Is There A State / Are You a Citizen ?

[weishaupt1776]

The saga was originated HERE & spilled over HERE. Here we go. Are you ready?
Let's get it on!

[KaosTheory]

Jersey,

It seems to me that you are saying:

1. A "STATE" or "State" exists if someone believes in it and that this is quite ok and needs no support or reasoning.

2. It is not ok to believe that a "STATE" does not exist unless one can produce proof that supports their belief.

Now if I am wrong in my assessment here then why didn't you just say "KT, you are right" to start with?

I think you caught on to what I was trying to do when you questioned what I would accept as a fact. It all comes down to consent....everything.

Next, case law is not produced by an abstract idea or mental construct i.e. a "STATE" or "State". It is produced by men and women D.B.A. the "STATE" and it is their opinion. The real problem I can see is if I rely on it as a fact instead of what it really is, opinion. A non-existent thing can not produce anything in the first place, not even abstract ideas. It's all done by men and women. Now, you are the one (apparently) who does believe that the "STATE" exists, yet you refuse to accept the opinions that the men and women D.B.A. the "STATE" produce. That is more curious, I think.

There is more I have to say but I am short on time today. You wanna pause here for now. I should be good to go tomorrow.

BT wrote:

What do you think the United States of America are comprised of?
-It is an abstract idea composed of abstract ideas, mental constructs of the mind.

What do you think the stars in the flag stand for?
-Abstract symbols (stars) that stand for abstract ideas.

What 'states' are being discussed in the Articles of Confederation,
-The same abstract ideas

Bill of Rights
-Abstract ideas written by men and signed by them alone. An agreement with no one.

and the whole of the organic constitution of the United States of America?
-More ideas put to paper with no agreement from anyone and also conveys no jurisdiction to anyone since jurisdiction is only conveyed by personal consent. i.e. a contract, meeting of the minds, mutual consent, full disclosure, where there is a transfer of jurisdiction and one is no longer sui juris.

KT

[Akira]

There are muliple Constituions and multiple United States...

Which ones are you guys talking about?

[Jerseee]

KT,

If men and women agree on the fiction and create a branch of government under the same guise of the fiction to support it----they believe in it enough to operate under its laws.

You just don't make up something and then leave it there without participating in it. this is what makes it live. We give power and energy to a thing called a "state" or even "STATE".

The sovereigns give it the limited authority it needs to survive for the benefit of all who participate in it. I believe in its power derived from the governed through our consent (ACCEPTANCE). I know how to keep things in perspective and operate on a certain level.

I do not need to do any chest thumping about my freedom, I just merely state what I want to state while laughing slightly--because of sin-sick efforts to get me to think otherwise so that I may be enslaved.

So once again, I believe in the state's power, authority and its energy which was derived from the sovereigns collectively. I do not agree to the miscreatons that hi-jack the faith of the people through bogus legislation and trickery in order to enslave and loot the wealth and freedom of the sovereigns (the people).

Now I don't mind discussing this but, there is no need to prove to you something you do not believe in. That is okay not to believe in the state or the laws that govern its actions and creation.

I'll let you guys go at it but ACCEPTANCE is the key to all of this.

[Vincenzo]

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

Jersey,

It seems to me that you are saying:

1. A "STATE" or "State" exists if someone believes in it and that this is quite ok and needs no support or reasoning.

2. It is not ok to believe that a "STATE" does not exist unless one can produce proof that supports their belief.

Now if I am wrong in my assessment here then why didn't you just say "KT, you are right" to start with?

I think you caught on to what I was trying to do when you questioned what I would accept as a fact. It all comes down to consent....everything.

Next, case law is not produced by an abstract idea or mental construct i.e. a "STATE" or "State". It is produced by men and women D.B.A. the "STATE" and it is their opinion. The real problem I can see is if I rely on it as a fact instead of what it really is, opinion. A non-existent thing can not produce anything in the first place, not even abstract ideas. It's all done by men and women. Now, you are the one (apparently) who does believe that the "STATE" exists, yet you refuse to accept the opinions that the men and women D.B.A. the "STATE" produce. That is more curious, I think.

There is more I have to say but I am short on time today. You wanna pause here for now. I should be good to go tomorrow.

BT wrote:

What do you think the United States of America are comprised of?
-It is an abstract idea composed of abstract ideas, mental constructs of the mind.

What do you think the stars in the flag stand for?
-Abstract symbols (stars) that stand for abstract ideas.

What 'states' are being discussed in the Articles of Confederation,
-The same abstract ideas

Bill of Rights
-Abstract ideas written by men and signed by them alone. An agreement with no one.

and the whole of the organic constitution of the United States of America?
-More ideas put to paper with no agreement from anyone and also conveys no jurisdiction to anyone since jurisdiction is only conveyed by personal consent. i.e. a contract, meeting of the minds, mutual consent, full disclosure, where there is a transfer of jurisdiction and one is no longer sui juris.

KT

I know of 3 States
1. There is the State of de-jure ( THE STATE )
2. There is the State of de-facto ( A Corporation )
and Finally number
3. The State of Confusion
and to all a good nite..... Coyote [Vincenzo]

[KaosTheory]

Oh, don't forget the State of Consciousness.


Jersey,

I am really only interested in the facts that support your belief. I am not asking you to prove anything. I am not asking you to convince me of anything. You're right, this is just a discussion. I am taking one position and you are taking another. In this discussion I am of the belief that the "State" that we think exists i.e. creation of a constitution (a written instrument) does not indeed exist.

You seem to contradict yourself. You believe in the real existence of an abstract idea. You proclaim your belief in the laws and the power of the "State" and that it is sovereign. Why do you choose to ignore the opinions of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court of your U.S. States tells you what a citizen is yet you reject their definition. Why? You seem to be saying that it is because they are hi-jackers, I am not sure.

