Kinda pointless, cant prove such a thing scientifically.
Yes, but some people are going to keep on trying, just like some scientists keep on trying to prove something as silly as evolution.  |
|
|
|
The evidence for God is great. The fact that most of people in the world believe in God or a god, is in itself great evidence. The machine quality of the universe suggests a Maker.
Most people in the world believed the world was flat. That didn't turn out to be great evidence. That was 500 years ago. Five hundred years from now scientists will be amazed at the silly things scientists of the 21st century believed. |
|
|
|
4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.
5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Rubbish. Simply untrue, as demonstrated by every criminal case in the US. 6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose. Rubbish, as above. You must have noticed that, in the real world, this simply isn't true. There are thousands if not millions of people in prison in the US for drug crimes which don't fit any of your descriptions. Do you really think that none of their lawyers spotted this obvious loophole you seem to think exists?[...] Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea. But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world. That's the problem. Folks simply love to be led like sheep to the slaughter in front of the judges, because they don't know that they can stand up in ways other than what is normally done. So is the answer seriously yes? You really think that you have found a wonderful loophole in the law that somehow every lawyer and defendant has missed, and there are millions of people in prison who could have simply walked free if only they knew what you did? That's... pretty delusional. Not a loophole. It's taken the legal system at least 70 or 80 years of NOT training their attorneys in this kind of common law, to get the legal system where it is today. It's a similar thing to the way the banking industry has turned the banking system into a debt system rather than a simple money system. Only it took the banking system a lot longer to set their whole thing up. For them, we have a $200 trillion more or less hidden world debt that corresponds to our $17 trillion in the US. The whole thing amounts to trust. Average people placed their trust in the legal system, and the banking system used it to screw them. As for the millions of people in prison, there are loads of them there who have done nothing deserving of it. There was no harm or damage done to anyone. Yet they are treated as though they are criminals of the worst kind. Consider all the people who have done time simply because they smoked a joint, even though they harmed nobody. If you research it, you will find that the prison system in the US is the largest in the world by far. And if you research a little further, you will find loads of people who are making a lot of money off the people in prison, including something similar to using them for slave labor. All this is happening because the legal system has gradually hidden, over a bunch of decades, the method that the people used to use to protect themselves from government. Common law is NOT something new. It goes back to the foundations of our country. |
|
|
|
Okay? I won't argue, because I don't know how Bangladesh common law works. But, it is English common law, so it should be similar to the U.K. Here is the basic stuff about common law in the U.S. Sigh. So much rubbish. 1. It is common knowledge that if you are accused of something, you have the right to face your accuser.
2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself I can, and have. I don't think you have. You just accepted what was said by someone else without checking it. , but among the things that it says is, "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness". No, it doesn't. It says: ( http://www.leagle.com/decision/1964876229FSupp647_1743) The defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unsupported by affidavits or depositions is incomplete because it requests this Court to consider facts outside the record which have not been presented in the form required by Rules 12(b) (6) and 56(c). Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. They failed to formally present evidence to the court in the correct way to support their case, just saying that such evidence existed wasn't enough. Please try to find the words you have presented as a "quote" anywhere in the actual transcript of the case. this means that the attorney for your accuser can't even speak if you don't let him, unless he is going to be witness with firsthand knowledge of your case. Of course, then he is the accuser, and can't act as an attorney. No it doesn't. He cannot give evidence. That doesn't mean he can't speak. He can ask witnesses questions in order to examine and test their evidence. He can describe the evidence that has been given. He can sum up the evidence, and suggest what implications and conclusions should be drawn from it. 3. Don't represent yourself. Don't let anyone represent you. Rather, be a man or woman and PRESENT yourself. This makes it so that you have to have a man or woman accuser face you with the accusation. This doesn't actually mean anything, so can't really be discussed. 4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.
