paperwork, common law, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dictionary, inalienable/unalienable rights, freeman, human, sovereign, acts, statutes, legislation & so on, are they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?....type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com
If anyone is looking for this Dvd I have it for sale and many other mind Blowing Dvds on Law and Metaphysics you can contact me @ geminieast77@yahoo.com I will make it affordable , Please copy them and share always help others geminieast11
why aren't you looking into it....oh let me think, you wouldn't know where to begin, try Blackstone's commentaries on english law...or is that BS too?
@RetSquid You better read invisible contracts by George Mercier, in fact you better do so much study, cos you are way behind. here's a list for you, commercial law, contract law, trust law, and while you are at it, tax law, enjoy your life, i blocked you and i will not be answering any more of your posts here, mainly cos you are a waste of time, and i have much more important things going on in my life, which are all non-statutory ;^)
Oh, did I confuse you with a misplaced "n"? You are about stupid with your list of BS comments. You still can't post anything that proves your point, even Black's can't help you.
We know for fact all public servants are criminals because they enforce or create legislation created to rule the people which is created in fraud. The title means nothing because the amendments are all created in fraud which they try to hide by calling it the Bill of Rights.
Well if it's a bill that means it's legislation and they do not have the authority to enact our rights either.
At the time, Amend/Amendment meant correct or revise what is written, not create or add a new component.
@tazzym1 I hear you, I meant no disrespect using the word Black, after watching more of his videos I see what he means by it. I agree that big governments are corrupt, I find his viewpoint very interesting. I hear some of his points from alot of other people. I really like to talk to Taj Tariq Bey. Peace to you also my friend
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That is the 10th Amendment. They can just put your ass up in a car and drive you to the state line and drop your ass off and let the other State deal with you and Federal Law does not apply.
@akmrmike I think it matters not what Colour people are, its the important message in the video that ALL people need to see - I live in the UK and have forwarded this video to my friends to help them see what kind of corrupt society we ALL find ourselves in today - I dont want to fight anyone, whats the point? We ALL need each other to survive this world - Peace my friend & be happy :)
@mrtruthify i was researching this same info, came to this video unplanned, this is right on time..
what law, as taj states national law and international law.. what law states tht evidense must be entered into a record before the national piers? ie. what law states that a non sovereign[not in proper person] can sit the bench on our land? ie. a barrister can not sit as as judge.. etc.. is that canon law?
Maritime Admiralty law.. is not law. It's regulations for COMMERCE (TRANSACTIONS), which is why 'they' must always identify the lawful human being as the 'person' (Legal Fiction); which is why the first thing a judge (admin) asks you is.. "IS YOUR NAME SO AND SO."
The second you identify with the ALL CAPITAL LETTER FICTION (person), you create joinder with the 'person' (you become the fiction/'person') & then go UNDER their COMMERCIAL jurisdiction.
@mrtruthify in specific. a barr member cant sit the bench. where can i find that so i may enter it into the record.. a cobb county ga. judge that is still a member of the barr, has a law firm, and is acting in behavior. what document can i refer to that address that aspect. is it ga. cannon law? the constitutional qualification of the judges? what can i reference to state that status, and venue must be established before adjudication? according to international law, what international law?
@muptahu24 I see what you're asking now. You need some references, citations etc to enter into evidence. You want to know who can sit on the bench & who cannot. Remember this though.. in regards to your question: Law only applies to the society which created it.. IE, the BAR Association (Society) [in other words IF you have BAR (Masonic) members creating laws.. those laws only apply to BAR members]. I'd be glad to help you rout out this (Masonic) viper.
JK.. BUT I AM HAVING A BLAST SHATTERING YOUR SMALL.. PROGRAMMING!
ADVICE 101.. YOU ARE A DEBT SLAVE INA CORPORATION.. FACE THE FACTS.. YOUR HAVE NO "GOVERNMENT" (WHICH IS WHY THEY CALL IT A "DEMOCRACY" NOW) AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER CLAIMED ANY.
THATS RIGHT.. THE WORLD IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE TV AND YOUR MASS MEDIA PUBLICATIONS. AND YOUR GOVERNED BY A CORPORATOCRACY OF JEWISH BANKERS WHO ALLOW YOU TO BORROW THEIR CURRANCY.
You are totally CLUELESS!! Not a single argument you have given stands up to the slightest scrutiny, anyone with a basic understanding of law can debunk everything you say!
All caps here has no meaning either, it just proves you are getting out of control when you lose arguments.
LOL.. IM ACTUALLY LAUGHING.. HAVING A GREAT TIME WITH YOU BUT I DO HAVE TO GO EAT A LATE DINNER IN A MINUTE.
"In 1938 the US Supreme Court (Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64) changed our justice system from one of public LAW to one of public POLICY and determined that everything is in Commerce. That took away our Constitutional rights replacing them with corporate
government rules and regulations. Governments and courts are not real governments and courts; they are corporate fictions."
Wrong. All laws in the U.S. are based on Common Law. Most Statutes are Common Law codified.
Do you know what Common Law is? It is also know as Case Law, "judge made" law, and it is based on legal precedents. It has nothing to do with a specific court.
@RetSquid yes, u have, i admit you know everything about law, which is why you can cite your claims everytime, superficially that is. Common law, for your information, has been 'enacted' into statute, and is based on precedents that may influence a case, but that ,may not be the full determination, not to mention the broad question of Equity jurisdiction on the matters.
@RetSquid How can that which is created from be superior to it's creator? Anyone may renounce a law that is for his own benefit, that's what's called a maxim of law, the very foundation of what law is based upon.
"The maxim “is an aid to construction, not a rule of law. It can never override clear and contrary evidences of Congressional intent.” Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88 (1940).
@RetSquid an aid as to the construction of what exactly...why, to the law of course, god you contradict yourself, don't you see that, and it buries your arguements.
@RetSquid American jurisprudence is directly derived from English law, and English law is made up of two law forms, English common law, which is unwritten law, and Civil law which is directly derived from Roman Civic Law, brought to England by William the Conqueror. Therefore it simply follows that American jurisprudence has adopted both of the styles of law from English law which contains the two seperate, thought parallel law forms aforesaid, including Equity law.
Yes Roman Law, which we do not live under, but some priciples we use, "capitis diminutio maxima" not being one of them. And even in Roman times "capitis diminutio maxima" had nothing to do with capital letters.
@RetSquid So, which case uses other than all caps, as u seem to think that your senate is any different from the roman senate...u need to do so much work bro, all the best with that...i'll give u a little hint as to what the US is, recently Obama addressed Westminster Hall in the City of Westminster, and he addressed the attendees starting with 'My Lord Chancellor'. you had a republic, you lost it, Obama is the british agent running the US, DoT are the receivers to the bankruptcy, u got ownd bro
See, now you are getting off topic and into the real crazy-wacko-CT crap. You talk about the law, and then post THIS!? What happened to the law? What law says anything about this?
How about you stay on topic and not expose your delusion ramblings?
@RetSquid So there are no cases that use other than all caps, is what you're saying, you have nothing to back your arguement up, just a load of statutory gobbledeegook, written by law makers into their statute books from cases heard in rem, which deals in things, and those things, shud u further yourself into law, are indeed intangible, and body politic.
You're running around king of a pool of statutes, that have only cases to fall upon for their validity, they are of the state.
Respond to this video... Pray tell, what is the reason for Article 73 of the UN Charter on self governing bodies, can't people be one? Do people have to be incorporated into corporations to be recognised in the corporate law system?
@RetSquid The all caps version of your name is called your legal name, it is seperate from both your given name, and your family name. the reason it becomes a legal name is that now it has legal connotations, as it has been incorporated, you ninkompoop, i suggest you grow up and read something other than statutory law for dummies
Of course court cases have meaning...that is waht Common Law is...centuries of court cases. It is also how I know that capital letters have no legal meaning, because of the number of court cases that say so. Have you ever seen a court case that says capital letters HAVE a special legal meaning?
@RetSquid deriving, what does that mean? who grants the 'deriving'? allowed or permitted to what law exactly? there are many, many laws, statutory law is what legal jurisdictions are based upon, but they are by no means the full body of law, they are mere enactments of it. what of conflicts of law? are conflicts of law legal?
Derive: To obtain or receive from a source. What "conflicts of law" are you talking about? A conflict between laws? Probably the most recent. What does this have to do with your BS "capital letters"?
@RetSquid Conflicts of law, in law, is referred to as private international law, and there my friend, you will find the law in it's entireity, all outside of statute (state law). As it pertains also to the grammar and comprehension used in both written, spoken and intents of action, in law. Which is why words and wording are so important. This is how the term Jurisdiction found itself as being the correct term, as juris means law, and diction means word, to the letter of the law. sans diminitio.
@RetSquid of course it does, just because you are unaware of it, you better check further into the history of law, and see that a capitalised word diminishes the capacity...it's stems from Roman Civil Law.
@RetSquid Where do you think the americans and british got their civil law from? u'd better read maitland's masterpiece on the history of english law before edward the 1st, FYI he was a downing professor of law at cambridge university, one of the first universities on the planet. I think it is you who needs to read more into the law, and step outside the box a little, it's cramming your brain into believing you know it all.
Yes...derived FROM...we don't use Roman Law, nor does Roman law "capitus maximus diminitio" have anything to do with capital letters. "Capitus" is refering to the PERSON being diminished...If you take it literally, then lower case names would mean something, not upper case names.
"“To the extent that the mere usage of a boldface font or all capital letters may be considered a misspelling of plaintiff’s name -- a proposition which the court seriously doubts -- it is an error which is purely technical in nature. In some instances, the law will not countenance technical errors. However, the misspelling of a party’s name on a pleading or filing in an action in a United States District Court is not one of those instances."
@RetSquid Check the docketts, they're all caps, they CAN'T use lower case, and there's reasons for this. the constitution is built on foundations of law that brought about the state, therefore something must've existed prior to that, no?
They don't use title case letters, it helps in preventing misunderstandings.
"I believe that not only is this case subject to dismissal .... but it is also subject to sanctions under Rule 11. Making a distinction between all-capital letters and capital and small letters is frivolous."
"The use of all-caps to set off the names of principals or parties in legal documents is very old, predating the use of typewriters, perhaps to make the names all the more conspicuous in a document otherwise entirely written in copperplate script at a time when a large part of the general public could barely read block lettering."
Respond to this video... So we agree there must be a source for statute to 'derive' from then, are we also in agreement that the source for statutory law is the rule of law, or maybe you can enlighten me as to the source?
@RetSquid Trust law, I said here and in the messages i sent to you, look at specifically the judicature acts, and what took place then, and look to the statute of uses of 1536, and look to the court of the exchequer/court of equity, all conveniently and deeply buried within statute for the specific purpose of con-troll. use archive dot org, they have many, many books on law and the history of it, including FW Maitland.
@RetSquid says you, but you're an idiot, so, that fails to give your claim any foundation or substance. Have u looked what's going on in the world lately, pull your head outta your fanny ffs!
I leave it to the readers of these posts to judge that. I have no doubt that any thinking person would agree that you are not a debater and couldn't win a debate with first-grader.
@RetSquid you are obviously focusing on the finger, and missing all the heavenly glory...the state's statute's are far from the full body of law, they are enactments, i stand by my claim cos u fail to understand them, they are out of con-text for u as u only compute statutes as being the law. they are for state's, cities and counties, not people, the law for people is the law of trusts, the king in darnell's case thought he had supreme right by charging 5 knights for taxes, he failed, as do u!
WOW!! No wonder you lost this debate. IO asked for ANY proof of your claim, you didn't post a single thing to support it, you just post the equivelent of ''cus I told you so." The King WON that case because he was above any court he appointed. Statues are Common Law that has been codified, they are for everyone. Don't use WIKI as the source for your knowlege base.
Tinker v de moines, again show how the state, this case a state supported school, assumes jurisdiction where it has none. The people give the constitutions to the govt's as a body of law to follow for their govt dealings, the people are the trustors, the govt's the trustees, the constitution the res, the appointment is the power, the declaration, is the declaration of independence from the former trustee, the king of england...your statutes are regulatory for bodies corporate. UDoHR. man is free
Man, this is sad...I hope there are very few of you legally ignorant people out there.
That case in Tinker had nothing to do with any jurisdiction, it was about overstepping authority, the school and the court HAD jurisdiction over the students, otherwise there would have been no case for you to cite.
Until you RE-claim these rights.. you have NO human rights (which is why they can sentance you to death, imprison you, tax you etc etc etc).
Every time you SIGN something.. you sign your human common law rights away for "Permissible rights", meaning you have permission to use them & they can be taken away anytime the grantor wishes.. like when they want to throw you in a prison cell or torcher you in Guantanamo..
I need to know how the statues that i should study in my email and how can i conduct business when corporations just about own everything, without social security numbers and drivers licenses. Once those things are taught to me then its on! Somebody in the moor society please contact me. Thank you!
The Constitution binds the States and the Federal Government to certain things. In this case, you can't sue the city for violating the 'takings' clause of the U.S. Constitution.
You might wish to learn about trust law and corporate personhood.. which is why your "driving licence", SS card, Birth certificate, utility bills etc etc etc ALL have your "NAME" in CAPITAL LETTERS.
And if they have no meaning to you.. thats fine. You keep paying your taxes for your person & driving with your license etc etc.. while I travel anywhere I want with peace officer approval & never pay a fraudulent penny. "Legal" & LAWFUL kid.
You just copy and paste from other videos that have been debunked long ago. All cap names have Zero legal meaning.
"...because the manner in which plaintiff’s name is spelled, printed, or punctuated on filings in this case does not, in the court’s view, impact on the substance of the pleadings, the court denies plaintiff’s motions to strike as meritless.”
Income taxes are for "individuals", which are defined as "human beings" in the law. "Legal" and "lawful" are nearly synonomous. You can travel where you wish, but you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license, go look at the law.
@KeitaThe1 U won't find remedy in statute...u can study the UCC and the UTC and the UPC, they're all based on International Law, which is what you should be looking at.
Maybe if someone first tells you something (serves you a fact; fact does not mean truth, it is just something someone says, basically) and then asks you if you understand, then it is like a professor (who professes, look into it) asks if you subject to his authority on the matter; answering "yes" will establish that authority and he stands over you.
It may be better to say "I think I see what you mean".
"understanding" and "standing under" have no linguistic connection.
Understand: O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-).
Your "dictionary" definitions are useless and for mass consumptiion.. they have no use or value within reality & law.
To "understand" IS to stand-under (eg, a jurisdiction).
So believe whatever you wish.. but the next time a judge (Admin) or a police "officer" (quite different than a PEACE officer) asks 'do you understand'? And you reply: 'well yes your highness, honor, majesty, greatness', you deal with it because you WERE warned.
Nice try, but the FCC, CIA and NASA didn't even exist when Strang was decided and it had nothing to do with theFBI. Lewis v. US, just says that the Federal Reserve Banks are not part of the Government of the U.S.
Do you REALLY want me to continue to show how you are lying?
You haven't proven anything but your worthless, uneducated opinion.
You haven't even the slightest clue the difference between Legal and Lawful.. I don't waist time on lumps. Figure it out or dont..
You wana run around acting as your person.. go ahead.. I prefere my human rights and use my person for transactions. No one is focing you to believe anything. Do what you will smart guy.
Me.. I'm heading out in my unlicensed, unregistered car for a cool trip in the breeze..
Summary of the rights & freedoms of the below "persons":The human-being has all the unalienable rights & freedoms as provided by God.The natural-person has the rights & freedoms as provided by man with the Magna Charta & Bill of Rights.The quasi natural/artificial-person has lost some rights. The corporation/artificial-person has limited rights & freedoms as provided by the creator of the Corporation.The Nom de Guerre (name of war) has no rights & freedoms & is a complete
You sir.. quite simply are either a shill or an idiot.. I'm not sure which.. a Gov shill I think. Why els would a complete stranger waist so much time trying to convince others the illusion is real?
Reality 101
Capitalization:
There are five different levels of capitalization used in names of "persons"
“Defendant Glenn Stinson purports to be confused as to whether the Government’s complaint in this proceeding is directed at “Glenn Stinson and Naomi Stinson” or against “GLENN STINSON and NAOMI STINSON.” The difference between the fully capitalized and the first-letter capitalized versions of the Defendants’ names is immaterial, and provides no defense to the claims asserted by the Government.”
A book has been prepared in cooperation with the Canadian Government to define the writing "styles" to be used in Canadian English, as well as by lawyers. The book is entitled The Canadian Style (ISBN 1-55002-276-8). According to Chapter 4 in this book, and specifically Section 4.03, Personal Names are to have the first letter capitalized only, such as John Doe. In Section 4.13
Capiutal letters are used to prevent misunderstanding over certain letters like "I" (i) and "l" (L). this goes back to a time when everything was hand written, capital letters made the documents easier to read.
We say this is deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps. They are deliberately not following their own recognized authorities & by identifying their own gov entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is also intended to be a legal fiction. at this point, unknown jurisdiction.
@RetSquid I dont have to tie it together for you.. I LIVE this stuff partner! I know its real because I live it in court & everday in trust law!
You can argue & rationalize whatever you wish.. there is plenty of legal garbage out there to confuse the unthinking masses but in reality common law is the only law.
Tell ya what.. you find me ONE SINGLE Legal government document that asks for a signature & calls a man or woman a human being.. in use today.. and I'll concede. If not.. you fail.
Sec. 8. "Person", "human being", "child", and "individual" as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
I cited the LAW, which would supercede any instrument you want to see. Why don't you cite anything that supports your claims? Real citations, not a quote from a grammar book.
And ANYO NE who has the slightest clue about legalities and law learn in the first week of school NOTHING is for no reason in a legal document. Every letter, word and dot MUST be precise or can be dismissed.
Wrong. Talking about capital letter names: "In some instances, the law will not countenance technical errors. However, the misspelling of a party’s name on a pleading or filing in an action in a United States District Court is not one of those instances." Cris Timothy, Hillman v. Secretary of Treasury
You goof.. ever wonder why they call you a "party" or a voter or a consumer or an infant or a tax payer or a 'person' or all the other shite but never a HUMAN BEING?
C'mon.. seriously.. how much can one tell themselves before theyre flat out lying to themselves?
Wow, the FIRST actual, legal source of information!!!
Yes, the U.S. is a corporation, just like all of the cities, towns, counties, etc. it is also a Country and a group of States....did you have a point to this?
I've probably been living under common law longer than you've been alive and I've never lost a court case. You should wake up.. the air is wonderful over here within reality. We have no fraudulent games.. every human being has the same rights.. no one has power over the others. It's a system of rights and duties, VS your 'permissible rights', meaning they can be taken away from you at any time; which is why you can be executed or thrown in a cell, unlike me (unless I break the LAW).
BWAHAHAHAHAH.. THE LITTLE SHEEP IS WAKING UP.. HE'S ADMITTED HIS "COUNTRY" IS GONE AND HAS BEEN BANKRUPTED 200 YEARS AGO AND IS NOW A CORPORATION.. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!
This has been flagged as spam show
paperwork, common law, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dictionary, inalienable/unalienable rights, freeman, human, sovereign, acts, statutes, legislation & so on, are they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?....type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com
Harv7340 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If anyone is looking for this Dvd I have it for sale and many other mind Blowing Dvds on Law and Metaphysics you can contact me @ geminieast77@yahoo.com I will make it affordable , Please copy them and share always help others geminieast11
geminieast11 3 months ago
why aren't you looking into it....oh let me think, you wouldn't know where to begin, try Blackstone's commentaries on english law...or is that BS too?
colocolopity 6 months ago
(3) by severance from the agnatic family. This entails capitis deminutio minima.” Rudolph Sohm,
capitalization,n.1. The act or process of capitalizing or converting something into capital. 2.
The amount or sum resulting from this act or process. 3. The total amount of long-term financing
used by a business, including stocks, bonds, retained earnings, and other funds. 4. The total par
value or stated value of the authorized or outstanding stock of a corporation.
colocolopity 6 months ago
CAPITE MINUTIS.
“Capitis deminutio is the destruction of the ‘caput’ or legal personality. Capitis deminutio, so
to speak, wipes out the former individual and puts a new one in his place, and between the old and
the new individual there is, legally speaking, nothing in common. A juristic personality may be
thus destroyed in one of three ways: (1) by loss of the status libertatis. This is the capitis
deminutio maxima; (2) by loss of the status civitatis. This is the capitis deminutio media (magna
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Did you notice that Black's didn't say a single thing about capitalization of names?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid It's implied, if you really knew law, like you assume you do, then you would know this...i'm afraid you're simply subject to statutii :^)
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
So it's not REALLY there it's just IMPLIED?!?!? Yep, you're nuts.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid You better read invisible contracts by George Mercier, in fact you better do so much study, cos you are way behind. here's a list for you, commercial law, contract law, trust law, and while you are at it, tax law, enjoy your life, i blocked you and i will not be answering any more of your posts here, mainly cos you are a waste of time, and i have much more important things going on in my life, which are all non-statutory ;^)
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
good, now i don't have to respond to your absolute BS ideas. :)
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid You couldn't anyhow...capital ;)
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Oh look, more BS from an VERY ignorant coward.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid an very, what kind of english is that...fucktard
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Oh, did I confuse you with a misplaced "n"? You are about stupid with your list of BS comments. You still can't post anything that proves your point, even Black's can't help you.
RetSquid 6 months ago
We know for fact all public servants are criminals because they enforce or create legislation created to rule the people which is created in fraud. The title means nothing because the amendments are all created in fraud which they try to hide by calling it the Bill of Rights.
Well if it's a bill that means it's legislation and they do not have the authority to enact our rights either.
At the time, Amend/Amendment meant correct or revise what is written, not create or add a new component.
BillofFrauds 6 months ago
@BillofFrauds how are they all crims, they're just fictions
colocolopity 6 months ago
how can i get a copy of this video
snifferdoggy01 6 months ago
@snifferdoggy01 use keepvid dot com
colocolopity 6 months ago
ahahahahhaaa! steal your dog's food.. and take your grandma's lunch money lol
777Aharon 8 months ago
peace mo
jnixongo00 8 months ago
@tazzym1 I hear you, I meant no disrespect using the word Black, after watching more of his videos I see what he means by it. I agree that big governments are corrupt, I find his viewpoint very interesting. I hear some of his points from alot of other people. I really like to talk to Taj Tariq Bey. Peace to you also my friend
akmrmike 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That is the 10th Amendment. They can just put your ass up in a car and drive you to the state line and drop your ass off and let the other State deal with you and Federal Law does not apply.
faalkon5 10 months ago
Can anyone tell me who he is?
1991GIFT 10 months ago
@1991GIFT Taj Tariq Bey is his name
colocolopity 6 months ago
I wish all black people would watch this video, We need them to help us get The United States back. The Feds want us fight each other.
akmrmike 10 months ago 2
@akmrmike I think it matters not what Colour people are, its the important message in the video that ALL people need to see - I live in the UK and have forwarded this video to my friends to help them see what kind of corrupt society we ALL find ourselves in today - I dont want to fight anyone, whats the point? We ALL need each other to survive this world - Peace my friend & be happy :)
tazzym1 10 months ago
@akmrmike - Many are aware TPTB have been attempting to start a race war for decades, however the people
who are awake the people will win this time and establish peace..the Elites will loose, let us see to it!
ngonea 9 months ago
@akmrmike No Comment
AC1717171717 9 months ago
@AC1717171717 Is that a good No Comment or a bad No Comment?
akmrmike 9 months ago
what contract is to reference that it stipulates that status and venue must be established, and what qualifies a judge 's correct status
muptahu24 10 months ago
@muptahu24
Just send me a private message and I'll give you what you need.
If you PM me.. I need to know the 'legal' name of the area you reside in (as in GA, USA).
Or go here: 1215.org/lawnotes/index(dot)html
and here: freedompool(dot)org
Look around.. ask questions etc. You'll find quite a lot in those two places..
The short answer is.. we have no actual "judges" (we have executive administrators) right now in America because we have no real common law courts.
mrtruthify 10 months ago
The united states of America (note lower case, emphasis added) was
Incorporated in the 'Act of 1871' (now refered to as the "UNITED STATES" or
"United States", (note capitalization, emphasis added). *Bankruptcy was
declared twice. In the *second (corporate) "U.S." Bankruptcy (1950), the
*Secretary of Treasury (Peurto Rico) was appointed "Receiver" for the
bankrupt U.S. Coorporation in *Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903,
Public Law 94-564, "Legislative History," page 5967)
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify i was researching this same info, came to this video unplanned, this is right on time..
what law, as taj states national law and international law.. what law states tht evidense must be entered into a record before the national piers? ie. what law states that a non sovereign[not in proper person] can sit the bench on our land? ie. a barrister can not sit as as judge.. etc.. is that canon law?
muptahu24 11 months ago
I'm not sure of your exact question but..
Maritime Admiralty law.. is not law. It's regulations for COMMERCE (TRANSACTIONS), which is why 'they' must always identify the lawful human being as the 'person' (Legal Fiction); which is why the first thing a judge (admin) asks you is.. "IS YOUR NAME SO AND SO."
The second you identify with the ALL CAPITAL LETTER FICTION (person), you create joinder with the 'person' (you become the fiction/'person') & then go UNDER their COMMERCIAL jurisdiction.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify in specific. a barr member cant sit the bench. where can i find that so i may enter it into the record.. a cobb county ga. judge that is still a member of the barr, has a law firm, and is acting in behavior. what document can i refer to that address that aspect. is it ga. cannon law? the constitutional qualification of the judges? what can i reference to state that status, and venue must be established before adjudication? according to international law, what international law?
muptahu24 10 months ago
@muptahu24 I see what you're asking now. You need some references, citations etc to enter into evidence. You want to know who can sit on the bench & who cannot. Remember this though.. in regards to your question: Law only applies to the society which created it.. IE, the BAR Association (Society) [in other words IF you have BAR (Masonic) members creating laws.. those laws only apply to BAR members]. I'd be glad to help you rout out this (Masonic) viper.
I suggest you send me a Private Message
mrtruthify 10 months ago
LOLOLL
You are a goofy one arent you..
Well.. I say your a government shill comitting treason for your corporate masters.
I'm outta here.. no point in waisting more time on someone who loves to rant about and create joinder with their 'person..
Hey... ever wonder why those "constitutional rights are taken away and trampled so much these days? LOL.. You recodnize your person as yourself! LOL..
Enjoy those permissible rights fella..
I'm livin it up.. soverign style!
mrtruthify 11 months ago
YOU'RE DEBUNKED!
AHAHAHHHHHHAAHHH..
JK.. BUT I AM HAVING A BLAST SHATTERING YOUR SMALL.. PROGRAMMING!
ADVICE 101.. YOU ARE A DEBT SLAVE INA CORPORATION.. FACE THE FACTS.. YOUR HAVE NO "GOVERNMENT" (WHICH IS WHY THEY CALL IT A "DEMOCRACY" NOW) AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER CLAIMED ANY.
THATS RIGHT.. THE WORLD IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE TV AND YOUR MASS MEDIA PUBLICATIONS. AND YOUR GOVERNED BY A CORPORATOCRACY OF JEWISH BANKERS WHO ALLOW YOU TO BORROW THEIR CURRANCY.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
You are totally CLUELESS!! Not a single argument you have given stands up to the slightest scrutiny, anyone with a basic understanding of law can debunk everything you say!
All caps here has no meaning either, it just proves you are getting out of control when you lose arguments.
RetSquid 11 months ago
LOL.. IM ACTUALLY LAUGHING.. HAVING A GREAT TIME WITH YOU BUT I DO HAVE TO GO EAT A LATE DINNER IN A MINUTE.
"In 1938 the US Supreme Court (Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64) changed our justice system from one of public LAW to one of public POLICY and determined that everything is in Commerce. That took away our Constitutional rights replacing them with corporate
government rules and regulations. Governments and courts are not real governments and courts; they are corporate fictions."
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Where exactly in that case does it say that? I can tell you right now that it doesn't, so you are lying AGAIN...or is it just "STILL"?
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid So what's Public policy then?
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Which public policy from which public? In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins the Court decided that only a State's
Common Law would be used to decide cases, not any Federal Common Law.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid State's don't use common law, unless a superior court, a court of record is convened.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Wrong. All laws in the U.S. are based on Common Law. Most Statutes are Common Law codified.
Do you know what Common Law is? It is also know as Case Law, "judge made" law, and it is based on legal precedents. It has nothing to do with a specific court.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Now i know you have no clue as to what's going on, good luck with your studies, you're gonna need it :^)
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Glad to see I've posted things beyond your understanding. Go read something about this before you post BS.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid yes, u have, i admit you know everything about law, which is why you can cite your claims everytime, superficially that is. Common law, for your information, has been 'enacted' into statute, and is based on precedents that may influence a case, but that ,may not be the full determination, not to mention the broad question of Equity jurisdiction on the matters.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Common law is that law which has NOT been enacted into Statutes. Statutes come after, and are superior to Common Law.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid How can that which is created from be superior to it's creator? Anyone may renounce a law that is for his own benefit, that's what's called a maxim of law, the very foundation of what law is based upon.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Really? Where did you find that 'maxim'?
"The maxim “is an aid to construction, not a rule of law. It can never override clear and contrary evidences of Congressional intent.” Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88 (1940).
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid an aid as to the construction of what exactly...why, to the law of course, god you contradict yourself, don't you see that, and it buries your arguements.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Is English not your first language? TYes, maxims are ann AID to the construction of a law...it is not a law itself.
Still waiting for any legal basis for your claims....and ancient Roman Law nor WIKI counts.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid American jurisprudence is directly derived from English law, and English law is made up of two law forms, English common law, which is unwritten law, and Civil law which is directly derived from Roman Civic Law, brought to England by William the Conqueror. Therefore it simply follows that American jurisprudence has adopted both of the styles of law from English law which contains the two seperate, thought parallel law forms aforesaid, including Equity law.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
And no law written or unwritten, says anything about capital letters meaning anything like you claim.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid yes it does, Roman Law, this is becoming circular now. Bye!
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Yes Roman Law, which we do not live under, but some priciples we use, "capitis diminutio maxima" not being one of them. And even in Roman times "capitis diminutio maxima" had nothing to do with capital letters.
Your arguments run in circle of your own making.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid So, which case uses other than all caps, as u seem to think that your senate is any different from the roman senate...u need to do so much work bro, all the best with that...i'll give u a little hint as to what the US is, recently Obama addressed Westminster Hall in the City of Westminster, and he addressed the attendees starting with 'My Lord Chancellor'. you had a republic, you lost it, Obama is the british agent running the US, DoT are the receivers to the bankruptcy, u got ownd bro
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
See, now you are getting off topic and into the real crazy-wacko-CT crap. You talk about the law, and then post THIS!? What happened to the law? What law says anything about this?
How about you stay on topic and not expose your delusion ramblings?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid So there are no cases that use other than all caps, is what you're saying, you have nothing to back your arguement up, just a load of statutory gobbledeegook, written by law makers into their statute books from cases heard in rem, which deals in things, and those things, shud u further yourself into law, are indeed intangible, and body politic.
You're running around king of a pool of statutes, that have only cases to fall upon for their validity, they are of the state.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Have you ever been examined for mental illness? None of your claims are supported in any way by anything you have posted.
Still waiting for first posting of any facts to support your caim.
RetSquid 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Pray tell, what is the reason for Article 73 of the UN Charter on self governing bodies, can't people be one? Do people have to be incorporated into corporations to be recognised in the corporate law system?
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
We are not debating the U.N. charter, you are trying to prove that a capital letter name takes away your rights.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid The all caps version of your name is called your legal name, it is seperate from both your given name, and your family name. the reason it becomes a legal name is that now it has legal connotations, as it has been incorporated, you ninkompoop, i suggest you grow up and read something other than statutory law for dummies
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Yeah, you keep claiming that an all caps name is different than a title caps name...BUT YOU DON'T POST ANY PROOF!
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid the proof is in the negative, as there isn't any, cos they're in all caps...sheesh
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
AHH, a "negative proof", I guess that is true as you have a negative amount of proof for your claims.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid I guess u will have watched the video by now, so u see i'm right.
colocolopity 6 months ago
ahhhhhhhhhhh.......so quiet now :^)
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Still waiting for ANY proof of your claims.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid the proof is there, you need to take your head out of your a-hole to see it.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
No, it's just you saying, "I told you so."
RetSquid 6 months ago
It would be better if you just stopped posting, it makes you less of a fool.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid very true, then i'd no longer be associated with you, good tip ;^)
colocolopity 6 months ago
There are NO Judicial courts in America and there has not been since
1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators
enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428,
1 Stat. 138-178)
There have not been ANY Judges in America since 1789. There have just
been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat.
138-178) 10. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number.
House Report (103-826)
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
You do know that all of these have been debunked or have no real meaning, right?
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid Court cases have no real meaning?
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Of course court cases have meaning...that is waht Common Law is...centuries of court cases. It is also how I know that capital letters have no legal meaning, because of the number of court cases that say so. Have you ever seen a court case that says capital letters HAVE a special legal meaning?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid you have a lot to learn about the difference between lawful and legal.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Legal: deriving authority from or founded on law.
Lawful: allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid deriving, what does that mean? who grants the 'deriving'? allowed or permitted to what law exactly? there are many, many laws, statutory law is what legal jurisdictions are based upon, but they are by no means the full body of law, they are mere enactments of it. what of conflicts of law? are conflicts of law legal?
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Derive: To obtain or receive from a source. What "conflicts of law" are you talking about? A conflict between laws? Probably the most recent. What does this have to do with your BS "capital letters"?
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Conflicts of law, in law, is referred to as private international law, and there my friend, you will find the law in it's entireity, all outside of statute (state law). As it pertains also to the grammar and comprehension used in both written, spoken and intents of action, in law. Which is why words and wording are so important. This is how the term Jurisdiction found itself as being the correct term, as juris means law, and diction means word, to the letter of the law. sans diminitio.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
And none of your post has anything to do with your bogus "capital letters having a legal meaning".
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid of course it does, just because you are unaware of it, you better check further into the history of law, and see that a capitalised word diminishes the capacity...it's stems from Roman Civil Law.
colocolopity 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colocolopity
And "capitus maximus diminitio" IS Roman Law, not American or British law, and it has nothing to do with capital letters in any way, shape or form.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Where do you think the americans and british got their civil law from? u'd better read maitland's masterpiece on the history of english law before edward the 1st, FYI he was a downing professor of law at cambridge university, one of the first universities on the planet. I think it is you who needs to read more into the law, and step outside the box a little, it's cramming your brain into believing you know it all.
colocolopity 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colocolopity
Yes...derived FROM...we don't use Roman Law, nor does Roman law "capitus maximus diminitio" have anything to do with capital letters. "Capitus" is refering to the PERSON being diminished...If you take it literally, then lower case names would mean something, not upper case names.
RetSquid 6 months ago
Post a case...ANY case that supports your claims....I've got dozens that say you're wrong.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Show me one case where capitals are not used then?
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Why don't you show a case where they mean anything different from title case names?
RetSquid 6 months ago
"“To the extent that the mere usage of a boldface font or all capital letters may be considered a misspelling of plaintiff’s name -- a proposition which the court seriously doubts -- it is an error which is purely technical in nature. In some instances, the law will not countenance technical errors. However, the misspelling of a party’s name on a pleading or filing in an action in a United States District Court is not one of those instances."
Cris Timothy, Hillman v. Secretary of Treasury
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Check the docketts, they're all caps, they CAN'T use lower case, and there's reasons for this. the constitution is built on foundations of law that brought about the state, therefore something must've existed prior to that, no?
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
They don't use title case letters, it helps in preventing misunderstandings.
"I believe that not only is this case subject to dismissal .... but it is also subject to sanctions under Rule 11. Making a distinction between all-capital letters and capital and small letters is frivolous."
Russell v. US (WD Mich 1997)
RetSquid 6 months ago
"The use of all-caps to set off the names of principals or parties in legal documents is very old, predating the use of typewriters, perhaps to make the names all the more conspicuous in a document otherwise entirely written in copperplate script at a time when a large part of the general public could barely read block lettering."
-ADL
RetSquid 6 months ago
Respond to this video... So we agree there must be a source for statute to 'derive' from then, are we also in agreement that the source for statutory law is the rule of law, or maybe you can enlighten me as to the source?
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
The source for statute law is ultimately the Constitution of either a State or the Federal Government.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid ok, so a state, has to be incorporated into a state, so what came before the state, lol?
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Before a "State" is founded it is just a gathering of people.
Still waiting for a case that supports any of your claims.....and Wikipedia ain't cutting it.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid of course there was just people, lol, what else would there be, fictions? lol
I don't need to bring any cases, cos all of the cases that you are quoting are all 'in rem'
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
"I don't need to bring any cases, cos all of the cases that you are quoting are all 'in rem'"
Translation: I can't find anything to back up anything like my claims.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid which means you are without the capacity to understand the difference between in rem and in personam, read some trust law.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Yes, all of the cases I use are "in rem", meaning it can be applied to any case.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to post your first case or law that says anything like you claim.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid meaning it can be applied to any case in rem. There are no cases that don't use all caps are there?
colocolopity 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colocolopity
There are no cases that say anything about your rights being changed in any way by the spelling of your name....the exact opposite is true.
There is no rational or legal basis for your claims, an all caps name didn't even mean anything in Roman times, much less now.
"capitus maximus diminitio" mean the maximum reduction in a person's rights, not to use all capital letters in their names!
RetSquid 6 months ago
@colocolopity
The least you can do is post a source for your claims...just saying it's true is meaningless.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Trust law, I said here and in the messages i sent to you, look at specifically the judicature acts, and what took place then, and look to the statute of uses of 1536, and look to the court of the exchequer/court of equity, all conveniently and deeply buried within statute for the specific purpose of con-troll. use archive dot org, they have many, many books on law and the history of it, including FW Maitland.
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Still waiting for anything......
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Darnell's case, no-one is higher than the law, including your lovely state. I know exactly what is going on, u don't enjoy your life :^)
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
You're clueless.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid says you, but you're an idiot, so, that fails to give your claim any foundation or substance. Have u looked what's going on in the world lately, pull your head outta your fanny ffs!
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
You must have missed those pages of court cases I've posted to you. All of which prove you wrong.
YOU have not posted a single item that supports your claims, you just keep reposting your claim.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@colocolopity
I leave it to the readers of these posts to judge that. I have no doubt that any thinking person would agree that you are not a debater and couldn't win a debate with first-grader.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid you are obviously focusing on the finger, and missing all the heavenly glory...the state's statute's are far from the full body of law, they are enactments, i stand by my claim cos u fail to understand them, they are out of con-text for u as u only compute statutes as being the law. they are for state's, cities and counties, not people, the law for people is the law of trusts, the king in darnell's case thought he had supreme right by charging 5 knights for taxes, he failed, as do u!
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
WOW!! No wonder you lost this debate. IO asked for ANY proof of your claim, you didn't post a single thing to support it, you just post the equivelent of ''cus I told you so." The King WON that case because he was above any court he appointed. Statues are Common Law that has been codified, they are for everyone. Don't use WIKI as the source for your knowlege base.
RetSquid 6 months ago
Tinker v de moines, again show how the state, this case a state supported school, assumes jurisdiction where it has none. The people give the constitutions to the govt's as a body of law to follow for their govt dealings, the people are the trustors, the govt's the trustees, the constitution the res, the appointment is the power, the declaration, is the declaration of independence from the former trustee, the king of england...your statutes are regulatory for bodies corporate. UDoHR. man is free
colocolopity 6 months ago
@colocolopity
Man, this is sad...I hope there are very few of you legally ignorant people out there.
That case in Tinker had nothing to do with any jurisdiction, it was about overstepping authority, the school and the court HAD jurisdiction over the students, otherwise there would have been no case for you to cite.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@MikeFromTheUK1
Everyone born on the planet earth.
Until you RE-claim these rights.. you have NO human rights (which is why they can sentance you to death, imprison you, tax you etc etc etc).
Every time you SIGN something.. you sign your human common law rights away for "Permissible rights", meaning you have permission to use them & they can be taken away anytime the grantor wishes.. like when they want to throw you in a prison cell or torcher you in Guantanamo..
Common law=freedom
mrtruthify 11 months ago
I need to know how the statues that i should study in my email and how can i conduct business when corporations just about own everything, without social security numbers and drivers licenses. Once those things are taught to me then its on! Somebody in the moor society please contact me. Thank you!
KeitaThe1 1 year ago
You can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a
party to it. (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of The City of
Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
SEE MY CHANNEL FOR THAT ANSWER..
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
The Constitution binds the States and the Federal Government to certain things. In this case, you can't sue the city for violating the 'takings' clause of the U.S. Constitution.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
You clearly don't know how to read.
You might wish to learn about trust law and corporate personhood.. which is why your "driving licence", SS card, Birth certificate, utility bills etc etc etc ALL have your "NAME" in CAPITAL LETTERS.
And if they have no meaning to you.. thats fine. You keep paying your taxes for your person & driving with your license etc etc.. while I travel anywhere I want with peace officer approval & never pay a fraudulent penny. "Legal" & LAWFUL kid.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
You just copy and paste from other videos that have been debunked long ago. All cap names have Zero legal meaning.
"...because the manner in which plaintiff’s name is spelled, printed, or punctuated on filings in this case does not, in the court’s view, impact on the substance of the pleadings, the court denies plaintiff’s motions to strike as meritless.”
Cris Timothy, Hillman v. Secretary of Treasury
RetSquid 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Income taxes are for "individuals", which are defined as "human beings" in the law. "Legal" and "lawful" are nearly synonomous. You can travel where you wish, but you can't operate a motor vehicle without a license, go look at the law.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@KeitaThe1 U won't find remedy in statute...u can study the UCC and the UTC and the UPC, they're all based on International Law, which is what you should be looking at.
colocolopity 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
She will come to you tonight with special gift **rockmycity.info**
tarraorbisonopkl 1 year ago
Maybe if someone first tells you something (serves you a fact; fact does not mean truth, it is just something someone says, basically) and then asks you if you understand, then it is like a professor (who professes, look into it) asks if you subject to his authority on the matter; answering "yes" will establish that authority and he stands over you.
It may be better to say "I think I see what you mean".
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
"understanding" and "standing under" have no linguistic connection.
Understand: O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Get a LAW book (Blacks Law Dictionary).
Your "dictionary" definitions are useless and for mass consumptiion.. they have no use or value within reality & law.
To "understand" IS to stand-under (eg, a jurisdiction).
So believe whatever you wish.. but the next time a judge (Admin) or a police "officer" (quite different than a PEACE officer) asks 'do you understand'? And you reply: 'well yes your highness, honor, majesty, greatness', you deal with it because you WERE warned.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Understand: to perceive, to discern, realize, to know.
Words don't effect jurisdiction, location and offence do.
I just looked in Black's Law, second edition....you are wrong, there is no such definition there.
RetSquid 11 months ago
The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never
part of the United States government. Even though the "US Government" held
shares of stock in the various Agencies. (U.S. V. Strang , 254 US 491,
Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)
"The People" does NOT include you and me. (Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Nice try, but the FCC, CIA and NASA didn't even exist when Strang was decided and it had nothing to do with theFBI. Lewis v. US, just says that the Federal Reserve Banks are not part of the Government of the U.S.
Do you REALLY want me to continue to show how you are lying?
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
You haven't proven anything but your worthless, uneducated opinion.
You haven't even the slightest clue the difference between Legal and Lawful.. I don't waist time on lumps. Figure it out or dont..
You wana run around acting as your person.. go ahead.. I prefere my human rights and use my person for transactions. No one is focing you to believe anything. Do what you will smart guy.
Me.. I'm heading out in my unlicensed, unregistered car for a cool trip in the breeze..
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
I guess your problem is that you can't read. Here's to you getting a ticket. :)
RetSquid 11 months ago
Summary of the rights & freedoms of the below "persons":The human-being has all the unalienable rights & freedoms as provided by God.The natural-person has the rights & freedoms as provided by man with the Magna Charta & Bill of Rights.The quasi natural/artificial-person has lost some rights. The corporation/artificial-person has limited rights & freedoms as provided by the creator of the Corporation.The Nom de Guerre (name of war) has no rights & freedoms & is a complete
slave to the Admiral
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Try again, this time post something from an actual LEGAL reference...scince you are claiming this is a law or something.
RetSquid 11 months ago
And don't even TRY to bring out some "admiralty law" bull.
RetSquid 11 months ago
You sir.. quite simply are either a shill or an idiot.. I'm not sure which.. a Gov shill I think. Why els would a complete stranger waist so much time trying to convince others the illusion is real?
Reality 101
Capitalization:
There are five different levels of capitalization used in names of "persons"
human-being: john doe
natural-person: John Doe
quasi natural/artificial-person: John DOE
corporation/artificial-person: JOHN DOE
Nom de Guerre: DOE, JOHN
mrtruthify 11 months ago
“Defendant Glenn Stinson purports to be confused as to whether the Government’s complaint in this proceeding is directed at “Glenn Stinson and Naomi Stinson” or against “GLENN STINSON and NAOMI STINSON.” The difference between the fully capitalized and the first-letter capitalized versions of the Defendants’ names is immaterial, and provides no defense to the claims asserted by the Government.”
US v. Stinson
All cap names have no legal meaning.
RetSquid 11 months ago
Uh yeah.. they just use them on ALL corporate and "governmenmt' documents because it looks neat..
How gullibke are you sheeple, really?
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
So you HAVE no actual, real, legal basis for your claims about the law?
RetSquid 11 months ago
A book has been prepared in cooperation with the Canadian Government to define the writing "styles" to be used in Canadian English, as well as by lawyers. The book is entitled The Canadian Style (ISBN 1-55002-276-8). According to Chapter 4 in this book, and specifically Section 4.03, Personal Names are to have the first letter capitalized only, such as John Doe. In Section 4.13
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Capiutal letters are used to prevent misunderstanding over certain letters like "I" (i) and "l" (L). this goes back to a time when everything was hand written, capital letters made the documents easier to read.
RetSquid 11 months ago
Presuming the Government uses this book in its own documentation, a good
presumption since the Government was involved in the preparation of the
book, the conclusion is that the Government has an undocumented 'System of
Nomenclature' that requires ALL CAPITALS for corporations/artificial-persons
so they can distinguish them from natural-persons.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
We say this is deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps. They are deliberately not following their own recognized authorities & by identifying their own gov entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is also intended to be a legal fiction. at this point, unknown jurisdiction.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
You still can't tie 'legal fiction' and an all caps name together.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid I dont have to tie it together for you.. I LIVE this stuff partner! I know its real because I live it in court & everday in trust law!
You can argue & rationalize whatever you wish.. there is plenty of legal garbage out there to confuse the unthinking masses but in reality common law is the only law.
Tell ya what.. you find me ONE SINGLE Legal government document that asks for a signature & calls a man or woman a human being.. in use today.. and I'll concede. If not.. you fail.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
TITLE 1 - CHAPTER 1
Sec. 8. "Person", "human being", "child", and "individual" as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
Sorry bubba.. you FAILED.. I said a gov document wich asks for a SIGNATURE (negociating instrument for the 'person')..
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
I cited the LAW, which would supercede any instrument you want to see. Why don't you cite anything that supports your claims? Real citations, not a quote from a grammar book.
RetSquid 11 months ago
And ANYO NE who has the slightest clue about legalities and law learn in the first week of school NOTHING is for no reason in a legal document. Every letter, word and dot MUST be precise or can be dismissed.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Wrong. Talking about capital letter names: "In some instances, the law will not countenance technical errors. However, the misspelling of a party’s name on a pleading or filing in an action in a United States District Court is not one of those instances." Cris Timothy, Hillman v. Secretary of Treasury
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
You goof.. ever wonder why they call you a "party" or a voter or a consumer or an infant or a tax payer or a 'person' or all the other shite but never a HUMAN BEING?
C'mon.. seriously.. how much can one tell themselves before theyre flat out lying to themselves?
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Didn't you read what I posted about defining a 'person' or 'individual'?
RetSquid 11 months ago
OMG.. whats this!? A "federal corporation? & Cornell LAW university says this!? Not my dear country.. oh nooo.. I'm so very distressed
law(dot)cornell(dot)edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-
(14) “State” means any of the *several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas,
or any territory or possession of the United States.
**********(15) “United States” means—
**********(A) a Federal corporation
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Wow, the FIRST actual, legal source of information!!!
Yes, the U.S. is a corporation, just like all of the cities, towns, counties, etc. it is also a Country and a group of States....did you have a point to this?
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
WIKI ADMITS DC IS A CORPORATION: en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1801
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Like I said, every city, town, county, etc. is a corporation. Do you know WHY they are corporations?
RetSquid 11 months ago
I've probably been living under common law longer than you've been alive and I've never lost a court case. You should wake up.. the air is wonderful over here within reality. We have no fraudulent games.. every human being has the same rights.. no one has power over the others. It's a system of rights and duties, VS your 'permissible rights', meaning they can be taken away from you at any time; which is why you can be executed or thrown in a cell, unlike me (unless I break the LAW).
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Do you even know what 'common law' is? Define it for me.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
BWAHAHAHAHAH.. THE LITTLE SHEEP IS WAKING UP.. HE'S ADMITTED HIS "COUNTRY" IS GONE AND HAS BEEN BANKRUPTED 200 YEARS AGO AND IS NOW A CORPORATION.. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!
IM OUTTA HERE!
FAIL..
NO YOU FIGURE IT OUT KID.
IM OUT.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Nope, you are still an ignorant liar. The Country is still here and has never gone bankrupt. It has also ALWAYS been a corporation.
If you want you can PM me and I'll show you TONS of stuff that proves ALL of your claims wrong.
RetSquid 11 months ago
"But, indeed, NO PRIVATE 'PERSON' has a right to complain, by suit in court,
on the ground OF A BREACH OF THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution it is true,
is a compact, BUT HE IS NOT A PARTY TO IT." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor
& Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520
THIS IS BECAUSE A 'PERSON' IS NOT A HUMAN BEING SHEEPLE.. IT IS A LEGAL FICTION.
LEGALITIES ARE COLOR OF LAW AND HAVE THE 'FORCE OF LAW', BUT THEY ARE NOT LAW.. BUT THEY CAN BE FORCED ON YOU....
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify
Go back to the beginning of this rant of yours, I showed you WHY you can't sue a city for violating the Constitution.
Go read title 1 Chapter 1 setion 8 AGAIN.
You are starting to sound VERY ignorant, you keep repeating things that have been debunked long ago.
RetSquid 11 months ago