He said 'I don't object to any of these men but you can't prosecute me because there are no laws in this territory.' So they examined the evidence and of the murder there was no dispute so they found him guilty and sentenced him to swing from a rope. Just to make sure all the legalities were observed the court petitioned the Missouri governor and Andrew Jackson for clemency. They didn't want to petition the Illinois governor because he was too liberal. The Missouri governor came back stating they were out of his jurisdiction. Andrew Jackson came back with a letter that stated that the power to forgive could be found in the same power that convicted. So lacking any clemency the guy swung.

Taking Andrew Jackson's statement and reviewing what occurred it can be seen that the power that convicted the old fart was his own when he did not object to the jury.

At any rate ... this event caused the U.S. to accelerate their state-forming activities west of the Mississippi, attaching the territory first to Michigan and then to Wisconsin before forming a territory in Iowa that went to the Canadian border and included what is now Minnesota. The idea of a body of people getting together to form their own laws was more than the government could bear.

This illustrates how laws are attached. You ... agree to them.

[Uncle Salty]

Tyranny is the law of the land. Pretty simple.

If they have guns and pieces of paper that say they can use their guns against you, that is the law.

[iOWNme]

Actually this definition goes a long way to determining who laws apply to. The laws of a state are described as 'municipal laws'. Even the laws of the United States are it's 'municipal laws'. The district of columbia was set up as a municipality. You need to have a municipality to attach territory to and that is why the district of columbia was necessary. Virginia was the largest state of that period. It gave up its excess territory to the U.S. to form more states out of.

If you want to avoid a law you just make a statement that you are not one of the officers of the municipality and PRESTO you avoid that law. Boy Scouts avoid the laws of Brownies by stating they are not girly men. You avoid state law by proclaiming yourself not a citizen. However, a better policy is to avoid making statements at all and ask questions instead.


You give evidence that those laws apply to you when you accept a drivers license or a birth certificate or suck down any privilege at all from the state. Welfare. OSHA. Bankruptcy. Insurance. Use of highways.


So 'evidence' can be a fraudulent document? LOL

I asked you for evidence that anyone is REQUIRED to get any of the stuff you mentioned. Mentioning that someone got it, IS NOT 'evidence' that they were required to. Do you know the difference?



I was at a Marc Stevens seminar a few years back in Minneapolis. He is a good speaker. If you find your way into court then there are 999 ways to lose and only 1 way to win. The game is confession and avoidance. You don't dispute anything. You just ask more pertinent questions. "Mr Stevens, is this your signature on this document"? "Why? Is there a deficiency with the document?"

In confession and avoidance no question ever gets answered. This is a game where your response does nothing to dispute the question asked and the other side confesses and avoids by not answering your question. It is an interesting game. You might try learning it.


So what your saying is you have no evidence? Its ok, the 'Government' doesnt have any evidence either.

[iOWNme]

This illustrates how laws are attached. You ... agree to them.


LOL you crack me up. EVERYTHING is done through FRAUD and you know it. You continue to blame the VICTIMS in some attempt to make yourself feel 'superior' for studying the scribbles of labotomized monkeys.

If a guy cons a woman (fraud) to come to his house after the bar and she 'agrees', and then he forces his will upon her, whos fault is it?

Do you know why you constantly reply to my threads trying to show me some 'insight' into 'Law'? Its becasue you IMAGINE 'Government' and 'Law' to be legitimate. The only problem is THEY ARE NOT.

[palani]

So 'evidence' can be a fraudulent document? LOL
Why did you SIGN a fraudulent document?


I asked you for evidence that anyone is REQUIRED to get any of the stuff you mentioned. Mentioning that someone got it, IS NOT 'evidence' that they were required to. Do you know the difference?

It would be vain to claim the keeping a thing which was lawful to be kept without any claim.






So what your saying is you have no evidence? Its ok, the 'Government' doesnt have any evidence either. Facts are entirely on the moon. They make no difference to anyone. What is important is your response.

[Libertytree]

When "laws", "statutes" or "dictates" achieve the level of esoteric babble needing a key to be deciphered they should be deemed void. If it's not based on common sense for the common person to readily understand that should be a major red flag that whatever its intent was/is is total bullshit and should be treated as such. All the added jargon and legalese is a crock of shit that's meant to deceive and paint the false impression that only certain learned people are fit to write them and interpret them.

