A man is denied his remedy

[crimethink]

Now, I have sympathy for the theories of these people, but nonetheless their imagination is not how things work in "real life" where the "law enforcement officer," judge, prosecutor and "defense" attorney are all State agents. The "free men" fail to recognize the distinction between authority (the right to do something) and power (the ability to do something). Yes, driving ("traveling") is a right under the Ninth Amendment, but the State has no reason to abide by the Ninth Amendment.

These theories "work" only in two cases: 1) the State doesn't know you're "violating" their orders; 2) the State (namely, a cop or a judge) finds your "offense" less important than how troublesome you are. But if "they" want you, they have you, no matter how many magical formulae you can offer them. UCC 1-308, all rights reserved. :rolleyes:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnSd-E3Hb3Y



I can imagine 7th trump trying his tax evasion schemes and getting a response like this.

[midnight rambler]

Either God is God or man is god, YOUR choice.

"Choose this day whom ye shall serve..."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1JWJFGfOU

[crimethink]

Either God is God or man is god, YOUR choice.

"Choose this day whom ye shall serve..."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1JWJFGfOU

And Jesus Christ was sentenced to death for disobedience to the Jewish politico-religious system. Magic words didn't save Him. Was He "guilty" of doing wrong? Of course not. But that's not relevant when those with power wield that power over your life, liberty, and death.

The point is this: when dealing with the State, you have three options: 1) avoid; 2) submit; or 3) attack. Words don't work, not matter how sophisticated or sound the argument.

[midnight rambler]

Fred, you don't know what you don't know, it really is that simple.

[crimethink]

Fred, you don't know what you don't know, it really is that simple.

You sound like 7th trump. Same argument, different words.

[7th trump]

You sound like 7th trump. Same argument, different words.
Midnight is correct.
You really don't know what you don't know and it's better not to play act that you do know by lying about it.

[crimethink]

This is the REALITY of what happens with your arguments:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aptvDqvt5M4

[midnight rambler]

ANYONE who claims their status as 'sovereign citizen' is a moron. And Fred, by attempting to back up your position by posting 'sovereign citizen' videos demonstrates you know NOTHING of theses matters and by extension that makes you a moron as well.

[7th trump]

You can't claim being a sovereign when being a subject "US citizen".

[crimethink]

ANYONE who claims their status as 'sovereign citizen' is a moron. And Fred, by attempting to back up your position by posting 'sovereign citizen' videos demonstrates you know NOTHING of theses matters and by extension that makes you a moron as well.

Instead of addressing the REALITY presented in the video, you attempt to divert the issue to the title of the video, applied by someone other than the imbecile using your same arguments, and even using a "special" Texas plate, just like you.

You and 7th trump are identical in dishonesty about your phony evasion of the State. And the morons who thanked your post stand accused, as well.

Yes, I'm calling you a fucking liar. And yet you had the nerve to pile on 7th trump for doing exactly what you claim.

[crimethink]

You can't claim being a sovereign when being a subject "US citizen".

Who claimed to be a "sovereign citizen"?

[monty]

Instead of addressing the REALITY presented in the video, you attempt to divert the issue to the title of the video, applied by someone other than the imbecile using your same arguments, and even using a "special" Texas plate, just like you.

You and 7th trump are identical in dishonesty about your phony evasion of the State. And the morons who thanked your post stand accused, as well.

Yes, I'm calling you a fucking liar. And yet you had the nerve to pile on 7th trump for doing exactly what you claim.

In the late '70s, early '80s I worked at Southwest Kenworth Inc. #8 Glendale Road in Sparks, Nevada with a fellow mechanic, Ernie Aldridge, who lived in Fernley, Nevada and commuted the 26 miles to work daily in his unlicensed pickup, not in possession of a drivers license on Interstate 80. I suppose Ernie would verify this, but I doubt he is still living as he was several years older than me. Another co-worker Larry Haas also lived in Fernley and often rode with Ernie, but unfortunately he killed himself while driving drunk in an automobile accident. I know of no other living witnesses who can vouch for him but it is factual. I was told by Larry Haas that Ernie had successfully defended himself in the court and the law enforcement people quit harassing him.

[midnight rambler]

Fred worships willful men and their 'law' that much is abundantly clear.

[crimethink]

In the late '70s, early '80s I worked at Southwest Kenworth Inc. #8 Glendale Road in Sparks, Nevada with a fellow mechanic, Ernie Aldridge, who lived in Fernley, Nevada and commuted the 26 miles to work daily in his unlicensed pickup, not in possession of a drivers license on Interstate 80. I suppose Ernie would verify this, but I doubt he is still living as he was several years older than me. Another co-worker Larry Haas also lived in Fernley and often rode with Ernie, but unfortunately he killed himself while driving drunk in an automobile accident. I know of no other living witnesses who can vouch for him but it is factual. I was told by Larry Haas that Ernie had successfully defended himself in the court and the law enforcement people quit harassing him.

We used to be able to do a lot of things "legally" back in the 1970s/1980s, as well. Get an airplane without being molested, for one. Their System changes, adapts, and becomes more oppressive. In the 1970s/1980s, the percentage of Americans was much higher, the percentage of informed Americans was much higher, and the percentage of people who actually not only understood but agreed with the Bill of Rights, including judges, was much higher.

I wish these theories that both rambler and trump push were true! Oh, how I do. But the theories run smack into the reality of this increasingly-Total State. I believe that people have the right to drive ("travel" without paying special taxes or obtaining special permission), but that's not the reality the System enforces at gunpoint.

[crimethink]

Fred worships willful men and their 'law' that much is abundantly clear.

rambler lies like a Jew lawyer, shamelessly; that much is abundantly clear.

[monty]

We used to be able to do a lot of things "legally" back in the 1970s/1980s, as well. Get an airplane without being molested, for one. Their System changes, adapts, and becomes more oppressive. In the 1970s/1980s, the percentage of Americans was much higher, the percentage of informed Americans was much higher, and the percentage of people who actually not only understood but agreed with the Bill of Rights, including judges, was much higher.

I wish these theories that both rambler and trump push were true! Oh, how I do. But the theories run smack into the reality of this increasingly-Total State. I believe that people have the right to drive ("travel" without paying special taxes or obtaining special permission), but that's not the reality the System enforces at gunpoint.

Bundys, Finicums and Hages can attest to this.

[midnight rambler]

Seriously Fred is that the best you can do?

[midnight rambler]

Fred is an advocate for willful men and their 'laws'.

[crimethink]

Seriously Fred is that the best you can do?

Like 7th trump, you refuse to actually demonstrate how your schemes work, instead demanding we simply "trust" you.

The chutzpah you've displayed against 7th trump recently is incredible. Everything you've said against him recently applies to you equally.

The reason you refuse to demonstrate how your schemes work is obvious. You know they patently don't work, or, they "work" only when the State is unaware that you are maneuvering around their demands.

[crimethink]

Fred is an advocate for willful men and their 'laws'.

And yet again, lying like a Jew lawyer.

[crimethink]

Bundys, Finicums and Hages can attest to this.

Finnicum is dead because he failed to recognize "the law" is the barrel of a gun. He "made war" against their System, and then drove into an ambush. The Bundy brothers are in a cage for a similar delusion, thinking they could travel, unarmed, through a Federal regime controlled facility, to join another campaign against the System. Had they not flown into PDX, and driven quietly instead, they'd likely still be free.

[singular_me]

well if we stick to the bible, enslaved citizens chose barabas over jesus....

democracy in action


And Jesus Christ was sentenced to death for disobedience to the Jewish politico-religious system. Magic words didn't save Him. Was He "guilty" of doing wrong? Of course not.

[palani]

driving ("traveling") is a right under the Ninth Amendment, but the State has no reason to abide by the Ninth Amendment.

You need to have a peek at the United States Constitution (Annotated). You will see virtually none of the Bill of Rights apply to U.S. citizens. And you proclaim yourself such when applying for a license to drive.

Can't have it both ways. Either you have the right or you must ask permission to use the right. That holds true for much much more than simply traveling/driving/exercising the privilege of a license.

George Gordon was a fairly feisty Idahoan who took on the system on many levels including the right to drive. He ended up defeated on this particular issue and used a hired driver for the tail end of his life.

Dennis Craig was another hardcore rights advocate. He ended up spending his last days in jail.

Take on your issues wisely. The cost may be more than you think.

[crimethink]

well if we stick to the bible, enslaved citizens chose barabas over jesus....

democracy in action

Absolutely! See, we can agree on things. LOL

The crowd loved their own worldview, however perverted, over the Truth. The same is true today.

[crimethink]

You need to have a peek at the United States Constitution (Annotated). You will see virtually none of the Bill of Rights apply to U.S. citizens. And you proclaim yourself such when applying for a license to drive.

