Won the battle, now what?

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Dorken, lawdog is right.

When the citizen of a state votes (who acknowledges they are US citizen as demonstrated by any state's motor voter or voter registration application), they are empowering the representatives to act in their behalf in those areas as identified by the various Constitutions. Therefore, through the act of voting, the people are granting their individual sovereignty to the elected representatives to act on their behalf.

At one point I had a document from one of the state archives (as I recall, it was Pennsylvania) where, from the government's viewpoint, it is a privilege for a citizen to vote and be represented in the legislative body.

As backward as I feel that characterization is (since the existence of the government would not be possible without the people and their consent), that is their view on the matter.

To provide a simple example. Think of the confusion which would be created if you gave several people power of attorney on the same subject at the same time. One person may act one way and another person may act another. This should illustrate why someone claiming to be a citizen can not claim they have sovereignty over the government.

Further, there are certain areas that a man or woman could never claim sovereignty over the government (obvious example: negotiating treaties on behalf of the US) regardless of their citizenship status.

Read my post. Where did I say citizen? I asked where did "people (men and women) give up their sovereignty." If you read further I also said: "Now if you are talking about the legal fictions out there that call themselves US citizens, then I would agree with you." Now I say lawdpuppy is wrong. I never gave my sovereignty to the "government," did you? My sovereignty comes from my Creator and can be found at Genesis 1:26.

Now if you agree we live in a democracy... Fact is we have a Constitutional Republic with Republican form of government. Lawpuppy probably does not know the difference between the two. As you and I both know the word democracy does not appear in the Constitution for these united states of America.

Fact is I live in my body and I take up housekeeping on the land. I do not live in a State. Now some people would say they live in a State and I would ask what State would that be, the mind....? What is a State citizen, prey tell, a slave to the State?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Read my post. Where did I say citizen? I asked where did "people (men and women) give up their sovereignty." If you read further I also said: "Now if you are talking about the legal fictions out there that call themselves US citizens, then I would agree with you." Now I say lawdpuppy is wrong. I never gave my sovereignty to the "government," did you? My sovereignty comes from my Creator and can be found at Genesis 1:26.

I didn't say you did. However you can clearly see from lawdog's response that he is mostly talking about citizens.

But you should also consider his point concerning a crime, such as murder. How do you propose a self-proclaimed sovereign would negate such a charge?

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

To the contrary, various branches of mathematics deal with infinity all the time, such as calculus and transfinite arithmetic. Google "Georg Cantor" and learn something. You will find that there are different levels of infinity and that, for example, there are "more" points on a line than there are positive integers.

What do you mean by "levels?" Do you mean planes or dimensions or sets? Which all consist of parameters. And though such mathematical idioms are understandable, they however pose one conceptual flaw. Point of origin.

But regardless of that, the theory or theories you're refering to do not prove infinity. Theory is not proof. Theory is concept that holds true ~99.999% of the time.

In short, "infinity" is a commonly accepted concept, so is zero or point of origin. Neither concepts can be proven.

The point is that each concept can be understood. Therefore, each concept can help us define our lives, or peice the world together mathematically.

As simple as I can make.... there are 3 apples on a table. You and two other friends each eat an apple. Does that mean there are no more apples, i.e. zero apples? NO. All it means is that the apples are no longer available in a specific context. They still exist. They just happen to be divided, i.e. in peices and no longer on the table.

Or take "zero gravity" for instance. Does zero gravity really exist? No, it's just a balancing of certain forces approaching what one might consider "zero." The forces are still acting upon you, but they might be of a .00000001 factor.

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Some negatives are easily proven, such as the statement "There is no largest prime number". As long as the negative can be shown to be contradictory, it can be proven.

Well, what was the question? Because, the largest prime number between 2 and 13 is 13. So, 13 is the largest prime number. The largest prime number in infinity is infinity. It all depends on how you want to cut the pie.

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Yes you can, because the reason why it hasn't been proven yet may be because it's false and therefore disprovable.

What is "it?"

"Disprove" implies a counter argument. One cannot pose a counter unless an initial action was taken, in this case a substantiated claim. That's all I was saying.

Originally Posted by mertensv16

All law is based upon the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

Care to elaborate? Or provide something that supports this position?

[rottweiler]

Tigron-X is talking common law and Lawdog is talking civil law.

Tigron-X is talking about sovereigns without subjects or freemen and Lawdog is talking about tenancy and the feudal system in which he is trained like a monkey. The freeman status is subject to the law of the commoners and that includes not hurting any body else. If Tigron-X were/became sovereign/independent over himself then I just can't picture the courts of today being able to convene a jury of the peerage/fellow sovereigns, can you?

The King can do no wrong to his subjects(sovereign immunity) but I do not see Tigron-X claiming any but himself so don't confuse him with the King of Spain.

He is claiming no jurisdiction and depending on his staus he might have a valid claim.

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

I didn't say you did. However you can clearly see from lawdog's response that he is mostly talking about citizens.

But you should also consider his point concerning a crime, such as murder. How do you propose a self-proclaimed sovereign would negate such a charge?

