This topic keeps popping up on the forum topic list, so I thought: 'hey, what if someone really wanted to know how understanding common law might help restore the republic ?'
If they looked at this thread all they'd find is bickering about forms over substance. I'm not interested in participating in the pissy match, so I'll just offer these references rather than have such a hot topic land in my lap--
Short Answer :
Thanks for the links.
I love liberty like fresh cool air in my lungs.I love freedom like fresh cool water on my tongue.I love peace like the smooth skin of my sweet lady.And Dr.Ron Paul is the hero I believe will change the world.
Debunk (transitive verb): to prove the negative of bald assertions made by freemen
E.G. "All judges are employees of the Queen of England, can't debunk that can you?!"
"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."
"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln
Totally rude and obnoxious.
It seems as though since you don't have anything intelligent to say it's much easier for you to simply dismiss and chastise.
You're not doing yourselves any favours.
Perhaps you should take a closer look. I would recommend Dean Clifford as a solid, proven, court experienced, and winning Freeman.
Don't sell yourselves short.
Watch this dry yet astonishing Dr. Robert Beck cancer treatment lecture on Google Video - search "Suppressed Medical Discovery" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkiX0jJJozk
Court experienced...lol, no doubt.
spammy spam spam
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein
You know what these guys remind me of? The underwear gnomes from South Park!
Step One: Steal Underwear
Step Two: ?
Step Three: Make lots of money
They keep stealing the underwear, and have no idea how they're going to make lots of money, but are just darned sure they will!
Step #1. Look at the law as written.
Step #2. Decide what you want the law to say.
Step #3. Redefine words arbitrarily until the law says what you want it to.
Step #4. Try to convince the courts to accept your version of the law.
Step #5. Go to jail.
...Folks, it's all make believe.
1 thru 3 is exactly what the courts and the gov's do
they are the ones who twist ans distort the meanings of words
they are the ones who change what the law says,and reads.
are what the people have to do
they have to convince the already bought and paid for courts,gov's
and attorneys of what the law says,and r how it gets applied
and yes they usually lose,but why wouldn't they lose?
could it be for the fact it is by design(we are set up to fail)
in courts,courts that are supposed to be blind,other than to the truth
but pick and and choose which laws are used,and also which evidence
gets admitted as evidence
step 5 is after the fact,it is after everyone thinks they had a fair trial
that all the evidence has been weighed,and all parties heard and or cross examined
no one wins in the kangaroo courts,no one is supposed to win,and it is set up that way
as it is in direct conflict with the will of the people
ignorance of the law is no excuse !!
no kidding?!?! as they create laws each day,no one knows them all,except
for the turners (the twisters of facts)
if people started winning in their courts them judges would not be able to get their kick backs from all guilty pleas.Nor would they get their non taxed money from the jail/prison complexes (the illegal stash they get for sending people to jail/prison
guilty or not guilty??
there is no innocent plea !! why?
could it be for the fact,that all are guilty,but just not caught yet?
or we are all guilty,but we do not know it yet?
setting your expectations to high,can cause depression
The "financial Institution" (court) needs your signature on the prisoner bonds so they can sell them.
If you sign the "Not guilty" plea you just signed the prisoner bonds underneath. You just signed as surety for payment of six million dollars of U.S. Government debt. If you don't pay, you go to prison.
The court system is a complete scam to create U.S. currency to pay for government largess.
There is sixty trillion dollars in circulation "created" by unwitting dupes being kidnapped and brought in to The Bank of England's local financial institution and bonded to create more federal reserve notes.
The federal reserve notes are shares of Plantation slaves flesh.
There is no "innocent" only I pay (guilty) or I refuse to pay (not guilty). Either way they will make you pay.
It's a shakedown. Innocence has nothing to do with the British Admiralty Courts set up all over America.
Shaking down captured slaves and extracting more "promises to pay" from them to create U.S. currency is ALL that is going on.
Ooooooooooh. Now I get it. ;-)
So, at the last Ecumenical Council did the Lurch Fathers arrive at a uniform doctrine of transtrawtiation? And on the question of the relation between of the strawman to the freeman in the Holy Derpity, do you find yourself sympathetic to the homooousians, the homoiousians, the heteroousians or the homoians? Did you take the Ice-cream creed? ...Do you Sir, IN FACT, represent the lollypop guild?!
the BC being traded on the stock market,is this a lie or is it a fact?
I am reading about that right now,care to debunk that?
There is a more discreet market for the Birth Certificate securities. They are mainly trading between big institutional investors like Banks.
If you can get your Application for Live Birth back look on the back at the Stamps. They are mostly large banks.
All securities are based on pledges of future human labor. This is nothing new.
The Birth Certificate creates a trust, a mini corporation. They do an IPO for the newly incorporated entity by issuing a Birth Note to fund the "child's" "education" and health care until it will be able to work and make a return to investors.
