The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: UCC = civil laws copyright. Civil law is > to commmon law. Strawman Alert  (Read 5413 times)

mothercirce

  • Guest

The Uniform Commercial code, is a copyrighted set of statues that that all 50 us states have adopted. It is commercial, equity, and admirality code. It is not common law. UNIDROIT is the copyright holder of the UCC. America pays UNIDROIT 260,000 a year to use it's copyrighted statutes. UNIDROIT is headquarterd in Vatican city. All civil law is based upon roman law and canon law. Do you understand the depth of these lines ? The oldest corporation on earth = the Vatican. The united states is a corporation. So is the supreme court and every police station. We are all legal fiction. We are slave. There is remedy, UCC 1-308.

http://www.unidroit.org/

http://www.unidroit.org/about-unidroit/membership

https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&productId=0&searchType=BSF&state=DC&bstSiteSearchUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fcreditreports.dnb.com%2Fm%2Fsearch-results.html%3Fq%3D&searchPerform=true&hiddenSessionId=-1475581918&busName=united+states&country=US&usState=DC&caState=&noState=#goTop

https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&searchType=BSF&busName=supreme%20court%20of%20the%20united%20states&state=DC&country=US&cm_mmc=dnb-_-home-_-retail-_-lookup_-topbar#goTop

https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&searchType=BSF&busName=boston%20police&state=MA&country=US&cm_mmc=dnb-_-home-_-retail-_-lookup_-topbar#goTop

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308

Logged

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6846
    • End the War on Freedom

I've seen lots of stuff about this over the years. I've also read of some people who appear to have won in the courts using these ideas. Reading it usually makes my brain hurt. But it reeks of the same legal nonsense put forth by the zero tax return folks. Might be strictly legal, but if it starts to threaten the extortion racket, it will stop working, and fast. Don't trust your life and liberty to it.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

mothercirce

  • Guest

Might be strictly legal, but if it starts to threaten the extortion racket, it will stop working, and fast. Don't trust your life and liberty to it.

Very True.

I am interested in understanding the reality of our collective situation. There is only one way to protect our common law birth rights. When you go into a court room, you are unarmed, on your knees begging your master for something. The court is a losing proposition. It is designed to be in favor for the NWO and to take as it pleases from the people. When you enter a court under civil law, how can one ask for common law ? They gain jurisdiction over your common law/ natural human by using your straw man in the form of all caps name. When you enter the court, your only fighting chance is to say that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND the charges. When you say you understand, you are saying that you stand UNDERNEATH the court and you grant them jurisdiction over you. You concede your authority. That is why when a cop pulls you over, they ask for your name and address or drivers license. They are trying to get their jurisdiction over you. The cop says, "do you understand" this is the cop's way of asking, do you stand underneath me, we are not equals, I am your master. Becoming involved with the legal process, people believe that they are getting their day in court, their due process. In reality, you enter the court room, you are shedding your common law natural rights, and now you are in civil law, law that is copyrighted corporation, legal fiction. It is a lie. It is designed to shackle the human.

1938 is when we lost the last of our common law rights. ERIE RAILROAD CO v. Tompkins.

When you hear people clamor for their civil rights or civil liberties, I think, I do not want any part of that legal fraud. Their is a reason that minority's have civil rights. Under the constitution, they are not humans. They have never had common law rights. It is a disgusting sham, and they got the white man ripped away from common law with many underhanded devices. After the UCC, marriage licensee, birth certificate became mandatory, (seemingly.) The new deal also adds another dimension to this is well. With these ideas put forth, I do believe that their is a better answer for how we are all apart of the straw man theory. When we stopped using lawful money and began using legal tender, we ALL became member banks of the central bank. We do endorse our names on the back of the central banks contract. We carry this UNLAWFUL money in our pockets. We are contracted into this system of civil, equity, and admiralty statue, and are contracting away our common law birth right. Add it with 1938, license, registrations, applications, and certificates, you start to see the legal fiction appear.

