10 votes

Explaining to a 10 Year Old the Prison a Mind Can Not See

This thread about registration relates to the picture below:

http://www.dailypaul.com/303372/how-are-any-rights-or-privil...

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

11.6 Names of aircraft, vessels, and spacecraft

11.6 Names of aircraft, vessels, and spacecraft

The names of aircraft , vessels, and manned spacecraft are italicized unless otherwise indicated. In lists set in columns and in stubs and reading columns of tables consisting entirely of such names, they will be set in roman. Missiles and rockets will be set in caps and lowercase and will not be italicized.

Names of vessels are italicized. Therefore birth certificates and other documents with names not italicized cannot be certifying you to be a vessel, and maritime law does NOT apply. A lot of people have gotten themselves into trouble for not understanding this simple, obvious fact.

So what could it be? It's spelled out plainly in 11.6. If your name isn't in italics then the only thing left is missiles and rockets. The key phrase is "will not be italicized," and no birth certificates use italics for the names. Therefore, you are certified to be a rocket. Therefore it's not maritime law that applies, it's Space Law that applies. This is a good thing!

What is Space Law you ask? Until 1967 there was no space law, and most of it is from 1968 and later. If you were "launched" (born) before 1967, then you are free of any law. Even if you were born after 1967 you'll find that Space Law is fairly minimal, with most of it only being in effect if you are launched into outer space.

Did you ever wonder why judges sometimes say that something is "a matter of great gravity"? That makes no sense at all ... until you understand that what they are actually doing is declaring that the outer space portions of Space Law are not in effect. Pretty obvious once you see what's really going on.

How do you apply this knowledge? If you're in court, they'll assume you're not a rocket (or don't know that you've been certified to be a rocket) unless you positively affirm that fact. If you speak to anyone in the courtroom they will take that as an assertion that you want to be tried as a human being, not as a rocket. Some people advocate the "HAL defense," citing Bowman v. Monolith (2001), but this doesn't work. If you utter a single word you lose rocket status in the eyes of the court.

The safe thing to do is to enter the courtroom making rocket noises, and do nothing whatsoever except make rocket noises for the entire time you are in the courtroom. By doing this you show the court that you know that you have been certified to be a rocket as specified under section 11.6 of ISBN 978–0–16–081813–4 as authorized by USC Title 44 § 1105 (form and style of work for departments), Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1261. Note the date on that legislation. It's not just coincidence that this coincides with the beginning of space law.

If you do nothing but make rocket noises in the courtroom they will acknowledge that you are not under their jurisdiction, but under the Space Law jurisdiction. This acknowledgment may be in the form of them "launching" you from the courtroom, but in any case the hearing will *not* proceed.

It's not for the faint of heart. You have to know exactly what you're doing. People who try it without knowing exactly what they're doing usually make costly mistakes. For example they might think they're making rocket noises, but in fact they're making airplane noises. But they're obviously not an airplane since their name on their birth certificate isn't in italics as it would have to be for an airplane under 11.6, so they just end up looking like they're some crazy dude who thinks he's an airplane. Say hello to the psych ward.

Fortunately I can tell you how to make the right kind of rocket noises, and how loudly to make them, and other tricks you need to know like jumping up and down to demonstrate that this is a matter of gravity and the outer space portions of Space Law were therefore not applicable. Just send $49.99 to me for my booklet that explains all the steps you need to take in order to make the suggested minimum donations to get in on one of my conference calls where I explain, in plain and simple terms that anyone can follow, how to send me money.

best

post ever

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Spread the word

It's irrefutable.

"I'm a rocket, man." -- Elton John

actually

the correct gibberish word is "unrebutted." That one word makes you correct, no matter how little sense you make. It's true, some guy on the internet said it.

Unrebutted.

(I feel a strange tingling, must be a gibberish blizzard or super gibberish typhoon coming on...)

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

11.7. Names of vessels are

11.7. Names of vessels are quoted in matter printed in other than lowercase roman, even if there is italic type available in the series.

Sinking of the ``Lusitania''
Sinking of the ``Lusitania''
Sinking of the ``Lusitania''
SINKING OF THE ``LUSITANIA''

U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId...

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

"wow."

