Why Legalize when the Law is already on our side?! IMPORTANT INFO, PLEASE READ

Sadista

Member
Disclaimer: I do not offer Legal advice, these are merely my findings upon researching how the legal and commerce systems work. It is up to you to decide what you do with this information. I am not attempting to tout for business or trying to promote the sites at the bottom, I have added them as I believe them to be good points of info for those who wish to learn more.
If the mods do not agree with me linking to the websites I have posted below then by all means remove them and people can PM me for the sites details, but please do not alter or remove the main article, it has invaluable information that can help people claim their creator given right to cultivate and use MJ like any other plant. Thanks =P



Please read this article and consider it seriously as this information has been researched, it does work if understood well and it can end the drug war, and much
more. People are just starting to become aware of this and it is having huge effects, obviously not carried on the mainstream but that is no surprise.

I will be happy to discuss and debate it, although I wont be responding to more aggressive posts, you know yourselves,
gets a little tedious, and if you're debating a fool, you are one ;)


Having said all that, lets get on with it!



Legalities have less to do with the law than you might imagine, or at least less than we were all taught at school. All legislation, acts and statutes, policy, orders and bylaws fall under what I'm about to tell you. But before I tell you this, it is important to know that law students and police are not taught this either, judges and barristers however do know what it is I'm about to tell you. And it
pisses them off every time they come across us in court. This is the big secret.


You are all doing a great thing by campaigning to have a plant produced naturally by this earth legalized, and its something about which you know you have the right to make your own decisions whether or not you use it. It must be a little ridiculous being a grown man or woman who obeys a nanny telling you 'no you cant have this or that, you must ask for permission for the other and that's against the rules.'

Well that's no longer my conundrum, that no longer has any bearing on me because I found out about some pretty unusual information about 7 months ago, and I've been studying it ever since.
Completely changed the way I look at the legal system, and the law.


I'm sorry if this gets complicated but it is a subject unto itself, and takes a bit of research to grasp. I have video links at the bottom
for further research, and they make sense of it.


I have seen this information confirmed quite a few times since I 1st learned of this.



The word statute is defined (by older law dictionaries, but it still means today what it meant back then) as a legislated rule of a
society which is given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule as of a corporation.

To break this down, its a rule
of 'A' society, a particular society. Which one? Most people would answer that question by saying 'This one.'

However this is inadequate because of a maxim (fundamental unquestionable universally recognized truth) in law that says 'If you know not the name of the thing, all knowledge of this thing must perish.' So it must be a named entity or it cannot be recognized by the law.

So for example, which society is the misuse of drugs act (Irish statute, makes cannabis 'illegal') a legislated rule of? The answer is the law society of Ireland.


This is how it works in at least all the common wealth countries and the US and Ireland. These different law societies create societal rules which we are taught are the laws passed by the government, which is technically partially true, members of that society are instrumental parts of the government.

But the only people under those statutes are members of that society. And the definition shows that. It also show that its given the FORCE of law by the CONSENT of the governed.


I could go on all day breaking down words and showing you hidden but true meanings
of many words, but there is only a few few you really need to grasp to get where I'm coming from. Also, there is the concept that judges and barristers are actually speaking a different language to English in court. This is called legalese. It uses English words and the grammar structure but many of the words used have vastly different meanings
from the common understanding, and it qualifies as a separate language.


One of these words with an alternate meaning is person.
A person is defined as a legal entity or corporation, an entity to which rights and duties are attributed.

Attributed By whom though? that's important.


If I, for example, have the power to decide your rights and duties, I get to say to you, a grown man or woman, that you cannot
consume, grow, buy, sell or posses certain plants.

That sounds like a familiar position, probably because that's exactly the boat you're in
now. Those who create the person, that exists in association with a flesh and blood man or woman, get to decide its rights and duties.



Our persons are created by the registration of a birth, the birth certificate is the evidence of that entity, and it exists association with the newborn baby who's birth is being registered. Born into bonded serfdom, and we wonder why people get sent to prison for possessing what many see as one of god's creations.


I know this sounds nuts to say the least but I've just provided just a glimpse of how these people are getting away with so-called
'criminalizing' whatever they want. To be clear, there is only 3 ways to be a criminal;


  • cause harm (assault, murder,etc.)
  • cause loss(damage or steal property, etc)
  • or defraud.
That covers everything we as a community, local and international, need to recognize to maximize peace and freedom for every man woman and child.