You say that one has a sovereign right to be a citizen. I agree. Do you agree that citizenship is accomplished via contract? What is the purpose of this contract? What is being exchanged? Who are the parties? Why not just stay a soveriegn and sui juris? Isn't a citizen a subject?

What is the agreed upon reason for instituting a government? Is government merely a service? Is this service voluntary? Is this government allowed to use force against those who resist it? Is this voluntary? Isn't it true that the only way that a government can asserrt jurisdiction is by consent and contract?

Does the "State" or "STATE" equal the government of that "STATE"? Are they separate?


Consider this:

"The pretended "constitution" not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.

It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even if a man is unable to write his name, he must still "make his mark," before he is bound by any contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk - that is, a man who could write - was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either "made their mark," or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time.

The laws hold, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. And law and reason both give him until the last moment, in which to decide whether he will sign it, or not. Just as with a written contract, a man must not be compelled to enter into any unwritten (verbal) contract. Besides a written contract providing evidence of there being a contract; until it is written, he may not know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not then sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract. The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would sign it, goes for nothing.

Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have signed it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the pretended "constitution." The very men who drafted it, never signed it in any way to bind themselves by it, as a contract. And not one of them probably ever would have signed it in any way to bind himself by it, as a contract. The impostor "judges," who profess to derive all their supposed "authority" from the pretended "constitution" - from an instrument that nobody ever signed - would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication.

Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. (When a signed contract is not delivered, there is no communication from one party to the other that the contract has been agreed to and executed, and the other party has no proof to the contrary. It is as ineffectual as if it was never signed.) The pretended "constitution" was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, than can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered."

Quote from Lysander Spooner's "Constitution of No Authority"


KT

what more do you guys want? i posted the thread "court seals my documents", and only a couple of people recognized the importance of the case to respond. i basically told the court they didnt exist and to get out of it, they expunged my filing from the docket and sealed the case. its not us we need to convince, its the people as a whole who need to be waken up and guess what, it aint gonna happen. im about fed up with this whole thing. as soon as i eliminate my problems im leaving this whole freedom thing alone because its the people who are against you, not the government. remember, the government is PEOPLE, period. they are not gonna let their game of money and looting stop for nothing. personally, ive been reexamining my spirituality and looking at things from more of that view now. the remedy is inside of all of us, its up to us to find it. on a last note, the main thing i agree with marc stevens about is this, and i dont need to purchase his book to get what he is basically saying, agree with your adversary, hes just not using acceptance for value to do it. he is saying, stop fighting these people and thats where they have me mentally, im tired of this no win fight. they havent broken my resolve, they have just pointed out this fact, you cant beat them because, you just cant. so, im rolling down stream for now on, i tried but worn out from all this stuff. peeace.

[KaosTheory]

Somebody needs a hug. Come on K.....don't be like that. It's all about Zen my friend. The sky above.....the earth below.....I shall not be moved....repeat it with me....You really need to read that book though.

We are having a discussion here. These are the things we should be discussing regularly.

[Jerseee]

Kgod,

Please bruh, take a rest from this stuff. Part of this whole thing is to get you to the point of disgust. I know you are going through alot these days but I highly suggest you focus on your Chi (as in Tai Chi).

[Jerseee]

KT,

Read my post and you will find this is what I said, "So once again, I believe in the state's power, authority and its energy which was derived from the sovereigns collectively. I do not agree to the miscreatons that hi-jack the faith of the people through bogus legislation and trickery in order to enslave and loot the wealth and freedom of the sovereigns (the people)."

Where did I say what you are saying I said?

Lysander Spoon's writings are good but the institution moves on. He has every right not to participate in a jural society. I agree with him on some points but he misses the whole picture in my opinion.

Governments are instituted by men and women. People (sovereigns) give up part of their freedoms to be a member of such a society. Not all of their freedoms but a mere few so that the fiction can operate as should. Kgod said it best--it is people that are making government look bad, not government (paraphrased).

Now I gave you my proof by answering your questions in the UCC forum. You used case law to try to prove your point--now your using Lysander Spoon's theories.

Case Law and court decisions are derived from a branch of government that people (sovereigns) give their consents to to have an alleged disinterested third party decide disputes between sovereigns. Kgod did not give them permission so now the case is sealed (according to him). The sovereign did not give the court the energy or authority it needed to operate.

Courts cannot proceed without the consent of the sovereigns since the sovereigns created the court to uphold the laws of the state. Now if you are member of that institution and believe in its purpose, why not participate in government.

I never said government is the best idea since water. We all know that people are corrupt not government. Government cannot be evil--only the thing that gives it energy can be evil. Government is just a vehicle used to transport their evil against the faith and allegiance of the sovereigns.

I don’t understand why I have to provide you proof of my position when I already stated my position. I think you are trying to get me to see your side, then admit I was wrong in my thinking and either understand or follow your school of thought.

Well that is why I said earlier in the UCC forum thread, that you are part right. Somethings you have stated are true but you still leave out the ACCEPTANCE part of this whole situation. You have accepted one thing and I another. Its all about consent/acceptance my man.

Provide me with contradiction within my own words—not what you deem contradictory. What you deem is matter of opinion. Read my posts and you will find that I clearly said:
“So once again, I believe in the state's power, authority and its energy which was derived from the sovereigns collectively. I do not agree to the miscreatons that hi-jack the faith of the people through bogus legislation and trickery in order to enslave and loot the wealth and freedom of the sovereigns (the people)."

This is proof that sovereigns give the energy and consent needed for this thing to work:

A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.