[midnight rambler]

When "laws", "statutes" or "dictates" achieve the level of esoteric babble needing a key to be deciphered they should be deemed void. If it's not based on common sense for the common person to readily understand that should be a major red flag that whatever its intent was/is is total bullshit and should be treated as such. All the added jargon and legalese is a crock of shit that's meant to deceive and paint the false impression that only certain learned people are fit to write them and interpret them.

The irony is that those who campaign against violence and terror (to justify their existence) use strictly violence and terror as their primary tools to get *non-believers* to join their religion*.

*you know, the religion where they compel the 'parishioners' to attend 'church' (complete with pews, the priest/faggot in the black dress, ritual, ceremony, etc.) when they've 'offended' their god THE STATE - and of course those who refuse to acknowledge and accept this religion are subject to summary execution or at least getting the living shit beat out of them

[palani]

LOL you crack me up. EVERYTHING is done through FRAUD and you know it. You continue to blame the VICTIMS in some attempt to make yourself feel 'superior' for studying the scribbles of labotomized monkeys.

If a guy cons a woman (fraud) to come to his house after the bar and she 'agrees', and then he forces his will upon her, whos fault is it?

Do you know why you constantly reply to my threads trying to show me some 'insight' into 'Law'? Its becasue you IMAGINE 'Government' and 'Law' to be legitimate. The only problem is THEY ARE NOT.Ei nihil turpe, cui nihil satis. To whom nothing is base, nothing is sufficient.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Asking for evidence that a law applies to you is inconsistent with the unspoken subtext that everyone must conform and obey. There is no evidence that a law applies to anyone unless they consent to it. To withhold consent is a violation of the law of conformity and obedience, and is subject to extrajudicial punishment. The laws only matter if you obey them. If you do not obey the laws--legitimate or not, you are creating a situation where anarchy exists. You are not allowed to govern yourself. You are not allowed to think for yourself. You are not allowed to ask questions. You are required to conform and obey. That is the only law that exists in a despotism. And the evidence that this law applies to you are all the guns that will be pointed at you if you make an issue of it. Authority does not come from law. Law comes from authority, so if any authority commands you, it is law. Could it be any clearer that we live in a despotism? Or has everyone lost the ability or motivation to think?



Hatha

[7th trump]

When "laws", "statutes" or "dictates" achieve the level of esoteric babble needing a key to be deciphered they should be deemed void. If it's not based on common sense for the common person to readily understand that should be a major red flag that whatever its intent was/is is total bullshit and should be treated as such. All the added jargon and legalese is a crock of shit that's meant to deceive and paint the false impression that only certain learned people are fit to write them and interpret them.

Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but could you give me an example of laws and statutes needing a key to decipher.
The tax laws are actually very simple.
However, with the advent of some people who think they are guru's at reading tax law (Pete Hendrickson, Larkin Rose...ect) inject their interpretation which does absolutely NO good for the common guy in understanding the statutes.
People like Hendrickson and Larkin Rose do more harm than good. They infect those looking for the truth.

[7th trump]

LOL you crack me up. EVERYTHING is done through FRAUD and you know it. You continue to blame the VICTIMS in some attempt to make yourself feel 'superior' for studying the scribbles of labotomized monkeys.

If a guy cons a woman (fraud) to come to his house after the bar and she 'agrees', and then he forces his will upon her, whos fault is it?

Do you know why you constantly reply to my threads trying to show me some 'insight' into 'Law'? Its becasue you IMAGINE 'Government' and 'Law' to be legitimate. The only problem is THEY ARE NOT.
Unfortunately for you.........palani's statement on "consent" is 100% correct.
You believe taxes are forced because a 1040 is required......but what causes the "reporting" to the government to file a 1040 in the first place is 100% voluntary.

[Serpo]

And in the end it all ends up being that someone else is telling me what to do.

[Hatha Sunahara]

And in the end it all ends up being that someone else is telling me what to do.

Exactly. And freedom is being able to tell that person to go to hell. That is the essence of the Bill of Rights.



