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

[Levi Philos]

Men can write anything on paper; sometimes what is written is contrary to natural law of human societies.

I look first to natural law, and examine current history in relation to previous events of history.

The monetary system currently in use does not properly assign the value of the money to the people who give value to the system; thus the books cannot balance.

Many or most of the efforts of the bureaucracy are directed toward fee collection, and tax collection to fill the demandments of a system that uses interest bearing debt as the basis for formation of the currency.

To the extent that the people are unable to balance the books, stress builds in the system. If this stress cannot find relief through lawful action, it will find relief on the streets and final payment will be by blood.

A system of law that ignores natural laws of human society and that fails to properly assign seigniorage to the people will finally fail. This failure will bring great stress to all.

Henry Ford and Thomas Edison on bonds: http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperi...es/edison.html

Levi Philos

[Levi Philos]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

After arrival at the following website, click on "Education", then click on "Trusts" and "Merchant Banking"; you will find this entertaining, as this is an actual banking system that was forced off the net, due to the content that they were distributing to the public (at least that is what I am understanding)

http://web.archive.org/web/200209210...kinggroup.com/

Jerry Carlos.

I am not familiar with this specific banking design or operation.

However, the east Baltic nations of Estonia (especially) and Latvia were areas where some pretty rogue operations were operating several years ago.

It is possible this operation was crooked (even more crooked than what is considered "normal" in the west) and needed to be shut down.

Levi Philos

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by KarenM

Case citation?? Or are we just supposed to take you on your word of honor?

Yeah, this assertion smells to high heaven. Thanks to the 11th Amendment, and various Supreme Court cases, it is next to impossible to sue a state in federal court without getting pimp-slapped by sovereign immunity. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida, 517 U.S. 44.

But Jerry says he vanquished the state of Florida in front of three federal judges. All hail Jerry! LOL

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Yeah, this assertion smells to high heaven. Thanks to the 11th Amendment, and various Supreme Court cases, it is next to impossible to sue a state in federal court without getting pimp-slapped by sovereign immunity. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida, 517 U.S. 44.

But Jerry says he vanquished the state of Florida in front of three federal judges. All hail Jerry! LOL

I gave you the name of a former State official who is well aware of my case in federal court. His current office address is 204 S. Monroe St, Tallahassee, Fl. You seem to know so much, and seem to have such high regard for the system... then check out this 'system' man with more than 20 years in the position of Senate General Counsel. I even pointed out to him an error in his manner of conducting his professional duty, and he called my home and plainly stated..." You are right", and then set out to correct his methods of business. Shame on me.

A State prosecutor, complaining to his supervisor, regarding my having had the opportunity to appear at this tribunal for oral argument, stated "I have been at this for nearly 22 years, and have never had that opportunity..."... Rave on Lawpuppy... not everyone is so blessed with such opportunities. PTL.

Have a nice evening.

Jerry Carlos

PS... get your statements correct. I made no mention of anyone being 'vanquished'. You are the liar now.

Oh Lawdog: Here is another one. Richard Doran, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General. Ask him how long it took him to get his 'Oath of Office' corrected after I alerted him to the fact that there were numerous men and women in a particular state agency (of which he was a member at the time) who did not have valid Oaths on file as required by statute. His contact info is currently;
ID Number: - 325104
Address: PO Box 391
Tallahassee, Florida 323020391
Phone: 850.2249115

And while you are at the check out counter, include this one; Allen Roman

ID Number: - 115998
Address: Dept of Health Prather Bldg
4052 Bald Cypress Way # A-02
Tallahassee, Florida 323997017
United States
Phone: 850.2454005

Ask him about his attempt to get me hired on with a state agency as a 'trouble-shooter' for a particular agency.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Dorkenbutt, what you have are not bona fide legal questions. Your questions have been asked and answered. Now you come up with another set that you expect me to answer. That's one slippery slope I am not going to start down, because your issues are not really legal, they are political.

As clever as your answers were, you did not answer the questions asked but instead applied your own interpretation of them. In other words, you accepted the challenge to answer the questions, then took it upon yourself to misconstrue them. Babbling out of context does not answer questions.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

As clever as your answers were, you did not answer the questions asked but instead applied your own interpretation of them. In other words, you accepted the challenge to answer the questions, then took it upon yourself to misconstrue them. Babbling out of context does not answer questions.

I answered the questions. He did not LIKE the answers I gave. That's not the same as me not answering them.

