Joined: 2 Jun 2011 Age: 1026 Gender: Male Posts: 1,820 Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
20 Jan 2017, 4:36 am
The forums here are lacking in a Law-Thread/Law-Section. Just because something is named the Law, how-ever, does not actually make it a real Law.
Everybody needs to learn their Legalese in this Day and Age because it WILL affect everybody at some point or another.
1. U.S. Code § 2: The word “county” includes a parish, or any other equivalent subdivision of a State or Territory of the United States.
Legal-Definition : PARISH wrote:
PARISH: In English law. A circuit of ground, committed to the charge of one parson or vicar, or other minister having cure of souls therein. 1 Bl. Comm. 111. Wilson v. State, 34 Ohio St. 190. The precinct of a parish church, and the particular charge of a secular priest Cowell. An ecclesiastical division of a town or district, subject to the ministry of one pastor. Brande.
In New England. A corporation established for the maintenance of public worship, which may be coterminous with a town, or include only part of it.
A precinct or parish is a corporation established solely for the purpose of maintaining public worship, and its powers are limited to that object. It may raise money for building and keeping in repair its meeting-house and supporting its minister, but for no other purpose. A town is a civil and political corporation, established for municipal purposes. They may both subsist together in the same territory, and be composed of the same persons. Milford v. Godfrey, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 91.
If anybody reads the words and definitions enough, and actually looks up the meanings, they will find that the State/Government is actually a Corporate-Religion, from the very legal-definitions themselves!
Unfortunately, I need to cut this post short for now, but I will add to this as time/resources permit(s)...
_________________ Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.
Joined: 26 Aug 2010 Age: 69 Gender: Male Posts: 34,147 Location: temperate zone
20 Jan 2017, 4:55 am
My 9th grade history teacher said "every state in the Union is subdivided into counties except one. In the one state of Louisiana they have the same thing, but instead of calling them "counties" they call 'em "parishes".
So...big hairy friggen deal!
In one state they use a word that originally meant "the geographic jurisdiction of a priest" for a secular political jurisdiction, while the rest just use the secular term. Thats probably a legacy of the fact the Louisiana was colonized by Catholic France, instead by the Anglo Saxon Protestant English who founded the original eastern seaboard 13 colonies. And we all know that those Frenchies do things in funny ways! Lol!
I dont see why you need to make a Federal case out of it!
If anybody reads the words and definitions enough, and actually looks up the meanings, they will find that the State/Government is actually a Corporate-Religion, from the very legal-definitions themselves!
That's not how law works. This isn't leading to that "natural man" stuff, is it?
_________________ Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.
Joined: 2 Jun 2011 Age: 1026 Gender: Male Posts: 1,820 Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
20 Jan 2017, 1:43 pm
That «natural man» stuff ? Are you asking that in the matter of «Judge: "Are you one of those people doing all of that 'freeman' stuff!?»
This is a matter of principle, logic, ethics, morality, integrity, fairness, truthfulness, etc.
As it stands, The United States is defined as a Federal corporation, found in 28 USC § 3002(15)(A).
Amongst the definition of TOWN is written...: «In the New England states, the town is the political unit, and is a municipal corporation.»
Then there is also the fact that all of the the activities of the State/Government are reflective of a Cult/Religion...