Hatha

[Libertytree]

Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but could you give me an example of laws and statutes needing a key to decipher.
The tax laws are actually very simple.
However, with the advent of some people who think they are guru's at reading tax law (Pete Hendrickson, Larkin Rose...ect) inject their interpretation which does absolutely NO good for the common guy in understanding the statutes.
People like Hendrickson and Larkin Rose do more harm than good. They infect those looking for the truth.

The tax law is the perfect example. Not withstanding its Constitutional viability.

At 1st it was a simple form on a 4x6 postcard, something like 2%-7% was the max. Now look at it!

[iOWNme]

Listen to Marc interview a Federal Judge in Arizona at the FreedomSummit, John Buttrick. He was a guest Libertarian speaker at the event.

When asked about the question of what personal jurisdiction does the Federal Gov't have over individuals it came down to "Because we say so". No mention of drivers license, birth cert, ss card, or any other document of scribbles in order to prove consent, its merely a matter of 1- Because we say so. 2- Because you were there.

This is a great interview, i encourage all to listen, this is a good exchange. Interview starts at 10:00. It gets good at 14:00.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJVE5dDFfEg

[iOWNme]

Palani and 7th:

Why didnt this Judge mention any of the legalease crap you guys spew about 'contracts' and 'consent'? He admitted it merely comes down to FORCE, because 'they say so', in their perceived 'geographical area'.

Im sure you'll both find a way to make yourselves right, no matter how much EVIDENCE is presented to the contrary.

[palani]

Why didnt this Judge mention any of the legalease crap you guys spew about 'contracts' and 'consent'? He admitted it merely comes down to FORCE, because 'they say so', in their perceived 'geographical area'.
Did you actually OBSERVE the judicial actor taking any oath to present EVIDENCE (aka FACTS) under penalty of perjury? Lawyers as a rule do not TESTIFY. They present ARGUMENTS (aka babbling). Their much valued 'license' is to do that which would otherwise be illegal: ARGUING.

Judges are just lawyers on steroids. I would trust little of what any of them say. They are not the salt of the earth. They are the destroyers of the earth.


Im sure you'll both find a way to make yourselves right, no matter how much EVIDENCE is presented to the contrary.
Hearsay, is the evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.

When it comes down to it you know very little that is not hearsay. Please try to improve for your own sake if not for that of others.

[7th trump]

Palani and 7th:

Why didnt this Judge mention any of the legalease crap you guys spew about 'contracts' and 'consent'? He admitted it merely comes down to FORCE, because 'they say so', in their perceived 'geographical area'.

Im sure you'll both find a way to make yourselves right, no matter how much EVIDENCE is presented to the contrary.

"Because your answer effects the rights you have"....see this page........http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm

Amendments available to U.S. citizens:


1:
Religion (free exercise, establishment)
Speech
Press
Assembly
Petition

4: Search and seizure
5:

Double jeopardy
Self-incrimination
Just compensation

6: (protection has been diluted)
Speedy trial
Public trial
Jury trial
Impartial Jury
Notice of charges
Confrontation
Compulsory Process
Counsel

8: Cruel and unusual punishment


Amendments not available to U.S. Citizens:

2: Right to keep and bear arms (DOESNT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS)
3: Quartering troops in homes (no cases)

5: Grand Jury indictment

7: Jury trial in civil cases

8:

Bail (mostly)
Excessive fines under equal protection

Any guesses why the judge said what he didn't?
I'm not going t oargue with you because you, iOWNme, don't recognize the difference between the "People" and "US citizens", but its right there in black and white. You can argue all you want "moral" because it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what you think or believe.....especially when the government has the trump card over you. (AND YOU VOLUNTEERED FOR THIS POLITICAL STATUS)!!
I wouldn't expect the judge to say anything different to a subject.
And if you don't believe this "list" exists or as being anything factual....heres the link directly to the Library of Congress (government printing office anyway...its in the Library of Congress nonetheless). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=GPO&browsePath=The+Constitution+of+the+United+States+o f+America:+Analysis+and+Interpretation

[Ponce]

I just got back from picking up my two BIG signs to put at my two gates up front....

