Poilitcal Jurisdiction

[ezrhythm]

This topic has been turning up at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lawfulremedies/.
Anyone with experience or insight on this?

> They can only prove
> political jurisdiction by presenting evidence that you
> intentionally, willingly, knowingly, being fully
> informed, freely volunteered into their fictitious
> political jurisdiction. In order to prove that you
> volunteered, the perps will want to ask you questions
> - however they cannot require you to answer because,
> until they prove jurisdiction, they have no authority
> to order you to do anything. Additionally, as soon
> as they ask you their first question they have
> acknowledged that they do not have any proof - if they
> had it they would not need to ask you anything.
> Do you understand that even according to their rules
> jurisdiction can always be challenged?? Do you not
> understand, even according to their rules, that if
> they never ever actually had political jurisdiction
> that it makes no difference what they have done up to
> this point and that everything that they have done can
> be undone simply by raising the issue of political
> jurisdiction to them ASAP, so that they have to now
> present proof that they do indeed have political
> jurisdiction and that they had political jurisdiction
> way back to the first instance of which the perps
> accused you of what ever they accused you of, and even
> back beyond that - all the way back to the day that
> you were born. The fact is Joy, the perps do not now
> have and never ever did have POLITICAL jurisdiction
> over you unless you intentionally, willingly and
> knowingly, being fully informed of the consequences,
> freely volunteered into their political fiction.
>
> Once the issue of Political jurisdiction is raised the
> perps must demonstrate that they had political
> jurisdiction over you, virtually for all of your life
> - which they never ever did have because you never
> ever volunteered (the boy was never a girl no matter
> how strongly the boy believed he was a girl), into
> their political fiction.


And re "the boy was never a girl", here's his analogy:

> Have you heard my example of the parents who had
> several children, one boy and several girls, where the
> parents raised all of their children as girls, telling
> the boy he was a girl and telling all of his sisters
> and everyone in the community that the boy was a
> girl, dressing him in dresses, growing his hair long
> and combing and fixing his hair like a girl's hair?
>
> Where the parents never ever allowed any of the
> children to see the genitals of their siblings nor of
> their parents, so that none of the children had any
> idea that boys and girls were physically different?
>
> My question Joy, is, was the boy ever a girl, no
> matter that he thought and believed that he was a
> girl, no matter that all of his sisters thought and
> believed that he was a girl, no matter that everyone
> in the community thought and believed that he was a
> girl - was the boy EVER a girl??

[Codee]

Maybe just one citation would help it.

[ezrhythm]

I agree. I'll be on the lookout.

[rentiap]

(Quote)Hi Group -

Several members of my group have asked me to provide my understanding
of the term, "political jurisdiction", which I have provided herein
further below for your enlightenment. But before you read that,
consider the following three pages:

Many of you have heard my example of the parents who had several
children, one boy and several girls, where the parents raised all of
their children as girls, telling the boy that he was a girl and
telling all of his sisters and everyone in the community that the boy
was a girl, dressing him in dresses, growing his hair long and
combing and fixing his hair like a girl's hair? Where the parents
never ever allowed any of the children to see the genitals of their
siblings nor of their parents, so that none of the children had any
idea that boys and girls were physically different?

My question Dear Reader, is, was the boy ever a girl, no matter that
he thought and believed that he was a girl, no matter that all of his
sisters thought and believed that he was a girl, no matter that
everyone in the community thought and believed that he was a girl -
was the boy EVER a girl??

Apply the foregoing and the reasoning below to your political status.
keeping the thought, "Was the boy EVER a girl??", in your mind.

Are persons born with an obligation of fealty to those persons
previously born?? Who gets to decide in the affirmative - those
already born or those not yet born?? What about those already born -
why would they not be subject to the dominion of persons born prior
to them?? Where would it stop?? To whom would the original persons
be obligated??

