RE: Common Law and rights (Full Version)

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



Message


pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 9:59:04 AM)

I am a free man living upon the land.




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:01:21 AM)

So I can take it then that this stuff about Admiralty Maritime Jurisdicition is utter bunkum.

E




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:03:12 AM)

The sun never sets on the British Empire.    Recall how Brittan masters the SEA.  Sea as in MARITIME.




SaintIntensity -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:08:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

As it turns out, those groups are a private communication- and password protected.

I cant give away the secret sauce, nor will anyone.    It is on YOU to be a master of your fate.

Universities charge big money.   Maybe they can assist.

Some of the sovereigns-  seem to make trouble for them self- yet some do have success on the remedies.  It falls on pick your battles carefully.


I certainly wont pass along the sites to anyone who has no interest in them.   Not to mention the passwords.

(no offense)

I can tell you there is bickering there too.





ah more "secret" bullshit
you are a pathetic little creature
they talk all day on these sites? no wonder - no one with a job amongst 'em
losers chatting to more losers
never permit a voice of reason to interfere with their self-absorbed lunacy

fucking sad wanker
why do you boother living Hunky? you're shit at it, thats all....  (no offence) etc




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:11:17 AM)

Saint,

I would like an apology for your insults in post 24.




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:14:30 AM)

And I should like apologies for the many and varied insults to Lizzie Windsor and for the vast amount of my time that has been wasted as it turns out in trying to understand the first thing about the bunkum you and your mates keep bringing up.

Aint gonna happen

E




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:15:45 AM)

E. 

I did not hurl personal insults at you.  If I did, then yes, I am sorry.




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:18:28 AM)

Sorry m'dear but I cant even take an apology from you as being genuine these days.

Please - go see a psychologist? RO is a different case to you - he appears to be psychotically attached to his delusions, whilst you appear to be neurotically fixated. This is good news because its far more treatable in your case so that you might be rehabilitated into the guy I knew here before.

E




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:21:06 AM)

I did not insult you personally.




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:25:18 AM)

No you didnt. Neither did I you.

I am conflicted with you right now - on the one hand the stream of utter shite you keep posting is exasperating and requires response, on the other hand its apparent that youre not yourself and whatever it is thats wrong is seriously affecting your day to day life. The conflict is whether to tear you to shreds or take pity or simply ignore you.

Please, get some tests at least?
E




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 10:29:08 AM)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3147604/mpage_1/tm.htm  see post 20

Hello,

Over the past week or so, I have had a constructive dialogue and labs works- a few tests.  My DR, and I now plot an adjustment in my meds- which is agreeable to me.

Based on all the results- I plan to follow his regiment.

Understand- that this took a while to work out- including me firing a DR over it.

Medications can improve life- and they ALSO can destroy lifes.

I spent 7 years with a boyfriend who was a drug addict.  DRUGS KILL.
For these reasons- I always insist in active participation in any treatment plan.

I have a right to my body- to my being- and a say so on what I do to it.

I do NOT regret taking effexxor down- an antidepressant.

One should  review any treatment plan 2-3 times a year. As things change.

My DR is aware of the full context of my health, my views, and concise assessment of the prognosis.

Thanks to all who put up with me.  Special huge to those who understood my plight(s).

Anywho- Have a great day.





Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 12:22:24 PM)

LE, Hunky may be nuts, but that is not the direct cause of this. When one is introduced to Constitutional law the allure is strong. They have good information and it seems to be backed up in law. They do research things, but the problem is even though they may actually be factually correct the conclusions drawn and methods derived are not all that sound.

You must understand the allure, the feeling of being special, the supposed ability to tell the gov to go fuck off. It is very enticing and I know that, I was in it. What wound up happening is after separating the chaff, about 10% of it actually holds water. Some of the people at those meeting have read and comprehend (at least somewhat) the entire UCC or the entire trading with the enemy act and so forth. Remember the power of the word no, when you are in a meeting with these people collaberating, the one who says "No, you can't do that because...." is the one with the real brain in the room.

The path one takes when challenging statutory law is not an easy one. People make many mistakes. They had paperwork from one guy up in Michigan that they were touting as something good, but what it turned out to be was that he was fighting the child support system. Why ? Of course because he didn't want to pay to support his kids, I don't respect that. I can understand fighting taxes, fines and levies and all sorts of things.

Let's explore the kind of stupidity some of them exhibit. This is true and somewhat out of the topic but makes a decent exaple. Years ago I took the bus home from work. At one of the stops was a guy who apparently had no money. He was dressed in sort of militry garb and sported a tatooed swatika on his arm. He wanted to get on the bus for free. The bus driver was Black. Now what kind of sense does that make ?

