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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
As a prelude to recognizing the existence of God, one must recognize that people live and thrive on faith. ---------- From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t : faith [feyth] noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. ---------- Who among people knows for an absolute fact what is going to happen at any time in the future? Personally, experience has taught me that I can feel confident that some things will happen. Yet, some of the time I have been wrong. Since I didn't know then that I was going to be wrong when I was wrong, how do I know that I am not going to be wrong now? The point? I live by faith. That faith is based on my experience of the way things work in life and the universe. When I am wrong, my experience is tweaked a little, so that the next time circumstances are similar to something I have experienced, the expectations of my faith are also different. I still don't know for a fact what will happen any given moment. So, I live by faith that my experience has provided me with enough information to make correct decisions, and to be comfortable in life. Until I am humble enough to recognize that I live by faith, and that my experiences don't cover all situations and circumstances, I'm never going to be able to find REAL proof for God or anything else. I am only going to wind up deluding myself into beliefs that may or may not be true. |
|
|
|
The logic string proposed here is fundamentally flawed. God by definition is omnipotent, so if the hypothesis begins with "God exists and is omnipotent" the answer to any rule imposed to deny the existence of god can be explained through omnipotence. An Omnipotent entity would not be governed by any laws and could act in ways that contradict each other. I want to add that I do not follow any organized religion but my opinion is slightly biased based on where I was born and my unwavering faith in science. To throw a wrench into our thinking... Might God want a challenge? Perhaps just for sport? Yet one that harms nobody, yet is a true challenge? So, how would God create this challenge? God knows everything except for one little thing. God made us in such a way that He doesn't quite know the innermost, deepest workings of each human heart... especially the hearts of those who believe in Him. Not that He couldn't. But that He hides it from Himself in such a way that there is challenge for Him. This is way more complicated than the way I'm saying it, so don't jump down my throat for not writing a book, and for not describing something, clearly, that might not even be describable in English. God is good, all the time. So, the thing that he made to challenge Himself, is also something that is good. It's good for us, and it is good for Him. And even when we try to fight Him, the challenge has become more interesting for Him, though He never wanted it that way. But now that it IS that way (we attempt to fight God), he has found a method to make it all good for any of us who want to accept Him. Salvation is exciting. Salvation is wonderful. Yet the destruction of those who will not accept salvation, is something that will be long gone in the great future that is awaiting those of us who accept salvation. |
|
|
|
42 pages and not a single mention of this supposed scientific proof. Can someone please link to the paper? What journal was it published in? Where are the data, the methodology, the abstract?
Come on guys, this is by far the greatest discovery in all of science. But for some reason none of the scientific websites are talking about it.
Comeon. It isn't 42 pages. It's just plain old 42, the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything". |
|
|
|
On a matter as time sensitive as this, the old folks should not vote at all. Let the younger generations have their say in what kind of world they will live in for the rest of their lives. The older generation is directly responsible for what ails much of society today. Yes, I'm playing generation politics here which is unfair and discriminatory but I don't care.
Let's get rid of voting altogether. Go for common law which says freedom for everyone in every way as long as the freedom doesn't: 1. Harm anybody; 2. Damage anyone's property; 3. Break a contract. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago. Um, I guess if you want to take mountains of evidence from every imaginable relevant field and then discredit it with a wave of your hand as "imagination" then you have every right to do so. The more you do this the more difficult it is to treat you as if you're serious. If you really want to know more, all you have to do is point that web-browser of yours at the wikipedia series on ancient egypt. There is literally mountains of evidence for dating egyptian kings/queens/dynasties. More and more you're starting to seem like a kid with his hands on his ears and his eyes shut tight saying "no,no,no,no,no" to blockout any sound. If that's the way you live, then you probably can stay inside this world of yours for a pretty long time. However, I really think you're shutting yourself off from the most fascinating and intersting facts about our world. To be an investigative scientist, you have to have imagination. The problem comes about when you let you imagination cloud your interpretation. |
|
|
|
I know through personal evidence that the cosmos does speak, (not verbally, of course) and you only need to know how to listen. For instance, the other day I was debating what happens when you realize karma for what it is...
Human brains have a flaw that is left over from our ancestors - we see patterns. We are so sensitive to recognizing them that we see them even where they don't exist. This pattern recognition isn't something that is conscious; it is the processing that tells us the grass is moving because a predator might be there, that the strange shadows could be holding something that will pounce on us. There was little evolutionary disadvantage to being too paranoid or seeing things that weren't there. This insatiable patterning gives us boogie-men when the lights are out, makes us susceptible to illusion, but more importantly, it makes us ascribe meaning and causality where there is none. We are often able to reason our way out of our misperceptions using our intelligence, but for some, there is no examination of how intellectually a conclusion was reached. Even worse, we can apply attention to something (as the above quote does), and even though we have given it thought, our brains cannot overcome the dissonance that there must be a pattern, a reason, a bigger plan, a conspiracy, or a creator of all things. Superstitions are fun to mock unless they are our own, then we will defend them to our deaths. An atheist can see that religion is a series of con-men taking advantage of this, telling stories about how failure to think certain things upsets a man in the sky who will punish you in a magical land after your die, or alternately you go to a happy place with clouds and only the dead people you like. He will get extremely mad if you believe in the other gods or make the wrong choice or don't follow the rules of the correct book. Good religions are ones who's "Darwinian" rules include converting others, having lots of kids/disciples (along with rules against parental planning), and of course coming to power and eliminating competition. Money is usually involved. A good atheist rejects religion not because they reject morals, empathy, or kindness, but because they seek the observable truth. Atheists are probably more tolerant of religion that religious people are of each other. We will usually let you believe whatever you want up to the point where your self-righteous ass-hattery fucks with our lives. Of course, then there is the rest of the deep examination, that concludes that there are many determinations found through examination of the same things. The consensus that is agreed on isn't always even near what is the truth. That last paragraph is good, though. |
|
|
|
There's only ONE reason why people think that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. It's because some scientists who haven't been there then have said so, over and over until people believe it from hearing it so often. |
|
|
|
The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500. Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago". For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament. I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube. It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear. And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well. Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics! If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too. Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe. Laugh at your own imagination. Nobody was there then. Nobody knows. The Bible is witnesses recounting what they witnessed, not scientists recounting things they didn't witness. Wait a minute, how can it be that both "nobody was there" and that "witneses recounted what they witnessed"? Are you going to tell me next that these bible dudes have explained to you about the "time dimension"? Seriously, try that free yale course by Christine Hayes on OT. It's really good. She doesn't hate the bible, she loves it AND she explains the context of each of the OT books. It's a wonderful lecture series (and it's on YouTube). You might be surprised that the "electromagnetic spectrum" never comes up! http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWiAs to what people witnessed, there amazing artifacts from ancient Egyptian kings dating back to about 6000 years ago. So, in your theory, I guess some o fthose people were around before the Earth was created? Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