Can't have it both ways. Either you have the right or you must ask permission to use the right. That holds true for much much more than simply traveling/driving/exercising the privilege of a license.

George Gordon was a fairly feisty Idahoan who took on the system on many levels including the right to drive. He ended up defeated on this particular issue and used a hired driver for the tail end of his life.

Dennis Craig was another hardcore rights advocate. He ended up spending his last days in jail.

Take on your issues wisely. The cost may be more than you think.

The man in the video used all the "right" arguments & maneuvers, and still ended up convicted.

The brute force of the State > all rational arguments explaining rights.

I don't have a problem with someone daring to refuse to request permission to drive/"travel." And if I were on a jury in a case for "failing to have a license," I'd vote to acquit. But I'm blacklisted for jury service, as I am a known Jury Nullification advocate. :)

Again, avoid, submit, or attack. The only three options. Words do not work against gunpoint. I've dealt with the "justice" system enough to know this well. After all, I now tell people to never admit to be Jury Nullification advocates, so as not to be filtered out. I once naively believed I had "the right" to practice it in their "courts," and admitted it. You avoid them by stealth but still monkey-wrench their scam.

[palani]

The man in the video used all the "right" arguments & maneuvers, and still ended up convicted.

Arguing is dishonorable. When you do it you lose. Learn to agree and live with less stress.


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

You will either be instructed by reason or experience. Experience is a HARD teacher. You will end up earning every bit of knowledge you gain and then some.

Check out REASON sometime.

[Bigjon]

Bundys, Finicums and Hages can attest to this.

But they elected to stay in the UNITED STATES CITIZEN status.

[midnight rambler]

Fred, are you still a 'US citizen'?

[crimethink]

Fred, are you still a 'US citizen'?

You admit you have a passport, so the Federal regime considers you a "US Citizen." I don't have a passport, and never have. I am a citizen of Kingdom of Heaven, by my oath of allegiance to Jesus Christ.

I realize that now you will claim you are a "US national," * but the fact of the matter is, the Federal regime has you in their database as a "US citizen." Claiming you are a "national" instead of a "citizen" will result in the same end as the guy in the OP video: no effect, no meaning. Their rules, not yours.



* or an "Article 4 free inhabitant," or whatever nonsense of no meaning nor effect you so choose.

[midnight rambler]

I have not claimed to be a 'US citizen' in over 30 years Fred, yet you show up at the state temple to burn a pinch of incense for Caesar (and to affirm your US citizen status) every single time they order you to. lol

[crimethink]

I have not claimed to be a 'US citizen' in over 30 years Fred, yet you show up at the state temple to burn a pinch of incense for Caesar every single time they order you to. lol

Have you canceled your passport? (no, of course not)

Gee, I've never been "ordered" to any State temple. You must be thinking of something you do.

[midnight rambler]

I'm unclear on this Fred - do you or do you not still maintain a state issued ID?

[crimethink]

I'm unclear on this Fred - do you or do you not still maintain a state issued ID?

Have you canceled your passport? Have you canceled your birth certificate?

This "not a US citizen" was "not subject to arrest":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMCO79R-4mM

[crimethink]

Unlike midnight rambler and 7th trump, Edward Abbey was clear thinking:


If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

[crimethink]

MORE reality:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N--ZFxqP85g


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBK-DMDlzM4

(to clarify for the idiots: the term "sovereign citizen" is applied to this video by the posters, not the "free men" in the videos)

[7th trump]

MORE reality:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N--ZFxqP85g


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBK-DMDlzM4

(to clarify for the idiots: the term "sovereign citizen" is applied to this video by the posters, not the "free men" in the videos)
Passports have been in use in the US ofA way before the civil war produced the "US citizen".
so with bit of history your premise is worthless

[Ares]

Charlie Sprinkle travelled with no license or insurance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rplyZdDiCxI

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rplyZdDiCxI

He basically forced them to recognize his right to travel. He sued the prosecutor (as well as his wife as an accessory to the prosecutors crime), the judge, state governor (who was Ronald Reagan at the time), as well as Nancy Reagan. He included their spouses all the way up to the governor as accessories in their crimes to failing to uphold their oath of office and protecting his rights as they have sworn to do.

As soon as he did that, all charges were dropped and he was never harassed again after that.

[crimethink]

state governor (who was Ronald Reagan at the time)


Governor of California, 1967-1975.



[he sued] Nancy Reagan


Which meant he was a shyster thug. Reagan's spouse had zero role in the "governance" of the State of California.




As soon as he did that, all charges were dropped and he was never harassed again after that.

Whether this is true or not, is irrelevant.

Now, in the reality of 42 years later:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vzDcMvGF6s


Whether you or I agree with their "law," is not relevant. I am referring to the reality of what happens if you refuse to submit to them.

[crimethink]

It works great in the Republic of Cuh-nadd-uh, too ("the traveler's" pronunciation, which he juxtaposes against the normal pronunciation, which he says has been dissolved).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKM4bB5alKw

[crimethink]

As the videos I have posted demonstrate conclusively, we live in a fully-operational Police State.

Unless you are to the point of being willing to put a bullet in a "peace officer's" (sic) chest, you are merely playing juvenile games when you fantasize about "exercising your rights" with mere words.

Only the deranged believe that words shield them from State thuggery.

[7th trump]

It works great in the Republic of Cuh-nadd-uh, too ("the traveler's" pronunciation, which he juxtaposes against the normal pronunciation, which he says has been dissolved).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKM4bB5alKw

You play semantic games.

[crimethink]

He's not "operating in commerce," and will "hold [the deputy] under full commercial liability." The State "has no more authority over the vehicle if the registration is not current." LOL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCsBi72xk38

[crimethink]

You play semantic games.

The facts of the video are clear to see.

As for semantic games, that is your expertise.

[Bigjon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrSiiAqJAU&feature=youtu.be


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrSiiAqJAU&feature=youtu.be

[crimethink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrSiiAqJAU&feature=youtu.be


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrSiiAqJAU&feature=youtu.be

Immediately after the class, the Freemen on the Land Society will hold the tournament:

http://img15.deviantart.net/7d53/i/2009/224/7/2/russian_roulette_championship_by_zoking16.jpg

All Freemen are invited to participate.

[crimethink]

I thought this was anti-"sovereign citizen" ridicule of Ryan Bundy, but, Good God Almighty, he actually filed this statement in court!


https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bundy-doc-2.jpg


“I, ryan c [Ryan C. Bundy], man, am an idiot of the ‘Legal Society’; and; am an idiot (layman, outsider) of the ‘Bar Association’; and; i am incompetent; and; am not required by any law to be competent,” Bundy wrote in a motion filed to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown.


PDF of the actual filing: http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/image/upload/v1469756334/Notice_of_Jurisdiction_zgyafd.pdf?t=072821

[Ares]

Which meant he was a shyster thug. Reagan's spouse had zero role in the "governance" of the State of California.

True, he was a thug. Most people in politics are. When a crime is committed and the person who didn't actively participate in the crime benefits from it that is called an accessory. She benefited from Mr. Reagan's political position in the state. Since Charlie Sprinkle had sent him a correspondence asking him if he would protect his rights and received no response Mr. Reagan had committed a crime. So Charlie started the process of suing him and Nancy Reagan.



Whether you or I agree with their "law," is not relevant. I am referring to the reality of what happens if you refuse to submit to them.

It's rather ironic and has been a discussion with a friend of mine who is a cop. I said when you give orders to civilians do you believe them to be lawful orders? He said yeah of course. I asked, under what authority is your orders lawful? He said I'm a cop the jurisdiction in which I perform my duties gives me the authority. I said okay, fair enough. Who created police then? He had kind of a blank stare like a "what was I just asked?" type expression on his face. He said I don't know.. I said you know I've read a lot through the Constitution and there is nothing in there under any article that calls for the creation of the police. He interrupts and starts talking about the Sheriff, and I interrupted him by stating the Sheriff is a political office elected by the people. You are police and are not elected by anyone, nor do you report to or take orders from the Sheriff.

I said what you are giving is LEGAL orders, not LAWFUL. He goes it still holds up in a court of law. I said there it only holds up due to ignorance and stubbornness of judges and juries. If I sat on a jury for someone who was charged with "resisting arrest" they would walk because I know you have no lawful authority. You were created by a legislature which means you follow statutory law, which is nothing more than statutes and codes and is only color of law.

We kind of ended the discussion there, but it was definitely interesting conversing back and forth regarding lawful and legal orders.

[Bigjon]

Immediately after the class, the Freemen on the Land Society will hold the tournament:

http://img15.deviantart.net/7d53/i/2009/224/7/2/russian_roulette_championship_by_zoking16.jpg

All Freemen are invited to participate.


Bookie sockpuppet#4 says he sides with anti-american thugs and shakes his boogyman at us.

Kind of funny a guy who professes to be a Christian acting like a Baal worshiper.


https://youtu.be/xMrSiiAqJAU?t=1249

[7th trump]

[QUOTE=crimethink;891671]The facts of the video are clear to see.

As for semantic games, that is your expertise.[/QUOTSure they are clear to see but what is itvtij are looking at?
Heres where you fail.
You fail at properly representing the police because they appear to be thugs addressing a person claiming to be sovereign which is also demonstrating improper representation.
You purposely address the police as thugs because the civilian is improperly address sovernty which in your eyes the civilian is correct.
Two wrongs on your part doesn't mean the cop is a thug or the civilian is correct.
The problem is you not being intelligent enough to be impartial to searching the truth out.
youre biased...... which is only saying your dishonest at the core.

[palani]

If you can find no remedy then doesn't it follow that you have not the right?

Does not the question then become "how or when or by what action I lost the right?"

[madfranks]

Crimethink is right on this. Has everyone forgotten what he said in the first post?


The "free men" fail to recognize the distinction between authority (the right to do something) and power (the ability to do something).

How can anyone on this form not recognize the difference? And yes, while certain tactics and arguments may have worked for certain individuals when arguing against certain government agents in the past, none of those have any bearing on what could or likely would happen to any one of us trying to do the same thing. For me, I do not recognize the authority of those in charge, but I'm not so naive to deny that they have the power to ruin me if they wanted to. IMO, doing your best to fly under their radar is a very reasonable tactic.

[ximmy]

Crimethink is right on this. Has everyone forgotten what he said in the first post?



How can anyone on this form not recognize the difference? And yes, while certain tactics and arguments may have worked for certain individuals when arguing against certain government agents in the past, none of those have any bearing on what could or likely would happen to any one of us trying to do the same thing. For me, I do not recognize the authority of those in charge, but I'm not so naive to deny that they have the power to ruin me if they wanted to. IMO, doing your best to fly under their radar is a very reasonable tactic.

It doesn't matter... whether right or wrong, if crimethink says it, it is wrong. He taints and distorts every truth he postulates.

[crimethink]

It doesn't matter... whether right or wrong, if crimethink says it, it is wrong. He taints and distorts every truth he postulates.

Hope you enjoy World War III, down there in SoCal...hopefully your city is the first target in open warfare ignited by your Lord & Savior, the Prince of Death, Donald Trump.

People like YOU are why we are now at war.

[crimethink]

Crimethink is right on this. Has everyone forgotten what he said in the first post?



How can anyone on this form not recognize the difference? And yes, while certain tactics and arguments may have worked for certain individuals when arguing against certain government agents in the past, none of those have any bearing on what could or likely would happen to any one of us trying to do the same thing. For me, I do not recognize the authority of those in charge, but I'm not so naive to deny that they have the power to ruin me if they wanted to. IMO, doing your best to fly under their radar is a very reasonable tactic.

Sir, you are one of the few people on here that retain their sane faculties, and sincerity and honesty. You can't expect the mental cases and liars to think like you do.

[ximmy]

Hope you enjoy World War III, down there in SoCal...hopefully your city is the first target in open warfare ignited by your Lord & Savior, the Prince of Death, Donald Trump.

People like YOU are why we are now at war.

You have no honor, neither your words, statements, or condemnations. I hereby request the forum to strip you of your rank.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toVIGUXya2E

[crimethink]

You have no honor, neither your words, statements, or condemnations. I hereby request the forum to strip you of your rank.


I hereby request you shut the fuck up. You are the typical vain, shallow Millennial, where style and especially feelings dominate your so-called "thinking."

[ximmy]

I hereby request you shut the fuck up. You are the typical vain, shallow Millennial, where style and especially feelings dominate your so-called "thinking."

crimethink stripped of GSUS rank
https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-08-2015/F0eguX.gif

[palani]

doing your best to fly under their radar is a very reasonable tactic.

http://i65.tinypic.com/28u03yg.jpg

[palani]

http://i67.tinypic.com/n698gx.jpg

[crimethink]

http://i65.tinypic.com/28u03yg.jpg

No one has any "duty" to disclose anything to any malevolent regime.

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

[7th trump]

Crimethink is right on this. Has everyone forgotten what he said in the first post?



How can anyone on this form not recognize the difference? And yes, while certain tactics and arguments may have worked for certain individuals when arguing against certain government agents in the past, none of those have any bearing on what could or likely would happen to any one of us trying to do the same thing. For me, I do not recognize the authority of those in charge, but I'm not so naive to deny that they have the power to ruin me if they wanted to. IMO, doing your best to fly under their radar is a very reasonable tactic.

And what matters between the two are where you, an individual, stand within the law (authority and power). Dumbthink mixes two jurisdictions all up and spits out his typical uneducated, unintelligent opinions and views without realizing the two. Its just like what midnight rambler said.......what dumbthink fred doesnt know...........dumbthink fred doesnt know.
The government was given certain authority and powers from the People to be over the People.

It doesnt surprise me you or anyone would come to freds side having the same core opinion of not recognizing those in charge.
And flying under the radar is just another why of enabling.

[palani]

No one has any "duty" to disclose anything to any malevolent regime.
If there are no MATERIAL FACTS then there also is no CAUSE OF ACTION; i.e., could this be where you lose your remedy?

Facts are also to be considered as material or immaterial. Material facts are those which are essential to the right of action or defence, and
therefore of the substance of the one or the other - these must always be proved; or immaterial, which are those not essential to the cause of action
- these need not be proved. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3150-53.


Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
The Law of Necessity might get you out of a jam but does not create a right by which a remedy is suggested. In fact no element of the Law of Necessity is ever a remedy in itself.

[palani]

The government was given certain authority and powers from the People to be over the People.

Except 'the People' in this case are 'the several States'. Just as there are no People in any county neither are there in any State and the only People who accept the laws coming from the D of C are the same People who stand up in Congress to vote for those laws. These People are duty bound to follow their own laws. They frequently use some subterfuge or other to make others think they also have a duty. Case in point in Iowa the recent revelation that a majority of law makers take advantage of a $25 a month healthcare plan ... AFFORDABLE Healthcare ... Sound familiar?

[Bigjon]

FBI Informers, the Bundys, and Watering Horses (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2017/04/07/fbi-informers-the-bundys-and-watering-horses/)Posted on April 7, 2017 (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2017/04/07/fbi-informers-the-bundys-and-watering-horses/)by David Robinson (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/author/drobin88/)
https://mainerepublicemailalert.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/12405-judge2banna.png?w=640 Judge Anna von Reitz
Ask yourself this question: if there are any “FBI Informants” operating in the take-down of the Colorado Grand Juries and State Justices— where are they?
Chances are they are in jail with the rest of the folks, so that they can continue to spy on and manipulate them from a position of trust.
They are certainly not standing here as I have been for yea, so many weeks, giving warning and instruction to people so that they might correct their ways and avoid arrest.
I hear that my name and that of Bella Haywood have been taken in vain and certain parties who are in fact to blame for this debacle have been accusing us of being traitors and informers and so on.
The plain fact is that if these people had followed our advice or even just paid attention to the Public Law they wouldn’t be arrested. There would be no big controversy.
I’ve also been getting a lot of mail about the Bundys. Save the Bundys! Save the Bundys!
The Bundys have had the benefit of my advice and the facts since Day One of their arrest. I explained it to them and I will explain it to all of you again.
United States Citizens and “citizens of the United States” have no constitutional rights. At most, they have “equal civil rights”– but those rights are at the discretion of the Congress and the courts. This is why that federal judge felt that she could afford to laugh in their faces and threaten them with contempt of court for mentioning The Constitution.
They are being tried under false presumptions in a court that is totally foreign to them. They are being tried as “US citizens” and with the possible exception of Ryan Bundy, they have done absolutely nothing to rebut that presumption.
They could get an authenticated copy of their Birth Certificate, accept it as “Drawee” on the front of the document and then endorse it over on the back to the United States of America, U.S. Treasury Without Recourse— and make Steven T. Mnuchin the Fiduciary responsible for AMMON BUNDY, for example.
That would very neatly separate them from the PERSON that is on trial.
They could also post a very hefty Private Registered Indemnity Bond with the Treasury and use that to insure (indemnify) themselves against any charges brought against AMMON BUNDY—- which is just a ledger ACCOUNT that the rats in Nevada are bent on pillaging.
They could ask to see the Bid and Performance Bond related to their case. If they did this in open court the clerk would poop green goo, but have no choice but to produce the incriminating evidence.
They could then accept those Bid and Performance Bonds for Value, charge them off against their Indemnity Bond, and return it to the same laughing Judge and make her laugh out of the other side of her ugly face.
And if no Bid and Performance Bonds were forthcoming, the Prosecutor would have to pay for the whole proceedings out of his pocket and the Judge would have to dismiss.
There have to be two dozen things that they could do to walk out of that court as free men, but no, they won’t listen.
Just like Bruce Doucette wouldn’t listen. And Michael R. Hamilton won’t listen. And Randy Drew wouldn’t listen. And Terry Trussell wouldn’t listen. And Tim Turner wouldn’t listen. And so many, many, many others.
They all insist on calling themselves some kind of United States citizens. They all insist on answering to names. They all insist that they have constitutional rights when United States citizens have never had constitutional rights in over two hundred years…. They all have to try to snow the court under with fancy common law documents that don’t apply and reams of case law that don’t apply.
They just can’t connect to the fact that they are being dragged through a commercial court in international jurisdiction.
And when I try to tell them this, they pause, stare blankly at me, and then go right on with whatever they were doing anyway. It’s like the information hits a “bumper” in their brain and they just reject it like a pinball being tossed aside.
So, please, everyone, this is what I have had to deal with. It isn’t that I haven’t tried or failed my duty to share information or anything else. I have talked and shared until I am blue in the face—- to no avail.
You can lead a horse to water, but….. if the “horse” wants to go to jail, then at a certain point, you just step aside and let him.