5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Rubbish. Simply untrue, as demonstrated by every criminal case in the US. 6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose. Rubbish, as above. You must have noticed that, in the real world, this simply isn't true. There are thousands if not millions of people in prison in the US for drug crimes which don't fit any of your descriptions. Do you really think that none of their lawyers spotted this obvious loophole you seem to think exists? This is American common law. No it isn't. It isn't English common law. Possibly the only correct statement in your entire post. English common law is a little more straight forward in some ways. It has Queen's Bench, which makes it more straight forward, even though there is an additional step. I'm fascinated by what you think the Queen's Bench is? Here is a hint: The original King's/Queen's Bench for England and Wales as abolished in 1875. The current Queen's Bench is a division of the High Court of Justice. You can read transcripts of their cases here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea. But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world.That's the problem. Folks simply love to be led like sheep to the slaughter in front of the judges, because they don't know that they can stand up in ways other than what is normally done. Regarding Trinsey v. Pagliaro, the site you gave didn't have the whole case, at least not that I could see. In cases, there are often many "holdings" that have little to do with the particular case, yet they form precedence. The holding I listed above, is in the actual T. v. P. case judgment rendering by the judge. Find it and you will see. |
|
|
|
if a god exist do you guys believe he will punish a suicide?
Suicide is murder. However, Suicide can be laying down your life for your friends, like dying to protect your buddies in war. It depends on if the person has faith in the forgiveness that God provides through Jesus, or not. Not an easy way to answer this. |
|
|
|
Look, all it has to do with is, if someone wrongs you, and won't make it right, you go to court with a claim against that person. This is standard stuff that has been done since the USA started. And it was developed in Britain over hundreds of years. Yes. And it has nothing to do with the rubbish you started with: In English common law, there are basically only 3 things that the government can get you for:
1. If you harm somebody;
2. If you damage his property;
3. Breach of contract.
The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3. That isn't the law. At least not in actual real world countries. EDIT: It's called common law. watch Judge Judy. Oh my god, did you just seriously say that? Okay? I won't argue, because I don't know how Bangladesh common law works. But, it is English common law, so it should be similar to the U.K. Here is the basic stuff about common law in the U.S. 1. It is common knowledge that if you are accused of something, you have the right to face your accuser. 2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself, but among the things that it says is, "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness". This means that the attorney for your accuser can't even speak if you don't let him, unless he is going to be witness with firsthand knowledge of your case. Of course, then he is the accuser, and can't act as an attorney. 3. Don't represent yourself. Don't let anyone represent you. Rather, be a man or woman and PRESENT yourself. This makes it so that you have to have a man or woman accuser face you with the accusation. 4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man. 5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you. 6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose. 7. Go after them for money for filing a false claim against you. This is American common law. It isn't English common law. English common law is a little more straight forward in some ways. It has Queen's Bench, which makes it more straight forward, even though there is an additional step. English common law for Bangladesh. If any of you readers are having problems in Bangladesh, contact Karl. He has a heavy workload. So, keep on trying if he doesn't get back to you right away. His contact locations are listed at the websites I have already listed in this thread. If you are American, British (whole British Isles), or Canadian, Karl is ready to go. If CPS (or the corresponding governmental agency in Canada or the U.K.) took your kids, Karl will help you get them back without charging you for it. I'm not saying any of this to drum up business for Karl. I'm saying it to help anyone who needs help. I am also saying it because we need to strengthen all the common law nations out there - Bangladesh - so that Bitcoin can remain freely in the hands of ALL the people. |
|
|
|
I don't believe in GOD because the consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones , consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources is exactly zero.
See? That's the trick, isn't it? If we knew all about God, we wouldn't have to believe. Consider your wife (or anybody or anything that you know exists). Do you believe she exists? Maybe. But more than believing, you KNOW she exists. If the evidence proved God existed, then you wouldn't have to believe. You would KNOW. But since ALL religion revolves around the idea of believing, there really isn't going to be any proof for God. If there were proof, you wouldn't have to believe. You would KNOW. The evidence for God is great. The fact that most of people in the world believe in God or a god, is in itself great evidence. The machine quality of the universe suggests a Maker. As for consistency, you won't find one person in the whole world who is consistent with yourself. Even your closest, most trusted friend, is at least slightly inconsistent with you. The point? Don't give up on God. Why not? There will come a time that He will reveal Himself to you and all people. And the thing that He will consider important will be how and how much you believed in Him, here, before He revealed Himself, before the time that you won't have to believe anymore, because you will KNOW. |
|
|
|
Look, all it has to do with is, if someone wrongs you, and won't make it right, you go to court with a claim against that person. This is standard stuff that has been done since the USA started. And it was developed in Britain over hundreds of years. If the other party doesn't attempt to refute the claim, but if he could have attempted, or if he could have refuted, but doesn't, you win. This is the thing that the banks are doing to people with outstanding debts all the time. The difference is that a bank can only file a complaint, whereas people can file claims, if they have a vested interest in what they are claiming. EDIT: It's called common law. watch Judge Judy. When she gets a couple of people into court who are a little more organized, she doesn't say much. all she does is make a judgment based on the sworn testimony of the people involved, and the evidence they bring forth. It can be done in Bangladesh, because Bangladesh is a common law country that uses English common law. The biggest problem is that the people are poor and ignorant much of the time. But if a wealthier person who knew how to read and write helped them out, there would be no stopping them. Either the government would have to become a civil law government, or they would win. |
|
|
|
While it is true that not all common law countries are created equal, English common law is very powerful. There are two parts to it. There's the part that the Crown enjoys, having to do with past rulings, and there is the part that the people can enjoy, if they know about it. It is called Queen's Bench, and used properly, it makes use of the basic 3 parts listed in my first post above.
See what has taken place in England regarding this, within the last couple of years or so. Similar can happen in Bangladesh if the people start to wake up. These links are junk. What they are claiming (basically that you don't have to follow any law that doesn't directly damage a specific person or their property) is junk. He is just trying to sell his books/DVDs. An impressive 4 Add To Carts and 2 Donates just on the one page. And I'm going to go out on a wild limb and say that when people don't manage to avoid convictions for breaking the law, he will always say it is because they have implemented his ideas slightly wrong, rather than them being complete fantasy. For example, this rubbish: Sick of taking Orders and earning no money from complying with the Orders?
Buy an Invoice Pad today, to BILL the next Public SERVANT that Orders thou [You] !
(thou = singular cf. Ye - Nominative / You - Objective which are Plurals... i will explain later)
Example:
When A[NY] Public SERVANT stops thou at the side of the road and Orders a PERFORMANCE of and/or from thou by way of the use of His (or Her) Voice, these UTTERANCES are defined as HIS (or HER) Wishes AND Orders delivered upon thou (placing a Burden Upon thou!)
Example(s) :
ORDERS thou as a [wo]man to get out of YOUR car !
ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man to "GIVE-UP" up his or her "GIVEN-name"!
ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man to perform ANY task (such as hand-over a Licence)!
et ceteras, et cetaras, et ceteras...
Deliever Upon HIM (or HER) a BILL (an INVOICE) !
(BILL / INVOICE: c. 1400; that of "order to pay" ( technically 'Bill of Exchange' is from 1570s)
Example:
When "HE" or "SHE" ( a Public Servant) makes their WISHES to perform known and ORDER(s) Upon thou ( a man or woman) make sure to require of Him or Her to remember "Fair-and-Just" COMPENSATION, is now due for carrying-out His or Her Wishes and ORDER(s)! Written in Olde Worlde English to try to pretend it actually has some historic basis. What is it? Where is the legal basis for this rubbish? Some of his posts seem like stream-of-altered-consciousness: The start of a claim template but this is more of a strategy outline.
Identify and try to settle with prosecutor. Create evidence - record phone call, write a phone log (at this time I called the prosecutor at this number from this number). Any harm? Man does harm. No settle? If you take this to court I will file claim.
File claim. Look at the "debt template" and practice writing out a claim..
Reference My Private Audio Call March 17 2013 at the 53 minute mark.
[53:00] [traffic ticket] who is going to try to interfer with my right travel?
