Are you one of the Elitists?

[netwrkranger]

I hadn't even considered that perspective. My mind has been expanded hence, one of the primary reasons I come here =D. Again thank-you, Mr. Pitts.

Nothing opens your eyes quite as fast as a legal dictionary and an etymological dictionary or at the very least, high arching eyebrows.

Sidenote:

Privilege comes form Latin privus + lex (gen. legis) or "individual" and "law" or privilegium "law applying to one person".

Private from latin privus meaning "one's own, individual".

Some are of the mind that privilege is Latin for "private law".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

Regards,
netwrkranger

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Privilege comes form Latin privus + lex (gen. legis) or "individual" and "law" or privilegium "law applying to one person".

Private from latin privus meaning "one's own, individual".

Some are of the mind that privilege is Latin for "private law".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

Indeed, this is getting interesting.

Under the strict definition of 'privilege' or the latin version "privus" being that of "one's own, individual", would have some really strong implications.

1: When referring to the 'privilege' of driving, it would also carry the requirement that each and every man and woman who are driving would have to be mentioned in the written law, in order for the man or woman to be affected by the execution of that law.

2: Presuming that they would argue that each and every man and woman are mentioned in the law via the term(s) Individual, person, entity, (all abstract terms), they would have to 'prove' that the man or woman who are not mentioned in the law, are in fact 'labeled' as some other form of fictitious being. Placing a false label upon a man or woman is not a cool thing to do.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Jerry Carlos

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

The TRUTH is made manifest when a sincere heart is put to action.

"A. Reporting Entity The State Board of Administration (Board) was established on June 21, 1928, pursuant to Chapter 14486, 1929, Laws of Florida. The Board was subsequently created as a constitutional body corporate on January 1, 1943, under the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution No. 324, 1941; approved by the electorate in November 1942. The Board is composed of the Governor, as Chairman, the State Chief Financial Officer, as Treasurer, and the State Attorney General, as Secretary, and has as its major investment responsibilities: the Florida Retirement System, the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund, the debt service accounts for State bonds, the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Trust Fund, the Lawton Chiles Endowment Fund, and managing the assets of various other Trust Funds. The Board is defined as a special-purpose unit of the State of Florida based on the criteria identified and described in GASB Statement Number 14. The definition of a special-purpose government is a government that has a separately elected governing body, is legally separate, and is fiscally independent of other state or local governments.

https://www.sbafla.com/pool/pdf/fs/2007/FSSep07.pdf

Jerry,

Remember back when (in the 80's or 90's?) the SEC allowed companies to collaterize their pension funds to get additional operating funds? Then we all read the stories of many of these companies filing for bankruptcy protection and going out of business and the pension funds were lost?

I wonder if the same potential exists here, given the fact that many states are facing severe fiscal deficits which must be closed before the end of the fiscal year.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Jerry,

Remember back when (in the 80's or 90's?) the SEC allowed companies to collaterize their pension funds to get additional operating funds? Then we all read the stories of many of these companies filing for bankruptcy protection and going out of business and the pension funds were lost?

I wonder if the same potential exists here, given the fact that many states are facing severe fiscal deficits which must be closed before the end of the fiscal year.

Yes! Within the corporate structure, there is a plan established that would be activated only upon certain conditions that are threatening the viability of the corporation. The name of that plan is (now check this out) "Poison Pill". It is a plan that is set up to make the corporation "economically undesirable", thus warding off the potential entities that are presenting a threat. Check out the variety of 'corporate' style websites and find if they have a glossary of terms as used in their org.

Jerry Carlos

[netwrkranger]

FreefromContract contract wrote:

Jerry,

Remember back when (in the 80's or 90's?) the SEC allowed companies to collaterize their pension funds to get additional operating funds? Then we all read the stories of many of these companies filing for bankruptcy protection and going out of business and the pension funds were lost?

I wonder if the same potential exists here, given the fact that many states are facing severe fiscal deficits which must be closed before the end of the fiscal year.

I am of the increasing mind that the best guarantee of security of one's assets is your own possession =D.

I used to be all about investing, but since studying law, my interest has cooled considerably. Or if you play the game, be prepared to lose it and plan accordingly.

- netwrkranger

[rottweiler]

They IRS opens a court of record. In the accusatory papers the sovereign accuser decrees the law: "Defendant is required to file." Right there, believe it or not, is the sovereign decree that creates the law in accordance with the rules of the common law.