[madfranks]

And what matters between the two are where you, an individual, stand within the law (authority and power). Dumbthink mixes two jurisdictions all up and spits out his typical uneducated, unintelligent opinions and views without realizing the two. Its just like what midnight rambler said.......what dumbthink fred doesnt know...........dumbthink fred doesnt know.
The government was given certain authority and powers from the People to be over the People.

It doesnt surprise me you or anyone would come to freds side having the same core opinion of not recognizing those in charge.
And flying under the radar is just another why of enabling.

But what of the authority they claim is legitimately given to them from the people, but is not? Example: do you have the authority to tell your neighbor he cannot eat a certain food, and if he does you will arrest him and put him in a cage? Does your neighbor have this authority over you? What if ten of your neighbors agree that you should not eat a certain food, does the fact that there are more of them than you give them authority to do this? The answer is no. Which means when the government does this under the claim of authority given to them by the people, this is a lie, because what we the people do not have, we cannot delegate to someone else.

[Hitch]

I agree with CT as well. Also, I think there's a difference between "driving" and "traveling". Travel all you want as a free man by walking. Driving means getting behind a several ton vehicle, at high speeds, with the ability to completely harm or kill multiple people around you.

We see this with the Muslim vehicle attacks on people in crowded areas. Maybe they should use the sovereign citizen argument that they were only free to "travel" into all these innocent people? Therefore, it's their right to harm others?

I know the term Sovereign Citizen is wrong to use...but most of them are idiots who want a free ride at the expense of others. The guy "travelling" at a high speed in the first video (OP), in a vehicle, drunk, thinks he has the right to do that? Fucking idiot is going to kill people...and you can't bring people back. We all know that. The point is to stop innocent lives from being lost, before it happens. A lot of common sense laws out there protect us, and I'm all for it.

[7th trump]

But what of the authority they claim is legitimately given to them from the people, but is not? Example: do you have the authority to tell your neighbor he cannot eat a certain food, and if he does you will arrest him and put him in a cage? Does your neighbor have this authority over you? What if ten of your neighbors agree that you should not eat a certain food, does the fact that there are more of them than you give them authority to do this? The answer is no. Which means when the government does this under the claim of authority given to them by the people, this is a lie, because what we the people do not have, we cannot delegate to someone else.

But the fed (Congress) does have power over its subjects....Constitutionally they do and they exercised this authority to free the negro slaves that brought on the Civil War.
Slaves politically were not recognized as equal to the white man. Even if the negro was given freedom by his master he was still not a member of "We the People". After the Civil War the negro is still to this day (2017) not, a member of the "We the People". They are subjects of Congress as they were subject to Congress as slaves before the Civil War.
Congress can do anything they wish to their subjects without getting any approval from "We the People".
Now as long as most of Americans continue to be subject "US citizens" to Congress they (Congress) can pass any law in any form. So if we have a few clowns in DC getting pressure from their constituents to pass laws in their favor then yes theres a huge possibility that your neighbor can dictate what certain foods you can eat. Unfortunately that is the difference between "democracy" and a "republic" form of government. Both forms have to go through the same political process to get laws passed which confuses people.
Best and only remedy is to not become a "US citizen" were 51% can rule the 49% (democracy) and retain your "We the People" political status where democracy doesn't apply.
I've always said the best kept secret and most powerful tool used to subvert the Constitution is Social Security because it absolutely strips every American of his "We the People" political status to a subject US citizen.

[crimethink]

But what of the authority they claim is legitimately given to them from the people, but is not? Example: do you have the authority to tell your neighbor he cannot eat a certain food, and if he does you will arrest him and put him in a cage? Does your neighbor have this authority over you? What if ten of your neighbors agree that you should not eat a certain food, does the fact that there are more of them than you give them authority to do this? The answer is no. Which means when the government does this under the claim of authority given to them by the people, this is a lie, because what we the people do not have, we cannot delegate to someone else.

Further, the concept of "unknowingly surrendering" rights is absurd. Contract law, going back centuries if not millennia, requires all parties to knowingly consent after full disclosure, or knowingly waive that full disclosure.

7th trump's theories actually serve the State, since they shift the blame of loss of rights to the victim.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a concept that is applicable only to malum in se law, that which God has imparted to hearts, which we know, even if pagan, is wrong.

[crimethink]

I agree with CT as well. Also, I think there's a difference between "driving" and "traveling". Travel all you want as a free man by walking. Driving means getting behind a several ton vehicle, at high speeds, with the ability to completely harm or kill multiple people around you.

We see this with the Muslim vehicle attacks on people in crowded areas. Maybe they should use the sovereign citizen argument that they were only free to "travel" into all these innocent people? Therefore, it's their right to harm others?

I know the term Sovereign Citizen is wrong to use...but most of them are idiots who want a free ride at the expense of others. The guy "travelling" at a high speed in the first video (OP), in a vehicle, drunk, thinks he has the right to do that? Fucking idiot is going to kill people...and you can't bring people back. We all know that. The point is to stop innocent lives from being lost, before it happens. A lot of common sense laws out there protect us, and I'm all for it.

I consider the right of travel to be secured under the Ninth Amendment, and, to include the non-reckless use of an automobile or other motorized machine.

The right to drive should be revocable only for cause, such as an egregious violation of the safety of others, such as vehicular manslaughter, great bodily harm by reckless driving, or self-evidently impaired intoxicated driving. Exceeding an arbitrary speed limit? You and I both know that's a speeding tax, and not a safety issue.

However, the "we've got to protect people at all costs" concept is the root of a Total Government, so we must be incredibly careful to avoid it. It leads to disarmament of the population, total surveillance of the population, and, usually, the elimination of "enemies of the people."

[crimethink]

I've always said the best kept secret and most powerful tool used to subvert the Constitution is Social Security because it absolutely strips every American of his "We the People" political status to a subject US citizen.

As noted earlier, your argument is absurd. The only way what you claim would be lawful would be for the US Government to present a document to every American, stating, "I hereby renounce my state citizenship / American nationality in favor of 'US citizenship,' and I understand that I am consenting to the will of the US Government over me, in perpetuity, in all matters."

"Participating" without informed consent gives the US Government no authority as you claim. 99.99% of people (men/women) who participate in Social Security are not aware of anything you claim, and, again, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is unlawful (God's/Natural/common law), immoral, and unethical, and, therefore, of no authority.

Consent of the governed must be explicit, affirmative, and active. Dictators cite "implicit consent."

[7th trump]

As noted earlier, your argument is absurd. The only way what you claim would be lawful would be for the US Government to present a document to every American, stating, "I hereby renounce my state citizenship / American nationality in favor of 'US citizenship,' and I understand that I am consenting to the will of the US Government over me, in perpetuity, in all matters."

"Participating" without informed consent gives the US Government no authority as you claim. 99.99% of people (men/women) who participate in Social Security are not aware of anything you claim, and, again, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is unlawful (God's/Natural/common law), immoral, and unethical, and, therefore, of no authority.

Consent of the governed must be explicit, affirmative, and active. Dictators cite "implicit consent."