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

As simple as I can make.... there are 3 apples on a table. You and two other friends each eat an apple. Does that mean there are no more apples, i.e. zero apples? NO. All it means is that the apples are no longer available in a specific context. They still exist. They just happen to be divided, i.e. in peices and no longer on the table.

Now we know why specific scope and word definitions are always defined in a contract.... after all who reads those contracts anyway.. just sign here.. yea right.

Reminds Me of what Bill told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick.


Attorneys are trained for this.. should it have been any surprise. Now you know why going to one of those post '77 construed and constructed dog and pony shows they like to refer to as "Court" is a joke. Don't go there without a contract or you loose .. no matter what your arguement is.

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

Well, what was the question? Because, the largest prime number between 2 and 13 is 13. So, 13 is the largest prime number. The largest prime number in infinity is infinity. It all depends on how you want to cut the pie.

Very good observation. You are correct in that the average man does not listen or read and THINK anymore. Years of attending government run schools tend to do that to an individual. I went to a church run school that was founded by a somewhat radical priest who actually taught there and we actually learned stuff.

..J

[rottweiler]

Here is a kick ass article.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm

[netwrkranger]

I like the article, but it has been my understanding that 'juris' means law or right.

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none
jurisdiction
c.1300 "administration of justice" (attested from 1267 in Anglo-L.), from L. jurisdictionem (nom. jurisdictio) "administration of justice, jurisdiction," from jus (gen. juris; see jurist) "right, law" + dictionem (nom. dictio) "a saying." Meaning "extent or range of administrative power" is from c.1380.

diction
1542, from L.L. dictionem (nom. dictio), from L. "a saying, expression, word," from dic-, stem of dicere "speak, tell, say," related to dicare "proclaim, dedicate," from PIE base *deik- "to point out" (cf. Skt. dic- "point out, show," Gk. deiknynai "to prove," O.H.G. zeigon, Ger. zeigen "to show," O.E. teon "to accuse," tæcan "to teach").

I do look forward to pouring over the article for more great learnings.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

Now you know why going to one of those post '77 construed and constructed dog and pony shows they like to refer to as "Court" is a joke. Don't go there without a contract or you loose .. no matter what your arguement is.

Not even "failure to state a cause of action"? I know they ride roughshod over all and sundry, but it might help to pipe up and point out that most indictments are defective on the face, besides for any more esoteric reasons, just straight-up failure to state the offense in question- the admissible allegations don't match the definition.

I guess a contract means "the pleadings", and silence = consent...but doesn't the judge have at least in theory a duty to examine the face value of the claim and dismiss on HIS OWN MOTION stuff that just doesn't match up?

Is it really possible to plead to a charge that has no affidavit? It's one thing to go strictly be the record but it's another to go by what is no where present in the record.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

Do you mean planes or dimensions or sets?

Transfinite arithmetic is based on set theory. The set of points on a line has more members than the set of all positive integers. The set of all even positive integers has the same number of members (in set theory, the same "cardinality") as the set of all positive integers, even though the former is a proper subset of the latter. Similarly, a circle one inch in diameter has the same number of points as a circle one mile in diameter. That's one of the fascinating apparent paradoxes of infinite sets.

In short, "infinity" is a commonly accepted concept, so is zero or point of origin. Neither concepts can be proven.

How would you go about proving "one" or "one-third" or "the square root of -1"? Usually, these are taken as axioms or are defined. For example, zero could be defined simply as the absence of the quantity under discussion. And your apple example raises the Sorites Paradox: at what point does an apple cease to be an apple and become simply a collection of organic molecules or, going further, a collection of individual atoms?

Well, what was the question? Because, the largest prime number between 2 and 13 is 13. So, 13 is the largest prime number. The largest prime number in infinity is infinity. It all depends on how you want to cut the pie.

This is getting away from your original comment that negatives can't be proved. They certainly can be, and I gave an example. Here's another: There are no integers a and b such that a squared divided by b squared equals 2.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

I didn't say you did. However you can clearly see from lawdog's response that he is mostly talking about citizens.

But you should also consider his point concerning a crime, such as murder. How do you propose a self-proclaimed sovereign would negate such a charge?

Never said that murder would be negated by sovereignty. Being a sovereign does not give anyone the freedom to do such a thing.

The reason that lawpuppy is talking about citizens is precisely why he will not answer my questions and why people end up convicting themselves in court. When one goes in making statements like, "I am not a US citizen" and then answer questions showing the opposite, is exactly why people go to jail. It is called agreement and consent.

Now lawpuppy will not answer my questions because it will put in a box he cannot get out of. Fact is men and women are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. On the other hand citizens are. Like I stated earlier, I do not live in a State or the United States. I live in my body. Can lawpuppy or anyone else prove differently and if so how so?

I see a lot of people making statements on this forum and the one making the claim has the burden of proof. Asking questions is exactly the opposite. If the opposition cannot answer the questions put before them, well....

Lawpuppy claimed he answered my questions, but did he? He did not answer my questions regarding men and women and cannot without exposing the lies that he and everyone else like him spout. My questions were about men and women, not citizen slaves, but maybe lawpuppy does not have the mental faculties to know what I was asking?