Land Patent #XXXX
Private Property
All county, state and federal imployees
And you......KEEP OUT

V

[Hatha Sunahara]

This thread has inspired me to re-read Marc Stevens's Adventures in Legal Land. The question posed in this thread is the entire basis for that book. I've gotten through 81 pages (of 243) so far. The book is a brilliant indictment of the 'legal system'. It exposes it as a fraud, and those who run it as criminals and despots. He boils down the question of What is a law to: A law is an opinion backed by a gun. The bureaucrats of Legal Land do not need facts or evidence. They operate on assumptions and opinions. If you question those assumptions and opinions and ask for facts and evidence, they ignore you (or hold you in contempt and arbitrarily punish you for exposing them) because they have no facts or evidence. Marc Stevens has developed a means of dealing with this system for those who are sucked into it that relies on merely asking questions that the bureaucrats fall into logical traps in answering those questions.

This is my second reading of his book. I must admit that it is difficult to switch gears to his thinking because I, like everyone else, have been conditioned to thinking in a way that allows these legal criminals to exploit me with their 'laws'. Stevens admits that you cannot win if you get sucked into their system, but you can practice some damage control. What he exposes is the fact that because the law is the threat of force, it is not administered in good faith--but relies on the fear of its victims to make them lie down and be violated by an illegitimate system.


Hatha

[BrewTech]

When "laws", "statutes" or "dictates" achieve the level of esoteric babble needing a key to be deciphered they should be deemed void. If it's not based on common sense for the common person to readily understand that should be a major red flag that whatever its intent was/is is total bullshit and should be treated as such. All the added jargon and legalese is a crock of shit that's meant to deceive and paint the false impression that only certain learned people are fit to write them and interpret them.

This is exactly right. I remember accompanying a friend to a court date years back, and one guy came in without an attorney and said he wanted to defend himself. The judge said that's fine, but he was required to file the correct documents per procedure, and "use the correct terminology when addressing the court", or the judge would simply find him guilty and that would be that.

I thought the admission to be significant at the time, but until now I didn't fully comprehend what was happening.

[7th trump]

This is exactly right. I remember accompanying a friend to a court date years back, and one guy came in without an attorney and said he wanted to defend himself. The judge said that's fine, but he was required to file the correct documents per procedure, and "use the correct terminology when addressing the court", or the judge would simply find him guilty and that would be that.

I thought the admission to be significant at the time, but until now I didn't fully comprehend what was happening.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
So the law, as you see it, is all mumbo jumbo, because you dont familiarize yourself with it?

Law should be the number 1 priority for each and everyone of us....your freedoms are hinged on it.

Its a cop out to say anything otherwise.

[BrewTech]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
So the law, as you see it, is all mumbo jumbo, because you dont familiarize yourself with it?

Law should be the number 1 priority for each and everyone of us....your freedoms are hinged on it.

Its a cop out to say anything otherwise.

You're hilarious.

My freedom exists regardless of your stupid "legal constructs", and is not "hinged" on others' opinions about things.

Here's my legal system:

1. Never use non-defensive force, fraud or coercion against another human being.

2. Non-compliance and/or defensive force may be used against those attempting to implement any of the above against me.

Easy peezy.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
So the law, as you see it, is all mumbo jumbo, because you dont familiarize yourself with it?

Law should be the number 1 priority for each and everyone of us....your freedoms are hinged on it.

Its a cop out to say anything otherwise.

Aren't there so many laws that we are all ignorant of some of them? Aren't we all criminals because of it? How do you live in a society where the laws make you a slave? Your attitude seems to be that you should become a good slave. Phie on you.


Hatha

[palani]

Aren't there so many laws that we are all ignorant of some of them?

99% of people are going to get that 'ignorant' phrase all wrong. If they don't include the entire phrase then they got it wrong. The phrase goes


Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.

There is also ignorance of fact as well. Being ignorant of a fact is never criminal. Marrying a woman who is already married could be considered ignorance of a fact. Ignorance of a foreign law is also ignorance of a fact. Neither of these is criminal.

When it comes to laws you have to ask yourself whether they are domestic or foreign. If they are foreign you have no duty to know them. When congress passes a law that is 10,000 pages long as far as I am concerned they have passed a foreign law simply based upon IMPOSSIBILITY. There is no way to consider any law that is so long to be domestic simply because there is no way to know it without investing several lifetimes.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Oh, yes---Obamacare---the law that we had to pass to find out what is in it. Isn't there some requirement for legislators to not be ignorant of the laws they pass? Also, how about the Patriot Act? We were advised to 'Go shopping' while that one was going through the sausage machine.


