Birth Certificates and Identity

[motla68]

Yes and is exactly why we keep trading the natural abundance for a bowl of soup every time we make choices of limitation. A governance outside of us instead of governing one self, realization that we have the power and authority to create for oneself.

[Michael Joseph]

Yes and is exactly why we keep trading the natural abundance for a bowl of soup every time we make choices of limitation. A governance outside of us instead of governing one self, realization that we have the power and authority to create for oneself.

You are da man. Say goodnight Gracie.

[doug-again]

Wow, i got so distracted by that treatise,

and hammering mot, that i forgot that the OP was that NCIDP link! i noticed that they're beating this dead horse - STILL...The inspector at the DMV office in Elkin, NC, told me the Patriot Act required him to require a SS# from me.

Quoting federal law to that statey - who was compelling ss# disclosure - who was compelled by newer federal law to compel ss# disclosure, was a complete waste of my time.

Seeing this no-ifs-ands-or-buts type language, in this context, makes me wonder if the rubber has met the road for these researchers. Anyone at NCIDP competent to sue a bank for compelling ss# disclosure? How 'bout a state DMV controller, or whatever?

There might be a justiciable controversy, really, and this is the first, or closest thing, i've seen for grounds for a tort, but you won't see me arguing it. Still interesting...

Oh, in case the link goes down, the NCIDP makes a point over there, citing Keeble v. Hickeringill (eegads from the Queen's bench! 1707!) that

imposing upon a victim's personhood or livelihood, imposing insecurity upon an individual's sense of personal autonomous self or sense of safety or security, constituted "violent assault".

One might construe the state's requirements for 3rd party documentation of identity as an

act of imposing a "mischief" upon an individual that constituted violent assault, not any act of physical impact struck upon an individual (a legally distinct act of battery)

...but the effect of the mischief being distinctly psychological. Please, if you think i related the article poorly, pm me, and i'll edit this. thanks.

[shikamaru]

Here is a concept; Father, Mother, child , aunt, uncle, grandpa. Are these persons constructed for political power manipulation?

What came first, real man or the person? therefore who has higher law?

I was not born on the land of Greece, South America or France so what does that have to do with anything?
I can only really make a distinguishments for what land I sojourn on. Cannot change the past so what does it matter? Cannot prove the future so what does it matter? I can only be concerned with events happening today.

I feel you are forgetting a critical component of law.
Law implies the ability to establish and maintain one's will by force (the baton variety).

[Michael Joseph]

I feel you are forgetting a critical component of law.
Law implies the ability to establish and maintain one's will by force (the baton variety).

Ever read the Lieber Code? Those police officers are quasi military. See their stripes? Ever grab a snake by the tail? Or is it better to grab a snake by its head? Admiralty is the venue of the sea, yes? What branch of the military deals with the sea? - Navy? What aspect of NAVY deals with Law - JAG?

Question is are you an enemy or a "peaceful inhabitant". I believe "private civilian" under Lieber Code is enemy combatant.

"However, the code envisioned a reciprocal relationship between the population and the Army. As long as the population did not resist military authority, it was to be treated well. Should the inhabitants violate this compact by taking up arms and supporting guerilla movements, then they were open to sterner measures. Among these were the imposition of fines, the confiscation and/or destruction of property, the imprisonment and/or expulsion of civilians who aided guerrillas, the relocation of populations, the taking of hostages, and the possible execution of guerillas who failed to abide by the laws of war. It authorized the shooting on sight of all persons not in uniform acting as soldiers and those committing, or seeking to commit, sabotage."


Upon reading the Trust called Lieber Code you will see those terms are clearly made known within it. The Military is the competent authority. Because Lincoln put it all into Trust and made the Military Trustee. The bankers made an end run around the Trust by way of USE - use and endorsement of their system.

"They shall have first lien"....

[shikamaru]

Ever read the Lieber Code? Those police officers are quasi military. See their stripes? Ever grab a snake by the tail? Or is it better to grab a snake by its head? Admiralty is the venue of the sea, yes? What branch of the military deals with the sea? - Navy? What aspect of NAVY deals with Law - JAG?

Question is are you an enemy or a "peaceful inhabitant". I believe "private civilian" under Lieber Code is enemy combatant.

"However, the code envisioned a reciprocal relationship between the population and the Army. As long as the population did not resist military authority, it was to be treated well. Should the inhabitants violate this compact by taking up arms and supporting guerilla movements, then they were open to sterner measures. Among these were the imposition of fines, the confiscation and/or destruction of property, the imprisonment and/or expulsion of civilians who aided guerrillas, the relocation of populations, the taking of hostages, and the possible execution of guerillas who failed to abide by the laws of war. It authorized the shooting on sight of all persons not in uniform acting as soldiers and those committing, or seeking to commit, sabotage."


Upon reading the Trust called Lieber Code you will see those terms are clearly made known within it. The Military is the competent authority. Because Lincoln put it all into Trust and made the Military Trustee. The bankers made an end run around the Trust by way of USE - use and endorsement of their system.

"They shall have first lien"....

Law Martial ???

Good stuff as always MJ.

[Michael Joseph]

Law Martial ???

Good stuff as always MJ.

