FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Country or Company?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Ozregeneration



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 485
Location: Big Island Down Under

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In an email I received today it contained some quotes which I thought may be of interest to readers of this thread.

Quote:
A landmark Supreme Court case of 1795, which has never been overturned, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), defines governments succinctly:

“governments are corporations.” Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary-having neither actuality nor substance-is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. thereof, can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. One might immediately dispute this statement by pointing out that people are acted upon by agents of the government and are regulated, fined, imprisoned, plundered, brutalized, and killed by government officials everyday. True, but let us step back from the fray and take in the whole macrocosm that we call “modern civilization.”

Persons can be legal fictions and an individual can be a person.
All he had to do is read American Law and Procedure, Vol 13 pages 137-62 1910.

"This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition."

"A moments reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations."

You can't get much clearer than that.

Quote:
Corporations are persons and they are legal fictions. It is not so much that the individual is made a corporation but that they are made a "person" in the same sense that a corporation is made a person.

The maxims, Omnis persona est homo, sed non vicissim.
"Every person is a man, but not every man a person," clarifies this distinction.
A person is a member. US persons have a legal right to the benefits of being that US person. But if you are not that member or person then you have no entitlement to their benefits but they also have no entitlement to you as one of their human resources. If you want the benefit you become the merchandise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:00 am    Post subject: person/people/man Reply with quote

I just read thru this thread, and I must admit that despite my grand public skool edumacation on this side of the Atlantic, I am not yet 'getting it'. But I WILL look at it, since so many of my astute friends are.

I DID hear and get the point a few months ago (or much longer, really) that they DO consider us cattle. Come to think of it, I think the first time that occurred to me was queueing up in the chow line in some cafeteria at work. The difference is, I get to pick Ranch or French or Thousand Island, and 'chicken' or 'beef'. The Bovine version cattle just get 'feed', and have no sayso on sauce.


OF COURSE they see us as cattle or livestock, not souls. I think that's a no brainer! (Many people act like that's all they are too.) (I didn't fully realize it until I read it, but then the context was immediately obvious.) Only unlike ordinary bovine cattle, we are self-feeding and self-caring to an extent. Intelligent cattle which requires amusements as well as chow. We have that useful yet pesky attribute of free will.

I suspected that generally a few years ago, thinking of the fallacy of a "President" speaking to a demographic, learning about mass manipulation. We're invisible as insects. But the FACT of it was confirmed by something I read a few months ago on a Codex Alimentarius (sp?) website about 'me' being pledged at birth as collateral to repay 'their' debt, or to make perpetual payments of interest on 'their' debt.

I guess the CODEX laws are a proposal to control the health (and sickness/longevity) of their livestock, for the purposes of maintaining collateral value, and perhaps extinguishing collateral value, when the livestock takes ill, or is beyond it's useful productive potential.

It seems to me like I never authorized their borrowing, I never signed anything at birth (nor knowingly thereafter, and you can't enter a contract which totally misrepresents what is being contracted, like a contract to buy a stereo at Rent-a-Center which is really a contract to quit claim your property deed), yet I was somehow stuck with the bill. My young niece and nephew were deep in debt the day they were born. This CAN'T be constutionallly legal!!!!! (except it IS, in the narrow sense of 'upheld by courts')


Some Republicans, known to tout 'personal responsibility', actually made the argument that they saw no problem with future generations of children being born with the huge debts of the War on Terror (and the Cold War, bailing out the S & L's, Star Wars, ultimately paying penance to the Federal Reserve) since they would enjoy the benefit of living in a terror-free future world after all the terrorists have been killed, so therefore they 'owe' us for that privilege. Friggin scoundrels!


From what I've heard, people persuing this strawman argument in court, or attempting to actually DO anything "legal" or "real world" with it like discharge their own debts (or pass bad checks off their fictitious strawman account), have ended up in prison.

My initial opinion when I first heard of this is it was some whacko bullshit these Free Men were pursuing. Now, I'm willing to consider that in the myriad intricacies of UUC law (which I dont even pretend to understand) these Free Men filers may in fact be correct or have found some legally correct path, but I THINK that the FACT remains that courts will NOT allow that interpretation of reality, and will severely punish the man who tries to test this, well beyond the normal limits of passing a bad check for groceries, in other words, to set an example about not fucking with the big bad Fed.

SO, without having read further yet, I'd say this is interesting in terms of what was said: KNOWING WHO YEEWW ARE! Knowing they are pulling a scam. How the fuck do they think they can stick me with G. W. Bush's goddamn war debt for bombing two nations, ordering nuke waste dumped all over the world, and torturing goat-herders and taxi-drivers --- while they protect their hired terrorists.