Your condescending arrogance trips you up every time.
You're just not going to accept the fact the courts have repeatedly cited that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" aren't you?
Lol...a fool and his follies!
A fool who doesnt research anything is a fool by stupidity, not ignorance but stupidity.

Just what do you think signing a document under penalty of perjury is?
Why as American's are you required to sign government documents under penalty of perjury to being a "US citizen". Never thought of that have you?
Theres plenty of court cases specifically detailing that "US citizens" are second class citizens to "WE the People" state citizens. "US citizens" have congressional civil rights emanating from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where as the "We the People" have the Bill of Rights.

Am I going to have to embarrass and brandish you once again that you have NO clue and you..........really dont know what you dont know as midnight has pointed out?
Your nothing but 30% intelligent and 70% giving head to yourself.
You dont know it all fred and there are people who actually have spend years researching the subject...you have not!

[palani]

the courts have repeatedly cited that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Courts are ignorant if this what they cite. The complete concept is quoted below


IGNORANCE. The want of knowledge.
2. Ignorance is distinguishable from error. Ignorance is want of
knowledge; error is the non-conformity or opposition of our ideas to the
truth.
3. Ignorance and error, are of several kinds. 1. When considered as to
their object, they are of law and of fact. 2. When examined as to their
origin, they are voluntary or involuntary, 3. When viewed with regard to
their influence on the affairs of men, they are essential or non-essential.
4.-1. Ignorance of law and fact. 1. 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.
5.-2. Ignorance of fact, is the want of knowledge as to the fact in
question. Ignorance of the laws of a foreign government, or of
another state; is ignorance of a fact.

So all ignorance is not 'of law'. It might be 'of fact'. And the laws of a foreign government are 'of fact'. Ignorance of a fact is never criminal. You don't know something. You didn't witness something. So what. What makes ignorance of the laws of any government a crime is that you somehow made it a domestic government. You became a part of it. Or you asked for some benefit or privilege and so could no longer claim the government was foreign.

Now as to fact isn't that the jurisdiction of a jury to decide while the judge insists upon his jurisdiction in the law? If you proclaim a government to be foreign and get hauled into court the matter becomes one for the jury to decide rather than the judicial actor. This starts to sound of jury nullification. People who attempt this have the concept correct but have taken the wrong route to get there.

[Bigjon]

As noted earlier, your argument is absurd. The only way what you claim would be lawful would be for the US Government to present a document to every American, stating, "I hereby renounce my state citizenship / American nationality in favor of 'US citizenship,' and I understand that I am consenting to the will of the US Government over me, in perpetuity, in all matters."

"Participating" without informed consent gives the US Government no authority as you claim. 99.99% of people (men/women) who participate in Social Security are not aware of anything you claim, and, again, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is unlawful (God's/Natural/common law), immoral, and unethical, and, therefore, of no authority.

Consent of the governed must be explicit, affirmative, and active. Dictators cite "implicit consent."

The Supreme Court on Trial

I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got charged with Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me to help him. I told him that they have to prove that he willfully failed to file, and I suggested that he should put me on the witness stand.
He should ask me if I spoke at a certain time and place in Scott's Bluff, and did I see him in the audience. He should then ask me what I spoke of that day.

When I got on the stand, I brought out all of the Supreme Court cases I had used with the District Director. I thought I would be lucky to get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me off, but I was reading whole paragraphs -- and the judge didn't stop me. I read one and then another, and so on. And finally, when I had read just about as much as I thought I should, the judge called a recess of the court. I told Bob I thought we had it made. There was just no way that they could rule against him after all that testimony.

So we relaxed. The prosecution presented its case and he decided to rest his defense on my testimony, which showed that he was not required to file, and that the Supreme Court had upheld this position.

The prosecution then presented its closing statements and we were just sure that he had won.

But, at the very end, the judge spoke to the jury and told them, "You will decide the facts of this case, and I will give you the law.

The law required this man to file an Income Tax form. You decide whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The jury convicted him.

Later, some members of the jury said, "What could we do? The man had admitted that he had not filed the form, so we had to convict him."

As soon as the trial was over, I went around to the judge's office and he was just coming in through his back door. I said,"Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing decisions of the United States supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now, how do you, a District Court Judge,have the authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?"

He says, "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don't care how old they are. You have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States Supreme Court in a District Court."

Public Law vs Public Policy He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions."

I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court


UCC 1-207 Review

It is so important to know and understand the meaning of
"Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your signature,
that we should go over this once more. It is very likely that a
judge will ask you what it means. So, please learn and
understand this carefully:


The use of "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with
my signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law
right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that
I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally.


And, furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated
with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
commercial agreement.


Once you state that, it is all the judge needs to hear. Under
the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly,
voluntarily and intentionally by both parties, or it can be
declared void and unenforceable. You are claiming the right not
to be compelled to perform under any contract that you did not
enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And you do
not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of
any unrevealed contract or agreement.


The compelled benefit is the privilege to use Federal
Reserve Notes to discharge your debts with limited liability,
rather than to pay your debts with silver coins. It is a
compelled benefit, because there are no silver coins in
circulation. You have to eat and you can only buy food with the
medium of exchange provided by the government. You are not
allowed to print your own money, so you are compelled to use
theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed
commercial agreement. If you have not made a valid, timely and
explicit reservation of your rights under UCC 1-207, and you
simply exercise this benefit rendered by government, you will be
obligated, under an implied agreement7, to obey every statute,
ordinance and regulation passed by government at all levels --
federal, State and local.

[Dogman]

Go to to love the copy and paste lover's walls of text is lovely.

Not

Mary here reminds me of of cattle, you know the ones incapable of independent thought and action

Very sad

Sent using Forum Runner

[Dogman]

Go to to love the copy and paste lover's walls of text is lovely.

Not

Sent using Forum Runner

Sent using Forum Runner

[Bigjon]

Go to to love the copy and paste lover's walls of text is lovely.

Not

Mary here reminds me of of cattle, you know the ones incapable of independent thought and action

Very sad

Sent using Forum Runner

Ad hominem

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance

[palani]

"Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions."

He gets PAID in public policy MONEY. If he were paid in gold/silver/constitutional money he would be acknowledging LAW instead.

We tend to support the position that produces the best marginal utility FOR US. Nothing strange about that. As long as the restaurant and slum lords insist upon PUBLIC POLICY NOTES then the system will be producing STRANGE LAW.

[monty]

Roosevelt's court packing legislation failed to pass, but the Erie Railroad case laid new tracks federal courts . . .

Local case laid new tracks for federal courts

Article Tools


The lawsuit filed by a Hughestown man who had his arm severed by the Ashley Special train looked like a gruesome, but garden-variety liability case.

When it got to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, it overturned a century of federal court procedure and set a cornerstone of the modern judiciary.

The local legal community and a panel of experts gathered at Steamtown National Historic Site Tuesday to mark the 75th anniversary of the conclusion of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the case that prompted the 1938 U.S. Supreme Court decision considered by many to be one of most significant cases in the court’s history.

Law schools celebrate the decision. Some law students even wrote a rock opera about the case. And the author of the majority opinion, Justice Louis Brandeis, has been immortalized as a bobblehead doll riding the Erie locomotive 2499, The Ashley Special.

Yet, few non-lawyers are aware of the local origins of the landmark case, which lacks the real-world impact of a decision such as Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education or Miranda v. Arizona.

Lackawanna County Judge Margaret Bisignani Moyle admitted she hadn’t thought about the case much since law school.

“Even then, it hadn’t dawned on me that it was local,” she told the roughly 200 attorneys, students and members of the public about the case that eliminated federal general common law.

“But here is a local case that changed history, beginning with an unfortunate accident.”

On the morning of July 27, 1934, the Ashley Special was headed from Hughestown to Ashley. Harry Tompkins, a 27-year-old metal worker, walked alongside the tracks, as he and others did every day. Something from the train struck Tompkins, he fell and his arm was severed.

Tompkins’ legal team included Scranton native William G. Walsh, who at 35 was already an experienced trial lawyer in New York City, said Robert T. Gownley Jr., Scranton attorney and nephew of Walsh. Facing him was the retainer firm for Erie Railroad headed by John W. Davis, a former presidential candidate who had argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any attorney in history. While outgunned, Tompkins’ legal team won in federal trial court and the circuit court of appeals, earning a judgment for $30,000, the equivalent off $900,000 today.

“Tompkins never received it,” Gownley said. “The Supreme Court interpreted that judicial act differently. The Tompkins case was not the highlight of my uncle’s distinguished career.”

There were bigger issues at play on the national level.

