Postal Power. Enjoy My Freeman! - Page 3

Shoonra · #21 01-14-2007, 08:44 PM

All this mumbo jumbo about putting a postage stamp on a legal pleading - or even on the other side of the paper - is practically superstitious. The addition of a postage stamp and those other ornaments has no legal effect -- except to signal to the judge and the opposition that you are out of your depth!

You might ask yourself, how come Real Lawyers never do this stuff??

SaveUncleSam · #22 01-14-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Let's see, a law more than 70 years old,...
...Even if the law is still good 70 years later, it's still not as advertised.

Oh, so now laws have expiration dates? This is the exact tactic the former IRS commissioner in Aaron Russo's video uses to refute one of Russo's arguments. The Commissioner says, "You're going to take a law that is 80 (or 100) years old and superimpose it over the IRS Code which was written in the 1980s?" Russo is flabergasted. Imagine the nerve.

I can think of plenty of laws and "laws" which are fully in force today. Try the Federal Reserve Act for instance. Except here, after 94 years, it has run its course.

David Merrill · #23 01-14-2007, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Let's see, a law more than 70 years old, that dealt, not with the internal operations of the USPS in Washington DC but with the responsibilities for the very elegant building which was the main Post Office in DC (now the Postal Museum). Nothing at all about the 50 or so branch post offices around the city, most of them using rented space in office buildings.
Even if the law is still good 70 years later, it's still not as advertised.

The main principal post office was put under the Secretary of the Treasury in 1933.

Being a jackass does nothing for your credibility Shoonra!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

All this mumbo jumbo about putting a postage stamp on a legal pleading - or even on the other side of the paper - is practically superstitious. The addition of a postage stamp and those other ornaments has no legal effect -- except to signal to the judge and the opposition that you are out of your depth!

You might ask yourself, how come Real Lawyers never do this stuff??

I already explained that:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety1.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety1.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety2.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety2.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety3.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety3.mp3

Regards,

David Merrill.

mrg · #24 01-14-2007, 09:40 PM

Spoken like a true blue loyal and stalwart defender of the guild Shoonra.

Well..., on the other hand though, "this Constitution" busy-ness is some 200-plus years old and we have pretty much seen it used for toilet paper, for at least one hundred years, so I suppose we will have to give this point over to Shoonra.

And "Thou shalt not steal," et al?

Well not only is that way too old, but it hardly counts as "law," now, does it?

Its a good system to be able to be selective about which "laws" or "court citations" are relevant depending upon whether their relevance is useful in one instance, and "old" and irrelevant when such suits the current need.

Seems that slithering eels obsessively twisting words always want it both ways, as it suits their deceitful trafficking.

So, Shoonra, if your right eye offendeth you, you will pluck it out, won't you?

charlesa6 · #25 01-14-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

please rephrase.

Rephrase what! Means mrg, already answer the questions people are waiting for from ND. Get it!!

mrg · #26 01-14-2007, 10:51 PM

Did you mention USPS Shoonra?

Does USPS indicate the United States Postal Service®?

What is the difference between a cabinet-level Post Office Department, and a "service" corporation?

What is the the United States Postmaster General?

What is the "CEO of the United States Postal Service®?"

What is the distinction?

What does the term "also" mean and signify when used conjunctive to the above two positions?

What does "exclusive" mean?

What does "jurisdiction" mean?

What does "exclusive jurisdiction" mean?

What does "control" mean?

What does "custody" mean?

What does "exclusive jurisdiction, control, and custody" mean.

What does "additions thereto" mean?

What does "post office" mean?

Does "office" in the sense of "post office" indicate jurisdictionally separate, unrestricted, and independently controlled and operated site locations?

What is an officer?

Is the United States Postmaster General an Officer?"

To what office is the United States Postmaster General assigned?

Is he a commissioned officer?

Is there a "post office?"

Is the CEO of the corporation dba "United States Postal Service®" an officer?

In what office is the CEO of the U.S. Postal Service employed?

Is this a commissioned post?

SaveUncleSam · #27 01-15-2007, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You might ask yourself, how come Real Lawyers never do this stuff??

Shoonra, I hope you read my last post answering this question. I had said that "lawyers don't use these tacics" because they swear an oath to keep the meat grinder going. Friends, family, children, neighbors; it doesn't matter. They would sell their parents to the system for their bar card.
That sounds kind of nasty, but in a sense I believe that is it. You fell silent after I made that last comment.
I liken lawyers to doctors. Doctors do not go after the root cause of illness, for if they did, most folks would be cured and never need to return for more drugs, treatments, and expensive office visits. Doctors offer "band aid" treatments, meant to not be as effective as say, a natural therapy that works. Then you have the medical cabal to deal with. Drug companies, medical schools, the big shots.
As far as lawyers, they do not tell their clients that they are appearing under admiralty jurisdiction and that by claiming the Constitution protects you in there is like using water on a grease fire. Instead of using the law to free people of civil matters, (and even when being charged under Acts and other statues which are not law) the lawyers *****-foot around and add to the allure that court is such a big deal. In the words of Jordan Maxwell, "It's a racket!".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

...Real Lawyers...

I have an issue with this too. We live in a criminal system where people go to jail for saying that Vitamin C cures Scurvy because they "were practicing medicine without a license". One should be able to show and educate about the law without being a "lawyer". Imagine that, one needs to find someone with a license to "practice" so that they can solve their own personal problems. Look at where that leads us people. Most people will believe and follow anything the man in the white coat says. They won't second guess the doc. Their lives are in his hands. The same with lawyers. The poor client is blind to the fact that his lawyer is working in tandem with the judge, prosecutor, and the cabal in general. Wow.

Shoonra · #28 01-15-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

Shoonra, I hope you read my last post answering this question. I had said that "lawyers don't use these tacics" because they swear an oath to keep the meat grinder going. Friends, family, children, neighbors; it doesn't matter. They would sell their parents to the system for their bar card.
That sounds kind of nasty, but in a sense I believe that is it. You fell silent after I made that last comment.

I didn't "fall silent", I gave up trying to dialogue with someone who is so obtuse. There is no such lawyers' oath, and even if there were, every year plenty of lawyers leave the profession, some willingly and some because they violated the real bar oath.
All this talk about secret whatever taught in lawschool. Pure bunk.

David Merrill · #29 01-15-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I didn't "fall silent", I gave up trying to dialogue with someone who is so obtuse. There is no such lawyers' oath, and even if there were, every year plenty of lawyers leave the profession, some willingly and some because they violated the real bar oath.
All this talk about secret whatever taught in lawschool. Pure bunk.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety1.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety1.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety2.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety2.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety3.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety3.mp3

That is funny listening to a lady who admits to being a licensed and practicing attorney.

SaveUncleSam · #30 01-15-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I didn't "fall silent", I gave up trying to dialogue with someone who is so obtuse. There is no such lawyers' oath, and even if there were, every year plenty of lawyers leave the profession, some willingly and some because they violated the real bar oath.
All this talk about secret whatever taught in lawschool. Pure bunk.

No, but there is an unwritten rule where one who is part of a system make no waves in order to stay employed.
I'm obtuse? It's funny how easy it is to spot a fraud, they always use demeaning words like that. Oh well.

Please answer my post about laws being "old". Please enlighten us, do all laws expire after 20 years? 30? More, less?