Did I tell them to invade Vietnam on a goddamn scam?! And stay there for 12 years?! Did I give them permission run goddamn CIA ops all over the world? Did I, We, anyone concede permission to them to label certain plants Class I, II, III, and IV narcotics/substances and arrest/shoot me or others for possessing them? I suppose my parents granted permission, by silent acquiesence ... or worse. (I suspect my father agreed with persecuting "the niggers and their dope".)

By now, I think the MAJORITY of popular political opinion and common sense is opposed to the War on Drugs, and if not, would be if the fearmongering stopped, and people knew anything about limitations to Federal power. Yet they say there is no "political will" to accomplish that. In other words, the people who count want to keep it this way. As someone said, maintain the Cocaine Price Support Laws which drive the market.

However in the world of physical existence, their cops and guns and jail guards hold sway, and this will remain the case until we ALL wise up, and collectively tell them to fuck off, so they can't fuck with us individually.

Fuck. I should probably stop using the word 'fuck' so much in a public forum.

SO, respectfully, AM I being ignorant here about the POWER of this particular track to actually accomplish something tangible?? Considering it seems to rely on playing and making arguments inside their system which they own (do not judges say "my courtroom" and nearly have the power of God, over Life and Death), common sense tells me that you can argue and file papers till you're blue in the face, and get nothing but rejection and summonses, arrest warrants, and frozen bank accounts.

I think (but I'm open-minded and willing to be wrong) that this track has about as much viability as NESARA, which even that Reality Zone website says is a farce. (BTW, Reality Zone is a former top Bircher, not that that's necessarily bad.)

So, I'll be reading some more.
Back to top
Ozregeneration



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 485
Location: Big Island Down Under

PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:39 am    Post subject: Re: person/people/man Reply with quote

Greetings Gary,
dilbert_g wrote:
I just read thru this thread, and I must admit that despite my grand public skool edumacation on this side of the Atlantic, I am not yet 'getting it'. But I WILL look at it, since so many of my astute friends are.

I've been looking into this stuff for about eighteen months now and there is much I do not know and even the stuff I think I do understand changes after new research comes out. So don't think you are on your own there.
dilbert_g wrote:
I guess the CODEX laws are a proposal to control the health (and sickness/longevity) of their livestock, for the purposes of maintaining collateral value, and perhaps extinguishing collateral value, when the livestock takes ill, or is beyond it's useful productive potential.

And I would suggest that it is as much about control, dictating what we can and can not put into our bodies. As we know certain herbs and vitamins can be very effective at treating diseases, Cal Crilly has so clearly shown us this.
dilbert_g wrote:
It seems to me like I never authorized their borrowing, I never signed anything at birth (nor knowingly thereafter, and you can't enter a contract which totally misrepresents what is being contracted, like a contract to buy a stereo at Rent-a-Center which is really a contract to quit claim your property deed), yet I was somehow stuck with the bill. My young niece and nephew were deep in debt the day they were born. This CAN'T be constutionallly legal!!!!! (except it IS, in the narrow sense of 'upheld by courts')

This matter of consent is one of the main areas of dispute between the 'patriots' and 'redemptionists'. Whilst it is obvious that as a child we are unable to enter a contract where there is a meeting of the minds, the understanding is that our mother, being our guardian, unwittingly does so on our behalf. And as we have all heard, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But what some are saying is that when we turn eighteen we can reclaim control over own strawman via UCC filings.
dilbert_g wrote:
From what I've heard, people persuing this strawman argument in court, or attempting to actually DO anything "legal" or "real world" with it like discharge their own debts (or pass bad checks off their fictitious strawman account), have ended up in prison.

Yes, I have heard of similar similar accounts and have seen first hand people who have been brought up with their fighting patriot mindset attempting to incorporate a peaceful redemption mindset. It has led to some very interesting exchanges in court.

As an example I have a friend who has been a staunch patriot for about the last 5 or so years and has been fighting governments, councils and their corporate offshoots for much of that time. Not for anti-government reason pursay, but merely to be just left alone to get on with life.

Anyway for the past year he has been attempting to change tack and instead of fighting them, he has been attempting to go to peace using the redemption principles. Well he got picked up recently for a roadside license check and he showed them his license which has been registered not with the government but with one of the pricipalities which have been set up here. I won't go into all the details as it would be too long but suffice to say he ended up in court to regarding three charges against JOE BLOGGS. When the magistrate asked him if he was JOE BLOGGS. My friend said words to the affect:

"I here my corporate name being called, my name is Joe, spelt capital J lower case o e and my family name is Bloggs, spelt capital B lower case l o g g s, you can call me Joe."

This was asked several times with the same response from my friend before the magaistrate said that "he didn't want to play this game and for the police to take hime away to cells to think about it for another 24hrs and he would see him again tomorrow".

