RE: Common Law and rights

RE: Common Law and rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 3:19:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Do the flags flying on Wall Street have gold fringes? E beats the shit otta me. people can fly their own personal flag and it can have literally anything on it as long as it does not look to close to the us military flag

Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 4:08:09 PM)
"Dont get real started on another tangent" Why not ? Maybe that's exactly what's needed. He's not making the point, and really, I am not sure he should. It certainly wouldn't be in my interest, honestly, because loopholes I might use could be closed if too many people discover them. That's part of the reason that some lawyers make $200 an hour and others make $2,000 an hour. Arguing over flags for days on end is not what I would call productive. So what if it is true ? When they convicted Kevorkian they removed the gold fringed flag from the courtroom. Big fucking deal. We have lived all our lives under AMJ and are provided with an illusion to the contrary. What I am saying is that no matter how true this is, common law practitioners are simply offering a different illusion. The fact is that none of us can be totally free with all these people in the world around us. You can go to all this trouble to assert your rights, and via lip service to the void Constitution you could prevail in one case or another. It is just as easy to do it on a case to case basis, because the assertation of sovereignty, no matter how valid gets you the equivalent of a secret decoder ring in a box Cracker Jacks. It is so much easier to just do what you do and keep your fucking mouth shut. Maybe I am too old to appreciate such lofty ideals now. I can defy them just as easily now, perhaps even more so if I don't declare myself King on Termynesia. If I go and stick these papers up their ass I better be squeaky clean because I will become a target. I am nowhere near squeaky clean, I can swear to that. You become a target you can have the same experience as James Trafficant, and he was a fucking congressman. I am not even a congressman. I am not even a dog catcher. In fact I don't actually exist. They use this strawman argument, in legal terms. Well I never constructed the strawman. I am about as invisible as they come yet I enjoy the fruits of my defiance every day. Some people similar to me, they owned a boneyard and the olman of the family was a thief. Bigtime. So the kid is working for the olman. The olman was sitting in the bar and my buddy at about 13 was running the yard. Well the olman got drunk and never picked the kid up and took him home. No concept of a license, he just grabbed one of the trucks and drove home. The olman was pleased. Kid thought he might be pissed, but not at all. The olman smacked the kid ONE TIME in his entire life. They had a truck that had no lights. The olman wanted toggle switches put in so he could control the lights from the driver's seat. The kid said "Why don't I just fix them the right way ?". Smack. The olman wanted to have absolute control over the lights, ergo being able to use the brakes without the lights coming on. Kid just didn't understand that. Stealth. He did learn though. Though (hard to believe) we have morals, but my ilk has absolutely no respect for law, government or authority. People can't seem to understand that. I seem to be a magnet for such people, and the thievin days are over. No more, there is too much risk, you have too little filespan left to sit in fucking jail and above all it's getting alot tougher to get away with shit. Morality in this case might be considered a byproduct. One guy was a master thief and stole enough in his life to support the city budget for two years. No more. He has a job, I gave him somewhere to stay for free and he now has a job. All of his warrants are gone to the tune of about two grand, which was supplied by his boss and my family. He is not going back. He hasn't stolen anything in quite some time and is seeing the benefit of not having to look over his shoulder every day, which is an olmanism. Many years ago the olman and I considerd ripping off a bookie. Back in the eighties we would clear a cool million most likely, but realized that though the guy would not call the cops, if there were any witnesses alive, we would have to book state. (that is slang for leaving town for far away and never to return). We simply decided not to do it. It would be wrong, but that was not the point back then. To me it is now, but not back then. So don't kid yourself, I know the ins and outs, the left and right and the ups and downs of this whole shebang. If this shit was worth doing (to me) I would've been the first one to do it. I know the game, in every court case, I (we) directed the action or response. Our money made the lawyer nothing but a mouthpiece, just like Obama is a mouthpiece for the really big money. As it was with every other president probably in the last century at least. In the past decade or so, I have learned alot. I am an asset to the hood here, and can get away with having wild loud paties all night. I pay zero except in property taxes and house insurance. Top cop Simone wants me so bad I make his mouth water every day, but he doesn't have me. I assure you I am not posting this from jail. They won't even stop me. They might show up in five minutes for a loud noise complaint, but for some reason the response time to my house is about two hours and I am just fine with that. If anyone thinks that a few filings and whatever can achieve such a status, they are in for a rude awakening. The thing is that I am practically invisible, and that is just fine. Even though my name is on a few things, there are alot of names to be had. And I can do practically anything. Someone mentioned a DBA, I think you have to publish a declaration in the classifieds for five days or something, just like divorced people who have joint credit account with their ex. You'll see it sometimes "as of this date I will not be responsible for any debt incurred by anyone other than myself". No problem. Is the IRS going to then somehow magically obtain the brand new account numbers and scrutinize every transaction ? Hardly, not evedn softly. (that's an Uncle Glennism). That's why I never took the steps to become a non citizen of the corporate united states, nor the territory of Ohio or the city of Cleveland. There was simply no gain to be had for me. I want to know what impels another to do so. I will analyse the reason and give my advice as to whether it is worth all the bullshit to do it or not. But until I get an answer I can't advise on the matter. Remember, I have no illusion of freedom, and certainly wouldn't pay for one. All this talk of flags and shit, true as it may be, means nothing to me. I care about my own well being and wealth, everything else is secondary. To call me insane for that would be insane. T