It's a little game tax protesters and other cranks like to play. They ask questions, as if they are honestly searching for knowledge. But they have already made their minds up. When they don't like the answers, either they claim you didn't answer the questions at all, or they pose an entirely new set of questions. Well, I don't feel like playing "whack a mole" with someone who is only going to continue to say, "Well, what about x? What about y? What about z?" every time a pet theory of theirs gets torpedoed. Like I said, it's really a political beef, and not really about the legal system per se.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I answered the questions. He did not LIKE the answers I gave. That's not the same as me not answering them.

No sir, you did not answer the questions. The questions were re-stated for clarity for your benefit as you misconstrued them. The one who asked the questions is the one who is in the position to state whether the questions were properly addressed or not. You sir are not in that position. You accepted the challenge on your own accord, and you have failed to meet that challenge. So in your own words, "Pay up or shut up."

Originally Posted by Lawdog

It's a little game tax protesters and other cranks like to play. They ask questions, as if they are honestly searching for knowledge. But they have already made their minds up. When they don't like the answers, either they claim you didn't answer the questions at all, or they pose an entirely new set of questions. Well, I don't feel like playing "whack a mole" with someone who is only going to continue to say, "Well, what about x? What about y? What about z?" every time a pet theory of theirs gets torpedoed. Like I said, it's really a political beef, and not really about the legal system per se.

I'm not going to address the rest of your comment since it's just more babble.

[WizordofOZ]

I just find it very humerous Mr. Lawdog here thinks he's so great. are you a Bar member? if so I really believe what you say has no standing, ground, or relevance based upon your oath. And let's say certain laws that pertain to the ability for you to mistrue the law as you deem fit. However, in all actuality any court case is garbage bull**** that nobody has to succumb to on grounds of FRAUD, because of the simple factor you are never placed under notice or told a true reason and explanation of the charges, or the fact that you are having the Bankruptcy proceedings of the bankrupt corporate US carried out against you. Without prior knowledge of that information or notice of that information makes it FRAUD anyways so the whole system is cracked up bull crap with meaningless, seemingly intelligent, yet deemingly stupid, word play that likes to juggle around any statute code or whatever. See all in all it's bull****, and they want to play their maritime admiralty game on everyone, so just play their game back with them, they come at you operating under the UCC, as that is the groundwork for all their skull-duggery, just reserve your rights under section 1-207 and 1-103, seeing as they wanted to change from the common law to UCC for many reasons one being the obligation of contract, under the common law you have to knowlingly and voluntarily enter into contract and the UCC pretty much removed that obligation. So all in all for everyone the best thing to do is learn as much as you can and play their game back, because that is one thing that really makes them mad, when a commoner takes them at their own game. and I believe that's all I have to say on that matter.

[WizordofOZ]

Also a good book to read, that was wrote after the executive order april 5, 1933 and Joint Resolution HJR 192;

Woe Unto You, Lawyers!

FRED RODELL

Professor of Law, Yale University

Written in 1939

“Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away
the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in ye hindered.” — Luke. XI, 52

Also it's really important for you people to remember the differences when you step into the court room, and you may notice the flag hanging on the wall, is seemingly different than the one flying outside of buildings, as with the gold flange that hangs from it, don't be leading, as there are 2 different flags for a reason, and it's important for you to know that reason...


your friend,
Brian the person.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by WizordofOZ

I just find it very humerous Mr. Lawdog here thinks he's so great. are you a Bar member? if so I really believe what you say has no standing, ground, or relevance based upon your oath. And let's say certain laws that pertain to the ability for you to mistrue the law as you deem fit. However, in all actuality any court case is garbage bull**** that nobody has to succumb to on grounds of FRAUD, because of the simple factor you are never placed under notice or told a true reason and explanation of the charges, or the fact that you are having the Bankruptcy proceedings of the bankrupt corporate US carried out against you. Without prior knowledge of that information or notice of that information makes it FRAUD anyways so the whole system is cracked up bull crap with meaningless, seemingly intelligent, yet deemingly stupid, word play that likes to juggle around any statute code or whatever. See all in all it's bull****, and they want to play their maritime admiralty game on everyone, so just play their game back with them, they come at you operating under the UCC, as that is the groundwork for all their skull-duggery, just reserve your rights under section 1-207 and 1-103, seeing as they wanted to change from the common law to UCC for many reasons one being the obligation of contract, under the common law you have to knowlingly and voluntarily enter into contract and the UCC pretty much removed that obligation. So all in all for everyone the best thing to do is learn as much as you can and play their game back, because that is one thing that really makes them mad, when a commoner takes them at their own game. and I believe that's all I have to say on that matter.

To paraphrase John Hillerman's character in the movie "Blazing Saddles": That's some mighty fine authentic frontier gibberish there, Gabby.