A last note about the court room. When you say that you do not understand, they will threaten you. Ask, Can what I say be used against me ? If they say yes, which they won't want to do, then you remain silent. Another thought. You are the beneficiary of your straw-man, you are you and the straw-man is not you, a legal fiction. Your birth certificate is proof of this. When they ask if you are the all caps name on the summons, you can with a clear conscience say no, but I am it's beneficiary. I understand that is a losing proposition, but anything you do once you have entered the court room is a loss for you. As I said earlier, there is only one way to avoid this court room non sense, but it is usually a losing proposition as well. But I believe that standing for your beliefs as a free human is a much better option than begging your slave master for more legal fiction civil rights. 

Remember, an application is a contract of begging. Application for registration, birth, marriage. You are begging to be contracted.
Logged

Vrsovice Rebel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1084

Sovereign Citizen bullshit. Nothing but. A person promoting this is either a dupe or a fraud, and I say this as someone who's seen this shit from the inside, watching my own father use this horseshit to rip people off of their life's savings and end them up in enormous debt or even in jail. My statements do not come from supposition, hearsay, or assumption: I WATCHED this happen. I WATCHED him do it to his own sister, my aunt. I WATCHED him do it to a business partner whom he left holding the bag for tens of thousands of dollars. More's my own shame, I did nothing to stop him because I had been raised in terror of this violent, lying, drunken psychopath. Edited To Add: Please bear in mind, OP, that I say this not to insult you but to warn you. Those promoting this have your wallet, not your interests, at heart.

I say it again: anyone promoting this unmitigated, undiluted, absolutely baseless crap is either a dupe or a fraud; an idiot or a thief. They have either the brains of a pickaxe or the morals of a hyena and possibly both.

( Edited to remove ill-advised statements made in hot mind. )
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 05:52:00 pm by Vrsovice Rebel »
Logged
May God bless and keep the Tsar...far away from us!

My life, not yours, piss off!

mothercirce

  • Guest

If you say that you are a united states citizen, which united states do you mean? Anyone who lives in d.c. or the territory's is a citizen of the united states. The remaining population in the union of the 50 states are national citizens. Why is their a difference? When did this happen? What does it mean?

In 1938 their was a supreme court ruling in ERIE RAILROAD v. Tompkins. A man sued the Erie railroad for damages when he was struck by a board that was sticking out of a railroad car. The district court ruled that this was under commercial law, and that this man was not under contract with the railroad, therefore he lacked standing to sue the company. Under common law, he was damaged and he would have a right to sue. This overturned a nearly 100 year decision. Swift v. Tyson. In 1840, a similar case, and the supreme court had ruled under common law. 1938, common law faded fast. So what was it replaced with. Do we have an amendment to the constitution that says that we shall become corporations and live under commercial law and forfeit our common law? In the Erie railroad case, the supreme court ruled that all federal cases would be judged under negotiable instruments law, no more common law on the federal level. Is it not a somewhat valid position that federal courts since 1938 are merchant law courts and not common law law courts ?

Logged

Vrsovice Rebel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1084

No, not remotely, because that's not what was held in Erie Railroad Co vs Tompkins. Not even close.

The Supreme Ct held that, in hearing suits wherein the two Parties (Tompkins, a resident of PA vs the Erie Railroad Corp, which was Incorporated in New York) were residents/corporate "citizens" of two different States, the Federal courts did not have the right to create new Common Law on the Federal level, since they were hearing what was essentially a State-level claim; nor did they have the power to use Federal laws to decide such a "diverse jurisdiction" claim. Essentially, Erie v Tompkins was a decision to limit the judiciary power of the Federal courts: Because the two litigants (E.R. and Tompkins) were from different States, the case had to be heard in a Federal court, but because the suit did not deal with Federal law it was a State-level case; in such a case, Eerie vs Tompkins holds that the Feds cannot create a precedent and apply it to the nation as a whole, nor employ general Common Law (Common Law as applied to the whole US) but rather the legislative/legal standard of the State in which the suit was first brought. It left State matters to be decided according to State-level laws, not Federal, in matters of suits for injury or damages.

The decision which was overturned, Swift vs Tyson, had resulted in nearly 100yrs of abusive and frivolous lawsuits, wherein a person would attempt to "shop around" for a forum in which it would be most likely that a suit would be successful, or to find a venue which would be most injurious to sue their intended victim in: specifically, to litigate a State-level matter in Federal court using Federal standards rather than those of the State(s) in which the actionable damage occurred. Erie vs Tompkins is fundamentally, as counter-intuitive as this may sound, a limiting of the power of Federal courts to apply Federal standards when hearing State-level suits on appeal.

"Creative" interpretations of court decisions like this are a hallmark of the Sovereign Citizen/Redemption scammers. I've seen them present the dissenting (ie losing) Opinion as binding law on a number of occasions: that is to say that they present the loser as the winner and claim it proves their point. In other cases, such as this popular (wild) "misreading" of Erie, their interpretations veer into the nonsensical and have little if any apparent relationship to the actual decision.

I accepted a lot of these "arguments" as factual for a long, long time because I had been terrorized into believing whatever bullshit my father slung in these regards. Once I started doing my own research, including reading the actual opinions/holdings which were involved, I quickly saw how insanely unhinged and dishonest these arguments were. I cannot recommend highly enough that you and others do the same: read the actual decisions, see what they really say, not just what some Sovereign/Redemption fool/fraud tells you they say. They are either lying to you or repeating someone else's lies. Period.

"Erie v Tompkins: The landmark case holding that in an action in the Federal court, except as to matters governed by the U.S. Constitution and Acts Of Congress (Ed; State cases), the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State in which the Federal Court is situated. 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188. This case overturned Swift v Tyson, 41 U.S. 1, 16 Pet 1, 10 L.Ed. 865, which held that there was a body of Federal general common law to be applied in such cases"  Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed.

Simply put, State laws for State cases, Federal law for Federal cases.
Logged
May God bless and keep the Tsar...far away from us!

My life, not yours, piss off!

mothercirce

  • Guest

Sovereign Citizen bullshit.

I agree. Sovereign citizen is bullshit. It's a wonderful example of an oxymoron. Sovereign = Master. Citizen = Slave. Clearly, Master does not equal Citizen. Unless a sovereign citizen is the slave master, then it would be citizen sovereign, or citizen master, (MASTER OF THE CITIZENS?)
Logged

mothercirce

  • Guest

You can read the 9/11 commission report, word for word. Just like you can read Erie Railroad V. Tompkins word for word. Does not mean that the dish being served is reality. 1938 proved to be a turn from public law to public policy.
Logged

mothercirce

  • Guest

When you travel down the road, and your not engaged in commercial business, how does a police officer have the ability to stop you because one of your several brake lights is out ? What jurisdiction does that officer claim? What authority does he have? He is clearly not within his common law right to molest you for such an activity. Where does this mountain of shit stem from? The act of 1871? 1938? It's not a one moment in time picture. It's a collection of moments that are very much like the heat being turned up in the pot of water. Looking at just one instance, one bill, one law, one ruling will not reveal the truth of the over arching theme. The government is a creation of the people, by the people, for the people. Of course this is a crock of crap, because only a tiny fragment of a percent consented to this arrangement, but going with the idea that the government is to serve the people, the only thing the government serves today is it's own corporate interest and our asses to us. If it is our creation, wouldn't it be moral and justifiable to terminate it when it became destructive of it's own means? The larger argument in all this straw man, UCC, common/civil chit stew is that we are prisoners of the government, with no freedom to do as we please. We are here to serve their interest, and if you don't, the punishment is humiliating, criminal and the opposite of liberty and freedom. Why is the united states, the courts and police departments listed as corporations, that are traded? Stocks are traded. Why do we have birth, marriage, ETC certificates printed on bond certificates? How can anyone have authority over you, especially if you have not harmed another's person or property? I readily admit that I do not have all the answers, because the PERSONS that do, (the corporations that is) would never be truthful with their intents, and disclose the painfully obvious reality of what we live in.

You can read the 13th amendment, and say, how wonderful, no more slavery ! You can also read the 13th amendment and say holy fucking sea biscuits, slavery IS legal. What is the purpose of the 14th amendment? (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.) It seems that we are contracted in the CORPORATE UNITED STATES. I am a human, not a legal fiction.  Is it to allow those born in America to be free under common law? Or is it an evil way of legally forcing people into giving up their common law birth right and transforming them into PERSONS (legal entity's?) If we only read the books that the government green lights, and mold are thinking on the words of statist worshipers, how can anyone know that the real 13th amendment was not a reconstruction amendment, rather an amendment aimed at stopping the forces in the NWO from grasping more power at an even more advanced rate? TONA Title of nobility amendment.