If you study this, you'll start to see the government are public servants who's masters have forgotten who and what they are, and have been educated to be unaware of this. Would that surprise you that
someone would do this?



We the people are free to do anything we want lest we harm anyone else in any way. There is less need to have this legalized, which would be handy don't get me wrong, but we the people ARE our government. We don't need the nanny state, not legally, not
lawfully, not morally or logically. We don't need it at all. And when people start to realize this, the governments powers will fall right back to their narrowest limits until they are charged only with the task of keeping trains on time and sorting salt and grit for the snow.
They are supposed to administrate services in the most unhindering and humble manner. We who are of lawful age are free and ethically justified to govern our own affairs, personal, spiritual, medicinal, chemical or
otherwise, and even to those who have a disagreement based on a moral or a point of view they have, which is fine, it does not change the fact that we still have that right. And we can claim it at any time.


If you want any more information on this, you can PM me and I will try to clarify as best I can.



This information is critical, but we need more people aware of this. This is bigger than legalizing any one thing, it truly puts power back in the hands of the many, and out of the hands of the corrupt few. Please consider it
seriously and research it. Thank you.




P.S. Again, I do not give out legal advice, just information on the law as far as my understanding has so far come.


P.P.S. All of the sites below are completely non denominational, non political and absolutely non violent.


P.P.P.S. Just to reiterate, I wont be answering insulting belittling or angry responses (I get that for trying to help!) I will have a friendly discussion of this anytime.


This is quite a massive campaign, and it is growing daily. Give more strength in numbers, simply acknowledge your right to smoke or do what you please lawfully. This should be investigated thoroughly before put into
action.


"Condemnation without investigation is ignorance." - Albert Einstein...


Peace and freedom, síocháin agus saoirse...
From the land of Eire


Links:


Videos;


John: Harris:
It's an illusion;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4024663011008894776&ei=...


BCG conference;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW31w6qZllM




Robert-Arthur: Menard:
Bursting bubbles of government deception;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835&ei...


The magnificent deception;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835&ei...


With lawful excuse; This video is a little out of date, this knowledge advances and improves fairly swiftly.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6487575410193274157&ei=...




Audio:


Frederic Bastiat, 19th century French philosopher, excellent book;
The law;
http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html




Mary Elizabeth Croft;
Interview on Red Ice Creations;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSoxrg-GKfc




Reading;


Mary Elizabeth Croft;
How I clobbered every bureaucratic cash confiscatory agency known to man, or, spiritual economics now;
www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/mary_croft.pdf


Tír na Saor, Freeman guidebook;
http://www.tnsradio.com/freemanguide.pdf




Websites;


http://www.freemanireland.ning.com
http://www.tpuc.org
http://www.thinkfree.ca
http://www.woodlandleague.org
http://www.fmotl.com
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org
http://www.lothianandbordersfreeman.co.uk
http://www.lawfulrebellion.org
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org
http://www.theantiterrorist.co.uk




And now for a J :bigjoint:
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
actually in the US the laws for cannabis possession circumvent the 'victimless crime' argument.

the idea is that society as a whole suffers from one person using drugs.
 
Unfortunatly for you Mr. Young, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, your bails 20 thousand dollars.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
actually in the US the laws for cannabis possession circumvent the 'victimless crime' argument.

the idea is that society as a whole suffers from one person using drugs.
Then this idea needs to go ALL the way. Someone sucking down a beer at the bar? Get him, he might drive a car and kill someone. Smoking a cigarette outside? Get em!! His second hand smoke may very well start a cancer cell growing. Lock his ass up!! Fellatio performed in Michigan? Hell NO!! People are being killed by all the illegal dick sucking going on in Michigan!!! Lock all those cock suckers up!!

Its Illegal to get out of bed on the left side on Tuesdays in North Carolina, surely people die when you get out of bed on the wrong side right? Why would they make any law at all unless people died without it in the first place.

The idea that the whole of society suffers is a BS idea perpetrated to keep people locked up, marginalized, fined and kept in the proper societal place. It is done to keep government in control of its children (You and ME).
 

Ironlungz82

Active Member
It need to be legalized because of the bullshit drug free work place that they have in every company. Which keep's a lot of cannabis user from getting a job or losing a job. In reality there's really no such thing of a "drug free work place" they need to change it too illegal drug free work place. Even with a medical card it still wont fly with the companies that enforce it. Which I lost my job because I'm a medical marijuana patient. There's nothing in prop 215 protecting us from discrimination from a "drug free work place"
 

Sadista

Member
No Drama, you've got the right idea.
Law exists for the benefit of humankind, so that we may live in harmony with one another, and only imposes consequence on us if we truly do something wrong, which is basically summed up as harming another individual, or causing him/her loss. Any activity is lawful once it doesnt impose on anothers rights.

