Q&A (Photo credit: opensourceway)
I’ve suspected that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signified an entity other than me (“Alfred Adask”) for over 15 years. I still can’t prove that suspicion, but I’ve seen nothing to disprove it—and I’ve been looking persistently.
I know that “Alfred Adask” (“Adask”) is a proper name that signifies a man who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the “Declaration of Independence”). I presume that “ALFRED N ADASK” (“ADASK”) signifies a fictional entity that can have no such God-given, unalienable Rights. Thus, whenever “ADASK” is on trial, it has no significant rights and can usually be found guilty by the gov-co with minimum effort.
Many accept the fundamental hypothesis that “ADASK” signifies a fiction while “Adask” signifies a man. Many therefore presume that when I am brought into court and the style of the case is “CITY OF DALLAS vs ALFRED N ADASK,” that the gov-co falsely presumes that I (“Adask”; the man) am some sort of legal fiction. I.e., the gov-co is trying me as if I were a fiction. Therefore, those who advocate this notion give notice to the court that they are not a “fiction”.
I reject the notion that the gov-co presumes me (“Adask”) to be the fiction “ADASK”. The government’s not that dumb. In fact, I believe the government relies and depends on the fact that “Adask” is not “ADASK”. I presume that the gov-co presumes that I (“Adask”) represent (probably as a fiduciary) the fiction “ADASK”.
See the difference? If they presume “Adask” to be the fiction “ADASK,” there’s really only one entity-defendant in the court room (“ADASK”). But if they presume the man “Adask” to represent the thing “ADASK,” then there are two entities present: “ADASK” and its representative, “Adask”.
I believe “Adask” must be presumed to represent (rather than “be”) “ADASK” because if “ADASK” is a fiction, it can’t “appear” on its own. Fictions (like corporations or trusts) can only appear in court if some living man represents them. Thus, if “ADASK” is a fiction, it can’t appear in court unless some living man represents it. Therefore, I’m inclined to believe that the man “Adask” must be presumed by the court to represent the fiction “ADASK”. If “Adask” won’t represent “ADASK,” “ADASK” cannot appear.
Of course, “Adask” (acting on behalf of “ADASK”) can hire a licensed attorney to represent “ADASK”. “Adask” might even be dumb enough to think he’s hiring an attorney to represent himself (“Adask”). But he’d really be hiring an attorney to represent it (“ADASK”).
• But—assuming the “Adask”/ “ADASK” hypothesis is valid—a big problem remains. How does the court elevate the man “Adask” (who merely represents the fictional “ADASK”) to another status wherein “Adask” can be punished for “ADASK’s” offenses?
I.e., if I (“Adask”) am acting as a fiduciary to represent a fictional defendant named “ADASK,” and my defense fails, then “ADASK” might be subject to fine or imprisonment.
(Sorry ‘bout that, “ADASK”—but better it than me, hmm?)
But, in fact, if I merely represent “ADASK,” I should not be legally liable to pay for “ADASK’s” offenses. If it were true that mere representatives are liable for their defendants, then every lawyer in the country might be liable for their defendants’ debts or punishments. That seems virtually impossible. I can’t see how the man “Adask” can be held personally liable for the offenses charged against “ADASK” simply because “Adask” is presumed to represent “ADASK”.
Therefore—still assuming the “Adask”/ “ADASK” hypothesis is valid—there’s got to be another trick in the gov-co’s deck of cards.
I.e., first, the gov-co apparently presumes that “Adask” has voluntarily consented to represent “ADASK”. If so, that unstated presumption is deceptive and wrong, but it’s not terribly bad.
Second, the gov-co then appears to embrace a second presumption that “Adask” has additionally consented to act as surety for “ADASK”. As surety, “Adask” would be liable to pay any penalty imposed on “ADASK”. If such presumption of suretyship turns out to be true, that second, unstated presumption would not merely be deceptive and wrong, it would wicked. Such unstated presumption would be equivalent to silently presuming that (unknown to me) and unstated on the record, the court has presumed that I had consented to be surety for the “man on the grassy knoll” who allegedly shot JFK and that I had thereby “consented” to be executed instead of the actual murderer. By means of a silent presumption of suretyship, an innocent man might be effectively tricked into paying the penalty imposed on a guilty “fiction”.
I cannot yet prove that such presumption of suretyship really takes place—but if it did, it would be evil. It would be absolute evidence of spiritual warfare and genocide being waged against the American people by their own government and legal system.
But—again, assuming the “Adask”/ “ADASK” hypothesis is valid—how th’ heck could they trick the man “Adask” into committing some sort of act that could be construed as evidence that “Adask” had not merely volunteered to represent “ADASK,” but had also voluntarily agreed to act as surety for “ADASK” and therefore pay “ADASK” fines and penalties?
The question of suretyship is crucial to the validity of the “Adask”/ “ADASK” hypothesis. If we can prove that “Adask” is somehow deemed to have voluntarily accepted the status of surety for “ADASK,” the hypothesis could be seen as valid. If, on the other hand, it was proved that “Adask” is not surety for “ADASK,” then the hypothesis would have to be abandoned or considerably modified.
• Assuming the gov-co tricks “Adask” into acting in a way that can be presumed by the courts to be evidence that “Adask” has voluntarily agreed to act as surety for “ADASK,” how dey do dat?
For fifteen years or so, I and others have suspected that “something big” takes place the moment the judge asks “Do you understand the charges against you?” and we (like dummies) answer “Yes”.
We were convinced that the courts were not asking “Do you understand . . . ?” in the sense of “Do you comprehend the charges?” We were convinced that the courts weren’t asking if we understood/ comprehended the charges in the intellectual sense. Instead, when the court asked me, “Do you understand the charges against you?” some of us believed that the court was asking if I consented (“understood”) that the charges would be lodged against me (“Adask”) rather than it (“ADASK”).
As is usually the case, I can’t prove it, but I’ve guesstimated that this moment of “understanding” is the moment when the dummy “Adask” unwittingly signals that he’s willing to voluntarily take the heat for the thing “ADASK”.
A single anecdote provided much support for that theory. Dessie Andrews told a story about one of her sons in court. The judge asked “Do you understand the charges against you?” Her son knew that denying such understanding could be helpful so he answered “No.”
This wasn’t a completely new answer. A number of people had denied “understanding” the charges with various degrees of success. But before the judge could respond, Dessie’s son added “Do you?”
In other words, when the judge asked “Do you understand the charges against you?,” Dessie’s son replied “No . . . do you?” The added “do you?” wasn’t intended. It was one of those things that you sometimes blurt out that turns out be astute.
According to Dessie, the judge just about fell off the bench. When he answered, he reportedly said, “No, no . . . I don’t understand the charges!”
Dessie’s son realized he’d hit a nerve, but didn’t understand what exactly had happened.
The judge reportedly regained his composure, and again asked Dessie’s son “Do you understand the charge against you?”
Dessie’s son again replied, “No, I do not understand the charges—do you?”
Again, the judge vehemently denied “understanding” the charges.
The way Dessie told the story, everyone in the room was laughing, the conversation drifted elsewhere, and I never heard how the balance of the hearing worked out.
But, if I understood the story correctly, the judge’s refusal to admit that he “understood the charges” implied that whoever admits to “understanding” the changes is going to be fined or imprisoned if the defendant with the all-upper-case name (“ADASK”) was found guilty.
I’ve thought for years that if a judge asked me “Do you understand the charges against you?” I’d also answer, “No . . . do you?”
If the judge answered that he also did not “understand the charges,” I would then ask the prosecutor if he “understood the charges”. If the prosecutor was dumb enough (and he might be) to say on the record, “Yes, I understand the charges,” then it might be that if the prosecutor could successfully convict “ADASK,” that the prosecutor would be the surety liable to pay “ADASK’s” fine or do “ADASK’s” time.
I suppose that’s too much to hope for. Still, the possibility makes me grin.
Of course, if the prosecutor also refused to “understand the charges,” I’d move that the case be dismissed since neither I, the judge or the prosecutor could “understand” the charges. (I’d be using the word “understand” in the sense of “comprehend”.) How could a case be tried if no one “understood” the charges?
All of this is a single anecdote followed by a certain amount of smart-ass conjecture. I don’t recommend that you rely on this strategy, but I can’t see any harm in trying it. Truth is, it would be an exceeding rare individual who “understood” the charges in the sense of fully comprehending those charges. A licensed attorney might fully “comprehend” the charges, but almost no layman can truly “comprehend” the charges against him.
By asking the judge and prosecutor if they “understood” the charges, you’d be demonstrating on the record that you intended the word “understand” to mean “comprehend” rather than to signify your consent to act as surety for some other defendant. If the “Adask”/ “ADASK” hypothesis were valid, demonstrating that you meant “understand” to mean “comprehend” would defeat any presumption that you’d knowingly agreed to act as surety for some other entity.
If the “Adask”/ “ADASK” hypothesis is groundless and absurd, there’s no harm done. Truly, you do not fully comprehend the charges against you, so you can truthfully say “No” when the judge asks “Do you understand . . . ?” I’ve been studying the law for 29 years and I doubt that I fully comprehend even a simple traffic offense charged against me and/or “ADASK”. If you admit the truth that you don’t understand (comprehend) all of the complex elements (venue, nature of the defendant, status, standing, agency, etc.) that go into any charge, I’m not sure what the judge will do, but I wonder if they can proceed against a defendant who does not comprehend the charges.
Again, I can’t prove my suspicions concerning the moment when you’re asked “Do you understand the charges against you?,” but I still think those suspicions may be roughly correct.
• However, this entire article was precipitated by a short email I recently received from a friend of mine (“Kevin”):
“Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines “Answer” this way:
“As a verb, the word denotes an assumption of liability, as to “answer” for the debt or default of another”.
“In their own definition, Black’s uses the word in their example, not as a verb, but as a noun.
“So, all these years we have speculated as to why the Plaintiff wins their case 99% of the time. Maybe it’s because the Defendant’s “Answer” denotes an assumption of liability, without having properly denied it as such, and/or objecting to said assumption, and/or properly defining the term “Answer” in their response to the Original Complaint.”
I wrote back:
“Then it would be important to establish that whenever you “answer,” you do so only for YOURSELF—and that you are not ANSWERING as SURETY for another entity like “ALFRED N ADASK”.
That was the entire exchange. I thought the definition of “answer” to signify the “assumption of liability” was interesting and potentially valuable, but not persuasive. After all, I know that at least 90%, probably 95%, of all words have multiple definitions. Thus, while “answer” might mean “an assumption of liability,” it might also have several other definitions that would be at least as likely to apply to “answers” submitted into a court procedure.
So I looked up Black’s 6th edition’s definition of “answer” and found that the verb “answer” has just one definition (although there were several additional definitions for different kinds of answers):
“Answer. As a verb, the word denotes an assumption of liability, as to “answer” for the debt or default of another.
“Discovery. A person who fails to answer, or answers evasively or incompletely, deposition or interrogatory questions, may be compelled to do so under Fed.R. Civil P.37.
“Frivolous answer. See Sham answer, below.
“Irrelevant answer. One that has no substantial relation to the controversy; distinguishable from a sham answer. Such may be ordered stricken under Fed.R. Civil P. 12(f).
“Pleading. The response of a defendant to the plaintiffs complaint, denying in part or in whole the allegations made by the plaintiff. A pleading by which defendant endeavors to resist the plaintiff’s demand by an allegation of facts, either denying allegations of plaintiffs complaint or confessing them and alleging new matter in avoidance, which defendant alleges should prevent recovery on facts alleged by plaintiff. In pleading, under the Codes and Rules of Civil Procedure, the answer is the formal written statement made by a defendant setting forth the grounds of his defense; corresponding to what in actions under the common-law practice is called the “plea.” See Fed.R. Civil P. 8 and 12.
“Under Fed.R.Civil P. 12, a person may use an answer to set up all defenses, but he also has the option to use a motion to assert certain defenses.
“See also Affirmative defense; Defense; Denial; Supplemental answer.
“In chancery pleading, the term denotes a defense in writing, made by a defendant to the allegations contained in a bill or information filed by the plaintiff against him.
“Sham answer. One sufficient on its face but so clearly false that it presents no real issue to be tried. One good in form, but false in fact and not pleaded in good faith. A frivolous answer, on the other hand, is one which on its face sets up no defense, although it may be true in fact. On motion of a party, the court may order stricken from the pleading any insufficient defense. Fed.R. Civil P. 12(£).
“Answerable. See Liability.”
Son . . . of . . . a . . . bitch.
Note that the verb “answer” is defined as “an assumption of liability”. I.e., if I commit the act of “answering” for another, I thereby assume liability for that other entity.
This implies that if the cop looks at my drivers license and asks “Are you ALFRED N ADASK,” and I answer “Yes,” I (“Adask”) may have thereby “assumed liability” (become surety) for “ADASK”. Similarly, in court if the judge or bailiff asks “Is ALFRED N ADASK present,” and I (“Adask”) stand up and say “Yes,” I may have thereby assumed liability (become surety) for “ADASK”.
But this interpretation also implies that when someone sues GENERAL MOTORS and the judge asks “Is GM here,” and the attorney for GM stands up and says “present, your honor,” then the attorney has just “answered” for GM and has seemingly become personally liable (surety for) the charges against GM. Nevertheless, at the end of the trial, if GM is found guilty, GM’s attorney is not held liable. So, if it’s true that I (“Adask”) can become liable (surety for) the charges against “ADASK” by merely answering for “ADASK,” how is it that an attorney that represents and “answers for” GM does not become liable for charges against GM?
There is something happening here that I do not yet understand.
I’m wondering if the “license” to practice law somehow exempts the licensed attorney from personal liability that would normally be assumed when one answers for another.
Or, maybe at the end of a trial, when the judge says “Will the defendant please stand,” and both the attorney and the man “Adask” stand—both of whom have “answered” for “ADASK”—the judge gives his buddy the attorney a break and assesses all of “ADASK’s” fines and penalties against the unwitting fool “Adask”.
Or, maybe after the judge asks “Will the defendant please rise,” both the attorney for “ADASK” and the idiot “Adask” both rise, but then the attorney sits, leaving “Adask” as the last surety standing.
All of this conjecture sounds nonsensical. But I remember hearing a rumor back about A.D. 1995 that every attorney must bring his checkbook with him whenever he goes to court. Chances are, that rumor was false. But I did hear it—and I wonder if it could be verified.
I can’t imagine any reason for the attorney to bring his checkbook except that it was understood that by answering for the defendant (“ADASK” or “GM”), the attorney could be held liable for any resulting fine—unless the fictional defendant or some other fool willing to act as surety for the defendant could be found.
Again, this rumor has stuck in my mind for 15 years, but I wouldn’t bet on it. It’s almost certainly nonsensical. Still, the next time I meet a defense attorney I think I can trust, I’m going to ask him if it’s true that he’s required to bring his checkbook with him whenever he goes to court.
• In any case, what would happen if, at the end of a trial, the judge asks the defendant to “please rise,” and the attorney for “ADASK” stands and encourages “Adask” to also stand, but “Adask” expressly refuses to stand saying on the record, “I am not the defendant in this matter—nor do I represent or answer for the defendant in this matter” . . . ?
Even if the earlier conjecture were roughly correct, I don’t believe for one minute that the trial court judge would turn me loose. I expect that I (rather than “ADASK’s” attorney) would be found guilty and ordered to pay “ADASK’s” fine or serve “ADASK’s” time. But it might be that, by expressly denying that I am, represent or answer for the defendant “ADASK,” I might have an argument that might work on appeal.
But, what if I started denying that I am, represent or answer for “ADASK” right from the beginning? I.e., maybe the plaintiff or prosecutor sends a letter addressed to “ADASK,” and I expressly refuse service by writing on the envelope that “I, Alfred Adask—a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights—do not represent or answer for the entity ‘ALFRED N ADASK’” . . . ?
What if, the first time I was in court and the judge called out the name “ALFRED N ADASK” and I answered “My name is ‘Alfred Adask’ and I’m here at arm’s length. Am I the man who you are seeking?” By expressly answering “at arm’s length,” would I have established on the record that I do not represent or answer for “ALFRED N ADASK”? If so, what do you suppose the judge would do then?
Again—assuming the “Adask”/ “ADASK” hypothesis is valid (and it might not be)—it would seem that the judge would be screwed. If no one represents the fictional “ADASK,” it cannot “appear” in court. It might still be possible for a wily judge to proceed against “ADASK” in abstentia in a criminal proceeding. But I wonder if a judge could proceed against a fiction in a civil case if no one agreed to represent and act as surety for that fiction.
• Finally, note that while the verb “answer” constitutes an “assumption of liability,” the “answer” defined by Black’s 6th under “pleading” does not constitute an “assumption of liability”. Again:
“Pleading. The response of a defendant to the plaintiffs complaint, denying in part or in whole the allegations made by the plaintiff. A pleading by which defendant endeavors to resist the plaintiff’s demand by an allegation of facts, either denying allegations of plaintiffs complaint or confessing them and alleging new matter in avoidance, which defendant alleges should prevent recovery on facts alleged by plaintiff. In pleading, under the Codes and Rules of Civil Procedure, the answer is the formal written statement made by a defendant setting forth the grounds of his defense; corresponding to what in actions under the common-law practice is called the “plea.” See Fed.R. Civil P. 8 and 12.
“Under Fed.R.Civil P. 12, a person may use an answer to set up all defenses, but he also has the option to use a motion to assert certain defenses.
“See also Affirmative defense; Defense; Denial; Supplemental answer.
“In chancery pleading, the term denotes a defense in writing, made by a defendant to the allegations contained in a bill or information filed by the plaintiff against him.
Under “Pleading,” the word “answer” appears to be used as a noun—not as a verb.
For example, we see “In pleading, under the Codes and Rules of Civil Procedure, the answer is the formal written statement . . . .” A “formal written statement” is a thing, a noun, not a verb.
Also, we see, “Under Fed.R.Civil P. 12, a person may use an answer to set up all defenses . . . .” You don’t normally “use” a verb. You “use” a noun, a thing. Thus, the “answer” under FRCP 12 also appears to be a noun rather than a verb.
Implication: the paperwork that an alleged defendant might submit to a court may be called an “answer” but only in the sense that it’s a noun, a thing. As such, the written document called an “answer” is not a verb and might not be expressly defined to constitute “an assumption of liability”.
The “answer” that is expressly defined to constitute “an assumption of liability for another” (suretyship) is the “answer” that’s a verb such as “I answered for GM” or “I answered for ALFRED N ADASK.” “The judge addressed a question to the defendant, and I answered.”
“I wrote an answer for GM” or “I wrote an answer for ADASK” use the world “answer” as a noun and might not constitute an assumption of liability for “ADASK”.
But. If I expressly and orally answer a question addressed to “ADASK,” my act of answering on its behalf would seem to be defined as an act of “assuming liability” (suretyship) for the thing, “ADASK”.
The difference between writing an answer for “ADASK” and actually answering a question for “ADASK” is still a grey area for me. I’m not convinced that the written document called an “answer” can’t also be construed as evidence that “Adask” has “assumed liability” for “ADASK”.
But it seems certain that any time I orally answer a question addressed to “ADASK,” I will have answered in the sense of a verb and thereby “assumed liability” for “ADASK”.
So let’s suppose that when the judge asks “Do you understand the charges against you?” he’s addressing that question to a fictional defendant named “ALFRED N ADASK”. And let’s suppose that I (the idiot “Adask”) answer “Yessss, yer honer”. Did the idiot “Adask” just answer on behalf of the thing “ADASK” and thereby assume liability for “ADASK”?
Maybe.
What if I said “No, your honor—I do not understand the charges.” By merely answering the question directed to “ADASK” with “Yes,” “No,” or “Maybe”—have I thereby “answered” for “ADASK” and thereby assumed liability (suretyship) for “ADASK”? Is the actual answer irrelevant? Is the only point of significance that I actually answered for “ADASK”?
Maybe.
OK—what if the judge asks “Do you understand the charges against you,” and I answered something like “Are you addressing that question to me—a man made in God’s image, endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, whose proper name is “Alfred Adask” and who will answer questions only at arm’s length?”
Now what?
It’s not just astonishing, it’s disturbing to see how much conjecture can spring from an analysis of the possible meanings of just a couple of words. Take it all with salt.
NDT
August 26, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Statute law is a form of lex scripta, or written law. I’ve been able to get them to change the name to mixed upper/lower case by pointing out that ALL CAPS names can introduce ambiguity when referred to orally because ALL CAPS names may indicate a different meaning. In the KJV, GOD and LORD both refer to the tetragrammaton and not the Hebrew words that are usually translated as ‘God’ and ‘Lord’.
As far as understanding goes, it can mean a meeting of the minds, and as such can establish a contractual nexus.
Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
Don
September 24, 2012 at 2:28 PM
To: NDT,
Your post in pertinent says: :Statute law is a form of lex scripta, or written law. I’ve been able to get them to change the name to mixed upper/lower case by pointing out that ALL CAPS names can introduce ambiguity when referred to orally because ALL CAPS names may indicate a different meaning. In the KJV, GOD and LORD both refer to the tetragrammaton and not the Hebrew words that are usually translated as ‘God’ and ‘Lord’.
When you,NDT say: “I’ve been able to get them ……….”
My question is: “Who are “THEM ?” WHO, did the “changing?”
shupec
September 24, 2012 at 4:08 PM
I recommend everyone check out http://trustandcontract.wordpress.com and do the research to verify for yourself… another good site for additional insights is http://loveovermind.wordpress.com.
shupec
September 24, 2012 at 4:10 PM
You might also check out http://www.office-of-pmg.com
Adask
September 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM
You might check it out, but you should be wary.
Don
October 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM
NDT, I was FINALLY able to get THEM off my back too !! Thanks for your response !! How do I send you a donation? Couldn’t have done it without you.
Anon4fun
August 26, 2012 at 11:55 PM
It’s possible that ADASK is a fiduciary capacity of Adask, where the beneficiary is the creator of ADASK, namely the state. We already knew that defense attorneys are principally agents of the court. Well, perhaps Adask is also (though only if he agrees, or it would be involuntary servitude). This would explain the one-to-one relationship between Adask and ADASK. If Adask was representing ADASK, we could see someone else doing the same thing, because legal representation in every other context can be delegated, but we never do. We can further surmise that Adask declares to the court that he will act as, or appear in the character of, ADASK when Adask agrees to understand the charges against ADASK, though there could be other ways for this to happen.
aregularamericansperspective
August 27, 2012 at 1:08 AM
I like this as it’s all words and your understanding (comprehension or agreement) of the words that makes all the difference.
My 2nd false arrest was on a false Warrant for failure to appear over a child support issue. The deputy entered my home asked if I was JMB and I said I’m not sure are you looking for the man or a statutorily created person. I will not represent any legal fiction. He shows me a picture and says is this you. I said silly that’s a picture I’m standing right here in front of you. I also informed him that his warrant was void as an appearance is not based on probable cause nor supported by oath or affirmation. But a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court and I would not submit. see Ballentines Law 3rd Ed. I believe Blacks is very close. He puts his hand on his gun and says we can do this the easy way or the other way. I stood up and stated I am going with you under protest because of your direct threat on my life, intimidation and coercion and your forcing me into this transaction of a security interest against my will. At the jail I did not cooperate, let them steal my fingerprints and picture and informed them at every turn they were the criminals, terrorists and nazis here and demanded at every turn to see a justice and the sheriff to lodge a criminal complaint against them for false arrest and unlawful confinement and domestic terrorism and that I would not obligate myself to services forced on me at the barrel of a gun, and signed only one thing on my way out of the jail 42 hours later. The ROR which was signed under protest and threat of further false imprisonment. Never saw a judge or the sheriff but he signed the Bond personally letting me out with no cost and while 12 guys were lined up going to the so called honorable court for their child support hearings, chained up like animals. I said I’m going home you guys all need to study law and contracts and you could be going home too. The deputies rushed me out of the jail I was laughing at their ignorance. 4 days later the court sent me papers dismissing it all without prejudice. I wrote CSE 2 letters and and 2 weeks later Alabama tucked it’s tail and said Florida requested that they close my case and they would handle it from there on, and my case with Alabama was now closed.
I am now working on Florida using what I have learned in my 5 years of study of “THE LAW” and my God given common sense to shut them down the same way. I’ll let you know what happens. But you can’t go wrong with facts, evidence and presumptions you can prove with facts and evidence to shut these criminal terrorists up. Every cop and bureaucrat I’ve encountered in my interactions with them have been so utterly and completely ignorant of Law that you present them with facts and evidence that they can’t rebut, everything they does falls apart completely and most lawyers these days are just as incompetent to the point of stupidity, and with a bit of Grammar, Logic, and the proper rhetoric even a fairly simple man can destroy their ludicrous presumptions and make them slink away into the darkness where they dwell. Al between The words of Jesus Christ, your studies and writings, Marc Stevens and Dean Clifford my eyes are learning to see and my ears are hearing and being a warrior for right and justice I’ll jump right into the den of vipers to battle their evil, and every time I do they teach me more and more and I love learning to discern well, and destroy their lies and deceit. They can only kill me once but their intentional ignorance and lack of sight could land them in the pits of hell and burn their souls forever. But time will answer all things eventually.
Peace out to my brothers and sister in freedom and liberty and all Americans not willing to lick the boots of a master.
Jim
Jethro
August 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Jim, did you have a marriage license in relation to the divorce/kids?
Don
September 13, 2012 at 12:31 AM
Jethro,
Did you ever get a response to this question:
Jim, did you have a marriage license in relation to the divorce/kids?
Jethro
September 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Yes, Don. Scroll down to his Aug. 27 response.
Ummer
August 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Let me make a point Jim, criminals who get away in court are those who claim to be stupid. The lawyers claiming to be stupid… well that’s their best defense when they know that they’re a criminal.
Yartap
August 27, 2012 at 6:49 AM
“[T]o be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;…” Amendment VI, Bill of Rights, Constitution for the United States.
“Informed,” to be brought to Knowledge. It does not mean to “tell you.”
“Nature,” is it civil (traffic tickets) or criminal; felony or misdemeanor charge.
Remember: with traffic tickets the government is not to give this constitutional right, but they do, to create the illusion that it is criminal, which it is not. Traffic laws are not part of criminal laws. By having a driver’s license, one is under contract with “this state” to accept criminal punishments for traffic violations. To further prove civil and not criminal, any citation issued by a police officer is not proper legal judicial process, but with a driver’s license (contact), you have agreed to allow this form of process for your appearance before a court.
“Cause,” what brought the accusation about, i.e., the “taking” of one’s life, “excessive” speed of the speed limit, “failure” to stop at a stop sign are all causes of the accusation or violation brought against someone.
Always follow these steps:
Q: “Do you understand the charges against you?” A: “I DO NOT understand the charges against me.”
Q: “How do you plea?” A: “I plea that I DO NOT understand the nature and cause of the accusation against me.” (To answer Alfred’s question: can the court proceed? Yes! The court will proceed.)
Q: “Is the defendant in the court room?” A: (Do not answer! That is a question for the plaintiff to answer. He has to point the finger at the accused and know who he is prosecuting. If the judge directs the question to the defendant, then answer this way:) “I did not accuse.” or “There are NO accusers here.” (And nothing more.) If the judge responds with…..
Q: “Are you Mr. Yartap?” A: “Are you the accuser?” or “Do you seek admissions without an accuser?”
With this discovered definition of “answer” making one liable is more reason to say NO!, NO! And HELL NO!
shupec
August 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM
One could also honestly say that “… the ‘charges’ are not against ME, they are against a STATE created fiction and anyone presumbing me, a living man\womb-man to be a STATE created fiction under fraud and false pretense is fully accountable to multiple violations by multiple law forms including but not limited to Natural Law, Civil Law, Common Law, Federal and Internal ‘dept’ Administrative Law, United Nations law (STATE and U.S. Inc. are now technically ‘under’ United Nations), as well as Admiralty (military-war crimes), Maritime (piracy upon the sea), and human rights violations, to name a few… This is a case of Mistaken Identity, Mistaken Jurisdictin, Mistaken Standing, et al…. We, being living Soul, Spirit, Heart, Sound mind, and body-temple retain full imprescriptable (unwritten) rights en total without mind control (government), politics (many votes), or soul\spirit bondage (religion) per the True Law (not code, statute, rule, order, regulation, et al) i.e. Natural Law, Law of Nations, and Common (England) and Civil (Rome)…. It is highly recommended that you self-educate on True Law as you are fully accountable for your actions, as is your ‘chain of command’ and the respective ‘department’ corporations…
Don
September 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM
Hi shupec,
I believe you are 100 % correct but with truthful answers like that you leave yourself wide open for a FORCED upon you “competency hearing” & “this State’s psycho” will say you are delusional, & incompetent to stand trial,& here you go the loony bin aka medical center. The abominable things that are going on are WORSE than most people are aware of. But the tragic thing is, most people have to find out like I did, the HARD WAY. BUT, I was divinely/supernaturally protected in that I was the ONLY ONE there NOT on psychotropic medication. They NEVER gave me any & I was there for a year +. I asked the head psyco there after being there about 9 months this: Dr Gazkgow, if I am mentally ill how am I being treated for this mental illness? His answer was one word: “BADLY.” I can laugh about it now, THANK YOU HEAVENLY FATHER !!!
Don
September 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM
To Yartap:
Why do you use/mention,e,g. Amendment VI, Bill of Rights, Constitution for the United States, &
then use “traffic tickets” as an explanation of the “nature” when traffic tickets at least to the best of
my knowledge are not issued,etc. by “Federal” so called authorities? Re: traffic tickets, why don’t
you use your “State Constitution provisions?” I will only use the “Federal Constitution” when it is
a “federal matter.”
Randy
September 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM
yea, like whem in in a federal area, the fed. const. and bill of rights only applies to a federal area, like D>C> or any other federal teritory
Yartap
September 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Don,
That is a good question. Why do I use the U.S. Constitution instead of my state constitution?
Don, the short answer and the main reason is that the US Constitution gives to me MORE Rights and liberty than my state constitution.
There are more reasons for using the US constitution, it all depends on the cause of the case, e.g., my state constitution restricts my Right to bear arms unlike the US Constitution, which over-rules my state constitution.
Maybe I’m right or maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to work better for me when I call upon the US Constitution, the UCC and the Common Law. They don’t like it!
