5 votes

How are any rights or privileges granted (and taken away) by law for registering things working out for you?

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 1st Edition (1890)

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 2nd Edition (1910)

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 3rd Edition (1933)

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 4th Edition (1968)

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 5th Edition (1979)

Registrant. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e.g., a trademark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 6th Edition (1990)

registrant. One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 7th Edition (1999)

registrant. One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 8th Edition (2004)

registrant. (1890) One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 9th Edition (2009)

===================================================================

There exists an open conspiracy among many nations to prevent statelessness by establishing legal bonds between states and individuals.

"Nationality is a legal bond between a state and an individual, and statelessness refers to the condition of an individual who is not considered as a national by any state. Although stateless people may sometimes also be refugees, the two categories are distinct and both groups are of concern to UNHCR.

...

While human rights are generally to be enjoyed by everyone, selected rights ... may be limited to nationals. Of even greater concern is that many more rights of stateless people are violated in practice - they are often unable to obtain identity documents; they may be detained because they are stateless; and they could be denied access to education and health services or blocked from obtaining employment.

...

Yet the problem can be prevented through adequate nationality legislation and procedures as well as universal birth registration."

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c155.html

===================================================================

Premise: Legal bonds between states and individuals exist.

Premise: States and individuals, as parties to a legal bond, have their own unique bundle of rights.

Premise: States and individuals, as parties to a legal bond, have positive duties or obligations.

Premise: Some legal bonds are established between states and individuals by registering things.

Premise: No individual receives a full and honest disclosure when registering anything which establishes a legal bond between a state and individual defining bundles of rights, positive duties, or obligations of parties.

Conclusion: Any enforced adhesion contract or legal bond established by registering anything where there is no full and honest disclosure to any individual is fundamentally unjust and void of just authority.

Conclusion: It is fundamentally immoral to engage in any registration business without providing full and honest disclosures to any individual when the same entity coerces compliance to adhesion contracts or legal bonds it has dishonestly established by registrations lacking full and honest disclosures.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

to His American Majesty

you're doing it all wrong when it comes to dealing with The Chickenator.

Just because he changes his name doesn't mean you need to employ any new logic or new tactic, just ignore him.

Of course you could just follow suit and do as he does, though I wouldn't recommend it, and add more nuh uh, go back to your mom's basement, and tell others they are speaking gibberish to avoid any real debate. Then declare yourself right!

"Liberty is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is a syncope." -Henry Ward Beecher

Very Good Advice.

some humans are not only a waste of air, but also bandwidth.

bandwidth

oh my, you're up to two syllables there.

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

Thanks for keeping this conversation alive.

Now, versus the common law argument as it pertains to this issue...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Why? he is clearly enamored of the system.

he is not trying to restore our republic. he is defending the status quo and looking down his nose at ANYONE who objects....

what "issue" were you referring to? is this just a mind game you are playing with sockpuppets?
if so...

shame on you!

common law means case law

that's all it means.

There are no such things as "common law procedures" because procedures, by their very nature, don't come from caselaw, or at least they haven't outside of a few exceptional circumstances such as the Miranda decision.

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

If "common law means case law"

then the basis for LAW can change?

and upon who's whim would you allow this? yours?

It is case law

Sorry if you don't like the answer.

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

not quite fair!

I do believe you are being biased.

I do change my screen name, but that affects not the merits of what we discuss.

I do get frustrated with idiots and tell them to go back to basements and say they are speaking gibberish. In my defense, they are speaking gibberish.

But I have over and over asked them to show why they believe in their favorite crackpot theories and they come up with nothing. In fact they come up with so much nothing that it is often hundreds of posts between any attempt to provide a basis for their belief. In between, those hundreds of posts by HAM, you and others, are just ad hominem attacks such as "you must hate freedom" or "there is injustice in the world" or other nonsense.

When they finally do get around to a feeble attempt at something substantive it is pathetic, like HAM's reference to a UN regulation on how to define one's nationality. Not only is it innocuous but HAM himself is seemingly unable to explain why he cited it. In my field that type of "arguing" is just considered incompetence. But he engages in it constantly.

I think they're all, you included, just afraid to explain themselves because if they do, their idiocy will be on display for all to see.

So what say you? You have something of merit to say? You can prove any aspect of the gibberishsphere to be true? I welcome your attempt. It won't go any better than HAM's, but I still welcome it.

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

I have already told you the source

The source of all facts I claim as self-evident are derived from

All lawfully congruent non-conflicting case law (over 99% of case law I have seen spanning over 500 years) and even the modern statutory codes themselves, it is the contracts they offer, it is their own admissions on the record to felony criminal acts with impunity, it is the direct blatant violations of the Common Law, Organic Laws, Constitution, and Codes.

You never get the fact that it is logical congruency for lawful application that must be sought in case law and once the thread of congruency is found it is clear that all lawfully congruent case law demonstrates the facts as clear.

Chicken wants to write off the law as bs because he and his criminal buddies know that sovereignty is their death nell for control over the people. Once people realize their fraud the time is gone; POOF, just like that. Aware people means no more control because there is way too many people for them to handle if a plague of awareness breaks out and the people begin consciously controlling precedent explicitly to bind them to lawful capacity to protect ourselves.

So you have the answer. You already handed over a bunch of cases that all had consent in one form or another or had insufficient documentation to determine the facts.

The code itself is proof that it makes no claims of applicability to the people whatsoever. Every case you provide has consent and further reinforces the real law vs criminal activity position I have demonstrated. Even your own sourced link to Wikipedia entry for common law demonstrates that common law is much more than case law as I have already pointed out to you.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Blabber?

Blabber!

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

Post

a copy of the full and honest disclosure you received before establishing any legal bond of nationality creating any positive obligations in law between your person and a state which is a member of the United States.

Post a copy of any full and honest disclosure you received before registering any property in a state which is a member of the United States explaining your inherent bundle of rights for said property and which parts are surrendered to any state or United States by placing said property under its protection.

gibberish much?

But I can faintly make out a purpose in this post...oh yes...no...wait there it is...yes, you seem to be alluding to the fact that when one gets born, one does not get a disclosure form from the gubmint saying you are now an Amurrican or something along those lines, the point no doubt being this is a horrendous outrage because some dude in a youtube video told you that in Amurrrica sovereignty is held individually. Tragically, you had missed that day in high school civics where they covered this thing called sovereignty and whatever meager education you've had since didn't fill in the gaps, so you bought it hook line and sinker. And now, years later, you wring your hands (from the basement no doubt) that the gubmint didn't give you this disclosure, with a pro bono government translator wording it in "goo goo gah gah" from English, before your umbilical was severed. Oh dear, what a tragedy.

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

I can't make out any of your gibberish,

nor does it appear you posted a copy of any full and honest disclosure of anything. If you want to solely focus on birth registration provide a copy of any full and honest disclosure received before emancipation.

Too bad you can't make any intelligent response which is the reason your side is losing, has been losing, and will continue to lose. Truth is king and resistance to truth is futile.

great

now what have "your side" ever won? Wasn't there a thread where I asked for proof of a single victory - ever - and got no takers? Come on now, you're the real loser! Slump proud!

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

What is the official recorder for unpublished or dismissed cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-publication_of_legal_opinio...

http://reibsteinlaw.com/charge-dismissed-case-published-in-t...

It is not my duty to make sure another team can keep score. When the world series for freedom is over there will be no doubt who won. Greater the pride, greater the fall. Don't let your head hit the ground first.

What is the matter? Why change the subject? We were talking about a legal bond between a state and individual. I thought you were an expert on all things legal. I am still waiting for a copy of any full and honest disclosure of anything registered to establish a legal bond. Is the fool who repeated legal dictionaries are not law claiming high school civics classes are?

curious about one aspect of your insanity

are you trying to say that ALL appellate decisions are published?

Do you realize that a dismissed case is generally not published, because it never gets to a trial court decision much less an appellate decision?

When you say "dismissed or unpublished cases" are you intending to convey the terms mean the same thing?

When you cite to a lawyer's website, do you think "oh he's the evil cabal slave to gubmint lawyer" or are you trying to say you agree with its contents?

is it your belief that there should be a reporter for dismissed cases? If so, why? Given that the current law was strong enough to get the case dismissed, why would that be needed?

Again, the gibberish is unfathomable, mostly because you don't know what you're talking about.

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

What What?

.

not even an attempt!

well alright then.

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

Not for you

because all you are seeking to do is change the topic of conversation from premises and conclusions in the OP to something else.

keep score? ha

well you may take issue with the scorekeeping, or not, but when the score is REality 8 million to You 0 (zero) you might want to reconsider the efficacy of your tactics. And it has nothing to do with pride, I just find this brand of idiocy entertaining. I've got no dog in the hunt, I just know you'll fail if and when you ever use your gibberish powers in court, and I hope that you videorecord it so it can generate great entertainment for posterity.

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

You keep going off on these tangents ...

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate extensive legal expertise by posting a full and honest disclosure you have received for registering anything which established a legal bond between a state and individual ...

hmm

well if your point is that no such thing exists, I agree with that.

If your not very well expressed point is that we should be able, upon reaching a certain age and maturity, make an informed decision as to what country if any we affiliate with, yes, I'll even agree with that.

If your not very well expressed point is that such a "full and honest disclosure for registering which establishes a bond between a state and individual blabber blabber" does exist, and that I should have one, then you're just being stupid.

Given the options, again, it's hard to understand what you mean...

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

What What?

"well if your point is that no such thing exists [referring to full and honest disclosures], I agree with that."

Premise: Legal bonds between states and individuals exist.

Premise: States and individuals, as parties to a legal bond, have their own unique bundle of rights.

Premise: States and individuals, as parties to a legal bond, have positive duties or obligations.

Premise: Some legal bonds are established between states and individuals by registering things.

