Bitcoin Forum

A few days ago I posted the below stuff into a self-moderated thread. The owner moderator took the post down. My thoughts are that when such a moderator takes posts down, that part of the reason is that it might be too  relevant in some way.

I took the below from a website called "Stop the Pirates" - http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/. Since then the site as been reduced in size to only a fraction of what it was when I was there then. And the below info isn't included in the site any longer.

Maybe it is just a hint for me to stop posting the info. But here it is again. And. I have taken it under fair use. I have posted the source site, above, even though they have taken this info down.

What I am looking for is comments regarding the below info. Is it right? Is it wrong? Has it been discarded in law? Has it been overruled by various court cases? Are the legal sites accurate? What does anyone think? The points are numbered, so it should be easy to answer them point-by-point.

---

1. The IRS is Not a US government agency.  It is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al.  CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)

2. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N. (Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)

3. The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch 214 page 654)

4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)

5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over. (Executive Order 12803)

6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never  part of the U.S. government, even though the “U.S. Government” held stock in the agencies. (U.S. v Strang, 254 US491 Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239)

7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms and not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are “Department of the Treasury”. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))

8. There are NO Judicial Courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)

9. There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators.  (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)

10. According to GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) you MUST have a Social Security number. (House Report (103-826)

11. New York City is defined in Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that “New York City is the capital of the World.” For once, he told the truth. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111, subpart B 44.103 (b) (2) (2) )

12. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund.  (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 Steward Co. v. Davis 301 US 548)

13. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which is an agency of the United Nations. (It says “U.S. Department of Treasury” at the top left corner, which again is part of the U.N. as pointed out above)

14.You own NO property!!! Slaves can’t own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours.  You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)

15. The most powerful court in America is NOT the United States Supreme court, but rather the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 PA. C.S.A. 502)

16. The King of England financially backed both sides of the American Revolutionary War..   (Treaty of Versailles-July 16, 1782 Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)

17. You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it!  The U.S. Constitution applies to the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, a privately owned and operated corporation (headquartered out of Washington, DC) much like IBM (International Business Machines, Microsoft, et al) and NOT to the people of the sovereign Republic of the united States of America.  (Padelford Fay & Co. v The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)

18. America is a British Colony. The United States is a corporation, not a land mass and it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British Troops did not leave until 1796 (Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774)

19. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0

20. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)

21. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)

22. A 1040 Form is for tribute paid to Britain (IRS Publication 6209)

23. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.  (Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)

24. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)

25. The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone.  (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii, n. 4. Prati, 1844 Syllabus Prop 28, 29, 44)

26. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing, NOT even what we think are our children.  (Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 438 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)

27. Military dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) in to Districts  (Messages and papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99 1828 Dictionary of Estate).

28. “The People” does NOT include you and me. (Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)

29. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers. (SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, REiff vs. City of Phila. 477 F. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)

30. Every thing in the “United States” is up for sale: bridges, roads, water, schools, hospitals, prisons, airports, etc, etc… Did anybody take time to check who bought Klamath Lake?? (Executive Order 12803)

31. “We are human capital” (Executive Order 13037).  The world cabal makes money off of the use of your signatures on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, your social security number, etc.

32. The U.N. – United Nations – has financed the operations of the United States government (the corporation of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) for over 50 years (U.S. Department of Treasury is part of the U.N. see above) and now owns every man, woman and child in America.
The U.N. also holds all of the land of America in Fee Simple.
The good news is we don’t have to fulfill “our” fictitious obligations. You can discharge a fictitious obligation with another’s fictitious obligation.

---

8)

Agree with this.

All of this is wrong BADECKER is spreading false information which is obvious bullshit.

This is more the reason why I think all the trolls should go to their own bullshit section -- or we all go to the serious P&S section.....

BADecker, you forgot to add that you also believe that Earth is 6000 years old and that Noah and his wife repopulated Earth after the global flood, about 4000 years ago, also, that people lived 900 years in the biblical times, because the "laws of Physics were different" and "because the entropy was not increasing as much or some other pseudo-scientific shit", and that evolution of life on Earth is a hoax.

Oh, I forgot, you also believe that God is love and that emotions create universes in 6 days flat.

How about some advice for the oppressed?
He should add that in the US you can avoid being stopped and searched by the police if you keep screaming "am I detained?" or "am I under arrest?" and that you can avoid legal responsibility by claiming that you're a sovereign citizen.

BTW, watch some sovereign citizen arrests on youtube. ;)

You can find all kinds of things that work sometimes, and don't work other times.

And, I want to thank all you jokers who think that the good info that I showed in the OP is my info. How do you jokers even survive in something like a forum? You can't even read. You can blab, but you can't even read enough to comment on any numbered part in the OP.