Quoting a Statute = Quoting a Verse (Such as From a Bible/Qu'ran) Pleading Guilty to a Statute/Crime = Confessing One's Sins Against a Scriptural-Verse Legislating More Statutes/Codes/Ordinances Into The Books of Legalese = Scribes Writing Books Into Scriptures Upholding The So-Called Law-Book as-if it Were Sacrèd = Treating Any Holy Book as-if it Were Infallible The Court-Room = The Inquisition-Chambre Sentencing & Incarceration = Ex-Communication From Society The Magistrates/Judges Wear a Black Robe = A Pope Who Wears a Black Robe Magistrates/Judges Lay Down the Sentencing = A Pope Declares/Judges the Verdict Against Alleged Sinners Magistrates/Judges Assisted by Bailiffs = Popes/Priests/Clerics Assisted by Deacons Highly Intolerant Against Non-Conformists = Highly Intolerant Against Non-Believing Infidels Forces Taxation Upon Everybody = Collects Tithes From Its Members Ritual Standing/Bowing During Court-Sessions = Ritual Standing/Bowing During Church-Sessions Worships Invisible Entities Called States = Praises Invisible Entities Called Angels Waves a Symbol (Flag) For an Invisible Entity = Waves a Book (Scriptures) Said to be Written by an Invisible Entity Engages in Various Ritualistic Activities (Like Voting) = Engaging in Various Ritualistic Activities (Like Church-Going) Promises Physical-Protection For its Cult-Members = Promises Salvation (Protection From Hell) For its Cult-Members Bunches of Liars (Lawyers) Telling You They're Experts = Modern-Day Versions of Hypocritical Pharisees etc/etc/etc/etc = etc/etc/etc/etc
The etc is for anything else that I did not bother to take the extra time to include in the listings. With that said, when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats like a duck, drinks like a duck, pees like a duck, poops like a duck, flies like a duck, flaps like a duck, waddles like a duck, smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, feels like a duck, acts like a duck, seems to be a duck, appears to be a duck, and is even defined as a duck by any dictionary or encyclopedia, and especially if even the legal-definitions from various law-books explain it as being a duck, then I am absolutely and undeniably going to refer to it as a duck, similarly to how and why I am referring to States/Government as a Corporate-Religion!
Let us now solemnly take our hats off (another ritual that they enforce in court-rooms and many churches), and take a moment to listen to a bit of Larken Rose, for the sake of a modern-day version of messengers/apostles/prophets who annoy the modern-day Pharisees (and their gullible followers) with logic and reasoning, repeating the scenario of people who are not blinded by indoctrinations telling the hypocrites to take the beams out of their own eye!
Adamantium wrote:
Ban-Dodger wrote:
If anybody reads the words and definitions enough, and actually looks up the meanings, they will find that the State/Government is actually a Corporate-Religion, from the very legal-definitions themselves!
That's not how law works. This isn't leading to that "natural man" stuff, is it?
_________________ Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.
Joined: 9 Feb 2007 Age: 64 Gender: Male Posts: 8,980 Location: Santa Cruz , CA , USA
20 Jan 2017, 2:01 pm
...That,s interesting about : boroughs : and Alaska . I never knew that . What about New Yok City,s use of : boroughs : ? The 5 well-known boroughs of NYC also exist as counties .
="Kiprobalhato"]Not just louisiana, alaska isn't divided into counties either. they use boroughs.
and half of it's massive area isn't even contained within an actual, organized borough.[/quote]
_________________ Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(. One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB. " Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go. My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
Joined: 26 Aug 2010 Age: 69 Gender: Male Posts: 34,147 Location: temperate zone
20 Jan 2017, 2:49 pm
ASS-P wrote:
...That,s interesting about : boroughs : and Alaska . I never knew that . What about New Yok City,s use of : boroughs : ? The 5 well-known boroughs of NYC also exist as counties .
="Kiprobalhato"]Not just louisiana, alaska isn't divided into counties either. they use boroughs.
and half of it's massive area isn't even contained within an actual, organized borough.
[/quote]
Yeah. Years after ninth grade I wondered if Alaska had counties like other states, and looked it up in the World Almanac, or some place, and learned that Alaska is divided into - I think that its only- five boroughs. That would mean that each Alaskan borough(by itsself) is (on average) half of the size of Texas! And is twice the size of the average state in the lower 48 contiguous states. Therefore an Alaskan borough is a very different animal from the counties/parishes of the other states.
This is a matter of principle, logic, ethics, morality, integrity, fairness, truthfulness, etc.
No, it's a matter of an obtuse misreading of language.
Ban-Dodger wrote:
As it stands, The United States is defined as a Federal corporation, found in 28 USC § 3002(15)(A).
The link you provide does not define the United States as a Federal corporation.
The link does not say these are authoritative definitions of the listed entities. Instead, it says (at the top) "As used in this chapter:" What this means is that the terms in the list have a variety of specific uses in the specific context of this chapter of the Code.
