You Must Be Fungible to Pass the BAR

[palani]

Are you fungible?

The use of the term 'specie' in the following is interesting. No doubt it is related to the concept of 'specie' as it relates to money. Money in genere (general) is a genus while specie has been come to be known as a specific sort of money defined as gold or silver coin. Bear this in mind when reading the passage shown. The author is not necessarily writing of money even though his comments do apply.

Contracts dealing with specie are contracts with items that cannot be replaced by any other generic items. Fungible items are those that might be consumed and so the generic replacement is acceptable. You replace an item by its' like kind because you might have consumed the original.

The concept of 'fungible' certainly ties to specie both as gold and silver coin as well as 'person'. When the court is satisfied as to your appearance AS A PERSON haven't they declared you to be a commodity in place of the strawman they were searching for? Since they cannot make the living man appear when something else shows up in his place then a fungible action has occurred; the court has agreed to substitute you for their strawman account.

Maybe you should make clear to any court that you are NOT FUNGIBLE. A soldier on a battlefield is fungible to a general. When mortality occurs the general just orders in another division. If you are involved in any contract that requires specific performance by you as a principal then any action by an agent/strawman is an unacceptable substitute.

From Lectures on Jurisprudence found here
https://books.google.com/books?id=W-S7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA807&dq=fungible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jqftVN-yMcjHsQSb6IH4Dw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=fungible&f=false

http://i58.tinypic.com/28hd109.jpg

[palani]

In the clip above:

In the language of the German jurists, fungible things are styled 'vertretbar' - representable.

If you have an agent representing you then you have placed yourself in the category of things REPRESENTABLE..... (AKA FUNGIBLE).

This word 'vertretbar' is interesting. Could this be the source of the word/anagram ..BAR?

IN OTHER WORDS ... ARE THINGS THAT PASS THE BAR FUNGIBLE?

[Glass]

very good and timely for me on current topics. By BAR you are not talking becoming an attorney. You are talking about coming aboard?

Each vassal represents an estate. Person is the dead vassal. At 7 years the vassal is declared an estate (in trust cestui que) due to it being lost at sea. The state is a collection of estates within a boundary. Someone needs to administer the trust. The government does this if no one else appears. It takes this step at 7 years on assumpsit. When the person is summonsed to court it is to deal with matters of trust. Someone wants to put their hand in the honey jar. The question is, who are they in relation to the trust and who are you in relation to the trust?

Who is fungible? You or someone else who is there to discuss the trust? If you let the Judge decide who is who in relation to the trust, you will get the Fiduciary role and the Judge will get the beneficiary role. If you decide who is who, you might decide the opposite. Then someone else is fungible. Its all a matter of perspective.

Caveat: I need to check that I got that right in terms of roles. I think the fiduciary gets the bills and the beneficiary gets the value/benefit of the trust. Where as they want to do it the other way round for their own financial gain and make you pay.

[palani]

By BAR you are not talking becoming an attorney. You are talking about coming aboard?
BAR might be the British Accredited Registry as is most commonly thought. BAR could also be the rail dividing the observers from the players in the courtroom drama. Agency is representation. When you hire an attorney you become fungible (represented) just like any other thing. There is consent involved. Before being represented you are a principal. Everyone in a courtroom before the BAR is an agent. They REPRESENT someone else. The Judicial actor might represent a blind statue holding a scale and a sword. The prosecutor might represent 'THE PUBLIC'. You (should you decide to be fungible) represent the one charged. The bailiff is the representative of the sheriff.

Just like a flush beats a straight .. a principal will always control any agent. You must be divested of the status of principal or else the judge and prosecutor don't get paid.

Person is the dead vassal.
fungible (adj.) Look up fungible at Dictionary.com
"capable of being used in place of another; capable of being replaced," 1818, a word in law originally, from Medieval Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi "perform" (see function (n.)) via phrases such as fungi vice "to take the place." Earlier as a noun (1765).

The question is, who are they in relation to the trust and who are you in relation to the trust?You can declare any interest in a trust to be abandoned and get your 'person' out of EQUITY entirely. Common law also has trusts but they need to be well documented and not created from thin air.

[7th trump]

Are you fungible?

The use of the term 'specie' in the following is interesting. No doubt it is related to the concept of 'specie' as it relates to money. Money in genere (general) is a genus while specie has been come to be known as a specific sort of money defined as gold or silver coin. Bear this in mind when reading the passage shown. The author is not necessarily writing of money even though his comments do apply.

Contracts dealing with specie are contracts with items that cannot be replaced by any other generic items. Fungible items are those that might be consumed and so the generic replacement is acceptable. You replace an item by its' like kind because you might have consumed the original.

