BLOCK CAPITALS on credit cards etc

thecommander

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Really? Whats your source mate? I'd just like to see, if its true, well and good, i was jumping to a conclusion because none of my garda friends could explain to me what exactly it mean! :pac:

Licence office. I had to change address and gave them stock number by accident. They called to ask me my actual license number, and I asked them what the stock number was.


Either way, what difference does it make if you are an person or a legal entity. Does it change anything? That's what I was wondering originally.

jackiebrown

This thread been tampered with. The Ministry for Information at it again?

I've watch a few vids today on this subject and its blown me away. Hidden in plain sight. Common Law supercedes corporate Law. When registered at birth you parents give up all rights to you under Admiralty. Apply-Register-Submit. The meaning of these words (in legalese) is very important.

Your name on all official documents is in block caps. This is not you but your "Strawman". But on acceptance of this person as being you, the human being, you are subject to statutes which can only be implemented against your "Strawman" but since you accept responsibility are liabil.

For example: A speeding ticket is an offer to pay for an offence. You have a choice. Under common law a crime is committed only where harm or loss can be apportioned. A speeding ticket or "Fixed Penalty Notice" is afixed to the person and not the human being.

There's loads more, really intresting stuff. Grab your hard-hats cause if you were wondering whats happening in society i.e credit crunch etc this is the cause. Change is coming alright.

thecommander

jackiebrown wrote: »

This thread been tampered with. The Ministry for Information at it again?

I've watch a few vids today on this subject and its blown me away. Hidden in plain sight. Common Law supercedes corporate Law. When registered at birth you parents give up all rights to you under Admiralty. Apply-Register-Submit. The meaning of these words (in legalese) is very important.

Your name on all official documents is in block caps. This is not you but your "Strawman". But on acceptance of this person as being you, the human being, you are subject to statutes which can only be implemented against your "Strawman" but since you accept responsibility are liabil.

For example: A speeding ticket is an offer to pay for an offence. You have a choice. Under common law a crime is committed only where harm or loss can be apportioned. A speeding ticket or "Fixed Penalty Notice" is afixed to the person and not the human being.

There's loads more, really intresting stuff. Grab your hard-hats cause if you were wondering whats happening in society i.e credit crunch etc this is the cause. Change is coming alright.

Either way, what difference does it make if you are a strawman of yourself, or just yourself.

You get a fine, you pay it either way. i dont see what the fuss is about.

humanji

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

I really don't think I am. I think you have been confused by legalese, just like everyone else has.

"In legal terms there must be" is not enough, show me where it says that in legal definitions. Otherwise it's just your opinion, sorry.

I've given you the LEGAL definitions of a person and a natural person, there's no other "persons" defined in Legalese so I don't understand what you are saying, unique named person or person in general. These are not defined in legalese. Look for yourself - http://dictionary.law.com/

Contracts and law MUST be written in a way that makes it clear that no possible other inclination can be made from it. It's that simple. Otherwise you have people abusing loopholes and no end of hassle trying to get things sorted.

There has to be a clear, 100% infallible definition of each party and entity in a contract or law so that people can't abuse it. So a difference must be declared between people in general and a specific person. What seems to cause confusion is that companies and corporations are also referred to as a single entity, which mixes them up with a single person. That's why the terms person and natural person seem to be used.

U4IK ST8

thecommander wrote: »

Either way, what difference does it make if you are a strawman of yourself, or just yourself.

You get a fine, you pay it either way. i dont see what the fuss is about.

Why are you being fined? Why did they need to create a corporation to act upon when Common Law was there in the first place? Why are you being represented by a corporation with the same name as you? Why are "An Garda Siochana", "The Government of Ireland" and all of it's individual departments registered as companies? www.dnb.com - "D&B is the world’s leading source of commercial information and insight on businesses, enabling companies to Decide with Confidence® for 167 years. D&B’s global commercial database contains more than 140 million business records." (enter Garda, Government or department, select Ireland and you'll soon find out)

It's all about the profit. This corporation/legal fiction/person is created to make money off of.

And we think our taxes pay their wages? "An Garda Siochana customer charter" "Department of An Taoiseach customer chater"

U4IK ST8

humanji wrote: »

Contracts and law MUST be written in a way that makes it clear that no possible other inclination can be made from it. It's that simple. Otherwise you have people abusing loopholes and no end of hassle trying to get things sorted.