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 9:01:58 PM)
yup unfortunately the freemen placed all the nuts in the flag basket too. Its not the flag in and of itself that winds up being the jurisdiction. Once contracted to the jurisdiction they can hold court on the fucking moon in leotards and flying a too too and it wont make any difference. That take the flag down is just showboating by the judge or whomever and they are correct. However I cannot stress enough that these courts do not hav jurisdiction outside of their outside of the court property and likewise the police and sherrif et al. Gotta be on yer game to prove it to a court however.

Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 10:01:23 PM)
OK, agreed. Having court on the moon would be a great idea. Hunky would probably consider the leotards to die for. But just in case you missed my question in FOURTEEN pages of posts. Just what are YOU doing that makes this advantageous for YOU to do. If you don't want it out here on front street mail me. I have made my position known, it is not worth it for me. Maybe if I found out I only had six months to live or some shit like that, and had the money and time to do it I would just so that I could say I died a "free" Man. In real life the benefits do not outweigh the consequenses for most people. That was my point. Statutory law has so many loopholes available usually that all you need is to find them, and when you do it does not antagonize the court, thus not arriving in a do or die situation. Aside from property taxes and insurance, I already pay nothing. Tell me one advantage of this "special" status. What can it do for me ? I already do whatever I want whenever I want. And I mean anything. This world is lucky that I am not malicious, because I know that I am one of the people who can get away with a hell of alot. People say I overthink things and all that. But one day they started that shit and I responded "OK then, all the UNCONVICTED felons in the room raise your hand". I saw no hands. That's one thing Uncle Glenn taught me, you don't take financial advice from someone on welfare. You don't take legal advice from someone who got busted. You don't take advice on what kind of CD player to buy from a carpenter. (actually the Pioneers were amazing. I put a laser in one and they had little flea powered lasers compared to other brands yet I could align them well enough that you could drop them on the floor and they wouldn't skip. Sanyo built units had the most powerful lasers but if you sneezed over on the east side they would skip so bad the system would crash and burn) Enough on that tangent, it might be a hijack but a few lines in a 14 page thread is not going to kill anyone. Navigating life is not that hard. Want to drive drunk (and many of the freedom folk had exactly that problem) all you need to do is to learn how the fuck to drive a straight line even if you can't walk it. Also remember not to do 100MPH in a school zone. You want to stop paying taxes, I don't know what you do for a living but I can command my rate in takehome pay. They can give me cash and shut the fuck up or they can pay the taxes for me. I ain't. Maybe everyone else does not enjoy these advantages, but I still have yet to see many people who get any TANGIBLE gain out of removing themselves from the system. The propoganda machine has stopped working here. Sure it is in operational condition but it is in the basement not plugged in and not connected to any antenna or cable. I do not own a radio that is connected except the one that came with my car, and it only works half the time. I am more concerned with the wipers and the lights, as well as the drive train and suspension. When I found out earlier this year that the AC still worked I would've fell over had I not been sitting down. Are you getting this ? Priorities. So the banks are fucking people over, want me to email you how I am going to fuck them over for the cost of a house this year ? And I am going to do it without removing myself from the system. But ending my personal paper trail does come in handy. I am poised for the best bankruptcy money can buy. Wait, if I can afford it why bankruptcy ? It is to my advantage at this point it time. Actually it will be my first. But that doesn't mean it will be my last. I might have enough steam left to do it again in seven years, should I live that long. Critical thinking is crucial. Thanks to this forum, and maybe a couple of others I have found that critical thinking is very hard to teach. It must start early in life. The very best position to have in life is to be a winner and look like a loser. To have the strength of a gorilla but appear as a chimp, or better yet a chump. To be a lion and appear as a kitten. Pink Floyd mentioned isolating a winner, but they won't try to isolate me because they are going to have no indications of what I am, what I have done and what I am capable of. You can't beat that with paperwork. T

