No office of person, No sui juris, No UCC

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Why don't we carry on this conversation about natural persons here:http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...tml#post138255

I would much appreciate it.

Having trouble making up your mind(s)?
Why, pray tell?



Codee
Banned User

[mrg]

You ARE "the trolls."

Originally Posted by AKA
Just manner in which to see god.

They are but different faces of the same god who's true face cannot be shown.

So an obvious fictional appearance is given to distinguish it form man and without honestly attempting to put a face to god.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Truth

Are you dyslexic or something?

Or something.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Thanks for the nice debating material MRG.

Real good stuff right there.

Thanks AKA Ownmaster.

Thought better of the place you first linked to?

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Why don't we carry on this conversation about natural personshere: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citize...al-person.html

I would much appreciate it.

Why don't we then?

Why did you go back and edit the post and remove the link you originally posted?

Do you deny that is what you did?

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Why don't we carry on this conversation about natural persons here:http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...tml#post138255

I would much appreciate it.

Last edited by Little Brother 192 : Yesterday at 11:10 PM.

Fun and games.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

I do not know how your posts are contributing toward a discussion on the term "Natural person" or the word "person". Good luck to you.

I do not know how your posts are contributing toward a discussion on the term "Natural person" or the word "person". Good luck to you.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by mrg

I do not know how your posts are contributing toward a discussion on the term "Natural person" or the word "person". Good luck to you.

I noticed something from this thread, and that of several others recently.

That we, sui juris(as the website clearly states) do not believe and follow the religion for statute. We can't, or we get caught up in the merry-go-round of falsehood. We are no longer sui juris when we do. We can't make right from wrong, and we can't bring truth from ficition.

Black's Law 4th SUI JURIS. Of his own right; possession full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship. Having capacity to manage one's own affairs; no under legal disability to act for one's self. The statutory courts require a representation. That is a legal disabililty. One either is one's self, or is not one's self. One is not one's self if one is representing one's self.

A little mind quiz. Have you ever seen your self in a mirror? The answer is no. You have seen a reflection(representation) of your self. If you don't get this point, I am willing to continue elaborating on this specific subject.

CODEE(aka FREEBEME, LITTLEBROTHER 192), LAWDOG, SHOONRA, and any other MEMBER of the bar 'religion', are withing the realm of the PRIVATE CLUB. Their rules are different than ours, and as such, they would like(and this makes it easier for them) us to follow their rules that they must follow.

Another analogy:

As a child, we had more things than some, and less things than others. I thought it was fair to have more than others, but not so fair when someone else had more than me. "Mommy, why can't I have a bigger house, bigger toys, nicer jewelry, etc"?

If I were in the mind-set of the above listed 'persons', then I would think everything that went against what I was taught was complete jibberrish.

Well, guess what, they are following the rules/procedures/policies of the private club. We aren't members, and don't have to follow them. I already know what the response is going to be, and the lovely 'case-law'(opinions) that will attempt to rebut, but will not rebut this simple fact.

We cannot have it both ways, we are either Sui Juris, or we are statutory persons(including, but not limited to state created occupations)

[bell]

heya moishanb

Pardon me cause im not real smarts and i donts reads so good but are you making the point all this court, legal procedure, UCC stuff are rules for their inside club and that if and when we are adamant about maintaining a sui juris (sovereign)status we can exclude ourselves from their codes, statutes, procedures and so on?

Is this where asking them to prove jurisdiction from the beginnning applies? If so when and where is the beginning to the process? When you get accosted by police, arrested by them or go before a commissioner? Perhaps when you request a drivers license?

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by bell

heya moishanb

Pardon me cause im not real smarts and i donts reads so good but are you making the point all this court, legal procedure, UCC stuff are rules for their inside club and that if and when we are adamant about maintaining a sui juris (sovereign)status we can exclude ourselves from their codes, statutes, procedures and so on?

Is this where asking them to prove jurisdiction from the beginnning applies? If so when and where is the beginning to the process? When you get accosted by police, arrested by them or go before a commissioner? Perhaps when you request a drivers license?

I'm not sure if you are directing your sarcasm towards me, or the system. Which is it?

[bell]

heya moishanb, I am being a little sarcastic and not towards you, the questions are genuine however as I merit your comments.

With concern to procedures, rules, UCC and such I understand that you do not follow the religion of statute, I understand what this means, but where does our volunteering end and a lawful requirement begin? In other words, how does one tell when one has to or one chooses to participate in procedure? I once thought that the difference was with regard to capital crimes of murder or physical damage and such, but now the sophists have included a whole range of crimes under capital crimes which were once commercial crimes.

As far as jurisdiction. I understand that jurisdiction must be asked for in the beginning to avoid their procedure, but what is the beginning? When one is pulled over? I ask this because i surmise that if one asks the police officer who made the complaint to him that I was __________(?) and their is no complaint, end of jurisdiction. I ask this because whether one applies to the religion of statute or not their are traps set to capture us into their legal system.

[Jerry Pitts]

Cody:

In the other post wherein I passed on a compliment to you in regard to the subject of 'jury', I noticed that you leaned quite heavily on the use of definitions in making and stressing the point you were undertaking.

In light of your then expressed ability to use definitions, I would ask you now; what is the legal definition of the term 'office'? How are 'offices' made? and finally; how are 'offices' executed?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Well, that almost puts us up to speed with one another. Did you give consideration to that little portion of the Constitution where it says something to the effect of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Now that gives me the impression, that if a power was not delegated by the Constitution to the United States, or was not prohibited by Constitution to the States, are reserved to the states or to the people. Now the People are the ones that delegate power to the state and to the United States, and if there is a power that has been left unmentioned in the Constitution, then that power ultimately belongs to the People... therefore, if the people desire to open an Office of the State Butt Scratchers, then so be it. Now because we the people, speaking as a group, have sovereignty over the state, then if any one of us desire to open an office, and no-one protests the action being done, and the action is not creating a tort against another man or woman, then there is nothing to stop us from opening that office.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Offices are made by delegations of power from the people to an aspect of the state.

There being no delegation of power to create such office might mean that no such office would exist.

Thus where there is no delegation of authority to create various administrative offices such as the DMV and what have you, in the state constitution, then those agencies can only be less than the single branch that created such entity.

Thus if the legislature creates an agency, that agency can have no more powers than the legislature and must in fact be subordinate to the legislature because the people have entrusted the legislative power of the state to the state senate.

The DMV, like other administrative agencies, has powers to govern internally, an d to operate in the filed of regulating the state and its employee's/contractors/state-made-creations.

The state has no such powers over the natural person.

There is absolutely no power given to an "office of person" either in Constitution, or in statute, nor recognized in common law cases. The only support that has been provided is some reference made to it by a supreme court justice in an out of office writing (Even less than dicta or hearsay. Virtually nothing.)