Then if the Birth Trust acts as Grantor and creates another subtrust/subcorp (Social Security SS-5Application) that sub trust will be funded by charging 750,000.00 to the Birth Trust. This 750,000.00 is invested for Congress's new ward of the State to provide future benefits for their ward.
It's just business, Plantation business, so what?
your word on anything is not proof of a debunk
here is what i mentioned above
David Icke, who believes shape-shifting reptilian aliens rule the world, and a neo-nazi organization. LOL...I'm not clicking on either of those, but copy and paste whatever you like and make the case for BC trading. I can't debunk your evidence until you present some, so...I'm waiting.
he also cited to stormfront.org, a white supremacist forum.
So there you have it, folks, Deacon views David Icke and stormfront.org as two reliable and authoritative sources of information! Can you say "loser"? Good....
Just for kicks, I did click. Here's what he linked to. On David Icke, there is a forum post by a guy who has a picture of Charles Manson, looking crazy as ever, as his avatar. That anonymous kook is Deacon's scholarly source. Obscuring part of the post is a paid ad for a probably questionable medical remedy which says "Is this candida fungus loose in your bloodstream?" and which has an image of the "alien" that burst out of the guy's stomach in that Alien horor movie on the spaceship. I'm not kidding.
Now you can call me a skeptic, but I really doubt that the candida fungus has little sharp fangs.
The link to stormfront, which I only glanced at briefly so that no one at the NSA would think I am actually reading their site, links to a forum post with an embedded youtube video. There is a picture of some tubby dork who closely resembles Jabba the Hutt and apparently it has something to do with this "birth certificate" theory that of course, is just as bunk as the strawman / sovereign nonsense here.
But, that's the intellect of the David Icke/ stormfront user for you. They know their target market:foolish, stupid, and nonthinking. People who know nothing, pretending to know everything. The more outlandish and ridiculous, the better, for their audiences.
I'm feeling dirty for even have an online conversation with Deacon. I'll have to stop that.
you 2 didn't really think i was going to post
any links from real sites,did you?
but i did specifically pick the 2 just for you both,as this is how i view
you both :)
i knew you would be haunting this topic,just waiting for my post,so i killed 2 birds with but one stone,and i saved time and energy
tis funny,after all this time here,and as many times as i told you,i wouldn't help you,you still think i am going to
the Oracle takes blabbering to a new low.
so you can make another non-response:
Notice of Action. See lis pendens.
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition “Notice of Action” (pp. 1062)(1990);
Lis pendens. A pending suit. Jurisdiction, power, or control which courts acquire over property in litigation pending action and until final judgment ...
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition “Lis pendens” (p. 932)(1990);
LIS PENDENS. A pending suit. Suing out a writ and making attachment (on mense process) constitute a lis pendens at common law. The doctrine of lis pendens, as usually understood, is the control which a court has over the property involved in a suit, during the continuance of the proceedings, and until its final judgment has been rendered therein ...
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 3rd Revision “Lis pendens” (p. 2032)(1914);
Did you get that? Control over property. Let me consult Florida's Rules of Civil Procedure for clarification:
“In any in rem proceeding, every pleading, motion, order, judgment, or other paper shall have a caption containing the name of the court, the file number, the style “In re” (followed by the name or general description of the property), and a designation of the person or entity filing it and its nature or the nature of the order, as the case may be.”
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.100
What the rules of procedure refer to in court document is indicated by "<---":
IN RE: The Matter Of <--- this section of styling
Can you tell me what the property is before the court which is named or described "The Matter Of" after "IN RE:"?
Perhaps a definition of In Rem would shed further light:
In Rem [Latin, In the thing itself.] A lawsuit against an item of property, not against a person (in personam): An action in rem is a proceeding that takes no notice of the owner of the property but determines rights in the property that are conclusive against all the world. For example, an action to determine whether certain property illegally imported into the United States ought to be forfeited can be captioned United States v. Thirty-nine Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Cigars. The object of the lawsuit is to determine the disposition of the property, regardless of who the owner is or who else might have an interest in it. Interested parties might appear and make out a case one way or another, but the action is in rem, against the things.
In rem (Latin, power about or against "the thing") is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have "in personam jurisdiction". Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property
Oh, I get it now. It's about control of property without regards to the rights of any actual owners including ... wait for it ... THE STATUS OF YOUR OWN PERSON ... which means the good standing of one's own name!!! How flippen silly of me and to think I grew up with a notion courts existed to preserve the rights of property owners, ESPECIALLY THE RIGHTS OF ONE'S OWN PERSON, when they have built an entire legal system designed to issue decrees without regard to the rights of property owners to protect government revenues.
So while the bond comment may sound obscure to a casual observer those who have studied the way courts function understand the essence of a court is taking control of property pending litigation and the means of doing that is paper. While some obscure bond comment may sound radical to a casual observer it ain't out in left field.
Hell I could go on all day and build an entire memorandum just on the legal definitions of words appearing in lis pendens and definitions of terms in those definitions which would include terms like hearing, administrative, encumbrancer, acquire, title, alienee, proceeding, address, bill, etc.