There has to be a clear, 100% infallible definition of each party and entity in a contract or law so that people can't abuse it. So a difference must be declared between people in general and a specific person. What seems to cause confusion is that companies and corporations are also referred to as a single entity, which mixes them up with a single person. That's why the terms person and natural person seem to be used.

If you get a summons from An Garda Siochana and it has JOHN DOE on it who is that refering to?

And if a law/statute says "any person who...." who is that refering to? Or if it says "Everybody who..." The differences are there.

I would imagine that the majority of statutes or acts will use "person" and laws will use "human being", "everyone" or "everybody". Because, as the law dictionary says, a person is a corporation. A natural person is a real human being.

And again, where's is the info, all I see is personal opinion.

jackiebrown

thecommander wrote: »

Either way, what difference does it make if you are a strawman of yourself, or just yourself.

You get a fine, you pay it either way. i dont see what the fuss is about.

You have to separate the two, yourself from the person. In common law it is OK for you to travel in your car without a license (Your car by the way does not belong to you, just in case you thought it did) or insurance. You have not caused harm or loss to anyone therefore as a Human you have not commited a crime. YOUR person may have committed an offence and if you accept a fixed penalty then you accept that you represent that person (corporation). Your debt is allocated to your person, not you the Human Being. This is what I've learned in a day.:)

the_barfly1

Ok, so its like this...

When you were born your birth was REGISTERED. In legal terms, when you register something, you transfer title. So your "PERSON" was signed over to the Govt. I don't have the link to hand, but I read an article where social services took two kids away from a family in the UK, but ended returning one of them shortly afterwards because the childs birth wasn't registered, ie - the govt had no right to claim the child.

Same with vehicles, when you register your car, you hand over ownership to the state and then you become just the registered keeper. You pay your motor tax to keep the Govt up to date that the vehicle is still in use and to cover your rental of it, or something like that.

Same with property. Once its registered, it's the governments. I actually saw this first hand recently when a mate bought a house. I advised him to seek confirmation from his solicitor that he would hold ALLODIAL TITLE to the property (holding allodial title means that you are the sole owner of something). Anyway, his solicitor quickly told him that wasn't possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

So, all property is actually owned by the Superiors (govt etc)

The way around all of this is to draft a few documents and serve them upon your "Superiors", namely a Notice of Understanding and Intent and a Claim of Right.
A COR is probably one of the strongest instuments in common law, in that it creates lawful excuse. EG - you serve upon a member of Govt or Police notice of your understanding that it is unlawful for you to pay motor tax because it impinges on your right to enjoy your property (your automobile), and therefore claim your right to use it without paying taxation. Once you serve the notice, if the people you serve it upon do not respond within ten days, under law of contract it is implied that they accept your understanding and claim of right, and if in the future you are issued with a penalty for not complying with their societies rules, your claim of right is your lawful excuse for non-compliance.

You can also claim your right for your natural human self to abandon its PERSON, but the implications of such include losing all entitlements under social welfare etc, because you would no longer be an employee of the state.
The upside would be however, that you would no longer be liable to pay taxes, asides from those which are unavoidable (vat etc).

Its a lot to take in so i strongly suggest people look up Robert Arthur: Menards videos and watch them several times to get the right idea.


PS - If this is working in the UK, its possible here too, because the Freeman-on-the-Land movement in the UK base a lot of their work upon rights bestowed to them in the Magna Carta, and Ireland is still subject to our own version of that text, Magna Charta Hiberniae. (which opens a whole new kettle of fist because this shows we're actually NOT completely free from crown rule, do a search on the irish statute book site for magna carta and you'll find its still in force here).

All the best

kryogen

jackiebrown wrote: »

This thread been tampered with. The Ministry for Information at it again?

I've watch a few vids today on this subject and its blown me away. Hidden in plain sight. Common Law supercedes corporate Law. When registered at birth you parents give up all rights to you under Admiralty. Apply-Register-Submit. The meaning of these words (in legalese) is very important.

Your name on all official documents is in block caps. This is not you but your "Strawman". But on acceptance of this person as being you, the human being, you are subject to statutes which can only be implemented against your "Strawman" but since you accept responsibility are liabil.

For example: A speeding ticket is an offer to pay for an offence. You have a choice. Under common law a crime is committed only where harm or loss can be apportioned. A speeding ticket or "Fixed Penalty Notice" is afixed to the person and not the human being.

