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.

Comment viewing options

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

you just proved that you don't. it is just too complex for you.

"The people in theory have the power, but they delegate it"

yes, that is how power is divided.

thanks genius

I guess you think that instead of separation of powers meaning the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, you think it means sovereignty is divided between people, state govts, and fed govt. That is simply wrong. The doctrine of separation of powers refers to the former, but not the latter, concept. It is this separation of powers that people refer to when they discuss the "checks and balances" inherent in the Constitutional government designed by the founders.

Again, different subject from how sovereignty is held.

The people, jointly are sovereign, which they delegate to the state, which delegates to the federal govt.

If you don't like the system we have, not my problem. If you don't understand the system we have, not my problem.

There, in one post, you've learned more than you ever knew (demonstrated by your posting history) about our form of government. It's up to you to research and verify it, or to simply dismiss it out of hand because it isn't coming from some jacked up, credential-less idiot in a youtube video. I suspect, based on your posting history, you'll do the latter.

It's kind of like a public school here, and you're the dumb but very vocal student that keeps dragging down the level of discourse. Instead of discussing the meat of the chapter, the instructor (in this case, me) is left having to explain the introductory paragraph over and over to the guy that was too loaded the day the basics were covered.

There, for today at least, I'm done trying to educate the unwilling.

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

how is one, any different from the other?

my statement.

"it divided sovereignty 3 ways. the Fed, the States and the people."

your statement.

"The people, jointly are sovereign, which they delegate to the state, which delegates to the federal govt."

what are the people delegating you ask?

what is the difference between a heat pump and a hot gas defrost system? nothing.

well here is your answer...

first of all, I question why you stated, or implied, that my answer was false if you believe there is no difference between my answer and yours.

That question notwithstanding, the fact that you DID say my answer was false, leads me to believe you implied a different meaning than what I stated. Granted, your sentence/phrase/pukage of words is a little vague - though not as vague as some of your work - so that does cloud things a little.

But, reading literally what you stated, it appears that you believe that the feds, the states and the people are all dividing up their sovereignty, because the Constitution says to do so. As in, here, people, states, and fed govt, here is your sovereignty pie, you take some, and they take some, etc.

It doesn't work that way. As I said, once again, the people, jointly are sovereign, which they delegate to the state, which delegates to the federal govt.

Hopefully the third time will be a charm and you'll get it. Or not.

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

"your sentence/phrase/pukage of words is a little vague"

Guilty as charged.

I posit that my central thesis is, the entire structure, was intentionally designed in the same manner. multiple layers of power (sovereignty) distribution.

my argument is based on the original intent, not what we have today.

peace.

original intent

is where it's at.

We can agree on that, in concept at least.

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

you are officially invited to a campfire at my place.

4 Non Blondes - What's Up

LoL

"You're lousy at understanding the law, or the Constitution, or our history, or your rights, or your sovereignty, or how to debate"

So are you and I suggest you follow your own advice.

"cure the air leak between your left ear and the left frontal lobe"

Finally, not that it hasn't been repeated already many times ... only a shill or dumb ass uses the expression "sovereign citizen" which is comprised of two terms that literally mean the opposite.

that would be error code... IT10T.

what this indicates is a short between the keyboard and the seat.

the term sovereign citizen

is used to apply to the type of fool (you) who believes that there are strawmen, redemption protocols to access their secret gubmint account, that they can do magic spells in court to enforce their individual sovereignty, etc. and a whole host of other nonsense myths that you advertise on the internet. I don't really care much if you like the term, and I understand your objection to it, but still don't care. It is used to convey a concept. I don't plan to become a believer in your magic word theories so sovereign citizen gets used. Deal with it.

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

I like it when

black robed priests or their worshipers put stupidity on full display.

What facts are you relying upon to determine an expression comprised of two terms which literally means the opposite applies to me?

What do you call a determination that is made without relying on any facts?

BTW, how far do you lean when one of the black robed priests you worship pulls out a magic wand and commands you to bend over?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/165193/what-what-in-th...

all hail the gibberish master

new improved gibberish! Now with more molecules! Eat mangos!

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

What What?

.

And here's a question for YOU

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

asked in fluent gibberish so you'll understand!

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

I shall defer your question

to the honorable Judge Roy Pearson:

Judge Pearson has lost his mind

and he's every bit as nuts as Orly Taitz. What's surprising about both of them is they are or were (not sure of his current status, last I heard he was up for discipline over this case) members of the bar. Such nonsense is usually reserved for pro se / pro per litigants and sovereign citizens. :)

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

I shall defer your

pro se inquiries to the honorable Judge John Wulle.