Hatha

[iOWNme]

Marc calls this his 'Same ol' Lie World Tour' where he calls various 'Authorities' around the world to see if they have any evidence that their 'Laws' apply to someone just because they are physically in a certain geographical area.

This is a good call to the Melborne Police Dept in Austrailia where two different 'Officers' fail to prove anything other than the same ol' 'We Say So' and 'Because you are here' circular answers. The second Officer even goes as far as to admit he does not even grasp the concept of the question. Then backtracks to say that he does have the evidence, but he doesnt have the time to give it to him. LOL He sounds like he has the metal capacity of a 14 year old.


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

[iOWNme]

Law should be the number 1 priority for each and everyone of us....your freedoms are hinged on it.


More freedom has been destroyed in the name of the 'Law' than by those who have opposed it. More freedom has been crushed in the name of 'authority' than by those who have disobeyed and resisted it. The most amount of violence, destruction, theft, rape, starvation, torture and murder have been done by people carrying out the 'Law'.

The only people in the history of the world who have set themselves free have BROKEN THE 'LAW' TO DO IT.

The Founders and Jesus were 'law breakers' and 'tax cheats'. And they were both the good guys. The two things you despise now. The two things you attack your fellow man for advocating.


"There is a harsh contrast between what we are taught is the purpose of “authority” (to create a peaceful, civilized society) and the real-world results of “authority” in action. Flip through any history book and you will see that most of the injustice and destruction that has occurred throughout the world was not the result of people “breaking the law,” but rather the result of people obeying and enforcing the “laws” of various “governments.” The evils that have been committed in spite of “authority” are trivial compared to the evils that have been committed in the name of “authority.”" - TMDS

[Hatha Sunahara]

Marc Stevens is asking the cops to prove they have 'jurisdiction' over people who are physically present in a geographical area. The cops are not qualified to answer that question. Their job descriptions just say that they obey orders and they do what they are trained to do. Cops don't think. They do not apply logic or reason to questions of authority or jurisdiction. I think the point of this exchange with the police is to demonstrate that the cops do only what they are told. If he had a phone conversation with a judge, it might be more interesting to hear the legal subtrefuges, the intimidations, the threats, the posturing, the deceit, the appeal to 'authority' these people use to make you believe they have cause to act against you. If you believe them, then they have jurisdiction. If you don't believe them, they have nothing but brute force. That does not inspire confidence in others of their legitimacy.



Hatha

[iOWNme]

When it comes to laws you have to ask yourself whether they are domestic or foreign.

'Law' is nothing more than a threat of violence. If someone is threatening you with violence, does it matter if they are 'foreign' or 'domestic'? Can you help me find the principle behind your statement?

[Jewboo]

The only people in the history of the world who have set themselves free have BROKEN THE 'LAW' TO DO IT.





http://oinkety.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/basement.jpg
Freedum living in mom's basement



:rolleyes: iOWNme

[palani]

'Law' is nothing more than a threat of violence. To some extent this is correct. Violation of a law comes with penalties. You might violate a particular law 100 times but watch out on the 101st. With frequency comes severity.


If someone is threatening you with violence, does it matter if they are 'foreign' or 'domestic'? Have you ever noticed that violence in China Town seems to be directed at Asians? Gang activities in the barrio seem to be directed to Mexicans? Black crime frequently is on blacks? We call this 'domestic' because these races tend to direct their activities toward their own kind.


Can you help me find the principle behind your statement?
Bouvier discusses foreign law as being 'igorance of a fact'. The topic is IGNORANCE of which there are two kinds; FACT or LAW. You can read up on it here http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm

[Dogman]

http://oinkety.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/basement.jpg
Freedum living in mom's basement



:rolleyes: iOWNme




Bars or worse are in someones future. Have know some "Republic of Texas" die in a shootout. and the movement is history or been trashed.

Lofty thoughts, but never is a path, proven and real, that can give a blueprint on how it can be done, Just some that speak down to us as they have and live the path, but never show an example for others to follow and achieve the quest.

Question them and you will get, expanded text/colors and them trying to shame you for you ignorance but they never give a clue on how to free oneself to join them in their life's of independence of non gov touching them.

Paradise is only for the few that can speak mumbojumbo..