Putting aside the fact that it would not be possible for
the "original" persons to not have predecessors and still be "born"
(I don't want to turn this into a theological discussion on the
origin of man), my point here is that as there would be no one born
prior to those first born, then it is obvious that those arriving
first would be Sovereign over themselves so why then would it not
NATURALLY follow, that all those born subsequently, would also be
Sovereign over themselves. As ridiculous as the foregoing
generational reasoning may be, it does however serve to make the
point that no previously born person has any natural authority to
deem that the previously born have any governing authority over those
born after them, unless and until those born subsequently were to
willingly, intentionally, and knowingly, being fully informed of the
consequences thereof, freely volunteered.

Where would those persons previously born derive any authority to
deem those born thereafter to be obligated to those born previously??
Is all of this convoluted enough to indicate there is no proper,
reasonable source of authority for any person to deem that they have
dominion over any other person or persons??

Is it reasonably possible for any person to properly claim dominion
over another person?? NO!!

Can any person arbitrarily claim dominion over another person or
persons?? YES, OF COURSE!! Any person can CLAIM anything!! A
person can claim to be able to jump over the moon - but performance
is quite another thing!!

Does that mean that any person can properly claim dominion over other
persons?? "Properly claim"?? - Not only NO, BUT HELL NO!!!!!

Can any person freely volunteer into a condition of servitude to
another person or entity?? Yes; certainly; of course; without any
doubt; what could possibly prohibit such?? Employees do so by the
multiplied millions, but such servitude is highly conditional and
strictly limited.

Would it be reasonably expected that any mature, fully informed
person, who understood that he/she had been born free and sovereign
over him/herself, would intentionally and voluntarily enter into an
unconditional condition of total abject servitude to a fictitious
political entity?? Especially a fictitious political entity created
by others and even more especially, where it seemed clear that the
fictitious political entity had taken on a "life" of its own and was
totally out of control??

Dear Reader, did you ever knowingly, intentionally, willingly, being
fully informed of the consequences, ever freely and voluntarily give
up your personal individual sovereignly over yourself to a fictitious
political entity??

Were you ever told or taught that being a citizen of the United
States was an option?? Or were you instead, taught that you were a
citizen of the United States because you were born in the United
States?

Were you ever told or taught that the United States does not exist in
nature but that the United States is, in fact, nothing but a
fictitious political entity?? Or were you instead taught and led to
believe that the United States actually exists in the real physical
world??

Were you ever told or taught that the United States does not
physically exist, but exists only as a conception of the human
mind?? Or were you instead taught and led to believe that the United
States actually does physically exist and that you are a part of it,
without your having any ability to opt out??

Were you ever told or taught that it is impossible for a real live
flesh and blood person to be born into a fictional entity (such as
the Boy Scouts or the United States)?? Or was the foregoing question
never addressed in the government indoctrination centers you were
forced to attend, where you were you instead taught and led to
believe that when you were born you were born in the United States
and that the United States is a real place that really does
physically exist??

Were you ever told or taught that United States citizenship
constitutes a condition of total abject servitude to a fictitious
political entity?? Or were you instead taught and led to believe
that the United States is the freest country on the planet and that
citizens of the United States are totally free?? And self governing??

Were you ever lied to by the government of the United States?? Or,
perhaps, more properly put, did the government of the United States
ever tell you the truth - ever - even once??

Were you ever taught that when you were born that you were born
politically free, as a sovereign person, with no political
obligations to any fictitious political entity??

Were you ever taught that the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth
Amendment clearly provides that citizens of the United States shall
not complain about being required to pay the national debt??

Were you ever taught that the Thirteenth Amendment absolutely
prohibits involuntary servitude from existing in the United States??

Were you ever taught that because of the provision of the Fourth
Article of the Fourteenth Amendment that U.S. citizenship constitutes
and is a condition of total abject political servitude to the
fictitious political entity known as the United States??

Were you ever taught that because of the foregoing facts, that it was
impossible for a person to be deemed to be a citizen of the United
States because of a mere accident of birth??

Were you ever taught that because the United States is a fictitious
political entity, not existing in nature, nothing more than a self
serving conceptualization originating in the minds of men with a
private agenda, that it is physically impossible for a flesh and
blood woman to give birth to a flesh and blood baby, in such a
fictitious political entity as is the United States, just as it would
be totally ridiculous to claim that if she happened to give birth to
her child in a Boy Scout Camp the child would be born as a Boy Scout,
because the birth occurred in a Boy Scout Camp?? What if the baby
was a girl; would the baby still then, be a Boy Scout??