Be cool with cop and ask cop who will prosecute?
within three days ask prosecutor to stop ticket prosecution
(To lawyer: I am better than a attorney yep I am a man and I have standing. If attorney lose get him for barratry and filing false claims against man.)
This officer wrote this error before he gets in trouble I am giving fair warning.
officer believes I have a privilege to drive and I believe I have a right to travel
[58:00] If case not dropped file a claim against prosecutor of ticket not cop moving a false claim through court. no injured party.
i am prosecutor (going against ticket prosecutor) vs respondent or wrongdoer who caused me an injury
within 3 day try to settle
day 4 file claim
interfering with my right to travel,
For some reason the cop believes I did injury or harm or operating under my driver license at that time which i was not.
i wish order and demanded prosecutor to desist frivolous claim against me and he refused to
and he is going to pursue in 30 days and i wish to be compensated for my time for answering a claim.
prosecutor: you better prove i interfered with someone's rights. If you want to believe I was operating
under a license under that point in time you are mistaken. Well you gave driver's license. It is true I gave your cop the license he has a gun. I was under coercion.
Is someone called the state of california going to come forward and make a claim I was operating their vehicle because of a title?
Is someone going to come forward named called the state of california that he owns a portion of the car and he can tell me what to do?
Is man called the state of california going to come forward a makes a claim that because of legal title and he is going register and inspect the car? Is a man going to come forward yes or no? Do you really want to take legal advice from this man? Correct me if I'm wrong but is this one of those "sovereign citizen" bullcrap that I kept hearing about? No, it's not. In fact, Karl is totally against the "'sovereign citizen' bullcrap that" you keep hearing about. EDIT: http://distribution-point.com/224af7db0140b9b6.html |
|
|
|
Do you really want to take legal advice from this man?
Well, he said it works.  |
|
|
|
Bangladesh is a common law nation, based on British common law. If the people understood how powerful this is, they could almost outlaw the government. In the event you are interested in how common law can be used over there, look at how Karl Lentz is teaching people to use it in the United Kingdom. http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tcMany of the Talkshoe recordings are hosted by Bali, from the U.K. I don't know where his family is originally from, but with a name like Bali, might even be Bangladesh. It is, in theory possible to overthrow any government regardless if "the law" allows for this to happen. I would however doubt that they would attempt to overthrow the government of Bangladesh in an attempt to be able to use bitcoin, the benefits are simply not there for the people to try to do that. The idea isn't to overthrow the government. The idea is to protect yourself from the government. In English common law, there are basically only 3 things that the government can get you for: 1. If you harm somebody; 2. If you damage his property; 3. Breach of contract. The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3. As a warning to anyone reading this, it is complete nonsense, and has nothing to do with the definition of a common law country. While it is true that not all common law countries are created equal, English common law is very powerful. There are two parts to it. There's the part that the Crown enjoys, having to do with past rulings, and there is the part that the people can enjoy, if they know about it. It is called Queen's Bench, and used properly, it makes use of the basic 3 parts listed in my first post above. See what has taken place in England regarding this, within the last couple of years or so. Similar can happen in Bangladesh if the people start to wake up. http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tchttp://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.htmlWhile not everything in the links is UK, it is all based on the basic kind of law that Bangladesh has. Bangladesh has English common law. The stuff in the links can be used, with a few tweaks, in Bangladesh. |
|
|
|
dank is going to be rich! He's copying Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church. Too bad for dank. If he had been sincere about his religious beliefs, he might have had a chance. As it is, the Devil's got him. |
|
|
|
I'll say having children period is immoral, your bringing them into a world where they will feel pain, where their labor will be taxed away at every turn. Better not to have children at all, gives more wealth to the people already living.
Not everyone were born in a test tube, without parents like you...   Now, now. Be gentle. Full Spectrum doesn't realize that he isn't as full as he thinks he is. As long as he realizes he had to be alive, feel pain and pay taxes to let the world knows everyone else should stop procreate after his birth AND share their wealth (to him who else). Of course if he was born without a navel in a Martian lab then I stand corrected Of course the kids he is talking about will feel pain. But they will have a lot of fun making more kids who will feel pain and have a lot of fun making more kids who will feel pain and have a lot of fun making more kids who will feel pain and have a lot of fun making................ |
|
|
|
Look at my signature below.
