Citizenship & Jurisdiction Discuss your citizenship status, how to change it, and how this effects particular organization's jurisdiction over you.


Go Back   Suijuris Forums > Educational & Learning > Citizenship & Jurisdiction
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 04-10-2008, 02:54 PM
netwrkranger's Avatar
netwrkranger netwrkranger is offline
Mental Jujitsu
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 938
What exactly is an "idiot legal argument"?

What exactly is an "extremist legal argument"?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-10-2008, 03:02 PM
netwrkranger's Avatar
netwrkranger netwrkranger is offline
Mental Jujitsu
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 938
Darkside of the ADL

I notice that one of the links you supplied came from the ADL.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

Some would consider the ADL 'extremist'.

I noticed on the ADL's page, near the top, the following:

To stop the defamation of the Jewish people... to secure justice and fair treatment for all

Sounds to me their motives are clearly outlined right there (number #1 and #2 respectively). Also, how come it doesn't say Jewish persons??

Last edited by netwrkranger : 04-10-2008 at 03:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-10-2008, 04:28 PM
danielH's Avatar
danielH danielH is offline
Waking Up
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Thumbs down Are you on a payroll?

Lawdog: You wasted your time responding, unless you are being paid to patrol this website.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-10-2008, 04:36 PM
danielH's Avatar
danielH danielH is offline
Waking Up
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Yes, the teacher credential is for the ALL CAPS fiction.

I was wondering if they would try to discontinue my status as a teacher, but now I realize a mistake of posting in public.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-10-2008, 04:43 PM
Lawdog Lawdog is offline
Mental Jujitsu
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 677
not my opinions

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielH
Lawdog: You wasted your time responding, unless you are being paid to patrol this website.

Fine, waste your time on a bunch of legal mythology.

As I like to remind folks, I don't post MY opinions. I tell you what the COURTS have said with citations to cases and sometimes quotations therefrom.

Every single court, without exception, has rejected the "my name in capitals letters is my straw man, not the real me" theory as being totally without merit.

EVERY ONE.

If you knew something about law, you'd be aware how rare it is for all courts to agree on something. In the federal system, one reason the Supreme Court will often decide to hear a case is because there has been a difference of opinion on a point of law among two or more of the Circuit Courts of Appeals.

But when EVERY SINGLE COURT that has heard an argument has said it's a loser argument, it's a loser argument. As in, stick a fork in it, it's done.

However, if you want to beat your head against the wall and waste time and energy, be my guest.

But don't say you weren't warned.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-10-2008, 04:46 PM
indio007 indio007 is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 267
[quote=Lawdog]You suffer from functional illiteracy.

Entity, aka "the latter", in this context refers to corporations, limited liability companies, and other business entities.





I must have forgot to post the link or something. You obviously didnt read it. If a person is a natural person by definition ;
and a person{natural person by definition} can be acquired by the process indicated below {purchase of voting rights security} is that not legal slavery if your theory is correct? If you are saying a natural person is a man. This says a man can be acquired by sale of a voting rights security. That is slavery. You are now completely cornered.


00.201 Acquisition.
The term acquisition is used in these
regulations to refer collectively to an
acquisition, merger, or takeover. It includes,
without limitation:
(a) The acquisition of a person by:
(1) The purchase of its voting securities

[b][i]§ 800.217 Person.
The term person means any natural
person or entity.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...cfr800_05.html

Read and get sick like I did. Acquisition and control over all the financial matters of a person (according to you ... a Man or Woman) via acquisition of voting rights... how innocently quaint....?

§ 800.204 Control.
(a) The term control means the power,
direct or indirect, whether or not exercised,
and whether or not exercised or
exercisable through the ownership of a
majority or a dominant minority of the
total outstanding voting securities of
an issuer, or by proxy voting, contractual
arrangements or other means, to
determine, direct or decide matters affecting
an entity; in particular, but
without limitation, to determine, direct,
take, reach or cause decisions regarding:

(1) The sale, lease, mortgage, pledge <---- wtf ?
or other transfer of any or all of the
principal assets of the entity, whether
or not in the ordinary course of business;
(2) The dissolution of the entity; <------You can dissolve a man too! Now we get superpowers!