There's loads more, really intresting stuff. Grab your hard-hats cause if you were wondering whats happening in society i.e credit crunch etc this is the cause. Change is coming alright.

i watched a couple of excellent documentaries on this subject before and did a little bit of digging about it, i would like to refresh my memory and try to learn more if you would have any links to videos

thecommander

Show me someone that has detached themselves from their legal entity.

jackiebrown

kryogen wrote: »

i watched a couple of excellent documentaries on this subject before and did a little bit of digging about it, i would like to refresh my memory and try to learn more if you would have any links to videos

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6526777574574871930

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4024663011008894776

I only started researching this yesterday and actually for the first time understood (dont under-stand, ever:)) how the powers that be do what they do. I took the Matrix as a cool film, not a critique on society. Genius.

Anyone know is there a bond issued upon birth in this country and does our legal fiction have any entitlement to it?

jackiebrown

thecommander wrote: »

Show me someone that has detached themselves from their legal entity.

John Harris. Check him out, a soveirgn human being. Irene Gravenhorst.

thecommander

jackiebrown wrote: »

John Harris. Check him out, a soveirgn human being. Irene Gravenhorst.

So he can walk away from his mortgage, or fines, or his drivers license? Because he separated himself from his name? Just trying to figure it out.

jackiebrown

thecommander wrote: »

So he can walk away from his mortgage, or fines, or his drivers license? Because he separated himself from his name? Just trying to figure it out.

You should watch the videos and hear how they did it. All things be it mortgage, credit cards, bank loans, HP agreements etc are contracts between two corporations, your legal fiction and the banks. Not you.

the_barfly1

jackiebrown wrote: »

Anyone know is there a bond issued upon birth in this country and does our legal fiction have any entitlement to it?

Hard to find information on it, asides from the comparisons. A stock/bond is held by a registrar, same as your birth certificate

Stock Transfer Act, 1963". http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/...tml#zza34y1963

Within this act, there are forms set out which cites Registrars and Certificates (which have been lodged with the Registrar), the certificates are to be sold onto a Broker and there are various fields which are reserved for information as to which Stocks/Shares the "Security" will be transferred...

Now, its pure speculation on my part due to lack of information, but the process here involving the certificates and registrars does sound similar to the registration of a birth.

Anybody with legal expertise care to comment and put me in my place if i'm way off?

kryogen

jackiebrown wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6526777574574871930

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4024663011008894776

I only started researching this yesterday and actually for the first time understood (dont under-stand, ever:)) how the powers that be do what they do. I took the Matrix as a cool film, not a critique on society. Genius.

Anyone know is there a bond issued upon birth in this country and does our legal fiction have any entitlement to it?

thanks Jackie, and heres one for you, maybe you have or havent seen before!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&hl=en

its quite long and dense at times, but worthwile

jackiebrown

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Hard to find information on it, asides from the comparisons. A stock/bond is held by a registrar, same as your birth certificate

Stock Transfer Act, 1963". http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/...tml#zza34y1963

Within this act, there are forms set out which cites Registrars and Certificates (which have been lodged with the Registrar), the certificates are to be sold onto a Broker and there are various fields which are reserved for information as to which Stocks/Shares the "Security" will be transferred...

Now, its pure speculation on my part due to lack of information, but the process here involving the certificates and registrars does sound similar to the registration of a birth.

Anybody with legal expertise care to comment and put me in my place if i'm way off?

I think the best way to go would be to trademark your legal fiction name and act as a third party agent for it. I'd wager it'd be far from an easy process though.

jackiebrown

kryogen wrote: »

thanks Jackie, and heres one for you, maybe you have or havent seen before!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&hl=en

its quite long and dense at times, but worthwile

It's amazing how readily we branded people "crazy" when they we're telling us for years that there was a global economic crisis coming. We were like pigs in s**t while our government squandered billions instead of saving for the rainy day, which always always comes.

jackiebrown

Anybody got the cash for it. Be an intresting read I'd say. EVERYTHING is a company. Gardai, Health bord (also trading as Finance department)????, education, The Courts (All) etc.

https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductSelection?dunsNumber=1&busName=DEPARTMENT%20OF%20THE%20TAOISEACH&storeId=10001&catalogId=70001&productId=0&address=Government%20Buildings&city=Dublin&state=&zip=2&country=IE

bonkey

jackiebrown wrote: »

It's amazing how readily we branded people "crazy" when they we're telling us for years that there was a global economic crisis coming.

Speak for yourself. The only people in that vein that I branded as crazy were the ones who maintained we could create a "boom without end" to break out of the boom/bust cycle which is well-established in economics.

We were like pigs in s**t while our government squandered billions instead of saving for the rainy day, which always always comes.