Judge John Wulle charged with conduct violations
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/feb/22/judge-wulle-charge...

I believe my career in law is over,” Judge John Wulle told a panel of 10 judicial board members weighing his fate ... “I don’t believe this is a pattern of behavior,” Wulle said. “It was four instances in four years.” ... “There have been times when he hasn’t exercised the best patience,” Vancouver defense attorney Tom Phelan testified.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/aug/28/several-support-ju...

" It is used to convey a concept"

hey! you got something right for once!

How are howler monkeys allowed to post on the Daily Paul?

might be a better question.

Listen, I'm done with you kooks.

I've already proven your folly, or rather, you've assisted me in proving it. None of you has posted anything substantive, ever, to support your crackpot legal theories. Your responses are usually just ad hominem attacks, or engage in the fallacy that because there is injustice and suffering, your crackpot theory must be correct. On rare occasion, something is posted (usually a youtube video or an offpoint code section) which can easily be debunked.

So hopefully, next time you approach someone to sell them your legal snake oil, they'll remember these threads and not buy into it!

Have a nice life scammers!

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

Done?

Great!

OK

How dose one secure a right?

Right
noun
a (moral) or (legal) entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

moral
noun
a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not (acceptable) for them to do.

legal entitlement?

Am I allowed to have that right?

I thought we were born with unalienable Rights

Inalienable
Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable.

That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another.

More thought is clearly called for here ... The lawyers have done something.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

The problem I see...

with many of the patriot law theories is that it begins with a false premise...that living souls are really free, but have been tricked into losing their freedom, however, if they do (fill in patriot law theory) they can reclaim their rightful liberty.

The problem is the living soul is NOT free.
(I am going to use the word living soul so I am perfectly clear that I mean a flesh a blood, competent, intelligent, self aware, self determined, adult.)

The revolutionary war was a war for political independence not a war to make the living soul free of/from government.

When it was over, american government was "free" of the british...but the living souls that compose society were not free from/of government.

Governments (which are composed of the legislature and the army of men they employ to carry out THEIR will) do GOVERN living souls:
Each can take what it wants, when it wants, and if one doesn't comply with it, it has the power to put one in a cage- and if one resists, then it has the power to put one in the ground.
AND THEY DO, all day long, every day of the week, every week of the year...Governmental power is the power to harm a living soul with legal impunity.

And I find this situation tragic and in desperate need of change. Mankind must drop governmental power in order to fulfill its potential.

This won't happen unless we face the reality of our situation.

Living souls are not free?

"The problem is the living soul is NOT free."

I am sorry. I just don't feel like responding to any ... we're all a bunch of pussies who refuse to organize and defend that which we believe in because it is too difficult.

If there could only be one reason to love a God, a Creator, or ever you want to call it, must be because one is not created a robot. One does not come out of any womb a slave.

If people born inherently free want to be a slave ... be a dam slave. Your sentiment confirms the OP. People are content being a slave because they can go to Disney World once a year, have a nice home, nice car, decent tasting food, so long as they pay a little tribute here or there on demand.

No one is forcing anyone not to be a slave. Let us be clear we are talking about slavery. Being trespassed against and getting the shit beat out of you, strip searched, caged, looted, pillaged, or plundered against your consent when it can not even be justified by the existence of an injured party is slavery. What did the founders say ... if you enjoy wearing your chains then depart from us and go in peace to wear them.

What I refuse to listen to are people who choose to wear chains and then start bitching because they get heavy.

thanks for your thoughts

:)

objection

vague, ambiguous, incomplete hypothetical.

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

Complaining about the sacred texts are ye?

Are you suggesting sacred texts which use the term "one" instead of "person" in definitions are ambiguous?

Are you suggesting sacred texts which imply one can register on behalf of another by registering anything (ie. birth registration) to secure a right or privilege by law are incomplete?

Are you suggesting sacred texts which declare the idol of law can breath life or take it away because the holy legal word is magical are hypothetical, or vague?

Hunh? Wut?

"sacred texts" "one instead of person"?

What you are gibbering about now? I don't even want to know.

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

you are brain dead and rude.

hark! I think I hear the daily McCain calling your name!

McCain and you are birds of a feather

You both are buying into fake bullcrap, or promoting it, or both. You jackasses scream like stuck pigs if anyone questions your nonsense. Get a life .

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

I understand that my heritage has been supplanted and,

subverted.
and yes, it is hanging by a thread.

I think the name you chose for yourself speaks volumes.

pissant.