Watch this to get out of paying traffic tickets legally - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgXKq02U-m4.

8)

Browsed a few of these nonsensical items.

22. I read the IRS Publication 6209.... no reference of Britain in there at all  https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/document-6209-adp-and-idrs-information

29. Incorrect. I see that mentioned all the time, and always out of context. The cases cited all involve people that tried to BLAME THE COPS and sue for something they didnt like... (example: an 8 minute response time instead of 4 minutes, believing the cops should be their personal security guards, I told you my husband would beat me when you left, etc..)

Thanks, PopoJeff. I looked for Britain in 6209, as well. I couldn't find it, but I didn't look through the whole document. My only thought about this is that it might be in there through some kind of indirect reference. But I'm not going to take the time to try to find it out. The whole doc is reasonably large.

As for "29. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you," I have read this in several places, but right at the moment I would have to dig to find where... where it directly said that police are not required to protect people. I agree that it might have said this from the standpoint that police can't be held responsible for delivering a specific outcome.

Anyway, thanks, again.

8)

29.  The "police dont legally have a duty to protect you" crap all started with a Sec 1983 lawsuit out of Chicago years ago. In short, someone called 911 from an apartment building. No apartment was given. Police responded and couldn't find anything wrong anywhere. They left.  A second call came in, same thing. Cops responded again, and again, no problem was found.  Cops left again.   Later on, woman was found stabbed or injured or something, in the rear alley.  Lawsuit was filed, claiming the cops violated her civil rights by not protecting her when two prior 911 calls were made. Claiming if the cops did their jobs right the first time, she wouldn't have suffered the injury she did.   Judge ruled no, you dont win the ghetto lottery.   And thats what birthed the phrase "cops dont have to protect you"..... always taken out of context.
    If it were true, how were they able to charge that p.o.s. Sheriff in Florida for not reacting to the school shooting?

1.    Well, according to google, the court case Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al only exists to support "Fact" #1 on the list.

It's not been cited as a precedent in any case since whenever it was ajudicated.

Interestingly, the IMF was created in 1944, beginning operations in 1947. The IRS was created, sort of, in 1862.

Oh, and Public Law 94-564? It's about Mexican debt.

Fact 16 ) : checked (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr-1782.asp) , yes it looks like he did.

No reference to the word Versailles on the wiki page of the american revolution.

5.  https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-12803-infrastructure-privatization
 
  Read that.  Thats the EO cited ny your list.  Nothing to do with "no federal employees" BS.  Pretty easy to see what it says.  You dont need you local road crew to fix the bridge, you can contract a private construction company.  
  Whoever made that list needs to stop spreading lies.


I think thats enough google for me tonight

Fact 2)
Well, you are giving ONE definition of ONE dictionary. 


source : https://epdf.pub/blacks-law-dictionary-6th-edition.html




Interesting definition for Work permit (same document, same page as World Bank) :


This confirm Aliens,  area 51 and everything  ;)



So, conclusion of #2 : the definition of ONE book, written by someone doesn't mean it is true. 


PS : i am pretty sure if you look at a North Korean dictionary for "internet" it will say : "fake web imagined by the enemies of the Party, where spiders are writing false information"
Would that be the truth ?

is badecker still running down the freeman rabbit hole


gotta love the point 9.
'no judges since a couple centuries ago'. but if you actually read the mentioned case that suppose to be proof. the case is where a guy is trying to claim that the particular court should only be handling constitutional laws not civil laws(contracts/corporation business)
firstly the case has nothing to do with if there are judges or not. it doesnt say judges are vapour and imaginary
secondly the constitution is a civil law in itself
thirdly the guy was trying the foolish thing of thinking it has a case of saying (analogy) in a family court that the court should not be judging non family stuff
(facepalm)
the supreme court is the highest court of all and can see many different cases if all lower courts have been used


also other points.
badecker in another post links a freeman video about parking tickets.
with the whole mumbo jumbo about consent. and how people can refuse parking tickets by not giving consent.
sorry but the consent to form a government is not a daily thing. that individuals get to select at a whim
instead its a 4-5yearly election which forms a contract for a government to manage the country
once in each 4-5 year period an individual cannot revoke consent and abolish the law himself. because the majority gave consent to follow the law. thus the law is still enforcable



as for the stuff about cops are servants to the people. no
police are civil servants. they do work for their master which is their employer(government).
its the employer who then has policies look after its members(people/citizens) but just like having a gym membership does not mean a gym employee is a customers servant.
the customer still has to follow the directions of the employee and the customer can be banned or punished for breaking the gym rules

and yes the gym customer has to pay the monthly subscription(tax) if they want to enjoy all the services provided by the system

also you cant live in the gym and be expected not to pay to be there.

i hope that i have simplified things down so that even an idiot could understand

you could have saved alot of googling but just knowing the IMF is american just by the pure fact that the reserve currency is US dollar.
why do you think trump is so easily able to hand out sanctions to other countries but other countries cant easily sanction the us

Actually just copy n pasted that comment from a snopes forum where this same list was posted 

Police can't be held responsible for delivering a specific outcome, because police aren't in the God-capacity, and there are all kinds of "things" that can influence the outcome that police have no control over.

