Won the battle, now what?

[Lawdog]

If you seriously think that only citizens can be convicted of crimes, then it is proof that the only one lacking in "mental faculties" is you. The jurisdiction of the criminal courts doesn't have a damn thing to do with the citizenship status of a person. Illegal aliens get convicted of crimes all the time. In some areas of the country, about a quarter of all prisoners are illegal aliens who speak little or no English.

If you are in criminal court, only three questions are relevant vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the court (both subject matter and personal):

1) Was the conduct of which you are accused a crime? (goes to subject matter jurisdiction)
2) Can this court hear a case regarding this class of crime? (For example, in my state, only superior courts can handle felony criminal cases. This also goes to subject matter jurisdiction)
3) Was the alleged crime allegedly committed in the place (city, county, or other venue) for which this court has jurisdiction? (Goes to personal jurisdiction of that court over the accused)

No one gives a damn whether you are a citizen or not. And claiming the court has no jurisdiction over you because you're "sovereign" might get you a psych evaluation, but that's it. Just ask Edward Royal Martin, subject of this thread:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...racked-up.html

Mr. Martin was just completely sure that the Commonwealth of Virginia had no jurisdiction over him because of that "commercial affidavit of truth" he filed.

Because he believed that nonsense, he's now a convicted felon facing up to five years in prison.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

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.

Well, there in the previous post he just said he's not only talking about citizens.

A man or woman, claiming to be a sovereign, can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.
A citizen can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.
A non-citizen visitor, can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.
Any type of alien can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.
Any man or woman can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.

I guess I'm missing your argument.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

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.



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?

The point I was making is that zero is relative. It is something created by the observer to give point of origin. Singularities, i.e. one, are seen all the time. A good example is a finger print, or go look in the mirror. There is no one like you. Fractions are representations of division. And the square root of -1 is illogical, and leads one to imaginary units due to the conundrum of zero. It's very well represented in the equation: (x^2 + 1 = 0).

All that exists is one. The rest is manipulation.

Originally Posted by mertensv16

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.

No, you're trying to prove me wrong by citing examples, and I'm showing you how your examples are based on bounded parameters that you're creating in your head. In other words, you're simply making illogical statements and saying that proves a negative.

For example, "a" and "b" are not integers but instead letters, and in the world of math they would represent place holders. Therefore, a = 64 and b = 16, and thus a squared divided by b squared does equal 2. (Edit: I made an error here. I accidently confused squared with square root. This is addressed in post 61 of this thread.)

In the end, no matter how you cut it, you will always prove a postive and in return negate all other possibilities. But what you have done is proved a positive, not a negative.

For example, if I say a binding contract does not exist, and you come back and say prove it. Well, how in the world am I suppose to prove it? Such a requirement imposes an impossibility. Therefore, the burden of proof rest upon you to produce it. Once a document is produced, then the document still has to meet certain criteria in order for it to constitute as a binding contract. Otherwise, it's just a document. If you fail to prove that the document in question is a binding contract, did I prove it not to be a binding contract? No, I didn't do anything. But more so, the document in question is and never has been a contract that created an obligation. I cannot negate that which does not exist. I can only show what something is, not what something is not.

Another example: If you walked out on a stage with a lamp and said, "This is not a squirrel." Why isn't it a squirrel? Because, the object is a device that produces artifical light which is commonly refered to as a "lamp." Did you prove it not to be a squirrel? NO, you proved it to be a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

My hat as it were is off to you, Tigron-X! The above is just about the most succinct presentment on this basic logic of existence I have seen- and it's amazing how it ties right in to the basic false premises sold by attorneys accountants and all the other other "professors".

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

All that exists is one. The rest is manipulation.

that is exactly the point!

In the end, no matter how you cut it, you will always prove a positive and in return negate all other possibilities. But what you have done is proved a positive, not a negative.

For example, if I say a binding contract does not exist, and you come back and say prove it. Well, how in the world am I suppose to prove it? Such a requirement imposes an impossibility. Therefore, the burden of proof rest upon you to produce it. Once a document is produced, then the document still has to meet certain criteria in order for it to constitute as a binding contract. Otherwise, it's just a document. If you fail to prove that the document in question is a binding contract, did I prove it not to be a binding contract? No, I didn't do anything. But more so, the document in question is and never has been a contract that created an obligation. I cannot negate that which does not exist. I can only show what something is, not what something is not.

Another example: If you walked out on a stage with a lamp and said, "This is not a squirrel." Why isn't it a squirrel? Because, the object is a device that produces artifical light which is commonly refered to as a "lamp." Did you prove it not to be a squirrel? NO, you proved it to be a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities.

Right On!

...proved a positive, not a negative.

"not a negative": it's like simple arithmetic reduction, shrink the question down to the least common denominator.

Same goes for language, and music too- economy is beautiful. Someone just said to me recently, "all life is based the conservation of energy"

This babble-on mentality is endemic in the rest of the world and now threatens to consume everything. Whole populations out there have been bred to pure illogic for millenia now- most people are in a constant state of hallucination, and the higher minds must operate under "double-think", to maintain both intelligence and obedience at the same time. But it's crazy.