Defendants are famous for demanding that the law be shown to them. The "law" is contained in the accusatory papers, decreed by the sovereign plaintiff.

The defendants do not recognize the law when they are looking straight at it. Because defendants don't see it, their entire strategy is not relevant to the accusation.

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426 COURT. ...

INTERNATIONAL LAW

The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the
sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.
....

CLASSIFICATION

Courts may be classified and divided according to several
methods, the following being the more usual:

COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being
those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or
recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have
power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their
judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of
record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine
or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or
recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v.
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.

A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes
and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding
according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass.,
171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y.
406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.

It is in the counterclaim that the legitimacy of the plaintiff's sovereignty may and should be challenged, because no government entity in the USA has sovereignty. The defendant becomes the sovereign counterplaintiff, and the plaintiff becomes the questionable counterdefendant. Because no sovereign can legislate against any other sovereign, it follows that the counterdefendant has no legitimate authority to decree any law applicable to the counterplaintiff.

http://www.1215.org/schulz.htm

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Indeed, this is getting interesting.

Under the strict definition of 'privilege' or the latin version "privus" being that of "one's own, individual", would have some really strong implications.

1: When referring to the 'privilege' of driving, it would also carry the requirement that each and every man and woman who are driving would have to be mentioned in the written law, in order for the man or woman to be affected by the execution of that law.

2: Presuming that they would argue that each and every man and woman are mentioned in the law via the term(s) Individual, person, entity, (all abstract terms), they would have to 'prove' that the man or woman who are not mentioned in the law, are in fact 'labeled' as some other form of fictitious being. Placing a false label upon a man or woman is not a cool thing to do.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Jerry Carlos

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

They IRS opens a court of record. In the accusatory papers the sovereign accuser decrees the law: "Defendant is required to file." Right there, believe it or not, is the sovereign decree that creates the law in accordance with the rules of the common law.

Defendants are famous for demanding that the law be shown to them. The "law" is contained in the accusatory papers, decreed by the sovereign plaintiff.

The defendants do not recognize the law when they are looking straight at it. Because defendants don't see it, their entire strategy is not relevant to the accusation.

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426 COURT. ...

INTERNATIONAL LAW

The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the
sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.
....

CLASSIFICATION

Courts may be classified and divided according to several
methods, the following being the more usual:

COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being
those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or
recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have
power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their
judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of
record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine
or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or
recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v.
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.

A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes
and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding
according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass.,
171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y.
406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.

It is in the counterclaim that the legitimacy of the plaintiff's sovereignty may and should be challenged, because no government entity in the USA has sovereignty. The defendant becomes the sovereign counterplaintiff, and the plaintiff becomes the questionable counterdefendant. Because no sovereign can legislate against any other sovereign, it follows that the counterdefendant has no legitimate authority to decree any law applicable to the counterplaintiff.

http://www.1215.org/schulz.htm

Well stated Rottweiler. This also adds emphasis to the point that when the 'original' plaintiff entered his/her complaint with citation of law, the fact that the 'law' did not contain the name of the sovereign, the law cannot be held against the sovereign. The naming of the parties of a suit (upper left edge of document) is not the same as the quoted "text of the law", and therefore the citation of the "law" without the "law" having the name of the 'defendant' written into the law, makes the 'law' that was cited to be a nullity in regard to the sovereign.

Jerry Carlos

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Well stated Rottweiler. This also adds emphasis to the point that when the 'original' plaintiff entered his/her complaint with citation of law, the fact that the 'law' did not contain the name of the sovereign, the law cannot be held against the sovereign. The naming of the parties of a suit (upper left edge of document) is not the same as the quoted "text of the law", and therefore the citation of the "law" without the "law" having the name of the 'defendant' written into the law, makes the 'law' that was cited to be a nullity in regard to the sovereign.

Jerry Carlos

I'm missing your point there Jerry...right around the upper left edge of the document and "the quoted text of the law".

[netwrkranger]

I believe he is saying that unless the "law" names the sovereign specifically, it can't be used against Her or Him in a court of record as the plaintiff. I had to read it twice to catch what was being said. Also knowing about sovereign immunity and perogatives of the King help.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[rottweiler]

For example, read page 3-10. That is the law.