Commercial Affidavit of Truth: Not all it's cracked up to be

[mrg]

And, further, once again:

Could/would one of our erstwhile "attorneys" provide a copy of the text of the footnotes?

7 Corpus Juris Secundum


Footnotes 53 and 54.


Footnotes 55 and 56.


Footnotes 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Attorneys, in this sense, are, perhaps, colored as "public servants?"

You are, however, more accurately, self-serving private monopoly trade guilds-men involved in a collusive scheme of for-profit organized, syndicated criminal racketeering, plying an age-old pernicious trade of entrapment and enslavement along the edge and sides of the place where affairs are administered.

The only power you and your foreign Tory Loyalist BAR Association bastard attorney fellows have comes at the barrels of mercenary municipal corporate troops' guns, and, under threat, coercion, and duress.

The business of kidnapping children is but one of your little scams, and a very profitable one too.

Slavery, and drug trading is another.

Still.

Bribery, extortion, treason.

You and your bastard attorney ilk set about to war upon our Constitution before the ink was even dry, and your so-called "Amendments" XII, XIII, XIV, XV, and XVI, which tear the fabric of the document, rather than mending a rent in the fabric, are a crowning glory that has made what was actually produced at the Philadelphia Convention, perhaps a mere historical curiosity.

That and an extremely warped concept of "stare decisis."

There is profanity for you.

bastard

Function:
noun

Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to OldFrisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind

Date:
14th century

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

A republican form of government means a republic.

In a republic the administration of affairs is open to all CITIZENS©.

A court is a republican institution where affairs are administered.

You must administer your affairs of court yourself or waive this right.

MOST PEOPLE, myself included, thought that John signed the Great Charter of English Liberties and became good King John afterwards.

This is wrong.

As soon as John got the rebel barons to disband their armies he waged holy war against them for the rest of his life.

OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA must be defended and we must defend it to the best of our ability.

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit documents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

If a few of us do this we can be hunted down and exterminated.

If thousands of us do this it may succeed.

[trooper2ls]

MRG.. pure poetry. I love it!

..J

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

amennse, they are colorably getting "jurisdiction" under the doctrine of "strict liability" which in their fictitious playground precludes the need for a scienter

I'm sure what your saying is accurate so I have no issue. I had noted our Edward I claim about the weapon, where he says he didn't know the weapon was there. Scienter self defense. But since I am on the scient of Edward the first, King of England, I stood back and mused the relations here. I ask the question what is the common element of the school property, the truck property and the weapon property. My answer was interstate commerce. The school representatives wanting to partcipate in wealth redistrbution from Rome would be enrolled into societas en commendita. This enrollment in turn would create an "estate", a sum total of legal interests, regulatable from the central source, Rome. As to the truck and weapon it is obvious they originate elsewhere and cross state boundaries giving rise to excise taxes etc. Federal reserve notes, not extinguishing debts, would leave Admiralty to attach a lien against the property and the protecting of that lien creates property rights for regulator authority. I saw this in the Ruby Ridge incident where the court papers showed the shotgun used in that incident was engaging in interstate commerce. Anyone have that documentation online?
The truck and weapon, engaging in interstate commerce creates a superior national authority not a state or local authority and this for revenue purposes not peace purposes. The theory of Rome is peace thru prosperity. The officers being of local origins would be acting for the revenue measures of Rome which would be to exact and collect fees from captures. This is called privateering where an individual entity using their own resources go to find the enemies of the Crown, capture and then share in the spoils of the capture. (Trading with the enemies act).
So originating with Cardozo and Learned Hand,
"strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent[1]). The plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Strict liability is imposed for legal infractions that are malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, therefore, neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

I see trespass on the estate as the tort for which strict liability would lie. The investigating officers find evidence of mala prohibitum (no registration, vin removal, weapons) violations and then commence proceedings for an "action on account." The account is the legal relations between the school district and District of Columbia. That account is damaged by the disobedience to the rules for the use of that property so in court the magi says, quo warranto, by whos authority do you damage this property? No warrant or license from higher authority being shown then Edward is guilty. Actions on account have terms and conditions to meet for violations, pay or stay or both. I think maybe people miss the fact that school properties in relation with D.C. are private properties and not public. In my limited perspective anyways. I have no idea what the commercial affidavit of truth is.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Farmer Giles

The more I think about the role of government the less I find things for them to do.

I didn't originally post that but I agree 100%. At some point in our lives we have been conditioned to think "government", and it was all downhill from there.

It's a kind of immaturity. For me probably started around 12. It grows out of the school climate- all that nonsense, it is clearly deliberately designed to warp the though process. The basic fact of logic is just crushed with a relentless assault by the Party indoctrinators.