Several justices decried “forum shopping” in which litigants would relocate, or businesses incorporate, in a different state to file a diversity claim in federal court, where judges were free to disregard state laws and make up their own law, noted Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie. Justices were also concerned about President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme, which some feared could reduce the independence of the judiciary and lead to an overreach in federal authority and “judge-made” law.
The court’s majority — ruling against Tompkins and taking a step neither side had requested — held that the Constitution recognizes and preserves the autonomy of states in their legislative and judicial departments, and that “the federal judiciary invaded rights reserved by the Constitution to the states,” Vanaskie said.

Tompkins’ case was sent back to the lower court. Under Pennsylvania law, Tompkins was a trespasser on railroad land. He had to prove “wanton misconduct,” a high burden.

He failed.

“The rules for deciding cases in force since the founding of the country would also become victims of the train,” Vanaskie said. “Harry Tompkins’ case stands shoulder to shoulder with other events of significance.”

dfalchek@timesshamrock.com

[Dogman]

Ad hominem

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance You should know..seeing a professionals hand.

[palani]

Part of Roosevelts 'new deal' involved packing the supreme court with his appointees. The issue was that there were no common law contracts possible unless either gold or silver changed hands. The old court knew this. The new court that Roosevelt wanted would have created a new system of law that would throw out the common law then in existence. Roosevelt failed to pack the supreme court but made it perfectly clear that he would continue attacking them until he finally got his way. A deal was cut. Thompkins was the result. The old appointees gave in, the sheet line was drawn taut and the ship of state jibbed on a different course based upon the direction of the current wind and the proximity of shallow water.

[monty]

He gets PAID in public policy MONEY. If he were paid in gold/silver/constitutional money he would be acknowledging LAW instead.

We tend to support the position that produces the best marginal utility FOR US. Nothing strange about that. As long as the restaurant and slum lords insist upon PUBLIC POLICY NOTES then the system will be producing STRANGE LAW.





GORDON BISHOP
ON THE ISSUESby Gordon Bishop
Syndicated Columnist
gordon@ahherald.com





published Atlantic Highlands Herald (http://www.ahherald.com/index.html)
5 February 2004





TAXPAYERS STILL PAYING FOR USA’S ‘BANKRUPTCY’ IN 1930 (http://www.greatdreams.com/political/1930-bankruptcy.htm)

What you are about to read is America’s best-kept secret.

From 1928 to 1932, there were five years of “Geneva Conventions.” The free nations of the world met in Geneva, Switzerland for five continuous years to set up what would be the “bankrupt policy” of all the participating nations.

In 1930, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and other countries all declared bankruptcy.

It was the result of the stock market crash of 1929. The Great Depression triggered the bankruptcies.
However, if you try to look up the 1930 volume containing the minutes of what happened, you probably will not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation, or is hidden in the library and is difficult to locate.

This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.

Going into 1932, the bankrupt nations stopped meeting in Geneva.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States.

Roosevelt’s job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier.

America’s “Corporate Government” needed a key Supreme Court decision to implement the bankruptcy plan.

The “corporate” United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy started in 1930-31.

The bankruptcy became “official” when Roosevelt came into office, although the public was not aware of the “declaration of bankruptcy” in Geneva by the United States.

Roosevelt was sworn in as President in January 1933. He started right away on the bankruptcy plan with what is historically known as “The Banking Holiday” – when the banks closed for a few “holidays” as millions of customers were pulling their money out of the banks.

Roosevelt proceeded in pulling in gold coin to get the gold out of circulation.

Roosevelt then began to “stack” the Supreme Court with close associates who would vote on one Supreme Court case to support the bankruptcy plan.

There was bitter resistance to Roosevelt’s “stacking the court” with his most trusted legal advisers.
Some of the Justices on the Supreme Court tried to warn the nation that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts.

Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were overturned.

Roosevelt was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of the land.

A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the “Corporate U.S.” had already declared bankruptcy.

The “Corporate U.S.” had to be created to replace the Constitutionally created United States of America by our founding fathers and the original 13 colonies after the American Revolution in 1776.
The massive restructuting of American government was in response to a world-wide economic depression.

The bankers who held the debt for the United States and other countries told these nations’ leaders:
“You can do it either of two ways. The easy way or the hard way. You just accept the bankruptcy and we’ll let you out of the depression. If you don’t, you’re on your own.”

The bankers, led by the Rothschilds in Europe and the Rockefellers in America, by way of the U.S. Federal Reserve bankers literally had the bankrupt nations by the throat.

These bankrupt nations agreed that over a period of several years they would pass the necessary laws for the implementation of the bankruptcy in favor of the international bankers.

America: A Nation of Debtors and Creditors
The plan developed by President Roosevelt in the 1930s became America’s “corporate public policy.”

It is known as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

Each State in the U.S. unwittingly adopted the Code, not knowing that it compelled every taxpayer to pay off the nation’s bankruptcy debt declared in 1930 and implemented by President Roosevelt.

The Uniform Commercial Code became the law of the land.

The Code involves debtors and creditors.

Every legal action where you are brought before the court, you find yourself, since 1938, before an “equity court.”

Our courts (“equity” courts) administer commercial law having a debtor/creditor law as the controlling law.

Today we have an “equity court system” – but not an “equity court” as referred to in the United States Constitution or any of the legal documents before 1938 (the year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Erie Railroad vs. Thompson).

That case laid the groundwork for all legal transactions in the United States.

The “equity court” was created by Corporate United States, itself a creation of the world banking system in the 1930s.

The U.S. Constitution created by our founders and the 13 colonies – that original “United States of America” – no longer exists. It was replaced by the “Corporate United States” to deal with the corporate national debt.

None of the sovereign states were represented in this dictatorial change of America’s judicial and financial system.

All the courts of this once great and free land have been changed, starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in Erie vs. Thompson. The court, of course, ruled in favor of the creditor, thus creating the “legal” foundation for the Unified Commercial Code – more accurately, the “illegal” foundation for the Unified Commercial Code.

The federal government had to destroy all other case law that had been established before 1938. (Incidentally, I was born January 1, 1938.)

The federal government had to have a case (Erie vs. Thompson) to destroy all precedence, all appearance and even the statute of law itself.

That is, the “Statute at Large” had to be perverted and subverted.

America and its citizens were fiscally raped – and never knew it until these recent disclosures.
It was right after the Erie/Thompson case that the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws created the Code that is on all taxpayers’ backs today.

In reality, our legal and judicial system of “Corporate America” is an illegal system imposed on the taxpayers to force them to pay off the bankruptcy debt in 1930 – a debt that will never be paid off.
(Note: The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – establishing a federal income tax) – was also illegally created by the federal government in 1913. There is no evidence that the 38 states at that time approved of the federal income tax. That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, where it has been for several years. The only way to resolve this illegal act is for another American Tax Revolution that led to this nation’s creation more than 225 years ago.)

The “illegal”Unified Commercial Code was, of course, approved by the American Bar Association in 1952, which makes that organization also an illegal operation.

By the middle 1960s, every state had unknowingly passed the UCC into law.

Washington, D.C., adopted the Uniform Commercial Code into law, just six weeks after President John Kennedy was assassinated.

Who represents the illegal “Corporate United States?”

All of its public agencies and institutions, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Parks, Post Office, EPA, etc.

The federal government freely gives the land, its personnel and the money it collects from taxpayers via the IRS and its “State Corporations” to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for the federal 1930 bankruptcy debt.

The United Nations and the International Bankers use the money and services for various worldwide projects including war. War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers of the New World Order.

Loans for destruction. Loans for reconstruction. Loans for controlling people on federal property.
What a legal disaster for all taxpayers – the source and hope of America’s freedom and independence.

America’s Taxpayers Are Forever Beholden To The Banks
The federal government put all 50 sovereign states into bankruptcy without their knowledge or approval.

Ironically, the sovereign States created the federal government, beginning with the original 13 colonies following the successful American Revolution.

The federal government ultimately took over its creators.

Finally, there is a legal way for taxpayers to expose the “illegal deal” made by officials of Corporate America and implemented by President Roosevelt during his four terms in office, the first and last President ever to hold office for four terms. Only the rich and powerful can make that happen.

Here’s what a taxpayer can do:
If you have to appear in court on any matter, from a traffic ticket to a real estate problem, simply ask the judge that you would like “to know the true nature and cause of the action” against you.

Since 1930, a defendant has never been told the “true nature and cause of the action” that led to America’s bankruptcy.” Revealing the truth of that “nature and cause” would mean the end of a corporate federal government and all of its laws since 1930.

What a financial and judicial mess that would make for those who have literally enslaved taxpayers over the past 70 years – the Corporate Government in Washington, D.C.

If you asked the courts, as the defendant in a case, about the “true nature and cause of the action,” the court is forbidden to tell you that information.

That’s why if you question the “true nature and cause,” the judge will say, “It’s not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can’t give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer.”

