Comment: Which is precisely what they are violating

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: 18 USC ss 1342 (see in situ)

Which is precisely what they are violating

If you are unable/unwilling to respond to the following case cite then I'm simply not going to bother arguing with you. You will be outing yourself as a BAR agent.

Do you or do you not agree that "government" is an artificial entity which can only concern itself with contracts... inasmuch as those contracts must be voluntary?

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” ~ Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, (1795);

Would you care to make the claim that I am not "tangible?"

Are you claiming that contracts can be lawfully compelled?

If you are truthful and you agree (by your silence or avoidance) that contracts cannot be compelled and that government must gain consent through contract then pretending to require this subjugation would be a violation of law... which you conveniently left out of your answer: or any other unlawful business

Are you claiming that this precedent has been abrogated?

In case you would accuse me of promoting lawlessness I will go further:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Grand jury is the precise intent of the founders as they wanted to protect liberty. A Grand jury is "of the people." That is how far down the road to tyranny we have come... as people now believe a public servant can arbitrarily pull you off the street - without so much as a piece of paper to proof his delegated power to do so... and throw you in a cage.

This is why when the elites are dealt with... they must be INDICTED first... because they know their rights. You hear about "so and so was indicted" on the news but somehow that does not apply to you. Please tell me BAR member... when did some people become "more equal than others?"