Thank you. Kudos to Motla68 who took the time to assemble a small group of local men and women to discuss concerns such as Lieber Code...

12_U.S._Op._Atty._Gen._182_1867.pdf

[motla68]

I feel you are forgetting a critical component of law.
Law implies the ability to establish and maintain one's will by force (the baton variety).

But force under color of law is void by the law in their own words: 18 USC 242.
Therefore authority of someone else's law can only be obtained through consent.

"" This, then, is what is granted to the military commander: The power or duty 'to
protect all persons in their rights of person and property; to suppress
insurrection, disorder, and violence, and punish, or cause to be punished, all
disturbers of the public peace and criminals;' and he may do this by the agency of
the criminal courts of the State, or, if necessary, he may have resort to military
tribunals.
""
Source: pdf file in post #22 - 12_U.S._Op._Atty._Gen._182_1867.pdf


Beyond that what is your point?

[shikamaru]

But force under color of law is void by the law in their own words: 18 USC 242.
Therefore authority of someone else's law can only be obtained through consent.

My post said law, not color of law. There is great substantive distinction between the two.
Reiterating again, law implies will along with the force to impose that will upon others.

Beyond that what is your point?

Reflecting on this question, it may have been a better point to have included several powers of a Sovereign including the power to define (author) what a term means as well as its interpretation and applicability.

Definition is legislature.
Interpretation is judiciary.
Applicability (with force if necessary) is the executive.

Person is a legal term. The term is given definition by the entity having the power to define its meaning and to whom it applies.

It follows that if one has the power to define, one also has the corresponding power to classify what is or is not within the definition.

THAT is my point.

[motla68]

My post said law, not color of law. There is great substantive distinction between the two.
Reiterating again, law implies will along with the force to impose that will upon others.
Reflecting on this question, it may have been a better point to have included several powers of a Sovereign including the power to define (author) what a term means as well as its interpretation and applicability.

Definition is legislature.
Interpretation is judiciary.
Applicability (with force if necessary) is the executive.

Person is a legal term. The term is given definition by the entity having the power to define its meaning and to whom it applies.

It follows that if one has the power to define, one also has the corresponding power to classify what is or is not within the definition.

THAT is my point.

Law is contract, contract is law.

Ok, by their rules can a law be proven without certification of the evidence? If evidence not certified and wet ink signature nowhere around to compare it to then what?
Witnesses to the event that can prove intent, how is the signature formed?

If not all of this can be obtained for proof beyond a reasonable doubt then the rest of your point is mute.

[shikamaru]

Law is contract, contract is law.

This is a partial error.
Within in the scope of contracts, yes contract makes the law.

Law is not contract however. Law implies compulsion. Compulsion often involves duress, threats, and coersion. The aforementioned elements makes a contract void.

Ok, by their rules can a law be proven without certification of the evidence? If evidence not certified and wet ink signature nowhere around to compare it to then what?

Witnesses to the event that can prove intent, how is the signature formed?

Your questions are confounding the legislative with the judiciary. Only if there is a controversy will a "law" come before the judiciary. Since the courts are composed out of the Sovereign's power, I'll allow you to draw the dots from here forward. The record or repository of the law is considered the evidence in an of itself.

If not all of this can be obtained for proof beyond a reasonable doubt then the rest of your point is mute.

#1 - This thread is not a judiciary. We are not at bench nor is this some official repository.
#2 - You are dismissing many long standing concepts with regard to jurisprudence.

I believe I relayed to you in another thread that I delve deeply into the history and jurisprudence of law.
Jurisprudence, according to wikipedia, is the theory and philosophy of law.

If you find such information to be "moot points", that is your prerogative, of course.

[Frederick Burrell]

Why do you argue for a little ink on paper. Is it the paper or the ink that gives you rights and freedom

I have a piece of paper that says that I have the right and execute any law and All people, person, humans, natural persons, man on the land etc. etc. etc. must adhere to my laws.

This paper is signed by 49 of my friends confirming my right to make you conform to my laws.

One of my laws is that I may collect taxes from the afore mentioned at any place or time of my choosing.

So get all your possesions together as I will be over shortly to go through them and decide what I would take as my just tax.

Will you obey or create a controversy. Do I need to bring my 49 friends. What say you fB

[shikamaru]

Why do you argue for a little ink on paper. Is it the paper or the ink that gives you rights and freedom

I have a piece of paper that says that I have the right and execute any law and All people, person, humans, natural persons, man on the land etc. etc. etc. must adhere to my laws.

This paper is signed by 49 of my friends confirming my right to make you conform to my laws.

One of my laws is that I may collect taxes from the afore mentioned at any place or time of my choosing.

So get all your possesions together as I will be over shortly to go through them and decide what I would take as my just tax.

Will you obey or create a controversy. Do I need to bring my 49 friends. What say you fB

It most certainly is a claim.
The claim has even been solemnized into/through its writing.

[Frederick Burrell]

Have the laws practiced in the United States of America been solemnized? By who? You? fB

[Chex]

I loved it when he says at 7:40 that he is going to suit everyone in the room and the guy behind him wearing the yellow shirt runs out of the room:

Objection you failed l to prove jurisdiction!!!