A side note, section 4 of the 14th amendment has a little scribbling about the validity of the national debt not being questioned.(The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.) I am not sure how anyone reads that and says, sure, ok. It also seems to tie in with the newly created capital, (Human, rather person capital created in section 1.) Then again, everything going on after 1961 was unconstitutional, since the the congress adjourned sine dine. A decade later, the United States is now a corporation.   

The mainstream media in conjunction with the government push this false history on the majority to make any of the above topics seem like real nut job territory. Oh, that's a conspiracy theory, your an extremist. Just about everything the government is involved with is a conspiracy, the question is, is it fact, theory or bullshit.

Logged

Vrsovice Rebel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1084

You said above: "In the Erie railroad case, the supreme court ruled that all federal cases would be judged under negotiable instruments law, no more common law on the federal level."

I pointed out that this was not the case, not even remotely what the SCOTUS ruled, and what the ruling actually was. I provided a citation from Black's Law (an edition of Blacks held to be reliable in Sovereign/Redemption circles to be reliable, no less) to that effect.

You're now seemingly disavowing your previous statement without acknowledging the error: the SCOTUS ruling was not remotely what you alleged it to be. You're not just moving the goalposts, you're changing the game while the ball is in-flight.

You can argue if you like that a shift took place from ruling according to Law and towards ruling according to Administrative Policy- it's a valid argument, or at least an observation which can be analysed and disputed. But you held something up as fact which was and is not: that this shift was formalized and codified in Erie v Tompkins.

This is a common Sovereign/Redemption argument: that a ruling by the Court(s) was written in some code wherein words have esoteric  or gnostic meanings which are known only to an elite few, meanings which (despite Blacks, Websters, prior rulings, and the plain rules of English) are completely at odds (sometimes diametrically so) with their known selves. Since these alleged secret meanings are by definition not the meaning which is understood in any of the above sources they can be said to mean whatever someone would like them to mean- ie whatever meaning the Sovereign/Redemption fraudster hopes to use to best effect in his efforts to part you from your money.

Under this common, batshit-loony understanding of how legal language (admittedly dense and at times difficult to follow, but incredibly precise) works, the sentence:

"The quick brown dog jumped over the lazy fox" can be translated to the Mark/Victim as "You must wash your alligator on alternate Thursdays" and any attempt to show otherwise can be countered with "Well, that's what They meant and you can't prove otherwise!" This is the logical equivalent of "Senator, have you stopped beating your mistress?" It is a demand that the counter-argument prove a negative, and is therefore impossible.

Quote
When you travel down the road, and your not engaged in commercial business, how does a police officer have the ability to stop you because one of your several brake lights is out ?

Because you agree to submit to such demands when you sign the paperwork for a Driving License. Argue the legitimacy of Driving Licenses as a concept if you like, but they are the Rules you agree to when you agree to play in that club. A Driving License has no bearing on driving a vehicle on private property (your backyard, or a privately-held road), but it -is- the set of rules you agree to abide by to drive on Gov't roads. Gov't roads, Gov't rules. If you want to play Rugby Union, you play by Union rules, not Rugby League, and you don't demand the right to play in a Union game according to League rules.

Quote
Why is the united states, the courts and police departments listed as corporations, that are traded?

Show me where they are listed. Not where someone says they are listed, show me the listing.

Quote
Why do we have birth, marriage, ETC certificates printed on bond certificates?

Show me such a "bond certificate." Show me where, on a Marriage License or any of the other things you mention, it is stated as being a bond certificate. Actual Bond Certificates, such as T-Bills or stock certificates in (for instance) Apple of the Erie Canal Company, say "Bond" or "Stock Certificate" or "US Treasury Bond" right on the front of the thing. Please note that "It IS a Bond Certificate, it just doesn't say so- here or anywhere." is nonsense. It's asking me to accept that an Alligator is actually a Camel, all appearances to the contrary; the "legal" equivalent of the infamous "Fuck You I'm A Dragon!!!" meme.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 09:08:06 pm by Vrsovice Rebel »
Logged
May God bless and keep the Tsar...far away from us!

My life, not yours, piss off!

mothercirce

  • Guest



Quote
When you travel down the road, and your not engaged in commercial business, how does a police officer have the ability to stop you because one of your several brake lights is out ?