Randy
September 3, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Dear Don, r u outta your friggin mind, there is case law that says your state Const. has more rights than the fed const., r u 4 real ?????????????????????????????????????????/
palani
September 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM
@Don & Yartap
In my case I would prefer to establish my rights under the provisions of the Louisiana Purchase. It is superior to both the state and federal constitutions.
Yartap
September 3, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Palani,
Please tell us “more” about the use of the La. Purchase.
Thanks,
Yartap
Jethro
September 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM
Yartap,
Regarding the state constitution that purports to restrict your Right to bear arms, you may want to go back to your State’s first constitution — the one that emanated from, and was originally ordained and established by the People — and see if such similar restrictions appear there (I’d wager not). Reason: I suspect there is more than one “state constitution” — one for “The State” and one for “this state”. The latter is statutory document and/or effective only upon your consent; if you check your “this state’s” “code” you’ll likely see a “constitution” in there. What’s a constitution (supposed supreme law) doing among the code/statutes (that which is made in accord with, and subservient to, the constitution)?
Why not claim the original, organic document of “The State” as your supreme law?
Anthony
August 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM
I have been following the blog for a while and when I saw this video last week I thought Alfred and the other readers might find it interesting. This man is Canadian and has really done his research. His understanding is that we consent to assume liability for our all caps corporate entity when we sign contracts (like drivers license, social security, building permits, etc.) with the govco.
Anthony
August 27, 2012 at 10:29 AM
The video is called “Ungrip” and can be found here:
palani
September 3, 2012 at 9:56 PM
@ Yartap
Jus Soli is a right that is derived from the soil. The French recognize this right for anyone born upon territory that they once controlled. The French and U.S. of A. engaged in a treaty. I was not a party to that treaty but it establishes a trust in which both the French and U.S. are fiduciaries and I (by virtue of my nativity on this soil) am a beneficiary. These provisions are “The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess. ”
This treaty guarantees rights that were stripped from the constitution by the passage of the 14th amendment. The current time is “in the mean time” in the sense that there exists no state organized and existing according to the principles of the federal Constitution AS IT EXISTED IN 1803. The CIA World Factbook states that the governments of the current states are administrative subdivisions of the federal government. I see no reason to dispute this statement as it agrees with my own personal observations.
You take rights wherever you might find them. There are no rights to be found in a 14th amended U.S. constitution.
Don
September 3, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Palani, Re using The Louisiana Purchase and your use of it.
I like to be wrong about somethings but based on painful experiences, I have a “notion” that you will get a decision,etc that will go something like this:
The Louisiana Purchase is of historical interest only due to the merger of law & equity and the development of the law.
Adask
September 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM
My first impression of relying on the Louisiana Purchase treaty for current legal authority would be wariness. I haven’t read the treaty, so I can’t say that there aren’t some powerful principles there that might still be applied. However, the land purchased under the Louisiana Purchase was not a State of the Union and had to be a TERRITORY. Within the territories, under Art. 4.3.2 of the federal Constitution, Congress had exclusive legislative jurisdiction to do virtually anything they like. I am therefore extremely wary of anything “TERRITORIAL”–including the Louisiana Purchase.
But, if the Louisiana Purchase has some powers so far unknown to me, I will be happy to learn about them.
Jethro
August 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Al,
As Anon4fun touched on, an answer to the ALL CAPS NAME may be that it simply signifies a *capacity*, that is, a role you are (presumed to be) playing. That role may be a fiction, but it’s still “you” performing it, and you (the wo/man) may be held liable for failing to perform it. Look at Black’s 7th ed. definition of “capacity”:
1. The role in which one performs an act .
Then flip to the definition of perform/performance:
1. The successful completion of a contractual duty, usu. resulting in the performer’s release from any past or future liability
So, capacities have attached duties and liabilities. Now go back to the second definition of “capacity”:
2. Unless necessary to show the court’s jurisdiction [are the NAMES of the parties in ALL CAPS in the caption necessary to show the court's jurisdiction?], a plaintiff’s pleadings need not assert the legal capacity of any party. [Implication: A "government" plaintiff doesn't have to explain the DEFENDANT is acting in a presumed CAPACITY in order to state a claim - sneaky!] A party wishing to to raise the issue of capacity must do so by specific negative pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(a).
If you look at FRCP 9(a), you’ll see that it is not necessary to allege “a party’s authority to sue or be sued in a representative capacity”. So a DEFENDANT may have “authority” to be sued in a representative capacity. But what defendant would want to be sued in a representative capacity, and where would the authority for it come from? I suspect it comes from yourself. Perhaps this may tie in with your theory regarding “understanding” (consent) to the charges – you’re actually being asked whether you give authority to be sued/charged in a representative capacity. Reading on to FRCP 9(a)(2), in order to raise the issue of capacity, “a party must do so by a specific denial, which must state any supporting facts that are peculiarly within the party’s knowledge.” To make a specific denial one would have to have specific knowledge; but the very rules state a plaintiff does not have to specify the capacity of the parties, so how would one know to raise the issue? Devious. The writers of the rules have been very naughty!
Al, I encourage you to look further into the matter of CAPACITY as that may answer the conundrum you currently face. Thoughts?
palani
September 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM
@Don
There is no expiration date upon the Louisiana Purchase treaty. In fact in the Iowa code book last section it is shown as the organic law of Iowa. The Iowa flag is the French flag with additional symbols added. But then I am only licensed to agree so if presented with such an argument I would have to agree and suggest the one presenting the opinion provide me with a document that shows where the two parties signatory to it agreed upon a termination date.
@Al
The Louisiana Purchase is a local issue. If you happened to not be born upon the soil here there is little material that would be of interest. I will point out that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was based upon the Louisiana Purchase and assurances were made to the Mexicans that these two treaties were intended to be identical. There is one outstanding difference though. The use of the word “free” in Article III seems to have been left out of the Mexican treaty. In any event I expect that the inhabitants of Arizona, California, New Mexico etc could go back to that treaty to determine what rights they have as beneficiaries under it.
As to territories and being wary of them, it seems that you are going to be classified as being in some territory or other no matter what you do or say or how long and hard you are going to protest. The zip code establishes a territory as does the free use of the mail (you pay only from post office to post office … home delivery is a benefit). You are presently located in a watershed which is going to have a HUC number identifying it as a federal zone. The watershed has laws of its own which seem fairly benign (don’t kill fish, don’t dump manure, don’t flush oil or sewage, etc). The watershed territories seem to have no rules against drug, alcohol, driving or gunfighting though.
I mention watersheds for a reason. There is no metes and bounds description of what precisely the French transferred to the U.S. of A. The general rule seems to be that the west watershed of the Mississippi river as well as the entire watershed of the Missouri and Red rivers were included. Makes me wonder if when the U.S. bargained and sold land using metes and bounds whether they retained what they purchased from the French … the watershed.
Don
September 6, 2012 at 10:50 PM
Palani,
Someday, someone just might take advantage of your license “TO AGREE” since you cannot disagree. I know with all of your knowledge etc., that YOU of all people MUST KNOW that the word/term License is an offspring word of Licentious. So since you only are licensed to agree, you are agreeing to licentiousness. If you are of the feminine gender be careful who you say that to. Then again,emphasize it if you meet someone you like. As dense as I am I could understand that FAST. REAL FAST
pop_de_adam
August 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM
I don’t know if this has any real bearing in an actual court room but I suspect it does, Regarding: answering, assuming and pleading when someone does hire an attorney have you noticed how at an arraignment while you have hired this attorney to represent you, they seem to defer to the defendant to answer questions about understanding and pleading, almost as if it is a third rail that is not to be touched. If your own attorney will not answer these questions for you(or at least with much goading or disavowing) what does that tell you about the nature of these questions?
palani
September 7, 2012 at 6:36 AM
@Don
Licentious means “full of license” or unrestrained which is not the sense I use the word license. Want to see it? Here is the full license:
Matthew 5:25
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Don
September 7, 2012 at 1:23 PM
To Palani,
Why not say I only have the AUTHORITY to agree. Truthfully, a long long time ago when you first mentioned the word agree,that which is written in Matthew 5:25 instantly came into my mind. Apparently,the Apostles Peter,Paul,& others did not “agree with thine adversary” but I’m sure if they had your knowledge & understood the real meaning of Matthew 5;25 they would have. You have left yourself wide open for others to come down on you HARD for your “Licentious stand.” You also nitpick me because I made a typo error & put an i in a word instead of an a & you tell me that what I say is unintelligible because 1 letter is wrong in the entire message I sent. With your LICENTIOUS stand, you STRAIN at knats & SWALLOW elephants.Still, I care for you.Your “good traits” more than exceed your bad.
Don
October 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Palani,
You say in pertinent part: “Licentious means “full of license” or unrestrained which is not the sense I use the word license.”
This may be the only time I cannot agree with you & the reason is as follows.
Your answer doesn’t make any sense .Your answer is “full of it.” In other words,you say what your research says the definition of license is & then say you are going to use the term anyway because you are going to redefine what the definition is to comply with your own way of thinking which is an example of being unrestrained, e.g.The party was a scene of unrestrained debauchery. What in your mind is the definition of unrestrained?
Anon4fun
August 27, 2012 at 2:23 PM
Anthony: “His understanding is that we consent to assume liability for our all caps corporate entity when we sign contracts (like drivers license, social security, building permits, etc.) with the govco.”
This construction may not be quite correct. Perhaps, in our dealings with government, we do not *accept liability for* an all-caps entity. Rather, we *act in the capacity of* this all-caps entity. I went into this earlier in a post above. For starters, fictions can’t do anything by themselves in the real world. They have no means of independent action. How then does this all-caps entity already have liability at the time I’m being asked to represent it? It’s more plausible that the all-caps entity is a fictional interface of sorts, like a mask or persona.
Back to the trial court for more speculation on this point.
JOHN SMITH is a role by John Smith in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the creator and owner of JOHN SMITH, who could be either the state or the judge. The creator and owner of JOHN SMITH grants license to John Smith, on the latter’s implied request through voluntary acceptance of the charges encumbering JOHN SMITH, to perform as JOHN SMITH for the purpose of realizing the beneficiary’s conception of justice in a convincingly designed setting.
PS: Sorry, and no offense, but the video you posted looks like “save the Earth by giving up civilization and, if you’re a real hero, killing yourself” greeny propaganda repackaged for what they consider the kook patriot fringe. It has the typical NWO over-produced psychological manipulation feel. Plus, it carries the NWO’s usual message nowadays of resigning the fight by quitting the field of battle and retreating to junk entertainment, drugs of whatever type, your own little hole somewhere, the mental “solitary vice” of anarcho-capitalism, or similar.
aregularamericansperspective
August 27, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Jethro yeah there was one, however it of course was an utter fraud as a license is : permission by competent authority to do that which is a tort, trespass or unlawful. paraphrased If you are not fully informed you can always bring the fraud in and it has no statute of limitations. Another thing I’ve found very relevant is jurisdiction. Give me a week and I’ll start posting on my blog how I’ve learned to use the information learned from the Bible, Al, Marc Stevens, Dean Clifford and there is another mans book awoke me quite well look for his .pdf on the net called Perceptions by: Michael H. Kheen and watch Marc Stevens video on youtube called Delusions. Al does alot of hypothesizing because of all the corruption in the system but I don’t care and love the unauthorized practice of law, because I love protecting my fellow men and women with truth and light. I do law, not practice it and law is actually easy enough for even a simple man to understand when you put the pieces of the puzzle together and it all clicks. You have to realize though most of the cops, judges and prosecutors out there are flat out extortionate criminals (however if you consent to what they are doing then can it really be a crime?) and I know this from sitting in courts and watching in 4 different fictions called states and watching these people use innocent peoples ignorance against them, and I’m sick of it! (My people suffer for a lack of knowledge = their ignorance) I’ll start posting soon and well put some of Als and the other peoples knowledge whom have brought me into the light to some good and real use in the real world. I’ll also post all the details of all my arrests and exactly what is going on in my the child support extortion in Florida, as it happens.
Peace to all of you.
Don
September 6, 2012 at 7:46 PM
To: aregularamericansperspective
From: Don
Everything you say is true from my own 25 years of receiving sordid,brutal treatment from our so called “public servants”. If I may ask, where do you live in Fla. I once lived in Fla. was there for around 15 years. The last place was Orange Springs, about 20 miles N.E. of Ocala, across from Island Lake.
The Best of all to you & yours too.
James Barnes
September 7, 2012 at 5:50 AM
Actually Don I Live in Missouri
However the only legal problems I’ve ever had come from Child Support Terrorists in Florida. Born and raised within the area known as Tampa, Florida. Since beginning my study of law I’ve sat in courts in Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and Missouri watching so called honorable judges allowing fraud after fraud after fraud, however the people they were doing this to rarely if ever denied consent or challenged jurisdiction of the people invoking the courts, so basically they allowed it to happen to themselves. Just because they are ignorant. One of the first things I learned in Law was Maxims . “The law gives succor to the ignorant.” was a big one and “The Law trifles not with impossibilities.” My false arrest in Tishomingo County Mississippi was literally for riding in a car, of course the false charge was disorderly conduct, which was actually caused by the literal idiot with a badge and a gun named R. Cornelison Whom didn’t like that I wouldn’t give him ID, however no one can order me to do the impossible and expect me to comply. I haven’t had any form of govt ID since 2007 and no drivers license since 2003 and because I’m not involved in transportation or commerce and function only in inherent jurisdiction I don’t need one. While he was falsely arresting me he said to his criminal sheriff buddy. “He won’t give me his information.” and he was right it was MY information not his. Your business is your business and NONE of my business, pretty simple logic there? I’m prepping my first post for my blog on this stuff but I had to consider a lot of things as not to confuse people. I joined Facebook just recently, only because of of these criminals kidnapping Brandon Raub the marine from Virginia. All Im doing on it is posting the truth and all of it I can find, Trust me waking up was hard for me, I flet so betrayed and defiled for about 2 weeks and then I got pissed and I mean pissed enough to kill everyone of them. Then being a rational and caring man I began educating myself using the trivium and reactivating my critical thinking, which had been killed in the fraud of so called school and 5 years later. I’m a lot like Gandhi with a bit of the wrath of Jesus included and have determined helping my fellow man to protect themselves is what my mission in life is, and I’m literally doing that by offering my help to my neighbors, friends and anyone whom asks. I’m helping a guy on false drug charges, a felony right now in Howell county Missouri. If he’s ok with it I’ll post what happens there also. Seriously though, awakening is not something you can teach it’s something every individual has to research and find for themselves from seeds planted by information,
My order was:
Law dictionaries
Corpus Juris Secundum
American Jurisprudence
Studying Affidavits and Contracts and Causation
Alot of Al’s Antishyster stuff
Mary Croft – How I clobbered Every Cash Confiscatory Agency Known to Man (book)
Robert Menards 2 films “Bursting the Bubbles of Government Deception” and “The magnificent Deception”
Marc Stevens.net – Invaluable for going into the courts and a great guy and his film on youtube called “Delusions”
The study of Human behavior and Psychology and Skinner, Stanley Milgram
Michael H Keehns book “Perceptions: which is here http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/bookxml.pdf
Dean Cliffords recent YouTubes Called “Making it Simple” And “Courtroom Procedure” very informative.
Most of the rest is up to the man or woman, but you have to realize you are dealing with dangerous psychopathic delusional criminals whom pretend to protect and defend our right but only give a crap about money if you can call it that.
Love and Peace to you All
Don
September 13, 2012 at 6:45 PM
To:Varegularamericansperspective
Did you know it was,as you say,”an utter fraud as a license is when you put your “John Henry on it?
James Barnes
September 21, 2012 at 4:46 AM
I didn’t know what it was at all and definitely didn’t know about all the lawful elements of a contract. Not one cop I’ve encountered in doing all of this has had any clue of anything to do with law. They are trained in mindless procedure. my master says I must do this so YOU have to comply. They are literally ignorant, deluded morons (who will kill you for a delusion) and I feel for them, but I don’t have to stand for their horseshit delusions, because I am informed now. Mind you like Al, I’m still ignorant of a hell of a lot but every time I have an encounter with these criminals I learn and learning is knowledge and the way to freedom, if you get them to honor their oaths and what is right. Another great Maxim is “A thing similar is not the same.” Think JAMES BARNES vs James Barnes similar but definitely not the same and I have never once in my life signed the name JAMES BARNES it’s impossible in American cursive.
Ummer
August 27, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Do you understand the charges.
Charges? Wouldn’t it be more normal to say, ‘do you realize the accusations being made against you’. Charges sounds more like something on a bill or a credit card.
Knowing that ‘understand’ also refers to ‘stand under’ or ‘agreement’, that would make that original statement: Do you agree/stand under the charges. Charge being itemized charges and they really do list out the charges and a price is decided by the judge.
Don
September 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM
HI ummer, “Sometimes” a judge will also say: You have the right to remain silent & ANYTHING you say CAN & WILL BE used against you.” (Capitals are my emphasis)’ I have been found in contempt for exercising my so called right to “remain silent.” & have been put in jail for months, per several occassions. So, re: Do you understand the charges, & if ANYTHING you say CAN & WILL BE used against you, IF you answer yes or no, either answer will be used against you. If you don’t answer at all, because you are exercising your right to remain silent, you can be, at least I was, found in contempt for that. NOW DO WE REALLY HAVE THE “RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT?? “
Ummer
September 1, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Don even though, Jesus did remain silent.
But is it when they’re asking you the real to stay silent while they can and will use against the YOU?
Don
September 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Thanks Ummer.
Jesus remained silent AFTER he said what he needed to. If you want proof I’ll show you where it is written in the holy Scriptures. I hope you are not making a stand/fight,etc.alone as I did. If so.you will be crucified and that’s an understatement.
Timmy
August 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Al, you covered attorney representation in your post; notice that if choose not to have an attorney represent me, we know the court will say i am therefore “representing myself” which is very telling.
A, it’s logically absurd. B, it proves that there are at least two entities in the court’s eyes. I think you’ve also covered the language of “appearing” in court, which has similar issues. Therefore we have our growing list of non consents… we never appear, never consent, never plea and never represent ourselves. For starters anyway…
I guess everyone knows you have to sign a traffic citation to activate it. An example of a mini contract in itself.
Don
September 1, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Timmy
Don’t sign & he/she will make you an offer you can’t refuse at least in my case(s). e.g. SIGN OR GO TO JAIL. I went to jail several times & it was a 7 times federally condemned jail.
James Barnes
September 21, 2012 at 5:03 AM
I would have to look all your stuff to see exactly what I believe went on, but I’m still dealing with their stupidity on my stuff and helping people near me. I would not have signed or, signed under protest and duress making the instrument void. Terrorists will do what they do whether you sign or not however to maintain the courts pretense of fairness they have to watch out so all the ignorant sheeple don’t wake up. Oh, I also no longer eat terrorist food or drink terrorist water so this presents big problems for them also. Takes a bit of fortitude to stick with, but I love challenging domestic idiots. I would rather die than live as a slave on the land where I was born, and defended in good faith for 17 years to protect freedom and liberty, not to defend the rights of some black robe wearing criminal to lord over me. Love and Peace to you All.
Anon4fun
August 28, 2012 at 2:10 AM
Q: Do you understand the charges?
A: What do you mean by “understand”?
If it’s true that JOHN SMITH is the job title, as it were, of John Smith in a fiduciary capacity (as agent of the court, most likely), then the collective entity doctrine applies. This explains why John Smith’s claims to Constitutional rights are so ineffective when he’s in the role of defendant.
NDT
August 28, 2012 at 5:56 AM
In commerce, truth is sovereign. By claiming an understanding of a fiction, you divorce yourself from the truth and lose status. In this sense you stand under a judge who speaks only truth.
Ummer
August 28, 2012 at 12:41 PM
While working in a legal office, there were just procedures when it came to capitals and what not. Maybe rather than a legal statute, there’s something mentioned in regards to legal procedures?
Also, what kind of word would capitals be referred to in a legal context? Unicals? Personage?
Also… wouldn’t the legal definition of Capital provide us with insight that they’ve sold out the name?
Don
September 1, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Ummer,
Re: all caps names. According to the Hodges Harbrace College Handbook, “One use of all capital letters is: “Proper names of a BUSINESS, or other entities that are NOT ALIVE, e.g. NASA, PAC-MAN, FORTRAN.”
According to Mager’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of English Usage, Prentice Hall, Inc. (1974), it is written, in pertinent part: “A name spelled in all capital (upper case) letters DOES NOT FOLLOW, inter alia, the rules for proper names in English Grammar.” According to U.S. v. Goldenberg, 42 L. Ed. 394, page 398, it is written: “The lawmaker is presumed to know the English rules of grammar.”
susan straub
August 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM
I enjoyed your interview on the Alex Jones show today. Yesterday I watched a video by Santos Bonacci titled “Your Soul Belongs to the Vatican”. According to this, everything that occurs in court is Ecclesiastical, and originates from three cestui (666) que vie trusts established by the Vatican. The trusts are: 1. Romanus Pontifex (all people and property on earth are subject to Roman Pontiff) 2. Aeterni Regis (Birth Certificate as bond to the corporation) 3. Convocation (title over all souls, on and under the seas-the meaning of Maritime Law). I was wondering if you know of these trusts and if you have an opinion about them. According to oneheaven.org, three writs against these trusts (Ultimus Triritus Probatum Romanus) were issued in 2011, to collapse and terminate them.
Adask
August 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM
I’m not familiar with the trusts you mentioned, but the theory sounds plausible. If you learn more, let me know.
Tony
August 28, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Hey Al and Susan,
(Susan, great stuff – thanks!)
Maybe check this out.
From:
http://sovereignwarriors.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=6194679%3ATopic%3A171469&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
This is still in place all over the planet. It is where the strawman theory comes from. I have researched this not with the hopes of finding the holy grail, as I had never heard of the cestui qui vie act or supposed trusts that are the basis for the supposed prepaid account that the strawman theory speculates. but to understand what is going on around me. While reading the treaties, acts, etc since the 1700′s, I kept seeing references to tenant life estates, life trusts, etc. I started reading state codes for estates, wills, etc. You would be surprised to find that feudalism didn’t end when we were taught it did. It was just changed or hidden in new legislation. I have spent thousands of hours in the law libraries and recently found that google books has hundreds of these books scanned. The ones written by attorneys and judges in the late 1800′s and early 1900′s are very enlightening. During my research, I kept seeing cestui que vie trust and not just in the English books, but the US ones. Then I noticed there were codes in every state that were similar to the ones in England, especially the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666. I have met with estate planners (lawyers) fishing for answers and without exception when I mentioned cestui qui vie, every lawyer would look away, fidget and get sweaty palms and would suddenly remember they had another appointment to get to. This just gave me more reason to want to research. I’m compiling data and will share it soon. There is something to this, whether anyone believes me or not. I have read case after case stating the taxpayer is the cestui que vie trust.
Tony
Don
September 1, 2012 at 3:15 PM
Alfred I may have already sent this, I don’t remember. I am so tired.
According to the Hodges Harbrace College Handbook, “One use of all capital letters is: “Proper names of a BUSINESS, or other entities that are NOT ALIVE, e.g. NASA, PAC-MAN, FORTRAN.”
According to Mager’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of English Usage, Prentice Hall, Inc. (1974), it is written, in pertinent part: “A name spelled in all capital (upper case) letters DOES NOT FOLLOW, inter alia, the rules for proper names in English Grammar.”
According to U.S. v. Goldenberg, 42 L. Ed. 394, page 398, it is written: “The lawmaker is presumed to know the English rules of grammar.”
NDT
August 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Capital. Accumulated goods, possessions, and assets, used for the production of profits and wealth.
Capitis diminutio I. In Roman law, a diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man’s status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.
(Both from Blacks 5th)
Yartap
August 28, 2012 at 9:31 PM
The documents with All Capitalized letters for my name are not documents about me or relating to me personally. I did not and do not capitalized my name in such a manner. The organization that does such (capitalize all letters) does not wish to deal with me, the person; but rather, deal with something that “they perceive” as me.
Logically, if a question arises as to who the contract is made with, it cannot possible be me. Because the contract does not identify me as a party to the contract if my name is spelled with all capital letters. All capital letter spelling of my name is not me.
One signs up for some government privilege/contract or some quasi-government contract, and fills out their forms with proper and correct spelling and capitalization, then receives back documents which identifies another, someone else or a fiction. There is not any given logical reason or explanation of reason for such blatant mis-spelling and “making void” the contract. Right? Well, not exactly.
With such blatant and multiple use of all capitalization of names upon contracts in our world, we can only surmise logically that we are representing a fictitious person. And we can surmise that the gov-co. and quasi-gov-co’s can only deal and wish only to deal with the fictions and not a living breathing person.
So, where is the lock or law that says one has to represents a fiction? Well, there is no law, but there is a lock.
So, how does the gov-co. create a fiction? Well, they don’t do it. You see, YOU DO IT!
We must remember, we, as a whole, have instituted corrupt government by electing corrupt men. This corrupt government is not going to tell us the truth, nor morally inform us what the truth is. Their attitude and belief is. “We do not have to tell you anything. That is not our responsibility.”
In business, contracts are made everyday, and it is the responsibility of each party to know and understand their contracts, it is not the other party’s responsibility to inform. Such is the same when dealing with the government, after all, the government is a corporation and they operate as such.
It is us, who assumes the gov-co is a government, when in fact, they are truly just another corporation that has stepped along side the founding trust (true Constitutional government) to establish what appears to be a government. If we can keep in mine, the fact, that government is a corporation, we will be able to know how to deal with it.
So, how do we create the lock between us and our fictions we represent? It is simple.
Look at any gov-co. contract or agreement (driver’s license, marriage license, social security card, W-2, W-4, W-8, Tax registration, Car Insurance, Bank account, etc.), you will find Two (2) names, not One. You will find the fiction name and your name (Christian or Lawful written signature, Upper and Lower case). Thus two separate parties, one named as a party to the contract and you with your signature as “surety” for the fictional party.
All the government does is “offer” to us the fiction and we can either accept or reject the fiction as its representative. I don’t care whose name is stated as a party to the contract, it can be your brother’s name, Your sister’s name, your neighbor’s name or your social club’s name; if you sign with your lawful name, you are the representative and you accept all responsibility for the named party on the contract, even if it is a fiction. They offer the fiction and you accept the fiction, thus you created the fiction and brought it to life.
Why does the gov-co, do this? Because gov-co. only wishes to deal in Admiralty courts and law. This places one with less Rights and allows them to make anything illegal by statute. This allowed them to deal in Federal Reserve Notes. This allowed them to bend the Constitution. This allowed them to place gov-co.’s debt in your name.
And remember: If your fiction is brought to court and you request and reserve your unalienable Rights to be applied. They are not applied for you the representative of the fiction. If they are applied at all, they are applied on behalf of your fiction that you represent. Thus, with the application of Rights, you are moving your fiction back to the former Constitutional government and away from the quasi-government gov-co. (From one venue to another venue.)
How do I know that the government is illegitimate? Do you have a U.S. representative for every thirty thousand people? Does your state pay its debts with gold and silver? We don’t have these things, but yet, the U.S. Constitution demands this as law.
Can we question any laws passed from Congress after the creation of this quasi-government gov-co.(1916 A.D. to 1933 A.D.)? I think so. And I think they do not apply to a truly Constitutional person.
Jethro
August 28, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Is “contract” the correct term, though? e.g. The application for SSN (SS-5) has only the applicant’s signature on it, and Congress has no legal or contractual obligation to pay benefits one may have expected to receive (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html).
Adask
August 28, 2012 at 10:56 PM
I believe that a contract must reflect a “meeting of the mindS”–plural as in “two minds” that meet in an agreement. The identify of these two minds is revealed by the two signatures on the contract. If that were’t true, I might sign a “contract” unilaterally (entirely by myself) and then name anyone on earth as the other “mind” with which I “met” even if that “mind” had never before seen me or my “contract”.
I am convinced that contract must be signed by everyone party to that contract. Anyone whose signature is not on the contract is not party to the contract.
However, it is possible for one person to sign a “unilateral contract” (a document that bears a single signature). But is a “unilateral contract” really a “contract”? I don’t think so. For me, it’s just more governmental twisting of words and definitions to deceive the public. I could be wrong, but I believe the “term unilateral contract” is used to deceive people into believing a document with a single signature is a “contract” when it is, in my opinion, a PLEDGE.
For example, around my house, I might teach my kids that on Sundays when I prepared waffles for breakfast, we’ll call ‘em “unilateral contracts”. If the kids want waffles, they’d better say “unilateral contracts” or I won’t fix any. But just because I can enforce an agreement to change the name of “waffles” to “unilateral contracts”–they still waffles which can be easily distinguished from “contracts” by the fact that they go good with maple syrup.
A “unilateral contract” is not necessarily a real “contract” any more than a “flying horse” is a real “horse”.
I believe that although there may be some other class of documents that are legal with only one signature, the majority (maybe all) of documents bearing a single signature is a PLEDGE.
One man signs. One man is bound. Bound by what? By his own signature–not public law.
Many of you are likely to have heard stories concerning people who call in during “pledge week” for the PBS television networks who then renege on their pledge. I.e., someone calls PBS, pledges $50 over the phone, and later reneges on his pledge to send the $50. PBS will contact that pledgor and explain that if he doesn’t send the currency as pledged, the courts will enforce the pledge. My understanding is that the courts will absolutely enforce a pledge.
The pledge, itself, may be an act that falls into “private” (rather than “public”) law.
Whether an application (as for SSN, Drivers License, etc.) bearing a single signature constitute a “pledge” is unclear to me. But someone will have to show me the error of my ways before they can convince me that the single signature “under penalty of perjury” on a 1040 is not a pledge. You signed it, you pledged it, you pay it. Try to duck out that the courts will enforce.
Even an application for a drivers license may constitute a pledge to be bound by the “rules of the road”. God only knows what sort of agreement as to status, standing or your nature might be “pledged” when you signed an application for a SSN–or when you signed an application to receive SSN benefits.
The nice thing about single-signature documents (pledges, in my opinion) is that if I alone sign a document, there is no “meeting of minds”. The words on the document do not mean what I and some other party agree they mean. The words mean only what I (the only signatory) intended them to mean. Thus, if I alone signed a document wherein I agreed that I am a “citizen of the United States,” the gov-co might presume that I meant to “pledge” that I’m a citizen of the SINGULAR “United States” seen in the 14th Amendment, but I can easily argue that when I made my “pledge” I meant “citizen of the SEVERAL United States” as seen in the body of the Constitution and the 13th Amendment.