mnottertail -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 6:17:33 AM)
Yeah, and regarding the caps bullshit....don't try fucking around with it, you'll go to jail. Here is a quick list of idiots who tried it, and the courts resultant opinion: (note the names in some are lettered in the majuscule and some mixed majuscule and miniscule). 1. Jaeger v. Dubuque County, 880 F.Supp. 640 (N.D.Iowa 1995) 2. United States v. Heard, 952 F.Supp. 329 (N.D.W.Va. 1996) 3. Boyce v. C.I.R., 72 T.C.M. ¶ 1996-439 ("an objection to the spelling of petitioners' names in capital letters because they are not 'fictitious entities'" was rejected) 4. United States v. Washington, 947 F.Supp. 87, 92 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)("Finally, the defendant contends that the Indictment must be dismissed because 'Kurt Washington,' spelled out in capital letters, is a fictitious name used by the Government to tax him improperly as a business, and that the correct spelling and presentation of his name is 'Kurt Washington.' This contention is baseless") 5. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997) 6. In re Gdowik, 228 B.R. 481, 482 (S.D.Fla. 1997)(claim that "the use of his name JOHN E GDOWIK is an 'illegal misnomer' and use of said name violates the right to his lawful status" was rejected) 7. Russell v. United States, 969 F.Supp. 24, 25 (W.D. Mich. 1997)("Petitioner * * * claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons"; this argument held frivolous) 8. United States v. Lindbloom, 97-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 50650 (W.D. Wash. 1997)("In this submission, Mr. Lindbloom states that he and his wife are not proper defendants to this action because their names are not spelled with all capital letters as indicated in the civil caption." The CAPS argument and the "refused for fraud" contention were rejected) 9. Rosenheck & Co., Inc. v. United States, 79 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2715 (N.D. Ok. 1997)("Kostich has made the disingenuous argument the IRS documents at issue here fail to properly identify him as the taxpayer. Defendant Kostich contends his ‘Christian name' is Walter Edward Kostich, Junior and since the IRS documents do not contain his ‘Christian name,' he is not the person named in the Notice of Levy. The Court expressly finds Defendant WALTER EDWARD KOSTICH JR. is the person identified in the Notice of Levy, irrespective of the commas, capitalization of letters, or other alleged irregularities Kostich identifies as improper. Similarly, the Court's finding applies to the filed pleadings in this matter") 10. United States v. Weatherley, 12 F.Supp.2d 469 (E.D.Pa. 1998) 11. United States v. Frech, 149 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 1998)("Defendants' assertion that the capitalization of their names in court documents constitutes constructive fraud, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction and venue, is without any basis in law or fact").

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 7:05:57 AM)
do you remotely have a clue why these people lost their argument in court? hint: "person" Rosenheck & Co., Inc. v. United States, 79 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2715 (N.D. Ok. 1997)("Kostich has made the disingenuous argument the IRS documents at issue here fail to properly identify him as the taxpayer. Defendant Kostich contends his ‘Christian name' is Walter Edward Kostich, Junior and since the IRS documents do not contain his ‘Christian name,' he is not the person named in the Notice of Levy. The Court expressly finds Defendant WALTER EDWARD KOSTICH JR. is the person identified in the Notice of Levy, irrespective of the commas, capitalization of letters, or other alleged irregularities Kostich identifies as improper. Similarly, the Court's finding applies to the filed pleadings in this matter") yup I can run down every one of these cases and immediately see where they fucked up

mnottertail -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 7:09:15 AM)
Yeah. No basis in law or fact. (Hint: both ways lost.) Read some fucking law for fucks sake.