Legalese on the other hand, works through the legislative body of the government to CONTROL citizens, and these citizens are almost always unconsenting because they have no prior knowledge of what is really going on.

A well known maxim in law is that any contract requires full disclosure, and if this isnt provided it is called fraud.
The BAR is a fraud, and the banking system is a fraud. All just ways of keeping us subdued, and afraid to use our voices to speak up and say NO!

Protesting to these fraudsters who pose as government officials will get you nowhere! You're still identifying them as some sort of authority over you, and they will not listen. However, if you claim your lawful rights by way of Lawful Notice, they can no longer assume that you are a child of the state.

So be sovereign unto yourself and do anything you wish, and when the man comes knockin on your door to attempt to arrest you, a simple, 'I dont consent to your legislation/statute/act/whatever' will get you miles further than trying to get weed legalized! If everyone that smoked pot did this what could they do about it? Arrest all of us? Prisons are already overflowing! A hefty fine might be the answer, but wait a minute, they cant charge you shit if youre not under their jurisdiction, which you give to them by making a plea or responding to your name being called in court. They are not calling your name, they are calling out the name of your legal fiction! And when you stand to approach the dock you have unknowingly mistaken the legal fiction to be you and are now acting as its representative, your body is now being held as the surety for the debt!

If weed does get legalized it will be just another thing they own and control. Do we really want that to happen? Do we want to pay out more tax dollars for our daily puff? Should we have to? Because I really dont think so!
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Again with this nonsense? Why do you insist on posting this garbage? To be perfectly honest, you sound insane with this yammering. And I'm not sure a Judge wouldn't have you sent to a mental institution if you made this argument in Court. By the way, have you ever had any mental health counseling? I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm seriously thinking you might benefit from this and perhaps medication. I urge you to look into it.

While I agree that pot is pretty harmless and that people ought to be able to use it if they wish, I know for a fact that there is absolutely zero legal basis for your argument.

The prohibition of marijuana, though perhaps wrong, is absolutely sound according to the law. This is true for numerous reasons that are too complex to go into. Suffice it to say, no legitimate attorney or judge would take your position seriously because you are wrong on so many levels.

The bottom line is that states do have the right to pass laws for the good of the people as does the Federal Government in many instances - and they do so.

The argument that your name is just a legal title and all that other nonsense is just that; nonsense. When in court, you are named "defendant" and you are identified not by legal title but by your physical body. That is why they often ask victims to "point at the defendant." That is also why they use the phrase "also known as" or "AKA." If they bust you with weed and the cop shows up in court and points at you, you are you name or not. The ID is just a piece of physical evidence that you are you. Get it?

Stop thinking you have found some brilliant legal loop hole because you haven't. It really is insane and God help you if you ever try to use this nonsense in court.
 

Sadista

Member
Again with this nonsense? Why do you insist on posting this garbage? To be perfectly honest, you sound insane with this yammering. And I'm not sure a Judge wouldn't have you sent to a mental institution if you made this argument in Court. By the way, have you ever had any mental health counseling? I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm seriously thinking you might benefit from this and perhaps medication. I urge you to look into it.
Ok first things first, I am in no way mentally diminished, and I do take offence to these assumptions, whether you mean to insult or not.

While I agree that pot is pretty harmless and that people ought to be able to use it if they wish, I know for a fact that there is absolutely zero legal basis for your argument.
Where are your facts? You have not brought any evidence to prove what I have said above is incorrect. Please provide some evidence and I will be too happy to enter into discussion with you then.
I must also repeat that I dont contract with agents of the legal system, and if you had been paying attention you would have realized that this whole thread is based on how to avoid jurisdiction and legalities and to act in your own full capacity as a sovereign individual, subject only to your own authority. We do have a common law right to act in this capacity. You may find that hard to believe but that is your problem, not mine.

The prohibition of marijuana, though perhaps wrong, is absolutely sound according to the law. This is true for numerous reasons that are too complex to go into. Suffice it to say, no legitimate attorney or judge would take your position seriously because you are wrong on so many levels.
Again no legitimate Judge or attorney in a de facto court would have the authority to tell me what is right or wrong, unless I contract with them first. And Why would anyone want to do that?

The bottom line is that states do have the right to pass laws for the good of the people as does the Federal Government in many instances - and they do so.
Yes they do so, but if a citizen wishes to not consent to a certain statute or act, they are within their full rights as a human being to do so, you seem to think that we are all legal fictions. We are not, we are not the person, we have a person.

The argument that your name is just a legal title and all that other nonsense is just that; nonsense. When in court, you are named "defendant" and you are identified not by legal title but by your physical body. That is why they often ask victims to "point at the defendant." That is also why they use the phrase "also known as" or "AKA." If they bust you with weed and the cop shows up in court and points at you, you are you name or not. The ID is just a piece of physical evidence that you are you. Get it?
Please do some research on this, actually let me do it for you.

Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."
Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."
Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). -
Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -
Person, noun. per'sn. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.


Stop thinking you have found some brilliant legal loop hole because you haven't. It really is insane and God help you if you ever try to use this nonsense in court.
I never claimed to have found a brilliant legal loophole, I do claim however to use a wonderful LAWFUL remedy. The courts and judicial system are not concerned with a fair trial, because they are courts of commerce, not a lawful court de jure. They are only concerned with transactions.Its far from insane and if you want some proof, here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DX7ZI7S60w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8zowJOtM8

Both individuals in the above videos are aquaintances, I know these guys and have witnessed them in action.

http://vimeo.com/10211543

Another brilliant example.

Heres a guy dealing with the police as a sovereign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARuNvvbmIcU&feature=channel

Now can you please bring your evidence that I am lying and insane to this thread please?
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
Have you tried doing a bit of research yourself to authenticate what I am saying?
there's been countless times of individuals being charged and convicted in abstentia.

you don't even have to be present to be found guilty in this country, even when it goes against your constitutional right to confront your accuser.

i can't give you too many details. but i KNOW all of this is bullshit. ALL OF IT.

the videos on youtube are exactly that, videos on youtube, the same place you find non-equivocal evidence of the existense of the abobinable snow man.

i'll say this again, like i said it to the other loon that tried to spread this garbage around: TRY TO START BABBLING THAT SHIT IN COURT AND YOU WILL BE GAGGED AND HANDCUFFED TO A WHEELCHAIR. ONE TAP YES, TWO FOR NO..................

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
 

Sadista

Member
I know for a fact that none of it is bullshit, we have tried and tested these remedies in court, and guess what? The cases are struck out, because it is victimless crime and because we claim common law jurisdiction which you have a right to do! No gags or wheelchairs necessary, just your honorable peaceful self, of lawful age and sound mind and body. (hmmm maybe thats what you lack)
Have you read your own constitution sir?!
Do you know what it means?!

A related event, which you might have heard of if you are in the US is the Restore America plan,with the ultimate goal to restore individual sovereignty to the people.

http://guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/immidiate_goals.html

Read the link and tell me that these people are bullshitters, tell me that you wont be hopping on the band wagon for a debt/tax/authority free life when these guys emerge victorious.
 

esc420211

Well-Known Member
i was reading and sadista you do sound a lil off tha blocc but hey arent we all your just using ur 1st amendment so you can preach ur nonsense all u like thumbs up!!
 

gloomysmokes707

Active Member
the law needs to be on everyones side. i am a prop 215 medical user and see many family and friends suffering simply because they do not have the money to fork out to pay to see a pot doc. Seriously. just because me and you were fortunate enough to be protected by state law does not mean the same for someone who does not have the means of getting a medical card. It needs to be regulated. I remember a time when i could buy a ten sack of bud but couldnt by a beer. I was like 11 or 12 i think. Anyways you know what im saying. Only the people doing crooked illigal ass shit and working the system want it to stay illigal. The rest of us will be voting to legalize it. I do have very mixed feeling on this subject. So dont hate because of my opinion.
 

Sharbear

Member
Bravo! Someone who has the brains to out-think the so called uniforms that are there only to protect. We do need to work at getting MJ legalized. I think the pharmaceutical companies are partly to blame for the lack of legalization. The War-on-Drugs has many believing that MJ is a stepping stone to hard drugs. What a crock! I think it is a disgrace for persons to go to jail for growing an herb. It is no different than growing sage, parsley or any other herb. We ought to be able to self medicate and stop taking all of the chemical prescription drugs that doctors are so willing to dole out. I think I have vented and ranted enough. Thanks for reading.
 
Top