Were you ever taught that as there is no natural authority for any
person or other entity to proclaim any other person owed fealty to
another, that therefore no entity can possibly properly acquire and
have any proper ability or authority to deem any person to be
subservient thereto??

Dear reader, when did you knowingly, willingly and intentionally,
being fully informed of the consequences, freely and willingly
relinquish your personal individual political sovereignty over
yourself, that you were born with, to the fictitious political entity
known as the United States??

Dear reader, was the boy ever a GIRL???? (Quote)

[rentiap]

(Quote)Hi Group -

Several members of my group have asked me to define and post my
understanding of the term, "political jurisdiction", which I have
done herein below. This explanation is based on an application of
the term "political jurisdiction" as applied to and in the United
States and might have some modification if applied in other countries
but the fundamental basis would still be the same.

Simply put, "political jurisdiction" is the authority attained and
exercised by a fictitious political entity (government), over those
persons who have knowingly, willingly and intentionally, being fully
informed of the consequences thereof, freely volunteered themselves
to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. (14th Amd., Sect. 1), "All
persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...", and,
having so volunteered, are to (14th Amd., Sect. 4), "SHUT UP and PAY
UP!!" - slightly paraphrased but intent not misconstrued nor
misstated).

In more detail, "political jurisdiction" is similar to personal
jurisdiction in regard to a fictitious person (e.g., U.S. citizen),
except that in the case of a fictitious person, a personal
jurisdictional challenge merely challenges the jurisdiction of the
fictitious political entity over the fictitious person in that
particular situation, while at the same time recognizing generally,
the political jurisdiction of the political fiction over the
fictitious person. A fictitious person can only challenge personal
jurisdiction of the fictitious political entity based on the rules of
the fictitious political entity.

A political jurisdictional challenge is similar to a personal
jurisdictional challenge except that political jurisdiction bases the
challenge on the issue of the basic origin of the purported
jurisdiction of the fictitious political entity over the Sovereign
person because of the political status of the Sovereign person (e.g.,
a flesh and blood human entity), while at the same time recognizing
the existence of the political fiction but not submitting to the
authority of the political fiction, ever.

A Sovereign person challenges political jurisdiction of the
fictitious political entity based on the political status of the
Sovereign person and on the basic fictitious nature of the political
fictional entity and not on the rules of the fictitious political
entity; such rules have no application whatsoever to the Sovereign
person!!

A challenge of political jurisdiction raises the issue to the very
existence of the political fiction in relation to the Sovereign
person.

************************************************** *******

Thought for today:

Certain men ("monied politicians"), having no proper natural
authority to do so, create a fictional political entity which the
monied politicians impose on the common persons; making rules thereof
setting up a societal situation in which it is literally impossible
for any common person to survive without the common persons violating
the rules mandated and enforced by the monied politicians; then the
monied politicians write up a fancy amendment proclaiming that
involuntary servitude shall not exist in their fictitious political
domain and then the monied politicians claim that all common persons
volunteered into servitude to the monied politicians political
fiction based on what the common persons do when the common persons
go about their lives engaging in activities merely doing that which
is necessary to survive; and the monied politicians tax and fine and
mortgage the common persons to a point where the common persons are
reduced to a condition which can only be candidly described as total
abject economic and political slavery and the common persons just
meekly comply??

Please tell me that it isn''t so.

Cheers,

I'm Eric WhoRU (Quote)

[Codee]

The boy did not believe he was a girl. He had no idea what a girl or boy was.

If you never talk about anything then the person never knows the difference. I would say though that if you take the same situation and let the child no what a "Worthless son-of-bitch- no good lousy rotten kid" actually means and then call him it... That child WILL turn into that thing. So maybe as far as genetic makeup there is no making by naming BUT as far as "who one is" and how they feel about the world and themselves, that is totally changed by naming.