None of the None of the Above

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

None of the None of the Above

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> None of the None of the Above

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 8:04:04 AM

hot4bondage

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline

Yesterday, there was a very thoughtful original post here from a new member, titled, "None of the Above." It was mostly about the 9th and 10th Amendments. I added a comment, predicting that it will mostly be ignored until some statist tool adds a post that violates the TOS and gets the whole thread removed. Guess what? It's gone. This has happened to a few threads that I've contributed to, and every one of them was a discussion about limited constitutional government. I don't check the forums enough to see who's doing this, or how, and I've never been contacted by a moderator. Am I being censored by someone too feeble-minded to form a rebuttal?

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 8:10:31 AM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

Have you contacted a Moderator to ask?

Usually, an entire thread doesn't disappear unless something requires taking out the whole thread. If the original post is a violation in and of itself, it has to go. If there is more cleaning than content, it may be removed temporarily until it can be put back on the public board. Sometimes, threads will be locked because people are getting out of control and there are too many TOS violations to keep up with. (Also known as trainwrecks.)

Late last year, P&R had gotten so bad that VideoAdminAlpha created a sticky to talk about how she was tightening the leash here. Yeah, Mods had to work their tails off to turn the section around. It's a lot better today than what it was. If you look at the stickies for this section, you can read a bit more about it.

While not exactly a political response, I hope this helps.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to hot4bondage)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 8:15:56 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

perhaps a tool did get it removed for violating tos, whether statist or not, who can say?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to LadyPact)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 8:15:56 AM

hot4bondage

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline

Thanks, LadyPact. I'll do that.

(in reply to LadyPact)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 8:20:33 AM

VideoAdminTheta

Posts: 3967
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline

Hhot4bondage, I can assure you that the thread being removed from the forum had nothing to do with you or the Amendments and that is all I can say on the matter.

When a whole thread is removed, we do not notify every member on the thread.

Theta

(in reply to LadyPact)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 9:39:49 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Yesterday, there was a very thoughtful original post here from a new member, titled, "None of the Above." It was mostly about the 9th and 10th Amendments. I added a comment, predicting that it will mostly be ignored until some statist tool adds a post that violates the TOS and gets the whole thread removed. Guess what? It's gone. This has happened to a few threads that I've contributed to, and every one of them was a discussion about limited constitutional government. I don't check the forums enough to see who's doing this, or how, and I've never been contacted by a moderator. Am I being censored by someone too feeble-minded to form a rebuttal?

The problem you have with the constitution is that it is "only" expresses the character of law, hence carries with that authorization of certain legal titles to some operation or draws a line in the sand with the false assumption that it somehow protects. It establishes a jurisdiction or lack thereof.

However the constitution is about both law and "equity", NOT just law. Equity follows and runs concurrent with law. When you have no "remedy" in the shit "arbitrary" law we have in this country, you run to equity for relief. Equity is a strange bird, originally set out to be the "conscience" of the king. The king simply said "that aint fair" and someone was relieved of the obligation.

Now lets take all the aging people who are paying property taxes for their "PRIVATE" home that they bought and paid for in full where the "value" of their home is an "arbitrary" value choosen by some assessor, based on the "arbitrary" value of the dollar that you are assuredly losing 50%++ buying power (the ability to pay the fucking taxes), every 10 years due to "inflation" alone, and these people are now on a "fixed income" that is not adjusted "UP" for inflation, nor could they write any of it off on their taxes since they are not and cannot submit an "OID", yet the tax liabily is forced upon them fully and they have NO RELIEF in any court in the US.

As I speak they are being "FORCED" to sell their homes so the sovereign king state can put someone in their home that is willing to PAY PAY PAY the taxes, (JUST LIKE JOLLY OLE ANGLAND pre revolution) even though the only real benefit to them is "public" fire, quasi public sewer and so forth which is a petty 1-2% of the tax liability.

Its no different, all of the land in england is entrusted to the king for "protection". In america they sing that song in both directions. They protect you when it comes time to collect and claim they have no obligation when it comes time to pay! what the fuck is up with that?

So equity does nothing to protect people from a "CORRUPT" king sovereign (or the sovereign plutocratic "state"), or a corrupt gubafia or court where some rico act are common completely unknown to the public. case in point the treasury and the federal reserve, banking et al. second case in point where Dr. (X-Attorney General fine proved and filed a complaint with eric holder that the whole california judicial system is one mass of fraud and corruption). It will never get into court.

Well the thanks Dr. Fine got from the "people" is that he is now a political prisoner like all tax protestors who made cases that the gubafia would look like total fools in the public to deny.

The 2 courts chancery and common law have been arguably merged under the "law side" though they will tell you that only the procedure has been merged. In reality that is not exactly the way it works in function because they added yet another well several variables to the labrynth of bullshit they call "law", that being "prescription" and worse "presumption".

The state can make any fucking "presumption" of/in law (and statutize it), that they want generating more business as rivate parties are forced into defending your rights against the constant encroachment and barage from government.

There is a X sherriff who did enough research to prove that these municipalities do not have the authority to act judicially. The whole fucking system is a house of cards in FIAT.

Now I will touch on the really fun shit.

What the king like ALL sovereigns do (to protect their power structure) did, is to create a "split title".

That means that your rights are split between legal and equitable interests. Legal would be constitutional and equitable would be those claimed in the declaration of independence. Good luck with that, as they have their own private franchise on the definitions of words and if you do not fit into a prescribed slot they will pound you in it one way or another.

Now if that is not a big enough shit pile, they also have the ability to "construct" an "UNDERLYING" trust and the icing on that cake is they can do it without your knowledge and enforce it in court.

You can stomp your feet all day long with the law which cannot recognize or adjudicate the TRUST underlying or not! your private rights are PURELY "equitable", if you get the distinction.

So lets add it up.

If you look in the old law dictinaries the definition for idiot is a "private individual person". That should be a hint what you are dealing with. Funny how those definitions get that way in LAW.

Any decision that a democracy or in the case of america, the plutocracy which is composed of the corporatocracy makes technically is a violation of your rights UNLESS you have a contract allowing them to do so. Of course that contract is presumed.

That said imagine this.

The crown could (and most likely does) have an underlying TRUST in all lands of the US, Now afghanastan and iraq as well (through the law and doctrine of "conquest"), hence the right to "rents" and the designation of "uses".

The gubafia can use any number of theories that are acceptable to them and fulfills the requirements of "reasonable" from strict to general prudential and any number of a zillion ways to interpret any cause and conclude whatever in the hell they want.

lets start here where the states started to rip that constitution to shreds.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11954966981769767880&q=allodial&hl=en&as_sdt=1c66001c01803fffffcc003803007ffffe000000000000000000000131cf1f2cf8307042639e3e700100400000000000004

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to hot4bondage)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 9:43:26 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

NOT EVER:

IDIOT, Persons. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any. Shelf. on Lun. 2.
   2. It is an imbecility or sterility of mind, and not a perversion of the understanding. Chit. Med. Jur. 345, 327, note s; 1 Russ. on Cr. 6; Bac. Ab. h.t. A; Bro. Ab. h.t.; Co. Litt. 246, 247; 3 Mod. 44; 1 Vern. 16; 4 Rep. 126; 1 Bl. Com. 302. When a man cannot count or number twenty, nor tell his father's or mother's name, nor how old he is, having been frequently told of it, it is a fair presumption that, he is devoid of understanding. F. N. B. 233. Vide 1 Dow, P. C. now series, 392; S. C. 3 Bligh, R. new series, 1. Persons born deaf, dumb, and blind, are, presumed to be idiots, for the senses being the only inlets of knowledge, and these, the most important of them, being closed, all ideas and associations belonging to them are totally excluded from their minds. Co. Litt. 42 Shelf. on Lun. 3. But this is a mere presumption, which, like most others, may be rebutted; and doubtless a person born deaf, dumb, and blind, who could be taught to read and write, would not be considered an idiot. A remarkable instance of such an one may be found in the person of Laura Bridgman, who has been taught how to converse and even to write. This young woman was, in the year 1848, at school at South Boston. Vide Locke on Human Understanding, B. 2 c. 11, Sec. 12, 13; Ayliffe's Pand. 234; 4 Com. Dig. 610; 8 Com. Dig. 644.
   3. Idiots are incapable of committing crimes, or entering into contracts. They cannot of course make a will; but they may acquire property by descent.
   Vide, generally, 1 Dow's Parl. Cas. new series, 392; 3 Bligh's R. 1; 19 Ves. 286, 352, 353; Stock on the Law of Non Compotes Mentis; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

early 14c., "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning;" also in Middle English "simple man, uneducated person, layman" (late 14c.), from O.Fr. idiote "uneducated or ignorant person" (12c.), from L. idiota "ordinary person, layman; outsider," in L.L. "uneducated or ignorant person," from Gk. idiotes "layman, person lacking professional skill" (opposed to writer, soldier, skilled workman), lit. "private person (as opposed to one taking part in public affairs)," used patronizingly for "ignorant person," from idios "one's own" (see idiom).

the original greek was that (after a fashion) but the law does not use words in their dictionary that have not been used commonly and defined in our language for some time.