Any law or directive that requires police to keep someone safe, where it is beyond the ability of police (or anybody) to do so, is a foolish law or directive. Each incident will need to be judged based on its own circumstances.

So, where and what is the law or directive that police are required to protect people?

As for Florida, without seeing the details, nobody would know. Anybody can sue anybody else for anything at any time. If the cop lost in court, there may be more than one reason, including that the judge or jury simply wanted the court to look good in the eyes of the people.

Court cases are not always won or lost the same, even when circumstances are very similar between cases.

8)

Just because the words "federal employees" is not found, doesn't really have anything to do with what #5 says.

If you have a bird in your birdcage in your house, and you sell the whole cage, bird and all, as far as you are concerned, there is no bird in your cage? Why? You don't even have a birdcage.

All that EO 12803 means is that if you want to find out if there is any government left that is not private, you have to go to all the paperwork in the world to find out if there has been a sale of government to the private sector. We know that this has happened in part, and happens continually as government property is sold off. The question has to do with the sale of the whole government.

8)

And it doesn't mean that the definition isn't true. Black's is used for all kinds of legal stuff. If it is untrue, we are entirely being scammed by using it.

The thing that is needed is corroboration by some other paperwork somewhere.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/World-Bank - "World Bank, in full World Bank Group, international organization affiliated with the United Nations (UN) and designed to finance projects that enhance the economic development of member states."

8)

Sounds like franky1 is still head-in-the-sand ostrich hole.

8)

your the one who just copies and pastes stuff from freman-esq sites without even bothering to think/research it.
this very thread has shown how you didnt even do the background check on the sources. nor see if the legal cases even relate to what the points were even asserting.

you got called out tooo much

some kind advice
maybe next time, check your sources twice before posting. or it can end up being used against you if they dont play out to what you assert

You're the on who failed using your stuff I don't use. So, console yourself with the thought that someone else is using your daffy stuff that failed, even if it isn't true. Licking your wounds often makes them feel better.

8)

you literally quote stuff straight from freeman crap sites. you even use their buzzwords.
i would spell it out for you how innaccurate you are in many things, but i guess if i did spell it out you would just reply that you require me to teach you the alphabet to before you even consider doing something for yourself and looking beyond your limited resources

you have no clue.
so last time ill give you a hint.
stop quoting the freeman crap. they have been debunked by many people many years ago. making your mindset flawed and outdated by a fad that died out years ago

what is a society that is acceptable according to BadDecker and other radical muslims, the slaughtering islamic state because it shots into everyones head if he isn't praying how ordered?

The only really acceptable society is one that allows freedom for all individuals who are adults.

The only exception is when it is proven that an individual has harmed or damaged another human or his property. The freedom is taken from the guilty person until he has paid off the debt of harm or damage.

Judgment as to guilt must be based on at least one witness besides the harmed/damaged person, and substantial evidence... and the defendant gets to cross examine the accuser and the witness.

A judge may make the judgment, but the defendant may require a jury of 12 impartial men and women.


Do Muslims have rules like this? These are the basic rules in the USA.

Seems to me that rules for Muslims are found in the Koran and Hadiths. Islamic rules promote lack of freedom, and violence at times.

8)

read human history there is property over the means of production (equity) there is exploitation, islam is easy to handle as everyone thinks he goes to hell if he harms his fellow brothers but it can backfire, (exploitation etc.)

historically armies that go into battle in order to get into paradise aren't very good armies as they dont seek to win. islamic state terror spreads now because world is still influenced by american hedonism (liberalism) but once this turns, armies seeking to die are not good fighters anymore.

secondly what do you recommend what shall europe do with those migrants it gets from third world?

You misunderstand Islam. Their fellow brothers according to the Koran and Hadiths are fellow Muslims. Other people are infidels and can be treated in any way a Muslim wants. That's the difference between Islam and most other religions.

Generally other religions say to convert people, but don't harm them. Muslims say this too, regarding a time-period where the Muslim tries to convert the infidel. But if the infidel isn't converted, he is supposed to be executed. The execution time is a judgmental thing, based on the safety of the Muslims when they do the executing, and based on how close to Islam conversion the Infidels might be.

We all might have ideas on what Europe is to do with immigrants. You read my ideas, above. No punishment except for harm and property damage. There is one other thing that I didn't spell out in this thread. Threat. Knowing what Islam is, allowing Muslims to immigrate is accepting a threat. But what Europe does is up to them. Most of Europe is not under the non-agresion ideals I suggest. Their governments are civil law governments, which are basically like religious Islam without the religion part.

However, none of this has much to do with the points in the OP directly. So, what's your point?

8)

There's a doctrine in law which is the doctrine of Ignorantia juris non excusat. its means that a person who violated a particular law cannot make a defense that he is not aware of such law. Because every law is being publish in the newspaper of general circulation before it can take effect, and everyone is presumed to have know such. Thus, he cannot escape from liability thereon and may still be held liable.

You have a point. But it isn't what you think.

The basic point about ignorance of the law is that the person/defendant listed on the indictment isn't the man/woman being accused. There are only two ways the indictment person can be the man/woman:
1. The human accepts that he/she is;
2. The human is in absentia.

A third way never happens. This is where the indictment says "the person, a man (or woman)..." and gives other description that can't be bypassed.

As soon as the man/woman makes it into court, if he/she doesn't state that the indictment person isn't him/her, he/she is in agreement that he/she is the person. And who will question it if he/she doesn't know that he/she can state that he/she isn't the person? THAT's the bottom line where the ignorance of the law lies.

8)

badecker.. you are soooooo fooling yourself believing the freeman stuff

the whole 'capitalised name is not a human but a corporate entity/fiction' crap that you have ben spoonfed is wrong on so many levels

you have been fooled into thinking when someone is born a 'trust' is set up of a corporate fiction..
sorry but that aint how it works

your truly stuck in a decade old myth
you are not preaching something new or revolutionary.. your stuck spouting out a busted myth of a decade ago.. you just dont realise it yet

what you do not realise is that people can later in life set up a trust and put their assets into that trust and that way distance themselves from any repurcussions.
but pretending your name is a trust set up at birth. is literally as stupid as shouting out that your not human and you identify yourself as a helicopter

do you know that many smart people dont buy cars. they lease them. that way if they default any loan(credit card/mortgage/personal loan). a debt collector cannot knock on your door and take the car as a recovery value because the car does not belong to you. so its not your asset for them to take.

you trying to denounce your birthname is not going to stop your car thats registered to your name from being taken. however putting the cars registration in another name of a trust unrelated to you will protect you

you really have much to learn and about a decade of stuff to catch up on
atleast try to look passed the myth. stop just treating it as gospel and really try to do the research

Your problem is that you are using freeman arguments. Where are you using them? They are the glasses that you are looking through. All you can see is freeman arguments wherever you look.

8)

your the one linking freeman stuff all the time..
i never linked any freeman stuff.. im trying to help you to see the light at the end of the tunnel you dug.
you are about a decade out of date.

its time you do some proper research and realise what your even reading.
your links are from a community that have not done the real research and fooling people into how to act in court. but the reality is if people tried to do these things they would get in more trouble

take the previous post in this topic where i highlighted the 'no judge' thing. the case had nothing to do with 'no judge' and even then the jurisdiction argument of the case was foolish.
your points dont make a point because they lack the real research

you have ben told by many people now that your 'facts' have no credibility so just wake up and realise it
your beliefs of karl lentz and his crowd are sorely misplaced. all h can do is la la la over the bits he doesnt want people to know. when in reality the la la la bits are the actual things people should know.

just wake up and do some research

You're the one who is calling what I show freeman stuff. The reason you do this is that you are completely misusing or misapplying it, just like the freeman.

8)

you are quoting freeman stuff..

the freeman throw in the word 'common law' to make it sound/look like what they/you are saying is about real common law/constitutional law stuff. but the stuff your quoting is not real common law/constitutional/law stuff

your quoting the freeman misunderstanding stuff of commonlaw/constitutional stuff

you keep quoting it all the time. you just dont realise it.

even this topic shows you lack actually cheking the sources. you just copy and paste it and have the misbelief that its correct even without the research/checks/trying things out.

people have pointed out many times how you have misunderstood it all.

just take a couple steps back from the walls surrounding you that you think ar protecting you
and realise you are stuck in a hole
stop screaming at people that are telling you to get out of the hole
stop screaming at people that they need to jump in the hole with you
and just realise your surroundings.. your stuck in a hole and you really should learn to climb out of it

...
courts do have judges
courts do have jurisdictions
people can accuse other people and not be the victim
others can represent victims

trying to turn a claim against you into a defamation claim against the accuser is not an automatic win just by turning up and denying recognising the accuser
trying to counter sue your way out of the claims against you is not a automatic win against your accuser

you have ben following too many 'a la la' quotes that are not explaining what really happens in court.
stop acting like you are the sole person that has found the fountain of knowledge and you are uniquely the only one that knows what you know. actually see that your fountain contains toxic knowledge and many people have realised it decades

your freeman beliefs have been demythed. sorry but your freeman trend /fad is outdated
just try to do some research that does not involve the freeman troll community and your will start to see the where you have been getting it wrong

YOU are not quoting real common law/constitutional stuff.. YOUR quoting the freeman misinterpretation varient

If you look closely, you will find that there are all kinds of legal references in the stuff... real legal references that are actually there.