Now when you go into court and start this type of shit, you are in just about the same situation as that puny neonazi punk. And I'll call him that without saying that about neonazis. Anyone I ever knew who embraced the Nazi philosophy was self sufficient and was not out there looking for handouts. I felt like smacking the kid, just because. I didn't, I just laughed to myself. Just how contradictory can one be ?

This illogical thinking happens on both sides of the bench. It is when you get someone who can really think that they worry about, because that type is the type to beat them at their own game. Such people are rare. Hunky is unlikely to get to the point where he can use these process', but Ken actually knows everything so since he doesn't know it it simply doesn't exist. What is worse, one who tries to learn and is misguided or one who refuses everything because it doesn't fit their model of the world and goes so far as to hurl insults around ?

In the final analysis, those who succeed in beating the system do pretty much what high powered, sharp and well paid lawyers do. Most of the time the reality is that all you're doing is saving a lawyer bill, but you do have the ability to do things a lawyer would not dare to do.

There is contingent of these people who after gaining a little bit of knowledge think they are going to go to court and just buy and sell the judge and get away with whatever they may be charged with because they are "free". That's the big lie, but of course as in advertising it is what sells.

Myself, first of all I lay low, I don't start shit. I have already gotten away with so much that if they locked me up for twenty years for spitting on the sidewalk we would be about even. There is another thing alot of people overlook. If you are armed with the best, the very best arsenal of legal information that is sound and true you present it to the court in writing, filed with the clerk of courts BEFORE the court date. Once you actually get there you need to get thee into either the prosecutor's office or judge's chambers. They are very reluctant to judge in your favor in open court, especially when there are others there facing the same charge and getting hit with fines and jail time. I mean no matter how strong your argument is, they do not want to be embarrassed in open court. That is where the true power lies. That is really all we have in these cases.

And don't even start if you created a victim. That means ANY victim. That means forget this when it comes to child support. You might make a bit of headway for driving without a license, but not if you got in an accident. You can do something, but if you have caused damage to another, the court will not be your friend, and simply isn't going to tell that person to go fuck off because you are free. I was all drunk and got into an accident back in 1982, the judges daughter had recently been killed by a drunk driver. I would've had to be nuts to try anything. So I got a VERY good lawyer and had the guy's vehicle half paid off by the time the court dat rolled around. Between the two I walked. I even find it hard to believe.

The zoning people, city inspectors and tax collectors are relatively easy, and the key word here is RELATIVELY. It is not easy by any even vaguely accurate description of the word. When you are facing jail time and big fines you better give it some serious thought. But some don't, they think "I am a free Man and can do as I please". This is simply not true. If you have created a victim, don't even try it. It will not work and all you will accomplish is to impede the efforts of those who really do go in there and fight unjust laws, laws against victimless crimes.

For example, you don't always have to go this route. If you are in trouble with the IRS you don't need any immunity for certain things, and many will voluntarily pay taxes. So be it. But sometimes you get jammed up and can't pay on time. Well walk into the office NOT a courtroom and simply offer them the base tax you owe. Speak of the "amendment" but do not refute it, just read it. It says TAX, not interest, not penalties. The government is (supposedly) not a bank and a field officer will settle for just the tax. Some people owe more in interest and penalties than actual tax. When you walk out of there with less money in your pocket you don't even get on the docket.

If you get a ticket for 35 in a 25 zone, at least in Ohio, subpoena the traffic survey that indicated that this zone was rightly lowered to a 25 according to Ohio law. Nine times out of ten they didn't do it and therefore can't produce it. Case dismissed. You don't have to cut your license into pieces and formally return it with your plates and replace them with a plate with some code from the UCC. You don't have to assert your right to travel under the big bad Constitution, it won't work anyway. Just ask for that survey. If the municipal court can't produce it they could be judged a speed trap by the state government which will cause big problems for them.

Some think that they can walk into court and no matter what the charge and just assert that they are free and walk out the door. It does not work that way. In fact if you pester the court with this stuff and aren't standing on terra firma, and victimless you are likely to find out just how much freedom you can lose. Always remember, contempt of court does not have a maximum sentence. You can sit in jail for longer doing that than you would just taking the damn conviction and moving on.

But people get into it like a mantra, and can only sing one note. That is the trap. There are also schills out there as well as people selling bogus information, taking advantage of those who have the desire to actually be free, not realizing that itr is impossible today.

Like I said I have discarded 90% of the information I gleaned from these people. It just doesn't work in many cases. Knowing when and where to have a battle is also important. Some will tell you to declare yourself free right in open court no matter what. You could be charged with arson, vehicular homocide or who knows what and they have the same answer as they have for a friggin speeding ticket. Ludicrous.

And even the truth, when it is in your favor, is misinterpreted many times. It's as if they think I can go kill someone and claim I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and it made me happy to see this asshole dead, so they have to just let you go. Believe it or not some do go that far.