(3) The closing and/or relocation of
the production or research and development
facilities of the entity;
(4) The termination or non-fulfillment
of contracts of the entity; or
(5) The amendment of the Articles of
Incorporation or constituent agreement
of the entity with respect to the
matters described at paragraph (a) (1)
through (4) of this section.
(b) In examining questions of control
in situations where more than one foreign
person has an interest in a U.S.
person, consideration will be given to
factors such as whether the foreign
persons are related and/or whether
they have commitments to act in concert


§ 800.223 Voting securities.
The term voting securities means any
securities which at present or upon
conversion entitle the owner or holder
thereof to vote for the election of directors
of the issuer, or, with respect
to unincorporated entities, individuals
exercising similar functions.

Its all out in the open and there can be only 2 possible solutions to the code slavery or a natural person is STILL a legal fiction separate from the living man.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-10-2008, 04:53 PM
indio007 indio007 is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 267
But the main thing you are missing s the man is the foreign interest. The legal system and and all this commercial admiralty BS...... can not take cognizance of the man in a commercial venue.

Last edited by indio007 : 04-10-2008 at 04:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-10-2008, 05:42 PM
deacon deacon is offline
Unplugged
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 87
This site needs an anti bs filter to filter out the corporate shills.
Check out California code Section 100, the California Constitution Article 1 Section 1 and www.1215.org (listen to all the sovereignty lectures) then decide who you are and quit sweating the strawman.

Look up "citizen", "democracy" and "republic".
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-10-2008, 06:25 PM
trooper2ls's Avatar
trooper2ls trooper2ls is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 301
Don't worry Daniel

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielH
Yes, the teacher credential is for the ALL CAPS fiction.

I was wondering if they would try to discontinue my status as a teacher, but now I realize a mistake of posting in public.

There are many here that crank up with the mis-information, legalese and personal attacks when anyone edges near the truth on a matter.

Do your own reasearch based on suggestions here and make your own decisions. You seem to have a functional brain .. having realized that something isn't quite right with the world. But keep in mind that you must tread lightly until you have a full understanding of what exactly is going on.

Once you leave the "Matrix" .. you cannot go back.

Have a great evening and good luck with your research. Don't let the naysayers here discourage you.. that is their primary focus as I'm sure you have gathered.

..J
__________________
Déjà vu in the iconography of our world is a warning of danger, a glitch in the Matrix. Something has changed.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-10-2008, 06:31 PM
Lawdog Lawdog is offline
Mental Jujitsu
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 677
first of all...

indio:

First of all, you're quoting the Code of Federal Regulations, in this case regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department under a delegation of authority from Congress. It's not the U.S. Code. Those are statutes passed by Congress.

Two, I don't have time right now to look and see which parts you're leaving out that might be relevant, but your premise is absurd. First, there is no such thing as voting rights to a human being. Those pertain only to corporations and other artificial entities. One of the regs you quoted says a person is either a natural person OR an entity. Entity is defined at part 800.209 as:

Quote:
The term entity means any branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, division of a corporation, business enterprise, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government sponsored agency).

So, taking everything in context, voting rights in a "person" means a person which is a business entity, because person can either be a natural person OR an entity. Voting rights for purpose of controlling a human being are non-existent, so clearly it only refers to voting rights in a business corporation or other association.

Besides, the 13th Amendment specifically prohibits slavery. The Treasury Department cannot override the Constitution.

Admiralty law does not apply to 99% of what promoters of pseudo-legal mythology claim it does. Arguing "because this courtroom has a flag with a gold fringe on it, it's really an admiralty court (or, as is sometimes argued, a military court) is another of those arguments with a 100% losing record.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).

Last edited by Lawdog : 04-10-2008 at 06:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California UCC-1 danielH UCC 6 03-25-2008 04:21 AM
Is the term "State National" a PUBLIC desegnation? aksis Citizenship & Jurisdiction 1 09-27-2007 01:41 AM
Teaching Tool Akira Entertainment & Hobbies 6 04-26-2006 11:28 AM
Father Loses Home and Business for Teaching His Children to Work brozer5 Family Rights 14 04-25-2006 05:42 PM
Public Law versus Public Policy goldphoenix Court 12 03-05-2004 10:37 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
2003-2008 Copyright by Law Research Group, LLC Terms of Use | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Notice/Disclaimer