I can’t prove it, but it seems eminently logical that the only man who can say what the meaning is of a document that he alone signed is that single, actual signatory. Even if I use a government form, when I sign a document it means what I thought it meant when I signed it. If government can successfully argue that the document must mean something other than what I thought when I signed, then it seems to me that I can’t be bound by my signature to a document whose meaning was unknown to me. I.e., suppose I sign a document written in a foreign language? Am I bound to obey the terms of a document that I never understood? I don’t think so.
In any case, until I see evidence to change my mind, I will assume that a single signature on a document does not create a “contract” but does create a “pledge”.
Yartap
August 28, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Hi Jethro,
Yes, it is a proper term. One signature can be intended as a gift, asset, contract, pledge or witness. There are many types of one signature contracts.
As it relates to Social Security, the Application for a Social Security Number (SS-5) is an application which is either accepted or rejected by the SSA. Once accepted, by one’s qualifications, the Straw man is issued. The one signature application implies your acceptance on your part for the contract (agreement) as administered by the SSA. The Social Security Act is the contract and it is simple: Social Security is a “tax” which Congress may use the funding toward any need of the public as approved by Congress. There is no guarantees for one’s retirement. The funds may be used to fight a war or other causes. The applicant, who “wishes” to create a “Constructive Reserve Fund may apply.”
Remember: with most one signature contracts, they are “subject to change” by both parties involved with the contract.
Thanks for the question, Yartap.
aregularamericansperspective
August 28, 2012 at 11:52 PM
You need to do a bit of research. I’ll look for the congressional hearing records and the Supreme Court case that both say Social Security is NOT a contract. I’ve personally read and have copies of both but my computer is having problems (I believe the power supply) and will not power either of my 1.5 TB drives for some reason. When I figure out that I’ll have the exact info on hand but I’ll begin looking for it now cause I found it on the net.
Great Interview with Alex Al. And I believe alot of us are getting to the point of will it really take a violent revolution to wake the American people u,. and bring this corrupt and blatantly criminal govt back into line where it belongs?
I have Thousands of Examples but read William Griggs Blog Pro Libertate and look up Carolyn Rose Goyda if you want a now example. I can’t trust anyone any longer with a badge and a gun I have to deem them a domestic terrorist threat until they prove to me their heart and intentions. That saddens and angers me to no limits. While I never want to be violent (I cry when my animals die for cripes sake and it would damage me forever to kill another human being) but it’s looking more and more like they aren’t going to let there be a peaceful solution, as I’ve said before time will answer all things. One thing everyone needs to realize is there are good and bad in every trade and profession. However the current so called justice system is utterly corrupt and they use YOUR ignorance against you and when you know how to defend yourself then they tend to lie change reality and then resort to violence to cover THEIR CRIMES.
Knowledge people is the key, Pulling the log out of your eye is a good start for coming into the light. Realize though if you go into a court you are in real and life threatening danger with a cabal that protects it’s own. Any cops that don’t end up fired so how can you call any Cop good? If they cover up the crimes of others? Only if your an idiot. Sorry I’m so long winded and got off topic, but your subjects just get me going and discussion is how we learn.
Peace out
Yartap
August 29, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Al,
I submit that pledge and contract exist within the context applied as to proper approach and usage.
Your example of the 1040 is truly a Pledge. The signature upon a W-4 is your Contract with the IRS. Your signature upon a SSA-5 form is your contract with the SSA.
Many people have tried to defraud credit card companies by placing someone else’s name and information upon a single signature application which converted into a single signature contract. And Yes!, the named person had great trouble with having their credit record cleared, not to forget, the actual liability for paying the charges, too.
And Al, please don’t call in to a local PBS station and pledge in my name! (lol)
Yartap
Yartap
August 29, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Yes, courts have said that credit cards are NOT a contract. But, some have said that they are by their “nature.” Once one has applied for the card and has been accepted by the card company, the card is issued with the “contract terms.” Upon its first use, you have agreed to the so-called contract. It is the credit card company that calls it a contract.
What a credit card is, is actually an “open account” by most law. Most credit card cases are held in state courts and each state is different with its application to the question of “is it a contract.”
But, as to the use of the term, “Pledge,” to describe a credit card agreement, I’m not sure. I have not seen the word use in the few cases I have reviewed. Usually, a pledge is a faithful given word or agreement; or in commerce, it is found inside a contract as security of a “pledged” asset for some performance or repayment. Pledges are covered in title 9 of the UCC.
Yartap
September 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM
aregularamericansperspective,
The Supreme Court and Congress say that Social Security (and Income Taxation) is not a Contract? AND YOU BELIEVE THEM? I do not care what they say! They have to lie!, to keep up the deception upon the American public. Or we will figure out, that what we have is an Adhesion Contract with so-so security.
I don’t care what the court cases and congressional hearings announce, as a Sovereign, I will use thought and logic to make the FINAL decision as to the truth in the matter. I suggest you do the same. Those bastards will lie and steal from us, REMEMBER THAT.
I have to fight, everyday, the ignorant people who say that I have to give a social security number to do commerce. EVERYDAY! Adhesion is placed upon me at all angles by an unknowing public, who does the government’s dirty work. The public does not see, that this is Voluntary, as congress has proclaimed many times (which is true). I am removing myself from the CONTRACT!
If I or my parents had never signed the so-call “application,” then I would not be under the adhesion contracts (social security and income tax).
You will not find in the social security law or IRS code that it is voluntary. What you find is “those (you and me) who wish to establish a constructive reverse fund.” We volunteered to the adhesion contract by signing up. We were told that we HAD to sign up. This is fraud and a total lie. And you want to believe them that this is not a contract?
If I have to do something in exchange for a benefit, then it is a contract. If I voluntarily agree with another party to terms, then it is a contract. If one of those parties has an one-sided advantage over the other party, then it is an adhesion contract!
Randy
September 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM
If one is a Soverign, you cant have a ssn, you cannot b a part of the system !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, I have cancelled my ssn#, of course the a-holes to be replyed I cant do that. That claimed in us vs. kim, a korean national who wanted to be a us citizen had to get a ssn#, yea if u r a foreigner, they can make you get one, but I was born in Ohio and changed my Domicile to Calif. Im not a resident of any state
Anon4fun
August 28, 2012 at 10:58 PM
job title – the name given to the person who does a particular job (InvestorWords.com)
Someone answering to JOHN SMITH is not implicitly claiming to be an entity other than John Smith, a man made in God’s image, any more than his answering a call for the FLOOR MANAGER at work implies the same. JOHN SMITH and FLOOR MANAGER are both capacities, specifically of a fiduciary nature, in which John Smith acts. All three names correspond to the same living being.
Note: The foregoing is a possibility I’m looking into based on Al’s many useful discoveries. If anyone knows of contrary evidence, please post it.
Yartap
August 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM
Al & Anon4fun,
As I have written, my belief, is that the Social Security Application (SSA-5) is a single signature contract. The problem with this belief is the fact that now parents can sign their children up for a SSN.
So, what is it? Could it be that we have a “collective fiduciary?” Or can a parent obligate a child lawfully in the capacity as guardian? Can the parent be held responsible as fiduciary for the child’s straw man? Or was this “new” rule administered to make the books look better to the creditors during these hard financial times?
Give Me Your Thoughts, Yartap.
Jethro
August 29, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Yartap, if I may interject… Is it possible that when a parent applies (signs) for a SSN for an infant/child, and the child turns 18 and does not object, it is deemed that the child has RATIFIED the parent’s political choice for him/her and thereby taken on all liabilities?
Yartap
August 29, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Hi Jethro,
That is a very possible point.
Thanks, Yartap.
Adask
August 29, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas reads in part,
“Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their BENEFIT. . . .”
Use of the word “benefit” clearly implies that that Constitution creates a trust wherein the people are the beneficiaries. It follows that the the government officers and/or employees would be the fiduciaries under that trust/Constitution. I infer that all State and federal constitutions are trust instruments and that for every de jure, constitutional government, the people are the intended beneficiaries and the government officers/employees are the fiduciaries.
I’ve been told for years by a couple of researchers (one recently passed away) who generally knew what they were talking about, that So-So Security program was originally intended for government employees and that it was subsequently expanded to include virtually everyone. I don’t know that this research is correct, but I respected the people who said so. Therefore, I’m inclined to believe this research/rumor. If the research/rumor is correct, it would probably be supported in the first one or two statutes that created SS.
According to these researchers, anyone who took a SSN was presumed to be a government employee and therefore a FIDUCIARY under the federal Constitution rather than a beneficiary. The significance is that, generally speaking, a fiduciary has a mass of obligations and liabilities while a beneficiary primarily enjoys a mass of rights to be protected by government and its fiduciaries.
If it’s true that the SSN creates the presumption that we are each government employees/fiduciaries, then it may follow that in return for using the SSN’s “pottage,” we are presumed to have voluntarily consented to be stripped of our standing as beneficiaries and thereby lost our standing to claim our most important rights.
Can anyone affirm or refute this possibility?
Yartap
August 29, 2012 at 5:56 PM
Al,
I have found affirmation to your claim in the IRS title 26 CFR 2.1-1 that has made us employees by definition of “taxpayer” subject under the Merchant Marine Act, thus making us federal employees. This definition relates back to the definitions of “taxpayer” in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code which only states that a taxpayer is “one who is subject to the Internal Revenue Code.”
Jethro
August 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM
5 USC § 552a(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), **individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits)**
Don
September 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM
To Anon4fun:
According to the Hodges Harbrace College Handbook, “One use of all capital letters is: “Proper names of a BUSINESS, or other entities that are NOT ALIVE, e.g. NASA, PAC-MAN, FORTRAN.”
According to Mager’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of English Usage, Prentice Hall, Inc. (1974), it is written, in pertinent part: “A name spelled in all capital (upper case) letters DOES NOT FOLLOW, inter alia, the rules for proper names in English Grammar.”
mike
August 29, 2012 at 6:33 AM
I was recently assisting a friend with some traffic issues when suddenly the judge exclaimed “your free to go”.During this process his brother got arrested for some theft charges. Gov Co spelled its name on all papers in upper and lower case letters. In all the traffic and tax issues All caps was the rule. The same with the defendants name. So far it is the only time I have noticed upper and lower case in stead of all caps. Except on property tax assessments it seems the Sherriff is in upper and lower case with the “State” but the address of the taxpayer ( victim ) is in all caps. Maybe upper an lower case reflects the Republic as theft and murder etc would have been a crime that government might have authority to deal with. And the all caps is a result of the foreign form of government, with it’s fake money, funny rules like each state has a rule that everything is a corporation unless pled otherwise. Long story short it appears to me that a foreign form of government has come in as a result of a designed bankruptcy and taken over. Similar to what we have done in the middle east, except we just did it by force. My point is there is another perspective that I have not seen addressed. IN a nutshell the STATE is in disguise on the premises of the state.
Could this all be a war game described in the State code of military justice. Its interesting.
18 USC 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— ….
Adask
August 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM
18 USC 241 would probably not apply if it were presumed that the alleged “victim” of such “conspiracy” had actually CONSENTED to waive his rights and/or privileges. If so, it would be important for any potential victim/suspect to give notice from the beginning that he does not consent to waive any of his rights.
Don
September 1, 2012 at 12:13 PM
To Alfred:
According to the Hodges Harbrace College Handbook, “One use of all capital letters is: “Proper names of a BUSINESS, or other entities that are NOT ALIVE, e.g. NASA, PAC-MAN, FORTRAN.” According to Mager’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of English Usage, Prentice Hall, Inc. (1974), it is written, in pertinent part: “A name spelled in all capital (upper case) letters DOES NOT FOLLOW, inter alia, the rules for proper names in English Grammar.” According to U.S. v. Goldenberg, 42 L. Ed. 394, page 398, it is written: “The lawmaker is presumed to know the English rules of grammar.”
Don
September 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM
18 USC 241 is “created” via the power clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words it is part of the “appropriate legislation provided.” If anyone uses it,or Title 42 provisions, he/she is asking for “protection,” etc. & saying that he/she is a “14th Amendment creation of the 39th Congress citizen. The Creator is superior to that which is created,& we both know this.
Anon4fun
August 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Yartap: “As I have written, my belief, is that the Social Security Application (SSA-5) is a single signature contract. The problem with this belief is the fact that now parents can sign their children up for a SSN.”
I think the Social Security Application is just that: an application. This is why a child’s parents can send one in, though children cannot form contracts.
application – 1. A request or petition. (Black’s 9th)
The request or petition is for a position within the government corporation, to be designated by an all-caps job title (e.g. JOHN SMITH) and assigned an SSN. The applicant may become active in this capacity when of age, if ever. No obligation is created for the child, since participating in Social Security is a voluntary servitude.
Anon4fun
August 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM
Actually, after looking at the SSA-5, it requires you to already have a US driver’s license, US passport, or the like. Having one of these means you have already applied for and been granted an all-caps job title (e.g. JOHN SMITH) within the US government corporation. Social Security itself appears to be, as Al said, for use by existing government employees.
Jethro
August 29, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Consider that the precedent document to the US driver license or passport is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which certifies the birth of ALL CAPS NAME. Consider also that the BC is the only gov. document signed by *them*. It appears this is the creation of the LEGAL PERSON (capacity) for which you are allowed to make use to conduct your future affairs.
Don
September 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM
Anon4fun,
The “US Driver License” is a new one on me.Please tell me more about it.THANKS !!!
Randy
August 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM
no where in the us governments style manual is all caps permitted, end of story, its a fraud and nobody is doing anything about it, periodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
Jethro
August 30, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Randy, could you provide a link to the government style manual you’re referring to? If it’s true that the US gov’s own style manual does not allow for an ALL CAPS NAME at any time, then there’s a curious problem when, for example, the “IRS Addressing Standards for Notice Letter” *mandates* ALL CAPS:
- http://www.irs.gov/irm/part8/irm_08-017-004.html
- 8.17.4.7.5 (11-09-2007)
- IRS Addressing Standards for Notice Letter
- Use the guidelines outlined in the IRS Addressing Standards ( Document 12019) when preparing the notice letter:
- Capitalize ALL letters in the name and address.
Implication: IRS is not a government agency, or at least not in the same plane as the government who created the style manual.
Randy
August 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM
No I cannot, however you can go to http://www.state-citizen.org and find out. Also, the word human being means a monster/beast, Richard can help you so please let me know what u find out, thanx
Yartap
August 30, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Jethro,
I, too, have read other’s research on the subject of All Capitals letters which state that all Federal writing manuals require upper and lower case letters. But, thanks to your input we see the “Addresses” are required upper caps. But, I did notice ,next, that in the letter it called for “careful” spelling of name and gave examples using upper and lower case letters.
I still think it is not the capitalization, but rather, the signing document or application for a program that creates the unknown adhesion by fraud.
As one has said, “To get out, DON’T USE THE CARD.” I believe that this is the key. We need and must find the regulations in the code that allow one to be employed and other things without the use of this documentation. This is an area we must research, I believe.
Jethro
September 5, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Yartap,
What you noticed further down on the style manual may be further evidence the IRS can only do business with fictions and/or particular CAPACITIES. Their manual states they must “Carefully check the name of the taxpayer”, then gives examples of names using both upper and lower case. However, since they never (at least not that I’ve seen) use a “Proper Name,” and they are duty-bound to “Carefully check the name,” we may conclude that when they instead use the all-caps “LEGAL NAME” it is *intentional and deliberate*.
Yartap
September 7, 2012 at 5:07 AM
Jethro,
Your right! That would be the thing to watch for, how they write your name after the address, to see who they are dealing with (blood or fiction).
Richard
September 28, 2012 at 7:04 AM
To: Jethro re: August 30, 2012 at 8:52 AM
The style manual being referred to is the US Government Printing Office Style Manual (2000) 29th edition at Chapter 3. I have used the following to return all mail addressed to the fictional character specified by the ALL CAPS NAME.
REFUSED FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR!
Addressee honors: Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1342
Sender attempts to violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1341
All Rights Reserved-Without Recourse.
Matter Not Properly Addressed
Note: I do not own anything of any measurable value like a house. I do own, or at least have physical possession of an automobile registered in my name . . . well there again it is not actually in my name, but rather in the fictional ALL CAPS NAME.
NDT
August 31, 2012 at 3:27 AM
I’d go with constructive fraud, no agent that I’ve spoken to knows what the significance of capitalization is.
Richard
September 28, 2012 at 7:18 AM
To: NDT re: August 31, 2012 at 3:27 AM
Yes constructive fraud is right. Fraud is the name of the game for the yellow bellied snakes. I’ll elaborate further on the name versus NAME game (act of war). Note: These are statements of fact I’ve used when “they” were coming at me regarding “child support”. The suit and tie is the uniform of the modern day criminal.
Addressing correspondence with abbreviations and letter symbols indicates the use of shortened name(s) of “governmental agencies” as evinced in Chapter 9, Section 9.8 of the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual (2000), 29th edition. I am not a governmental agency.
Addressing correspondence with all capital letters indicates a letter or Notice sent and addressed to an artificial person, or fictitious non-living entity identified by a “nom de guerre”. A nom de guerre is a “(Fictitious war name): a fictitious name: Pseudonym” Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Merriam-Webster, pg. 1534. I am a man, and I am not at war.
Addressing correspondence with other than lowercase roman indicates a letter or Notice sent and addressed to “Vessels”. A “Vessel of the United States” is defined in Title 18 U.S.C. 9 as “. . . any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.” I am not a Vessel of the United States. I am not a corporation.
I, am not a corporation. My proper given Christian name or appellation, and family name are proper nouns spelled with only the first letter capitalized in My given and family names and the remaining letters of each part of My given and family names are spelled in lower case alphabet, which is the acknowledged proper form according to Chapter 3 of the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual (2000), 29th edition, currently circulated. Please conform to the above referenced Style Manual on all correspondence and administrative or judicial process to Me.
Also refer to Bender vs. Kasnick (Civil No.C97-84WD and C97-120WD, U.S. District Court, in the Western District of Washington at Seattle, June 30, 1997) wherein the Federal District Court Judge acknowledged that a “true legal name” is not spelled with all capital letters, and the use of upper and lower case is the proper form.
Assigning said corporate fiction to Me without My consent and without full disclosure of its intended use may be deemed as constructive fraud, a contract of adhesion, a contract of implied consent, or an unconscionable contract. I do not consent! The use of the postal service in the aforesaid manner also may constitute mail fraud or a violation of Title 18 United States Code. Any such correspondence mailed to Me will be deemed mailed in error and refused for cause.
I am not properly named on any court order or marriage license created through deception and artful criminal conversion using the fictitious name or “nom de guerre” fraud, without full disclosure. “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters.” Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 426. “Fraud vitiates everything.” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210. If the use of a fictitious name “involves a public official . . . there is every reason to conclude that the motive is not in the public interest”. 65 C.J.S. Names, § 9(1), pgs 13-14.
It is a fact that “the omission of the Christian name by either plaintiff or defendant in a legal process prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction, …” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th. ed., pg. 2287.
Don
September 3, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Hi Randy, There are many who have tried to do something about it & have wound up in Prison and/or the “loony bin.” I am one of them. The only change I have made is,I am living more like a hermit & staying secluded for the most part. Even then, now it averages out to about once a year instead of once a month that statezilla or fedzilla comes against me criminally but for some reason(s) my accuser doesn’t show up for trial. And another puzzling thing is the judge practically tells me without saying it outright that my accuser is not going to show up which turns out to be true. This only applies to & for the last 3 situations.
Randy
September 4, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Don, what were the aledge charges ???
Don
September 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Randy, alleged charges pertaining to what? I have been arrested so many times I lost count of them. Randy I think you’ll get a charge out of Palani’s & my “exchanges” but I need your help in getting my point across to Palani. I think you will become rightfully upset with Palani OR me. If it’s me, lay it on me & lay it on me heavy. Palani is trying to wake me up. Maybe you can help.
Randy
September 5, 2012 at 6:14 AM
Sure, but I know for a fact that people r brainwash in this country. They will not listen, no matter what u do !!!!!!!!
Don
September 4, 2012 at 2:24 AM
To Randy from Don. I sent this to you before but I don’t think I sent it correctly
To Randy,
I,Don, asked Yartap the following:
Why do you use/mention,e,g. Amendment VI, Bill of Rights, Constitution for the United States, &
then use “traffic tickets” as an explanation of the “nature” when traffic tickets at least to the best of
my knowledge are not issued,etc. by “Federal” so called authorities? Re: traffic tickets, why don’t
you use your “State Constitution provisions?” I will only use the “Federal Constitution” when it is
a “federal matter.”
You,Randy followed up to my comment, above by saying:
yea, like whem in in a federal area, the fed. const. and bill of rights only applies to a federal area, like D>C> or any other federal teritory
Then you, Randy send/say this:
Dear Don, r u outta your friggin mind, there is case law that says your state Const. has more rights than the fed const., r u 4 real ?????????????????????????????????????????/
Randy,don’t you think your response should have been sent to Yartap?
Yartap said:
Yartap
September 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Don,
That is a good question. Why do I use the U.S. Constitution instead of my state constitution?
Don, the short answer and the main reason is that the US Constitution gives to me MORE Rights and liberty than my state constitution.
There are more reasons for using the US constitution, it all depends on the cause of the case, e.g., my state constitution restricts my Right to bear arms unlike the US Constitution, which over-rules my state constitution.
Maybe I’m right or maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to work better for me when I call upon the US Constitution, the UCC and the Common Law. They don’t like it! (End of comment FROM YARTAP)
Now Randy,who is out of his friggin mind ? Hey Randy YOU get real !!!
Randy
September 4, 2012 at 7:33 PM
Sorry Don, I thought u made that statement, can ya forgive me lol
Don
September 4, 2012 at 9:39 PM
To Randy Thanks, CERTAINLY. Now the tables are turned on me. Please forgive me for being upset. I try so HARD to be humble & kind even to your & my adversaries. When I sent you the notice, Palani had me pulling my hair out but that is also when I saw your comment which should have been directed to Yartap. HEY I don’t know for sure if I’m responding to you in the correct way now. All I know to do is scroll up until I see your name AND a reply button or whatever it is to click on. I upset the “Boss” one time when I honestly thought I was sending my message to someone else but apparently it went to him. didn’t get off to a good start by doing that. I STILL don’ know for sure,at times IF I am responding in the correct way. This is why I try to start by saying To Randy,To Palani,etcetcetc.
Randy
September 5, 2012 at 6:30 AM
Hey no problem Don, im new to this web site
Yartap
September 7, 2012 at 5:46 AM
Hi Randy and Hi Don,
Don, thanks for taking a hit for me. Ha Ha! Let’s see if I can avenge you by straightening out Randy. Ha Ha!
Randy, bless your heart, please listen, case law is nothing more than one’s opinion, remember that. You found case law that said that state constitutions gave more rights than the Federal constitution gave. And you believe them? You believe a damn lawyer?!?!?! Case law is set up to protect THEM not us! I read case law and look for the logic in the writing and what it is worth. You have more rights by the state than the federal? HOW’S THAT WORKING FOR YOU? My guess, it’s not working at all!
The states look at their constitutions with the attitudes, “Our constitution give those rights, how about that one, I did not know that, well, they don’t apply in my court.” Yea, case law may say you get more rights, by if you don’t get the rights enforced, then you don’t get the rights. Randy, this has been my experience in court.
But, Randy, the one thing I know: States are always worried if their laws comply with federal law. The state actors take great notice of federal law and code. Why? Because the states are revenue collectors and government is a revenue business to them. The state constitution cannot mess up the collecting of revenues, but federal code and constitution can make them change their laws, which is expensive. Remember the federal govt. like beating up on anybody, even states. So, states worry more about federal codes and laws than state codes and laws.
Randy, when you fight them, I would throw everything at them. But, you’ll notice that it is the federal code that they will pay attention to.
God bless you, Randy and Don.
Randy
September 7, 2012 at 6:47 PM
Dear Yartap, Have you ever gone into court and ask the aledge judge if this is a
Constituional Court of Judicial Due Process ???, watch how many doors that will open up lol
Don
September 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM
Hi Randy,
I see you use this term/word lol at the end of some of your messages. What does lol mean?
Anon4fun
August 29, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Jethro, I agree.
The legal “person” we’ve all been researching is a capacity of one’s own, not a separately existing strawman or corporation. It’s more like the “persona” from which the term derives.
Black’s Law Dictionary up to the 6th edition (1990) has:
persona – Lat. In the civil law, character in virtue of which certain rights belong to a man and certain duties are imposed upon him. Thus one man may unite many characters (personae), as, for example, the characters of father and son, of master and servant.
Afterwards, it changes to:
persona – [Latin] Roman law. A person; an individual human being.
palani
August 30, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Leave Man out of the equation when discussing persons. A person is a word, an action or representation. A word might be a promise or it might be a defamation of character. An action might be an assault, a battery or trespass. Representation is what you accept (or not) in legislature or in court by a BAR attorney or pro se (represent yourself). The system only deal with these types of persons. Note if you hire an attorney or appear pro se then you are merely another agent in a courtroom of agents. For myself, I only deal with principles. I find agents to not be very honest.
Don
September 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Palani, An Attorney can & does represent “someone” & we both know the attorney IS NOT that “someone/person,etc. SO, How can you “represent” yourself” when you are yourself?
palani
September 1, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Don
If you represent yourself (aka ‘pro se’) then you are another agent (in a world of agents). Agents are much more comfortable dealing with agents. They relate to each other on an equal basis. A principal can refuse to do business with agents although perhaps a better idea is to agree to do business with them AFTER you have been suitably introduced to their principal. You walk into a courtroom as a principal and I guarantee you will outrank everyone present.
Don
September 1, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Palani,
I believe You outranked the judge who signed the letter that he considered adjudicated,etc.,You guilty.
palani
September 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Don
They are always going to presume you are an agent. Doesn’t matter what you say. Did you responded to a summons when it was your choice to abate it or ignore it? Necessity imports privilege. If you had been sentenced to hang and they open the jail cell and you voluntarily walked toward the gallows when you could as easily have turned and walked away … your choice.
Don
September 4, 2012 at 8:56 AM
To Palani
From Don
You don’t expect “our public servants” to honor or abide by anything written in “…..the power of judges circa 1600″ do you? I know you do not.One time out of several times I took the Holy Bible into “a court” 5th judicial district court in Eddy County N.M. The HONORABLE Fred A. Watson presiding & he said when I tried to read a few words from it: That Book has no place in MY COURT GET IT OUT OF HERE. He told the baliff to get it out of here. There was another instance where I tried to explain to this SAME judge that my deceased wife gave me a certain item as a wedding gift. He said, well did you get a receipt from her? I have been told that that gift wound up in his home. So much for the sanctity of marriage.
palani
September 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM
@ Don
“That Book has no place in MY COURT GET IT OUT OF HERE” sounds like a court order to me. Why didn’t you pack the Book into your bag and hie ye hence? Obviously you were not in a court with the proper venue.
Don
September 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Palani.
I did “hie ye hence.” I said neither do I & turned to leave but I was arrested & brought back up to MR REPROBATE in leg irons & handcuffs.
As far as the proper court goes, I’m sure with all of your knowledge & wisdom you were in the proper court “when the judge signed the letter” but I see no difference in being found guilty in a proper court rather than an improper court. I believe that there are no “proper Courts”anymore. AND since you agreed that the S.Ct. of NM was/is correct when they affirmed the citation saying that I contemptuously violated an invalid made without authority order you will have to disagree with the following which I relied on in good faith.
Three (3) essential elements comprise “jurisdiction.” Accord, Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254 at 268; New Mexico Law Review, Vol. 5, p. 102.
D’arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165: “Any attempt to exercise authority beyond those limits (the 3 essentials) would be deemed in every other forum, as has been said by this court, an illegitimate assumption of power, and be resisted as mere abuse.” This is reaffirmed in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 565 at 568.
In People ex rel Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 N.Y. 559, at 568, the Court said: “It matters not what the general powers and jurisdiction of a court may be; if it act “without authority” in a particular case, its judgments are mere nullities, not voidable, but simply void, protecting no one acting under them, and constituting no hindrance to prosecution of any right.”
“A Judgment void upon its face may be attacked anywhere, directly or collaterally, whenever it presents itself, either by parties or strangers, because it is a nullity and can be neither the basis or the evidence of any right whatever.” Accord, City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d. 319, head note # 9, and page 322, Huggins v. Hallmark Enterprises, 351 S. E. 2D. 779, and other authority to tedious to list
Ex Parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713 at 718: “When, any court in the United States undertakes by its process of contempt to punish a man for refusing to comply with an order which that court had no authority (no jurisdiction) to make, the order itself, being without jurisdiction is void and the order punishing the contempt is equally void.”
The S.Ct. of NM said/say that all of the above is of historical interest only due to the merger of law & equity & the development of the law. You,Palani, MUST, by your agreeing with The S.Ct. of NM also agree with this opinion/order too.
palani
September 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM
“You,Palani, MUST, by your agreeing with The S.Ct. of NM also agree with this opinion/order too.”
Don .. I previously told you but maybe all caps will help it sink in this time … I AM ONLY LICENSED TO AGREE. I don’t hold a BAR card and am not permitted to argue. If you have a question why did you not ask for help at the time? Attempting to search for meaning in case dicta is futile. The contracts you choose to engage in are your own and nobody else. I said I agreed with the S.Ct. of NM given the circumstances you described because you appear to have engaged in dishonorable conduct. But I wasn’t there and don’t have all the facts and the Law at my disposal so my opinion is probably not worth a whole lot.
If you are looking for an explanation for my outlook and attitude I recommend a close reading of Jim Allen in his short book “As A Man Thinketh” and then prepare to weed your garden.
Jethro
August 30, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Yartap wrote: “’To get out, DON’T USE THE CARD.’ I believe that this is the key.”
I had a very interesting visit to the local Social Security office today.
I went to clear up a problem – since I do not have a SSN and never applied for one, why does SSA and IRS seem to think I have one? Problem is, THEY won’t stop using the number. After going through a rigmarole about my ID (“The federal government does not recognize your ID! Only state-issued ID like driver licenses or passports.” Ah – so they cannot see you, the man/woman. Thank you for that!), she pulled up their records (a whopping 1/3 of a page), signed it, and stated, “You have a SSN whether you like it or not!”
I asked how that’s possible since I never applied for one.
She stated, “Probably your parents applied for one at the hospital when you were born.”
“Probably? Where is that application so I may verify your claim?”
She replied, “We don’t have that. The applications were destroyed long ago.”
“So you have no application for this number? How can you issue and maintain a number without an application and signature for it?”
She started getting huffy: “Look, you have to have a number to work and get paid in the United States, and you have to pay taxes. IT’S THE LAW!”
I asked her, “Which ‘United States?’”
Furiously she uttered, “We’re done! Leave.”
Ah, thank you for that. We’re returning tomorrow. Business there not finished yet. Stay tuned.
Randy
August 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM
one day I was at a ss office, and asked them was there any law that required me to get a ssn to live or work here, and they tolod me Nope, that was in norwalk california
cynthia
August 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM
This might have already been addressed but warrants repeating – if you research the Origins of the English “Sur” name (genealogy software designates one’s ‘legal last’ as ‘sur’) – you will find that it was Created by one of the earlier English Kings by or through the active ‘trade’ or ‘profession’ in most cases of the ‘common man’ as a means to put a “Poll Tax” on them. This validates that not only is the term “Sur” corrupted – but the True Definition is the nexus or crux, i.e. for myself, I have never been, am not now, and never intend to be – “hunter”, “fish soup maker” “brewer” “kamer” et al – and if others would “dig deep” into their own “nome de garre” (french) they would find that per the Holy texts as well – “God” created “Adam” and “Eve” – Originals only had “One” “Name” i.e. one word “name” not a “two” or “three” “Word” “Name” – and it was all lowercase… “The meak shall inherit the land” was implications of “all lower” i.e. “all lower case”…. and “one” rather than “multiple words”…. A Small but growing number of folks are gaining levels of success in making self-acknowledgement unto Creator and Self, ‘correcting the mistake’ of ‘identity’ and ‘standing’ and ‘jurisdiction’ – from the heart, with peace and love –
I had a very interesting experience in which I sent in doc to local chief of police, sheriff, and ‘dept of motor vehicles’ and when I went to my ‘birth state’ to ask for copy of “Driving Record” – without showing ‘id’ – they said “that name is not in our system” then when I gave them copy of STATE ID – they hesitantly gave me copy – what was enlightening was that when I made the first initial request – the woman did a “triple take” in the system… and gave me a very strange expression… as if I was “one of those people” (chuckle). Then the same when I went to local COUNTY Dept Motor Vehicles that “they” think I “live” or “reside” on – and got the same results – double or triple take – show STATE ID – and Certified copy – now what is even MORE interesting – is that I have clear evidence of additional fraud – because the “Original” Certified copy I got BEFORE “ticket charge” says that I had no “license” at all – and yet “they” say that not only was I “Driving without a license” but ALSO “Driving on Suspended License” which was ONLY “on the driving record” AFTER they did a “hard synch” between the police dept. computer system and the motor vehicle administration system – showing clear Federal RICO and “Civil Tort”….
Since there is no “statute of limitations for fraud” I am just biding my time on self-education and getting my ‘ducks in a row’ before taking to “Civil” and “Federal” Court which “they” are “Standing Under” while I will maintain that I am “without” STATE, COUNTY, or UNITED STATES INC et al….
Will be VERY interesting (smile)….
Don
September 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Randy, “they told you the truth & this I know for a fact but you were probably not told how inconvenient it will be,live,etc. not to have one.
Randy
September 1, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Dear Don,
I cancelled my aledge ssn because I am a state Citizen, not a us citizen as well as you are. Besides, revelations chp.13 vs. 17 is the best reason to cancelled your ssn.
Randy
September 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM
yea well tell that to God lol
Don
September 2, 2012 at 6:45 PM
Randy– You “hit the nail on the head” by saying: Besides, revelations chp.13 vs. 17 is the best reason to cancelled your ssn.
Don
September 3, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Hi Jethro
Sounds just like the reprobates I encounter. They are more like Public Serpents than Public Servants.
Palani will tell you that she made an offer, e.g. “We’re done! Leave.” Maybe that is 2 offers. I don’t think I understand yet whether some things are offers or orders then again maybe an order is an offer & vice versa. Hey Palani, HELP !!!
palani
September 4, 2012 at 6:41 AM
Don
Here ‘ya go. A quick study in the power of judges circa 1600. You might have to learn to read Olde English but this is Law that has lasted 400 years and does a good job telling you what the limitations of judges are and the reason they are in office to begin with. Offered here for free while my hardcopy from 1602 set me back over a grand.
http://books.google.com/books?id=WjY8AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=eirenarcha&source=bl&ots=cDdnLjm5Bc&sig=9VN5y4rBrQlzcd6Qq-HzUzvRgv0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uudFUJ3bNI6yqAHui4G4Aw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=eirenarcha&f=false
If concerned about whether this is applicable in todays legal (and not lawful) environment just remember it is up to YOU to declare your law. Wherever I find reason I try to expand my Law to include it.
Yartap
August 31, 2012 at 6:04 AM
Jethro,
Very, very interesting! I’m staying tuned.
cynthia
August 31, 2012 at 5:29 PM
This might have already been addressed but warrants repeating – if you research the Origins of the English “Sur” name (genealogy software designates one’s ‘legal last’ as ‘sur’) – you will find that it was Created by one of the earlier English Kings by or through the active ‘trade’ or ‘profession’ in most cases of the ‘common man’ as a means to put a “Poll Tax” on them. This validates that not only is the term “Sur” corrupted – but the True Definition is the nexus or crux, i.e. for myself, I have never been, am not now, and never intend to be – “hunter”, “fish soup maker” “brewer” “kamer” et al – and if others would “dig deep” into their own “nome de garre” (french) they would find that per the Holy texts as well – “God” created “Adam” and “Eve” – Originals only had “One” “Name” i.e. one word “name” not a “two” or “three” “Word” “Name” – and it was all lowercase… “The meak shall inherit the land” was implications of “all lower” i.e. “all lower case”…. and “one” rather than “multiple words”…. A Small but growing number of folks are gaining levels of success in making self-acknowledgement unto Creator and Self, ‘correcting the mistake’ of ‘identity’ and ‘standing’ and ‘jurisdiction’ – from the heart, with peace and love –
I had a very interesting experience in which I sent in doc to local chief of police, sheriff, and ‘dept of motor vehicles’ and when I went to my ‘birth state’ to ask for copy of “Driving Record” – without showing ‘id’ – they said “that name is not in our system” then when I gave them copy of STATE ID – they hesitantly gave me copy – what was enlightening was that when I made the first initial request – the woman did a “triple take” in the system… and gave me a very strange expression… as if I was “one of those people” (chuckle). Then the same when I went to local COUNTY Dept Motor Vehicles that “they” think I “live” or “reside” on – and got the same results – double or triple take – show STATE ID – and Certified copy – now what is even MORE interesting – is that I have clear evidence of additional fraud – because the “Original” Certified copy I got BEFORE “ticket charge” says that I had no “license” at all – and yet “they” say that not only was I “Driving without a license” but ALSO “Driving on Suspended License” which was ONLY “on the driving record” AFTER they did a “hard synch” between the police dept. computer system and the motor vehicle administration system – showing clear Federal RICO and “Civil Tort”….
Since there is no “statute of limitations for fraud” I am just biding my time on self-education and getting my ‘ducks in a row’ before taking to “Civil” and “Federal” Court which “they” are “Standing Under” while I will maintain that I am “without” STATE, COUNTY, or UNITED STATES INC et al….
Will be VERY interesting (smile)….
Yartap
August 31, 2012 at 9:54 PM
cynthia,
Your “driving without a license” case is interesting. I may possible have an answer for you about the “driving on a suspended license.”
Many state understand the concept of the “Right to Travel.” When one does not have a license or it is suspended, that person is returned to their Right to Travel. Thus, the contract with the state ends. But, I want you to look into the traffic code (civil) to find the “definition” of “driver’s license.” There you may fined a crazy definition which states that if one does not have a license, then they have a license. What!!! (This could possible be the link and reason for the suspended license charge.)
I told you it is crazy. The reason for this is to place you back into their jurisdiction by an adhesion contract (you could have a license with their understanding and law). Remember: they will not recognize the Right to Travel doctrine. So, if this is your case, then you can show that the driving without a license is not true due to the code, if it exist in your state.
Hear is My state’s crazy definition at O.C.G.A. § 40-1-1 (B). Definitions:
O.C.G.A. § 40-1-1. Definitions
(24) “License” or “license to operate a motor vehicle” means any driver’s license or any other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under, or granted by, the laws of this state, including:
(A) Any temporary license or instruction permit;
(B) The privilege of “any person” to drive a motor vehicle “whether or not such person holds a valid license;” and
(C) Any nonresident’s operating privilege as defined in this Code section.
I hoped this has helped.
Adask
September 1, 2012 at 2:24 AM
Note that subsection (24) expressly applies to “any driver’s license or any other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under, or granted by, the laws of THIS STATE . . . .”
I’m about 85% confident that ALL “licenses” (inducing a “license to practice law” and “plumber’s licenses,” etc.) are granted “in this state” and and that virtually NO “licenses” can be granted within The State. Licenses within The State are quite probably “titles of nobility” expressly forbidden by the federal and most or all State constitutions.
Do you need a license, permit or privilege to drive? That depends. What venue are you “driving” in? The State of the Union or “this state” (a territory).
I suspect that if you can establish that you are “driving” within the borders of a State of the Union, there will be no requirement for you have a license, permit or privilege in order to “drive” in that venue. On the other hand, if your venue is “this state,” you may need every license, permit, and privilege that’s ever been conceived.
I think it’s all about venue (or “plane”). Where are you? “In this state”? Or within The State? In the first venue/plane, you’re a subject or even a slave. In the second venue/plane–if you’re smart enough, knowledgeable enough and courageous enough–you might have a shot at being a free man.
The first requirement in regaining your freedom is to “know your place” (venue).
Perhaps you should “Choose this day where you will drive: within The State or “in this state” . . .” ?
Ummer
September 1, 2012 at 2:44 AM
I personally understand that a license is something given to a slave,
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=licence&allowed_in_frame=0
THIS STATE sounds more like, Estate.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=estate&searchmode=none
So yeah the question is, where does one stet (stand).
Are we a slave of THAT STATE…
I myself am a slave of God, and if they want to steal God’s property… that’s them.
Don
September 1, 2012 at 11:02 AM
I believe I know the outcome of your “taking” but there are some things I dearly love to be wrong about. Back before I started doing my own “research” I talked with a lot of lawyers(so called) & everyone of them would say “good luck” Huh?? Good Luck ?? Is that what they are ?? Courts of Luck ?? The whole system is a fraud & must remain that way to exist. BUT every once in a while they decide a win for someone & I contend only for the purpose of keeping us bewildered. I see now more clearly why the lawyers say Good Luck.
Randy
September 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM
my neices boyfriend who never had a drivers license got pulled over. The D.H. cop gave him a ticket for driving on a suspended license. No license, no contract. Also, calif. vec.code sec. 17459 and 17460 says they have to have your consent, go see for yourself. http://www.state-citizen.org
gary lee [family of russell]
September 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Cynthia,
This is interesting! I have received one “Notice To Appear” since I removed all my registration plates and returned them, my license and all the “Titles” and cancelled formally (two witnesses and a notary) all contracts with the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, as when the officer (most courteous and polite officer I have ever met) called his supervisor, the response from the DMV was that I still had a “valid contract” regardless of what I said or showed the officer, and I carry laminated copies of California and US Supreme Court decisions as well as cites from the Motor Vehicle Code itself, which California has simply refused to follow or even acknowledge so far. Didn’t get a ticket for no license or registration, though, only for “improperly worn seat belt”. Signed ticket “NO CONTRACT” and “at arm’s length”, so it will be interesting to see what the court does with it..
I am learning a lot here from all of you. Thank you for all your time and dedication to plowing through the fraud and lies perped by govco.
Don
September 2, 2012 at 6:56 PM
To: gary lee [family of russell]
I hope that most courteous and polite officer you have ever met doesn’t show up in court. As any lawyer ( I’m not one of them ) will say– GOOD LUCK.
Don
September 15, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Hello :attaboygirl
Re:”I had no “license” at all.” WHAT !!! No license AT ALL !!! SHAME ON YOU!!! Please keep me posted as to how things are progressing.If there is anything I can do IF I can I WILL. Phone No. is 505-865-9293. Don
Don
September 25, 2012 at 1:50 AM
Hello dear heart. I haven’t forgotten you, I am just having some “Murphy law” problems. Can you cut & paste from a letter,etc your mail address, someone sent to you & email me a copy so I may better understand how to send you mail via the “U.S. Postal “service” ?? Just your address as it looks on an article of mail that you have received.
Adask
September 2, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Some of you have been writing about the judge making an “offer” to the defendant such as either, 1) “Sign this document” or 2) “Go to Jail”.
IF it were true that the judge is making contractual offers in the context of a court appearance, it seems to me that one significant goal would be to discover how to “appear” at court in a capacity wherein you gave absolute and effective notice that you were not willing to enter into any such “contract”.
How do we approach a judge so as to effectively signal that we are unwilling to enter into a contractual relationship based on what appears to be the private law of a “contract”?
Ummer
September 2, 2012 at 12:55 AM
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=contract
Not accept their terms of agreement would be the first point of call.
palani
September 2, 2012 at 6:28 AM
Being unwilling to engage in contracts is dishonorable. Honor will always be rewarded and dishonor will always be punished. If everything presented to you is an offer the only honorable way to cancel these offers is to counter each with one of your own. This shows your willingness to contract but on your terms.
An example: You come into court wearing a hat. Judge tells you to remove it. Now you don’t really mind removing it but if you do it under a judicial order then you have established a pecking order so your response is “Would the court object if I removed my hat?” and then just do it. If the judge schedules a meeting a week from Tuesday you make it your schedule by saying “I am planning upon scheduling a hearing on the matter a week from Tuesday. Would there be any objections in court?”
It’s fun doing this because it knocks them off balance.
Adask
September 2, 2012 at 5:05 PM
It makes no sense to me that a man can’t refuse to enter into a contract. For example, if I enter into a Walmart or a Ferrari auto dealer, can I be thereby compelled to contract with and buy something from Walmart or Ferrari? Of course not.
Why should it be be any different with a court?
Contracts can’t be involuntary. Each of the parties has to right to contract or not to contract, and there can’t be any liability for refusing to contract.
If there is a contract associated with the court, it unlikely to the “offer” the judge allegedly makes to the defendant and/or plaintiff. The “contract” would have to be entered into by virtue of merely entering the court. The alleged “offer” would not be preliminary to the final “contract”. Instead, what you describe as an “offer” might be better described as an “option”.
In other words by entering into the court’s jurisdiction, it might be presumed that you had agreed/contracted to accept whatever “option” (choice) the court finally offered. If the court’s “option” provided two choices, you might be obligated to choose one of those two (or more) court-approved choices. But the obligation would not be created by the alleged “offer” (actually, an “option”). The obligation/contract would have to be entered into and agreed to before the “option” was provided.
I.e., the “contract” (if any) would have to be a preliminary agreement to accept whatever “choice(s)” the court later provided as an “option”. Assuming that was true, my question is How do we signal that we don’t wish to contract with the court in the first place? I’m not talking about refusing to accept one of the court’s later “choices”/option; I’m talking about refusing to enter into what I suspect must be a preliminary agreement to be bound by whatever “option” the court would later provide.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not agreeing that our relationship to the courts is necessarily contractual. In fact, I’m inclined to see most of what the courts do as based on trust relationships rather than contracts.
For example, we are encouraged to refer to a judge as “your honor”. How does a rational man respond to an “honorable” man? He TRUSTS him. I am not suggesting that we contract or pledge into a court’s jurisdiction by simply calling a judge “your honor”. But I am saying that referring to the judge as “honorable” is at least consistent with the trust hypothesis.
Another characteristic I’ve noticed in several court cases is the moment early in the proceedings when the judge asks the defendant, “Will you give me your name, sir?” The apparent purpose for that question is simply to identify the party. But I understand that the word “name” not only refers to my specific name (“Alfred Adask”), but can also be read to mean my AUTHORITY. It seems therefore conceivable that when the judge says “Will you give me your name, sir?” he is actually asking if I will give him my private authority to proceed on my behalf in the matter at hand. This implies that the court can’t proceed against me without MY CONSENT. Under such circumstances, I would seem to be surrendering my authority over my own life and perhaps over “ALFRED N ADASK” to the judge.
In one instance in court, a visiting judge asked me “Will you give me your name, sir?” and I replied, “No, I will not give you my name, but I will give you NOTICE that my proper name is spelled “A-l-f-r-e-d A-d-a-s-k”.”
The judge ignored my response and proceeded without comment. But about 2 hours later, the judge agreed to recuse himself over questions concerning his oath of office. I have no evidence to support my suspicion that “Will you give me your name, sir?” might be an invitation for me to pledge my personal authority to the “honorable” judge. But, if the judge was not deterred by my response, neither did he react to it to say, “Whut th’ hell are you talin’ ’bout, boy?!”
I had distinctly said NO to a judge. I would normally have expected an inquiry, an expression of displeasure, a warning, maybe even a threat of contempt. But the judge simply ignored my response. It proves nothing, but it does seem a little odd.
I’m simply saying that IF the court-contract hypothesis is valid, I believe the “contract” must precede the moment that you describe as the “offer” (and I see as the “option”).
But, if my hypothesis (that the courts operate on the basis of a trust relationship) is roughly correct–then the solution to avoiding court jurisdiction might be for a defendant to expressly declare to the judge that: 1) “I don’t trust you”; and 2) “I deny that I have voluntarily agreed and consented to act as a fiduciary on behalf of the plaintiff.”
By telling the judge that “I don’t trust you,” I’ve just declared that I’m unwilling to trust the judge to administer the case on my behalf. I suspect that such denial might prevent the judge from acting in equity, or perhaps even in administrative law, over me.
By declaring that “I deny that I have voluntarily agreed and consented to act as a fiduciary on behalf of the plaintiff,” I believe I have at least challenged (and arguably defeated) any presumption that a fiduciary relationship exists between me and the plaintiff. If there’s no express or implied fiduciary relationship between the defendant and plaintiff, the plaintiff should have no standing to sue the defendant in equity. If so, the case should theoretically be heard at law. I doubt that today’s courts can go to “law”. If they can, I’m convinced that they don’t want to.
I’m not sure what creates most courts’ authority over most defendants, but I suspect that many courts don’t have authority over defendants without the defendant’s presumed consent. Assuming my suspicion is correct, how can a defendant manifest the fact that he does not consent to be subject to the court’s (private?) jurisdiction?
Don
September 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Dear Alfred,
Palani can answer your question of: “How do we approach a judge so as to effectively signal that we are unwilling to enter into a contractual relationship based on what appears to be the private law of a “contract”?
palani
September 2, 2012 at 6:30 PM
Al
Just stating “I don’t consent” like a broken record should be sufficient to block any courts presumed jurisdiction.
As you cannot enforce a contract AT LAW because of the substance issue neither can any court these days prosecute you AT LAW because they have all turned their back on constitutional money. Today there is no PUBLIC LAW. There is only PUBLIC POLICY and administrative agencies. Contracts were re-stated for this state of affairs in the late ’30s. After 1933 common law was going to fail to provide a remedy unless lawful money was involved and Roosevelt did an exceptional job removing lawful money from society. There are always exceptions to these views though. For example, the OJ trial, during his first arraignment, if I recall, his charges were dismissed (under California code?) and the second arraignment the following day proceeded in common law.
As you have pointed out in the past the system of pleading has proceeded from common law, to code pleading, to the present day notice pleading. Argument hearings are easily granted while evidentiary hearings are as rare as hens teeth. It doesn’t matter what facts are. What matters is your RESPONSE to argument. Biblically there is only one response to argument … AGREE. BAR attorneys are licensed to argue while I am not. You might say I am licensed to agree. Well then, the topic then becomes, if I agree do I then consent? The answer is no if I make it a conditional agreement. Like the golden retriever on the Bush’s beans commercial … the owner of the secret recipe will let the mutt sell the recipe when pigs fly … and the next frame in the commercial switches to the dog attempting to get a a hog to buzz the house twice. You make your conditions difficult to achieve if you desire to agree yet not agree. The effect of the conditional offer is to cancel the previous offer just like the next bid cancels the previous bid at an auction. Not a DISCHARGE but a CANCELLATION.
This is merely for discussion purposes for I truly doubt if there is only a single answer. There most probably are multiple answers in trust law, in maritime law and bonds, in 1099OID, in UCC, in R4C, in A4V, in nationality and citizenship, in SSN and drivers license, in lawful money or in setting up a miscellaneous evidence file in the federal courthouse timely. I am convinced that honor and dishonor are concepts key to a favorable outcome.
As to contracting by merely entering a court … Aulus Gallius writes in Attic Nights … “by the custom of our ancestors, the tribunes of the people had a right of arresting but not of summoning any one; that they might therefore come and order him to be seized, but had no right to summon him when absent.” The reason for this lies in the goals of he who has accepted a commission of the peace. If I happen to be absent then I am not disrupting the public peace. “the power of summoning belongs to the consuls, and others of high authority, that of arrest to the tribunes of the people, and those officers who are attended by a messenger”. If you happen to be hauled in under arrest so be it. But if you happen to be absent and are summoned and voluntarily attend court this appears to be a consent to contract.
Yartap
September 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM
palani,
Are you saying: If one does not have a driver’s license (contract with state), then he or she should not attend a court hearing? I believe that, if one attends the court’s hearing, he or she is consenting to the jurisdiction of the court. Is this your option, too?
Thanks,
Yartap.
gary lee [family of russell
September 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM
Alfred,
Mary Elizabeth at http://spiritualeconomicsnow.net/ has an interesting post on her blog about the use of the surname and the entity ALFRED ADASK v Alfred Adask v., the use of the name versus the “right” to be considered as a “person”.
palani
September 3, 2012 at 7:01 AM
Yartap
Whether you have a drivers license or not your decision to appear in court is your own choice (in my opinion). The common law rule is “The reason is the same respecting things which do not appear, and those which do not exist”. Should you make an appearance then you have proven your existence, not exactly YOUR existence, but rather the entity that was created and is controlled by the state. This entity is within the jurisdiction of the court merely because of the appearance. They said to appear and you showed up.
Yartap
September 3, 2012 at 7:45 AM
palani,
Thanks, for your input and knowledge.
Yartap
Don
September 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM
There is also a “special appearance.”
Don
September 5, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Palani,
There are other matters I want to discuss wth you,but while searching for something else I just saw what you wrote to Yartap & the thought occurred re: a statement a man made & of which I believe because of the hard knocks (severely understated) I have taken. I won’t say who he is because he was not a saint, yet I believe this statement to be 100% correct. He said: “We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” (end of quote) This being true to me, I see no way of overcoming, no matter what I do. OR, in other words,IF I knew & understood things as you do and applied those things just as you would, I don’t see how it would help when only their will is being applied.However,as one of my heroes,Alfred Adask said “We must make a stand & endure until the end.” By the way You,Palani are one of my heroes too !! However, I don’t believe you have been arrested more than once or maybe at the most,3 times, so what I’m trying to say is I don’t believe you have been brutally beaten down both physically & mentally by “the powers that be. I also believe they do what they do by might,not right. “Applying no will but their own.” I ask of the Eternal Creator & sustainer of Heaven & Earth to protect you & all others of like mind from the wrath of these brutal,ruthless evil powers that be.
Don
September 12, 2012 at 4:16 AM
There is a THANG called arrest warrant for/per failure to appear & some people have been arrested for failure to appear even when they were not aware of ANY kind of scheduled appearance, never received a notice whether it was valid or invalid. Once again it forces me to think you live/exist under a rock.
gary lee [family of russell]
September 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM
I have a copy of a letter directly from the Socialist lack-of-Security Admistration that states VERY CLEARLY that an SSn IS NOT REQUIRED to live and work in the US. It’s a format I can’t figure out how to copy or I would post it here. I can forward it by email if someone knows how to post it : grussl@hotmail.com
Adask
September 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Please send a copy to alfredadask@yahoo.com
Randy
September 2, 2012 at 8:26 PM
can u email me a copy of it ??? kickboxerb@yahoo.com
Don
September 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM
It is probably the letter that was sent to Irwin Schiff
palani
September 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM
@ Don
Logic .. appearance (for the purpose of this discussion) is the act or an instance of coming into sight. Appearance is a noun. “Special” is an adjective and serves ONLY to reduce the population (as in ‘special appearance’); however, a special appearance is nonetheless an appearance and will still provide evidence to the court that you (the state created entity) exists. Word games to trick you into proving that they do indeed have jurisdiction. Another word game is played with ‘income’, a word that has never been logically defined. But then ‘gross income’ (remember adjectives serve to reduce the population and never enlarge it) has been definitively established as “all income from whatever source” and you should expect to concentrate upon the definition that has been provided rather than one for which the definition is lacking.
We are told of all the millionaires and billionaires that exist on the planet yet not one of them can define what a single dollar actually is. Poor delusional sods.
Don
September 4, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Palani,
The “Quatloos” perverts can tell you & me what a dollar is. A dollar IS a federal reserve note. Where it is written “This note is…..: this note means this dollar. Note was/is written instead of dollar only to save ink & printing costs.
Hey!!! peel me a nanner & toss me a peanut you sure made a monkey out of me. Tie a bib around my neck & feed me another lie.
Don
September 4, 2012 at 4:13 AM
Yes my dear Palani, I know at least in this instance what you are saying, but I did not say that a special appearance is the way to go, what to do or how to appear.I am of the belief that anything we say as well as do can be & will be used against us if we “rock the boat to much.” Tom Rutledge,Eddy County District Attorney,(at the time) told me I was rocking the boat & he “was gittin sic n tied uhheh.” I told him I was really trying to sink it, not rock it. I know you, Palani will say I should not have said that but all this was said off the record at least to the best of my knowledge.So don’t rock the boat Palani. Maybe you don’t believe when “our servants come against us criminally” anything we say or do can be & will be used against us. I do make one exception to this & that is IF you have 20 or more with you, they(FEDZILLA & SATATEZILLA) will be a little easier on you & maybe a lot easier. I had no one beside me, with me,etc. & I firmly believe this is why they crushed me. But it took them 25 years to do it. When it was “pay or stay I stayed. NEVER gave them a penny.
By the way, when the judge “signed the letter……: ” what happened next? Any so called fine or time involved? If I am being nosy, I don’t want to be but it will be the first guilty “decision” I ever heard of without a fine or time, i.e. PAY OR STAY, yeah pay or stay. or as one judge said to me, Well it looks like I’m gonna have to give you 3 hots & a cot for 30 days. I will see my typos after I post this. can’t seem to see them before then & I try. Be patient with at least some of my shortcomings. Also as you can tell I do not have much formal education.
Don
September 13, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Palani,
I had ONE & only 1 “In camera hearing.” Are you knowledgeable of an “in camera hearing?” The question is not a fishing question as far as I know, IF it is, just don’t respond.
palani
September 12, 2012 at 10:36 AM
@Don
“There is a THANG called arrest warrant for/per failure to appear”
To what extent are YOU responsible for the acts of OTHERS?
Should I ever plan on a trip out of “state” I expect I would publish notice of my journey and the expected return date else an unknown outstanding warrant just might be converted into a federal “interstate flight to avoid persecution” beef.
Don
September 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM
WHERE’S THE BEEF !!! I feel for you IF & when you ever comeout from under your SOAPSTONE ROCK. I am going to depend on the ROCK OF AGES. He is the ROCK I live under.
Anon4fun
September 2, 2012 at 6:40 PM
Response to Don:
Are you saying we should expect the US government corporation’s internal rules of usage to be the same as are found in those manuals? I don’t see why this would be, necessarily, though maybe you have a different idea. Besides, as I have already mentioned, one interpretation of Al’s work is that the government’s all-caps likeness to your name does not refer to an entity anyway. Rather, it designates a fiduciary capacity. So, of course you’re not the all-caps entity. There is no all-caps entity. It’s a character, a function, you agree to assume for the benefit of the US government corporation in order to play in their private sandbox. Otherwise, if you insist on being a sovereign, you can send an all-caps diplomatic flunky of your own to contact them through the State Department, and we’ll see what can be arraigned. After they determine whether you’re friend or foe, that is.
As to the US driver’s license, that would be one issued in the United States (or subject to the jurisdiction thereof). It is unlikely to mean anything else given the circumstance.
Don
September 2, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Anon4fun
Re: “issued in the United States (or subject to the jurisdiction thereof)” This/that United States is a singular term. Re: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Jurisdiction is a singular term/word. If The United States, as you used the term, meant the several states, jurisdictions (plural) would have been used,e.g. subject to the jurisdictions thereof. I have plenty of “legislative excerpts” that say in pertinent part:…… in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. This means the same thing as subject to the jurisdiction thereof, it is just a “little bit” different way of saying the same thing,but to me, “its jurisdiction” is very revealing. So, I thought IT might be issuing a United States driver license that I was unaware of.
Per Are you saying we should expect the US government corporation’s internal rules of usage to be the same as are found in those manuals? Certainly not, and by the way, whatever I say/write etc is based on my understanding or lack “thereof.”
Thank you for “keeping in touch” & for your intro,e.g. addressing your response to Don. If it was not for that, I would not know the message was meant for me. That’s how smart I am/is. ha
palani
September 4, 2012 at 6:56 AM
@ Don
The secretarial note signed by the judge came equipped with a dollar figure. I offered to pay in gold (I happened to have Austrian gold with me that day). The judge asked if it was domestic and I informed him it was not. He declined payment. I might have turned and walked out having offered to pay and being rejected but instead to conclude the matter I requested additional time and my request was granted. A week later I walked in with a postal money order (lawful money) made out for the amount outstanding (this is where the honor part comes in) and in the comment field marked RANSOM PAYMENT. The judicial actor accepted it and signed me out free and clear. I waited until the postal service could get me a copy of the cancelled payment and sent it in to the federal prosecutor. After all, receiving RANSOM is a federal offense and being a party to it would be a crime if not reported (misprison of felony). For some reason I never heard from the feds.
Don
September 4, 2012 at 7:50 AM
Palani,
You say in pertinent part: “For some reason I never heard from the feds.” Of course not. Knowing You even as little as I do, I don’t think You expected to hear from them unless you did not report it because of the “misprison of felony” aspect. If You did not do what you did do, You probably would have heard from them for that was their opportunity to come against YOU criminally. They are LICENSED to be criminals. You & I are not. But BLESS YOUR HEART for writing in RANSOM PAYMENT because that IS exactly what it is !!
Don
September 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Palani, In my never ending learning process, the following is the “intro, beginning, heading etc of the “AUTHORITY” I used to/for hopefully the purpose of achieving my goal,etc. 15 + years ago.
Page 1 of 8
Yhwh
“The State of New Mexico,” and, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey]; The Organic Assembly of We The People and their Posterity; The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America: Anno Domini: 1776; Rev. St. 17 91,1792 (Law of This Flag); The Constitution for The United States of America: Anno Domini: 1787, The Ten Articles In addition thereof :1791,1 Statute, 122, Chapter XI May 26, Anno Domini: 1790; 2 Statute 298, Chapter LVI, Section 2, Anno Domini: 1804, The Organic Act Establishing the Territory of New Mexico; Anno Domini: 1850; Declaration of Rights of the Compiled Laws of New Mexico, of 1897, Sections 3765, 3778, 3779; and, Article twenty one of The New Mexico Constitution, COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, Entitled: An act to enable the people of New Mexico to form a constitution and state government and be admitted into the union on an “equal footing with the original states,” Approved June twentieth, nineteen hundred and ten; The act of March 3rd, 1911, Sixty first Congress, Session III, Chapter 231, Section 291.
Second judicial district-305-Little-Johnson-Valley-Road-Kingston, Roane County,Tennessee;
C/o- 1325-Lopez-Drive- S.W. Albuquerque,New Mexico,
Zip Code Exempt per Public Law 91-375, Section 403 (b) (2) (c),
Domestic Mail Services-122.32., Re: Zip Code Use
In the, District Court for the New Mexico Judicial District
FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. I. CHAPTER 20, SECTION 2
Don
September 5, 2012 at 10:55 PM
I would like to take my toys & find another sandbox to play in. Once again,”subject to the jurisdiction(singular) of the United States” still makes me scratch my head. Have you ever seen any legislation/statutes, etc. that say in pertinent part: “…….in the United States & subject to its jurisdiction? I have,many times.
palani
September 6, 2012 at 6:56 AM
@Don
“in the United States and subject to its lawspeak” .. You make yourself subject to the United States by falsely accepting a failed federation as a country. You don’t have any toys in the plane controlled by the United States by principle. That principle is that there is no private property per the 10 planks. It is easy enough to take what you can and vacate the plane. Find another plane that has rules more to your liking. I particularly like the watershed plane because the rules are simple and, being federal, it is controlled by the Louisiana Purchase. In your area you might consider the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo as a similar controlling document, you might say a lens through which the mechanism the U.S. constitution becomes binding.
Lloyd
September 2, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Has anyone ever contacted the state they were born in and inquired as to why all or last name is in upper case? The 14th amendment or a ruling because of the 14th makes a corporation a person isn’t the opposite of that also true that a person is a corporation?
Lloyd
September 2, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Some Info
Don
September 13, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Lloyd
Thank you for this video. If it doesn’t wake at least some people up,It seems to me only YHWH shaking them until their teeth rattle will. I say “some people” because sadly only a smidgen will have the chance to see it. So it’s the “some people” out of the smidgen whose hearts are not completely hardened who may ignore what Steve is showing & saying. My experiences tell me that the majority of people would only consider Steve off his rocker. How TRAGIC.
Anon4fun
September 2, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Don:
You’re welcome. I answered the best I could, for what it’s worth. Then I rambled a bit. Yes, the fact that the SS application refers to a state-issued driver’s license as a US driver’s license is revealing.
Lloyd:
Corporations are indeed persons, but persons are not necessarily corporations.
Person – A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. (Black’s Law Dictionary up to the 4th edition, 1951)
This definition clearly ties into Al’s theories on the trust relationships between government and the people.
Yartap
September 3, 2012 at 3:53 AM
Anon4fun,
The following are definitions in the SSAct.
Sec. 1101. [42 U.S.C. 1301]
(a) When used in this Act—
(3) The term “person” means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation.
(4) The term “corporation” includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.
I also, found the following definition of “private person” to be very interesting. It is in a section which involves federal employees requirement for withholding for child support and alimony.
Sec. 459. [42 U.S.C. 659]
(i) Definitions.—For purposes of this section—
(4) Private person.—The term “private person” means a person who “does not have SOVEREIGN or other special immunity or privilege” which causes the person not to be subject to legal process. [Emphasis Mine]
To me and my understanding, WE ARE SOVEREIGN! The implication is that the government recognizes “someone’s” sovereignty, maybe our sovereignty (if we can retain it, but we must demand it and fight for it, at all times).
palani
September 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM
@Anon4fun
Persons are the containers to which rights and duties are assigned. Hobbes analyze the constituent components of a person as 1)words 2)actions or 3)representation. Representation is where legal fictions such as corporations come in as they are capable of neither words nor actions. Forget Black’s Law Dictionary. Words intended to deceive came about post civil war.
Don
September 6, 2012 at 8:44 PM
Palani, My court papers were filed In Propria Persona,& it seems the Lectric Law Library definition does not say that pro-se & pro-per mean the same thing. BUT it doesn’t matter. The COURTS always responded saying I WAS appearing pro-se even WHEN I was the petitioner, & everything I did to stop it was ignored etc.IF you respond to this, just respond to the 1st sentence.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 5:56 AM
To: Anon4fun.
Re:”Yes, the fact that the SS application refers to a state-issued driver’s license as a US driver’s license is revealing.”
Give me an example of how it is revealing.
Adask
September 9, 2012 at 7:24 AM
I suspect that the term “US drivers license” may be a generic description of all licenses issued by the various administrative divisions (like TX, OK, FL and CA) of the US territories. If so, a “US drivers license” would not be issued by any State of the Union.
Anon4fun
September 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Yartap wrote: >>(3) The term “person” means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation. . . .(4) Private person.—The term “private person” means a person who “does not have SOVEREIGN or other special immunity or privilege” which causes the person not to be subject to legal process.<<
Note "individual" and "private person" in your post and compare with this:
Individual – As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. (Black's 4th,1951)
Palani wrote: "Forget Black's Law Dictionary. Words intended to deceive came about post civil war."
Words intended to deceive make a dictionary more valuable, not less. Otherwise, the charlatans will use this and that smoke-and-mirrors routine to waltz you around in mystical complexification until you don't know which end is up and everything you owned is gone.
Don
September 3, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Yartap wrote: >>(3) The term “person” means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation. .
It is crystal clear “by this definition” that an individual is a person, a trust or estate is a person, a partnership is a person, a corporation is a person but they are ALL non living entities. You & I, to fedzilla & statezilla, fit the “individual” portion of the definition. Palani is SO Right Forget Black’s Law Dictionary.
Anon4fun
September 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Don, it may be crystal clear to you, but it’s not to me.
>>The term “person” means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation.<<
What exactly prevents a person being alive by this definition? I don't see it. I have made a reasonable case to show that "individuals" are not necessarily non-living. Okay, so you don't like the reference I used. Well then, can you go through logical steps, using references of your own, to reach a different conclusion?
Can you do similarly for your opinion against Black's Law Dictionary? It happens to be the standard reference in the legal profession. For this reason alone, regardless of the motives of its compilers, I would not advise anyone to simply "forget" about Black's without a compelling argument as to why. Do you have such an argument? If so, please share it.
Adask
September 3, 2012 at 11:57 PM
I don’t know exactly what a “person” is, but I do know what it’s not.
Insofar as a “person” can include an “individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation,” and insofar as trusts, estates, partnerships, or corporations are legal fictions, I presume that an “individual” is also some sort of legal fiction. Maybe that presumption is right, maybe not.
But I am still inclined to see the several categories of entities (individuals, trusts, estates, partnerships, and corporations) that are all deemed to be “persons” to be equal in terms of their rights. If any one of those entities has more or less rights than the other four entities, that single entity should be distinguished as some sort of special (rather than generic) “person”. Insofar as all five entities are described by the generic term “person,” I presume all are equally endowed with certain rights and/or obligations.
The “Declaration of Independence” declares that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. There is no such endowment made available to legal fictions such as trusts, estates, partnerships, or corporations. Whether “individuals” are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights may be debated, but it’s unlikely.
In fact, the Bible declares that Satan is the father of all lies. Legal fictions are lies. Trusts, estates, partnerships, and corporations are legal fictions and therefore lies. If they Bible is true, those entities are ultimately spawned by Satan. God did not give any “unalienable Rights” to any spawn or Satan. God did not give any unalienable Rights to trusts, estates, partnerships, or corporations. Insofar as individuals are legally equal to the other four entities, it appears that individuals are also without God-given, unalienable Rights.
Thus, the majority and probably all “persons” have no God-given, unalienable Rights.
As such, I do not consent to be described or treated as a “person”. I, instead, insist that I am a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
It’s conceivable that someone might be able to prove that “individuals” are a special class of “persons” who have God-given, unalienable Rights–but I doubt that such will be proved. If it could be proved that “individuals” (a special class of “person”) is deemed to be endowed with those God-given, unalienable Rights–I might be willing to be treated as an “individual”. But why bother? Why not stick to the one word–man–that I know should work as a basis for my claim to God-given, unalienable Rights?
Even the word “man” has been compromised by the “man or other animals” drug laws. But if I define my use of the word “man” based on Genesis 1:26-28 and the “Declaration of Independence,” any adversary who tries to trap me with “man or other animals” statutory definitions will be hard pressed to succeed.
So what is a “person”? It is generally, and probably always, NOT an entity endowed by its “creator” with certain, God-given, unalienable Rights. Again, I may not know what a person is, but I know what it’s not–and, for now, that’s good enough for me.
Ummer
September 4, 2012 at 12:37 AM
If person has any etymological relationship with Persephone (and I note there seems to be some interesting relationship in regards to estate), then things get very very interesting especially with Plato coming to the scene.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=persona&searchmode=none
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone
Quote:
‘Suppose the following to be the state of affairs on board a ship or ships. The captain is larger and stronger than any of the crew, but a bit deaf and short-sighted, and doesn’t know much about navigation. The crew are quarrelling with each other about how to navigate the ship, each thinking he ought to be at the helm; they know no navigation and cannot say that anyone ever taught it them, or that they spent any time studying it; indeed they say it can’t be taught and are ready to murder any one who says it can. They spend all their time milling around the captain and trying to get him to give them the wheel. If one faction is more successful then another, their rivals may kill them and throw them overboard, lay out the honest captain with drugs and drink, take control of the ship, help themselves to what’s on board, and behave as if they were on a drunken pleasure-cruise. Finally, they reserve their admiration for the man who knows how to lend a hand in controlling the captain by force or fraud; they praise his seamanship and navigation and knowledge of the sea and condemn everyone else as useless. They have no idea that the true navigator must study the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the winds and other professional subjects, if he is really fit to control a ship; and they think that it’s quite impossible to acquire professional skill in navigation (quite apart from whether they want it exercised) and that there is no such thing as an art of navigation. In these circumstances aren’t the sailors on any ship bound to regard the true navigator as a gossip and a star-gazer, of no use to them at all?’
Unquote Plato. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Plato-Philosopher.htm
Jethro
September 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM
5 USC § 552a–
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Don
September 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM
So, Palani,as represented by Palani, doesn’t make any sense to me. In all the “representations” you use the one doing the representing IS NOT the one BEING represented. This is why I asked you. How can you possibly “represent yourself when you are yourself?” Palani you have already answered this but I don’t think you answered it understanding why I asked.
Don
September 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Dear Alfred, First of all I think I just sent a message to you that I meant to go to Palani. Sorry.
Anyway, I know the following is true.Proper nouns & common nouns have different meanings. Person is written as a Proper noun everytime it is written in the “Federal Constitution” up to & UNTIL the 14th Amendment. This applies to “Citizen” too.Person/Citizen became citizen/person beginning with the 14th.The term United States has 3 different meanings. And,”subject to the jurisdiction “thereof” as written in the 14th is the SAME as “subject to ITS jurisdiction.” The Social Security Act was the finishing touch which has made almost all IF not all of us a citizen/person AND SUBJECT to ITS jurisdiction. This IS IT in a nutshell.
Adask
September 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM
If I recall correctly, in the Hooven & Allison vs. Evatt case, the Supreme Court specified three definitions for the term “United States”. They also declared (oddly) that they would never again address the meaning of “Unite States”. I think the reason might be this: While the Supremes offered three definitions for “United States,” they never declared that there were ONLY three definitions. It’s a long time since I read that case, but at the time, I remember wondering if there was a 4th, or even 5th definition for “United States”.
This illustrates a point. If you read a good court case, the parties will expressly define words critical to their case in the beginning of their paperwork. Similarly, we should also make it our business to introduce our definition of “United States” or “The United States of America” or “The County of Dallas,” etc., whenever we file our own paperwork. Once we define the term, we eliminate ambiguity. If our adversary doesn’t like our definition, he will have to provide an alternative. Even if he does, he eliminates ambiguity.
Also, if folks want to understand the meaning of “United States” in the 14th Amendment (A.D. 1868), the term should be compared to “United States” in the 13th Amendment (A.D. 1865).
The 13th Amendment declared in part, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States of any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.” The word “their” is plural and refers back to “United States”. This tells us that the “United States” in the 13th Amendment is the SEVERAL “United States”–which I believe signifies the several States of the Union.
Three years later, the 14th Amendment declared in part, “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.” The word “the” (in “THE jurisdiction”) is singular and refers back to “United States”. That tells us that the “United States” in the 14th Amendment is a SINGULAR “United States” (rather than the SEVERAL “United States” seen in the 13th Amendment). This distinction is supported by the 14th Amendment’s recognition of TWO forms of citizenship: 1) citizen of the SINGULAR “United States”; and 2) citizen of one of the States of Union which I believe comprise the SEVERAL “United States”.
Don
September 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM
To Alfred
I almost said “at least” 3 definitions/meanings of United States.But,the one that matters in this particular is that “United States” as written in the 14th Amendment. I KNOW/have learned,etc. that when the 14th (passed via the point of a bayonet) Amendment FIRST “appeared” there were at least 2 meanings of “United States.” The United States had “their jurisdictions & The United States had ITS jurisdiction. 2 different,United States. Very clever, & very sneaky. I have cases from the top Court going way back that speak of the beginning of the “reversal” of the ORDER of things, slow stealthy encroachments,etc. ain’t no doubt in my mind as to WHY Benjamin Franklin
“responded” as he did to the question of: “What have you wrought (created)?” IT AIN”T BEEN KEPT. I also think he knew it would not be kept, but that is just my opinion. To add to what I said previously,A SS Number has been established for you & me even if we have never applied for one. I just discovered recently that a NM(this state) driver license was created for me by a Magistrate Judge,Bill Sadler & an attorney,Daniel Banks back in 1997 & then immediately revoked it. This took place in “good ol” Carlsbad NM. I left Carlsbad in 1994, & just recently discovered that 3 years after I left,this happened. So if you don’t volunteer & get a driver license somebody will volunteer & get one for you
Don
September 6, 2012 at 8:24 PM
Dear Alfred,et.al.
Hopefully someone will read this & send me his/her answers. Re:Cosa Nostra/gov-co aka fedzilla/statezilla,who existed first? How is it possible to “honorably” contract with criminals? If Palani reads this,Palani, please don’t answer this until someone else does.
When I’m reading a response or message from someone & the word “Reply” is not at the bottom right, how do I correctly respond to “that message” OR, if the word Reply does not appear, does that mean that no response/reply is wanted?
Adask
September 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM
What difference does it make “who” among our various bands of criminals existed first? In my opinion, we’re dealing with spiritual warfare which means our ultimate adversary has been here since time began. Cosa Nostra, gov-co, etc., are just current manifestations of the same ultimate adversary.
How do you “honorably” contract with criminals? I don’t know. I’m reminded of the Biblical admonition to be “in the world, but not of the world”. Maybe we can learn enough to simply avoid contracting with criminals.
There’s no “reply” button at the bottom of some threads because the WordPress program won’t allow the series of replies in a particular thread to exceed some relatively low number. It may be that I could set this blog to allow a longer series of replies, but if so, I don’t know how. Just insert your latest comment at the bottom of the list of comments, and address it to whoever you want to respond to.
Ummer Farooq (@faro0485)
September 6, 2012 at 10:18 PM
It matters as we can put to trial all of the criminals involved. God doesn’t rest when they are dead, why should we not recognize who they are?
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/content/complete-online-version
In a criminal organization, if you only damn one guy, you’ll miss the entire crime syndicate. And God damn them because they are both international and historical.
Don
September 4, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Hi Anon4fun,
In your opinion,is a trust a flesh & blood living being? Likewise,Is an estate? Is a partnership? Is a corporation a flesh & blood living being, in your opinion? I need to know your answer to this before saying anymore about this particular. Let’s leave “individual” out at this time,but only temporarily.
Re: It (Black’s Law Dictionary) happens to be the standard reference in the legal profession.
I agree with that,but I have had more than enough experience with the “legal profession” to know now & for many years that the legal profession is something I want nothing to do with.The legal profession is a den of iniquity. There are legal ways to steal but there is no lawful way. I can prove this.
palani
September 4, 2012 at 7:25 AM
@Ummer
From Hobbes Leviathan CHAPTER XLII OF POWER ECCLESIASTICALL
a Person, (as I have shewn before, [chapt. 16.].) is he that is Represented, as often as hee is Represented; and therefore God, who has been Represented (that is, Personated) thrice, may properly enough be said to be three Persons; though neither the word Person, nor Trinity be ascribed to him in the Bible. St. John indeed (1 Epist. 5.7.) saith, “There be three that bear witnesse in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One:” But this disagreeth not, but accordeth fitly with three Persons in the proper signification of Persons; which is, that which is Represented by another. For so God the Father, as Represented by Moses, is one Person; and as Represented by his Sonne, another Person, and as Represented by the Apostles, and by the Doctors that taught by authority from them derived, is a third Person; and yet every Person here, is the Person of one and the same God.
palani
September 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM
@Don
You are either represented in court by an attorney or you are pro se. You may go into a court situation and raise the issue of being yourself but the judge or the other side will ALWAYS refer to your status as “pro se”. You can object all you like and they will ignore your protests or objections. Read carefully the definition of “pro se” at the ‘Lectric Law Library. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p088.htm . Just to help you out … here is the section of the definition of interest: “PRO SE … Lat. for you lose. also pro per “. Did you get that? Pro se (representing yourself) is Latin for “YOU LOSE”. Next time you are accused of being PRO SE I suggest you bring up this definition and demand an immediate dismissal WITH PREJUDICE.
Don
September 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM
To:Anon4fun
From: Don
This is exactly what I meant
It is crystal clear “by this definition” that an individual is a person, a trust or estate is a person, a partnership is a person, a corporation is a person.< <period. This FIRST SENTENCE to your LEFT IS crystal Clear.
The remainder of what I said is what I know IS TRUE. Now IF you want to tell me something like this,e.g. "Well Don it may be true to you but it is not true to me," I can understand that.
Anon4fun
September 4, 2012 at 12:41 AM
>>So what is a “person”? It is generally, and probably always, NOT an entity endowed by its “creator” with certain, God-given, unalienable Rights.<<
As I think I have adequately shown above, a "person" can be, in some instances, a living man acting in a certain capacity. While man himself has God-given unalienable rights, the fiduciary capacities he assumes may voluntarily waive the exercise of some of those rights in preference to certain duties assumed. Many have freely renounced even their God-given unalienable right to life itself for reasons the Bible will confirm were in accord with the will of God. This does not make one less of a living being, nor does it dishonor the blessing which those rights imply.
Anon4fun
September 4, 2012 at 12:56 AM
>>In your opinion,is a trust a flesh & blood living being? Likewise,Is an estate? Is a partnership? Is a corporation a flesh & blood living being, in your opinion? I need to know your answer to this before saying anymore about this particular. Let’s leave “individual” out at this time,but only temporarily.<>…but I have had more than enough experience with the “legal profession” to know now & for many years that the legal profession is something I want nothing to do with.<<
Yet, the arguments you are making have everything to do with the legal profession. The whole language you are using originated with them. Maybe it's time to accept that one of the most powerful weapons against an adversary is an understanding of its modus operandi.
Don
September 13, 2012 at 8:55 PM
To: Anon4fun
re:Your statement of>”Yet,the arguments you are making have everything to do with the legal profession.”
I am not “arguing” anything but you can call it anything you want too.If responding is arguing,we will not accomplish anything. I HATE ARGUMENTS. I have to leave when & if people start arguing
Anon4fun
September 4, 2012 at 1:28 AM
PS: My answer did not post correctly. Only the “individual” can be a living being. Those other things (trust, estate, partnership and corporation) are artificial.
Don
September 4, 2012 at 2:04 AM
To Anon4fun
FINALLY you answered my question by commenting in pertinent part: “Only the “individual” can be a living being. Those other things (trust, estate, partnership and corporation) are artificial.”
Artificial, you bet!! You are so right. NOW do a little research & study on the term: Noscitur a Sociis. I know you have heard the saying that birds of a feather flock together, You will see that “individual” is one of those birds the same as trust,estate,corporation,etc which you are right in saying THEY are artificial. But I,Don,say individual IS ARTIFICIAL in the context in which it is written
You, say in pertinent part that your ANSWER did not post correctly which is your last post at this time. There are 2 others before this so I don’t know whicn answer you mean did not post correctly.
Don
September 4, 2012 at 1:30 AM
To Randy,
I,Don, asked Yartap the following:
Why do you use/mention,e,g. Amendment VI, Bill of Rights, Constitution for the United States, &
then use “traffic tickets” as an explanation of the “nature” when traffic tickets at least to the best of
my knowledge are not issued,etc. by “Federal” so called authorities? Re: traffic tickets, why don’t
you use your “State Constitution provisions?” I will only use the “Federal Constitution” when it is
a “federal matter.”
You,Randy followed up to my comment, above by saying:
yea, like whem in in a federal area, the fed. const. and bill of rights only applies to a federal area, like D>C> or any other federal teritory
Then you, Randy send/say this:
Dear Don, r u outta your friggin mind, there is case law that says your state Const. has more rights than the fed const., r u 4 real ?????????????????????????????????????????/
Randy,don’t you think your response should have been sent to Yartap?
Yartap said:
Yartap
September 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Don,
That is a good question. Why do I use the U.S. Constitution instead of my state constitution?
Don, the short answer and the main reason is that the US Constitution gives to me MORE Rights and liberty than my state constitution.
There are more reasons for using the US constitution, it all depends on the cause of the case, e.g., my state constitution restricts my Right to bear arms unlike the US Constitution, which over-rules my state constitution.
Maybe I’m right or maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to work better for me when I call upon the US Constitution, the UCC and the Common Law. They don’t like it! (End of comment FROM YARTAP)
Now Randy,who is out of his friggin mind ? Hey Randy YOU get real !!!
Anon4fun
September 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM
Don wrote: >>Artificial, you bet!! You are so right. NOW do a little research & study on the term: Noscitur a Sociis. I know you have heard the saying that birds of a feather flock together, You will see that “individual” is one of those birds the same as trust,estate,corporation,etc which you are right in saying THEY are artificial. But I,Don,say individual IS ARTIFICIAL in the context in which it is written<>A persona (plural personae or personas), in the word’s everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The word is derived from Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask. The Latin word probably derived from the Etruscan word “phersu”, with the same meaning, and that from the Greek πρόσωπον (prosōpon). Its meaning in the latter Roman period changed to indicate a “character” of a theatrical performance or court of law, when it became apparent that different individuals could assume the same role, and legal attributes such as rights, powers, and duties followed the role. The same individuals as actors could play different roles, each with its own legal attributes, sometimes even in the same court appearance.<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona
Don
September 4, 2012 at 11:28 PM
To: Anon4fun from Don
Why do you apparently “cut & paste” words & things I did not say along with things I did say? Are you doing this 4fun too?
Anon4fun
September 4, 2012 at 9:11 AM
Don wrote: {Artificial, you bet!! You are so right. NOW do a little research & study on the term: Noscitur a Sociis. I know you have heard the saying that birds of a feather flock together, You will see that “individual” is one of those birds the same as trust,estate,corporation,etc which you are right in saying THEY are artificial. But I,Don,say individual IS ARTIFICIAL in the context in which it is written}
You already stated the opinion that “individual” is artificial because the other things mentioned are artificial. What is needed now is an explanation of WHY this logically follows. A direction to “research & study” a certain term, without also showing how doing so leads to your conclusion, does not amount to this explanation.
Ummer:
The etymology of “person” that is directly relevant here is its derivation from “persona” in Latin. I have quoted Black’s (see above) to show that these two terms are nearly interchangeable in the legal context. You might be onto something about Persephone via “prosopon” in Greek. Exploring this connection could be interesting.
Wikipedia: {A persona (plural personae or personas), in the word’s everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The word is derived from Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask. The Latin word probably derived from the Etruscan word “phersu”, with the same meaning, and that from the Greek πρόσωπον (prosōpon). Its meaning in the latter Roman period changed to indicate a “character” of a theatrical performance or court of law, when it became apparent that different individuals could assume the same role, and legal attributes such as rights, powers, and duties followed the role. The same individuals as actors could play different roles, each with its own legal attributes, sometimes even in the same court appearance.}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona
Note: This post replaces my previous one from a few minutes ago which did not post correctly because the site’s software changed it.
nikki
September 4, 2012 at 7:02 PM
ok I just had a quick question for any of you that has a logical answer. I am beginning to get the understanding of all this but what I want to know is, say you were not enlightend to any of this stuff far as courts and you had already followed a portion of the administrative procedure and now awaiting trial in criminal court what should be the very next thing one should do in aserting his rights,
Adask
September 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM
I have no idea. The way I understand court cases is by reading all of the paperwork, from beginning to the current point. After that reading, I develop some sort of strategy. But simply asking for a generic answer to “what do I do now?” is beyond my ability to even suggest an answer. The answer may vary on a document-by-document, procedural point-by-point basis. There is no “one size fits all” of which I’m aware.
Perhaps someone else can answer your question. I cannot.
Yartap
September 7, 2012 at 6:25 AM
Questions: State or Federal court? Have you brought up jurisdiction and venue? Have you requested your Rights by notice to the Court under Federal Common Law and UCC? Have you called for a Common Law Court? Are representated by an attorney? Have you subjected the judge to review for conflicts? Will you be allowed a jury trial(tax case?)? As the plaintiff made an offer?
Anon4fun
September 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM
Don: >>How can you possibly “represent yourself when you are yourself?”<<
Quite easily. When the court says you are representing yourself, translate it as: you are acting on your own behalf. In legalese, to represent means to act on behalf of. This understanding comes straight from the law dictionary which anyone attempting to talk sense on this subject should own.
Don
September 5, 2012 at 3:53 PM
To Anon4fun
From Don
First of all & once again, why do you put things I do say/write, & say Don said,in the same paragraph with things someone else or others say,write or wrote? Whoever reads it would naturally think ALL of it was written by me,i.e. what I said, in the whole paragraph.
So much for that but I am beginning to think there are some “plants” on this site.
OK Palani just sent a message that made me laugh heartily & I love to laugh. It rarely happens anymore. Now,Anon4fun, IF you are “acting on your own behalf” as you say, in your opinion, is that the same as “pro se?’ It seems to me a yes or no answer is sufficient?
Don
September 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM
To Anon4fun
If I am incorrect,then you have missed your calling.
Re:your(4fun) comment of: This understanding comes straight from the law dictionary which anyone attempting to talk sense on this subject should own.
Well then it’s apparent,obvious,etc that I ain’t tawkin no sense. I like the first edition of Bo v aze LAW dictionary,but M R daffynishshuns N R ain’t no good no mo.
Don
September 5, 2012 at 6:51 PM
Acting ?? How long do you think it will take before doctors & lawyers & others who practice have learned enough to start performing & no longer practice,except to keep sharp when they are not performing ?
Anon4fun
September 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM
palani: >>”PRO SE … Lat. for you lose. also pro per “. Did you get that? Pro se (representing yourself) is Latin for “YOU LOSE”. Next time you are accused of being PRO SE I suggest you bring up this definition and demand an immediate dismissal WITH PREJUDICE.<<
Pro se means "for oneself" in Latin. If you try defining it as "you lose" or anything similar in court, this will only cause the judge and everyone else there to mistake you for an absurd ignoramus who can't discern when an obvious deception is being palmed off on him to cause a train wreck. Since this is not what you are, don't give the appearance that it is.
palani
September 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM
@Anon4fun … I didn’t define “pro se”. The ‘Lectric Law Library did. In my view some hot shot attorney decided to take a jab at those who prefer to not suffer the incapacity accompanied by professional representation. In my further view this is the way all BAR regulated people think. Being in court on ones own hook is viewed by the “professionals” as legal suicide while in my view I would rather be counted among the living than the dead. The most sympathetic view of the “professional” attitude could consider lack of professional represent as restraint of free trade and stifling commerce. The least sympathetic view of the “professional” attitude might consider it to represent genocide of the living.
Google “the Jones County Calf Case” and read a little about the benefits of representation. A note for 4 calves was dishonored (possibly $80), 6 people expended $80,000 over a 25 year period fighting civil and criminal actions, and this was 1880 dollars. The payout was so great for so minor a cause that the attorneys are still in awe.
Anon4fun
September 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Don wrote: {First of all & once again, why do you put things I do say/write, & say Don said,in the same paragraph with things someone else or others say,write or wrote?}
I addressed this already in the post after it occurred. See above.
{Now,Anon4fun, IF you are “acting on your own behalf” as you say, in your opinion, is that the same as “pro se?’ It seems to me a yes or no answer is sufficient?}
“Pro se” and “acting on one’s own behalf” are synonyms. Do they mean exactly the same thing, with zero daylight between them, in all circumstances? Maybe not, but in any courtroom you are likely to be in, they can be treated the same.
Don
September 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM
Anon4fun,I believe you are a licensed attorney.Tell me it is not true.
Don
September 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM
THEY NOT ONLY CAN BE THEY WILL BE TREATED THE SAME.
Anon4fun
September 5, 2012 at 6:10 PM
Don wrote: {Anon4fun,I believe you are a licensed attorney.Tell me it is not true.}
Your belief is incorrect.
Palani wrote: {I didn’t define “pro se”. The ‘Lectric Law Library did.}
I gathered that. My intent was to warn against a bum steer. I’m glad this was unnecessary in your case.
{Being in court on ones own hook is viewed by the “professionals” as legal suicide…}
Or they’re at least willing to spend part of their public relations budget on getting others to have that view.
Anon4fun
September 5, 2012 at 8:08 PM
Don said: “Well then it’s apparent,obvious,etc that I ain’t tawkin no sense. I like the first edition of Bo v aze LAW dictionary,but M R daffynishshuns N R ain’t no good no mo.”
There ya go! Just hit up the judge with some of that jive, big boy. Now you’re on Case Dismissed Street.
Don
September 5, 2012 at 9:48 PM
WOW!!! Is it that simple Is that all I have to do ??? WOW !!!That’s what I wanted. DISMISSALS. No wonder there have never been so called cases against me dismissed I NEVER tried tawkin 2 umm lak dat. Thank you thank you thank you Anon 4 FUN Can’t thank you enough !!! Eureka Eureka Eureka!!! I WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEE THANKSTO ANON4FUN. I’m serious & here is why. When a deputy sheriff forces me into the prescence of a judge with leg irons & handcuffs on & in essence says: “Yo Awnnuh I uhhrez missuh billy(Bailey) O uhh at wawmaut. he wuh in duh sto doin suh krehmuh shahpun ain I askid hame iffin he obayed yo kote aweduhh ain hah heh-uhh noo meh e-co dryin lah sunce aine he say NAW, say he goan peel it, I say peel whut. he missuh billy say he goan peel yo kote aweduhh yo awnnuh. I say doan chew recaw juh shooluh tellin you dat you cane peel he-uhh kote awduh? So yo awnnuh I tow missuh billy I wuh puzzinm unnuh A rez faw not O bain yo kote aweduh. Well anyway that’s the way it went on & on & on. HE WON I WENT TO JAIL. And all this time thanks to Anon4fun I see why NOW IF I don’t want a case dismissed I will do my best to speak clearly,distinctly,etc.Thank you again ANON4FUN.
Anon4fun
September 5, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Don:
Sure, no problem. Yeah, you gotta blindside these uppity judges with some unexpected moves like the sort of eloquence which is your obvious forte. When you get your hands on that Case Dismissed now just around the corner, post about it here. We’ll discuss your bill then. Big Al gets his cut of the action, of course.
Don
September 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Of course you will both get your cut.I will take 25% & the remaining 75% IS yours & Big Al’s. I do believe in the Baker’s dozen principle. It’s all an empty bag anyway. I am grateful & thankful that I am not greedy.Hey Anon4fun, in your humble opinion do you think insane people know they are insane? I know, you don’t have to tell me, I already know it. So sock it to me.
Anon4fun
September 5, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Well, Don, since you asked for my opinion, I don’t recognize the diagnosis of insanity, except perhaps as a self-imposed straightjacket (pardon the pun) on one’s own thought process. That is, only if you think yourself insane are you insane (putting aside malnutrition and toxicity, which can be detrimental to the physical brain). Otherwise, who is man to judge the Divine handiwork which is the mind? Let us not forget the prophets of God who were shunned and outcast for being counted mad in the judgment of men.
Don
September 6, 2012 at 1:20 AM
Yes, like the Apostle Paul whose “much learning” was said to have driven him(Paul) MAD. Well, Anon4fun I now do not believe you are a licensed attorney & I am ashamed of myself. I also know that I do not have to ask you to forgive me because I now know you well enough to know you have the character & integrity to do so. Earlier I wrote something about suspecting plants(spys) on this website,leaving myself wide open for someone to say yeah you’re(me)the plant,a blooming idiot. That’s what I meant when I said to you, ” I know, you don’t have to tell me, I already know it, meaning leaving myself wide open for remarks,etc.,like that. Also, I don’t believe insane people know they are insane. I mispelled presence but you already know that, Also, what I was trying to do was spell the words like they sounded when the deputy spoke them,e.g. yo awnnuh instead of your honor. I’m going to bed.Shalom
tracker13
September 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Hello all!
I have been researching Law and legal language on my own for a few years now. I have only had one opportunity to exercise my oratory in an administrative proceeding at my University. After repeated volleys of formulaically worded emails and a long winded meeting with the director of student conduct I got them off my back regarding a supposed student conduct violation.
I also had the opportunity to help a friend in need in NorCal. He was going through a bad divorce, and his wife’s parents paid for the top divorce attorney in the county. He had already paid $12,000 to an attorney, and that got him three supervised, five hour visits with his child PER MONTH!!!
He called me all stressed out because he does not even speak English as his first language, and he knew I was a book worm.
So, I have a 4th, a 5th, and a 6th Black’s; A Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged from 1950, and an Oxford English Compact (microprint). We put our heads together and put in around 200 combined man-hours throughout his proceedings.
After one year of filings and hearings the wife’s attorney and judge realized that the tables had turned and the custody order would be modified. In order that the wife’s attorney not have a loss to a non-attorney on the record she recommended that the wife agree to the modification.
I’m sure the wife’s attorney only put in an hour or two herself and depended on a legal assistant to fill out standardized forms with the wife. They were not ready to put in the hours it was going to take to keep my friend down.
By the time a few proceedings had happened where he responded competently everyone in the courthouse knew who he was when he would walk in. He was definitely ruffling some feathers over there.
I have many documents we created and used that are specific to his case, but there are a few generally applicable ones that seemed to get attention in the court. see below and I would love some feedback.
____________________________________________
IN THE XXXXXXXXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN AND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Petitioner,
vs.
Respondent.
Case No.:
Declaration of status in form
Greetings to the court:
I, XXXXXXXXXXXX, the respondent, hereby give notice.
WHEREAS, I am a Homo sapien produced of and on the land of the Earth.
WHEREAS, I require access to justice-liberty-equality-equilibrium without prejudice, without malice, and without dishonor.
I swear the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury.
Dated this
____________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXX,
Pro se
__________________________________________
IN THE XXXXXXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN AND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Petitioner,
vs.
Respondent. )
Case No.: XXXXXX
Motion to impose sanctions on the Family Court Clerk Recorder
Greetings to the court:
I, XXXXXXXXXX, the respondent, hereby motions the court to impose any applicable sanctions on the XXXXXX County Court Family Court Clerk Recorder.
WHEREAS, The XXXXXX County Superior Court Family Court Clerk Recorder while claiming to act in official capacity at the courthouse-building refused-denied me the ability to file papers in relation to this case. The Clerk Recorder claimed to make a legal judicial determination as to the effect and validity of my papers thereby prejudicially denying me justice-equality-liberty-equilibrium and/or access to the court.
THEREBY, the XXXXXX County Superior Court in and of the State of California Family Court Clerk Recorder has acted in forejudgement-bias-partiality-preconceived-opinion and a gross miscarriage of justice.
I swear the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury.
Dated this
,
Pro se
______________________________
IN THE XXXXXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN AND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
,
Petitioner,
vs.
,
Respondent. )
Case No.: XXXXXX
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis
Greetings to the court:
I, XXXXXXXX, the respondent, hereby motion the court to proceed in forma pauperis and waive any fees, charges, surcharges, or any requested-required monies of any kind.
WHEREAS, I can no longer afford access to the legal system, and I can no longer afford access to council. I can no longer afford access to transcripts. I can no longer afford access to a notary to witness properly. Any fees, charges, surcharges or any other requested-required payments for any access to justice and means of proper representation should be waived.
Dated this
,
Pro se
__________________________
IN THE XXXXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN AND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
,
Petitioner,
vs.
,
Respondent. )
Case No.: XXXXXX
DECLARACTION-AFFIDAVIT-STAMENT-OF-FACT
Greetings to the court:
I, XXXXXXXXX, the respondent, herewithin DECLARE-AFFIRM-STATE-FACT.
On multiple occasions I have requested access to the Family Law Department Self Help Center room XXX in the courthouse-building for the XXXXXX County Superior Court in and of the State of California. I have been denied access on all occasions.
I am not being allowed access to justice. I am being restricted from access to justice. I am not being allowed the ability to properly represent my case. I am being restricted from access to the means for proper representation of my case.
This is damaging me financially and damaging my guardianship-parentship rights and privileges. Consequentially, I am suffering extreme duress, stress, insomnia, other hardships, and other damages.
I swear the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury.
Dated this
,
Pro se
________________________________
IN THE XXXXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN AND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
,
Plaintiff,
vs.
,
Defendant. )
Case No.:
Complaint for damages
Greetings to the court:
I, XXXXXXX, the respondent, hereby complain for damages accrued due to actions of XXXXXX in conspiracy with XXXX, XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXXX, and other possible unknown conspirators in a premeditated malice.
XXXXXXX’s multiple, conspiratorial actions constitute a pattern of activity by which the conspirators participate in an enterprise the activities of which affected my contractual-commercial-business activity of marriage to XXXXXXX.
WHEREAS, I have been damaged by loss of consortium, loss of guardianship privileges, loss of parental rights, loss of companionship of my son, financial damages and extreme stress, insomnia, deep sadness and other damages.
Total Financial Damages Accrued $XXXXXXXX.00 USD
Total Fees and costs billed-charged XXXXXXX.00 USD
Other Damages $XXXXXXX.00 USD
This is related to existing case number XXXXXXXX in the Humboldt County Superior Court in and of the State of California and related DECLARATION-AFFIDAVIT-STATEMENT-OF-FACT papers are already in that file with the court.
Dated this
,
Pro se
____________________________
I have a bunch of others, but I have to run. Please comment. I hope I can hear from Al and Yartap.
Adask
September 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM
You’re right about a diligent “pro se” being able to overcome the standard license ambulance chaser. In a big case with a big issue and a wealthy adversary, a “pro se” can’t expect to overcome the opposing attorney. So long as your adversary has the money to pay your opposing counsel, the odds are in the opposing counsel’s favor. But when your adversary is an average person (say, an ex-spouse) who has limited funds and limited knowledge, the diligent and persistent “pro se” can prevail. Why? Because the opposing lawyers has a hundred similar cases to handle at any time and is spending more time attracting new clients (and money) than he spends researching actual law. If the diligent pro se confronts a greedy attorney who’s working on VOLUME of cases to make a buck, the lawyer will probably dump the case. He won’t quit, he’ll just keep billing your adversary under he or she can’t afford to pay the attorney to answer all of the “pro se’s” paperwork. The attorney will understand clearly that if he raises his fee high enough, his client will fire him and he will have thereby dumped his client.
Why does the attorney want to dump the client? Because the “pro se” is costing him lots of money. In the time the attorney is forced to spend reading and responding to the “pro se’s” often creative interpretations of the law, he could be collecting 10 or 20 fees from clients who are fighting other adversaries who also employ lawyers. Lawyer A sends a boilerplate letter to Lawyer B. Lawyer B responds with his boilerplate letter sent to Lawyer A. Lawyer A responds with more boilerplate. We have dueling computers. The computers are operated by paralegals rather than attorneys. The attorneys are left free to do what they do best: sales.
When these ambulance chasers find themselves confronted by a diligent and persistent “pro se,” their business model collapses. The boilerplate letters don’t work. The paralegals can’t handle the issues. The attorneys must actually read and study the LAW (!!!). The attorneys don’t have time for sales. Their incomes fall.
Pro se’s are bad for bidness. So lawyers tend to avoid them.
It was easier and more cost-effective for the attorney to dump your friend’s wife than it was to deal with your friend’s pro se argument. Bidness is bidness. Pro se’s are the boogeymen of the attorneys’ nightmares.
You also presented most of your paperwork as sworn affidavits. That compels your adversary to find someone to swear to the contrary. It’s unlikely that counter-affidavits could be found and produced, but even if they could, it would be costly. Again, when it comes to law, bidness is bidness. It’s all about the money. IF, as a “pro se,” you can cost your adversary more than you’re worth, your adversary will drop the case.
Your friend identified himself as a “Homo sapien” in the first document you produced. That designation apparently worked for him, but I “Homo sapien” is a classification for an ANIMAL rather than a “man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. I would not identify myself as a “homo sapien”. But it worked for you, so I can’t criticize.
tracker13
September 6, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Al,
Thanks for the reply. I have read some of your postings and seen some of your videos on youtube, and I find them inspiring and educational. I have been trying to decipher the meanings of important words to construct more formulaic written communications. I do this for self gratification, but I do physics in my everyday life. I have noticed many analogous patterns amongst physics/mathematics and law, and I approach legal communications as constructing mathematical formulae.
For example, in court we deal with the movement of charges, the balances of which, when out of equilibrium must be offset by currency.
In physics, we deal with movement of electric charges, the balances of which, when out of equilibrium cause the flow of electric current.
The judge is operating as an administrator, administering justice in balance (equilibrium).
The judge rules from the Bancus, and as a banker-accountant the judge acts to settle accounts. He equalizes the balance.
If a physical system is out of static equilibrium it will move however possible to find equilibrium.
A substance is made up of elementary particles.
Something substantial in court may be decomposed to evaluate its elements.
The flow of currency is controlled by the banks.
The current flow in a river is guided by the banks.
What is happening in the court is METAPHYSICS!!!
Look for the analog .META- means method. It is the method of physics. It is defining a pattern of events in the court as analogous to the patterns in nature.
…….This goes on and on……
I am a firm believer in establishing the presumption under which I operate (thanks to Dean Clifford videos). In the declaration of status the “Homosapien of and on the planet Earth” statement is to clarify the status as opposed to “a person in California”. Although, the venue is shown on the paper heading as Humboldt County.
Also, ask everyone else operating inside the bar of the court to identify themselves for the record. Ask them to clarify their STATUS for the record (complete name, address of residence, nationality, and if they are being paid to be inside the court). If they are being paid then who is paying them to be there – who do they serve? Are they operating as a public servant in an official public capacity? If they refuse to clarify any of the information then let the record clearly show that they refused to identify themselves as a participant in the interaction thereby construing deception.
When establishing presumptions in any argument with someone who thinks they have authority over me I always clarify that I entered the relationship for my benefit. That if anyone thinks they have a contract with me it is because they are the TRUSTEE/FIDUCIARY and I am the beneficiary and I frequently use the word BREACH when a FIDUCIARY gets pushy. So far it has kept the wolves at bay.
If the verbal communication is obviously going nowhere then I cease verbal communication and commence certified mail affidavits. AFFIDAVITS are key. Get every page notarized, and as Al said they must respond with sworn affidavits. I have yet to receive any signed response once I started an affidavit campaign. I guess noone wants to take liability.
here is another document filed in the hearing:
__________________________________
ATTACHED DECLARATION-AFFIDAVIT-STATEMENT-OF-FACTS OF XXXXXXX XXXXX (page 1 of 1)
I, XXXXX XXXXXX, am the respondent IN THE XXXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN AND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO: XXXXXXX.
XXXX XXXX is the petitioner in this case.
XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXX are the father and mother of Petitioner. XXXXX is a witness-declarant-testator in this case.
XXXXX and XXXXXX are highly influential members, calling themselves board members, of the devout religious cult worship organization called XXXXXX Community Church at XXXXXX St.
The witness-declarant-testator in this case named XXXXXXX is the principal Pastor of XXXXX Community Church religious cult.
The witness-declarant-testator in this case named XXXXX is also a highly influential member of the devout religious cult worship organization called XXXXX Community Church.
XXXXX, who claims to operate in an official capacity as XXXXX County Sheriff’s Office Sergeant operating in the XXXXXX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN AND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA courthouse-building, is married to XXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXX is also a highly influential member of the same religious cult.
The aforementioned persons-people XXXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXXX, and XXXXXXX with the petitioner XXXXXXX have all conspired, on multiple occasions constituting a pattern, to participate in predetermined-premeditated malicious slander against me in an effort to injure me by damage to my relationship with my son and damage to my reputation. I believe the major factor in their tortious and vexatious actions is based in their discrimination against me due to my differing nationality.
Furthermore, Sheriff’s Sergeant XXXXXX being a member of said cult and being employed in the XXXXXXX County Superior Court courthouse-building is within a close degree of relation to the court and the case to a degree which calls the impartiality of the court in to question.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
______________________________
Lyndon
September 6, 2012 at 9:09 PM
Palani: When you wrote that mail order with the notation “RANSOM PAYMENT”, who did you name as the bearer?
Don
September 6, 2012 at 11:20 PM
To Lyndon,
Did you ever get a reply to your “Ransom Payment” question to Palani?. I have sent reply comments & even tho I see a “notice” that says “posting comment” some “go through” & some don’t. Wow!! something else strange just happened. When I put the period after the word don’t, this page flew up to several messages above this reply. I had to scroll back down thinking I had lost what I had typed but it was all still here.
palani
September 7, 2012 at 6:41 AM
@Lyndon
From memory .. I suppose the Clerk of District Court or something similar. I don’t believe I made it out to the judge personally.
Lyndon
September 7, 2012 at 7:17 AM
Palani:
I don’t think you made the note payable to “the Clerk of”, you probably made it out to “the Court of” or something similiar. “The Court” can’t hold you ransom; only the actions of real men and women can do that. And “the Court” cannot be held criminally liable because it does not exist. So, without a name of the ransomer, the notation you made would very likely had been treated -if noticed at all- as a protesters statement. While I like your gesture, and it caught my attention on this thread, I think for it to have any effect the name of the ransomer must be written on the instrument. Once that instrument is redeemed, you may have evidence of a crime.
Don
September 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM
Hi Lyndon,
I wish I had the ability to “cut to the chase” like you do & get a “cut to the chase” answer as you did from Palani, re: the Ransom Payment.
Per your comment of: “The Court” can’t hold you ransom; only the actions of real men and women can do that.”
In one of my many “Court matters” I presented a “Demand for recusal” of “Judge Fred A. Watson”
with valid reasons for the Demand. He personally denied my demand,naturally, but he wrote something I thought was “revealing.” He wrote in pertinent part: “The Court believes it can be fair and impartial in this matter.” First of all, to me, he is saying HE IS the Court & 2nd, he is calling him-
self an IT. Wow !!
Don
September 7, 2012 at 1:55 AM
Ummer Farooq (@faro0485)
Is this your Email address above?
WHO are these criminals brought up to,before,in the presence etc.for trial when ALL of the so
called 3 branches of government ARE THE CRIMINALS ??
palani
September 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM
@Lyndon
Anyone or any entity that submitted that postal money order for payment once it had been marked RANSOM was confessing to involvement in a criminal activity.
Lyndon
September 7, 2012 at 6:13 AM
Don: No I have not seen a response to my “Ransom” question.
palani
September 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM
As to name and how it is spelled or capitalized:
Years back I decided to offer a 21 silver dollar bond to Treasury. It was a proactive act (as well as an offer to contract for any past due debts if any), a substitution of hard money (novation) for any imaginary funds that might have changed hands in previous years. The bond first got recorded at the county level and then off went the cover sheet to Treasury (let them buy the danged thing from the locals to see what was in the offer .. not fair I know but evidently acceptable practice … used all the time in warranties). I copied several of their more notorious agents as well. To collect the bountiful sum of 21 dollars in 90% silver they first had to comply with the 1971 Truth in Lending Act. I also sent them notice of the name and address where I could be contacted. The name was spelled per the rules of “civilized” society and the address was a c/o street, zip code excluded.
Point is they kept my offer. Now whenever a letter gets addressed to me NOT as I specified I have no problem shipping it back unopened. There is a problem when you intercept and open other peoples mail.
You go through life forming contracts left and right. Contracts are dynamic. They change all the time. There is nothing written in stone about any of them. So why not establish who you are and how you prefer being addressed by contract (with a definite paper trail)?
Don
September 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Palani,
As I said before, your good traits far outweigh your,in my opinion,”not so good traits” e.g your “licentious stand.”
Per your statement of: “Now whenever a letter gets addressed to me NOT as I specified I have no problem shipping it back unopened. There is a problem when you intercept and open other peoples mail.”
I UNDERSTAND THAT !! The following is the best I could do with the understanding I had at the time.
To: OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
111 UNION SQUARE SE
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102
From: Donald-Blaine: [Bailey];
Second judicial district,305 Little Johnson Valley Road,Kingston,Roane County,Tennessee;
C/o-1325-Lopez-Drive- S. W. Albuquerque,New Mexico,
Zip Code Exempt per Public Law 91-375, Section 403 (b) (2) (c),
Domestic Mail Services-122.32., Re: Zip Code Use
To whom it may concern:
Enclosed is a “U.S. Postal Service mailing”, emanating from, the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AS SHOWING ABOVE, AND SENT TO:
DONALD BAILEY
1325 LOPEZ RD. SW.
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87105
I, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], am returning the enclosed mailing, to the original mailing location, showing above, for the following reasons:
1. I, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], am not the DONALD BAILEY, “person,” you are trying to contact.
2. I, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], am returning this mailing to you, so you may deliver it to who it is meant for.
3. My name and surname, aka my “address” and mailing location, is showing above, and as should be evident, are not one and the same, as your mailing is sent to.
4. I, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], am not, DONALD BAILEY, OR, any of the akas, OR, THE DEFENDANT, and my temporary mailing location, as is evidenced above, is not a mailing location with the trademark of NM, and not, N.M., with the periods and the Military Federal Regional Venue Identifier of, 87105.
5. Apparently this attempt to lure me, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], into your “demonic arena” is “hu-man error.”
RETURNED, BUT NOT WITH ANY RESPECT FOR ANY AGENTS OF SATAN, Still, I remain,
_______________ ________________: [_______________]______________________________________
Donald-Blaine : [Bailey], Jure sanguinis, Jure soli, Jure coronae
Second judicial district-
517 Paint Rock FerryRoad-
Kingston: Roane county: Tennessee;
C/o-1325-Lopez-Drive- S.W.
Albuquerque: Bernalillo county: New Mexico,
Zip Code Exempt per Public Law 91-375, Section 403 (b) (2) (c),
Domestic Mail Services-122.32., Re: Zip Code Use
palani
September 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM
@Don
A single question comes to mind. If the returned letter was not addressed to you then why are you expending money, time and literary skill sending it back? An envelope received with first class postage will be returned to the sender if the intended recipient cannot be found. You are only a single witness and it takes two or more to establish a fact.
As to “licentious” you seem to be quick to borrow this word from another poster. A license is permission to do what would otherwise be illegal. I have stated I have permission to agree rather than to argue. Would you care to point out how this is a “licentious stand” in the sense of moral turpitude?
Richard
September 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM
To: Don, Re: September 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Excellent post! As per palani, an option would be to simply return the mail unopened, refused for cause;
REFUSED FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR!
Addressee honors: Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1342
Sender attempts to violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1341
All Rights Reserved-Without Recourse.
Matter Not Properly Addressed (italics)
I usually write this in red ink. I have been known to print this in red ink after steam ironing opening the envelope, photo-copying the contents and re-sealing the envelope with the contents enclosed, using a glue-stick if necessary.
As to your mailing location, temporary or otherwise: That would be a “Private domicile mailing location, not a domicile or residence”.
As to a permanent address (I don’t disagree that could be your name): That could be “Kingdom of Heaven on Earth (to be called for in General Delivery as a postal patron of the general Post Office)”.
Your name could be the Name of natural flesh and blood man being (non-U.S. person)
Anyway, just some tricks I’ve used to shut “them” down.
Don
September 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Palani,
To create a paper trail. I forgot to say the letter was sent back unopened. The FACT is I was trying to establish FACTS, just the facts mamn. There were & are actually several witnesses, The Father,Son,Holy Spirit, Gabriel & Michael & on & on & on. YES, I agree you have PERMISSION to agree. I like that. I know WHO gives me permission to agree but I don.t know WHO gives you yours. You apparently did not like, or overlooked my “Peter & Paul” example on their under- standing of “Agree with thine(your) adversary. I am leary of using ANY terms Fedzilla/Statezilla uses,like license,individual etc I said before that I sent the mailing back based on my under- standing at the time. The letter was sent back OVER 12 years ago. Why did you expend money, time & energy per “The Ransom Payment?” Will the end result of your Ransom Payment help others?
palani
September 7, 2012 at 5:55 PM
@Don
“I am leary of using ANY terms Fedzilla/Statezilla uses,like license,individual” … I find communication requires an understanding of the terms. The word “license” is understood by those who seek them. Should anyone ask to see this license I have shown you where I would find it.
“Why did you expend money, time & energy per “The Ransom Payment?”” … In the future I expect to encounter NOTICE in some form or other from federal entities. As part of DUE PROCESS this NOTICE endows me with the RIGHT TO INQUIRE. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some questions to ask that would make them squirm a little?
“Will the end result of your Ransom Payment help others?” … Have I established a duty to help others?
Don
September 7, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Hi Palani (twere me) I like that.
You say “in the future I expect to encounter NOTICE in some form or other from federal entities”
Other than maybe,but highly unlikely, the only notice you will receive is a notice that your notice has been received. Oh! my! I forgot. They do say “we’re here to help you.” So maybe they will. I do believe they are here to help us,don’t you? Of course you do. Anyway, re:”in some form or other,” I hope the form contains some substance.
Don
September 7, 2012 at 7:22 PM
Palani,
You could have said: “illiterate literary attempt,etc” & I would have AGREED. If you want a license to do something that would otherwise be illegal without the license, go for it. Saying the same thing in a different way,if something is illegal unless you have a license to do that which is illegal,like our beloved government does(they granted themselves all the “licenses’ needed) go for it. I may be wrong but I believe the words lawful & unlawful existed before legal & illegal but I know for sure there are legal ways to steal but there is no lawful way & here is an example. Recently while traveling in my unlicensed,unregistered with “this state” automobile my air conditioning unit froze up & burned up the belt for the whole engine. If I had not noticed something was wrong & turned the iginition off, the engine would no doubt have burned up,threw a rod,etc. I had no choice other than to have the car towed & I made the mistake of calling a towing company that also did mechanical work. I called later to see what was happening & The “tower” said he put a lien on the car & sold it. I am looking at his business card & it says in pertinent part: “County Towing Service, LICENSED to do Business in Valencia and Socorro counties & PROUDLY SERVING SAME (caps are my emphasis). I was told later by several people that “IF I had driven the car to him I would have a case,but since/because I allowed it to be towed I was at his mercy. I had no way to get the “car” to him or anywhere except to have it towed because of the circumstances.How about that!
LICENSED to do BUSINESS IN……… and PROUDLY SERVING SAME. He STOLE my automobille and that’s all there is to it BUT he did it LEGALLY& he was LICENSED to do so.
palani
September 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM
@Don
Did you give this business reason to believe they would not be paid for providing their services? How much time elapsed from the time of towing to being notified of the “sale”?
Don
September 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM
To Palani,
Sometimes trying to “cut to the chase” apparently is not a good thing to do. I have done business with this man,J.P. Bendtsen before on many occassions per other matters & I thought he was fair to the extent that on the “next to last” transaction I paid him MORE than he asked for as a gratuity. I always paid him what he asked without trying to talk him into taking less.This LAST transaction was a “180″. He towed my automobile in May of last year.He said “it would be a while” before he could get to it because of being backed up & shorthanded on help. Because he had been,in my opinion,fair with me in every other matter, I said JP I cannot use the car at all the way it is,just get to it when you can. You could start the car up & let it run for a minute or so, & he did & said “I don’t detect any damage. I called him about 2 months later & he said, “Don one of my employees was stealing from me & I am having to do all the roadwork myself.Please have patience with me. I promise I will get to your car as soon as I can.” It touched my heart the way he said this. I said:”JP I don’t want to put you under anymore pressure than you already are so I will wait for your call.Just fix it when you can but call me when it is ready. Speaking from hindsight & from what transpired I made a BIG MISTAKE by saying “I will wait for your call.” In December of last year, I had not heard from him & the thought occurred that maybe something happened to him. i felt that something is wrong here but I did not know what it was. I called him & he answered & I asked him if he was ok, etc. he sounded different & in a bad way.He stiil had not “had the chance” to fix my car, so I said/asked: “Will there be a problem to bring the car back to my house & I will pay you the towing charges. He responded: “Look !! Since you want to get nasty about it, I’ll just put a lien on the car & sell it.” He hung up & he will not answer the phone anymore when I call.
Adask
September 7, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Two or three years ago, I read the section of the Texas Civil Codes that dealt with licensing of attorneys. According to Texas law, there is a “board of examiners” who are responsible for 1) conducting BAR examinations for students who graduate from law school; and then 2) conducting the “character examinations” for those who pass the BAR exam. The object of the “character exams” is to insure that those who pass the BAR exam have the proper “moral character” to be lawyers. I am always amused by the “character exams”. Perhaps they test to be sure the prospective lawyers have no aversion to deceit, lies and theft.
In any case, reading the Texas code section that dealt with licensing of attorneys, I read that the Board of Directors’ primary job is to “determine who is eligible to practice law in this state.”
Get it? “In this state.” The BAR licenses are issued by “this state” to license attorneys to practice “in this state”. There is no license to practice law within The State of Texas. I strongly suspect that there can’t be a BAR license within The State of Texas because the Texas and federal constitutions prohibit “titles of nobility”. I’m about 95% confident that a license is a “title of nobility” in that it allows some people to do something that’s illegal for most people to do. Such “titles of nobility” (licenses . . . I think ) are prohibited within the States of the Union, but they are not prohibited in the territories of “this state”.
I believe one or more Supreme Court of the United States cases have declared that the practice of law is a “common law right” open to anyone. How can it be that practice of law is both a “common law right open to all,” and a restricted activity that can only be practiced by those who are licensed to do so? Answer: It depends on your venue. The practice of law is a common law right within The State of Texas (or any other State of the Union). The practice of law is restricted and licensed in the territory of “this state”. Within the venue of The State you should be FREE to do just about anything you want do (provided you don’t injure someone else). However, “in this state,” you appear to be subject to the entire licensing and regulatory regime operated by our current “state government”.
If so, it should be possible to “practice law” and even be paid for your efforts (in gold or silver coin) so long as you clearly specified and controlled the venue in which you “practiced”. I’m not suggesting that just anyone could represent another man or woman in the courts. After all, the courts appear to be located “in this state”. But I am suggesting that it may be possible to draw up legal documents for other people who might choose to use those documents “in this state”–so long as you specified that all of your work done in drafting those documents was done within the venue/plane of The State of Texas or some other State of the Union. You’d probably have to be paid in gold or silver since Federal Reserve Notes may only be “lawful” “in this state”.
Based on the previous analysis, I have leaped to the very strong suspicion that virtually all licenses (if “titles of nobility”) are issued only within the territory of “this state”. Drivers licenses, plumbing licenses, cosmetologists licenses are probably all “legally” issued and required in the territory of “this state” but could not be issued by or within The State of Texas and other States of the Union.
Assuming that analysis and suspicion are roughly correct, I would be very cautious about claiming any “license” to do anything. While it may be that some licenses (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) might be lawful within States of the Union due to constitutional Amendments that allow the regulation of some activities or products, for the most part, licenses might only be issued within the territories. If so, claiming any “license” might be construed as evidence that you were acting “in this state”.
I’m not saying that’s true. I’m simply saying that that analysis strikes me as possible and even probable.
I don’t recommend that any of you hang out a shingle and start “practicing law” (or even something important like plumbing) without a license within your State of the Union. But I do recommend that you begin to consider the possibility that virtually all licenses are venue-specific and begin to prepare yourself to argue that a license that most people suppose to be unarguably required “in this state,” is not required and does not even exist with a State of the Union. I’m not suggesting that such argument would necessarily work. But it might.
And, again, I’m also suggesting that claiming to have any “license” might be deemed as evidence that you are acting “in this state”.
Don
September 8, 2012 at 1:10 AM
Before the “merger of law & equity,” as the courts say, and, re:”constitutional Amendments that allow the regulation of some activities or products,” a Permit was issued.”
Per: After all, the courts appear to be located “in this state” I think you are 100% correct. So, how do we handle that? Don’t bother to answer this. Palani will.
palani
September 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM
@ Al
Licenses come in all forms. They act as permissions. As you are reading this now I expect you had to agree to a license of some form or other in your computer software, either the browser or the operating system.
If I owned land and allowed another to use it for some purpose or other on a single day out of the year then that use would be in the form of a license. I know a gentleman who purchased an odd shaped property over which a major highway had been built. The following day he provided barricades on the highway. When the state police showed up he told them he was simply tired of people trespassing on his property.
Adask
September 8, 2012 at 3:23 AM
The judge are paid by “this state” to sit in courts “in this state”. They are paid in FRNs. But the judges also have an Oath of Office that generally says they will “support and defend” their State’s constitution. I believe that Oath of Office may provide access to a court of The State of Texas.
I.e., just because the judge is paid in FRNs by “this state” to sit in a court “in this state,” doesn’t mean that that’s the only job he can perform. For example, I might be paid to host radio shows, but that doesn’t mean that in my spare time that I can’t also be a fiduciary for charity that helps homeless kids.
I believe that when the judge takes the Oath of Office and swears to support the Constitution of The State, he has just volunteered to act as an unpaid fiduciary who will administer the express charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas” for the benefit of anyone who approaches him and identifies himself as one of the people/beneficiaries of The State of Texas.
But the judge will reasonably presume that anyone approaching him is acting in the capacity of a person “in this state”. It’s incumbent upon any litigant who wants to be tried within The State to first identify himself to the judge as one of the “People” of “The State of Texas”. That “identification” will probably depend on introducing EVIDENCE into the record that the man is one of the People. More, it will probably be necessary to introduce a certified copy of the judge’s current oath of office into the record in order to argue that you want the judge to act as your fiduciary and administer the Constitution of The State on your behalf.
Adask
September 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Palani,
Licenses may come in many forms, but not every “form” that resembles a “license” may truly be “license”. If you stopped by my home and asked if you could walk around in the back yard, and I say “OK,” my permission might be in the form of a “license” but I doubt that “form” would impress many as being a “license” of the sort issued by the Department of Transportation that allows you to drive.
It’s entirely possible and lawful for a private entity like Microsoft to “license” the use of its Word processing software, but I have the right and freedom to enter into that private license or reject it and process my words without significant license with Open Office.
In a free State, all licenses issued by government would seem to be mandatory rather than consensual (private). I either take the drivers license or stop driving. Unlike Word programs, I have no option to taking the Drivers License.
In an effort to maintain as much freedom and liberty as possible, the Founders prohibited Titles of Nobility–which I believe includes licenses other than those implicitly approved by the Constitution. I think the prohibition against many, probably most “licenses” issued by government exists within the States of the Union. I suspect that the majority of licenses issued by your “state” government are issued in the territorial venue of “this state,” rather than within the borders of The State of the Union.
Not all licenses are bad. Not all licenses are “public”. But licenses mandated and issued by the “state” government are probably bad and even unconstitutional within the plane/venue of a State of the Union. Such licenses would be absolutely constitutional under Article 4.3.2 within the territories of the United States.
If the “forms” that you interpret as “licenses” are issued by or in “this state,” your use of those “licenses” may compel you to accept the jurisdiction of “this state”.
It’s conceivable that a close reading of even licenses of the sort issued by Microsoft might reveal that those licenses only apply within the territory of “this state”. If so, Microsoft might not have any standing to complain if someone used its Word program without license within a State of the Union.
My only point is that I am personally wary of applying for or using any license.
palani
September 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Al
I don’t disagree with anything you have written.
The topic of license came up in context with a statement I made previously that “I was licensed to agree” and even posted the source or authority of that license. Perhaps you presumed that I intended this to mean a state issued license or a tacit state doctrine. I know Don took this meaning whilst I did not mean this at all. I intended the phrase to “licensed to agree” to be in juxtaposition to an attorney having a “license to argue”.
Arguing is babble and is dishonorable to boot. Agreement can be made conditional so there is a built in relief valve in order that I am need not engage willy-nilly in quasi-contracts all over the place. Wherever there is agreement there can be no room for argument.
This is the basis of common law pleading. In the various rounds of paperwork between parties agreement is found on the various issues until the outstanding issue boils down to a single or several issues and these are what is left for court to decide. These pleadings proceed as 1) plaintiff declaration 2) demurrer or plea of defendant 3) demurrer or replication of plaintiff 4) demurrer or rejoinder of defendant 5) demurrer or surrejoinder of plaintiff 6) demurrer or rebutter of defendant 7) demurrer or surrebutter of plaintiff. At each stage common ground for agreement are probed. Each stage might be considered an offer or counteroffer (as in contract negotiations).
The present system of notice pleading has none of the elegance of common law pleading. Instead it is brute force lay it on the line take it or leave it or the issue will be settled in court type of system. This system is entirely argumentative in nature and SHOULD be left to the attorneys because it is against the biblical principle of agreeing with your adversary.
Don
September 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM
To Palani, wow, once again I put an i instead of an a in your pen name but I caught it. I don’t know why I do this,i.e. i for a. ANYWAY,
Eons ago, “some religious leaders” developed an interesting money making project they called “the sale of indulgences.” In a nutshell, this practice was one in which a “person” who wanted to be licentious could go to a clergyman, and upon payment of a proper fee, would receive indulgence or license to do that which in the view of the one issuing the license would send him (licensee) to hell if he were to die while performing such acts without permission or license. But with the license, all is taken care of, e.g. this makes something wrong, immoral, etc., considered right. The sale of indulgences was permission by a competent authority to do an act which without such permission would be (IS) immoral. This is a wicked practice. This was the motivational impetus behind Luther in the Reformation. In like manner, according to the legal definition of license, the government, in many instances, pretends to make something that would otherwise be right, wrong, and to make that which is wrong, right, and all that is required to make that which is wrong, right, is the payment of the licensing fee, which grants an “indulgence” to do wrong. But no men or “persons” can rightfully declare right wrong and wrong right and whenever the government issues a license, it literally assumes the position of Yhwh, the Eternal God, in defining right and wrong. It is not difficult for to grasp, since government agents, officers, etc., define what is right and wrong according to its caprice, that anytime a “licensed person” comes into court, it certainly is not a Common Law court.
Since one of my “hot spots” is the right, not privilege, to travel, what follows show this is true beyond doubt. Caps are my emphasis
It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an UNalienable right of every citizen of the state.” Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 540.
The use of the Public streets IS NOT a privilege, BUT A RIGHT. It is a RIGHT or LIBERTY, the enjoyment of which is PROTECTED by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. A license, therefore, implying a privilege cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, AS IS the RIGHT of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner.” City of Chicago v. Collins 175 ILL. 445, Pgs. 456, 457.
Once again,the government reversed something that was right, made it wrong and all that is required to make that which is wrong, right, is the payment of the licensing fee.
I have “tons” of more court excerpts saying the same thing re this RIGHT
Don
September 8, 2012 at 4:16 PM
Palani,
Re: “……what is left for court to decide.”
Once again, approximately how many times have you been in “court” presenting your position/stand/issues,etc ?
Don
September 8, 2012 at 7:31 PM
To:Palani,& to who it may concern,
What I submit to you on this website(I don’t like the sound of the word,blog) is not meant to try & educate anyone. It is submitted only for the purpose of showing what I believe to be true & since I want to be right, maybe someone can show me the error of my beliefs,etc. I have an open mind. To me,it is not the thing that is wrong,but the wrong USE of the thing.There is where the “wrong” is.Palani, per “rights” See Isaiah Chapter 10,verses 1 & 2. Tell me of ONE unrighteous decree you are aware of. Palani per your ENJOY view, etc.
The courts in Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P. 2d. 136, 140 [3]; People v. Nothaus, 363 P.2d. 180,182 [3], also say the following: “The RIGHT to operate an automobile upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. It is a RIGHT or LIBERTY, the enjoyment of which is PROTECTED (not prohibited) by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions ;” and,
“At Common Law there is no precise limit of speed. A traveler by automobile must adopt a reasonable speed.” Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645.
[ Note: The Gallagher court does not say a “driver of a Motor Vehicle,” but, a “traveler by automobile.”]
The political fundamental fact that the People themselves have no power to create a government and then bestow upon said government officials (public servants, and, in which many have become self made public serpents and oppressors) the power to grant or deny licenses to them, the creators, where they had no power to practice the granting or denying of licenses, and, adds insult to the injury, to have the power to reclassify certain natural rights of their fellow men as being illegal, and hence only permissible upon the grant of a license from the People’s government, pursuant to a police power, which could have only originated in the People, in the first place. Said proposition is an insult, an outrage, subversive and treason upon the People at large, AND, the practice of criminal syndicalism!
AND, IT IS THE mere practice of legal sophistry (a.k.a. eloquent gobble-de-gook), for legal wizards to argue that a State legislator has power to CONvert his constituents’ rights to privileges, and, then offer their rights back in the form of licenses, or other instruments of privilege, with stipulations that the licenses may be revoked at the pleasure of the licensor, that the licensee agrees to pay periodic fees for the privileges, and be subject to fines and all manner of penalties and punishments (pains and penalties) upon the judgment of the licensor, if the licensee fails in some manner, or degree, to perform as required.
AND IT IS equally a political trusteeship absurdity, hence a state Trust Contract constitutional absurdity, to argue that there is no conversion of a right, per se, yet a man may voluntarily agree to abandon his unalienable right to travel on the public highways, and become a licensee in the pursuit of happiness, via traveling, by requesting, petitioning, or otherwise asking the STATE to issue him a license for the privilege of pursuing happiness, via traveling, and that the man does thereby also agree to be liable for necessarily unspecified and unlimited prospective liabilities, attendant to the licensing agreement for it is well known that:
a) “When a “person” (applicant) applies for and accepts a license or permit, he in effect knows (or should know) the limitations of it, and takes it at the risk of and consequences of transgress-ion (or alleged transgression when “revenue” is needed).” Shelvin Carpenter Co. v. Minn., 218 U.S. 57.
THE PROPOSITION THAT State legislators have power to create fictional bodies to be instrumentalities of a “STATE” government, labeled, administrative agencies, and that these corpora ficta entities may issue licenses to the Sovereign People granting them a privilege to travel on the public highways, in pursuit of their own private affairs and business, and regulate their use of said highways pursuant to terms of their corpora ficta entities mandated license, cannot be demonstrated as within the authority of any “State political trustee,” and is nothing but the unbridled practice of private UNPRINCIPLED LEGAL METAPHYSICAL FLIMFLAM, and is TREASONOUS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
IT IS A principle of law, extending into antiquity, that no man can grant to another a license, which he does not have the power to grant. Further, no man can confer to another the authority to issue a license, when he himself lacks the power to issue the license. It follows that, where a man determines to create a legal fiction, it is equally absurd that he can endow his newly minted legal fiction with powers, which he himself does not possess. It should be apparent why the word license is derived from, licentious.
IT IS AN ABSURDITY to say that a man, or a group of men, may create a legal fiction which he or they, may empower with a sovereign, or jurisdictional authority, which power he does not, or they do not possess, and which he, or they, cannot exercise in his or their own sovereign natural right. The presumption that men can invent corporations, or any other legal fiction device of like nature, and grant these man-made creations with sovereign powers over their fellow men, is a common law absurdity, and a political trusteeship absurdity, hence it is a constitutional absurdity. The practice of such behavior is nothing more than legal flimflams, in the name of the science of jurisprudence. Neither can any collection of men determine to create a legal fiction and endow it with powers they do not possess.
“Anything that is against reason is unlawful” Coke on Littleton 97b.
“If a man grant that which is not his, the grant is void.” Sheppard’s Touchstone.
Any statute/ordinance demanding a driver license, registration and proof of insurance to go from point A to point B, on Public property, without being involved in commerce (traffic) does not pursue any rational plan, dictated by considerations of public safety, health and welfare, upon which the police power rests.
The beginning case history of the automobile proves that it is an unalienable right, an absolute right, and, a basic fundamental right to travel on the public roads and streets in an automobile and without license and registration. The obvious reason why it is lawful to travel on the public roads, by whatever means of conveyance available is because the public roads belong to the People, and are built
for, and dedicated to and for the purpose of common travel. The court cites are numerous:
a) “The right of the people to use the public streets is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen, and each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by bicycle, motor or electric car.” Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kansas, 671, 674.
b) The “Swift Court,” supra, also said on page 674, that, “a city ordinance that attempts to forbid such use (of the streets) would be held void as against common right.” (This common sense reasoning must also apply to any SANE government body and all VILLAGE, CITY, or COUNTY ORDINANCES and State or Federal Statutes attempting to forbid same are notwithstanding)
c) “The RIGHT of travel over a street or highway is a primary ABSOLUTE RIGHT . . .” Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P. 2d 721, 725 [8], 728. [14]; and,
d) “The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purposes of gain (as in commercial activity) is special and extraordinary and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the legislature deems proper.” Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144, Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S., page 264. Also, see [Title 18 U.S.C., Chapter 2, § 31, which preempts the definition of Motor Vehicle as defined in the NM statutory law via the “Supremacy clause”]
e) “Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former.” Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43.
f) “It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an UNalienable right of every citizen of the state.” Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 540.
Take special note of the meaning of the term “unalienable”, to wit:
e) “UNALIENABLE”. [Adj.]. NOT alienable; that which cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.” Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1st Ed. Vol. 2, pg. 101.
Usurpation, misuse and abuse of power (authority) are the reasons that the unalienable right, the absolute right, the basic fundamental right to travel by automobile is now ‘enforced’ as a licensed privilege granted via permission by the, STATE, else how can an unalienable right, a basic fundamental right, and an absolute right, NOW, be a mere privilege granted by the, “STATE”?
pop de adam
September 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM
A common definition seen in many places define “license” as: Permission to do that which would be illegal without permission. Here the “State” is licensing a violation of some legality/statute, or simply permitting the violation of law. It’s not really much of a law then is it? “Thou shall not Kill”, except in the following: in defense against an aggressor, treason, or as retribution/punishment for an unlawful murder, most people would probably find those reasons either fairly common custom or agree outright with them. If people were to find the “State” actually issueing “licenses to kill” like the fictional James Bond, people would probably wake up quite quickly to difference of the logically concrete lawful to the quite illogically squishy legal.
For fun:
Whats the difference between the ethical and the moral?
The ethical man knows he shouldn’t be sleeping with anothers wife, the moral man just doesn’t sleep with anothers wife.
Don
September 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Way to go, Pop de adam. Maybe it was wrong for me to laugh but I couldn’t help it.
palani
September 8, 2012 at 5:07 PM
@Don
You state “the use of the Public streets IS NOT a privilege, BUT A RIGHT”.
Use is related to usufruct.
From Bouvier: USE, civil law. A right of receiving so much of the natural profits of a thing as is necessary to daily sustenance; it differs from usufruct, which is a right not only to use but to enjoy.
What are the natural profits of a public road?
Is a public road necessary for daily sustenance?
Do you enjoy traveling?
Notice the use of the word “necessary” in the definition. There is a maxim: NECESSITY IMPORTS PRIVILEGE. Government uses necessity all the time. This is a good one to read up on because when they start talking “necessity” they are telling you they can kill you with impunity (as you can them).
Both use and usufruct are related to trust structures. Beneficiaries of trusts might have privileges under a trust but I don’t have a clue as to how far these benefits may be regulated or to what extent they can be called rights.
In England public footpaths are maintained by walking clubs that insure they are used. Lack of use means the landowner can start excluding the public. They also have public bridleways in England. These are paths that may be used for both walking and riding horseback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales There are bike paths in the U.S. but I don’t know if they exclude walkers or horseback riders. In Wisconsin there are abandoned rail lines that have been converted for use by small ATVs.
A local farmer a few years back was found drunk along the railroad tracks sleeping in his car. His driver license was taken away. Several weeks later he was found driving a lawn mower to the downtown and was hauled back into court. Evidently once regulated by drivers license and that permission is removed the system would view any use of motorized transportation to be lacking authority. I expect he could not even sit a horse without receiving a violation. However, if he had a job and needed to use a motor vehicle to get to that job, I expect they would grant special dispensation to get to and from his place of employment. Now this guy was a farmer and driving a farm tractor is within his scope of employment. I believe he could use the principle of necessity to continue to operate that tractor to get his crop to market.
Does this answer any question of whether there exists a right to travel or not? I expect it raises more questions than it answers. What it boils down to is: Where have you granted anyone the authority to tell you whether you can or cannot do something? Anything within reason is lawful. Maybe you believe you have a right to fly? I would say it is unreasonable to exercise that right when traveling through the airspace controlled by the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport without talking to the air traffic controllers there. It is unreasonable to do so because it puts others at risk and considering the speed and hazards involved both in the air and on the ground it is just plain irresponsible. Please don’t try this just to test your right to do so.
Don
September 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM
To:pop de adam
From: Don
re:”Thou shall not Kill” ”
Do not commit murder is a more proper translation. We know that at/in that time,animal sacrifices were commanded,so “killing” in this instance was permitted.When we consider ALL of the 10 commandments,the 1st 4 how to worship The Eternal “YHWH,” The remaining 6, tell how to be,live with,etc. our fellowmen, other people,e.g.
HEY pop ! YOU are one of my few favorite people on this blog. I don’t like the “sound” of, blog, do you? Maybe I.m not “hearing” it right.
The best of everything to you.
Anon4fun
September 8, 2012 at 2:10 PM
A little definition help from the actual dictionary:
license – Permission to do something which without the license would not be allowable. [...] A permission, by a competent authority to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort. (Black’s 4th)
Note the word “allowable” rather than “illegal” in the first sentence. Using “illegal” there is incomplete, as the second sentence makes clear.
Don
September 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Hi, Anon4fun,
I NEED & MUST HAVE your PERMISSION to enter your domicile. I must SUBMIT to YOU in certain circumstances. I DO NOT need permission from ANY GUHMUNT agent to do what I have a right to do. BUT,GUHMUNT puts me in jail & WORSE than that,for exercising UNalienable rights because practically EVERYTHING to GUHMUNT is a PRIVILEGE GUHMUNT gives IF you meet its demands, etc. I don’t know what it will take,what will have to happen for some people,to know that the “powers that be today” in the “U.S.A” are the oppressive enemy. I have felt the stings,been brutally beaten within an inch of my life by GUHMUNT agents.Today,& for 22 years,In my ears,& in my head are ringing sounds from a physical beating 3 GUHMUNT agents gave me 22 years ago. The cowards put handcuffs on me first, with my arms behind my back before the beating started.
Don
September 8, 2012 at 4:48 PM
To: Anon4fun
Most of us have been led (EDUCATED) to believe that licensure has to do with competency, and if we have a license, it is proof that we are competent. Nothing could be or is further from the truth. Competency has nothing to do with it !!! It is weird that anything that is considered illegal, a trespass or a tort can be done with permission from a “competent authority.” Perhaps it will be easier to understand by pointing out the fact that the word “license” and the word licentious are basically the same word.
pop de adam
September 9, 2012 at 12:55 AM
What is the point? These are people that wish to treat you as subject. You tell us this or that is illegal, yet you have a way of allowing it? FU again, sell freedom back to me really?
Don
September 9, 2012 at 2:29 AM
Hi “Pop”
Re: What is the point? These are people that wish to treat you as subject. You tell us this or that is illegal, yet you have a way of allowing it? FU again, sell freedom back to me really?
Who is this/your message/comment meant for? If it was meant for me,tell me what I said for you to respond by saying:
What is the point? These are people that wish to treat you as subject. You tell us this or that is illegal, yet you have a way of allowing it? FU again, sell freedom back to me really?
Thanks,
Don
P.S. what does FU again, mean?
Anon4fun
September 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM
Don:
It sucks that government goons beat you up. I don’t know what to say except I feel your pain bro.
>>It is weird that anything that is considered illegal, a trespass or a tort can be done with permission from a “competent authority.”<<
The act in question is illegal, a trespass or a tort only because you didn't get the license. It's not like it started out being illegal, a trespass or a tort under all circumstances, and then someone rode into town and created an special exemption by licensing it. The competent authority is called that only if it has a legitimate say-so, possibly due to sovereignty or ownership, as to whether you can do something. On the other hand, if someone illegitimate, e.g. a usurping private company masquerading as the government, is requiring a license to do something you already had the right to do, that is not a competent authority.
Don
September 8, 2012 at 8:18 PM
To: Anon4fun,
I FAIL miserably in getting my point across to practically everyone. I do not say what I do to get sympathy. I say what I do because I don’t want you to feel my pain. I don’t want anyone to go through what I have,but others have,e.g. “The Montana Freemen” who were only doing what so called “Competent Authorities” LICENSED the Federal Reserve to do. I hope that what I am about to say will not be taken as something contradicting myself but I believe that there are good,kind,lov- ing souls that are employees of both State & Federal Government.Then again, maybe it’s the good cop bad cop situation. I have had some that were kind to me & that seemed to understand. Anyway, the best of everything to you & yours.
Anon4fun
September 8, 2012 at 9:14 PM
Don:
Well wishes to you and yours also, and I agree with your main point. Government is compartmentalized precisely because the evil-doers are in the minority there. The majority is just folks, by and large. And many of them think they are being patriotic by working for the private interest which poses as the people’s government. Fortunately, this latter group is likely to do the right thing when the chips are down and the masks are off, so there’s reason for optimism. These are also the ones whom the facilitators trolling many legal research sites encourage us to alienate with a simplistic us-versus-them attitude, so we marginalize ourselves like a bunch of kooky tinfoil hat wearing haters.
Don
September 8, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Your “Well wishes” are for my dog & me & I sincerely thank you Her name is “Pullya” cause she loves to pullya.” I think she is psychic. Her problem is,she loves everybody.Once upon a time,I did too. HEY did you see what I posted re Justice Wilson said(Wilson, J. in Chisholm v. Georgia)? If so,what does “venue” have to do with what he said. I am convinced that you are 100% correct about venue.yes indeed. BUT those “right to travel” court cases were honored, apparently until this “change of venue.” If someone can change the venue to make them no longer apply, that is SNEAKY & that is saying something good about it. I overheard an attorney say to another,”We’ve got to do something about this first amendment.” He talked about how it presented “problems” & was hindering “our purpose.” I cannot remember the remainder of what he said re how & why this was being done(hindering),but I do remember I wanted to shake him until his teeth rattled. What he was saying was scary,frightening,etc. I am nervous right now thinking about it. If ever there were/are demon possessed people, those 2 attorneys were/are. David R Vandiver was/is one of them. If you have Google Earth, type in 7107 Cholla Rd, Carlsbad N.M. & see the home he & his next door neighbor Judge Fred A. Watson STOLE from me. The home as well as the 3 acres it was on was “free & clear” for whatever that is worth.
cynthia
September 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM
It is hoped that you will at least attempt a Federal RICO and Civil Tort claim against those that clearly STOLE your home. Before formalizing it be sure to get all information possible from the related entities and case evidence as I am sure it will quickly ‘dissapear’ if not already done so – but at least gather all that you can…. If you are not already aware, encourage all to also check out http://www.rodclassteam.com or http://www.rodclassteam.org and ‘search’ for Rod Class – multiple law suits…. to help pull out the essential information that all of us ‘commoners’ need for our ‘defense against the corruption’ at least in some fashion…
Adask
September 8, 2012 at 9:27 PM
Don,
I believe that all the rights to drive and travel in the court cases you’ve mentioned are venue specific. I.e., the Supreme Court of the United States can’t declare the right to drive or travel in China, Uganda, or Brazil. However, it can declare those “common rights” to exist within the venue of the States of the Union. It cannot declare such rights to exist within the territories of “this state” which, under Article 4.3.2 of the federal Constitution are subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.
The question, for me, seems fairly simply WHERE ARE YOU? WHAT VENUE/PLANE are you acting in? If you can establish that you are acting (or driving) within the borders of a State of the Union, I think you can claim all of those “common rights” to use the highway, drive, etc.. On the other hand, if you are presumed to be traveling “in this state” and you don’t defeat that presumption, you probably have no access to those “common rights”.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 12:20 AM
I am in a so called “State” that could not be admitted into the Union unless IT was willing to abide by The Power Clauses of the 14th & on Amendments. This was one of the requirements.The State of Texas was “in the Union” BEFORE the 14th. I am trying to leave here, but “the rug is pulled out from under me” so much it has hindered & discouraged me. I don’t think it was a venue issue that was the problem when Justice Wilson said, in pertinent part:
I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last oppressed their master and maker. I have already remarked, that in the practice, and even in the Science of politics, there has been frequently a strong current against the natural order of things; and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. This remark deserves a more particular illustration. Even in almost every nation, which has been denominated free, the State has assumed a supercilious preeminence above the people, who have formed it: Hence the haughty notions of State independence, State Sovereignty and State Supremacy. In despotic Governments, the Government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the State and the people: Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the Supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable, power of Government. In each, man is degraded from the prime rank, which he ought to hold in human affairs: In the latter, the State as well as the man is degraded. Of both degradations, striking instances occur in history, in politics, and in common life.” AND,
About 30 years ago a man I respect said: “We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” President Ronald Reagan admired the man who said this, & personally, I think Ronald Reagan was an Honorable man
When they are applying no will but their own I can’t see how telling them “We have a venue problem here” is going to make any difference. They do what they do by MIGHT i.e.usurpation of power. I have presented the venue issue to no avail.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 12:42 AM
To continue, what follows has a little something to do with venue. I did not file anything with the 2nd Judicial District Court in Albuquerque but I did send papers explaining my position/stand,etc. THEN after this, Correspondence or whatever you want to call it comes to me & I sent it back unopened along with the reasons as follows especially for the reason as showing in # 2.
March 9, 2000
To: OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
111 UNION SQUARE SE
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102
From : Donald-Blaine : [Bailey];
Second judicial district-305 Little-Johnson Valley Road,Kingston,Roane County,Tennessee;
C/o-1325-Lopez-Drive- S. W. Albuquerque : New Mexico,
Zip Code Exempt per Public Law 91-375, Section 403 (b) (2) (c),
Domestic Mail Services-122.32., Re: Zip Code Use
To whom it may concern:
Enclosed is a “U.S. Postal Service mailing”, emanating from, the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AS SHOWING ABOVE, AND SENT TO:
DONALD BAILEY
1325 LOPEZ RD. SW.
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87105
I, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], am returning the enclosed mailing, to the original mailing location, showing above, for the following reasons:
1. I, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], am not the DONALD BAILEY, “person,” you are trying to contact.
2. I, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], am returning this mailing to you, so you may deliver it to who it is meant for.
3. My name and surname, aka my “address” and mailing location, is showing above, and as should be evident, are not one and the same, as your mailing is sent to.
4. I, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], am not, DONALD BAILEY, OR, any aka, OR, THE DEFENDANT, and my temporary mailing location, as is evidenced above, is not a mailing location with the trademark of NM, and not, N.M., with the periods, and the, Military Federal Regional Venue Identifier of, 87105.
5. Apparently this attempt to lure me, Donald-Blaine: [Bailey], into your “demonic arena” is “hu-man error.”
RETURNED, BUT NOT WITH ANY RESPECT FOR ANY AGENTS OF SATAN, Still, I remain,
_______________ ________________: [_______________]______________________________________
Donald-Blaine : [Bailey], Jure sanguinis, Jure soli, Jure coronae
Second judicial district-
517 Paint Rock- Ferry-Road-
Kingston: Roane county: Tennessee;
C/o-1325-Lopez-Drive- S.W.
Albuquerque: Bernalillo county: New Mexico,
Zip Code Exempt per Public Law 91-375, Section 403 (b) (2) (c),
Domestic Mail Services-122.32., Re: Zip Code Use
Yartap
September 8, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Don,
I agree with you and your logic and arguments about licensing. YOU ARE RIGHT!
The history of licensing and the history of the definition of license are very interesting. As you correctly stated, licensing started in the 14th century A.D. with religious orders and has expanded right up to today. Black’s 2nd edition does not even consider “Driver’s licenses” in its discussion on the subject, because most states did not require the license. But, the definition that we accept today is based upon the 2nd edition’s definition of license in “Contract Law.”
The requirement for a state wide driver’s license stated basically in New Jersey after New York around 1913 A.D. But the real push for all states came in 1933 A.D. with FDR’s New Deal. Then most states were just looking for ways of revenue.
My research was based mainly upon my state, Georgia, back in 1996 A.D., which I was fighting with authorities upon the subject of Driver’s Licenses and its constitutionality. In my state, today’s driver’s license originated from the requirement of licensing cars and not drivers, thus, the license plate upon cars. The only driver’s license that was required at the beginning (1933 A.D.) was for chaffers or commercial drivers of passenger. The only traffic law was that one could not be intoxicated while driving, no rules of the road and no age requirement. But, in my research I noticed a funny thing…….
The state had defined the term, license. prior to 1933 A.D. as follows:
“Permission from a competent authority for the privilege to do such act or acts, that without such permission would be UNJUST, IMMORAL, a TRESPASS or a TORT.” [Emphasis Mine].
I feel that this definition is the closest description of the meaning of “license,” due to the fact, that all four types of Act(s) by nature are truly Unjustifiable Harms.
But, notice Georgia’s definition after 1933 A.D…….
“Permission from a competent authority for the privilege to do such act or acts, that without such permission would be ILLEGAL, immoral, a trespass or a tort.” [Emphasis Mine, Again].