All of you, don't be fooled. You can't just do whaever you want, even I can't and I am a master at getting away with shit. On top of what I could do law wise, I have good lawyers and I know how to be discreet. I don't want to tango with them, and when and if I have to I will weigh all my options carefully. Recently I and a few others have developed a new tactic, which I might reveal at a later time. Know why I don't mention it now ? I DON'T WANT EVERY ASSHOLE IN THE WORLD KNOWING IT. That's right, while I do care about people to some extent, I have to look out for number one.

T




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 12:32:25 PM)

1.  what is the path of least resistance?
2. choose ones battles carefully.
3.  we no longer have allodial title- that means that we don't really own our stuff- which brings me back the Maritime law.




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 12:52:55 PM)

Reasonable post T - it didnt answer the questions I put but in the round it was well, reasonable stuff.

That same sort of reasonable response is what I'd like to get on all this stuff. I do court actions, prepare them for others and represent (within limits) so I find it interesting and who knows might pick up a tip or two - but to be frank, some of the stuff that gets posted on this subject is bizarre, unsubstantiated, insupportable and I dare say dangerous.

E




Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 12:56:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Real, you do not set precedent, you are not 'the court.'

Your continued delusions would be sad if it werent so damn funny waiting to see what the hell you come up with next.

I pity you since, clearly, you have some paranoid idea that the government is either out to get you, or someone is.

If you feel that strongly against the government, I suggest you leave this country which is causing you so much distress and find another to live in, might I suggest the Republic of Micronesia?




Well since you apparently lost your glasses let me help you see ok....

"The meaning of 'sovereignty' is the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U

Get it?


you think these judges are as fucking backwards assed as you are?





Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 1:06:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Sorry m'dear but I cant even take an apology from you as being genuine these days.

Please - go see a psychologist? RO is a different case to you - he appears to be psychotically attached to his delusions, whilst you appear to be neurotically fixated. This is good news because its far more treatable in your case so that you might be rehabilitated into the guy I knew here before.

E


Yeh I almost feel sorry for that poor cop that I got fired.  He was the first victim of my pencil and paper.  well puter and printer but you know.  When they fuck up and try to give me tickets I just send them back and tell them to pay their own damn tickets.   I should have been banned from the road several times. Nothing.  In fact that last court wisely dropped the traffic ticket that the cop gave me.  To hot of a potato when there are so many fools out there to pay the bills.  They have a long line every fucking day and those are only the ones who take it before the judge.

You sold yourselves down the river to the corporation and now you all get to whine and live with your "democracy"  I will stick with my republic thank you very much and watch ya'll pay the bills and go broke!  LMAO 




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 1:20:16 PM)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=213&invol=347

This is the American Banana Co v United Fruit Co ruling. There is a link, directly following your quoted line "the meaning of sovereignty is.........." which develops the theme further. You are not a sovereign in the sense of the ruling given; you do not determine the laws for a jurisdiction, except that under your roof perhaps, still less for your state or the US as whole. Your use of the quoted line is therefore misguided and misleading. Though unlikely to provide cause of action in a misrepresentation suit against you, you should cease using it forthwith.

E




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 1:26:08 PM)

E.

By way of your posts- you suggest the US is under UCC/Maritime law-- which is of the Crown.  If this is true- then we did not secede too well.

If it is not true then you are not qualified to speak of US law.   See?




Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 1:26:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=213&invol=347

This is the American Banana Co v United Fruit Co ruling. There is a link, directly following your quoted line "the meaning of sovereignty is.........." which develops the theme further. You are not a sovereign in the sense of the ruling given; you do not determine the laws for a jurisdiction, except that under your roof perhaps, still less for your state or the US as whole. Your use of the quoted line is therefore misguided and misleading. Though unlikely to provide cause of action in a misrepresentation suit against you, you should cease using it forthwith.

E


thats only one of several.  There is only so much room in the footer.

Well I use it for my points and authorities and no judge or turn on me has challenged it yet so tell me ho you figger?




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 1:40:51 PM)

you make the argument that you are sovereign - in theory you are, at least in part, in as much as sovereignty in the US resides with the people, but this sovereignty is delegated to government according to prior exercise of the sovereignty of the people. You are subject to this delegated sovereignty; ergo you cannot also be sovereign in your own right according to the definition of sovereignty. What authorities, judge or a court might make of your assertion is that it is wholly irrelevant - by your mere act of interaction with them you acknowledge their sovereignty and thereby the lack of such vested in yourself personally.

PA - I am suggesting that Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction is not governing the US (except of course where it applies, which is nowhere near as wide as postulated) - that is your position (or at least your mates') and I am putting you (your mates) to proof of it.

E




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125