A Lawyer Disbarred For Digging Too Deeply

[palani]

If I recall from my Jean Keating studies the Hall book reveals that admiralty (including maritime and commerce) is all about who has the best bond. Whoever's bond is the highest rated wins.

I tend to stay away from debtor and creditor concepts as these deal with money. Once you remove the money issue these notions morph into honor and dishonor. Before you can become comfortable dealing with society in all its possible combinations and permutations of relationships it is necessary to study these concepts so that you can reject them timely (or else dishonor follows).

[Awoke]

Awoke, you are in Canada, yes? You are very fortunate because your statutes make no bones about somethings politic and with regards to God given rights. I think it's nearly time to introduce you to Claim of Right.

Please, continue.

[Awoke]

When someone encounters the law and goes through process they will be subject to attachment (stapled), lien and secured interests on their person. You are both a vassal and property. Merchants in Admiralty will treat you as such according to the situation.

I'm really enjoying this thread.

How does a living man or living woman supercede the authority of the legislative courts?
(I am understanding that every court is not an Article III court, and is therefore legislative. Over the last couple days, I am coming to an understanding that the parties who are going to go through the system together need to "create" the Article III court by submitting some forms of paperwork, notifying all involved parties that they are to be held to their Oaths of Office)

If there are two (or more) Constitutions, how do we back up our claim that our rights are unalienable?

[Glass]

Please, continue.

Something to remember. A claim un-rebutted stands as fact.

Grab a copy of your federal Crimes Act. Take a look in there for Claim of Right. A searchable online version will help. Have a read. It's worth reading the whole act but lets cut to the chase. I guess I better go refresh some brain matters.

[dys]

Personally I believe that arguments pertaining to the Constitution are a distraction/red herring. One of the best things I ever read when I got into this game is that all of the people making arguments pertaining to consitutional rights should be arguing unaliable rights. What obligates the people to be subject to the 14th amendment, or any constitutional limitation of rights for that matter? Remember, circa declaration of independence- the purpose of government is to secure rights, not to limit or constrain them.

dys

[Glass]

I'm really enjoying this thread.

How does a living man or living woman supercede the authority of the legislative courts?
(I am understanding that every court is not an Article III court, and is therefore legislative. Over the last couple days, I am coming to an understanding that the parties who are going to go through the system together need to "create" the Article III court by submitting some forms of paperwork, notifying all involved parties that they are to be held to their Oaths of Office)

If there are two (or more) Constitutions, how do we back up our claim that our rights are unalienable?

As palani might tell you, being out of commerce is the only sure fire way to be unalienable. I shouldn't speak for others though.

I think you're on to it. as to courts. I think different courts for different things. Remember a secured party of interest has power. I think the freeman is unalienable. He's been documented since the mid 1600's at least. The Magna Carta was written for him. I think ultimately thats the place to be. At liberty and self governing.

[palani]

being out of commerce is the only sure fire way to be unalienable.

The ONLY things that are unalienable are the things you CANNOT alien. As far as I know these things that are unalienable have only one single attribute in common: you don't own them. You might try to sell something you don't own but society frowns on this type of activity.

Being an owner has in its root the concept of "owe". An owner might buy on time.

Possibly that is the reason for the shift to the concept of "inalienable", dealing with things your SHOULDN'T alien rather with things that you CANNOT alien. The queen could sell the crown jewels in order to put a new roof on Buckingham Palace but she SHOULDN'T (according to popular opinion).

[Awoke]

all of the people making arguments pertaining to consitutional rights should be arguing unaliable rights.

Agreed. God-Given, Creator endowed, unalienable rights.

What obligates the people to be subject to the 14th amendment, or any constitutional limitation of rights for that matter? Remember, circa declaration of independence- the purpose of government is to secure rights, not to limit or constrain them.

Given this line of thinking, I would go a step further, and say that the laws that Jesus Christ said were written on our hearts pre-date the Declaration of Independance. Which opens up another can of worms, that Glass touches on...

I think you're on to it. as to courts. I think different courts for different things. Remember a secured party of interest has power. I think the freeman is unalienable. He's been documented since the mid 1600's at least. The Magna Carta was written for him. I think ultimately thats the place to be. At liberty and self governing.

I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of the Father and Creator. Jesus predates and supercedes even the Magna Carta. So what does that mean? Where does that leave me?
I just got a traffic ticket last week. Am I to go to court, and declare it to be void because it is not an Article III court? Am I to refuse to give them the Fiat they demand? Am I to continue driving to work if they remove my Drivers licence?

As palani might tell you, being out of commerce is the only sure fire way to be unalienable. I shouldn't speak for others though.

How can a living man function without being in commerce? As far as the questions above, if I don't pay the fiat, they will "take" my licence from me. Then I supposedly can't drive to my job, which in turn will mean I can't pay my mortgage, etc.
How would a living man make any of this apply?

I am not posing these questions to be difficult: These are real questions. I need some answers. I don't know where to find them.


Here is the biggest hang up:
Afaic, the law of God predates and overrules any man made laws, including the Constitution, the BNA act, the Articles of the Confederacy, the Magna Carta, etc.
So how can a living man claim himself to be sovereign, and then refer to ANY of those documents to "prove" he is sovereign? Given that Gods Law on our hearts trumps any other man made law, why would the living man need to refer to any of these documents at all?

I really appreciate you guys taking time to address these issues. I have a real desire to shake of the shackles.

[palani]

I just got a traffic ticket last week. Am I to go to court, and declare it to be void because it is not an Article III court? Am I to refuse to give them the Fiat they demand? Am I to continue driving to work if they remove my Drivers licence?

Why argue? That is the path of dishonor.

Counteroffer instead. Of course the time to do this was along the side of the road.

How can a living man function without being in commerce? As far as the questions above, if I don't pay the fiat, they will "take" my licence from me. Then I supposedly can't drive to my job, which in turn will mean I can't pay my mortgage, etc.
How would a living man make any of this apply?

You are still in the fiat world. As long as you stay there someone will have their hands out to take your fiat from you. If you don't have any fiat then there are two paths: impossibility or involuntary servitude. It is impossible to do something that is beyond your ability so there is no dishonor. If you try to do something to get fiat for someone else then you have engaged in involuntary servitude (unless you agree to do it).

[Awoke]

Why argue? That is the path of dishonor.

Counteroffer instead. Of course the time to do this was along the side of the road.

Could you please post a fictional dialogue that might have taken place between myself and the NWO pig if I had have counteroffered as you recommend?

You are still in the fiat world. As long as you stay there someone will have their hands out to take your fiat from you. If you don't have any fiat then there are two paths: impossibility or involuntary servitude. It is impossible to do something that is beyond your ability so there is no dishonor. If you try to do something to get fiat for someone else then you have engaged in involuntary servitude (unless you agree to do it).

So how can a living man be sovereign and also own a home and vehicles, and purchase/aquire food for his family?