As you can see, in 1933 A.D., the state could declare ANYTHING as “illegal” to require a license. Even Black’s Law Dictionary came out with the 3rd edition in that year to conform with the New Deal laws. You can go look at any state’s law books by the year their laws are passed and you will find the year 1933 A.D. will be 4 to 5 times thicker and any other years for laws passed. It’s that damn FDR’s New Deal, and thus, the slow loss of our freedoms and Rights.
Don – No license – No contract!
Don
September 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM
Yartap,
You made me weep. I FINALLY have found one who sees & understands at least one “issue” as I do. My E mail address is: donaldbailey02@comcast.net. If you have an E-mail address or know someone who does that you trust Email me & I will send you excerpts,etc that I know you will agree with. I have used up too much “space” on Alfred’s Website & I feel bad about it. As far as no license-no contract, one will be created for you & the creator(s) will immediately revoke it. This is what happened to me, A magistrate, who before becoming a magistrate was “The Chief of Police in good ol CarlsBAD NM & an attorney,Daniel Banks did this,i.e. created an NM driver license for me. WELL after all, they are here to help, aren’t they? Of course they are.Reprobate self made BASTARDS. Notice, I said self made.
Yartap
September 9, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Hey Don,
I’m glad you are pleased. I think, from what I am reading from you, that you may not understand how to fight these Bastards (I could be wrong). But, If I’m right, then you may need to learn how to “Think outside the Box” in order to get relief from your troubles. It seems to me that you are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. What I mean by that, is that you are not going to get them to conform to true justice. You may be beating your head up against a stone wall. I have tried to get justice in the past, only to fail, because I did not understand the “game.” If this is the case, then let me know. And I will try to help you.
Don
September 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Yartap, It appears that I sent a message to Anon4fun that should have been sent to you. It is probably near the end of this page.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM
Yartap,
This idiot did obtain some of his senses back when I as you said I realized I WAS trying to fit a round peg into a square hole Per your statement in pertinent part: You may be beating your head up against a stone wall. My thought was close to that in that I said to myself: It is insanity in trying to beat a dead horse.Tell me what you can IF you can do it by E mail. I hardly know anything about computers but I think Cynthia was trying to tell me that using the E mail was dangerous.Probably is. But Since “The Boss” sometimes gives out his E mail address I thought it would be ok. Above all & THIS IS AN ORDER !! DON”T DO ANYTHING for me that may even possibly cause you problems I do have “relief” in feeling that my time is at hand anyway,which is good.That’s about all I have to look forward to but I do get “rest” & some “peace” knowing this. It will be a wonderful blessing. Shalom.
Yartap
September 10, 2012 at 4:15 AM
Don!
What do you mean? “Your time is at hand.” You have got me concerned!
Simply, tell me your problem right at this time, and tell me what you want to accomplish or the final result.
If we could handle this in this blog, that would be great, because my e-mail is limited (it ain’t that great). I have a limit on what comes in and go out. Many times I cannot open what comes in.
Yartap
Anon4fun
September 9, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Don:
If you mean the “supercilious preeminence” quote from Chisholm v. Georgia, yes this is that. Though now the conversion of the people from beneficiaries to fiduciaries has been formalized. This happened when the private entity completed its hostile takeover of the people’s government. What are counted rights in the Constitutional venue were usurped (though only in effect, if they are unalienable) and traded back as privileges of an (all-caps) “employee” in the company’s territorial venue.
By the way, in every instance I can think of, an act that is now “illegal, a trespass or a tort” due to the lack of a license acquired the potential to be “illegal, a trespass or a tort” only when the licensing requirement itself was established. Before this, the act was not “illegal, a trespass or a tort” under any circumstances. I wonder if there are exceptions to this.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 1:32 AM
They only make offers we can’t refuse,cosa nostra style. Palani understands offers & how to counter offer even the offers we can’t refuse,I don’t know to counter offer.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 1:44 AM
“supercilious preeminence” = oppression which is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Those who do this are agents of Satan.
pop de adam
September 9, 2012 at 1:06 AM
Driving is a form of commerce as you are paid for such,
Make the cop prove you were moving goods or passengers.
This will only happen with a bill of goods or mis-informed guests.
get it?
palani
September 9, 2012 at 6:40 AM
@Don
“approximately how many times have you been in “court” presenting your position/stand/issues,etc”
I hold court daily.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Palani,
I will be more specifc. How many times have you been in “the court” that you say will always presume you to be an agent,presenting your position/stand/issues,etc”
Don
September 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Hi,Palani,you enjoy playing mind games with me,I know, & since you are avoiding or evading my question, and re your comment of: A single judicial actor has no authority.”
I wish “hanging/hangin Judge Parker was still alive.I wish you would tell him that. Imagine this. You say to Judge Parker: A single judicial actor has no authority. Judge parker says: You are so right THIRTY DAYS. Instantly your arms are behind your back with handcuffs around your wrists & you say: What is your probable cause for doing this? Parker says: Well since I don’t have the authority I’m a dune nit probably cause I want to.
What were you “before” when the judge signed the letter? Do you recall if a yellow fringed flag was nearby? It would have “looked like “OL GLORY” with yellow or gold fringe.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 6:22 PM
Palani, I did not put a ? mark after my comment to you on September 9, 2012 at 11:43 AM. & knowing that the elephant size gross error made the whole comment unintelligible, to you, I want you to know the superduper error was done intentionally to give you something else to “chew on for a while.” I have triple checked this comment to see if I put an i where the second a is in your “nom de plume. (Perinde sunt ac si scripts non essent). Well how about that !! It appears I correctly spelled your nom de plume. Re:Perinde sunt ac si scripts non essent. Yes I agree.
palani
September 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM
@Don
“since you are avoiding or evading my question” .. Have I established a duty to answer you in the form you are fishing for?
“Parker says: Well since I don’t have the authority I’m a dune nit probably cause I want to.” … My comment would be that you should be more cautious with whom you contract with. Did you know one rule of court (mostly unwritten) is “play at your own risk”?
“What were you “before” when the judge signed the letter?” … I wasn’t present.
“Do you recall if a yellow fringed flag was nearby?” … I recall a non-fringed flag in a courtroom once but I wouldn’t swear that it had the “proper” dimensions. Also I am sure it had 50 stars while the 48 star flag would have been most appropriate.
Don
September 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM
To:Palani,
I can only presume you know how to keep the ruthless murderers & robbers, excuse me, revenue raisers off your back. I wish I knew how, but to exist under a rock is miserable. Unless this is one of those “fishing” trying to get you to admit to something questions,why,in your opinion, were the Apostles, Peter & Paul put in prison? IF this IS a “fishing/admission” question don’t respond in any manner & your non response will be my way of knowing I submitted a fishing/admission question.
P.S. I don’t believe you are “2 faced 1 iota.
Anon4fun
September 9, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Re: Driving as a “commercial” activity.
If the all-caps likeness to your name is your job title as US territory representative of the private company posing as the people’s government, then it’s easy to see why you’re presumed to be engaged in some sort of commercial activity just conducting your horseless carriage to cousin Mildred’s for that Thursday night game of bridge with coffee and strudel. Possibly anything involving transportation done in the capacity of a fiduciary of a private company can be construed as commerce.
Also, under “commerce” in Black’s 4th we find:
commerce – Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on, and the transportation of persons as well as of goods, both by land and by sea. [...] The words “commerce” and “trade” are often used interchangeably; but, strictly speaking, commerce relates to intercourse or dealings with foreign nations, states, or political communities, while trade denotes business intercourse or mutual traffic within the limits of a state or nation, or the buying, selling, and exchanging of articles between members of the same community.
In Black’s 5th we find:
The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the same State but through any other State or any Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country. National Labor Relations Act, § 2.
For purposes of Fair Labor Standards Act, “commerce” means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among several states or between any state and any place outside thereof. Wirtz v. B. B. Saxon Co., C.A.Fla., 365 F.2d 457, 460.
Don:
See Al’s reply in regards to the US driver’s license.
Adask
September 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Article 1.8.3 of the federal Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . .” Has anyone seen the terms “interstate commerce” or even “intrastate commerce” in the Constitution? I have not.
It might be interesting to do a search to discover when the terms “interstate commerce” and “intrastate commerce” first appeared in our legal history.
I suspect that “Commerce among the several States” and “interstate commerce” might refer two different venues. The first certainly refers to commerce among the several States of the Union. The second may refer to commerce between the administrative divisions of U.S. territory (“this state”) conducted under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress seen in Article 4.3.2.
If the gov-co were to come after you for some violation of “interstate commerce” and you agreed that you had engaged in “commerce among the several States” under Article 1.8.3, I wonder if the gov-co would be forced to admit that their case was not based on Article 1.8.3, but was instead based on Article 4.3.2? What would happen if you ran a business engaged in commerce with customers in other states and your invoices expressly declared that you were engaged in “commerce among the several States of the Union”?
Given that Article 1.10.1 declares that “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts,” I wonder if “commerce among the several States” of the Union (as per 1.8.3) is even possible when conducted by means of Federal Reserve Notes. Perhaps all “interstate commerce” is primarily defined a commerce conducted outside the States of the Union where FRNs are legal. The fiction of “this state” is almost certainly based primarily on the use of FRNs. It’s possible that the creation of a commercial “plane” wherein the people/citizens can legally engage in “interstate commerce” without gold and silver coin was originally justified as a “convenience”–certainly for major corporations and probably for the People.
palani
September 9, 2012 at 1:14 PM
@Don
“How many times have you been in “the court” that you say will always presume you to be an agent,presenting your position/stand/issues,etc”
I have never been before a tribunal.
Remember. Out of the mouths of two or more witnesses are facts established. A single judicial actor has no authority.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Anon4fun
Re: Your comment of: Driving as a “commercial” activity.
In the eyes/minds,etc., of ALL the courts I am aware of, a, or any “driver of a motor vehicle” IS engaging/participating,etc., in commercial activity.Every word/term used in the motor vehicle code is a commerce word/term,e.g “passenger.” We know that a passenger is a “paying customer.” I don’t think it is “just coincidental” that the Court in Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645,said,in pertinent part: “A traveler by automobile;” and not a “driver of a motor vehicle.”
“At Common Law there is no precise limit of speed. A traveler by automobile must adopt a reasonable speed.” Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645.
Recently,I was talking on the phone to a mechanic & I said, I think one of my automobile windows has slipped off track. He asked,is it the driver’s side or the passenger side? I said, “it’s on the guest side.” HUH? it’s on what side? I spelled the word out for him,e.g. it is on thr G-U-E-S-T side.He hung up.The point is,saying this to any gov-co folks,is strong evidence to them you are at least to some degree,”off your rocker.” I say this from experience. Hopefully no one else will experience this.
Re:See Al’s reply in regards to the US driver’s license. I cannot find it, Wish I could.
cynthia
September 9, 2012 at 3:20 PM
For additional thought or conjecture, specific to the presumption that one is ‘engaging in commerce’, the origins of the “legal last” name vs one’s proper lawfully given name one will find if their ancestors were upon England…
One of the earlier kings of England Created the “Sur” name as a means to enforce a “poll tax” since at one time the monarchy of England was also monarchy of France and other nations it would seem perfectly ‘valid’ that any one with a “last” name for which the definition is in fact a form of trade or profession that the “legal last” was created to enforce taxation upon one engaged or engaging in a form of what is construed as “commerce” however – deeper yet into the rabbit hole, if you learn from Kurt Kallenbach and his research team (http://trustandcontract.wordpress.com) one will find that the “mind ensnarement” started even further back than that in regards to the “Law Merchant” which took it Global.
In relation to the even more ancient political batter for ultimate power of the soul or mind of the commoners or masses one needs to focus on the battle for power of the “religious priests” separate from the “kings, nobles, and robber barrons”….
And then again, do not forget the “bankers”, so one could say that our minds and souls are the ‘spoils’ of multiple factions in perpetual clamoring for that which is not theirs in the interest of self grandizing or ego without remorse…
However, “we” only have the “choice” of being “without” them when we “Know They Self” and our “fullest potential” without fear. That is the ultimate challenge and “prize”, essentially “Telling Them” “who” and “what” “I AM” and then having the knowledge, skills, and ability to Truly “Stand Under the positive Creator” solely while solidly upon the land without many votes (politics), mind control (government), or soul\spirit bondage (religion) and in fact Being within a Separate “society”. A rare handfull have been successful, and a small but growing number are following this path. It is not easy, but is possible, while retaining the concept, “each to their own free will, do what ye will, yet harm none, So Mote it Be”…
Don
September 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM
Beautiful,Cynthia,
You posted this before or a message similar to it, & I thought I sent a message to you & “The Boss” in regards to it. But some strange things have been happening with my computer.Yes,from Genesis to Revelation,it is,Adam to John. What were/are their surnames What was the “surname” of Moses,Ruth,Esther.Matthew.Mark,Luke,John,for example? I cannot give you enough praise for your brillance & your depth of perception & your dear heart so I’ll just say since I believe our loving Heavenly Father & our wonderful friend Yahshua have a great sense of humor,ATTA BOY GIRL!!
cynthia
September 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM
(nod)(smile) “MAN I AM” for separate thread possible, the “legal” separation of “women” from “men” is also an age old part of ‘their mission’ to ‘separate’ and ‘divide’ us. Instead we should all see eachother as “brother and sister” “without” “title” including “title” of “agent” “resident” or any of the myriad of “legal terms”… for myself, no desire to be “sovereign” or “citizen” or “civilian” rather truly equal, rare even in the ‘truth’ and ‘freedom’ ‘movements’… most wish to replace a “legal” “title” with what is presumbed to be a “lawful” “title” – but still “title”.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Cynthia, Right !! “Still Title.” I was trying to show others knowing that “other people” will read the “exchange” that People in the Holy Scriptures,e.g.,Esther,Ruth,Moses,Adam,etc DID NOT have surnames. Only The Supreme Judge of the Universe is “truly Sovereign.” We both know this. Shalom.
Don
September 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM
To cynthia,
From Don
I am “computer stupid in understanding terms & use,” I am learning,I think,but still slowly. Re: “for separate thread possible,” I honestly don’t know what this means,but I have a feeling you are telling me something.
Don
September 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Palani, I comprehend your answer of “I” wasn’t present.” It appears/seems to me that your place of abode must be under a rock. Mine almost is. Apparently I was asking questions that if you had answered in plain English would have placed you in a perilous position. That is the only way I can justify most of your “answers.” I was not knowingly “fishing” for anything. I guess I’m wrong in thinking IF I can figure out a way to “win” the first thing I wanted to do was share it with others. shalom “twere me.” I say twere me because I think it is adorable. Per this message I am not asking for any response & I do not expect any. Now I will post this &see my typos.
palani
September 10, 2012 at 6:30 AM
@Don
“Apparently I was asking questions that if you had answered in plain English would have placed you in a perilous position” … not necessarily however you appear to be asking for admissions. You might view my written words through the lens of contract as counteroffers rather than statements given gratuitously.
“IF I can figure out a way to “win” ” … if you find yourself in the wrong venue then a win is chalked up as a loss. I know this sounds two face but the true win in life is to remain in honor and, should you ever be faced with a court of EQUITY, then the honorable thing to do is to lose rather than to win. The legal system only regards the topic of honor with respect to financial instruments yet there is so much more to it you just know they are ignoring the topic for a reason. Here is what Hobbes had to say in LEVIATHAN
To pray to another, for ayde of any kind, is to HONOUR; because
a signe we have an opinion he has power to help; and the more
difficult the ayde is, the more is the Honour.
To obey, is to Honour; because no man obeyes them, whom they think
have no power to help, or hurt them. And consequently to disobey,
is to Dishonour.
To give great gifts to a man, is to Honour him; because ’tis buying
of Protection, and acknowledging of Power. To give little gifts,
is to Dishonour; because it is but Almes, and signifies an opinion
of the need of small helps. To be sedulous in promoting anothers good;
also to flatter, is to Honour; as a signe we seek his protection or ayde.
To neglect, is to Dishonour.
To give way, or place to another, in any Commodity, is to Honour;
being a confession of greater power. To arrogate, is to Dishonour.
To shew any signe of love, or feare of another, is to Honour;
for both to love, and to feare, is to value. To contemne,
or lesse to love or feare then he expects, is to Dishonour;
for ’tis undervaluing.
To praise, magnifie, or call happy, is to Honour; because nothing
but goodnesse, power, and felicity is valued. To revile, mock,
or pitty, is to Dishonour.
To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with
decency, and humility, is to Honour him; as signes of fear to offend.
To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly,
impudently, is to Dishonour.
To believe, to trust, to rely on another, is to Honour him;
signe of opinion of his vertue and power. To distrust, or not believe,
is to Dishonour.
To hearken to a mans counsell, or discourse of what kind soever,
is to Honour; as a signe we think him wise, or eloquent, or witty.
To sleep, or go forth, or talk the while, is to Dishonour.
To do those things to another, which he takes for signes of Honour,
or which the Law or Custome makes so, is to Honour; because
in approving the Honour done by others, he acknowledgeth the power
which others acknowledge. To refuse to do them, is to Dishonour.
To agree with in opinion, is to Honour; as being a signe of approving
his judgement, and wisdome. To dissent, is Dishonour; and an upbraiding
of errour; and (if the dissent be in many things) of folly.
To imitate, is to Honour; for it is vehemently to approve.
To imitate ones Enemy, is to Dishonour.
To honour those another honours, is to Honour him; as a signe of
approbation of his judgement. To honour his Enemies, is to Dishonour him.
To employ in counsell, or in actions of difficulty, is to Honour;
as a signe of opinion of his wisdome, or other power. To deny employment
in the same cases, to those that seek it, is to Dishonour.
All these wayes of Honouring, are naturall; and as well within,
as without Common-wealths. But in Common-wealths, where he,
or they that have the supreme Authority, can make whatsoever
they please, to stand for signes of Honour, there be other Honours.
A Soveraigne doth Honour a Subject, with whatsoever Title, or Office,
or Employment, or Action, that he himselfe will have taken for a signe
of his will to Honour him.
Another source of information I have found on the topic is http://tinypic.com/r/rmn2w9/6
To put it bluntly … if you are punished and you have committed no injury then somehow dishonor was involved. If you are rewarded then honor was involved.
Anon4fun
September 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Adask said: {I suspect that “Commerce among the several States” and “interstate commerce” might refer two different venues. The first certainly refers to commerce among the several States of the Union. The second may refer to commerce between the administrative divisions of U.S. territory (“this state”) conducted under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress seen in Article 4.3.2.}
I suspect this too, also without being certain. Though it would not be too much of a surprise if “interstate commerce” could take either meaning, depending on context, and was merely not the sort of phrase in common use before the late 19th century.
{Given that Article 1.10.1 declares that “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts,” I wonder if “commerce among the several States” of the Union (as per 1.8.3) is even possible when conducted by means of Federal Reserve Notes.}
Probably not, which suggests that the private beneficiary of the company in Washington DC which has usurped the Constitutional structure of this country, and the private beneficiary of the Federal Reserve usury service, are one and the same.
Don said: {Every word/term used in the motor vehicle code is a commerce word/term,e.g “passenger.”}
I agree. I go on to postulate the existence of a basis for the presumption you are engaged in commerce while “driving” that is more fundamental than even the vehicle code. Namely, in your all-caps capacity of employee (or, more generally and perhaps more accurately, fiduciary agent) of the private Washington DC-based company masquerading as the people’s government, anything you do related to transportation counts as “commerce” by what we find in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition:
commerce – Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on, and the transportation of persons as well as of goods, both by land and by sea. [...] The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the same State but through any other State or any Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country. National Labor Relations Act, § 2.
{Now I will post this &see my typos.}
Funny how that happens.
Yartap
September 10, 2012 at 4:24 AM
Anon4fun,
Don’t forget also, the courts have ruled that “anything” with the “possibility” of being transported across state lines “is, now, interstate commerce.”
Don
September 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM
Anon4fun,
Re:Don’t forget also, the courts have ruled that “anything” with the “possibility” of being trans-ported across state lines “is, now, interstate commerce.
Birth certificates have “DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE” showing/written on them. Much can be said about this. We are, to “them,” “commercial commodities.”
I believe “anything,” to “them” means in addition,”everything” e.g.,you,me,my beloved dog,Big Al,who are, to them, “merchandise”. So, if I am taking you, in my automobile,to visit a friend in a nearby hospital,to “them” there is a possibility that I also might be taking you,later,”across state lines,” They have all the bases covered. What follows is how I believe “The Supreme Judge of the Universe” looks at this.
Isaiah:1-2. “Woe to those who are enacting harmful regulations and those who have written out sheer trouble,in order to push away the lowly ones from a legal case and to wrest away justice from the afflicted ones of my people.” (From a modern Translation of the Holy Scriptures).
The King James version says: 1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;
2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless! (take away the RIGHT)
Enuff said.
Randy
September 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM
laughing out loud
Don
September 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Hi Randy,
What is it you are laughing out loud about?? The reason I ask is, I like to laugh too.
Randy
September 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM
Don, r u kidding, how could u not know what lol means n the first place, im 52 yrs. old, r u 102, come on Don, get with the times lol
Don
September 10, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Yayus Randy I R not kaydunn. I cuts & payses duh 3 lettuhs sews I wood B shoar I was askunn U the queshunn ko-wreck. I nose whut LOL is but I thawt duh 3 lettuhs waw 1ol. Kaw K zhuns say foar shoar. So bro say fo sho. unnuhstane whut um sayin? huh? no whuttuhh mean? C whutumm tawkunn baut? Huh?
Randy
September 10, 2012 at 5:47 PM
okay, heres the next hip saying in computer talk, wtf does that mean my brother lol
Don
September 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM
B N U jus a mear fitty 2 yayuzz ol, I is ghats 2 gih u fitty fo mo 2 go fo u b a buzz 2 un-nuh-stain whut umm tawkin baut. LOL
Don
September 20, 2012 at 9:52 PM
To: who it may concern:
On page 2 of James Hazel’s, of Cabbages and Kings, More About Names, it is written:
COMMENTS: The Hospitals and Physicians Handbook on Birth Registrations by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, proposes model legislation for states. Grants are offered to those states which adopt the model statutes. On page 4 of the INSTRUCTIONS for completing birth certificates, preparers are mandated thus: “The last name (Surname) MUST be in all capital letters.” ( bold print emphasis is in original ). On page 2, (General Instructions) this caveat appears: “ A copy of the original birth certificate should never be given to the parent (s) for any reason. If this has been your practice, you must stop immediately.” ( Underlining is in the original ).
Why is this important, Friends? Why is it mandated that the “last name” MUST be capitalized, and why is it, that this so called “last name” is always inserted, FIRST, e.g., BAILEY, DONALD, on “Government” papers?” I, Donald-Blaine: Bailey, in good faith, believe that when the birth certificate is registered, a separate “legal entity” is created, like a mirror image of the real flesh and blood being. This separate entity, or alter ego, WITH THE ALL CAPITAL LETTER SO CALLED “LAST NAME” IS AKA AND BECOMES THE STRAWMAN/- WOMAN OR ACCOMMODATION PARTY, aka a, TRANSMITTING UTILITY, HUMAN RESOURCE, etc. The key word is “registered” as registered in international commerce, and who becomes the “surety” in what is called the bankruptcy of the United States, PER EXECUTIVE DECREES/ORDERS 6073; 6102; 6111; 6260, EXPLAINED IN SENATE REPORT 93-549, PAGES 187 AND 594 UNDER, the “TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT ” SIXTY FIFTH CONGRESS, SESSION 1, CHAPTERS 105, 106, OCTOBER 6, 1917, CODIFIED IN 12 U.S.C.A. 95 a.
I am unaware at this time of any additional codification orders, decrees, acts, etc. This is as close to being incomprehensible as anything you will ever come across, except for the “insiders” who know what is going on and why. I, Donald-Blaine: Bailey, contend that “what is going on” is done through bad faith dealing, covin, conspiracy, deceit, dissembling, concealment, and misrepresentation, which amounts to fraud, at best. The importance for people in government positions putting so much emphasis and importance on the “surname” needs to be revealed. It is also important to know how patronymics aka surnames came into existence, e.g. “Eons” ago, If, my profession, was that of a cobbler, or a gravedigger, or a turkey raiser, and I am still alive today, I will be “addressed” today, as, MR. COBBLER, or, MR. GRAVEDIGGER, or, MR. TURKEYRAISER. The personal Christian identity is not relevant anymore, it’s the Profession, etc. identity, that is “crucial.” Insider I.R.S. Tax collectors understand, especially with the Social Security NUMBER, identifying Which, MR. COBBLER, or, MR. GRAVEDIGGER, or, MR. TURKEYRAISER.
Adask
September 20, 2012 at 11:36 PM
I was accused of two felony counts of non-support of a child back in A.D. 2002. The allegations were based on fraud. Nevertheless, I was arrested without warrant by two cops who entered my home without warrant. I was ultimately extradited to Missouri–a state that I hadn’t been in for at least twenty years–and then, only for a few hours. Each count carried a potential sentence of 5 years. If I’d been tried and found guilty, I would probably have been sentenced to something like six months.
I waived extradition in Dallas, but when I signed the waiver, I signed as follows:
at arm’s length
s/Alfred Adask
true name “Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”
Those were the terms I included in my agreement to waive extradition. I knew child support was a breach of fiduciary obligation, so by signing “at arm’s length,” I was signing the the capacity of a non-fiduciary. By writing: true name “Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK” I claimed that the name “ADASK” was merely an alias for “Adask”.
The Dallas court judge signed the waiver and the court clerk sealed the waiver. Some private extradition service picked me up and hauled me from Texas to Missouri without reading or understanding the terms of my agreement to waive an extradition hearing.
When I arrived in Missouri, the local “authorities” were pissed and confused. By extraditing me, they had accepted my offer to come to Missouri in a non-fiduciary capacity. Assuming that child support violations constitute a breach of fiduciary obligation, they couldn’t proceed against me unless they could trick me into assuming the role of a fiduciary.
Similarly, hauling me to Missouri, the Missouri court accepted my claim that “ADASK” was merely an alias for “Adask”. They held me in a Level 5, maximum security jail for 344 days. But they never convicted me, tried me, gave me a probable cause hearing, or even officially charged me with the alleged offenses.
I sat in the Missouri jail for 344 days because, although I was smart enough (actually, blessed enough) to stop the prosecution, I was not smart enough to figure out how to make them release me. Similarly, the Missouri county that extradited me didn’t have brains enough to know how to proceed against me if I was a non-fiduciary and “ADASK” was merely an alias for “Adask”. So we had a Mexican standoff. I was waiting for them to release me. They were waiting for me to “crack” under the pressure of being detained indefinitely and move for some sort of plea bargain. Ultimately, they essentially threw me out of their jail.
I probably spent twice as much time in that jail as I would’ve spent if I’d been tried and convicted, but I’d also be convicted felon today with all the attendant restrictions.
It still galls me that I didn’t sue the bastards for false imprisonment, but I fiddle-farted around drafting my lawsuit, got involved in the “man or other animals” lawsuit here on Texas. Right about the time the statute of limitations was running out on suing Missouri for false imprisonment, things heated up in the Texas case where I was threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year). I didn’t have enough brains and energy to fight both cases so I let the Missouri case slide so I could defend against the Texas Attorney General.
Although I don’t believe that “ADASK” is a mere alias for “Adask,” I can still swear under oath that “ADASK” is an alias for “Adask”. How? I have an old drivers license with my picture on it that expired 20 years ago. I’ve aged a tad since then, but if I showed that license to a jury and they saw my picture and saw the name on the license was “ALFRED N ADASK,” they would all agree that the name on the DL was my name. Thus, I am truly “also known as” “ALFRED N ADASK” by others.
Once I testify on the record that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely my alias, who–from the prosecution or plaintiff’s side–will stand up in front of a jury to testify that “ADASK” is not an alias? Who will testify to whatever “ADASK” means or signifies that’s other than an alias for my true name “Alfred Adask”?
My story about going to Missouri is only an anecdote. It’s a one-time event. It’s evidence that my theory might be true, but it’s not proof that my “alias” theory is valid. So, don’t embrace the theory without some serious thought. But, for me, defining “ADASK” to be merely an alias for “Adask” is so brilliant that I believe the insight was inspired by the our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.
And I didn’t devise that strategy. I didn’t cooperate in three waiver of extradition hearings, so the extradition officer said “what’s the problem?” and I answered that I didn’t believe the all upper case name (“ALFRED N ADASK”) on the extradition document was my proper name. The extradition officer lied that the government merely had old computers and printers that couldn’t print lower case letters. I still hesitated. Then the extradition officer suggested that he write “true name ‘Alfred Adask’ a/k/a ‘ALFRED N ADASK’” below my signature on the waiver of extradition. I know damn well that he had no clue to what he was writing. I think the Good LORD put that idea in his head. But as soon as I heard what the extradition officer planned to write, I knew instantly, that his proposal was brilliant. I don’t know that I would ever have thought of that “alias” idea on my own, but the instant I saw it, I knew it was brilliant.
I’m amazed to this day that the judge signed my waiver of extradition and the court clerk sealed it. I don’t know if they simply didn’t read how I’d qualified my signature and how I declared “ADASK” to be an alias, of if they didn’t understand, of if they did understand and were moved to let me proceed on the terms I’d specified. I remember the look in the judge’s eyes. After she signed the waiver of extradition, she gave me a glance that looked sly, knowing. She didn’t look like my pal, but she looked like she knew this waiver was going to make some trouble–and she was all for it.
Makes me laugh.
Don
September 21, 2012 at 12:22 AM
To Alfred
@” I remember the look in the judge’s eyes”
Did she have a gleam in her eyes?
@Makes me laugh.
This makes me feel good in that it made you laugh
I thought, Alfred is laughing & it lifted me.
Thank you for giving thanks to the one that rightly should receive it,i.e YHWH ha Elohiym.
P.S. It will be on its way to you tomorrow.unless I run into a “hornet nest.”
P.P.S. Isn’t Palani “something else.!!”
Don
September 21, 2012 at 3:11 AM
cynthia
September 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Why don’t I hear from you anymore? Are you OK??
shupec
September 21, 2012 at 7:55 AM
Drop me an email with full contact and reference to adask – given.cynthia (at) his (dot) com…
Don
September 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM
shupec,
I do not know how to drop you an email with full contact and reference to adask – given.cynthia (
at) his (dot) com…<< This is "Greek" to me. Let's do it this way, My email address is:
donaldbailey02@comcast.net. I just noticed that I received an email from the "group" & tried
to "reply" but I don't know if my reply was or will be received.