Because you agree to submit to such demands when you sign the paperwork for a Driving License. Argue the legitimacy of Driving Licenses as a concept if you like, but they are the Rules you agree to when you agree to play in that club. A Driving License has no bearing on driving a vehicle on private property (your backyard, or a privately-held road), but it -is- the set of rules you agree to abide by to drive on Gov't roads. Gov't roads, Gov't rules. If you want to play Rugby Union, you play by Union rules, not Rugby League, and you don't demand the right to play in a Union game according to League rules.

Quote
Why is the united states, the courts and police departments listed as corporations, that are traded?

Show me where they are listed. Not where someone says they are listed, show me the listing.

Quote
Why do we have birth, marriage, ETC certificates printed on bond certificates?

Show me such a "bond certificate." Show me where, on a Marriage License or any of the other things you mention, it is stated as being a bond certificate. Actual Bond Certificates, such as T-Bills or stock certificates in (for instance) Apple of the Erie Canal Company, say "Bond" or "Stock Certificate" or "US Treasury Bond" right on the front of the thing. Please note that "It IS a Bond Certificate, it just doesn't say so- here or anywhere." is nonsense. It's asking me to accept that an Alligator is actually a Camel, all appearances to the contrary; the "legal" equivalent of the infamous "Fuck You I'm A Dragon!!!" meme.

For the drivers license. If it is a government road, wouldn't that mean OUR road. If I drive down my road, that was paid for with money that was stolen from me, then how can I be breaking a rule by driving on it without a license. The truth is that if I don't get that license, i will be assaulted, kidnapped, and have my property stolen from me. Then again, when you register you car, you are also giving the state ownership of the car. If I don't register, If i don't get a license, this gives the state the right, the authority to act criminally against me. What choice do we have ? What remedy? Besides, who the hell even questions it, we just do as we are told. I would think that a contract like the drivers license, which is not fully disclosed and is forced into existence by force, with threats is null and void.

As for the united states, courts, and police departments, go to dun and bradstreet and look them up for yourself. In my initial post, I put in a couple of links of these examples.

 https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&productId=0&searchType=BSF&state=DC&bstSiteSearchUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fcreditreports.dnb.com%2Fm%2Fsearch-results.html%3Fq%3D&searchPerform=true&hiddenSessionId=-1326352534&busName=supreme+court&country=US&usState=DC&caState=&noState=

https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&productId=0&searchType=BSF&state=CA&bstSiteSearchUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fcreditreports.dnb.com%2Fm%2Fsearch-results.html%3Fq%3D&searchPerform=true&hiddenSessionId=1186709908&busName=lapd&country=US&usState=CA&caState=&noState=#goTop

Also traded as LAPD? Also traded as supreme court?

As for the bond certificates, some things are not as easy to prove as others. I say that the paper that they are printed on IS bond certificate, and we are traded as human commodity. The question is, why do we even have these certificates? People will say it's just to keep everything tidy and organized. I do not believe that, there is a reason that they came into existence. I am fond of the whole "BERTH" certificate. You are birthed/berthed through your mothers waters, and a manifest of the vessels contents must be produced. The berth/birth certificate. You are leaving admiralty law of your mothers water to dock on land. Why not use that argument to transform all human birth into a commodity that is a stock traded. We are all living on a giant corporate farm, we are the cattle/chattel, and we are simply livestock for TPTB.

Logged

Klapton Isgod

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4193
  • Long-Haired, Over-Fed, Leaping Gnome

Here is the biggest problem with trusting legal arguments of any kind to save you...

The courts don't care.  Juries don't care.  They will fine, imprison, and / or kill you for the most important reason there is:  because they can.

The courts can't seem to comprehend (or give a shit about) words like, "shall not be infringed," or "secure in their persons," etc.  Why the hell would one expect them to give a shit whether or not the flag has gold fringies on it?  (I gave one of the silliest examples on purpose).

.
Logged
"I got things under control, that's why people call me an extremist.  I'm autonomous.  I understand that I declare my independence every day."  Ted Nugent

"It is the conservative laissez- fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."  Murray Rothbard

Vrsovice Rebel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1084

Quote
The courts don't care.  Juries don't care.  They will fine, imprison, and / or kill you for the most important reason there is:  because they can.

