6 votes

Mountain Man Arrested in Court For Following Constitution

Mountain Man Found Guilty, Mr.Tertegte Hauled Away in Cuffs.


http://youtu.be/ZPAoEYHmQMc



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Perhaps

it should have been as you say, if you say so.

Claims of ownership and reason

I never claimed "My Name is Name" is "intellectual property". I claim ownership because it was GIVEN to me.

If I give you a shirt so that you can claim ownership of such shirt is that "intellectual property"? No. It is property that I give to you to own and do with what you will; wear, burn, give away, make underwear out of etc. I give it you to own and do with what you will including claim ownership of this property I give to you.

My Name was given to me by my parents which was clearly divinely inspired to them, by the order of all, and they GAVE it to me. The intent of parents was no more or less than to give it me. Now it is a name I own and rightfully claim. The state made another NAME of which I can only presume at this time with the information I have they claim (or the bank, IMF etc.??) ownership of.

So I have not claimed here explicitly that this is "intellectual property", per se, although it could possibly be considered that since it is property which exists in mind only and I guess one could construe this as "intellectual property" that I do indeed claim rightful ownership over. Intellectual property can be given ownership to another also. I have inventions, intellectual property, that I have given to my company which is intellectual property I created but gave (assigned) to my company who now OWNS that intellectual property of which I make no rightful claims over but I do claim rightful ownership of my company which owns the intellectual property I gave the property to. Is this any different than a name given to a son from his parents?

So to date I simply claim ownership of Name that was GIVEN to me to own and yes I do claim ownership of my Name rightfully and anyone claiming otherwise would be bearing false witness but I am not bearing false witness and I even have other witnesses (my family) that indeed my parents gave me my Name (First Middle Last).

The Divine Inspiration was in my claim to the court "My name is Name". The divine inspiration wasn't anything other than that.

This claim sets the stage to clarify any other confusion that the insane fraudsters claiming to be a "court" may attempt to claim otherwise. So in "court" my only two claims are "My name is Name" and "I am here by special appearance only" and beyond that all claims already made by the tyrannical machine must be proven by them.

I hope this clarifies.

Thanks for your response. Your humility and careful words are welcomed to me because you make me think like no other I have ever conversed with. Thank 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...

RE:

I never claimed "My Name is Name" is "intellectual property ...

Agreed, you did not. I have compared a name to any other intellectual property originating from a mind.

"I claim ownership because it was GIVEN to me."

Since the burden of proof is on he who claims ... I think if you can prove that then fantastic. I think it would be fantastic if people would pull their heads out of their buts and start demanding full and honest disclosures before blindly registering things in states which are members of the United States.

Consider a:
1. Valid trust includes certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects;
2. Valid contract includes an offer, acceptance, capacity, consideration and performance;
3. Valid will includes a testator of proper age, capacity, title, terms, beneficiaries, witnessed, sealed, recorded, an executor or administrator, and the testator must die before it becomes effective.

Consider:
A contract differs from a covenant in that the object(s) of the former are property and the object(s) of the latter are sentient, living entities, and a trust differs from a will in that the former is used to transfer property to beneficiaries and the latter is used to distribute property to beneficiaries.

Consider:
"the following differences between a contract and a trust (which are mutually exclusive concepts).
1. A person cannot contract with himself, although he can declare
himself trustee of his property (but not for himself alone), while a trustee, if duly authorised in the trust deeds, can as sole trustee of trust X sell and transfer an asset to himself as sole trustee
of trust Y in exchange for money paid out of trust Y, the beneficiaries having rights to ensure a proper price was paid and to have trust accounts duly drawn up to reflect the exchange of their equitable interests.
2. A contract requires an agreement between two persons, while a settlor can create a trust of property unilaterally by declaring himself trustee of identified property, or by making a testamentary trust not discovered by the trustee till after the testator's death,
or by transferring ownership of his property to T (by deed or by entry on a register) without telling T. While T cannot be subject to trusteeship duties until accepting them and can disclaim trusteeship before the n, the beneficiaries' proprietary rights are effective even if T disclaims.
3. These proprietary rights of the beneficiaries, subject to T's prior proprietary lien or charge as security for moneys due to T for expenses and remuneration, are at the core of the trust, while a contract only gives rise to personal obligations.
4. Once a settlor, S, has created a trust of his property by vesting it in T, S has no rights or liabilities in respect thereof and so drops out of the picture - unless he reserved some rights or powers
within the structure of his trust deed. Thus S's death, mental incapacity or even anger over T's breach of trust is immaterial, S being powerless.
5. Unlike a contract, a trust does not term inate if T dies or becomes mentally incapacitated and is not capable of being terminated by a breach of trust, even a major one.
6. Unlike a contracting party, T is the holder of an office to which proscriptive fiduciary duties and prescriptive equitable duties are automatically attached (subject to contrary provision in the trust instrument) and T can be removed and replaced by the court or by a person having such a power in the trust instrument.
7. While a person suing over a breach of contract can sue only for personally suffered loss, a beneficiary's right is to make the
trustee produce trust a ccounts and to restore to the trust fund value lost due to any breaches of trust: T's liability is strict where T did what he was not authorised to do, causation being relevant only where T did badly what he was authorised to do.
8. During the life of a trust the court has an extensive suppor
tive or paternalistic role to play, which is not the case for a contract: the court can confer extra powers on T where expedient in the interest of the beneficiaries, or certify that it is reasonable for T to take or defend legal proceedings so as to ensure legal costs come out of the trust fund, or declare that a course of action proposed by T is within the T's powers.
9. The court also has greater remedial or punitive powers in the case of a trust, relating, for example, to replacing T,
making T produce accounts, making T strictly liable to account for profits made out of use of T's position or of the trust property,
making T or a third party transfer to the trust fund trust property or the traceable product of trust property.
10. Where all the beneficiaries agree, then because they are collective beneficial owner of the trust property, they can terminate the trust and have the trust property distributed to themselves even though the settlor and T oppose this. A contract cannot be terminated without agreement of all the parties.
11. A contract, however, is more flexible than a trust in one respect because it can be utilised for carrying out non-charitable purposes. A trust must be for beneficiaries collectively having the beneficial ownership or for a charitable purpose enforceable
on the public's behalf by the Attorney General or the Charity Commission."

Source of this section: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/students/grad/llm/study/trus...

One of the problems is that the creator of an idea is the source of meaning for their idea. If we go ask the creators of these names can they provide meaning? Nope. Since they haven't provided any meaning, are unable to provide meaning, or ignorant of meaning others are making determinations for what is meant.

Getting back to:

"I claim ownership because it was GIVEN to me ..."

Is that really true? I am not certain that it is. Do parents choose to call you something for your benefit or theirs? Is using the same last name for your benefit, theirs, or both? What is "it." I have described a name as a tool used to identify persons or property. However I think I am in error using the term identify because identity is about sameness. A tool used to distinguish persons or property is likely a better use of language. That definition conveys a function but it lacks purpose (ie. ends sought).

Ends are only knowable by a specific actor pursuing them. Everyone else can only observe the means an actor has employed in order to determine their ends. For instance if one is using a name to profit perhaps it could be determined the ends and reason one is using that name is to acquire wealth. If one is using a name to benefit from it's reputation perhaps it could be determined the ends and reason one is using that name is to acquire power.

Since there is no clear precise meaning from original sources of names and all we can do is endeavor to discern more accurate meaning of names than what is presently being determined.

I have gone on a long winded tangent and not fully answering your question. Partly because I am not omnipotent possessing all the answers and partly because I think language used to describe the phenomenon of names is going to be more akin to language which describes a trust than a contract. I do not necessarily think there is only one beneficiary of a name. For example parents take pride in their children and parents of a famous person can surely benefit from a famous child. However it is not an absolute.

I am a huge fan of fellowship and endeavoring to discern truth in fellowship. What I would propose is a communication medium which enables a back and forth conversation that can include drawings. I think illustration is a convenient tool to describe the phenomenon of relationships. I think names are going to have relationships to other objects and those relationships can be described in terms of interests or bundles of rights. For instance here is a crude drawing off the top of my head:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

I think if the ends are to make any claim regarding a name it is in the best interests of claimants to be able to provide an accurate representation of any and all interests related to the object.

Finally, if a name is a tool used to distinguish persons or property that function is not very useful if one is stranded on an island. It is a function that is useful in a context of many.