It wasn't just our government. Look around at how many members of Joe Q Public have been dilligently putting aside whatever they could to tide them through the current rough patch.

Hmmm. Maybe I need to update my "crazy" group to include those who's position suggests they believed the government would somehow protect them from the bust.

jackiebrown

:D What an amazing post. 1st prize for quoting someone totally out of context and offering veiled insults in response to a post go to bonkey.

bonkey wrote: »

The only people in that vein that I branded as crazy were the ones who maintained we could create a "boom without end" to break out of the boom/bust cycle which is well-established in economics.

So anyone that disagrees with your view is crazy, narsacistic tendencies much. Maybe over in the 'land of the bank' things are cool, but two friends of mine with young families have lost their jobs and ones losing his house. If only he'd seen it coming. "Crazy fool".

It wasn't just our government. Look around at how many members of Joe Q Public have been dilligently putting aside whatever they could to tide them through the current rough patch.

Some people are ok, a lot are not.

Hmmm. Maybe I need to update my "crazy" group to include those who's position suggests they believed the government would somehow protect them from the bust.

What humanity, brings a tear to my eye. That'll be a long list my friend.

Speak for yourself

I did. I meant we as in people like me, not everyone as you thought.

You should try and look at someone elses point of view when deciphering posts otherwise you do them a dis-service.

bonkey

jackiebrown wrote: »

1st prize for quoting someone totally out of context

I quoted your entire post. Its difficult to take statements out of context when there's no context removed.

So anyone that disagrees with your view is crazy, narsacistic tendencies much.

I stated what the only position I considered as crazy was....in response to your comment about how quick "we" were to brand others as crazy.

If you understand that to mean that there is only one possible posistion which disagrees with my (unstated) view, thats your perogative.

I did. I meant we as in people like me, not everyone as you thought.

So let me guess this straight...

I've got narcissitic tendencies for branding people as crazy for disagreeing with me.
You say that you and people like you branded others as crazy for holding positions that you disagreed with....so you are basically saying that we're both suffering from the same narcissism, as well as anyone like you who engaged in this "branding", right?

You should try and look at someone elses point of view when deciphering posts otherwise you do them a dis-service.

Kettle, I'd like you to meet jackiebrown. (S)he is calling you names.

jackiebrown

A good way to take something out of context is to edit half the sentence like your first quote. I'd like your response to the rest of that quote.

I said: It's amazing how readily we branded people "crazy" when they we're telling us for years that there was a global economic crisis coming.

I was admonishing myself (and others like me) who believed the government when they told us everything was going to be alright and agreed with them when they branded those that tried to warn us "crazy". I was duped and I was wrong, I admitted it. So what are you giving me s**t for it?

You say that you and people like you branded others as crazy for holding positions that you disagreed with....so you are basically saying that we're both suffering from the same narcissism, as well as anyone like you who engaged in this "branding", right?

And I (we) were wrong. To brand anyone crazy is wrong. I've learned that, have you?

Kettle, I'd like you to meet jackiebrown. (S)he is calling you names.

No, I'm calling you up for your spikey OP which leant nothing to the discussion. For some reason you took an innocent post and decided to have a dig. You took it out of context when you said:

Speak for yourself

I was.

bonkey

jackiebrown wrote: »

A good way to take something out of context is to edit half the sentence like your first quote.

I'm sorry...I don't understand.

The post I quoted contained two sentences. I quoted both, in their unedited entirety in my response, whcih you then claimed was "out of context".

I'd like your response to the rest of that quote.

I responded to the entire post. As I said...it had two sentences, I quoted both (seperately) and responded to both. I changed nothing, edited nothing and omitted nothing. There is no "rest" to respond to that I can see.

I was admonishing myself (and others like me) who believed the government when they told us everything was going to be alright and agreed with them when they branded those that tried to warn us "crazy". I was duped and I was wrong, I admitted it. So what are you giving me s**t for it?

If you're choosing to see me offering a seperate perspective as giving you s**t, that's entirely your perogative....but you're more or less proving my point about you being just as culpable of not looking at my comment from my point of view when trying to figure out what it was I said...something which you said would be doing me a disservice.

And I (we) were wrong. To brand anyone crazy is wrong. I've learned that, have you?

I was using your choice of words to try and see whether you had a problem with me branding people as crazy, given that your use of the word "we" implicitly suggests that you were branding others as such.

I would point out that I generally go to great lengths to avoid calling anyone anything derogatory on boards.ie...my use of the term was atypical for me because I was trying to make exactly that point...whether you were including yourself in the group or not (which wasn't clear at the time), it can be offensive to suggest that others here are crazy.