I still think the trolls should be Ignored but you have done a service with this post.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Well, there in the previous post he just said he's not only talking about citizens.

A man or woman, claiming to be a sovereign, can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.
A citizen can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.
A non-citizen visitor, can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.
Any type of alien can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.
Any man or woman can be convicted of a crime, such as murder.

I guess I'm missing your argument.

Yep you are missing my point completely. I am not talking about murder here or any other real crime. I am talking about "commercial crimes." I do not think anyone that commits murder should get away with it and I believe in capital punishment whether sovereign or not.

There are many people put in jail for lies, for non crimes. Why? Because they have agreed to it with their answers. The guy that lawpuppy is talking about above put himself in jail by the way he handled himself. He made a bunch of idiotic statements and made himself look like a fool. This is why I keep saying stop make statements and start asking the right questions. This is how you expose the lies. It is like walking into a dark room and turning on a light. Everything in the room is exposed. The same hold true for lies.

If everyone would get rid of their ego and and start asking the right questions, pretty soon it would be over. But oh no, everyone has to go head to head with these attorn-eys and black robed cross dressers because of their enormous egos and their trying to prove a point. Well, the way to prove they're liars is to keep asking the right questions and staying on point. The silence is deafening when you ask the right questions because they can't answer them, like lawpuppy.

[dorkenbutt]

I need to make one thing very clear. A sovereign does not commit crimes.

FFC, you are not differentiating between saying you are sovereign and acting like one. There is a big difference. Being sovereign does not mean you can do anything you like. Being head of your household does not give you the right to beat your wife or hurt your kids. Same holds true with others. I am no better than anyone else and we are all equals. Being sovereign does not give me the right to steal, murder or commit any other real crime.

I do not need government to tell me the difference between right and wrong. My Creator does that in His word. He created me, not government. Government did not create man, God did and He is the only one that gets my allegiance.

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

I need to make one thing very clear. A sovereign does not commit crimes.

FFC, you are not differentiating between saying you are sovereign and acting like one. There is a big difference. ......

You have hit the nail on the head. Responsibility is the key to being a true sovran.

Responsibility: [ L respondere – to promise in return, answer, from re back, + spondere to promise, more at SPOUSE, L sponsus betroth, GK spendein to pour a libation ] to be answerable or liable for creating, to take ownership of a creation.


"Saving the world" in the context that Christ was referring to, was talking about liberating and freeing his world, his mind from the physical restraints - NOT preserving our lives in these frail earthly bodies. Only you can take responsibility for yourself, only you can repair the damage that you have created. This is called UNLIMITED LIABILITY - you pay back whatever it takes to put the injured party back in the same condition or better as they were before the injury, even if it means giving up your physical life.

If an outside influence can divide us through emotion and keep us in a state of “desire” or “denial” without our awareness, then they can suck our blood from us. They can drain our production and even though we may exhibit a snivel or complaint we keep on producing for them. Divide and conquer!

..J

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

For example, "a" and "b" are not integers but instead letters, and in the world of math they would represent place holders. Therefore, a = 64 and b = 16, and thus a squared divided by b squared does equal 2.

If a = 64 and b = 16, then a squared/ b squared = 16, not 2. Try taking 7th grade math again, son.

I'll translate the statement for the mathematically illiterate: the square root of 2 is not a rational number. That is, there are no a and b (where a and b are positive integers) such that a squared divided by b squared = 2 (or, which amounts to the same thing, such that a/b = sqrt 2).

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Try taking 7th grade math again, son.

Lose the condescending "smirk," little man.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

If a = 64 and b = 16, then a squared/ b squared = 16, not 2. Try taking 7th grade math again, son.

I'll translate the statement for the mathematically illiterate: the square root of 2 is not a rational number. That is, there are no a and b (where a and b are positive integers) such that a squared divided by b squared = 2 (or, which amounts to the same thing, such that a/b = sqrt 2).

LMAO.... silly me. I mistook "squared" with "square root." The whole time I was computing: [sqrt a dividied by sqrt b equals two], where a = 64 and b = 16. That's actually how I came up with 64 and 16. I apologies for the confusion. But, my previous arguement still holds true regardless of this syntax error.


So, if you want to crack jokes at my expense for such a silly mistake, that's your choice. It won't bother me in the slightest because you still haven't proven a negative. You're still making illogical statements and claiming that such statements prove a negative. You're simply setting man made boundaries that [in this case] create mathematical impossibilities. The only reason your statement holds true is because 'sqrt 2' has been proven to be an irrational number. Again, you have not proven a negative. You have simply shown that 'sqrt 2' is an irrational number, thus negating certain mathematical possibilities.

Take off your little man made boundries and [a/b = sqrt 2] would make a = sqrt 8 and b = sqrt 4.

In essence, you're being argumentative.

And don't call me "son." It makes you look condescending.