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 7:14:23 AM)
like I said I can run down every one of these cases and see where they fucked up. as usual they miss the target as so many have defending themselves against this fraud, and to me at least shows you are completely cluless as to how this all works and what they have done. I summarize it syntax terrorism. Oh and BTW there is no basis in law for it. I have researched this back to its origin and they have no standing in "law" for the attachment and you contract to it.

LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 7:17:06 AM)
why dont you start with just one - explain it to us, in clear and unambiguous terms why that one failed? E

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 7:19:12 AM)
thats more time than I wanted to spend this morning on here but hang tight I will get some goodies for you

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 7:40:51 AM)
just becuz its so fucking much fun to wipe rons aka shithouse lawyers nose in it: If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples : 1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . . . 2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . . 3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . . 4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . . 5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . . Notice that only "persons" can commit these state legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "state." The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. "We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947). The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). No such ideas obtain here(speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440. "A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 7:51:46 AM)
Again, you appear to conflate the joint sovereignty of the people collective with the notion that this indicates that each person, as a member of the people collective, is a sovereign in his own right. And thereby you seem to assert that the reason for capitalisation of names is to deprive each such named person of that purported personal sovereignty such that being rendered thereby a citizen he may be joined in suit. This is in error, as the cases described by Ron showed. Nevertheless this does not answer the question as to why and how any one of these cases might have succeeded on the merits of this premise if conducted differently. E

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 8:06:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Again, you appear to conflate the joint sovereignty of the people collective with the notion that this indicates that each person, as a member of the people collective, is a sovereign in his own right. And thereby you seem to assert that the reason for capitalisation of names is to deprive each such named person of that purported personal sovereignty such that being rendered thereby a citizen he may be joined in suit. This is in error, as the cases described by Ron showed. I suppose you can say that because that is how it is being used, but its purpose is to circumvent tort violations by prosecuting under the color of law with the "presumtion" of parity and by construing the 2 to be one in the same. Nevertheless this does not answer the question as to why and how any one of these cases might have succeeded on the merits of this premise if conducted differently. well I just did. E No you fail to distinguish citizen with sovereign completely ignoring the republic and tossing it into the democracy. You dont need to read to far to realize this is a republic. In some senses what you say is correct, not this sense. syntax terrorism/

