Did anybody read Stranger in a Strange Land? I recall the author wrote a great jurisdiction argument into that.
Printable View
Did anybody read Stranger in a Strange Land? I recall the author wrote a great jurisdiction argument into that.
You are correct Richard, they are in self preservation mode right now because there is some double minded intents out there and that scares them to think what is to become of their future careers and wealth, remember the 80s movie The Antz , there is one scene in there where the Commander and Chief of the warrior grasshopper speaks of his greatest fear " If they every figure out there is more of them then there is of us we are doomed!" . In the end of that movie though both societies come to a meeting of the minds on their own without government intervention when lives are at stake.
I do not want the money, I just want life, liberty and happiness as it was written.
LOL :D, I can see why you might think this, no not all the world is out to get you David, You just have some things going on around you that you may not be able quite yet to explain scientifically and your thinking this is putting the foundation of a Suitors remedy in theory at risk. The same behaviour comes from a mother protecting her child that she has spent so much time to raise, but even a mother eventually learns you got to let go and let it fly on it's own. It will always be a part of you no matter what and when you learn to let go of that Ego it will set your mind free, life will be a little less stressful, the quatlosers badge of honor will roll of your back like a mountain stream.
I had put that Document out there about indemnification in the early Republic, how even suitors can do it and also a while back the skit of showing the parallels of how our group would say similar things in court, but with different words as a suitor would to help get you a little closer to understanding that you do not have to be a suitor to do what we do.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1IGG2wTE BQ5L1PHeMlbLYjitV9AkoCfGN_05AkNPxayExRETzGrrxMAcVX 4DU&hl=en&authkey=CP2A2v8D
Peace and love to you my neighbor.
The LEO's on the Metro area where i travel now know me quite well as some clown tried to burn down the house I possess, and there has been some gang related activity; however, in regard to the LEO's if I was to be pulled over, I just do not argue with them. They are gonna do what they are gonna do. If they create a new person, then so be it. I comprehend the trust construction and I will be sure to tell the LEO - I have no trust in you. As such when discussion occurs with the Trustee bound by Constitution - matters are resolved with smiles.
I think that both Mysticone and David are right. The State owns the Person - and if one is acting for said person and is in breach of Trust, then thats gonna be a problem; David is right too because there Always has to be Choice - else like Mysticone said - slavery.
The Pot cannot turn to the Potter and complain. So the Person is subject to the Rules of the State. A man may be subject to the rules depending on his office or not.
The State is a HUGE Express Trust. And to Mysticone - one acting for Cestui Que Trust can use 12USC411 - absent trespass because that Person holding the Beneficial interest [CQT] created by the State is Subject to all of the State laws [see the express trust now]. And therefore the man acting in and for said Person has a Choice - to demand lawful money or not.
So in fact the Slave is the CQT. The man in the example is always with Choice to act in and for said CQT or not. And even if he chooses to act in and for said CQT, there is still choice - to demand lawful money and stay without the Federal Reserve Trust [districts] or not.
shalom,
mj
Motla68;
People depend on me not to let my mind fly on its own. I enjoy enough of that anyway, but regarding remedy in law, I will stick to what works in accord to what is written.
The chief judge finally understood, after being named on a $20M lien for denying the truth.Quote:
I think that both Mysticone and David are right. The State owns the Person - and if one is acting for said person and is in breach of Trust, then thats gonna be a problem...
I appreciate your post too Anthony Joseph. I have started a thread.
BECAUSE the common law man has not standing or capacity to Suitor against the State he is a citizen/trust of.
If you are trying to claim a common law remedy, you are doing so as an admitted " STATELESS PERSON",
STATELESS PEOPLE HAVE NO STANDING/CAPACITY TO SUE, ONLY TRUST OWNERS HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO SUE PARTIES, BUT BEING THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE TRUST, THE STATE DOES, YOU HAVE NO CAPACITY
TO SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT-= THUS TORT FEASOR.. YOU CANT EXIST OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, AND THEN
COMPLAIN THAT THE STATE INJURED YOU BECAUSE= STATELESS INHBABINATS HAVE NO RIGHT OF PROTECTION AS FAR AS
CONTRACTS ARE CONCERNED, NOW IF YOU WANT TO LIVE TOTALLY OFF THE GRID ON YOUR OWN ISLAND AND NEVER
CONTRACT WITH YOUR FELLOW BRETHREN, THEN YOUR REFUSAL TO CONTRACT WITH SOCIETY MIGHT HAVE MORE
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES- THUS WHERE THE REMEDY OF THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, WRITTEN INTO
THE UN CHARTER- GIVES ONE THE ABILITY TO FORM ONES OWN COMPACT/STATE, SO THAT WAY THE CAN
EFFECTUATE REMEDY IN ABILITY TO FREELY CONTRACT/COMPACT/TREATY WITH DIPLOMATIC AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES.
tHE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, AND THE RIGHT OF EXHILE, THATS WHAT THE KEYMAKER WAS ABOUT IN THE MATRIX SERIES.
TO OWN PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO FORM YOUR OWN ESTATE- WHICH THE UN CHARTER BASED ON NATURAL LAW AND THE LAW
OF NATIONS ALLOWS YOU TO DO. OTHERWISE BY TRYING TO EXIST OUTSIDE THE TRUST SYSTEM AND NEVER CONTRACT-
WHO CAN REALISTICALLY LIVE A VAGABOUND LIFE LIKE THAT- THATS WHERE THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT/ RIGHT TO PROPERTY USE ARGUMENT BECOMES WEAK.
SURE YOU CAN REDEEM LAWFULLY MONEY, BUT YOU DONT HAVE STANDING FOR LAWFUL MONEY, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACTING IN THE CAPACITY AS A STATELESS
PERSON, BUT THEN CONTRADICTING YOURSELF ASKING THE STATE TO OFFER YOU PROTECTION IN THE REFUSAL TO CONTRACT, WHICH YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TOO.
ITS THE OLD ADAGE "TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO"
Mysticone;
Your posts are difficult to read. I have an estate - we all do. The law does not distinguish:
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...
It does not say that some people can and some people cannot. By the formatting and capitalization it is obvious that you do not really care enough to put much effort into your posts; therefore do not expect much in return.