The courts can't seem to comprehend (or give a shit about) words like, "shall not be infringed," or "secure in their persons," etc.  Why the hell would one expect them to give a shit whether or not the flag has gold fringies on it?  (I gave one of the silliest examples on purpose).

No kidding. Sovereign/Redemption shills never can seem to reconcile the above with their "theories," nor do they seem to understand that if the Bad Guys are/do who the S/Rs say that they are/do, and if these notions worked in the ways that the S/R practitioners insist, then the Sovereigns/Redemptionists would be DEAD. TPTB are a global cabal of murderous mercantile bankers who start wars for grins and sacrifice Mexican laundresses to a giant concrete owl-goddess in Bohemian Grove...but they'll obey the "magic words" as if compelled by a Voudun gris-gris and let you do whatever you like so long as you file the magic paperwork? No. In the real world, if the S/R ideas actually had an Irishman's chance in Hell of working, they'd just kill the S/Rs and be done with it.

Quote
For the drivers license. If it is a government road, wouldn't that mean OUR road. If I drive down my road, that was paid for with money that was stolen from me, then how can I be breaking a rule by driving on it without a license. The truth is that if I don't get that license, i will be assaulted, kidnapped, and have my property stolen from me. Then again, when you register you car, you are also giving the state ownership of the car. If I don't register, If i don't get a license, this gives the state the right, the authority to act criminally against me. What choice do we have ? What remedy? Besides, who the hell even questions it, we just do as we are told.

No argument here, I don't dispute a single word of the above. But the above is all theory and nothing but- theorise into one hand and shit into the other, see which one fills up faster.

Quote
I would think that a contract like the drivers license, which is not fully disclosed and is forced into existence by force, with threats is null and void.

This, however, is nonsense. You are not forced to get a DL, because you are not forced to drive. You can take public transport, you can walk, you can ride a bicycle- Hell, I know one fellow who goes about his daily business here in Appalachia, NC on horseback and in Amish buggies for precisely this reason.

Quote
As for the united states, courts, and police departments, go to dun and bradstreet and look them up for yourself. In my initial post, I put in a couple of links of these examples.

 https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&productId=0&searchType=BSF&state=DC&bstSiteSearchUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fcreditreports.dnb.com%2Fm%2Fsearch-results.html%3Fq%3D&searchPerform=true&hiddenSessionId=-1326352534&busName=supreme+court&country=US&usState=DC&caState=&noState=

https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&productId=0&searchType=BSF&state=CA&bstSiteSearchUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fcreditreports.dnb.com%2Fm%2Fsearch-results.html%3Fq%3D&searchPerform=true&hiddenSessionId=1186709908&busName=lapd&country=US&usState=CA&caState=&noState=#goTop

Also traded as LAPD? Also traded as supreme court?

This proves nothing except that this D&B outfit will charge you money for a "prospectus" which may turn out to say "This is not a publicly traded anything, and your request is nonsense." This is a sales website, it does nothing to verify that these are actually publicly traded entities, merely that the question has been asked often enough that they see a market for answering it. If I was an investment-guru type, and feeble-minded gulls were constantly asking me to verify whether or not the Lilliputian National Bank was a sound investment, I would happily charge said fools $150 to say "No, and this question is idiotic." All. Day. Long.

Quote
As for the bond certificates, some things are not as easy to prove as others.

If you cannot prove something, especially something which is fantastic on it's face, you should not assert it. Exceptional assertions require exceptional proofs...or, you know, ANY proofs.

Quote
I say that the paper that they are printed on IS bond certificate,

And I say I am the Queen Of England. Prove me wrong; remembering as always that failure to prove me wrong must be accepted as proof that I am correct.

Quote
The question is, why do we even have these certificates?

A completely legitimate question. My personal opinion on the matter is that it provides employment for otherwise unemployable paper-pushers and gives Gov't authorities a way to track, regiment, and "legitimise" people for the greatest possible time and to the greatest possible extent. I don't try to use my opinion as a legally-binding argument in Court, however, and I certainly don't rely on grade-school linguistic parlour-tricks to make my opinion sound like fact.