How about a review of all accounting and journal entries by clerks of court?
So you quote a definition of a lis pendens for what? How does the definition of a lis pendens (which loosely means Notice of Pending Litigation) translate into a strawman? What it does is alert potential purchasers of real estate to a pending lawsuit that affects title. That's it. Again, you lose, because, well, that's what you do.
In Rem jurisidiction just means jurisdiction over the property. Not all cases are "in rem" you doofus. There are cases which involve in rem orders, and in my experience, that usually occurs when someone is seeking to use bankruptcy to avoid a real property debt. Problem is, chapter 7 only applies to nonsecured debts, and the creditor will get relief from stay and execute on the security, i.e., property. Nothing illegitimate there, though I guess it sucks to lose your home.
I am sure you "could build an entire memorandum" out of your gibberish. Many before you have done that. Anyone could do that. Of course, it would likely generate laughs, chuckles, and guffaws on behalf of the opposing parties, courts, judges, and lawyers that read it, before it was disposed of on the merits. But that again, is your world. Doing meritless crap that loses in court. And before it is disposed of you will tell all your dipwad buddies "hey look I filed an xyzpdq brief and that means I am able to play lawyer, just like someone who is smart and has an education." Then you get your ass handed to you unceremoniously. Always.
Whenever you receive a "notice of action" from government over some BS who is it "addressed" to or what is the first thing a police officer asks you for before handing you a notice of anything? Let's be clear here, legal BS from governments comes two ways 1) law enforcement notices, and 2) notices in the mail. Most BS comes via the latter in the form of a notice and it is always addressed to a name as it appears on a certificate of birth or government identification such as a driver license which is the exact same thing law enforcement asks for.
All people are talking about when they say strawman are the capacities of ones name. It is a distinction between a man and a capacity and that is it. All things can be viewed in a positive, neutral, or negative capacity. It's common sense to people a name can have a good, bad, or no standing. I don't know who coined the term strawman and I can't say I am fond of it because I don't think the term conveys the concept of capacity well. If I am going to criticize people for selling information then I would also need to criticize Ron Paul or Tom Woods for writing books. One has to take anything they read, whether it is a Ron Paul book, Tom Woods book, freeman literature, or my posts with a grain of salt and do their own research.
The concepts of person and standing, which refer to capacity, are well established. Hell you couldn't even make an intelligent or reasoned response to a simple analysis of the legal definitions of names or government style manual rules for using them. I love how you referred to legal dictionaries but once someone starts quoting them they are "gibberish." It makes you look foolish and unintelligent.
Do you think I give a shit about a court whose function is to take control of property without regards to the rights of property owners? No, they are criminals because that is what thieves do ... take people's property without regards to the rights of the owners. If I do not give a shit about such courts or its criminal agents why would I go to one? Been there and done that and I am not stupid enough to voluntarily hang around near thieves. If you want to avoid thieves you sure as hell don't go flaunting it in known hangouts of thieves, such as courts of thievery.
And since you insist on making it personal I will reiterate any thugs that have trespassed against me exist by my grace and mercy alone. I am the most dangerous type of individual on earth. I am a lone wolf with nothing to lose and no one I have to come home to anymore. There is not a damn single thing stopping me from killing any thug dead who has trespassed against me. So far, I have simply chosen to be a better man than they are and not kill them in self defense. Make sure to keep any "ass handed to you" comments in the proper perspective in future comments as you continue to try to make it personal.
you make no sense, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't respect your ignorance nor your arrogance. Go defraud people somewhere else.
Go fuck yourself.
you believe in free speech so much that if you disagree with an opinion, you'll threaten violence! If your delicate little feelers get hurt, even if it is just someone who has expertise pointing out to you where you're wrong.
So much for the libertarian ethos of do no wrong.
Tell you what cyber tough guy, I live for helping my clients who have legitimate cases, mostly against much bigger, tougher, opponents, like big corporations and governments. Your pathetic ass and your pathetic threats don't scare me, not even if you knew who I was. I've litigated cases against scarier people than you, who knew my name and where to find me. I'm not going to return the threat. But I will say that just like your legal skills, I rather suspect you would be similarly inept at attempting anything outside of court. Now get back to defrauding people, or -in the best case - being a mindless dupe, just don't be surprised if I call you out if you try it in my presence.
Libertarian my a$$.
It wasn't a threat, it is a statement. This is the problem with trying to have a conversation with useful idiots. They can't read a simple three word sentence like "go fuck yourself" and comprehend it. Does someone need to provide a thorough examination of the sentence structure of "go fuck yourself"? What dictionary would you like to use to define any of the three terms used and then call any cited definitions "gibberish"? In the sentence "go fuck yourself" who is making a threat, what is the threat exactly, and who is being threatened?
If your reading comprehension is unable to grasp simple three word sentences the only thing you are evidencing by responding further is the magnitude of your own stupidity. Let me guess, you can't read cursive too ...
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: