Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: 31 usc 5118

  1. #11
    Look in an old Bible. You will find that a Certificate of Marriage was signed by two competent witnesses. You have gone one step further and brought the State by License into your marriage as some kind of supervisory third party. Maybe a guardian ad lidum at best. Maybe more as Trustee of any Issuance - children.

    License over marriage was traditionally granted by the priests if you wanted to marry outside your tribe. I think a couple in Leviticus married and a creep was sanctioned to spear them both. I like to think that kind of measure was symbolic of them being driven out of the Camp. But apply this today. Did you or your wife have any notion that is what you were up to applying for a license from the State? In America it is easy to trace the marriage license to interracial marriages.

    You might consider number two of the Lesson Plan:


    1 Identity
    2 Record keeping
    3 Redeeming lawful money


    With a libel of review you would open a record in the USDC to keep a log of the state binding you to this fraud by omission. It might get the State to forgive your obligations or even set you up to form a jury down the line that would look at it in light of the facts and truth. Think about that. If the State is ever stupid enough to take you to court, like criminal proceedings (again) then you would likely be able to admit your Refusals for Cause to the State's presentments into evidence. If you get the R4C's into evidence the jury would likely read the Cause of Action portion of your LoR.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 12-31-12 at 01:44 PM.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Look in an old Bible. You will find that a Certificate of Marriage was signed by two competent witnesses. You have gone one step further and brought the State by License into your marriage as some kind of supervisory third party. Maybe a guardian ad lidum at best. Maybe more as Trustee of any Issuance - children.

    License over marriage was traditionally granted by the priests if you wanted to marry outside your tribe. I think a couple in Leviticus married and a creep was sanctioned to spear them both. I like to think that kind of measure was symbolic of them being driven out of the Camp. But apply this today. Did you or your wife have any notion that is what you were up to applying for a license from the State? In America it is easy to trace the marriage license to interracial marriages.

    You might consider number two of the Lesson Plan:


    1 Identity
    2 Record keeping
    3 Redeeming lawful money


    With a libel of review you would open a record in the USDC to keep a log of the state binding you to this fraud by omission. It might get the State to forgive your obligations or even set you up to form a jury down the line that would look at it in light of the facts and truth. Think about that. If the State is ever stupid enough to take you to court, like criminal proceedings (again) then you would likely be able to admit your Refusals for Cause to the State's presentments into evidence. If you get the R4C's into evidence the jury would likely read the Cause of Action portion of your LoR.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    I forgot all about the license being used to regulate marriages between persons of different races being intermarriage was considered against the law.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS View Post
    Or does this whole section just basically say "FRN's cover all payments and debts. Suck it up."?
    5 years 6 months ago

    I've been reading some posts here and realize that a lot of you are just bouncing your opinions and theories around.

    Let me tell you why people lose in court. They lose because they haven't withdrawn consent. Specific consent.

    Read the gold clause USC (I'm in the states where they might shoot me for traveling) title 5118. See what it says about consent.

    The statutes are nothing but contracts which are activated by applicatory consent and ratified by a lifetime of agreement.

    Start asking your questions from the law. It's all there, anything you need to learn. You need to see if for yourself. Start with the statutory definitions of persons. Inhabitants, Residents, any word "they" use. "They are corporations acting "as" governments. As such "they" can't force you to contract.

    They can keep you asleep. And they are worried about us because we threaten the commoditization of rights, which is a worldwide, quadrillion dollar industry.

    Well, it means that it's against the law to demand payment in any type of US currency, but only if you waive consent being charged, and only if it's after a certain date (they play games with this it's originally HJR-192.

    This particular law is worth hours of study, even more. http://worldfreemansociety.org/forum...ements-they-do

    Note that in this code the USA withdraws consent to be sued over the money thing. The interesting thing is C-3 on the page, which is a very twisted consent clause.

    In subsection (c)(3), the words “may be expended” are substituted for “an amount appropriated or authorized to be expended” and “shall be available for or expended in”, and the words “dollar for dollar” are substituted for “on an equal and uniform dollar for dollar basis”, to eliminate unnecessary words.
    In subsection (c)(1), before clause (A), the word “Government” is substituted for “United States” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words “to anyone” are added for clarity. The words “whether by way of suit, counterclaim, set-off, recoupment, or other affirmative action or defense in its own name or in the name of” are omitted as surplus. The word “employees” is added for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The word “instrumentalities” is omitted as unnecessary because of section 101 of the revised title. The word “claim” is substituted for “right, privilege, or power” to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The words “in any proceeding of any nature whatsoever” are omitted as surplus. In clause (C), the words “or demand” are omitted as surplus. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...temp_noupdates
    Last edited by Chex; 07-28-16 at 04:05 PM.
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  4. #14
    Commoditization of rights.

    That says it all. Thank you for the Cornell Law link.



    You focus on consent at:

    In subsection (c)(3), the words “may be expended” are substituted for “an amount appropriated or authorized to be expended” and “shall be available for or expended in”, and the words “dollar for dollar” are substituted for “on an equal and uniform dollar for dollar basis”, to eliminate unnecessary words.

    I believe the demand for lawful money is equivalent to withdrawal of consent. The demand makes claim to the realm of lawful money outside the scope of the misused Trading with the Enemy Act.

    I am working that out now. I have highlighted the verbiage that indicates murder, behind the inadequate bonding due to felony witness tampering; the Witness being God.


    I told the President, however, that I believed that he has such authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act, I understood it to be the belief of the President that while some of his advisers had told him that he could do this, others had told him that it would not be legal. I had already asked Senator Thomas J. Walsh, who was to have become my Attorney General, to give me a report on such Presidential authority. As Senator Walsh had died suddenly, however, on March 2d, I had asked Mr. Homer S. Cummings to become Attorney General and had requested him for an opinion. On the evening of March 4th, I received the verbal opinion of the new Attorney General on which I based the Presidential Proclamation signed during the night of March 5th-6th, closing all banks. [Bold added to describe murder and coercion upon threat thereof.] Public Addresses and Papers of FDR 1933 - Pages 870-871

    See how FDR writes? He never tells or describes what the new AG's opinion was, but I cannot help but presume it was influenced by his predecessor suddenly dying the day before.


    But above all is my choice:

    Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
    Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
    Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
    Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 07-28-16 at 04:56 PM.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    5 years 6 months ago

    I've been reading some posts here and realize that a lot of you are just bouncing your opinions and theories around.

    Let me tell you why people lose in court. They lose because they haven't withdrawn consent. Specific consent.

    Read the gold clause USC (I'm in the states where they might shoot me for traveling) title 5118. See what it says about consent.

    The statutes are nothing but contracts which are activated by applicatory consent and ratified by a lifetime of agreement.

    Start asking your questions from the law. It's all there, anything you need to learn. You need to see if for yourself. Start with the statutory definitions of persons. Inhabitants, Residents, any word "they" use. "They are corporations acting "as" governments. As such "they" can't force you to contract.

    They can keep you asleep. And they are worried about us because we threaten the commoditization of rights, which is a worldwide, quadrillion dollar industry.

    Well, it means that it's against the law to demand payment in any type of US currency, but only if you waive consent being charged, and only if it's after a certain date (they play games with this it's originally HJR-192.

    This particular law is worth hours of study, even more. http://worldfreemansociety.org/forum...ements-they-do

    Note that in this code the USA withdraws consent to be sued over the money thing. The interesting thing is C-3 on the page, which is a very twisted consent clause.

    In subsection (c)(3), the words “may be expended” are substituted for “an amount appropriated or authorized to be expended” and “shall be available for or expended in”, and the words “dollar for dollar” are substituted for “on an equal and uniform dollar for dollar basis”, to eliminate unnecessary words.
    In subsection (c)(1), before clause (A), the word “Government” is substituted for “United States” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words “to anyone” are added for clarity. The words “whether by way of suit, counterclaim, set-off, recoupment, or other affirmative action or defense in its own name or in the name of” are omitted as surplus. The word “employees” is added for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The word “instrumentalities” is omitted as unnecessary because of section 101 of the revised title. The word “claim” is substituted for “right, privilege, or power” to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The words “in any proceeding of any nature whatsoever” are omitted as surplus. In clause (C), the words “or demand” are omitted as surplus. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...temp_noupdates


    I have been thinking about this post...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •