Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[twostrokenut]

Mentioning Robert Arthur:Menard in the same category as those men is a total farce. Here's what Wikipedia says about his theories:

"Freemen" believe that statute law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law, choosing instead to live under what they call "common" (case) and "natural" laws. Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief" in contracts. They say that all people have two parts to their existence - their body and their legal "person". The latter is represented by their birth certificate; some freeman will claim that it is entirely limited to the birth certificate. Under this theory, a "strawman" is created when a birth certificate is issued, and that this is the entity which is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different name, for example "John of the family Smith", as opposed to "John Smith".[SUP][1][/SUP]
Many FOTL beliefs are based on idiosyncratic interpretations of Admiralty or Maritime law, which they claim governs the commercial world. These beliefs stem from fringe interpretations of various nautical-sounding words, such as ownership, citizenship, dock, or birth (berth) certificate. Freemen refer to the court as a "ship", the court's occupants as "passengers" and claiming that anyone leaving are "men overboard".[SUP][1][/SUP]
Freemen will try to claim common law (as opposed to admiralty law) jurisdiction by asking "Do you have a claim against me?" This, they contend, removes their consent to be governed by admiralty law and turns the court into a common law court, so that proceedings would have to go forward according to their version of common law. This procedure has never been used successfully.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Freemen often will not accept legal representation; they believe that to do so would mean contracting with the state. They believe that the United Kingdom and Canada are now operating in bankruptcy and are therefore under admiralty law. They believe that since the abolition of the gold standard in 1917, UK currency is backed not by gold but by the people (or the legal fiction of their persons). They describe persons as creditors of the UK corporation. Therefore, a court is a place of business, and a summons is an invitation to discuss the matter at hand, with no powers to require attendance or compliance.[SUP][1][/SUP]"

Total butterfly net bullshit. There are then 7 cases from the United Kingdom where judges laughed people who made these arguments off to jail; and this gem from a Canadian court, on the stuff I just quoted above:

"The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA ["Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments"] arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer."


Indeed, I recall a David Merrill post with a sample document that I'm supposed to file with my county recorder or some similarly situated official which is supposed to do a lot of the same things this guy claims his document was supposed to do. Alas, it's pure lunacy.

Translation: Wiki is my voice.

Seriously you expect me to read Wiki on something I presented to you? On an individual I brought up? To take me out of context in a context I created? Those guys are all Constitutionalists. Why? Because I define the context of my words and you flop around like a fish typing in google trying to redefine them with wiki by using it as your words, not a tool for opinions to form your own words. Indeed I formed my words and context with no help from the internet my clueless friend. Not only in that post but this whole thread for that matter. It is plain to see how I state an Idea, then go find my source that facilitates it, and then you run, and find sources to state your ideas to the contrary for you.

 

[tokeprep]

Translation: Wiki is my voice.

Since you've linked to and pasted parts of Wikipedia articles repeatedly in this thread, I thought it would work for you.

Seriously you expect me to read Wiki on something I presented to you? On an individual I brought up? To take me out of context in a context I created? Those guys are all Constitutionalists. Why? Because I define the context of my words and you flop around like a fish typing in google trying to redefine them with wiki by using it as your words, not a tool for opinions to form your own words. Indeed I formed my words and context with no help from the internet my clueless friend. Not only in that post but this whole thread for that matter. It is plain to see how I state an Idea, then go find my source that facilitates it, and then you run, and find sources to state your ideas to the contrary for you.

I wouldn't stop at Wikipedia, I'd read a lot more about that lunatic. It should be very easy to see that he's just a crackpot. I'm especially fond of the capitalization idea because I've seen David Merrill repeating that one as well, telling people it has legal significance. Here's a relatively recent court case that dispels with that bullshit specifically:

"Defendant [Kenneth Wayne Leaming] is apparently a member of a group loosely styled “sovereign citizens.” The Court has deduced this from a number of Defendant’s peculiar habits. First, like Mr. Leaming, sovereign citizens are fascinated by capitalization. They appear to believe that capitalizing names has some sort of legal effect. For example, Defendant writes that “the REGISTERED FACTS appearing in the above Paragraph evidence the uncontroverted and uncontrovertible FACTS that the SLAVERY SYSTEMS operated in the names UNITED STATES, United States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and United States of America . . . are terminated nunc pro tunc by public policy, U.C.C. 1-103 . . . .” (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.) He appears to believe that by capitalizing “United States,” he is referring to a different entity than the federal government. For better or for worse, it’s the same country.

...

The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe..."

 

[twostrokenut]

So couldn't help but notice you said you were gay and to put it in context of the economic discussion we are having as it relates to a)legal economic equality b)hierarchy of law c)Natural Rights of Man vs Benefits of Society's person d)civil jurisdiction vs admiralty jurisdiction in a court competent to adjudicate both.

I noticed the Constitution didn't say anything about sexual orientation so I will conclude by your opinion on what is Money that it is up the the government and their differentiation and distinguished between lawful money and legal tender to determine if its right or wrong by letting you have any legal benefits or not even though you fully participate in that society as equally as any other married straight "person".

I simply intend on replying to any response with a......b......c.......or d. For simplicity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

How's that for context from my own mind?

 

[twostrokenut]

Ya know what I would do instead??? Read a book by him. I did that to Hitler once, only then was I able to call him a lunatic and not truly be lying to myself by merely taking other's opinions off the internet and books they wrote about Hitler.

Stooge.

 

[tokeprep]

I noticed the Constitution didn't say anything about sexual orientation so I will conclude by your opinion on what is Money that it is up the the government and their differentiation and distinguished between lawful money and legal tender to determine if its right or wrong by letting you have any legal benefits or not even though you fully participate in that society as equally as any other married straight "person".

I absolutely agree. The constitution does not protect gay rights unless we see such protections in it. Sodomy laws, for example, were wholly legitimate until just about a decade ago. So long as the constitution doesn't protect gay rights, congress has the power to legislate against them with instruments like DOMA.

 

[tokeprep]

Ya know what I would do instead??? Read a book by him. I did that to Hitler once, only then was I able to call him a lunatic and not truly be lying to myself by merely taking other's opinions off the internet and books they wrote about Hitler.

Stooge.

When the courts have dismissed the claims as total bullshit, why would you read the book? If the courts laugh at the arguments and throw people in jail after they make them, how can you possibly believe they're credible?

 

[twostrokenut]

We are not equal.

Elaborate. Prove your superiority and assert it as law.

 

[twostrokenut]

It says "money..." and "no money...". It does not define money, so it doesn't say Federal Reserve Notes are money and it doesn't say they aren't. Fortunately, in Juilliard the supreme court tells us that congress can make paper currency lawful money, and later courts have held that Federal Reserve Notes are indeed lawful money.

yes indeed it also upholds the def of lawful moneyhttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/110/421/case.html

"The notes of the United States, tendered in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff, were originally issued under the Acts of Congress of February 25, 1862, c. 33; July 11, 1862, c. 142, and March 3, 1863, c. 73, passed during the war of the rebellion, and enacting that these notes should "be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States," except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt. 12 Stat. 345, 532, 709.

then shows where money powers lie lawfully:

"Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the nation government or private individuals."


CiRCuLAR

 

[twostrokenut]

I don't work for the government right now, but I still have a professional career. I could tell you I worked in the house codifying statutes and you would probably still insist that it's untrue and that I'm just an idiot. You wouldn't care what I had done anyway, don't pretend otherwise.

All I have ever said about that is it gives you no Authority which you absolutely are claiming...like some quotes to this effect? , even if you have a BAR number your authority would merely be in equity but at least you would have a background on what is equity and why it is blended in some courts, but not all of them.

 

[twostrokenut]

It says "money..." and "no money...". It does not define money, so it doesn't say Federal Reserve Notes are money and it doesn't say they aren't. Fortunately, in Juilliard the supreme court tells us that congress can make paper currency lawful money, and later courts have held that Federal Reserve Notes are indeed lawful money.

Misquote.........you correctly established earlier it says "Money and "no Money"..........

CiRCULAR

 

[tokeprep]

yes indeed it also upholds the def of lawful moneyhttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/110/421/case.html

"The notes of the United States, tendered in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff, were originally issued under the Acts of Congress of February 25, 1862, c. 33; July 11, 1862, c. 142, and March 3, 1863, c. 73, passed during the war of the rebellion, and enacting that these notes should "be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States," except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt. 12 Stat. 345, 532, 709.

then shows where money powers lie lawfully:

"Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the nation government or private individuals."

CiRCuLAR

Congress said the notes shall "be lawful money." They did not define lawful money; the court does not claim that they defined lawful money; no later court claims that congress or Juilliard defined lawful money.

This is another example of taking something out of context. It's obviously not a definition and yet you assert that it is.

 

[tokeprep]

All I have ever said about that is it gives you no Authority which you absolutely are claiming...like some quotes to this effect? , even if you have a BAR number your authority would merely be in equity but at least you would have a background on what is equity and why it is blended in some courts, but not all of them.

There is no distinction between law and equity in any federal court. None.

 

[twostrokenut]

I absolutely agree. The constitution does not protect gay rights unless we see such protections in it. Sodomy laws, for example, were wholly legitimate until just about a decade ago. So long as the constitution doesn't protect gay rights, congress has the power to legislate against them with instruments like DOMA.

Bzzzzzzzzz wrong my conclusion was based on your opinions not my own, you agreed with yourself.

Constitution protects gay rights because it's not mentioned.

Failure read the code see part A B C and D

Reading Comprehension.......CiRCULAR

 

[tokeprep]

Misquote.........you correctly established earlier it says "Money and "no Money"..........

CiRCULAR

I never argued that the capitalization had any meaning, you did. Since money is always capitalized in the constitution, I don't think the capitalization has any meaning; you've produced no evidence to the contrary. That's just how English was written in the past--capitalizing nouns was a remnant of German in the English language.

The constitution doesn't say anything about "money," only "Money"; no statute says "money" and "Money" mean different things; no court case says "money" and "Money" mean different things. So how can you assert they mean different things?

 

[twostrokenut]

When the courts have dismissed the claims as total bullshit, why would you read the book? If the courts laugh at the arguments and throw people in jail after they make them, how can you possibly believe they're credible?

Your point has already been covered in my reference to Hitler. The 7 UK cases you cite have nothing to do with canada and you do nothing to note any success.............

ONE SIDED AND CiRCuLAR........................

 

[tokeprep]

Bzzzzzzzzz wrong my conclusion was based on your opinions not my own, you agreed with yourself.

Constitution protects gay rights because it's not mentioned.

Failure read the code see part A B C and D

Reading Comprehension.......CiRCULAR

How has DOMA been the law for more than a decade then?

 

[twostrokenut]

Congress said the notes shall "be lawful money." They did not define lawful money; the court does not claim that they defined lawful money; no later court claims that congress or Juilliard defined lawful money.

This is another example of taking something out of context. It's obviously not a definition and yet you assert that it is.

Highest law is Constitution.......it defines Money........referencing lawful money as one definition means it came from the highest law............."lawful" meaning constitutional.....................

CIRCLE JERK................

 

[tokeprep]

Your point has already been covered in my reference to Hitler. The 7 UK cases you cite have nothing to do with canada and you do nothing to note any success.............

ONE SIDED AND CiRCuLAR........................

I quoted you a Canadian case in the same post that called it all bullshit.

 

[tokeprep]

Highest law is Constitution.......it defines Money........referencing lawful money as one definition means it came from the highest law.............

C'iRCULAR.....................

Well, Twostroke, according to you the capitalization matters. Congress said "lawful money," it didn't say anything about "Money." Doesn't that mean "lawful money" isn't referencing the "Money" of the constitution?

But tell me again, where does the constitution define "Money" anyway? It doesn't. It gives congress the power to define money.

 

[twostrokenut]

There is no distinction between law and equity in any federal court. None.

No it is blended in courts of competence.............

CiRCuLAR............