The problem with that suggestion is that the American Bar Association is part of the bankruptcy plan. Judges are also lawyers, from the local magistrate to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Taxpayers will never know the truth as long as the present judicial/financial system remains in place to subvert the truth of America’s declared bankruptcy in 1930.

What would really blow the judges and courts away would be to compel the International Bankers to send a lawyer to the courtroom and present himself as the attorney for the “true creditor” (the International Bankers).

If at any time you decide to balk at this scheme because you don’t like it, the real creditor never has to make an appearance in court to list the “true nature and cause of action” being brought against you.

You end up dealing with an agency. The agency can conveniently grant itself immunity from prosecution because all it is doing (without your knowledge, of course) is administering the bankruptcy, which the government agreed during the Geneva meetings in Switzerland in 1930.
Our only weapon against a rogue government is to expose it.

(Gordon Bishop, a national award-winning author, historian and syndicated columnist, is the recipient of 8 Congressional Commendations and is New Jersey’s first “Journalist-of-the-Year” – 1986/New Jersey Press Association.)

[crimethink]

You're just not going to accept the fact the courts have repeatedly cited that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" aren't you?


"Courts"?! LOL

"Courts" are unelected, arbitrary mechanisms of unchecked power, but not necessarily authority. In most cases, no authority.

Only the law placed in our hearts by God Almighty can be expected to be known by all. Only satanic shysters insist we are obligated to know all of their "laws."

For some reason, you worship these black-robed evil-doers. Why is that?




Why as American's are you required to sign government documents under penalty of perjury to being a "US citizen".


I've never done that. Only you have.




You dont know it all fred and there are people who actually have spend years researching the subject...you have not!

Each of the fools in the videos I have posted spent years researching magic words, and, as all can see, not a single one of those words stopped them from being beaten and put in chains, or otherwise punished.

It's the reason you won't reveal yourself to the IRS; you know that you'll be facing huge fines or years in a cage if the IRS learns about your schemes. Your schemes "work" only because they don't know you're engaging in them.

[crimethink]

Public Law vs Public Policy He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions."

I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy.

Tyrannical public policy has been implemented since the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and expanded under the Sedition Act of 1798. Why some people still operate under the delusion something magically "changed" with the Federal regime in the era of Dishonest Abe, 1868, or the era of FDR, I do not know.

The Federal regime has operated on accord of sheer power, and not authority, since 1789, when it discarded the Articles of Confederation and assumed vastly expanded power without consent of the governed. Free men have been fighting a defensive, losing war ever since.

[crimethink]

Roosevelt's court packing legislation failed to pass, but the Erie Railroad case laid new tracks federal courts . . .

Congress had...and has...the power to erase in totality the meaning of Erie, but chooses not. Largely, Congress does nothing because the American "justice" system is an instrument of business. In fact, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., back in 1886, is far more deadly to freedom than Erie ever could be. Because, while the Federal regime was created as and is always a tool of money, Southern Pacific gave "human rights" to corporations, and ever since corporations have driven the actions of the Federal regime...making it ever more malevolent to both Americans, and the people of Earth.

[crimethink]

The problem of the Supreme Court goes back to the Constitution itself, but its assumption of executive & legislative power under Marbury started the snowball which became an avalanche smothering personal freedom.

The idea that nine unelected "justices" can overturn the will of the elected representatives of Congress, or even the Will of the American People, is absurd and outrageous. It's something only a servitude-minded fool accepts. People should know better than to cite Supreme Court "rulings" as decrees from God.

[palani]

The federal government had to have a case (Erie vs. Thompson) ...
Sure would have been a more effective article if this author had gotten the case cite right (it is Erie vs Tompkins)

[palani]

George Gordon had a story he liked to speak of. Say the MPs show up at your door with a warrant for your arrest based upon the fact that you are AWOL from Ft Eustis. You get hauled into military court for the court martial. It is true that you have no leave to be absent from Ft Eustis but unless you bring up the point that YOU ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY and subject to their laws you will be tried and convicted. The charge is AWOL. The facts are you have no leave but unless you bring to the courts attention you are guilty. It is called CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE. "I did it but so what? There is no law forbidding it and I have the right?"

Another way of doing this is to plead guilty of the facts but not the controversy. The reason there is another way is the courts no longer recognize CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE. The record is closed as soon as a guilty plea is entered and if you do it quickly enough there will be no facts on the record. Upon appeal the appellate court might have the law but they don't have the facts by which to fit the incident to the law.

Choosing contract is a risky business. I know a guy who was in federal court with a 'rogue' attorney. The guy got parole while the attorney got 11 months in the slammer with no charges (I suppose it was a contempt situation). Later the guy gets 3 1/2 years of federal time while the attorney got by with his original incarceration. This is where the contracting becomes risky. Things like accepting booking or the carrot of being released on the good abearing will ultimately cost many times more than any benefit derived.

[7th trump]

"Courts"?! LOL

"Courts" are unelected, arbitrary mechanisms of unchecked power, but not necessarily authority. In most cases, no authority.

Only the law placed in our hearts by God Almighty can be expected to be known by all. Only satanic shysters insist we are obligated to know all of their "laws."

For some reason, you worship these black-robed evil-doers. Why is that?




I've never done that. Only you have.




Each of the fools in the videos I have posted spent years researching magic words, and, as all can see, not a single one of those words stopped them from being beaten and put in chains, or otherwise punished.

It's the reason you won't reveal yourself to the IRS; you know that you'll be facing huge fines or years in a cage if the IRS learns about your schemes. Your schemes "work" only because they don't know you're engaging in them.
Fred is so full of shit he makes GSUS stinky.
I always revert back to fred being controlled opposition because he has an answer for everything that goes against reason. What agency do you work for fred?

Scheme?
The IRS has never assessed any tax from -0- or an activity that wasn't taxable....ever!
Show me one instance where they have.
Cant use drug dealers because that activity, even though illegal, is taxable.

You wont find any fred. I've looked and searched and searched and looked. Been researching the tax laws since 1998.

[7th trump]

The problem of the Supreme Court goes back to the Constitution itself, but its assumption of executive & legislative power under Marbury started the snowball which became an avalanche smothering personal freedom.

The idea that nine unelected "justices" can overturn the will of the elected representatives of Congress, or even the Will of the American People, is absurd and outrageous. It's something only a servitude-minded fool accepts. People should know better than to cite Supreme Court "rulings" as decrees from God.


Hey fred!!
Why dont you just put a .45 between your eyes and get it over with.
Seems the world (courts, laws, governments, peace, religion, truth and justice) and everyone in it are just a lost cause. You have all the answers and we're just stupid unworthy sheep....lmao!
The only time you agree is when someone agrees with your opinion.

The world has to be a depressing, stenchy shit hole to someone like you.
Whats it like to be divine and supreme?

[7th trump]

"Courts"?! LOL

"Courts" are unelected, arbitrary mechanisms of unchecked power, but not necessarily authority. In most cases, no authority.

Only the law placed in our hearts by God Almighty can be expected to be known by all. Only satanic shysters insist we are obligated to know all of their "laws."

For some reason, you worship these black-robed evil-doers. Why is that?




I've never done that. Only you have.




Each of the fools in the videos I have posted spent years researching magic words, and, as all can see, not a single one of those words stopped them from being beaten and put in chains, or otherwise punished.

It's the reason you won't reveal yourself to the IRS; you know that you'll be facing huge fines or years in a cage if the IRS learns about your schemes. Your schemes "work" only because they don't know you're engaging in them.

Show me a (1) law that says I have to sign a W4.

[Hitch]

I consider the right of travel to be secured under the Ninth Amendment, and, to include the non-reckless use of an automobile or other motorized machine.

The right to drive should be revocable only for cause, such as an egregious violation of the safety of others, such as vehicular manslaughter, great bodily harm by reckless driving, or self-evidently impaired intoxicated driving. Exceeding an arbitrary speed limit? You and I both know that's a speeding tax, and not a safety issue.

You know, there's no actual speed limit. The VC states driving "safe for conditions" and the speed limit posted is just a recommendation. If you got pulled over and given a ticket for being above the recommended limit, try fighting it. Show that your car is rated to be safely operated at a higher speed, there was no traffic around, no wind, etc...you'll likely get that ticket removed.

My point is, some people are stupid. Common sense laws protect us from these stupid people. A driver's license requires you to pass two tests, a written one, and a practical one demonstrating that you can safely operate a vehicle that could quite possibly kill others. I'm all for it. It removes a good portion of stupid people who should not be driving.

I don't have a license to fly an airplane. I'm not stupid though, I know that if I try to get behind the helm of one, I'll likely crash and endanger others. Common sense laws.

