http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=703_1385224413
Printable View
Not answering for the NAME has been a big part of my success. Much of what I formerly thought required (like paying traffic tickets) is actually ... OPTIONAL. Do I detect an attempt at fearmongering, Gregory? Do you use the NAME? Hey, why did you change your handle from Hugh Mannity?
....Justin Case ain't a bad handle either....
....Justin Case ain't a bad handle either....:confused:
Sorry for the double post -- the "database error" after clicking "submit" fooled me
Our man in handcuffs is bringing in a lot of extraneous issues. First, why is he even in conversation with an Article I judge (administrator)? He needs to make a ministerial appearance only, under (e)8 of the First Judicial Act of 1789, state that the presentment in question is void for misnomer, show that he has properly Refused it for Cause, and then leave. Hanging around an Article I court, like talking to the police, will not benefit you in any way, it can only cause you greater grief.
I watched Ernie go.
He made an interesting allusion to the Federal Reserve but then wandered in the same breath to reveal his orientation with the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. By being in society, fishing for example hoping to catch the State regulated fish crop Ernie has accepted the trust indenture from the perspective of the State.
Should I strongly desire to go fishing, meaning if I get hungry enough to kill, I would utilize a much different approach. Notice the notice at The Sports Authority.
I do not have a Social Security Number. Since I am making no claim against the State (or Nation-State [in Union]) then I am not obligated to perform as trustee in any fashion. If you follow through about the details of that Notice you might see that it is The Sports Authority pandering into a subservient position to be punished and lose their licensing authority. This has nothing to do with law - I am not required to have a social security number except whenever I am making a claim.
Ernie was making a claim to the State's fish.
If I was making a claim to the State's fish then I would demonstrate that in good faith I tried to get a license (the man entered information into the State's database on that day and time). The Sports Authority was bound to a policy that does not reflect law and therefore would not give me a Fishing License.
Fortunately for me I do not kill unless I am hungry and I never get that hungry. The reason I wanted the license is that it provides a $1.50 deductible insurance policy to cover Search and Rescue charges should I need emergency medical care while back in the mountain wilderness. Now I have that kind of coverage on the same ticket. I spend a lot more time backpacking than fishing.
Ernie apparently demanded a speedy trial and was convicted in absentia and fined $150. The court would have probably cranked him through like that even with out viral video.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the state owns the fish? If the state has any interest in the fish it is only in maintaining them as a resource for the people. The natural person does not need a fishing license any more than they need a drivers license. The state has passed innumerable municipal laws, which are basically corporate rules, and the SC has already ruled that these codes only apply to officials of the corporations that passed them, not to 'humans/creators.' If there is no nexus between the natural person and the corporation that passed the municipal law, then the law does not apply to the natural person. So Ernie only needs to refuse to be trustee de son tort to the presentment, and then demand that the administrative judge show where there is a contract to be enforced. Just living in a jurisdiction does not confer that you are 'subject to' that jurisdiction. The administrative court (an Article I court) is a Roman court, operating under contract law, basically administrating the Uniform Commercial Code. As such, it is administrating contracts. So it is up to the court to show that there is indeed a contract to be administered. If Ernie has redeemed his estate through his demand for lawful money, then he has no nexus with the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, and hence the Federal government. His demand rebuts the presumption that he is dead, thus collapsing the cestui que vie trust and reverting the res of his estate to the natural person. Since the natural person cannot contract with corporations, he needs to capture the NAME corporate entity that holds his corporate estate, but that is easily done by registering the NAME as a dba in his state. Now the natural person has no contract with the municipality, the state, or the Federal government. He is now 'subject to' only common law, and under the common law there is no requirement to have a license to fish. A jury trial will quickly show that there is no common law limiting a person's right to fish.
ps Ernie's problem is that he answered the judge initially by admitting, or not rebutting, that he is the 'person' named in the presentment. Once the judge has accepted that presumption, Ernie is cooked; he has 'submitted to the courts jurisdiction,' and no amount of protesting after that will avail.
Here is the problem I see with fishing lic.
Up north here there are only two types of fishing lic.
Commercial and Sport.
If I am fishing for food which lic. would I need?
I am not selling the fish so its not commercial, and I am not fishing for sport.
There is no lic for fishing for food only.
Another story here is I have a friend that had his hunting lic taken from the prov.
He called them one day and said he wanted it back to go hunting for food for his family.
As usual they were dicking around say this and that.
He responded and said that if they did not give him the lic. back that he would be forced to hunt to feed his family with out one.
They said don't do it.
He said that they were giving him no other option because they were taking his ability to feed his family away so he was being forced to hunt with out one.
They said ok we will give it back to you and they did right away.
The issue here is if you make ANY CLAIMS, including I am not the Name, that is a claim, you will have to prove that statement. If in court and you decide not to play in their sandbox, then go in AS-King questions AND/OR make indefinite states: I believe, it seems to me, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory Harold
Once you make a claim, they got you.
Are you John Smith? What makes you think I am John Smith? However, I believe I know where that person nay be located. Where? Please have the bailiff come over here and take this piece of paper and this may help the court out. What is this piece of paper? Well, Harry [the judge] it appears to me to be a usufruct complaint certified certificate that may indicate the person who is the proper fiduciary who signed for that person the plaintiff seeks and who may be able to help you out to settle the matter in which the State [or whoever] is desiring to bring a claim against.
Obviously, this is not a word for word script - but you get the point.
There can be no law to keep one from his obligations to an existing Contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by walter
NOW PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
If you have placed your life in Trust in Yehoshuah, or the office of the Son, then you have the DUTY to perform the Law in submission to our HUSBANDMAN. I could have used Master, but I have read the great book of Hosea. And I prefer to call my Savior "Ishi" rather than "Baali". Now then, if I am, in this allegory "the wife", then I will submit and obey. Now then, I shall love my Ishi by obeying His Commandments. For He says IF YOU LOVE ME, then you will keep my commandments. Now then, Yehovah said "If a man will not take care of his family he is worse than an heathen".
Now stop for a moment and consider that statement and how AWESOME it is. Are you the bride or NOT? Will you go and forage for your family according to the law of necessity? If so, you need no license from ANYONE. Yehovah tells you DO IT. Go and get that food, that shelter for your family. And GUESS WHAT? - Yehovah says He will take care of your needs! Are you the wife? THEN ACT LIKE IT. And quit with all this non-sense!
You either stand naked or IN COVETURE by your HUSBANDMAN. IF you desire to be a FEMME SOLE, or an Adult Unmarried Woman then enjoy the CRAP because you are going to get knee deep in it. I myself prefer the covering of my Husbandman.
Hos 2:16 And it shall be at that day, saith Yehovah, that thou shalt call Me My husband; and shalt call Me no more My lord.
Hos 2:16 And it shall be at that day, saith Yehovah, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
Principle of coverture
As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds, since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.
====================
In another analogy - THOSE WHO ARE LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, are THE SONS OF GOD. This statement is in Direct opposition to Theosophy which serves to promote that you are God. Yet, I am as the Woman in Coveture, I am here to do fulfill the desire of my Husbandman. "Here am I, send me"...."I come to do thy will O God". "A body Thou has prepared for me".
I will trust that intuition from Father - the foundation of the Church of the Firstborn - is True. I will seek that Leadership - listening for that Administration from the Heavenly Kingdom. I will submit and obey for He is my Husbandman and I am a member of the Corporate Bride assembled and making herself ready to be prepared to El Elyon by and thru the office of the Son - Yehovah the Savior.
If the Creator of EVERYTHING is your Husbandman - don't you think He can keep His Word. Yehovah Yireh. Is man not His creation? Now what is man that he should attempt to impose laws to require one to dispose of ones obligations? Answer: That man is a fool. For he struggles against his Creator.
Shalom,
MJ
Very powerful, MJ.
I hadn't considered coverture in my own journey.
There is no issue but whether or not one man can tell another man what to do, or not do. A uniform, badge, robe, costume, pointy hat, etc. has no authority over man unless man consents.Quote:
Originally Posted by salsero
Do you believe i have done wrong? Do you believe you have authority over i; a man? Do you believe you can interfere with my rights? Do you believe slavery or involuntary servitude is permitted on this land?
i can make any claim i choose so long as i know i will be fully liable for said claim. That is why any claim you make should be simple and verifiable. If someone chooses to challenge your claim, let them come forward now or forever hold the peace. Only a man can come forward and speak in living voice to make a claim. Do you really believe a man will come forward and take full liability for the claim that another man has no right to catch a fish in the water?
i don't believe that has ever happened; what mostly happens is man giving life to fictions and paper and codes and statutes and ordinances which never had any jurisdiction over him. He bound himself by believing these 2nd dimension things have power over him.
We are our own oppressors.
It seems we agree.
This Man despite his patterned effort has no standing, The arrest is painfully legal If a Man is held for contempt he would have common law standing.Its the question do you understand the charges what is your NAME and his physical appearance as a living Man is what Re-venues the process and understanding has been determined when a Man has undermined himself with his salvation lost that SALVAGE REVENUE CREW is left with what the opinion a Man is state property as Fish are without authority its established without standing so is Man. licence to practice life and re-presenting the practice requires a juristic person Acting without authority practising law, fishing ,needs actors for complete scene.walk away stay away when MY AGENT hands ME MY SCRIPT refuse to act.The play has parts. Respectfully speaking finding out the hard way is never a challenge when any Man accepts his truth the introduction of Men and salvation is ongoing on the Members pages and the benevolent acceptance that this Forum requires comments that distinguish a Man from himself as Courts are one collective ego void passion truth and lawful education it takes time and effort to share ideas and to recognize genuine intent. Any room complete with strangers, Just thieves instantly recognize each other A Man has reputation not a identity.My input is no more or less a Suitors gratitude . jack
Late to the table on this one, but its a good post. There is no issue but whether or not one man can tell another man what to do, or not do. A uniform, badge, robe, costume, pointy hat, etc. has no authority over man unless man consents.
This sums up my take. Actually, it is even a bit worse for those in government. Government is a trust, and those employed by it are trustees to the people. The people are the settlor / beneficiaries. Read some trust law concerning those two words used together and you will find, it is the ultimate position within a trust. All fiduciary duty is owed to the settlor/beneficiary. Not only can they not tell use what to do, when we claim a right of the people, they will fail in the duty of loyalty by coming against it. Another one of the people can come against it with a true controversy of rights, but a servant of the people cannot. The people can claim whatever inalienable right they wish and it is against natural law for the created government to define their creator, the people. Revokable power and authority has no chance against an inalienable right. You only need to know who and what you are. One of the people, the creator of government.