It has never meant private person ever since we originally built it from the Greek into English. Not to nobody, not never.

And the rest of the kerflaffel is buncombe.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 8/10/2012 9:50:12 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 11:05:09 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

So I was really pissed off when dubya said the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper and unfortunately he was stating a fact.

The irony is that even wiki took notice of the fraud in american law which is grew out of the laws of england.

Jurisdictional peculiarities
In the law of almost every country, the state is the ultimate owner of all land under its jurisdiction, because it is the sovereign, aka KING or supreme lawmaking authority. Physical and corporate persons do not have allodial title; they do not "own" land but only enjoy estates in the land, also known as "equitable interests."

If the constitution and the laws of this country is IN FACT protection then how in the fuck they convert rights to a mere "interest" in property?

Of course never mind that your body is also YOUR PROPERTY! Hence the REAL importance in property rights.

quote:

Ultimate property in lands; escheats. SECTION 3. The
people of the state, in their right of sovereignty, are declared to
possess the ultimate property in and to all lands within the juris-
diction of the state; and all lands the title to which shall fail from
a defect of heirs shall revert or escheat to the people.

wisconsin constitution, hows that for a cluster fuck?
Who understands what they just said there? LOL

Yeh well try and enforce what it "appears" to mean! LMAO

The Supreme Court ruled in Murdock v. Penn. 319 US 105 (1943):
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution …Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exists independently of the states authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it….A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.”

Driving is purely commercial.

So when you buy a car, the gubafia issues a certificate of title. You hold the certificate and receipt that a title exists somewhere in the world and that you have usufruct (ownership) privileges that attach.

So who holds the original title if all you get is the certificate acknowledgement of it?

He or it that holds title has legal authority over the property.

you do have the legal right to travel and use whatever the locomotive means of the day is. be it your feet or a star trek transporter.

however travel has been purely commercialized as driving so it comes under the gubafias perview and since driving is a different word than travel you are now pegged as a driver which is taxable and see how far you get when you go to court and say but judge ole pally I was travelling not operating a business on the commonway.,

~Subterfuge R U.S.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/10/2012 11:17:55 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to hot4bondage)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 11:51:20 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exists independently of the states authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it….A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.

The privilege is religious freedom, and free speech in this case. That is guarenteed by the constitution, there is no guarentee of owning land in the constitution.

There is no connection to these two things.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 12:43:13 PM

DaNewAgeViking

Posts: 1009
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

Sigh.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 3:31:39 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exists independently of the states authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it….A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.

The privilege is religious freedom, and free speech in this case. That is guarenteed by the constitution, there is no guarentee of owning land in the constitution.

There is no connection to these two things.

what is that disjointed sentence supposed to mean that the gubafia owes everyone property?

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 11

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 4:03:15 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

if you cant understand simple 3rd grade english phrasing, how do you expect that you are qualified to lecture us on law, physics, WWII, etymology, or any of your many other areas of conspiracy tinfoil?

The federal government does not secure you any liberty to own land. End of joke, no more to be said, all in, all done and never any question about that, in law or in principle, nor has there been any question of it since the time of recorded nations in any nation.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 12

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 6:45:21 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

if you cant understand simple 3rd grade english phrasing, how do you expect that you are qualified to lecture us on law, physics, WWII, etymology, or any of your many other areas of conspiracy tinfoil?

The federal government does not secure you any liberty to own land. End of joke, no more to be said, all in, all done and never any question about that, in law or in principle, nor has there been any question of it since the time of recorded nations in any nation.

nuff said

then we agree that the US is in fact feudal.

BLAM!

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/10/2012 6:46:09 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 13

RE: None of the None of the Above - 8/10/2012 8:42:05 PM

hot4bondage

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline

Thanks for letting me know, Theta. I was getting a bit gunshy.

(in reply to VideoAdminTheta)

Profile

Post #: 14