I was real in the republic of Texas thing, and we got stomped!

[mick silver]

theres only one group of people who never live by the laws that are on the books and they are the ones who control the paper buck . the very rich . you can write all the laws you want but they are there for the low end group of people not the rich .

[palani]

theres only one group of people who never live by the laws that are on the books and they are the ones who control the paper buck . the very rich .
You will find that the rich tend to observe the 1o commandments while they would prefer that you observe the 10 planks. The reason should be obvious. If you should happen to drink a beer and kill out those slow buffalo brain cells you could probably figure it out.

[Spectrism]

Obamacare laws do not apply to me. I do not understand them... that is, I do not stand under them.

[mick silver]

the rich buy there way out of laws . so do tell us what wrong with what i posted again it true . all i do is try and stay away from things that could make me break laws . if i am not around people trying to make me live by laws then i have no laws .

[palani]

so do tell us what wrong with what i posted again

"they are the ones who control the paper buck . the very rich ."

Don't you think it delusional to think that those who control fiction are rich?

[mick silver]

is that like there no moon . if they are not rich were did all the control the power and control over others come from ,they own the system we all see

[palani]

if they are not rich were did all the control the power and control over others come from ,they own the system we all see
What you see is paper. Paper floats while stone sinks. But a good pair of scissors cuts paper while not touching stone.

Do you have a good pair of scissors?

Paper people act like their commands are set in stone. Pick yourself up a scissors at a garage sale and start using them.

[iOWNme]

This one is pretty good. What happens when you ask the County Attorner to show some evidence his 'Laws' apply to you just because you are standing in a certain area? A lot of silence and some incoherent circular logic. LOL

Video starts at 4:10


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FrCiGB7e_0

[Dogman]

Not with out standing, what you post has not even a shadow, of real life, dreams. Yes but I have never seen in my time spouting what you and others on this and other forums, something that really works.

You and the ones that post this kind or crap, are magically immune.



I have never have seen a way to avoid , cause/effect which ether will drain my bank account or I see bars.

[Spectrism]

Not with out standing, what you post has not even a shadow, of real life, dreams. Yes but I have never seen in my time spouting what you and others on this and other forums, something that really works.

You and the ones that post this kind or crap, are magically immune.

I have never have seen a way to avoid , cause/effect which ether will drain my bank account or I see bars.

Yes- having such stands takes deep pockets and a life style that has let go of things. At some point I can envision my lifestyle being forced that direction.... not the deep pockets side.

Considering that I am being made a renegade, a felon, a threat to society and a threat to the political system- merely by wanting the adherence to the law, AND seeing that the rulers are law-breakers and enslavers, I will one day likely use these arguments on their base level. The unlawful legalities of evil men will not apply to me and I will not consent to be under them. My consent would be the only evidence they would have to prove the "laws" apply to me.

[palani]

You and the ones that post this kind or crap, are magically immune.
More magically aware rather than magically immune. For example you believe you have a license to operate an amateur radio on certain frequencies. Take a good look at that license. Do you see any signature other than your own? So did you authorize your own use of those frequencies?




I have never have seen a way to avoid , cause/effect which ether will drain my bank account or I see bars. Take a good look again but this time look for things you don't see. Those bars are around you all the time. You create them yourself. That bank account? If you didn't have one then how could anyone drain it?

[palani]

Yes- having such stands takes deep pockets and a life style that has let go of things.

The word is 'judgment proof'. If you have nothing then you may consider yourself free to speak your mind. If you are loaded down with crap you would hate to lose then why would you risk losing?

[govcheetos]

http://youtu.be/dOOTKA0aGI0

[iOWNme]

Call starts at 4:50. Listen to the mushy thoughts and silly euphemisms this man uses to try and justify his insane and irrational CULT belief system.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI-oQAGNYKg

Listen as Marc asks the Scottsdale AZ Chief of Police where the evidence is that the 'Laws' apply to him just because he is standing on a certain piece of ground. It doesnt take more than 2 minutes for the ad-hominem attacks and character assassinations to fly. Instead of answering the question though, Alan went into an ad hominem attack against me, asking if I was asleep in eight grade civics. The rest of the call consists of me just trying to get a responsive answer, Alan keeps insulting me and using logical fallacies to avoid answering. He even raises a strawman.