Name as a tool

You said in referring to a Name:
"A tool used to distinguish persons or property is likely a better use of language. That definition conveys a function but it lacks purpose (ie. ends sought)."

To further clarify in our current conversation I accept the common language definition from dictionary.com as acceptable:

"a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known."

So with this strictly constructed for my meaning here I will address your other concern of purpose.

I do not believe purpose is completely necessary since we have meaning but my purpose within the context of common law, which I define common law here as law governing the interaction of men (men/women).
Purpose of me- protect my own claimed rights of my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

So we have definition of purpose.

As far proving my claim of "My name is Name" in a court of law several points here:

Claiming my Name to a court of law is within the rule of evidence because I am there making presenting the claim on my own behalf. In a real court of law, the court itself must remain impartial and the fact that I am under oath would mean that any counter claim or objection to my presentation as fact would be required of the other party in the case. Do you think the STATE would object to such a claim? Do you think they would really want to open that can of worms and offer evidence to the contrary? This would be a very dangerous move for them because there would be a very high probability that they would be offering evidence of the fraud that is currently being committed by the men claiming to be the STATE.

Also, as far my claim of ownership this is my understanding and my parents understanding. There are no other parties involved in the interaction of them giving me my name. To address this in an intellectual property perspective they were inspired with the name, their intellectual property, and then they gave it to me. By having all parties involved in the gift of such property with a mutual understanding their can be no other interpretation. Any other party would not have standing to speak on this matter.

I would hope that as a reasonable man on a jury that Occam's razor would prevail here resulting in a beyond all reasonable doubt for this particular claim thus making it fact in law. So far you have demonstrated some abhorrence to this claim and I am really not sure why but I really can't see a jury doubting this fact and I can't see the other party in a court attempting to claim such a thing. Honestly, I think it would be quite shocking for a jury hear such an objection to this claimed fact. Your comments on this would again be appreciated especially what your final determination as a juror would be with the claims I have stated up to this point as I have stated them.

I think maybe you are working too hard here. You took something that is seemingly a simple issue and claim and then went through contracts, trusts etc for something that is, what I perceive as, simple. I think I realize why you are thinking this way but I see no need to make such a complication from such an organic and simple claim.

One thing I hope you will recognize about what I have been trying to do with all of my comments here at DP about these court issues is that I have been trying to remove as much complication from law as possible so that the maximum number of people can discover how to protect themselves when dealing with the psychopathic tyrannical machine claiming to be "government". If concepts in real law are taken to a hugely complex understanding then it will lose many people and the protections of law will seem overwhelming to most people as something inaccessible without spending decades learning.

For those of us who realize and understand the largest aspect of the current confusion, my recommendation is to try to filter out the maximum protections of law with the least amount of knowledge acquisition. This should be our goal. If we can achieve this then we will all be more protected simply from the temporal limitations of the courts themselves having to deal with millions of people confident in questioning the fraudulent claims of criminals claiming to be the State.

Finding the simplest path is why I tried to use the gift of a shirt as an example here of given property to someone who will then claim ownership. Lets establish some hypothetical context for the shirt example and see if things get simpler:

I picked the cotton from a plant I grew from seed. I made the thread from this cotton. I knitted the thread into a shirt and I give this shirt to you by leaving it at your home with a note that says "I give this to you my friend for your to own and you can do with it what you want, your friend Buddy". The note is on paper that dissolves after you read it. You really like the shirt and use the shirt regularly.

How does this scenario fit into your concept of claim of ownership. Do you claim you own this shirt?

This scenario cannot be a valid contract because it lacks the element of consideration. Is this scenario of the shirt logically equivalent to the Name that I have claimed ownership of from a property perspective?. I see no logical difference here from an ownership claim of property point of view other than one is a shirt and one is a name. If there is a logical difference from the gift of property perspective please point out where.

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...

RE: Your comments on this

I agree the goal and final product ought to be reducing concepts, irregardless of complexity, to the simplest form possible for the purpose of maximum communication.

Addressing this scenario:

"I picked the cotton from a plant I grew from seed. I made the thread from this cotton. I knitted the thread into a shirt and I give this shirt to you by leaving it at your home with a note that says "I give this to you my friend for your to own and you can do with it what you want, your friend Buddy". The note is on paper that dissolves after you read it. You really like the shirt and use the shirt regularly.