Notice who gets attracted to teaching for the far greater part: the typically mealy-mouth petty attitudes.

Poetry is right on, brother MRG. I hear you.

[dorkenbutt]

I have a few questions for lawpuppy. When the people elect representatives to Congress, who do the congress critters represent? Is it the United States? Is it the IRS? Or is it the people? If no one is in Congress, i.e. people, does the United States (government) cease to exist? If so is it sovereign then? Are the people that are in Government better than I or somehow superior to me or you? Without those people in office does the government, a construct of the mind BTW, still function? How can an inanimate creation be sovereign? Who gave it it's sovereignty? It certainly didn't give it to itself did it? That would be impossible?!!! People created government, so prey tell, how is it that the United States is sovereign over the ones that created it? I do not expect the brainwashed such as yourself to answer these questions, so I won't hold my breath. You make a great slave though.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

My purpose is to keep a few people from drinking the kool-aid, so to speak. Posting proof that certain theories don't work in the real world is enough to convince some people not to play with fire.

As I did in the other thread, I'll ask again; who did this man harm, threaten or endanger?

The manner, method and opportunities you choose to espouse your support of an ever increasing fascist and totalitarianist government is, in a word, pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

When the people elect representatives to Congress, who do the congress critters represent? Is it the United States? Is it the IRS? Or is it the people?

USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. All of your lawmakers represent the government as their first duty. We the sheeple are human capital for their tyrannical system.

For instance if 75% of "We the People" voted for Ron Paul.. the electorial college can still vote in McCain. Sure they are "supposed" to be voting the same way as their districts.. but there is no requirement. Remember the 2000 election.. Bush didn't win the popular vote.. but he became president anyway due to the electoral vote.

Bottom line is it is stacked.

..J

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. All of your lawmakers represent the government as their first duty. We the sheeple are human capital for their tyrannical system.

For instance if 75% of "We the People" voted for Ron Paul.. the electorial college can still vote in McCain. Sure they are "supposed" to be voting the same way as their districts.. but there is no requirement. Remember the 2000 election.. Bush didn't win the popular vote.. but he became president anyway due to the electoral vote.

Bottom line is it is stacked.

..J

Yes I know all about what you have stated. I am not one of the sheople.

I asked lawpuppy how a creation of the people (government) can be sovereign? Is that possible? How can some thing (government) be greater than it's creator? If government has no one behind the curtain can it continue to exist? Is it still sovereign? How can those that have been elected to office, under the guise of representing those that put them there, be better than the people?

I agree that everything is stacked, but why? Have we allowed this to happen to us? Since when is the Constitution an entitlement? Did the second amendment give the people the right to bear arms or did the people have that right before the Constitution was ever written? Is the Constitution a restriction on government or people?

Tell me lawpuppy can goverment breath, bleed, vote, talk, etc., on it's own? Can the United States sign a POA (Power of Attorney) to have an attorn-ey represent it? Can the United States appear in court on it's own? Can it bring an action on it's own? Do men and women in government (our eqauls) have the right to rule over us? Maybe you need to read the Declaration of Independence again.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Tell me lawpuppy, do you believe all men are created equal, like the DI states? Or are you just another power hungry corrupt attorney like so many others are? From what I have read of your statements, you seem to be the latter.

The questions I have asked above are valid and I am asking for a response. Come on lawpuppy, you can do it, so what say ye?

[trooper2ls]

Glad to hear you are not a sheep dorken. Your questions directed at LP will probably not be answered in any meaningful way. I started a thread a while back that puts it all in an abridged perspective:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citize...d-we-know.html

It starts 4000 years ago.. but post #5 is where the America begins

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/131280-post5.html

But in a nutshell the modern system that you see is a direct result of FDR treasonously placing this entire nation into socialism. The Great Depression was in full swing and desperate, ignorant people just agreed to "The New Deal" because they thought it was a solution.. they didn't realize that we were sold into the bondage of New Egypt.

If LP does decide to answer your question.. I'll miss it cause that UGA attorner sheep is on my ignore list.


..J

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

I asked lawpuppy how a creation of the people (government) can be sovereign?

My boy, the problem with your questions is that you appear not to understand the very nature of government in this country. I recommend the Federalist Papers. In a shorter vein, I offer this quote from New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992):

Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States. Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. at 76 (emphasis added). The Court has made the same point with more rhetorical flourish, although perhaps with less precision, on a number of occasions. In Chief Justice Chase's much-quoted words, the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869). See also Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 523 (1926) ("neither government may destroy the other nor curtail in any substantial manner the exercise of its powers"); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990) ("under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government"); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. at ___ ("the States retain substantial sovereign powers under our constitutional scheme, powers with which Congress does not readily interfere").

There you have it. The kernel of sovereign authority was split between the federal government on the one hand, and the states on the other.