So what was actually happening was that my friend Joe, by not agreeing to being the corporate JOE BLOGGS, he was not giving the court juristiction over him, and hence they had nowhere to go.

This went on for more than a week with my friend changing his responses slightly each time, trying to work out the correct response require to get himself out.

I was unable to attend on the day he got out but I believe he responded with words to the affect that he was there by special appearance to settle and closed all outstanding matters in order to make all parties concerned whole. He further asked for some time to exhaust his administrative remedy. He was release and given until some time in Sept to sort it out.

There are obviously more details to his case but this gives you an indication of what people are doing in attempting to free themselves from government clutches using a combination of process. It is still very new to many of us here in Oz and most times feels like its 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. One of the problems is deciphering which is private (cannot be heard in court) and which is public (can be heard in court).

These are some of my understandings of what our courts and laws are all about. This is only my understanding and should NOT be taken as legal advice. Smile
    It is all commerce and ever statute, every act, has a monetary value (bond) attached to it.
    It is all about balancing the books.
    No body needs to go to prison and the only reason you do is because you have consented.
    Never go to court unless you have first settled the matter administratively first by getting agreement between the parties concerned. Once this is done then it is basically 'rubber stamped' in court. Further, by doing so, you then have settled the matter both on the private side (administration/paper work) and the public side (court).
    Facts are made up of well plead facts and assumed facts.
    When you plead not guilty, you are pleading not guilty to the well plead facts (defendant is JOE BLOGGS, car was on such and such road in the city of WONDERLAND), as well as the assumed facts (living breathing soul Joe Bloggs is the same corporate JOE BLOGGS).
    By pleading not guilty, you are the debtor.
    By being the debtor you have lost in court before you begin.
    By pleading guilty you have agreed that you are the corporate JOE BLOGGS.
    The courts (now that they are no longer common law courts) do not deal with living breathing souls, they only deal with dead speaking coporate entities.
    Truth can only be brought into courts colourably (so as not to let the cat out of the bag one presumes)


dilbert_g wrote:
My initial opinion when I first heard of this is it was some whacko bullshit these Free Men were pursuing. Now, I'm willing to consider that in the myriad intricacies of UUC law (which I dont even pretend to understand) these Free Men filers may in fact be correct or have found some legally correct path, but I THINK that the FACT remains that courts will NOT allow that interpretation of reality, and will severely punish the man who tries to test this, well beyond the normal limits of passing a bad check for groceries, in other words, to set an example about not fucking with the big bad Fed.

Yes, it wouldn't be good for business.
dilbert_g wrote:
SO, without having read further yet, I'd say this is interesting in terms of what was said: KNOWING WHO YEEWW ARE! Knowing they are pulling a scam. How the fuck do they think they can stick me with G. W. Bush's goddamn war debt for bombing two nations, ordering nuke waste dumped all over the world, and torturing goat-herders and taxi-drivers --- while they protect their hired terrorists.

Aint life a bitch.
dilbert_g wrote:
Did I tell them to invade Vietnam on a goddamn scam?! And stay there for 12 years?! Did I give them permission run goddamn CIA ops all over the world? Did I, We, anyone concede permission to them to label certain plants Class I, II, III, and IV narcotics/substances and arrest/shoot me or others for possessing them? I suppose my parents granted permission, by silent acquiesence ... or worse. (I suspect my father agreed with persecuting "the niggers and their dope".)

Some say that we all have given our permission by our collective silence. And when I say all, I mean all governments that have a Reserve Bank (i.e. private banks owned by private bankers) which mistakenly is thought to be a Government bank. (As a side issue it is interesting when you find out those countries who don't have a Reserve bank) So when they pass these laws that remove money of substance (backed by gold/silver), call you a US citizen, an enemy of the state, you have agreed (through your (not you in particular but a collective your) silence) to pay off the debt.

dilbert_g wrote:
However in the world of physical existence, their cops and guns and jail guards hold sway, and this will remain the case until we ALL wise up, and collectively tell them to fuck off, so they can't fuck with us individually.

This isn’t directly related to this quote but it is gist of what I am hearing from this posting of yours. There are many ways to skin a cat (well at least so I'm told) and it is up to your good self to work out what is best for you. I won't get into the creating of your own reality as we can continue that on the Positivity forum. But if you you think of it this way. If you were flying in a plane with a young child and the oxygen mask came down. What are we taught to do. Before giving the child any oxygen give some to yourself first. Because if you don't survive the child will most certainly die also.

In other words do whatever it is that feeds you. Then when you reached the point that you are overflowing, that is when you will be of most value to the people around you.

dilbert_g wrote:
Fuck. I should probably stop using the word 'fuck' so much in a public forum.

Fuck yeah. You know one of my favourite expressions is Fucking flying fuck. Particularly good when you're feeling frustrated and wanting to scream it out. You should try it some time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.