Another thing, some of these "free men" who don't have licenses or insurance seem to think they are perfect. Again, that's stupid. All people make mistakes. I don't have insurance just for me, but for others on the road. If I make a mistake and cause an accident, I can make things right and pay for the damages. What happens if palani rear ends you on the roadway? Is he going to pay for the damages? I like to think he will, but if people think they are perfect...then they think others are always at fault. I just don't trust a lot of these "free men" folks.

[palani]

What happens if palani rear ends you on the roadway? Is he going to pay for the damages?

I have "People".

You are delusional if you think being responsible is having insurance. That is actually irresponsible.

Remember that Seinfeld episode where a guy has an accident with him and the judge makes him Seinfelds butler for a year? I believe it was the opening episode where they were trying to think up plots. The idea of making Seinfeld whole by a year of butlering is compelled performance. The accident is a tort (a non-contractual action).

Then remember the last episode where they not only failed to come to the aid of a fat man being robbed but were caught on camera even joking about it? They call that a 'good Samaritan law'.

Everything between the starting episode and the finish episode built up the connection between the beginning and the end.

[Hitch]

I have "People".

You are delusional if you think being responsible is having insurance. That is actually irresponsible.

Remember that Seinfeld episode where a guy has an accident with him and the judge makes him Seinfelds butler for a year? I believe it was the opening episode where they were trying to think up plots. The idea of making Seinfeld whole by a year of butlering is compelled performance. The accident is a tort (a non-contractual action).

Then remember the last episode where they not only failed to come to the aid of a fat man being robbed but were caught on camera even joking about it? They call that a 'good Samaritan law'.

Everything between the starting episode and the finish episode built up the connection between the beginning and the end.

So, the answer to my question is clear. If you, as an uninsured driver with no insurance, would cite Seinfeld after rear ending someone and causing damages.

This is the biggest issue with people like yourself. All you do is "talk" about philosophy, fix the guy's damn car you hit....The guy babbling on after getting busted drinking and driving is another perfect example. All he does is "talk" to the judge about a bunch of BS that has no meaning to any sort of reality.

[crimethink]

Fred is so full of shit he makes GSUS stinky.
I always revert back to fred being controlled opposition because he has an answer for everything that goes against reason. What agency do you work for fred?


I work for the Ministry of Stupidity Abatement. That's why I never let up on you.




The IRS has never assessed any tax from -0- or an activity that wasn't taxable....ever!
Show me one instance where they have.


Just as soon as you write that letter to the IRS I've suggested, you'll have a personal demonstration.

[crimethink]

The only time you agree is when someone agrees with your opinion.


When someone's opinion correlates highly with the facts, I'm pleased to agree with them.

[crimethink]

Show me a (1) law that says I have to sign a W4.

Write that letter to the IRS and show us you don't.

[palani]

If you, as an uninsured driver with no insurance, would cite Seinfeld after rear ending someone and causing damages.
The common law answer to the 'uninsured' part is to post a bond. But I prefer to completely separate the fictional from the real and just let my 'People' handle everything.

I would go the common law route but nobody follows common law any more. Isn't it ridiculous to wave a 1 oz gold coin around when all anyone wants is hundred dollar bills?

I am responsible for everything in my universe.

Even you.

[crimethink]

You know, there's no actual speed limit. The VC states driving "safe for conditions" and the speed limit posted is just a recommendation. If you got pulled over and given a ticket for being above the recommended limit, try fighting it. Show that your car is rated to be safely operated at a higher speed, there was no traffic around, no wind, etc...you'll likely get that ticket removed.


California does have an actual speed limit, as do most states. VC 22348 et. seq. covers this, with VC 22356 establishing 70 as the maximum legal speed limit on specific highways (VC 22349 sets the maximum speed as 65 otherwise).

The basic speed limit ("reasonable or prudent") you refer to is VC 22350.




My point is, some people are stupid. Common sense laws protect us from these stupid people. A driver's license requires you to pass two tests, a written one, and a practical one demonstrating that you can safely operate a vehicle that could quite possibly kill others. I'm all for it. It removes a good portion of stupid people who should not be driving.


"Common sense laws" is a mantra of liberals. Trouble is, most of them are not "common sense."

Waiting period for an abortion? Liberals shriek. Literacy or knowledge tests to vote? Liberals shriek. ID required to vote? Liberals shriek.

Further, licensing does not prevent unlicensed drivers or reckless drivers. It is a revenue enhancement scheme for the State.




I don't have a license to fly an airplane. I'm not stupid though, I know that if I try to get behind the helm of one, I'll likely crash and endanger others. Common sense laws.


Absurdity, actually. Not having a license is not going to prevent you from flying a plane.




Another thing, some of these "free men" who don't have licenses or insurance seem to think they are perfect. Again, that's stupid. All people make mistakes.


More dangerous are the so-called "lawmakers" who think they are perfect. Why don't we have licenses for legislators? (we both know why - they don't like being subjected to their own decrees)




What happens if palani rear ends you on the roadway? Is he going to pay for the damages?


What if one of the millions of illegals that California's "government" gives "sanctuary" rear ends you on the roadway?




I just don't trust a lot of these "free men" folks.

These "free men" don't have an army of enforcers to compel us to do their will.

[crimethink]

Related discussions here:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?95232-There-is-no-law-that-forces-us-to-be-US-CITIZENS

[Hitch]

What if one of the millions of illegals that California's "government" gives "sanctuary" rear ends you on the roadway?

It would be be the same thing if Palani rear ends you on the roadway. Illegals = palani. Same difference.

Nobody answers this question. The answer, is your fucked. If palani or one of the millions of illegals rear ends you, you are paying for it yourself. They will not help you.

[Hitch]

If Palani rear ends you, it's your fault, you were impeding his right to travel.

If you rear end Palani, you are impeding his right to travel, plus damages. It's your fault.

If you drive a bus into innocent people for Islam, they were impeding your right to travel. That's A-OK.

I figure if we are not an Islamist, or a "free man", we're fucked.

[crimethink]

I figure if we are not an Islamist, or a "free man", we're fucked.

Malum prohibitum "law" is only for the obedient. Mooslims do not obey infidels, except at gunpoint.

[palani]

your fucked.... rear ends you

You must be a member of the rainbow coalition.

I cannot damage you more than you have damaged yourself.

If I were to hit your bumper how would you be able to tell ..... your rear end has been dinged too many times.

[7th trump]

I work for the Ministry of Stupidity Abatement. That's why I never let up on you.




Just as soon as you write that letter to the IRS I've suggested, you'll have a personal demonstration. So you are admitting you have no clue about income taxes...thank you!

[crimethink]

So you are admitting you have no clue about income taxes...thank you!

Your refusal to write the letter to the IRS, with two ounces of gold offered for your troubles, is admission from you that your theories are 100% unequivocally, inarguably BULLSHIT.

[7th trump]

Your refusal to write the letter to the IRS, with two ounces of gold offered for your troubles, is admission from you that your theories are 100% unequivocally, inarguably BULLSHIT.

Lmao...
This letter is nothing more than you wanting me to jump through hoops to satisfy your demand for authority.
You lack any and all authority over anyone to prove anything.

I do not have to prove shit to you on how taxes work grasshopper. If you dont want to learn then dont. Its no skin off my back. You can keep paying your taxes like a chump!
There is not any law any of the 50 US titles that compels anyone to participate in Social Security to have to sign a W4.

You on the other hand havent yet come up with any proof participation is compelled.
The ball is in your court...have fun researching the laws. Its not my problem you positioned yourself foolishly against the law.

[crimethink]

This letter is nothing more than you wanting me to jump through hoops to satisfy your demand for authority....There is not any law any of the 50 US titles that compels anyone to participate in Social Security to have to sign a W4.

You are afraid to write the letter. You are a coward.

[7th trump]

you are afraid to write the letter. You are a coward.


lol!

[crimethink]

lol!

The laughing coward.

[7th trump]

The laughing coward.

Coward? Naa!
Just not playing your game. Eventually I will get to that thread about taxes. It will be enlightening to others showing you're nothing but a doubting asshole claiming to be a Christian.
Just an opinionated controlling dickhead that really knows nothing.

[crimethink]

Coward? Naa!
Just not playing your game. Eventually I will get to that thread about taxes. It will be enlightening to others showing you're nothing but a doubting asshole claiming to be a Christian.
Just an opinionated controlling dickhead that really knows nothing.

==

Tell you what Horn, if you can stop sucking palini's pussy long enough, why don't you enlighten me on the subject of "lawful money".


No commentary necessary.

[7th trump]

No commentary necessary.

You're probably correct no commentary is necessary.
Everyone here knows you're a phony christian.