Which programming language is that? Or are you AI? |
|
|
|
One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.
Considering that, how is "religion" necessary?
There are several things that are virtually necessary in life for a healthy person to live. Everyone needs air to breathe, water to drink (or at least to be absorbed through the food he/she eats), and food. In certain climates, people need clothing and shelter. Since a person isn't completely full of all possible experience, he is going to find things in life that will be different than what he expected. Because of this, people live by faith, faith in nature, faith in their experiences, and if they understand about God, faith in God. In its simplest form, religion is only a combining of faith and experience. Religion is how one acts based on what he believes, which is based on his imperfect and incomplete experience. His religion changes slightly with each new experience. And nobody's personal religion is exactly the same as that of anybody else. However, because ALL people have the same, basic needs in life, each person's religion is similar to that of every other person, down deep, at the core of their being. What you term "health," your YHWH, he terms "2." At our core, you and I, we have the same basic needs in life: air, water, food, clothing, shelter. Yet our experiences and training are different enough that I haven't been able to determine what you mean by what you say. |
|
|
|
Thought it was after Methuselah that God decided "okay im cool lets kill off these stupid humans"
Take a look at what the Bible - the best source we have for this - says. God did it because wickedness increased throughout the world beyond a certain point. Science is showing us that there is structure in nature. Science is showing us that nature adapts to certain structural changes. Science also shows us that nature collapses in areas where the structural changes are too great. The science of psychology shows us that people go mad if their psychological structure gets too far out of whack from what it should be naturally. So, why is science so unwilling to look at the spiritual, structures in the universe? It's in spiritual structures that we see hints of God. Is it not curious that this absence of entropy termed "structure" would so frequently prove succumb to that? Not sure what you mean, exactly. But consider this fanciful thought. Imagine for a moment that God exists, and that He is very powerful, way beyond understanding. Imagine, also, that for His own purposes He sees you and is even aware of your thinking. So, one day you happen to be a bit more favorable of Him in your thoughts. For whatever reason (or non-reason) you simply think good thoughts about God one day. God wasn't expecting this from you (because He designed people to be great enough that He doesn't quite know what people will think from day to day). So, God goes all the way back to the beginning of creation, and tweaks it and time so that things match your feelings for the day. And He does this kind of thing on a regular basis, not only for you, but for all people. People never know that God does this, because they exist inside the changes as though it had never been any other way. The point? We don't know how collapses caused by entropy are upholding the general structure. For example. Modern medicine has shown that as a person gets older, and as his immune system wears out, certain parts of the immune system kick in to cover areas that other parts have failed in. The immune system is extremely complex. Yet, over time it fails, and the person dies. A similar thing is happening with the universe. Because of the complexity of the universe, we simply don't see it easily. But we see it when we examine the fossil record and see that there are only about a third of the plants and animals still around than there used to be. Life is dying off, becoming extinct. Entropy, but a very slow one. The whole thing acts according to structure. Yet the structure is dissolving. |
|
|
|
One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.
Considering that, how is "religion" necessary?
There are several things that are virtually necessary in life for a healthy person to live. Everyone needs air to breathe, water to drink (or at least to be absorbed through the food he/she eats), and food. In certain climates, people need clothing and shelter. Since a person isn't completely full of all possible experience, he is going to find things in life that will be different than what he expected. Because of this, people live by faith, faith in nature, faith in their experiences, and if they understand about God, faith in God. In its simplest form, religion is only a combining of faith and experience. Religion is how one acts based on what he believes, which is based on his imperfect and incomplete experience. His religion changes slightly with each new experience. And nobody's personal religion is exactly the same as that of anybody else. However, because ALL people have the same, basic needs in life, each person's religion is similar to that of every other person, down deep, at the core of their being. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