The "freeman" you are talking about, is simply a misusing of the things that are used in law and court everyday.

Notice that there have been changes all over the judge-issued common law. If you shepardize court cases, you can see where many of the judgments have been changed by later court cases. Common law of the judges never remains the same.

If you want to focus on mistakes of the "freeman," that's okay. When freeman cases win, they are not called "freeman" any longer.

8)

no point in you defending the freeman path you took. just realise you walked down the wrong path

oh and many people told you in this topic that your references are not refering to the points.. cant you even read.

time to wake up. many. MANY things you mad points about had irrelevant references
LEARN TO CHECK what your copying, when you say something like a empty thought script reader
LEARN TO RESEARCH what your copying, when you say something like a empty thought script reader
LEARN TO UNDERSTAND what your copying, when you say something like a empty thought script reader

in short think before you write

have a nice day

No point in defending the fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between freeman mistakes and freeman successes.

As long as you talk mush, nobody will be able to understand, even though they read all day.

The thing that I did was to reference a website. So, all your talk at me is silliness.

8)

your references are the silliness

even what you refer in other topics as a freeman success was not a freeman success
that karl lentz video where he 'la la la' was not a freeman success..
h actually la la la over the important bit he didnt want to talk about as it would reveal what actually happened

freeman successes are not about having legitimate claims dismissed due to lawful reasons but usually about wasting soo much time and causing so much disruption the hop is they drop the case or offer an out of court settlement just to stop the headache freemen cause

your whole rhetoric is for even small things, to go to court, cause disruption and demand things and counter claim and then threaten to sue and to demand a trial.. when the reality wont get you the result you want. but the pretense is to cause so much drama that the other side just gives up the fight.

sorry but in the real world if you punch someone, your not going to be always able to talk your way out of a fight or play the whimpy victim card to get away from getting hurt. you will still get smacked down

realise that.
understand that
actually research it

anyway the point of my calling you out on your crap is that you are not researched enough or even understand the reality of things enough to be trying to make topics about legal 'fact'
so either realise your limitations or research more to get passed your limited scope of knowledge and experience as it has ben very very evident that you pretend to follow all the freeman stuff but have not personally tried them in the real world. you just watch, listen,read, someone elses stuff. and instantly without checking. just believe what they said is real and just copy and paste it as if its your own experience/knowledge

sorry but you have been told many times on many topics by many people.
its time you took the advice and do the damned research

^^^ Now you are calling American law the silliness.     8)

your bullet points are not american law
they are a copy and paste of some dude you made loads of silly points(not law) and then what appears more likely just threw in some random cases.
your actions are the same as if told you cigarettes are healthy by cutting out a food label for vegetable soup and stick it on a pack of cigarettes.. but it dont make them healthy in reality


again the cases do not tally to the points. and many people have told you this. .. just accept it
this makes the pointd irrelevant which makes your topic irrelevant which makes your context silly and irrelevant

you really would be better off researching more or copy/pasting freeman stuff less
im trying to do you a favour here by trying to catch you up with stuff people knew a decade ago
if you want to take the slow route. see you in 10 years
or you can just wake up and realise your info is freeman misbeliefs

in short just stop copy/pasting freeman crap

When are you going to wake up and realize that when a freeman wins in court, they don't call the joker a freeman any longer? No wonder you don't win in court. All you use is freeman stuff... the stuff that didn't win.

Why don't you show us how to use the law in ways that work better... if you're so smart?

8)

you still have not realised the whole 'la la la la' stuff of the karl lentz example that you thought was a freeman win...
seriously.. do the friggen research

figure out for yourself what was behind karl lentz's 'la la la' and you will realise he did not freeman win at all. and his freeman chest rubbing was not even applicable to what became the result. h did not have to evn say the freeman script that he tells others to say. if he instead actually told viewers what was behind his la la la section people would know how to win a case like the scenario.

its like saying
here is how to pal an orange
go up to an orange and argue with it to unpeal, shout and scream and then la la la. then you will find it has unpealed
where the la la la = and then grab the orange and peal the skin off

he metaphorically hid the need to peal the skin off to make people think it became unpealed by arguing nonsensically for hours was the solution

just do the research
realise the flaws then realise whats ben hidden from you. then realise why you are blindly following the speaches

P.S
you can always spot the religious followers by the way they respond with excuses not to do the research and instead try to fight for why they should just believe in what they have been preached

You talk about doing research. But I don't blame you for not realizing that Karl Lentz isn't freeman. Who wants to check into stuff that he thinks is junk?

Here is how to see that Karl Lentz's "stuff" isn't freeman. It's easy.

Freeman people file hundreds of pages of documents in their "briefs." They talk about God, the rights of mankind, freedom, and all kinds of stuff that doesn't have anything to do directly (most of the time) with their case.

Karl is different. Karl files one or two pages in his claim. All they have to do with is who the parties are, what the other party has done wrong, and what Karl wants as payment for the wrong they have done to him. If there are other docs or pictures, they are referred to as attachments, and they don't go into any more detail than necessary to back up Karl's case.

What Karl does is the same as attorneys and DA's do all the time. It's to the point, and let's get this thing done and over with.

I'm starting to think either that you are completely ignorant of court operations, or that you are out there to keep the people from recognizing how fast a case can be handled by the courts. And especially that people don't need attorneys.

All your blab about freemen is pointless. But it sounds like you adore them and their stuff, even though it all failed you somewhere along the line.

8)

your still stuck not realising it. and just blindly following karl lentz's preaching like your his religious follower

goodluck with that

p.s i never followed the freeman stuff you spout out because i can see passed your preaching and copy and pastes. i instead research beyond your preaches and do things you are apparently too afraid to do

many people have seen your flaws and seen you lack the first person experience/knowledge/research
i have no idea why you are just a copy and paste drone follower of the stuff you read. but hey, goodluck with your narrowminded vision to refuse to stand back and do independant research

enjoy your life in la la la land

and no dont just auto reply with the empty response of why you should continue believing the crap you believe. atleast take a step back and research whats behind the la la la
and then look at your first topic post and truly research every numbered point of your topic post and verify each bit.
dont just be a blind drone. DO SOME RESEARCH
and no dont auto respond pretending you done the research...this topic has proved you just copy and pasted without verifying
and no dont just auto respond that im just 'wrong cos im wrong'. as a drone response of many usually write. DO THE RESEARCH
and no dont respond with some typical offensive reply .. just do the research

you can insult and say anything. but in the end.. just do the research and learn..
..or stay a drone

There you go again. Attorney's do what Karl does all the time.

Take a look at any attorney court case. You have the attorney for the plaintiff, and the attorney for the defendant. One of them loses the case. Does that make him a freeman, simply because he lost?

When you talk about the things that I talk about, if you want to ignore the law, that's okay. But other people don't ignore the law. Take Judge Judy on TV. She runs common law courts of record, except that there is an appeal to a jury. You are missing a whole lot of law.

And when you say that I am wrong just because I am wrong, you are really talking about yourself.

Do some research into the law. You only seem to know about freeman stuff.

I admit that you have a really good format in not capitalizing the beginnings of your sentences, your personal pronoun "I," and that you don't use much if any punctuation. This is good common law writing... showing that you are not in their jurisdiction at all, by not using their grammar. Are you sure you're not really a freeman, and that everything that you write is common law freeman style?

You do a good enough job without punctuation for anybody to follow what you are trying to get across (most of the time). But if you really want to get out of their jurisdiction, stop putting spaces between your words. Nobody writes like that. If you dropped the spaces, you would be completely outside of their jurisdiction in court. It might be a little difficult for folks to follow, but I bet they could work their way through. (I know. It's the booze that makes you write this way. But it's almost in perfect form for filing a common law claim.)

8)

your info is not the law.. your knowledge is the freeman misbeliefs of real law
the reason i know your using freeman crap is because YOU use all the freeman links and buzzwords
your copy and pastes are from folks that are into the freeman stuff
your mindset is stuck in the freeman stuff

just because freeman say the word common law. and then stir in their own mix does not make what they say the real common law.
you still have not learned the difference
as evidenced by your 'capitalised' crap you just said

your topics first post proves it.
you didnt even bother to research what you copy and pasted

you are a dim whit by thinking the capitalisation has significant meaning
you have drunk too much of the freeman coolaid

i am the one that knows more about the real common law than you.
every single post you make has the pretense of the freeman variant/misconception

just do the friggen research and wake up
you have no clue and shouldnt be giving advice. all you do is copy and paste from someone else, bu you have truly no personal experience and its rally obvious

You just can't get it through your head, can you? When a freeman uses all the "freeman crap" and "all the freeman links and buzzwords," and wins in court, it isn't called "freeman crap" and "links and buzzwords" any longer. Rather, it goes down in the court records as a win.

Did you catch that? "Freeman crap" and "links and buzzwords" is law. Wake up... or not. You are too deluded to come out of your silliness. Stay there so you don't corrupt "freeman crap" and "links and buzzwords" that are law.

8)

karl lentz did not win due to the freeman crap rhetoric
remember he la la la'd over the real law stuff

if lents did not mention the freeman stuff you love so much and just done the law stuff he la la lad over he would still have won
thus the freeman stuff you love was not the cause of the win

its like i can tell you the real law stuff.. then karl lentz tells you to wear a pink dress to court.. you win the case. and you decide the pink dress won the case and suddenly your a pink dress preacher
atleast realise it has nothing to do with the pink dress as the pink dress is the freeman mascarade

the whole point of freeman stuff is to cause so much drama and disruption in the hope of not being convicted by reason of insanity/stupidity
that is not a true win, as the consequences could see YOU locked up in a mental home, should you dare try it

and funnily enough your many topics have shown your lack of first person knowledge, meaning even you wont try it
so one last tip. dont provide info if you have not fully researched, vetted, checked, understood and ofcourse dont give info unless you have first person experience of it

in short. dont be a copy and paste drone.. learn about stuff before you try to promote it
learn consequences

How in the world dense are you? There might be a few people who have won every time so far. But now and again they all lose one... even Karl Lentz.

But you are right. I need typing practice, so I should cut down on my "copy and paste."

This is a forum. How in the world ignorant are you? Copy and paste is a part of active forum members.

8)

EDIT: Are you really trying to say that you don't know how to copy and paste?

keep trying your pink dress strategy.. it a good laugh but wont get the results you want

Oh no! We've been franked! Check out "The advantages of unfranked dividends" at https://www.chan-naylor.com.au/advantages-unfranked-dividends/.

 :D

being frank (straight to the point no kissing ass) has nothing to do with tax
being frank(a name) has nothing to do with tax

having a message franked(postal) has nothing to do with tax

the reason im not a penny pinching person with a bitcoin address in my footer(unlike you) is that i dont even need to consider that payments are needed for my posts.

i self frank, (self authorise and send my own posts) thus dont need to pay or get paid
i got a nice hoard of coins i ben sitting on for many years now so i dont ned to penny pinch or kiss ass

there are other funny word plays for why i chose this name.. but you wiil never grasp the subtle details. as demonstrated by many examples of you not checking things or thinking hard about things.

but anyway
keep having a nice day mis-understanding things

^^^ Actually, the government franked you by calling you a person. Then you franked yourself by agreeing with them.

8)

you have no clue

for all intense and purposes i could identify myself as a shemale that uses the pronouns: helicopter chopper and swirly whirly bird
but i am not on of those crazy people that demand to be identified as a particular thing because in the end when you actually bother to get into the details it does not matter if you call yourself a helicopter a person or a human or a pink dress wearer.

 in court someone just needs to point in your direction no matter what you identify yourself as

and the accuser does not nd to be the victim. the accuser can be a forensics expert, a witness, a police officer a security camera operator a legal advocate a family member.. anyone
so even you trying to fight over WHO is accusing you is empty. your not fighting the evidence itself

your waffle is just as bad as them odd people saying 'im not a number im a human being' and an employer just stares at you and says just get back to work. you wont get out of doing work by arguing that you want to be identified as something. at most you will just get sacked. (but foolishly in your eyes you'll consider that a win)

playing the 'you cant identify me so i am invisible and not here and dont have to answer to my actions' game is not real common law practice

your freeman stuff about birth certificates and governments is your mis-understood pink dress. you are only seeing like 5% of it because you only believe the freeman stuff which is 95% fluff with the random spray of common law stuff spread in to make it kind of sound meaningful.

emphasis you believe the 95% fluff but dont understand the real 5% they la la la over. and that has been proven in other topics
you ignore and mis-understand the la la la

Yeah, yeah. I know. It's all freeman stuff until it wins in court.

Are you really a shemale?

 :D

trying to dumb thigs down to your level, hoping something actually getss into your head and makes you realise stuff

i have a penis. .. but i also have a vagina between my legs far more often then you(via having a spouse). so for all intense and purposes i could say that.

also lesbians are attracted to women, that must make me lesbian because i like women

point is anyone can identify themselves as anything they like. but it doesnt change reality.
you cannot get away with a crime by fighting that you are really a helicopter or a shemale or a lesbian or just some invisible monkeyboy

LOL! That's really good stuff. Do you have any legal sites for it, or is it all freeman?

 :D

all YOUR stuff has been freeman rhetoric .. and your soo inept/narrow minded, that you either dont realise it or are just soo arrogant in your ignorance that you are suddenly trying to back track and pretend your not freeman but suddenly the rest of the world is..

sorry dude but YOU ARE THE ONE quoting freeman stuff.. no one else JUST YOU

now here is a tip for your escape route out of your beliefs of the limited freeman stuff
research tresspass and contracts
these are part of common and constitutional law. and you should start to see the flaws of your previous freeman rhetoric once you open yourself up to stuff outside your freeman box

happy researching.
and no need to reply with any more random defensive waffle. just do the research

You are finally getting to the REAL point. You are absolutely right! All MY stuff is freeman rhetoric. But it seems that you haven't figured out why, yet. Here's why.

All MY stuff is based in the way the government operates. And government is set up to operate with the idea of giving freedom to people. This is why it is freeman stuff, and not slave stuff.

What this means is that you have it a bit backward. The so-called freemen that you are talking about didn't have to go through all the BS they went through to attempt to get what they wanted. They acted out of ignorance to some extent, but possibly out of being duped by government plants inside their organizations.

True freemen use government laws to remain free. But before they use these laws, they learn how the laws work by looking at examples of what works... and understanding why it works the way it does.


Do you remember my point in the OP? Let me repeat it here: "What I am looking for is comments regarding the below info. Is it right? Is it wrong? Has it been discarded in law? Has it been overruled by various court cases? Are the legal sites accurate? What does anyone think? The points are numbered, so it should be easy to answer them point-by-point."

You seem to think that I am supporting some faulty ideals by asking questions. You seem to think that it is a bad idea to show some laws and court cases to people. You seem to think that I am somehow bad for pointing out some things to other people so that they can make up their own minds.

It's like you want to condemn me for investigating and asking others to do the same. You want people to be like ostriches, and stick their heads in holes in the sand, so that they can be attacked from behind. What kind of a sick dips**t are you? Wake up and start learning so that you have something to protect yourself with should you ever need it.

8)

firstly your not asking questions. your trying to make points. using references that have nothing to do with the points as many have informed you

secondly freeman rhetoric is not law or real. it is th same as where a cult mis-understands religion/science to form a group of people that believe in something that others dont. and yes cults are not the ones in the right.

your defense of the freeman stuff shows your still not seeing the flaws of it. you are still trying to find excuses to carry on thinking that you can lawfully drive on a public road without a driving licence or pretend your a corporation brand instead of a human to get out of court fines

just expand your eyes beyond the copy and paste crap of freeman and start to see the whole picture and maybe you will see the HOLE in the freeman picture

it is rather amusing to see cultists defend their stance to the death.
you talk about rights but avoid understanding the responsibilities and consequences that come with it

you title 'legal facts'  are not facts
many have told you this. so its time to wake yourself up

freeman stuff is not the plain meaning law nor is it the common law of common knowledge/common sense. freeman stuff is the mis-interpretation and trying to convince people that something means something else

sorry but your name is not a corporation
your name is an identifier of you. no matter if you identify yourself as a corporation a helicopter or a shemale. your name is still you. so you can play all the games you like. its still you

the whole freeman "person" stuff is about you can pretend your business is liable but your not by trying to detach yourself, you can pretend you go by different pronouns to escape the law

but you the human being known as whatever thing you present yourself as are still liable
so just stop pretending that your a corporation as thats not what the plain meaning/common law is.

i stiil laugh that one of your points was thinking there are no judges in courts.

I can empathize with you. After all, nobody knows what you are really saying since you can't even use capitalization and reasonable punctuation. Maybe that's why you don't recognize a written question when you see it. You don't know what question marks are all about. Of course, without reasonable punctuation and capitalization, nobody can really be sure that you meant that I wasn't asking questions.

Your last sentence-like group of words seemed to indicate that you laugh. If this is right, good. Laughter is good for the soul.

8)

funny how you cant counter my points so just become a grammar nazi, typical response

your ignorant
spend your wasted time doing research, no need to keep replying with defending your ignorance
have a good day

Did you ever hear of the four-corner rule? It's legal grammar, and government uses it all the time in their documents.

8)

stay inside your 4 corner box of freeman whitterings.

by you calling it four corner shows your just referencing freeman rhetoric yet again
its called contract law in the real world and its you that needs to research it because then you will see where your failings are..

oh wait i told you many posts ago to research contract law independantly away from the freeman crap
and here you are responding using the freeman buzzwords
seems you resorted to having to research the freemans mis-interpretations yet again

to respond to below
badecker is the one copy and pasting and using the terms and linking the links of freeman cult.. no on else is
everyone else is trying to correct backecker but badecker refuses to realise that he is the one that should do the research beyond the cult
its like telling a scientologist to wake up to the cult and the scientologist accuses the rest of the world of being scientologists

I'm glad you know so much freeman stuff. Perhaps you should learn a little law.

8)