I apologise to anyone who thought I was calling them crazy. I don't think they're crazy for holding such beliefs...I was merely copying someone else's words (those being yours) for ulterior motives.

No, I'm calling you up for your spikey OP which leant nothing to the discussion.

Besides from the point I've just clarified, I was making some other points which I feel are relevant to the discussion. It is, of course, your perogative to disagree, but I would again point you at your comments about how it is important to interpret someone's comments bearing their point of view in mind.

I was pointing out that I don't believe that those predicting economic crisis were crazy. This doesn't mean that I believe that they were worth listening to. Its not a binary either/or situation. Such predictions were generally about as useful as someone saying we should abandon Naples because Mount Vesuvius is going to erupt again and the death-toll could be unimaginable. Mount Vesuvius will, with almost 100% certainty, erupt again. It could be soon, it could be some time from now, but it will erupt. If people keep predicting that particular doom long enough, sooner or later they'll be right....but it doesn't mean they're worth listening to.

More simply put...as some wit a whle back quipped...experts have correctly predicted 11 of the last 4 recessions.

Secondly, I was also making a somewhat-oblique reference to the fact that - particularly on this forum - it is somewhat unusual to see someone suggesting that the government were trustworthy before the crisis. Those here who tend to put stock in conspiracy theories generally have any and all governments right in the thick of things...often as active participants in planning and executing the crash. Those who are typically skeptical of the conspiracy theories would typically tend to agree with the notion of incompetence / corruption, but draw the line at conspiracy to have brought about something like the theory.

Finally - although its perhaps more suited to the Politics forum - I was also suggesting that the blame cannot and should not be laid at the feet of any one group. You say that we, the public, were misled by the government, therefore they are to blame. I would say that if we were misled by those we trusted as expert guidance, then perhaps we should consider that they too were misled by those they trusted as experts to guide them. If, having been misled, we are not to blame for our misguided actions, then surely the government would also be absolved if their experts had convinced them to believe in what they were saying.

This would bring us full circle, as we would end up absolving everyone from blame, except for those experts who genuinely believed in an economic model of "boom without end", and who - based on this - convinced a chain of people that there was no crisis looming. In the spirit of this forum, some would no doubt say that such people conspired to bring about the collapse.

ETA:

On a final note, you have twice responded to my comment "speak for yourself". with a rejoinder that you were doing so. The first time, you admitted that you were speaking for yourself and those like you. The second time, you just claimed you were speaking for yourself.

You used an unqualified "we", which I wished to make clear to others did not include me. I'm not sure why you seem to take such offence to me wishing to make clear that I am not part of your "we".

DubTony

Jesus, this thread was actually quite interesting until you two started bitching at each other. Way to drag things off topic guys.

6th

DubTony wrote: »

Jesus, this thread was actually quite interesting until you two started bitching at each other. Way to drag things off topic guys.

If you have a problem with a post report it.

jackiebrown

Your back-tracking now. Not good enough.

I said in my OP:

It's amazing how readily we branded people "crazy" when they we're telling us for years that there was a global economic crisis coming.

You will notice crazy in inverted comas.

Your reply:

The only people in that vein that I branded as crazy were the ones who maintained we could create a "boom without end" to break out of the boom/bust cycle which is well-established in economics.

This was directly calling me crazy as you had misinterpreted my post and decided to have a dig. Yes or no?

I would point out that I generally go to great lengths to avoid calling anyone anything derogatory on boards.ie

No you dont. You could easily have avoided an innoffensive post but you went off on one and I'm calling you up on it.

whether you were including yourself in the group or not (which wasn't clear at the time), it can be offensive to suggest that others here are crazy.

I didn't bandy the word around willy nilly. I was replying to a private conversation (on a public forum) with Kryogen and you misunderstood my post which the above quote proves.

I apologise to anyone who thought I was calling them crazy. I don't think they're crazy for holding such beliefs...I was merely copying someone else's words (those being yours) for ulterior motives.

I'd call that "Shifting the blame".

Secondly, I was also making a somewhat-oblique reference to the fact that - particularly on this forum - it is somewhat unusual to see someone suggesting that the government were trustworthy before the crisis. Those here who tend to put stock in conspiracy theories generally have any and all governments right in the thick of things...often as active participants in planning and executing the crash. Those who are typically skeptical of the conspiracy theories would typically tend to agree with the notion of incompetence / corruption, but draw the line at conspiracy to have brought about something like the theory.