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 8:23:15 AM)
if you think the word "person" is fucked: (and for those who do not know me Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 3620 ): PERSON person. 1. A human being. — Also termed natural person. adult disabled person.A child over the age of 18 for whom a parent continues to have a duty of support. associated person.See ASSOCIATED PERSON. disabled person.A person who has a mental or physical impairment. See DISABILITY. Now they blend: interested person.A person having a property right in or claim against a thing, such as a trust or decedent's estate. • The meaning may expand to include an entity, such as a business that is a creditor of a decedent. — Abbr. IP. person of incidence.The person against whom a right is enforceable; a person who owes a legal duty. • The meaning may expand to include an entity, such as an insurance company. person of inherence The person in whom a legal right is vested; the owner of a right. • The meaning may expand to include an entity. person of interest. A person who is the subject of a police investigation but who has not been identified by investigators as being suspected of committing the crime itself. person not deceased.A person who is either living or not yet born. person of opposite sex sharing living quarters.See POSSLQ. person with ordinary skill in the art. See PERSON WITH ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART. private person. 1. A person who does not hold public office or serve in the military. 2.Civil law. An entity such as a corporation or partnership that is governed by private law. protected person. Int'l law. A person who is protected by a rule of international law; esp., one who is in the hands of an occupying force during a conflict. • Protected persons are entitled to a standard of treatment (including a prohibition on coercion and corporal punishment) by the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949). 3.English law. An inhabitant of a protectorate of the United Kingdom. • Though not a British subject, such a person is given diplomatic protection by the Crown. 2. The living body of a human being <contraband found on the smuggler's person>. 3. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. there is the killer and if its a battle between you and the government you are ALWAYS the defendant corporation to maintain parity. • In this sense, the term includes partnerships and other associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated.“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition.” John Salmond, Jurisprudence 318 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947). artificial person.An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. • An entity is a person for purposes of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses but is not a citizen for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses in Article IV, § 2, and in the Fourteenth Amendment. — Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; juridical person; legal person; moral person. Cf. LEGAL ENTITY. [Cases: Corporations 1.1(2). C.J.S. Corporations § 2.] control person.See CONTROL PERSON. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 3620 3620 fictitious person.See artificial person. international person.See INTERNATIONAL PERSON. juridical person.See artificial person. juristic person.See artificial person. legal person.See artificial person. moral person.See artificial person. private person.Civil law. See private person (2) under PERSON(1). I think it should be perfectly clear to anyone with a clue at this point what is going down. Anyway I have shit I got to do today. Oh for those of you who can see the syntax terrorism perpetrated upon the people the next famous word they love to use in their claims is "resident" and small newspaper print 2 columns its 3/8 of an inch thick. Why would we suppose one word would need a fucking book all to itself for a definition. So when you walk into court who or what do you walk into court as? FULL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AS A SOVEREIGN. So when you walk into court who or what do you walk into court as? PRIVILEDGES AND IMMUNITIES IN THE NAME OF RIGHTS GRANTED BY A GOVERNMENT AND UNDER THE SOVEREIGN. So when you walk into court who or what do you walk into court as? HELL MIX IT UP AND HAVE IT BOTH WAYS IN COURT AT THE SAME TIME! NOW: IS the court going to construe you to be the Sovereign? FUCK NO, there is NO MONEY IN IT quote: 3. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; juridical person; legal person; moral person. Cf. LEGAL ENTITY. [Cases: Corporations 1.1(2). C.J.S. Corporations § 2.] That way they "give themselves" jurisdiction and parity. welcome to syntax terrorism and the "legal" INDUSTRY is riddled with words like this. any questions? enjoy

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 8:53:05 AM)
that said: Is it becoming clear now why an attorney who is on his game will always refuse a letter they have to sign for when sent to him in this manner: TO: :lady-jane: [Ellen] aka LADY JANE ELLEN dba ELLEN LAW FIRM I have done this several times to test the theory and they come back refused every time.

Arpig -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 9:17:56 AM)
Great thunderin purple Jesus you are a one trick pony these days. Look in the other thread your CAPITALIZATION bullshit has been dealt with already by both myself and Lady E, so just stuf it where the sun don't shine. Your endless moronic ravings have become tedious. OK on your planet the Pope rules the world...well all of except you, who are a nation unto yourself..just do us all a favour and shut the fuck up.

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 9:25:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Great thunderin purple Jesus you are a one trick pony these days. Look in the other thread your CAPITALIZATION bullshit has been dealt with already by both myself and Lady E, so just stuf it where the sun don't shine. Your endless moronic ravings have become tedious. OK on your planet the Pope rules the world...well all of except you, who are a nation unto yourself..just do us all a favour and shut the fuck up. I rebutted your bullshit "dealt" and raised you a million. So deal with it owned chattel canadian. Stop confusing your owned ass with a Sovereign American. You may want to reconsider Ron as your mentor and get someone qualified in these matters I am sure you are a giant in your own mind. deal with it.

mnottertail -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 9:36:17 AM)
You mean like I demolished your pathetic scribblings with no less than the Hammurabi code of law? The reason they come back refused is that when the attendants strap you in at night, so you wont get up and swallow any washers or paper rings, is that it gives them a chuckle to see you drool and gape.

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 9:39:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You mean like I demolished your pathetic scribblings with no less than the Hammurabi code of law? The reason they come back refused is that when the attendants strap you in at night, so you wont get up and swallow any washers or paper rings, is that it gives them a chuckle to see you drool and gape. ignoring my rebuttals that ripped you a new asshole and went on to actually explain it notwithstanding. get a fucking life sort of funny way to concede but I accept it.

mnottertail -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/23/2010 9:40:46 AM)
You did not rebut the code of Hammurabi because you cannot.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875