Quote
I am fond of the whole "BERTH" certificate. You are birthed/berthed through your mothers waters, and a manifest of the vessels contents must be produced. The berth/birth certificate. You are leaving admiralty law of your mothers water to dock on land. Why not use that argument to transform all human birth into a commodity that is a stock traded.

Because puns are not legal arguments, nor are they theories of how something functions. It's a clever play on words, but as a theory of economics, trade, or governmental organization it is complete nonsense. Government is based upon force, not wordplay, and certainly not on magic words or unprovable notions about gnostic definitions and "secret meanings."

[Penn] Redemption and Sovereign Citizenship...are BULLSHIT! [/Teller]

Logged
May God bless and keep the Tsar...far away from us!

My life, not yours, piss off!

mothercirce

  • Guest

Quote

Quote
I would think that a contract like the drivers license, which is not fully disclosed and is forced into existence by force, with threats is null and void.

This, however, is nonsense. You are not forced to get a DL, because you are not forced to drive. You can take public transport, you can walk, you can ride a bicycle- Hell, I know one fellow who goes about his daily business here in Appalachia, NC on horseback and in Amish buggies for precisely this reason.

I was under the impression that I was free to travel. No matter the mode of transportation. Most of the small print is not disclosed on the license, the bigger mechanism that comes along with the license. If I do not get the licensee, and do not enter into into that contract, the police are just just going to let me go on my way ?

The issue you touched on about the government being a murderous cabal is true. What we have is a less brutal form of slavery. Slavery nonetheless. The evil cabal that is the government has learned that spreading a false sense of freedom among it's serfs will give them much more productive slaves, producing more property for the evil cabal to steal under threat of force. Killing everyone that presents some resistance will not enable them to be able to continue. When you have the minds of the people, those people on the jury will be more than happy to stick it to the disobedient serf. I understand that the evil cabal will do as it pleases, and me making a stink about this issue or that issue will not change the mechanism. I understand that "silly" legal logic or making demands will not change the outcome. it's a big problem. I see any authority that is over me or anyone else, is null and void and illegitimate. The exception is when  a person harms another person or property. Driving down the road not committing either of these should not allow the evil cabal to molest me or my property. That is the real crime here.

So what to do? Maybe I am trying to find an explanation where one does not exists? Maybe I have seen the reality of the situation and I am trying to find a way out? Seeing my family enslaved, along with everyone else is maddening. The jingoism, the false choice that is the political process, the outright theft of our humanity. I am interested in finding the truth of the situation. Maybe everything I put forward is not this absolute "truth" that I seek, but I am willing to try and open my mind to find some way that does not include an armed fight. If people would see that their lives are slavery they might all stop consenting to it, but I do not see that happening. Am I to be stuck here for the remainder of my days acting in cowardice. A pathetic example to my children? It is cowardly to allow this evil to bulldoze our family's unchecked. Now, while it might be cowardly, I do not believe that it is stupid. Self preservation, but those words echo in my mind from time to time. Better to die on your feet, than to live out your days on your knees.

What is the remedy? avenues like this website and other media outlets helps to give a voice to such an endeavor, but the organization  does not exists. I think that most people on sites like this understand that the situation is a losing prospect, and the best thing to do is to bunker down, take care of your loved ones and hope for the best? I am of the opinion that when they come for the guns, (and they will) that it will be too late to do much. The line in the sand continues to be pushed back more and more. We are all a bunch or "reasonable" people, continuing to trade liberty for a false security or an easier existence. The military is paid for with property extorted from me and my family. The police and government is as well. It's criminal and immoral in my eyes.

Then again, what is truth. I keep using the word, but doesn't the truth change for the individual looking at it? What is liberty? I am sure that my definition is different from the next and that is different to the next as well. No one has "the answer" but looking at the body of evidence that is our slavery, not much is going to be able to change mind about this line. We are not free. Liberty is dead. We are slaves to a fascist oligarchy. What can we do?
Logged

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6846
    • End the War on Freedom

The beast survives mostly because so many have been brain-washed into worshiping it. Withdraw your consent. Stop believing that the state has ANY authority whatsoever over anything you or anybody else does. Spread that meme until enough of us believe it that the state atrophies and dies. They have only enough force to keep a handful of unruly serfs in line. Toe that line until that handful grows to an avalanche, and the curtain is permanently withdrawn from the wizard.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up