So, for example, you see "“Court” means any court created by the Congress of the United States, excluding the United States Tax Court." They are not claiming that is what a court is, they are saying "this is how we are using the term "court" in this document."
Likewise,
Quote:
(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Tells you that a Federal Corporation or any agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States, or any instrumentality of the United States may be described as the United States in parts of this document.
This is like saying "Officer Numpty represent the Town of Swinehold" but you are inverting it to mean "The Town of Swinehold is here legally defined as Officer Numpty"
It just doesn't mean what you are claiming.
_________________ Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.
Joined: 2 Jun 2011 Age: 1026 Gender: Male Posts: 1,820 Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
20 Jan 2017, 3:54 pm
Adamantium wrote:
No, it's a matter of an obtuse misreading of language.
Nothing is obtuse about it and as I am someone who is multi-lingual it is clear to me that you do not speak Legalese.
Adamantium wrote:
The link you provide does not define the United States as a Federal corporation.
Yes it does, and then you even go to quote the part where it specifically states «defined» as a Federal corporation, and there are also Articles within Constitutions that define IT as the «Supreme Law» of the Land...
Adamantium wrote:
It just doesn't mean what you are claiming.
Yes it does, for Legalese is a very deceptive language, meaning exactly what you think it does not. Do you understand?
_________________ Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.
This won't get you anywhere in court unless the judge and prosecutor are stupid.
Given the world we live in, there's a good chance of that, but you would be unwise to depend on it.
The legal language is perfectly clear, within reasonable limits.
The section says
Quote:
As used in this chapter: (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
That does not mean "They said the United States is a Federal corporation!"
Your belief that it does is unfounded.
There are multiple Federal corporations. All this language does is say that any place in the code that refers to the United States it may be referring to one of those Federal corporations or some other Federal entity as listed.
When you realize that there are many of them, it may help you to organize your thoughts around the legal language.
Legalese is not that deceptive. It isn't a license to spew nonsense and claim idiosyncratic alternative meanings. Language is a matter of social consensus, and the consensus understanding of this is perfectly clear and not at all what you have been told or otherwise come to believe.
Joined: 2 Jun 2011 Age: 1026 Gender: Male Posts: 1,820 Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
20 Jan 2017, 5:46 pm
The fact that you are making references to «Sovereign Citizens» is CLEAR evidence that are NOT «Legally Competent» to be able to Represent yourself. You go about calling yourself a Sovereign Citizen in Court and of COURSE you're going to be trampled all over for your Ignorance and Incompetence. A Sovereign Citizen is an OxyMoron, for one cannot be a Sovereign Citizen; you are EITHER a Sovereign OR a Citizen but not both simultaneously.
I also have successfully won my own affairs because the Prosecutors and Police ARE stupid; 99% of so-called law-enforcement do notactually know the Law.
P.S.: I have successfully removed charges of speeding from the Court-Records (I was being charged for going 200MPH on the highways of California a few years ago, did not bother to appear in the court-room, then later submitted an Affidavit of Rescission which was not contested, and that Speeding Fine no longer appears on my records).
You refer to my «beliefs» as unfounded when it is actually your «beliefs» that are unfounded. The Courts are not «lawful» courts to begin with; they are ADMIRALTY courts meant ONLY for Military. I also actually HAVE «Law Dictionaries» and I actually LOOK at ALL of the information when possible.
Where exactly are you getting your information? From «mainstream» sources? Really? REALLY? You actually still believe the garbage that is spewed out of those «main-stream» narrations? The year is already two-thousand freaking 17 and you stillbelieve in the «main-stream» narrative of 9/11? The «corporate-controlled» media does NOT put «truth» into «public record» to begin with; but there ARE plenty of court-cases that confirm my claims if you'd actually bother to look beyond the surface-logic of the main-stream.
Adamantium wrote:
(Bunches of Straw-Men)
I am now also going to re-quote myself from elsewhere in regards to ethics/morals/principles/truths/etc.
Ban-Dodger wrote:
When someone hires a hit-man to assassinate another, the employer then becomes guilty of complicity to murder, even if said employer did not kill the victim/target with his own hands personally. A murder is still the crime of murder.
What if the employer were to have the assassin wear a costume, such as a ninja-outfit, does the costume negate the assassination from being a sinful-activity? For there are costumes work by police & military called uniforms.
How about if the employer gave the assassin a shiny badge and a uniform? Does it suddenly change the assassination into a non-murder or non-killing of whomever is being targeted for assassination? Of course not!
What if the employer scribbled down words on a piece of paper in addition to the shiny badge and costume? The paper says that it is legitimate to go ahead and carry out an activity called assassination.
One man wrote onto paper that it's okay, due to calling it legitimate, combined with giving a shiny badge & costume called uniform, when calling it an assassination. Does it change the activity into a non-murder now? No?
How about if the employer got a few of his friends together to sign their names onto that paper in agreement that they all believe that the writings on the piece of paper is legitimate for carrying out an assassination. Does it suddenly change the act of hiring an assassin to assassinate somebody into a non-murder and is no longer a killing? No?
Well how about if the piece of paper was not only signed by a bunch of the employer's friends, but the piece of paper was then also framed with a border, and a «ritual» of «voting» was performed where the employer and all of his friends decided that it's legitimate to carry out an assassination? Does assassination now become a non-murder? No?
What if we take all of the above and then add the word «Lawful» or «Legal» into these pieces of paper in addition to claiming that the «assassination» is for «security» purposes? Does it suddenly turn a killing into a non-killing?
Any «sane» people would see that a killing is a killing, regardless of whether the act of murder has been re-named to capital-punishment or otherwise, and this is the same with any and all of the other crimes that are carried out in the name of whatever false-idol that people worship (such as the «fictitious» gods known as Zeus or Athena, but in modern-day vocabulary, they are now called State of [what-ever-state-here]).
Essentially, a kidnapping is still a kidnapping, even if re-named into an arrest or detainment. Essentially, trafficking of persons is still human-trafficking, even if re-named in taking someone to be jailed. Essentially, hostage-taking is still the holding of hostages, even if re-named to keeping one jailed. Essentially, extortion is still extortion, even if re-named into bail-bonds. Essentially, embezzlement is still larceny, even if re-named into following a court's orders. Essentially, domestic-terrorism is still domestic-terrorism, even if re-named into being a law-suit. Essentially, criminal-activities are still criminal-activities, even if it is called doing one's job (Hello Nazi-America!). Essentially, a cult-religion is still a cult-religion, even if it is given names like States or Governments.
Why then does the world seem to think it is any different from some employer hiring a hitman to cause terrible pain and suffering unto another when tax-payers do exactly the same thing in funding the wages of police & military & politicians & lawyers (i.e.: liars) who engage in daily acts of kidnapping, human-trafficking, hostage-taking, extortion, larceny/embezzlement, money-laundering, perjury, frauds, concealment-of-frauds, violations of human/civil/natural-rights, domestic-terrorism, international-terrorism, invasions, interference, cruel-and-unusual punishments, persecution, etc? For there is NO difference.
_________________ Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.
Joined: 5 Apr 2008 Age: 49 Gender: Male Posts: 2,432
20 Jan 2017, 6:01 pm
A very long time ago, a now forgotten presidential candidate named Michael Dukakis noted of his opponent, George HW Bush, that "a fish rots from the head first". That means that if the "head" of an organization is corrupt, it will filter down. Today, the global elites are effectively above the law. In such a world, where only "the little people" are subject to the law, the law being whatever the elite says it is, it's inevitable that some people will say "hey, if the law doesn't apply to George Soros, why should it apply to me?" The "Sovereign Citizen" or "Freemen Of The Land" movement has its roots in the basic fact that a tiny elite has hoarded all the world's wealth for themselves, and thus take pleasure in tormenting their "inferiors". Lawlessness begets lawlessness. The head of the fish is rotten, and the tail has taken note. All the rest is just details.
20 Jan 2017, 4:36 am