How does this scenario fit into your concept of claim of ownership. Do you claim you own this shirt?"

I think ownership is a conclusion that is determined based on whether something is justly acquired by a competent party. I could claim I justly acquired the shirt in good faith while competent and argue the only conclusion that can be determined absent any other facts is that I am its just owner. I would prefer to rely upon evidence presented by first hand knowledge of others than my own whenever available.

The next question is who has authority to make such a determination that ought to be enforced? A distinction between a trust and contract.

"Is this scenario of the shirt logically equivalent to the Name that I have claimed ownership of from a property perspective?"

I think in nearly all cases we are talking about names that have been registered in which I would argue a gifted shirt is not a proper analogy because there are more parties. I do not think it is a proper analogy because while one may take possession of the shirt no one except the state takes possession of any original document bearing live signatures relating to any birth registration.

If we are talking about names that have been registered then I am interested in presenting a accurate representation of what is and I believe truth will obtain the best result.

When was the shirt gifted to you? At birth? Were you competent at that time? When did you receive the shirt? Have you ever taken possession of any document bearing live signatures?

Lawful power of Government

Thank you again for the thoughtful response.

I believe I now see the difference between what we are saying here.

You said:
"I think in nearly all cases we are talking about names that have been registered in which I would argue a gifted shirt is not a proper analogy because there are more parties."

I cannot make such a legal determination at the start of a court case as to what name we are talking about. I, as a man, cannot factually claim my Name (First Middle Last) is the registered name by birth registration. The reason I cannot make such a factual claim de novo in any court action is because I have not yet ascertained whether or not the action is one in law. I cannot assume any claims of any other parties as fact. I must first discover who are all parties involved; the plaintiff (assuming we are talking about me being the accused which is all I am referring to here in this thread, alternative to and not equivalent to me being the accuser which is not being addressed here) and the forum (the court). Am I in a court of law? If the forum claims to be a court of law then what capacity are those claiming to be a court of law actually operating under? Do those in capacity of the forum claim to be in a capacity under the State Constitutional Government? If they claim to be under the capacity of the State Constitutional Government, is that State entity they claim the same State under and bound by the US Constitutional Government limits?

Now if the forum claims to be under the line of capacity questioned above then I turn to the Plaintiff's claims. Does the plaintiff claim to be a member(s) of the governed or acting in agency of or claim to be re-presenting on behalf of a principal accuser who is a member of the governed? If they claim to operating under agency or re-presenting their principal accuser then who do they identify as this liable accuser? The only just (lawful) powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed, so if the plaintiff has not claimed to be under agency or re-presenting a liable principal accuser who is identified as a member of the governed then the action is not lawful and the court has no lawful power to hear the case because the court of law has claimed to be the Government and under the law the only time government has a rightful and proper claim to lawful power is when the action is derived from the consent of the governed. Any other claims are not lawful and thus the court has no jurisdiction in the subject matter because no lawful power has been granted to the government for the action to occur. This means there is no registered birth NAME/Name applicable to those proceedings because everything going is NULL because I am not in before a lawful government body to make any such claim to be a person/Citizen or otherwise. I am simply a competent natural man in the presence of other incompetent and confused men. Nothing else is happening at that point other than this confusion of others and no other claims are necessary to address.

In short, there first must be a demonstration of lawful power derived from the consent of the governed for any such forum to actually be a court of law. There is no need and no applicability of any such registration of any Name to be addressed. In other words I am lawful man done with the situation. Any other continued actions, upon my information to them, by such incompetent men would be negligent (or possibly malicious) acts and would be the start of actual injury upon me by seizing my liberty (my time) unlawfully and would give me a valid cause of action and standing for action in law against such negligent or malicious actors.

A Citizen is one who participates in government. Government can only exist when men are acting within the bounds of lawful capacity. Men stepping outside of the lawful bounds of capacity would have voluntarily removed themselves from such lawful capacity and would stand fully liable for their OWN actions.

The next question is who has authority to make such a determination that ought to be enforced?

Hopefully this was satisfactorily answered above. Let me know if you see error here.

You asked:
"When was the shirt gifted to you? At birth? Were you competent at that time? When did you receive the shirt? Have you ever taken possession of any document bearing live signatures?"