The concept of 'fungible' certainly ties to specie both as gold and silver coin as well as 'person'. When the court is satisfied as to your appearance AS A PERSON haven't they declared you to be a commodity in place of the strawman they were searching for? Since they cannot make the living man appear when something else shows up in his place then a fungible action has occurred; the court has agreed to substitute you for their strawman account.

Maybe you should make clear to any court that you are NOT FUNGIBLE. A soldier on a battlefield is fungible to a general. When mortality occurs the general just orders in another division. If you are involved in any contract that requires specific performance by you as a principal then any action by an agent/strawman is an unacceptable substitute.

From Lectures on Jurisprudence found here
https://books.google.com/books?id=W-S7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA807&dq=fungible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jqftVN-yMcjHsQSb6IH4Dw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=fungible&f=false

http://i58.tinypic.com/28hd109.jpg

Still striving for that one conspiracy to come announce itself as a truth huh?
I see you wont let go of that internet "strawmen" conspiracy theory.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever gone into court using the "strawmen" theory and won.
They all either end up fined, incarcerated or both anyway..........or ran out of court and told dont try that stupid shit again or major sanctions will be imposed.
The strawman theory.....has never worked in legal land.

You'll be just as confused, if not more confused, the day you die as you are today.

PS......why would anyone beleive anything from someone who doesnt research the law statutes to understand how things work is beyond me.
You're trying to describe a circle by describing what a square is.

[ximmy]

This word 'vertretbar' is interesting. Could this be the source of the word/anagram ..BAR?


Speaking of bars, there is a new German gastropub opening in Pasadena!!

http://la.eater.com/2015/2/24/8103931/der-wolfskopf-german-beer-hall-pasadena-opening-photos#4676714

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DSLc8dHn82YKnk3J_qotkuFTb_I=/901x600/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3442936/2015-02-21-der-wolfskopf-001.0.jpg

http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7355&stc=1:) SWEET!

[Glass]

I don't think anyone mentioned straw man. I mentioned the person and the estate trust that every person represents. Maybe that was the trigger? Not sure.

And how do you know what someone studies or doesn't. The trusts and person element of law started very early on probably before christ seeing as he knew about it. Corporations started about 70 AD with the advent of the corporation, so it goes back away. It was a church btw. The bible talks about persons. Obliquely which may be too much for some. heck even Jesus talks about it in some regards. Jesus was the original freeman. He said don't be a "dead person", don't walk in that valley. Follow me into life out of the darkness and into the light? Paraphrasing but I wonder what he meant?

The bible is a hitchhikers guide to law and how the world works.

As for the success or failure. Show us a failure and we can look into where the argument went wrong. Many cases have no record because they were dismissed. The focus needs to be on the trust because that is what they are going after. It isn't the man, it's the money they want. But they will use any element of the trust to get what they want. People just need to see that and run the engagement themselves establishing who is who in the trust.

I don't think a W4 helps much with traffic tickets, speeding tickets, land tax etc. I think it only works for IRS reporting.

[palani]

Still striving for that one conspiracy to come announce itself as a truth huh?
Fungible is a concept applied to THINGS. In Latin a thing is a RES. A common usage of this is to declare oneself as a resident ... a thing identified.

I didn't invent language. I do like to draw lines between things and see if a pattern happens.

Are you a THING? If you find yourself represented by an attorney then you must be because fungible things are represented. There is nothing new here. During the (un)civil war if you were conscripted and didn't want to go you found someone to send in your place ... someone who didn't mind dying on a battlefield FUNGIBLE.

[7th trump]

Fungible is a concept applied to THINGS. In Latin a thing is a RES. A common usage of this is to declare oneself as a resident ... a thing identified.

I didn't invent language. I do like to draw lines between things and see if a pattern happens.

Are you a THING? If you find yourself represented by an attorney then you must be because fungible things are represented. There is nothing new here. During the (un)civil war if you were conscripted and didn't want to go you found someone to send in your place ... someone who didn't mind dying on a battlefield FUNGIBLE.

I get a chuckle of how you literally bullshit people with your cockamamie theories.

The latin word "RES" has nothing at all to do with "resident".
"Resident" in latin comes from the word "residere" which comes from the word "resideo".
"Resideo" means to sit, settle, sink in.


resideo (Latin)

Origin & history
re- + sedeō ("sit, be situated").


And the clown who keeps giving you thanks even if you are completely wrong is even more hilarious....so much for his credibility.

[palani]

The latin word "RES" has nothing at all to do with "resident".
"Resident" in latin comes from the word "residere" which comes from the word "resideo".
"Resideo" means to sit, settle, sink in.
If that is the case then you should be able to reconcile the following passage easily:


Resident, Is a Tenant who is bound Residere on his Lord’s land, and not to depart from thence. Leg. Hen. 1. cap.43
Sure seems to have the attribute of a ‘thing’ to me


the clown who keeps giving you thanks even if you are completely wrong is even more hilarious....so much for his credibility. Sure glad you haven't been appointed the decider of all things TRUE or FALSE. Your knee-jerk babble does nothing for your credibility.

[7th trump]

If that is the case then you should be able to reconcile the following passage easily:

Sure seems to have the attribute of a ‘thing’ to me

Sure glad you haven't been appointed the decider of all things TRUE or FALSE. Your knee-jerk babble does nothing for your credibility.

Funny .....you use "res" from latin but somehow "ident" remains in its English translation.

o)(~

[Glass]

yes Res means the thing. In Rem means power against the thing. This is how they secure their process with a surety. If someone appears in personam to claim the thing in rem then they (govt/claimant)can demand some valuable consideration to release the thing, as in settlement of their claim. The person, someone who appears can be held as surety if the value of the claim cannot be met by the thing.

Its a lex mercatoria process under maritime admiralty law. It originally applied to vessels, the chattels there in and possibly any goods being trafficked by the vessel. A claim could be bought by a merchant if not paid or if short changed by way of inferior or non existent goods. As the Govt (pirates) moved from the open sea to incorporate the water ways (littoral?) they have not modified their procedures. They just continue on being pirates using the pirates system. No need to change.


Res. [Latin, A thing.] An object, a subject matter, or a status against which legal proceedings have been instituted. For example, in a suit involving a captured ship, the seized vessel is the res, and proceedings of this nature are said to be in rem. Res, however, does not always refer to tangible Personal Property (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Personal+Property). In matrimonial actions, for example, the res is the marital status of the parties.
cite link (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/res)

[govcheetos]

<-----A vessel passing the bar.

:p

[Glass]

nice launch.

[palani]

Funny .....you use "res" from latin but somehow "ident" remains in its English translation.

o)(~

Quite a lot of concepts derive from Roman law. As to the English spin on things .... many English words have their origin in other languages.

Thanks for pointing this out. There is no contradiction.




identity (n.)
c.1600, "sameness, oneness," from Middle French identité (14c.), from Late Latin (5c.) identitatem (nominative identitas) "sameness," from ident-, comb. form of Latin idem (neuter) "the same" (see identical); abstracted from identidem "over and over," from phrase idem et idem. [For discussion of Latin formation, see entry in OED.] Earlier form of the word in English was idemptitie (1560s), from Medieval Latin idemptitas. Term identity crisis first recorded 1954. Identity theft attested from 1995.

[7th trump]

Quite a lot of concepts derive from Roman law. As to the English spin on things .... many English words have their origin in other languages.

Thanks for pointing this out. There is no contradiction.



Yes there is a contradiction.
"RES" is one latin word and so is "IDENT".

You have no verifiable proof that "resident" is made up of "RES" in the latin and "ident" in the english....or "resident" is two latin words combined.

Most conspiracy nutcases are proven to make shit up as they go......hence being labeled a conspiracy.
Do you know the difference between a scientist and conspiracy nutcase?
They both have theories.
One will use facts and evidence to prove their theory is truth and legit on how something works.......its documented.
The other will not use facts or evidence....no documentation.....guess which one is the conspiracy bullshitter?

And they certainly dont like being checked to see if what they are actually espousing has any merit...............which most here find they dont understand your logic (usually proven wrong) or dont trust you.
Seems to me you dont like doing any dilligent work....basically lazy of fact finding.

[palani]

Yes there is a contradiction.
"RES" is one latin word and so is "IDENT".
Gee gosh all ... that is what I stated.


You have no verifiable proof that "resident" is made up of "RES" in the latin and "ident" in the english....or "resident" is two latin words combined. You mean OTHER THAN THE SPELLING? Guess that doesn't count much for any sort of proof to anyone who can't spell.


Seems to me you dont like doing any dilligent work....basically lazy of fact finding.
I don't know what dilli-gent work is. Almost spells like diligent but things that are similar are not the same.

Hey .... you don't suppose that is what your problem is? Maybe you think you can make up words and confuse everyone with your billiance?

[palani]

If you are fungible then you have the same attributes as money. This would fit with the circumstances. Any way you cut it all the court wants is money and if nothing else presents itself then you will have to do to fill the bill.

From American Law Review https://books.google.com/books?id=WksZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA540&dq=fungible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w7bvVKfUF5CxyATQ4IL4AQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=fungible&f=false

I would think a good question to bring in front of any court is "DOES THIS COURT CONSIDER ME TO BE FUNGIBLE?"

http://i59.tinypic.com/34qmc1x.jpg

[ximmy]

<-----A vessel passing the bar.

:p


nice launch.

I just figured that out.

[Glass]

Ah, so the Fungible thing can be given an order for "specific performance", where as the non fungible thing cannot.

[palani]

Ah, so the Fungible thing can be given an order for "specific performance", where as the non fungible thing cannot.
Rather the fungible thing (money) IS the specific performance.

http://i62.tinypic.com/1zgygdi.jpg

Again ... note ... the word play concerning 'specie(s)' ... where the sense is "in kind" but again they are talking money which at the time this piece was written was SPECIE.

[midnight rambler]

many English words have their origin in other languages.

60% of the English language is Latin based; there are no less than 102 Romance languages (languages directly derived from Latin).

[Glass]

Rather the fungible thing (money) IS the specific performance.

http://i62.tinypic.com/1zgygdi.jpg

Again ... note ... the word play concerning 'specie(s)' ... where the sense is "in kind" but again they are talking money which at the time this piece was written was SPECIE.

Ok but if you are fungible, as per earlier posts, (Did I mistake that link?) then you can be the specific performance?

[palani]

Ok but if you are fungible, as per earlier posts, (Did I mistake that link?) then you can be the specific performance?
My opinion? YES!!!

Lacking gold or silver in circulation then YOU are the only money around and become the specific performance on any contract or tort.

[palani]

From the American Law Review #39 URL given previously

http://i57.tinypic.com/wttz07.jpg

When you assert a right to a thing you become a person yourself and not a thing. Otherwise, as noted, men are generally things. Things are the topic of ownership. Money things are fungible. Hence the question to the court "DOES THE COURT CONSIDER ME TO BE FUNGIBLE?" If you are an obligation then you are a chose in action.

Sleep on this tonight

and

in the morning

I believe you will begin to see the light.

[Glass]

sleep? Whats that? So a man is a thing, a person claims a right to a thing. Is this the only instance where a person comes into being? Through claiming a right to a thing?

Is freedom thing? Do I become a person if I claim a right to freedom? Do I stop being a man if I claim a right to a thing? Some influential people in history have said it's best not to have a "thing" or make claim to a "thing". Is this why?

If you have no thing, you are not faced with claims from others for the things you don't have. But could the claim go at the man thing?

some research on Choses in Action for anyone interested.

Harvard Law review PDF: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1327628?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[palani]

According to Hobbes in Leviathan Chapter XVI a person is a word, an action or representation. The word might result in a libel, an action might result in a tort or it might be a claim to ownership of a particular parcel of property or an automobile. Representation is by attorney, MP or congress critter.

All of these things create a person and the person is not a thing. Yet Man can be a thing ... once he is represented he is a person and not a thing. The creation of a person is a major loss. Freedom (per Janis Joplin) is nothin' left to lose.

Once you successfully find your way through this matrix and if successful you can classify yourself as being 'stateless' and in this state you will find that you are the sovereign.

[palani]

A “res” is a thing. A man is a thing. A person is not a thing. Therefore (logical conclusion) a man is NOT a person. Q.E.D. And wouldn’t it follow then that a RESident is a THING identified? But that leads to a complication. A MAN can be a thing identified but a PERSON cannot be a thing. Therefore no person can be resident. By being a resident you separate yourself from being any entity having a right and transport yourself back into the world of things that are capable of being the subject of a right.

[palani]

You must be on the court to be considered in play. To be in the court you must be fungible. To be in play is to be a chose in action.

[palani]

Another cite ... this time identifying jurors as being 'fungible'. These days it appears a juror is not fungible because of a process called voir dire. Jurors are 100% directly replaceable which makes them 'non-fungible'.

From Of the vocation of our age for legislation and jurisprudence by Hayward found here
https://books.google.com/books?id=JvukCY8Rbz0C&pg=PA179&dq=fungible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5ijxVMbRGcyoyAS8noHADg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBjhu#v=onepage&q=fungible&f=false


http://i59.tinypic.com/10fq647.jpg

[Glass]

I've heard people say when asked the question; "where do you live?" or "where do you reside?" that your might tap you chest and say honestly "in here" or "I don't have a residence, I live here".

[palani]

I've heard people say when asked the question; "where do you live?" or "where do you reside?" that your might tap you chest and say honestly "in here" or "I don't have a residence, I live here".

Volunteering to answer questions of any type establishes a pecking order with the one asking (as king) on top. Some responses avoiding this is 'my parents advised me not to talk to strangers', 'if the roof doesn't leak what does it matter where I live?', 'don't you already have that information in your records?' , 'are the records wrong?', 'do you consider me fungible?'