Tradename or Copyright?

what i mean is throw out that strawman stuff in your contracts and base the contract on common law. stick the offender to the constitution (law ) in your contract. thats the weapon, the constitution (law,common law.etc.). instead of charging them for violations of copyright infringement, charge them for violating the law (common law). If its a creditor coming after you, did he lend you any money (gold or silver coin), if not, where is his claim, contract them ALL back to common law.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by lithmus2

Why not a bankruptcy? The debtor is the city police officer, the Creditor is me, why a chapter 7 instead of an 11, Who is the bankruptcy for?? the cop or you? for the purpose of total liquidation, the purpose is to make the thieves think twice before they steal somebody's property.The reason why the bankruptcy is being tied to the security agreement / contract between the STRAWMAN and the "Man" (creditor), is because I am sick and tired of being told how I am to think, act, and behave. Please explain what SA you are talking about... the one with the cop? the one with your strawman?... I'm more confused then ever because you seem to be talking about 2 different things at once within the same paragraph. What's going on is that they stole my car, they dishonored my bill of exchange, and they should be held accountable for being a thief, and improperly using my exemption, which I allready pre-paid for. I mean Ice,what would you do?



-lithmus

Why not a bankruptcy? The debtor is the city police officer, the Creditor is me, why a chapter 7 instead of an 11, Who is the bankruptcy for?? the cop or you?Tthe cop ofcourse. for the purpose of total liquidation, the purpose is to make the thieves think twice before they steal somebody's property.The reason why the bankruptcy is being tied to the security agreement / contract between the STRAWMAN and the "Man" (creditor), is because I am sick and tired of being told how I am to think, act, and behave. Please explain what SA you are talking about... the one with the cop? the one with your strawman?... I'm more confused then ever because you seem to be talking about 2 different things at once within the same paragraph.



Haha Ok I can see how your confused, the claim on the StrawMan enables me to go after the Cop so I believe (: I am talking about a seperate Security Agreement from the Strawman, aimed at the cop. You may not ever need a claim on your Strawman to do business like this, though I doubt it. See what's happening is a discharge of all charges, and a demand that all extorted funds be returned, Compensation for wasting my time, I don't provide free labor to thieves, IE preparing the SA, the whole ball of wax. and that any damage that they did to the STRAWMAN'S driving record be reversed, and compensation for messing up the Strawman's driving Record. Remember these guys are DeFacto, [fancy word for Factual but not lawfu]l and not Dejure, [fancy word for lawful.]



What's going on is that they stole my car, they dishonored my bill of exchange, and they should be held accountable for being a thief, and improperly using my exemption, which I allready pre-paid for. I mean Ice,what would you do?



-lithmus

[Jerseee]

Lithmus,



Good explanation. Thanks.



But the real question is, who's car is it?

[Ice]

Well, when did they take your auto and why did they take it? Were you afforded "due process"... or did the cop just seize your property?



Do you see where I'm going with this?... how many violations of your constitutionally protected and guaranteed natural rights were violated?



Have you listened to the Badnarik audio/video stuff? Might be a good place to start.



Ice

To Jerseee



Ok Jerseee to answer that question, the car is mine, I was just driving really slow at the airport going really slow because I couldn't afford to pay the outrageous rates they charge for parking, I had to pick up my sister.



To Ice



Well, when did they take your auto and why did they take it? Were you afforded "due process"... or did the cop just seize your property?



They stole my auto about a couple years ago, and I wasn't given due process, I even asked the officer for mercy, and he said NO.



Do you see where I'm going with this?... how many violations of your constitutionally protected and guaranteed natural rights were violated?



Well lets see incrmidation for one, giving a bill of attainder, theft, Fraud.



Have you listened to the Badnarik audio/video stuff? Might be a good place to start.



Ice



No I haven't, but thanks for the info though.

[Jerseee]

lithmus2,



If you think the car is yours then that is the problem. That is the argument. Anything you need permission for is not yours. If you need permission to use it--then it is not yours. Think about it.



(registration, license, permits, titles, vehicle codes, etc...)

[Ice]

If the cop took your car without "due process" then he violated your property rights under the Constitution and can be held personally liable. But you don't need to do the violation of copyright stuff to spank him for being naughty.



Who made the cop judge and jury? NO ONE.



You could kick butt in court and possibly get the law that allows for "impounding" of autos to be declared unconstitutional (it is "repugnant" to the constitutions view of property rights and due process).



Why waste time with anything other than a court action that could affect a greater change than trying to do battle over the question of whether or not you can lawfully copyright your TRADENAME?



Which one sounds like an easier road?

If the cop took your car without "due process" then he violated your property rights under the Constitution and can be held personally liable. But you don't need to do the violation of copyright stuff to spank him for being naughty.



Who made the cop judge and jury? NO ONE.



You could kick butt in court and possibly get the law that allows for "impounding" of autos to be declared unconstitutional (it is "repugnant" to the constitutions view of property rights and due process).



Why waste time with anything other than a court action that could affect a greater change than trying to do battle over the question of whether or not you can lawfully copyright your TRADENAME?



Good point ICE, I'll have to do some checking up now, thanks!



Which one sounds like an easier road?



Good question, I'll have to get back to you on that some day.



Imagination is having the vision to see what's just below the surface; to picture that which is essential but invisible to the eye.

[KaosTheory]

Lithmus,



I think what Jersee was getting at is that the car is actually owned by the STATE who created the PERSON who owns the car that Lithmus bought....You are a mere custodian of the STATE's property. Sorry Jersee if that is not what you meant.



Now, if my above statement is true and I think it is.......How does the Constitution/Common Law play into this? I mean I really don't know. Can't the STATE do what it wants with it's own property. I'm just asking.



I know that Common Law is the key but my problem is getting there from here.





KT