The shirt/Name was gifted to me at the point of my parents making the decision to give me that Name, which was actually before I left my mother's womb.

I needed no competence for the gift. It was a gift. It was 'left by them at my doorstep' so to speak here to be accepted or rejected when I became competent to make such an acceptance without mistake.

Documents are not relevant whether they exist or not because I am a man in nature and any legal fictions are not applicable in Nature.

So I hope that I competently answered your questions and demonstrated facts satisfactorily to your understanding within real law.

What say you here, as a juror, hearing the facts presented? Is my logic sound? Have I logically conflicted myself in law?

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...

RE: "the action is derived from the consent of the governed"

There is no law that requires or compels anyone to possess a government identification to exist. Acquisition of a government identification can only be obtained by voluntary consent.

"I cannot make such a legal determination at the start of a court case as to what name we are talking about ... "

You ought to have some idea of the nature of any tool you are using because in almost every case the name captioned came from you. If it is a traffic citation the very first thing a police officer asked was who are you to which most people provide a government identification. If it is a code enforcement citation the name is taken from any deed recorded, which was ultimately provided by you and in most cases from a furnished government identification. If it is a tax matter the name is taken from payroll records established by the submission of a w-2 and i-9 which are verified by a government identification. I could go on ...

I might also have some opinions on your paragraphs about law as far as what constitutes a court, law or equity, etc. and am reserving comment at this time.

Keyword Clarification here "we"

I have identified here what name I am referring to; "Name" (First Middle Last).

At the start of a "case" I cannot make the legal determination as to what name all parties are referring to hence the keyword "we":

"I cannot make such a legal determination at the start of a court case as to what name we are talking about ... "

The other parties may be referring to a different legal status of name than I am referring to. I cannot make any legal determination of the name they are referring to until the claim is made by the other parties. I make no presumptions as to what name or legal status the other parties are referring to because of the fact that I have reasons to believe that the government no longer exists. I need all other's claims demonstrated as fact as I stated before to know beyond all reasonable doubt that the action is actually lawful and performed by lawful government agency.

As far as "government" ID, none will be claimed if proof of lawful action and government capacity is not demonstrated as I stated above.

I hope this helps clarify my statements above here. If more information is needed for further clarification then please let me know.

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...

Excluding the following scenario,

man gets arrested for refusing to provide a name, can you provide an example of a case or hypothetical scenario where the name referred to did not come from you which can be verified by the state producing a witness who will testify you provided the name being referred to?

I am not sure I am following you here

You said"
"man gets arrested for refusing to provide a name"

I do not know of any actual charge on the books for being arrested "for not providing a name" but I have experienced this scenario:

I got arrested (for real) for disorderly conduct after not providing a name and not claiming to be a US Citizen. After a TSA "agent" and DHS Manager blocked my access to a plane for refusing an unlawful search, I requested local airport police to arrest those claimed agents (they explicitly claimed to be under Constitutional capacity) for breach of duty and breach of my peace. I requested the arrest be made by local airport police NOT DHS/TSA and then the local police and DHS/TSA made me leave the airport without performing the arrest as demanded. The local police officers, after refusing to perform the arrest and after I left the scene of the incident, came to me as I was leaving the Airport entrance asked for identification and I said no I don't have to provide you with ID. They then claimed I do because I am being detained and they are conducting an investigation, I repeated that I do not have to provide them with identification and asked on what allegations of actual injury and by whom are they investigating for, they then said are you a US Citizen, and I said I cannot make that legal determination. Then they arrested me.

When they arrested me they searched my stuff and found picture ID of 'my' (supposedly mine not sure because I cannot legally determine if it is mine or the State's or the Fed's or the IMF's with certainty) legal person and charged the person with disorderly conduct. My wife was also with me and she may have said my Name but I am not sure because of the nature of the situation but she was definitely not requesting their services in fact she was requesting they leave me alone and let me be on my way.

When I was taken to jail I demanded to see a Judge immediately due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction for lack of valid cause of action. They refused and told me to sign a bunch of stuff, I refused they said I have to get booked and I refused and demanded to see a judge, they refused and stuck me a cell and basically tortured me into agreeing to get booked by taking my warm clothes and turning down the temperature of the room until compliance was reached about 15 hours later. Before compliance under duress they literally told me that if I don't get booked then I "will die in that cell". They planned on killing me if I didn't consent to being booked. I held out as long as possible and then got booked and bailed out.