So because my post was not the norm you thought you'd take me down a peg. I know your a veteran of 11000+ posts and a mod on this forum but if you think you can just come and throw your weight around with newbies whose post you misinterpret then I'll make my stand cause you were wrong, simple as.

6th

Lads, this thread is not the place to discuss problems. Report a post if you have a problem with it. Tomorrow morning I start deleting off topic posts and any off topic posts made after this post will receive an infraction. Anyone trying to get the last word in better be prepared to take a break from the forum.

kamana

I've just found out about this stuff in the last few weeks and it's feckin mindblowing. I've seen video's by rob menard and lessons in law by mark mcmurtrie on youtube. I've read mary crofts book "HOW I CLOBBERED
EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN" it's free online pdf. I'm dying to know if anyone in ireland has drafted a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim to Right. It's unreal...every Law,Act,Statute, By-Law etc..dosen't apply to you. It applies only to your person.

quote from the book..


request the bank to provide me with three things:
1. validation of the debt (the actual accounting);
2. verification of their claim against me (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice); and,
3. a copy of the contract binding both parties.
I was to write, as soon as I received these three documents, that I would be happy to pay any financial
obligation I might lawfully owe.
The banks can’t validate the debt because they never sustained a loss; they can’t verify any claim
against me because I am not the NAME they are billing - more on this later. They can’t produce a copy of
the contract because one doesn’t exist. What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks
refer to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful,
binding contract were not met on the credit card ‘application’, namely:
1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature);
2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose);
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and
4. Signatures of the Parties (corporations can’t sign because they have no right to contract as they are
legal fictions). Credit cards are win/ win for the banks and lose/ lose for everyone else - it is the slickest con
game on the planet.
My writing the letters worked for all but one account. The bank filed suit. I poured over all kinds of
legal nonsense, none of which matters - how we handle banks now works beautifully, yet back in 1996, we
were still fumbling - and so, since the card was in a NAME similar to that of my sons’ father, the bank
came after him. He did not want to go to court and since I regarded this as research, not to mention
adventure, I went in his place. (If you’re not living on the edge you’re taking up too much space.) When
the administrator (aka ‘judge’) called his name, I stood up and said, “I’m here about that matter.” A year
previous I had used a similar tactic when I went to court over a ‘seat belt violation’ and was promptly
thrown into jail for stating that my name was nowhere on the ticket or the summons. Although I was
accurate, I didn’t know the next step. This time I knew what I was doing. The District Court ‘Judge’ asked
me my name. I responded, “If I tell you, will I have entered into a contract with you?” He became irate. I
knew I was onto something. He furiously said, “I’m going to ask you again; what is your name?” I said
the same thing again and was literally, bodily tossed from court. On my way out I told the bailiff, “I believe
I hit a nerve.” I was ecstatic.
As it turned out, I had indeed hit on the only issue which matters. CONTRACT. Contract Law is the
only law. There is no Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no codes, rules,
regulations, ordinances, statutes, by-laws, or anything else which most people think of as ‘law’ which
applies to free, sovereign people. They all apply only to corporate entities. There is only one law which
applies to us: the law which protects the life, liberty, rights, and property of all living souls. That which
causes us to think that all these ‘laws’ apply to us is the contracts/ agreements we have made, either
wittingly or unwittingly. If there is no contract there is no case. Contract is the law. Contractual Financial
Liability is all that matters; and it must be proven.:cool:

kamana

thecommander wrote: »

Thanks for that info. Still cant believe that anyone could actually think that they are owned because their name is in caps. Or that their name is an asset on the stock exchange. Makes as much sense now as it did over the weekend.

It is a bit of a head scratcher alright.. I'm new to this subject but the basics seem to make sense.
You are not a person, you have a person. Which is the registered you, your Birth Cert. pps no..etc. When the Banks/Gov are looking for money from you they send letters to the person. The only law that applies to flesh and blood is common law. All the laws that we think apply to us only apply to the person which is (I think ) contract law. Until we give the courts jurisdiction over us (by very cunning tricks on their part) they can't do anything because we haven't entered into contract with them. Thanks to some of the lads on here I was able to look up smallbusiness.dnb.com, search Ireland and type in Oireachtas. It's listed as a trading company, as is the justice department and the Garda hq.. I wonder what they are trading??
As I said I'm new to this so if I'm wrong about something please straighten me out. It would help with the feckin dizzy spells and less people would avoid me down the pub...