And by that I mean, 'wow'.

even Teddy Roosevelt disdained pandas

Do people really think that

Do people really think that they are vessels of commerce? Perhaps that is what the 14th Amendment did to them. I don't know, but i'd prefer not to get tangled up in that stuff.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

RE: "Do people really think that they are vessels of commerce?"

Only if you think you came out of a womb with a name or a name is an inherent part of what constitutes you from your beginning.

Do you think you are a name?
Do you think you are a name with a state or federal flag attached to it?
Do you think you are a vessel of commerce?

Nonsense

A ship is given a name when it is christened. It's not an inherent part of what constitutes the ship, it's something that is given after the ship is completed. The ship is not a name, but it has a name.

You are not a name, but you have a name. And unless that name is in italics then by section 11.6 of the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual you are not a vessel, or an airplane. So if anyone tries to tell you that you are certified to be a vessel and subject to maritime law, you just whip out the birth certificate and ask them to show you where your name was printed in italics, but of course it is not.

But what else does that leave? What sort of name is not printed in italics? Section 11.6 is clear, the names of missiles and rockets are not in italics. Therefore your birth certificate is certifying that you are a missile or a rocket, and thus subject to Space Law, as my unrebutted post above proves. Space law is very, very minimal. In fact, it protects you. It defines that if you cause any damage the responsibility isn't yours, it's the territory from which you were "launched" (born) that must pay for the damages. Your birth certificate is your proof of the territory from which you were launched.

Thanks for affirming:

"It's not an inherent part of what constitutes the ship ... "

"You are not a name ... "

That means:

"you have a name"

A name is intellectual property originally owned by creator(s) (ie. parents) who surrendered all or part of the bundle of rights for ownership when it was registered after birth in a state which is a member of the United States.

Why would anyone self identify using privileged intellectual property created by another party, registered in a state which is a member of the United States, and accept any strings for using said intellectual property without a full and honest disclosure?

Did parents provide children a receipt for any intellectual property they created? Nope ... because parents sold out their kids performing voluntary acts of birth registration without receiving a full and honest disclosure. Basically parents had no clue of anything regarding birth registration, did it anyway, and told their kid to use a name they registered. What kind of sick people deceive their own children? Do people who deceive their own children really think they or their country ought to be saved? If nature has a sense of humor she must be laughing her ass off at sick people who deceive their own children and bitch about politics.

People are inherently free to self identify as they wish, exercise your natural and fundamental right to self identify as you please.

Glad to hear we are working on an unrebutted premise since the OP is unrebutted and no post in this entire thread refutes flags are not attached to persons or property by voluntary acts of registration. Nor is it refuted registrations occur in a state which is a member of the United States. Nor is it refuted all or part of a bundle of rights for ownership is surrendered to a state or the United States. Nor is it refuted a state and the United States are also parties to an act of registration. Nor is it refuted, and confirmed one does not receive in another thread, one receives a full and honest disclosure of all parties to a registration and their respective bundle(s) of rights. Nor is it refuted it is fundamentally unjust for an entity to engage in a dishonest registration business lacking full and honest disclosures while the same entity enforces said dishonest registrations.

Furthermore attorneys can't even provide a definition of vessel. If one refers to their magical legal dictionaries they would find:

VESSEL. " ... Despite the important role a 'vessel' plays in maritime law, there is no settled definition of the term" --Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition (p. 1699)

Unfortunately one can't not make shit like that up so if any attorney mentions the word vessel just tell them they are a dumb ass because the most recent edition of their own magical legal dictionaries acknowledge "there is no settled definition of the term." Roflol.

However for the average layman who is not a dumb ass attorney that doesn't subscribe to magical words, worship priests in black robes, or bend over on command when priests in black robes pull out their magic wand, one can refer to a plethora of older dictionaries to find meanings for the term vessel:

VESSEL. 1. Anything in which liquids, or other things are put. Barret [emphasis mine ie. a name which is a container for other property] 2. The containing parts of an animal body. Arbutbuot. 3. Any vehicle in which men or goods are carried on the water. Raleigh. 4. Any capacity; any thing containing. Milton. [emphasis mine ie. a citizen capacity possessing property] -- A Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson, A.M. 3rd Edition (1768).

Definition right after Vessel in the same dictionary:

TO VESSEL. [from the noun] To put into a veffel to barrel. Bacon. -- A Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson, A.M. 3rd Edition (1768).

Finally I have a few theoretical questions for attorneys on the hypothetical scenario of how a derelict space ship would be arbitrated among competing salvage claims:

1. Would any flags on a derelict vessel or outer space buoys confer special interplanetary jurisdictions?

2. Would space law adopt any concepts of maritime law which has been refined over centuries and extended to person hood?

3. Would the proceeding occur in rem without regard to the rights of any vessel owners if the tribunal published notice in an interplanetary publication?

Vessels

Is your name in italics on your birth certificate? No. And yet we know by 11.6 that if you were a vessel, your name should be in italics. This rebuts the OP, and makes it clear that the certificate does not certify you to be a vessel. So you're getting hung up on defining something that you are not and that your birth certificate doesn't certify you to be. Don't feel bad, it's a trap that many have fallen into. "Vessel" is so poorly defined in order to distract those who don't grasp the implications of 11.6.

What sorts of things have their names *not* in italics in 11.6? Rockets. Your birth certificate is certifying that you are a rocket. And that means that you would be subject to *space* law. That's a good thing! In certifying you to be a rocket and subject to space law your birth certificate is giving you the option of being free of all nearly every law on the books because the laws that apply to rockets are very minimal.

Typical

response to nothing. Attorneys don't even know what a vessel is because their latest magical legal dictionaries claim the term has no specific meaning. How can you talk about something you know nothing about when apparently "there is no settled definition of the term"? (--see most recent edition of magic book titled Black's Law Dictionary in the definition of vessel for quote)

That guy who founded Microsoft must have a net worth of billions but we won't find any accounting record listing any entity called that guy who founded Microsoft with a net worth in the billions because ... Bill Gates has a net worth of billions.

It would also appear these examples in italics style rule 11.7 are lacking:

Sinking of the “Lusitania” Sinking of the “Lusitania”
Sinking of the “Lusitania” SINKING OF THE “LUSITANIA”

How come all vessels are not styled by government using italics in accordance with chapter 11?

Breaking of the "Stirrup Spout Vessel" Breaking of the "Stirrup Spout Vessel"
Breaking of the "Stirrup Spout Vessel" BREAKING OF THE "STIRRUP SPOUT VESSEL"

Rupturing of the "Blood Vessel" Rupturing of the "Blood Vessel"
Rupturing of the "Blood Vessel RUPTURING OF THE "BLOOD VESSEL"

Someone better get the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services a copy of the style manual so this sentence does not run afoul with official United States styling regulations:

"Areas of this blood vessel damage ... "

http://healthfinder.gov/News/Article.aspx?id=673578

Obviously it should read: "Areas of this "Blood Vessel" damage ... "

One would think Departments of Health and Human Services who routinely deal with certificates of birth, apparently certifying persons in fantasy doggydogworld are missiles, would know how to style correctly in accordance with official government regulations.

You rebut nothing. Your side better start thinking up some BS to fool people better because all statistics indicate my ideas are spreading, which means yours are decreasing. :)

You've misread 11.7

11.7 is adding a requirement that applies whether or not an italic typeface is available. In olden days, before space law was created, typewriters didn't have italic fonts. By the time space law was being put into place the IBM Selectric made it possible to use italic typefaces where needed. And yet your birth certificate, even if you were born after 1967, doesn't use italics, does it.

But really you bring up a good point. 11.7 adds the requirement that names of vessels are quoted! Is your name quoted on your birth certificate? Is it in italics? No and no! So you are not a vessel, and there's no need to fall into that briar patch of trying to define something you are provably not. They created that confusion about the definition of "vessel" just to trap people who do not grasp the clear meaning of 11.6 and 11.7.

But if you are not a vessel, as clearly shown by your name not being in italics *and* not being quoted, what are you? Look at 11.6 and see what's left. A rocket.

Now let's be clear. Your birth certificate is certifying that you are *not* a vessel, and therefore that you are a rocket. But does that make you a rocket? No, of course not. There are seven billion human beings on this blue marble we call Earth, and you're one of them. But the certification that you are a rocket is something that was done to help you. Space law is very, very minimal. It gives you the *option* to be subject to space law. Space law even protects you from liability, since the territory from which you were "launched" is, by space law, obligated to pay for any damage you cause.

Understand why they did this. Space law is minimal so long as you are not in outer space. As a rocket, certain space laws apply to you, including a requirement of registration, as soon as you leave Earth. So you can appreciate the gravity of the situation I'm sure. Why do they want to encumber anyone who leaves Earth with requirements of registration and other things? Why do they reward those who do not go into outer space with greater freedom, and protection from liability? That's a question for another day. For now, whenever someone says that it's important to stay grounded, you know they're in on the secret.

What is the purpose of a rocket?

The United States Department of Health and Human Services website was created after 1967. Are you suggesting government agencies that deal with certificates of birth are incompetent to follow official United States styling regulations?

Not even the priests in black robes you worship would support your gibberish:

The Rules of Construction Act defines a “vessel” as including “every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” 1 U. S. C. §3. The question before us is whether petitioner’s floating home (which is not self propelled) falls within the terms of that definition.

We believe that a reasonable observer, looking to the home’s physical characteristics and activities, would not consider it to be designed to any practical degree for carrying people or things on water. And we consequently conclude that the floating home is not a “vessel.” -Lozman v. Riviera Beach

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-626_p8k0.pdf

What? A vessel is not a vessel? All you can do is argue the meaning of words as if they are magical. It is almost enjoyable to point out your blaring hypocrisy but I don't really need to when you keep repeating gems like this:

"Your birth certificate is certifying that you are *not* a vessel"

When you contradict yourself so plainly:

"It's not an inherent part of what constitutes the ship ... "

"You are not a name ... "

"... you have a name"

I can understand why any fool who relies on magic books which state "Despite the important role a 'vessel' plays in maritime law, there is no settled definition of the term" can not understand their head from their butt. I can almost understand why such a fool who believed and tried to argue "Despite the important role a 'vessel' plays in maritime law, there is no settled definition of the term" would have to rely on priests in black robes to provide such fools with meaning. It is self evident any such fool is an incompetent ... what is that expression you can't define you like to use ... oh ... human being. Really, stop trying so hard looking bad.

I get it, you are incompetent and you would have to rely on priests in black robes to answer a question like ... what is the purpose of a birth certificate? Is it the same purpose as a missile?

I also get you can not read because 11.7 states "Names of vessels." Of is a term used to convey a relationship between a part and a whole. Holy cow ... would that mean a vessel when taken as a whole includes a specific name?

Allow me to perform some witchcraft you might comprehend but I won't expect you to because I don't have a black robe and magic wand:

USS Enterprise (specific name) + Ship (thing) = Vessel

John James Smith (specific name) + Name (thing) = Vessel

Blood Vessel (specific name) + Vessel (thing) = Vessel

WOW ... what a simple formula! It has now been expressed in mathematical terms which can be reproduced by independent observation. That makes it a brand new scientific formula!

Let's figure out what you are:

Doggydogworld (specific name) + Human Being (thing) = You!

Congratulations ... you are still a thing. Sit boy!

Follow your own advice:

"It's not an inherent part of what constitutes the ship ... "

"You are not a name ... "

"... you have a name"

Hey since you have a name how about I think one up, trademark it, and give it to you for your own use? Don't worry I won't charge that much whenever you use it. I got it ... I name you MyBitch. Now you have a new name, cool beans.

The purpose of a rocket is escape

You're stuck in that quicksand trap because you are resisting the doubly unrebutted proof that you are not a vessel because (1) your name is not in italics on your birth certificate, and (2) your name is not in quotes either.

They've got you struggling in that quicksand trap trying to figure out what "vessel" means, a semantic tar-baby designed so that wrestling with it just gets you more and more stuck. But you can just walk away from it, free yourself from the trap by simply seeing the doubly unrebutted proof that your birth certificate *cannot* be certifying you to be a vessel. And by 11.6, if your name isn't in italics what else could the certificate be certifying? There's only one possibility. It's certifying you to be a rocket.

The purpose of a rocket is to escape, literally, from the bonds of gravity, or in this case, to escape from legal bonds by embracing the Space Law that is the only law that applies to rockets and is as minimal as the micro-gravity in orbit.

Identify all parties to a birth registration

and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

Quicksand

A quicksand trap makes you sink deeper and deeper the more you struggle. Perhaps you enjoy being in that trap, because you refuse any help to get out. But look at how befuddled it makes you over and over again, getting stuck on simple questions, and getting so tangled up sometimes that you can't even figure out how to ask the question coherently! That should be a clue that you're doing something wrong. One more time, it's very simple and completely unrebutted:

Is your name in italics on your birth certificate? No. That is the proof from 11.6 that you are not being certified to be a vessel. Unrebutted. And it rebuts the OP.

Is your name in quotes on your birth certificate? No. That is a *second* proof from 11.7 that you are not being certified to be a vessel. Unrebutted. And it rebuts the OP a second time.

What is left? You are being certified to be a rocket. Unrebutted.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I guess if you like to be encumbered by lots of laws you might think it's a bad thing but very, very few laws apply to rockets, and even fewer to a rocket that is not in outer space, as I assume you are not. No registration requirement. No liability.

But if you want to stay stuck in that quicksand trap of trying to figure out what "vessel" means even though the *doubly unrebutted* proof makes it clear that you are not a vessel, then just keep doing what you're doing. But it's easy to escape that trap whenever your'e ready. 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...

Identify all parties to a birth registration

and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

Your form over substance fetish has already been addressed so many times later in this thread its not funny. I think you are one of the crazy people who solely focus on it. Perhaps that is why you mentioned crazy people later in the thread because you are one of them and were simply commenting on something you knew something about. Rebutted.

Like your other posts, you use terms or expressions you can not define and try to absurdly argue points rooted in definition contradictions for terms or expressions you can not define or explain the grammar of. Rebutted.

I thought you might actually know something with the volume of rambling you do ... guess I was wrong because you can't identify all parties to a birth registration and enumerate their respective bundles of rights. Unrebutted.

You are drowning in a sea of unanswered questions

But instead of flailing about in that confusing sea of questions about vessels and flags and maritime laws and flags and law dictionaries and all the other things that probably amount to millions of pages of confusing verbiage designed to trap the gullible, you could break free of *all* that.

Your name on your birth certificate is not in italics. Unrebutted. By 11.6 the name of a vessel would have to be in italics, so therefore you are not a vessel. Unrebutted. Everything about maritime law and flags and so on is *instantly* null and void for you once you see this. Unrebutted. By 11.6 what's sort of name would not be in italics? A rocket. So your birth certificate is certifying you to be a rocket. Unrebutted. And space law is very minimal, especially for someone who is grounded and not in orbit. Unrebutted.

Identify all parties to a birth registration

and enumerate their respective bundles of rights. Unrebutted.

Are you incapable of answering it?

Your form over substance fetish has been responded to many times in this thread already. Rebutted. Take a look at your posts in this thread and then think about this question again:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

How do statists say it ... oh ya ... the social contract. The same statists say contract? What are you talking about ... there are no contracts and the social contract isn't technically a contract it is just called that because that is how we roll with our terms. By the way, not only does contract, as in a social contract, not mean contract but vessels are not vessels because our magic books don't specifically define the term. When these kind of magical words are uttered pronunciation invokes the necessary magic which provides context.

You can talk about all the non-sense you want but at the end of the day this question will remain unanswered:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

When you have a question no attorney, judge, or government official can answer ... that is a question worth spreading around. Questions that can not be answered are the type of questions that stick around. If you need proof of that concept refer to Kennedy, 9/11, or any other controversy with common sense unanswered questions.

A good common sense unanswerable question is like stink on shit. It doesn't go away no matter what you do.

The idiom "at sea" means to be confused or befuddled

You're "at sea" in that sense, drowning in a sea of confusion about vessels and flags and so on. Even if you ever figured out how to ask the questions coherently it wouldn't help, because you're looking in the wrong place. You can't find answers because it's all a red herring, designed to lead you astray. Notice how many idioms about confusion are about the sea! Do you think this is coincidence? You're "at sea" meaning confused, befuddled. You're confused and befuddled because you're chasing a "red herring." You don't have answers so you "go on a fishing expedition" hoping to find some. You're trying to do something you don't understand so you're "a fish out of water." You've fallen for something *designed* to confuse you.

When you tire of thrashing around "at sea" the answers are simple if look in the right place. Your name on your birth certificate is not in italics. Unrebutted. By 11.6 the name of a vessel would have to be in italics, so therefore you are not a vessel. Unrebutted. Everything about maritime law and flags and so on is *instantly* null and void for you once you see this. Unrebutted. By 11.6 what's sort of name would not be in italics? A rocket. So your birth certificate is certifying you to be a rocket. Unrebutted. And space law is very minimal, especially for someone who is grounded (note: grounded, the opposite of "at sea"!) and not in orbit. Unrebutted.

What type of vessel is a name with a flag attached to it

that contains property? Is it a ship? A missile? Does it float in water? Does it have a motor? How does it function? Is it's purpose to be launched into outer space?

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

Chapter 11 does not define the term vessel, and no example used in any rule for chapter 11 contains an example which uses the term vessel in any context other than:

#1 in this Google definition:

ves·sel
ˈvesəl/
noun
noun: vessel; plural noun: vessels

1. a ship or large boat.
synonyms: boat, ship, craft, watercraft; More
literarybark/barque
"a fishing vessel"
2. a hollow container, esp. one used to hold liquid, such as a bowl or cask.

#2 or #3 in this definition:

vessel [ˈvɛsəl]
n
1. any object used as a container, esp for a liquid
2. (Transport / Nautical Terms) a passenger or freight-carrying ship, boat, etc.
3. (Engineering / Aeronautics) an aircraft, esp an airship
4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Anatomy) Anatomy a tubular structure that transports such body fluids as blood and lymph
5. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) Botany a tubular element of xylem tissue consisting of a row of cells in which the connecting cell walls have broken down
6. Rare a person regarded as an agent or vehicle for some purpose or quality she was the vessel of the Lord

#2 in this definition:

ves·sel (vsl)
n.
1. A hollow utensil, such as a cup, vase, or pitcher, used as a container, especially for liquids.
2. a. Nautical A craft, especially one larger than a rowboat, designed to navigate on water. b. An airship.
3. Anatomy A duct, canal, or other tube that contains or conveys a body fluid: a blood vessel.
4. Botany One of the tubular conductive structures of xylem, consisting of dead cylindrical cells that are attached end to end and connected by perforations. They are found in nearly all flowering plants.
5. A person seen as the agent or embodiment, as of a quality: a vessel of mercy.

#2 in this definition:

ves·sel
noun \ˈve-səl\

1 a: a container (as a cask, bottle, kettle, cup, or bowl) for holding something b: a person into whom some quality (as grace) is infused
2: a watercraft bigger than a rowboat; especially : ship
3 a: a tube or canal (as an artery) in which a body fluid is contained and conveyed or circulated b: a conducting tube in the xylem of a vascular plant formed by the fusion and loss of end walls of a series of cells

Obviously you missed the section of the style manual stating:

"It is impossible to give rules that will cover every conceivable problem in capitalization, but, by considering the purpose to be served and the underlying principles, it is possible to attain a considerable degree of uniformity. The list of approved forms given in Chapter 4 will serve as a guide. Obviously such a list cannot be complete. The correct usage with respect to any term not included can be determined by analogy or by application of the rules."

I suspect this citation went unnoticed by you:

VESSEL. 1. Anything in which liquids, or other things are put. Barret [emphasis mine ie. a name which is a container for other property] 2. The containing parts of an animal body. Arbutbuot. 3. Any vehicle in which men or goods are carried on the water. Raleigh. 4. Any capacity; any thing containing. Milton. [emphasis mine ie. a citizen capacity possessing property] -- A Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson, A.M. 3rd Edition (1768).

Perhaps it is because you are unaware of the history of dictionaries:

Until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary 173 years later, Johnson's was viewed as the pre-eminent English dictionary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Lan...

Perhaps a lack of understanding exists on your part because you do not realize why rules of grammar or spelling exist? Why do they exist?

The first printing press in England began operation in 1485, the same year that the War of the Roses ended. The printer was William Caxton, an educated scholar and translator. The first book that he printed was made for his English audience--Sir Thomas Malory's collection of King Arthur stories known as La Morte D'Arthur.

With some 30 or so regional dialects in England, Caxton knew that he could not publish so that every reader would understand every word. Instead, he chose to write and translate English into a form that would be understood by as many people as possible.

There are two obvious reasons for this. First, he wanted to communicate. He wanted to make the writings as widely understandable as possible. Second, he wanted to profit from his printing press. The larger his potential audience, the larger his potential sales.

http://englishplus.com/news/news0100.htm
http://englishplus.com/news/news0300.htm

So what do you do when a style manual does not contain an italic rule for the purpose:

person regarded as an agent or vehicle for some purpose or quality a citizen because she was the vessel of the Lord a state which is a member of the United States

How does one consider the underlying principles of:

any object used as a container for property

How is uniformity achieved for contexts conveyed by the term vessel which do not mean some kind of boat or ship? Does an analogy compare like to like? Are rules applied to something unlike the object of a rule?

I suspect if you were presented with a piece of graph paper and tasked to illustrate rule 11.6 or 11.7 you would be incapable of doing it. I suspect you would struggle to identify points A (origin) and B (destination) or any longitudes or latitudes used to discern them. I imagine you would argue the purpose of grabbing a ruler to draw a straight line between these identified points is for some purpose of uniformity in and of itself.

Answers are found in the why ... this is how you come to debate me in this thread ... without why, without power ... following orders of your masters? Do you expect to be believed?

http://www.anyclip.com/movies/the-matrix-reloaded/the-why/

I have already told you what to do next:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

Gibberish with a question mark tacked on at the end

"What type of vessel is a name with a flag attached to it that contains property?" isn't a question, it's gibberish with a question mark tacked on at the end. You ended up with nonsense because you started with nonsense. Your name on your birth certificate is not in italics. Unrebutted. By 11.6 the name of a vessel would have to be in italics. Unrebutted. Your name is also not in quotes. Unrebutted. By 11.7 if you were a vessel your name should be in quotes. Unrebutted. Therefore you are not a vessel. Doubly unrebutted.

Everything about vessels and flags and so on is *instantly* null and void once you see this. All the hours you've spent trying to find answers to your incoherent questions about vessels and flags and such were completely wasted, chasing after nonsense that was designed to confuse you. And clearly it worked!

By 11.6 what's sort of name would not be in italics? A rocket. So your birth certificate is certifying you to be a rocket. Unrebutted. And space law is very minimal, especially for someone who is grounded and not in orbit. Unrebutted.

Identify all parties to a birth registration

(or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

I can go on for days and years, if necessary, repeating the same unrebutted and unanswered proposition. I think I prefer it that way. Think about how many INT_ personality types are among Ron Paul supporters. We are talking about a group comprised of really smart people. Think about how many Constitutionalists are among Ron Paul supporters. Die hard conservatives and minarchists and some of the most educated people in the history of America yet ...

Not one single individual can:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

It makes the lack of any answer all the more fascinating as more time elapses. The longer it lingers in a state of being unanswered the more damage it will do to the credibility of statism. If one is going to advocate even for a minimalist state and can't answer the most basic of basic questions such as:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

It doesn't bode well for the future of the state. I triple dog unrebutted dare you to:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

Is this all you got? Is that truly the best you can do?

What type of vessel is a name with a flag attached to it that contains property?" isn't a question, it's gibberish with a question mark tacked on at the end

Roflol. Like I already stated, you showed to debate in a thread without any real power. Everything you repeat including your misapplication of terms, rules, and language has been plainly addressed already in this thread. Triply dog unrebutted dare I might add.

oooooOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOooooooo!

You have a question nobody can answer

Here's someone else who has a question nobody can answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XREnvJRkif0

Your problem is that you've bought into the nonsense about flags and vessels. Gibberish in, gibberish out. Also you're astoundingly inarticulate. But even if you could ask the question articulately, and knew the actual definition of "proposition," etc. ... gibberish in, gibberish out.

Your name on your birth certificate is not in italics. Unrebutted. By 11.6 the name of a vessel would have to be in italics, so therefore you are not a vessel. Unrebutted. Everything about maritime law and flags and so on is *instantly* null and void for you once you see this. By 11.6 what's sort of name would not be in italics? A rocket. So your birth certificate is certifying you to be a rocket. Unrebutted. And space law is very minimal, especially for someone who is grounded and not in orbit. Unrebutted.

Roflol

"You have a question nobody can answer"

I have witnessed gibberish in the clip you posted before. Walk into any court and as soon as the word "state" is mentioned object to the use of any undefined terms on the grounds it is impossible for communication to occur when no meaning is conveyed. What constitutes a state?

This is what one will witness from judges or prosecutors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XREnvJRkif0

I am glad you brought that clip up because judges and prosecutors sound exactly like that when challenged to define their magical terms.

I can go on for days and years, if necessary, repeating the same unrebutted and unanswered proposition. I think I prefer it that way. Think about how many INT_ personality types are among Ron Paul supporters. We are talking about a group comprised of really smart people. Think about how many Constitutionalists are among Ron Paul supporters. Die hard conservatives and minarchists and some of the most educated people in the history of America yet ...

Not one single individual can:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

It makes the lack of any answer all the more fascinating as more time elapses. The longer it lingers in a state of being unanswered the more damage it will do to the credibility of statism. If one is going to advocate even for a minimalist state and can't answer the most basic of basic questions such as:

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

If no one can answer the most basic of basic questions about registration then how can any just authority exist to engage in any registration business or enforcement?

Your form over substance fetish has already been debunked. Rebutted. Your misapplication of rules and failure to comprehend the object of a rule or its purpose has been debunked. Rebutted. Your misuse of terms by misrepresentation to only narrow aspects of their known historical meanings has been debunked. Rebutted.

Unlike you, I am not challenged to explain terms I use by forming common sense analogies out of well documented definitions:

person regarded as an agent or vehicle for some purpose or quality a citizen because she was the vessel of the Lord a state which is a member of the United States

Finally, the OP contains a picture because people think in pictures. Since I can reduce a complex concept to a picture I am able to communicate meaning directly to a higher level of ones conscinous. I can communicate concepts of jurisdiction in pictures, objects of rules, human action, or any number of topics I discuss. If someone has never seen an apple it is far more efficient to draw an apple instead of trying to explain what an apple is using words.

Not that I expect you to fully understand it because I think if you were presented with a piece of graph paper and tasked to illustrate a rule or its object you would be unable to do it. If you can not illustrate what you are talking about and can only rely on words to communicate your meaning with others how effective are you going to be?

Consider something simpler like human action, a foundation of law. How would you illustrate it? Or are you going to rely merely upon words to communicate meaning?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Once it is illustrated I can take the same concept and go in many directions. I can use geometry and create a sphere of known human action. I can triangulate jurisdictions of resistance.

You are trying to debate a picture in the OP using an inferior form ... words, which can contradict or have multiple definitions. Pictures do not contradict themselves. I have already pointed out your lack of power but you aren't listening and keep trying to rely upon magical words.

I drew a picture in the OP of a real phenomenon. If it was BS this thread would be raining with comments from tons of really smart Ron Paul supporters like any other thread containing BS ... but it isn't.

Here is my suggestion to you. Instead of focusing on the labels (ie. words) draw a better picture. The labels (ie. words) don't matter because they can be anything. How did an apple become known as an apple? Someone thought up a label for it. It is entirely arbitrary. The label, apple, is form and the picture of it is substance.

You say:

"You have a question nobody can answer"

Is it because parties can not be identified?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Or because no one can articulate any bundle of rights for each party to a registration because there is something dishonest about registration?

Identify all parties to a birth registration (or any other type of registration) which occurs in a state which is a member of the United States and enumerate their respective bundles of rights.

Social engineering

Social engineering brainwashes you to think a certain way over many decades of brainwashing. Thank God brainwashing of the masses is being reversed with virtually no one watching MSM news channels anymore.

...

The education system teaches conscription. You need to know how to write, do basic math and sign your name. Perfect for a buy and sell society of trained surfs.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

trained surfs?

I know quite a few trained surfs. many of them also waterski. Oh, you mean trained SMURFS. My bad.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

...

You are a manipulator of words. However you are not good enough. You think your in the club but you are not.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.