I went to arraignment said "My name is Name (First Middle Last) and I am here by special appearance only", Judge said you can't do that here and set a trial date, I objected on the grounds that the court lacked a valid cause of action. Denied objection and set a trial date.

Went to trial and when they performed roll call in the court, I repeated "My name is Name (First Middle Last) and I am here by special appearance only". Asst. DA called over the arresting officer and had a private chat with the officer and then made the officer leave the courtroom. I left the Courtroom and caught the officer in the hall and confirmed that the Asst. DA explicitly told him to leave. Asst DA came and told me he was dropping the charges I told him it was unacceptable and he gave me dismissal papers anyway and I left.

Is this the type of scenario you envisioned. If not clarify what you were seeking and I will try a hypothetical one for debate purposes.

One other thing here. I think I see what you are saying about another "witness" who is testifying. A testifying witness as to hearing me say that My Name is "Name" still does not represent any request for action of the government and it does not state one way or the other what legal status the name is they are referring to. If a witness says that guy told me his name is "Name" this still does not ascertain or claim any legal status of that name.

Here is the thing in all of this. If there is a member of the governed alleging actual injury or harm and they have all required elements in a valid cause of action and a government agent is acting on their behalf then I will happily appear generally to answer to accusations and face my accuser in a court of law as a Citizen status. At that point the court will have jurisdiction and since I am governed by law I will voluntarily appear generally for a trial by a jury of peers and not challenge on any grounds of Name or NAME because the legal status will then be that of a lawful Citizen participating in a lawful government. Any other scenario I will not appear generally and will begin to demonstrate that their claims of any power over me are unlawful.

Let me know if this satisfies the scenario you sought here.

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...

Ok.

So the name used came from something in your possession, which is 9/10 of the law.

Your case resulted in a dismissal which still does not remedy a trespass but one thing lacking at the moment is consistency. Consistency in defense, results, remedy, etc. Some are dismissed, some are not. Of course, I am happy you obtained a dismissal but I am not so much interested in the present phenomenon of some things being dismissed and some not depending on the judge, jurisdiction, etc.

I am following this reply up with a PM.

You always demonstrate your competence in Real Law

You have my total vote of confidence H.A.M.

The answer to your question: "On What Grounds?"

You answered it here:
"But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." -- Matthew 10:19

Instead of quoting the bible though I simply call this Divine Inspiration because I never needed to read the Bible to obtain this same conclusion. I am directly connected to the source of order called God aka NULL.

I recognize your reasoning but Divine Inspiration has informed me that the most simple of all possible avenues welcomes the most into the understanding of this. Too many words and concepts confuses the many.

You truly rock H.A.M. Consider my vote of confidence with you until I notify otherwise which at this point I really can't see happening.

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...

Don't

credit me bro ... it appears I might be comprised of the right kind of clay, the immoral type, that invisible, all powerful, omnipotent, potters work with if you ask them to. I would let you know if this shit is ever molded into something useful but ...

"If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true." -John 5:31

Does that mean my witness

of yourself means your testimony is true??

I cannot assume this to such a humble and wise man as yourself, but if my vote of confidence does count as your other witness I gladly offer my witness to the wisdom you have proven here at DP.

Sincerely and humbly this I offer this to you sir. Keep it up bro.
:)

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...

your quote from Matthew

related to instructions on what to say to followers of Christ arrested for being Christian. That's what it applies to. Context is everything - though for sovereign citizen pretenders, it is there to be abused. It's arguably sacriligious to claim it applies to this dude protesting fishing tickets.

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

RE: "arrested for being Christian"

Ok.

Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil -1 Peter 2:16

So what evil is being performed to justify trespassing against me while I am following the command of Christ to live as a free man?

context

what?

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

cite please

for that Biblical concept.

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

1 Peter 2:16

Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil ...

What part of that do you not understand?

so

you don;t understand the Constitution or legal cites, but you bolster those by out of context Biblical cites? I'm not impressed. Explain what your reasoning is, including the context of those cites. Anyone who has ever attended a decent Bible study knows that you don't "quote mine" the Bible to get truth.

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

Go back to your thread

trying to figure out what to do with a traffic ticket and stop shitting on other threads when everyone knows you do not have anything of substance to offer.

well then I'm in good company!

One can "quote mine" the Bible, take single statements from some translation out-of-context, to mean almost anything.

Subdue the Earth! Hey, God wants us to pollute!

All things are here for Man's use and enjoyment - hey that means you get to have more sex with your pet goat and can smoke as much pot as you want, even to the point of debilitation, all the time!

The Bible, read in whole, in context, which you may or may not have ever done, does not say anything to support freeman/ sovereign citizen theories. Sorry.

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

If it is out of context as you say ... put it in context then

Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil -1 Peter 2:16

So what evil is being performed to justify trespassing against me while I am following the command of Christ to live as a free man?

I am all for being enlightened if there is some hidden meaning in that quote because the meaning of it is not plain as day. You offer no enlightenment or anything of substance to contribute. I could probably find all kind of quotes to mine about fools.

As far as context,

you're not going to like this one bit. Frankly, neither do I. It is in fact one of the most troubling aspects of the Bible.

To see what I am referring to, check out this page:

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/2-17.htm

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

Thank God

it doesn't say honor all titles ...

So what evil is being performed to justify trespassing against me while I am following the command of Christ to live as a free man?

Notice the sounds of crickets by India?

Every time one gets to the meat with the India Pale Ale, nothing but the sound of crickets.

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...

I think I can hear some chirping below.

I will tell you what really cracks me up about the legal profession. We are talking about people who write about unwritten laws in their professional publications:

Beyond the “terse text,” writes Amar, lie doctrines that “support[]
and supplement[]” the document and “fill in its gaps.” These include
“the basic tools and techniques” of interpretation; “the practices, protocols, procedures, and principles that constitute the government”; and other “cherished principles of higher law.” Together, these form America’s “unwritten Constitution,” a set of legal rules that range from the highly unorthodox (including a panoply of evolving and unenumerated rights) to the wholly conventional (supporting the holdings, if not the reasoning, of nearly all of modern American case law).

From a scholar committed to the document over the doctrine, Amar’s commitment to an unwritten constitution might seem surprising. In
other ways, though, it’s perfectly understandable. Most of the important parts of American law, “the basic ground rules that actually govern our land,” really aren’t in the Constitution’s text. And many of the rules that get called “constitutional” (and
so get taught in Con Law classes) aren’t spelled out there either. If
the text is so incomplete, then shouldn’t everyone, even a “hardcore textualist,” start looking outside the Constitution’s four corners?

Of course we should. But once we look beyond the “terse text,” the
first thing we should see is the rest of the law: the vast array of ordinary legal rules that lack constitutional status, yet still play a crucial role in structuring our government and society. Some of those rules are derived from written sources, like statutes, treaties, or regulations. Others are unwritten, like rules of common law, equity, and admiralty. These ordinary rules—unwritten, but also
unmysterious—do much of the gap filling and stabilizing work that might otherwise be attributed to an unwritten constitution

http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19120527&id=I...

Examples of reference to the "unwritten law" can be found throughout the history of the United States but when one discusses things beyond the "terse text" which include "the practices, protocols, procedures, and principles that constitute the government" or 'the important parts of American law, “the basic ground rules that actually govern our land,”' which "really aren’t in the Constitution’s text" what do these clowns say? Where is the citation while at the same time these clowns in their prestigious law journals go on to write about the importance and practice of "unwritten law."

ROFL

I am going to have to keep this one readily on hand.

Shall we petition the India Fail Ale, Extra Crispy Chickenator Rancher, SecretGubermintAgent, DaveisSkeptical to change his account name once again to "Cricket". LOL

:) Still ROFL...

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...

that all you got?

name calling and ad hominems. Noted.

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

Your Biblical reference supports H.A.M.

That is exactly why H.A.M. is a Majesty. He is a king. Just as I. Just as any true American who understands our own divine providence.

Every source you provide supports the position of those who are knowledgeable of our laws and our own equal sovereignty on Earth.

I apologize for the attacks here. This was before your response to my peace offering. My peace offering still stands IF you end the attacks from here on out.

No more "gibberish", No more "retard", No more "delusional".

No more and we shall have peace. Last chance.

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...