Premise: No individual receives a full and honest disclosure when registering anything which establishes a legal bond between a state and individual defining bundles of rights, positive duties, or obligations of parties.

Conclusion: Any enforced adhesion contract or legal bond established by registering anything where there is no full and honest disclosure to any individual is fundamentally unjust and void of just authority.

Conclusion: It is fundamentally immoral to engage in any registration business without providing full and honest disclosures to any individual when the same entity coerces compliance to adhesion contracts or legal bonds it has dishonestly established by registrations lacking full and honest disclosures.

the problem with absolutes is

that they usually fall apart.

Is it true that "no" individual "ever" receives a "full" or "honest" disclosure of "any" rights or obligations when "registering""anything"? That is probably not true. I can think of things I've registered where I understood, from information provided, what I was doing.

Further, knowledge of the law is imputed to everyone. And as imperfect a concept as that is, the rights and obligations of registering something are at least, in most cases, knowable, at least to one who is a competent adult. There are exceptions where things are just misleading.

But if your point is some kind of 'I got a drivers license and the damned sneaky illuminati done took away my constitooshunal right to travel and won't give it back' then your premises and your conclusions are beyond nutty and just wrong. Not that it ever stopped you before.

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

I do not give a

crap what kind of registration you want to talk about. Initially you brought up birth registration so I said provide a copy of the full and honest disclosure you received. You said a full and honest disclosure does not exist.

If you want to now talk about legal registration schemes to license the occupation of driving that is fine. Post a copy of the full and honest disclosure of any legal bond established between a state and individual disclosing the bundle of rights, duties, and obligations of the parties when registering for a driver license.

"Further, knowledge of the law is imputed to everyone."

Really? All pro se's are equally legally competent because law is inherently imputed? Wait a minute ... a minute ago you were talking about antics of pro se's now you are saying the law is imputed to everyone. I think you are a hypocrite who is full of shit.

"And as imperfect a concept as that is, the rights and obligations of registering something are at least, in most cases, knowable, at least to one who is a competent adult"

OMG this shit is just too good. Let's take a 10 question survey of a couple thousand people. Let us produce five questions each according to his own ability. That means you come up five dumbass irrelevant questions, I will come up with five intelligent questions, and let's survey "knowable." Unless of course you have evidence of "knowable" which I doubt you possess or can present.

And to top it off you characterize logic: premises/conclusons as absolutes ... Roflol. Oh good lord, save us from this fool who thinks he knows something.

my questions go over your head

but they are the questions that someone who knows the subject would ask. You would ask questions for people who fake it. At some websites, certain people in basements would relate to what you ask. It would be gibberish, but hey, you'd be speaking their language at their level.

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

It is quite the opposite.

The greater mind is one that can articulate a conclusion of principle using logic. The smaller mind is one that focuses on matter irrelevant to whether a conclusion follows valid premises, such as the implementation of a principle, in an attempt to argue the merits of a conclusion.

A greater mind possessing legitimate objection to a conclusion could assert a conclusion does not follow because of X, where X is a logical fallacy fatal to the conclusion, and explain why if necessary.

A greater mind does not assert gibberish, gibberish, gibberish when presented a conclusion deriving from certain premises. Smaller minds do that sort of thing.

When presented with a conclusion the world is round deriving from certain premises the greater mind would not argue:

"The problem with absolutes is that they usually fall apart."

In the same way a greater mind would not respond the world can not be round because absolutely round worlds usually fall apart.

You mistake a lack of learning for creativity and intelligence

and that pretty much explains your entire series of posts here at DP

When discussing what the law is, there is (usually) an objectively correct answer. When I say usually, that is because there are certain issues that are undecided or unlitigated and each new revision of the law creates those. But that isn't what we are talking about.

You instead make huge, gaping errors in discussing what the law is. When called on it, you run away into the world of "but I don't want it do be that way." Well, neither does anyone else, quite often, but that still begs the question of what the law is, and why you are so averse to discussing 1) what is reality and 2) what can be done to fix it.

There is no magic pixie dust that you and your army of unicorn-riding dilletantes can employ to make things perfect for you in the here and now. When you choose to join the real world let's have a real discussion. I assume this may involve you growing up substantially and perhaps leaving the basement.

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

What What?

There are five premises and two conclusions in the OP. There is no objection to any premise. Yet despite this fact neither are there any objections to either conclusion. Nor have any alternate conclusions been presented. When faced with sound reasoning the only thing you have to write is silly gibberish non-responsive to the premises or conclusions.

The only huge gaping errors are between your ears. Yes there is a lack of learning on your part. Law does not precede or trump ethics. It is a lack of comprehending the object of a rule or the science of jurisprudence to identify a vector of human action, in a known sphere of action, using longitudes and latitudes of persons, places, things, and time, triangulated in a certain jurisdiction to calculate a precise path of resistance which is expressed in terms of law.

Consider that last sentence a word problem you are unable to mathematically solve or visualize posed by a master to a pupil.