Message Boards Message Boards

The Dharma Playground (DhP)

Personal liberty in a lawless world

Toggle
Personal liberty in a lawless world
Answer
3/5/13 5:57 PM
For those interested in looking into avenues for expanding their knowledge of their own personal liberty in what can appear to be a lawless world, I've set aside this thread for further development on themes about education in the law and how it applies in different circumstances.

Originally a few of these themes were misplaced in a practice thread here. As I have time and the inclination, I will add some of my research here, linking to sources to help others interested in furthering their knowledge along these lines.

If anyone has any related questions or needs clarification, I will endeavor to accommodate them here in this thread, so as not to interrupt any Dhamma related threads.

To start off the thread the following attachment will help establish a foundation in the history of law in this county. Written and researched by Lee Brobst, a respected tireless legal researcher, it covers each of the significant historical developments leading up to the system of law that is in place today in the United States. Following are the first three paragraphs from the piece to set the tone:

Our Republic (at time of this writing) is now celebrating the 200th birthday of the Bill of Rights
to our Constitution. Through the wisdom of a few free-thinking men, we have come incredibly
far in 200 years. Our nation has been blessed with prosperity more than any other in world
history. The technology in this country compares with no other. Our leadership in world politics
and economics has no rival. Yet, all this has happened outside the “house” our predecessors on
this continent designed and built.

This fantastic and majestic political building, which our forefathers constructed with their lives
and sacred honor, has fallen into disuse and now sits empty. When it was new, it was the most
beautiful mansion in the world. There was nothing else like it for it was built on a foundation
called the “common law.” The walls were shaped in liberty by a unique arrangement referred to
as the separation of powers and its roof was made of transparent material to let in the light of the
Law. So all encompassing that it is adaptable to any people regardless of color, race, creed or
religion.

It didn’t crumble overnight. What took place was the result of a delusion, for people would never
give up liberty knowingly – only through deception. Gradually the deceptive rot took hold and,
one by one, the citizens of the house called a “Republic” moved out for a third rate structure
called a “democracy.”

RE: Personal liberty in a lawless world
Answer
3/5/13 7:46 PM as a reply to Ian And.
Ian, thanks very much for sharing. I look forward to reading the pdf!

RE: Personal liberty in a lawless world
Answer
3/6/13 6:42 AM as a reply to Ian And.
Hello Ian And,
Thanks for this really interesting post. I had not thought of posting anything related to this topic on this forum du to my personal aversion to diluting the pretty tight focus of this wondrful place. Now that you have opened this particular can-o-worms, however, I am particularly happy to see this subject here.

Over the past two years, my interest in legal / consitutional / liberty matters has paralelled (sp) my deepening insight practice and particularly my DN stable cleaning. I have viewed the abolishment of long held political and social beliefs and positions as another type of awakening. All is linked and questioning the long accepted programming has been astonishing to me personally.

I look forward to reading your source material and any further discussions on the subject here or otherwhere.

tome

RE: Personal liberty in a lawless world
Answer
3/6/13 1:37 PM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
Hello Ian And,
Now that you have opened this particular can-o-worms, however, I am particularly happy to see this subject here.

Over the past two years, my interest in legal / consitutional / liberty matters has paralleled my deepening insight practice and particularly my DN stable cleaning. I have viewed the abolishment of long held political and social beliefs and positions as another type of awakening. All is linked and questioning the long accepted programming has been astonishing to me personally.

I look forward to reading your source material and any further discussions on the subject here or otherwhere.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Tom. I can assure all who stop by to read this thread and who look into the information linked to or provided in PDF form that you will not be disappointed by the education that is provided. It will truly open your eyes!

I've personally vetted a great deal of the information that will be presented here (based on my first hand experience in many of the issues discussed; I've been involved in court issues and actually won; of course, previous to my understanding of these concepts I had suffered some losses too, but that's all in the learning curve). And I encourage anyone who is seriously interested in these matters to do their own research and due diligence study of these issues.

Actually, learning about the law can be fun, especially when you begin to realize that you can beat even a so-called "kangaroo court" at their own game, and there's not a thing they can do about it. It just takes some nerve to stand one's ground and overcoming any pre-conceived notions (and mental conditioning) that has built up over the years.

I've been following these particular issues since 1975. It's only been since 1994 that I began to come across credible information about what has taken place here (and elsewhere around the developed world) with regard to these issues of personal liberty. And it's only been within the past decade that I have been able to uncover, to my own satisfaction and with the availability of the Internet, a lot of the historical evidence about what has taken place as well as effective ways to remedy these issues we have with the seeming tyrannical turn that domestic government has taken in recent years.

There actually is a way to work this information in with one's practice, as when I have some time to prepare it, I intend to show some of the parallels between knowing one's "identity" in a legal sense and as well as in a Dhamma sense (anatta). One's peace of mind (in both areas) comes from knowing and understanding one's identity!

I've even come across an explanation of the Christian mythology/story that explains Yeshua's mission in terms of educating people about the Roman law of the times (without all the hype and circumstance of the personal "savior" mythology) and how his sacrifice could be viewed in terms of a civil law sacrifice (and "redemption") meant to educate the people. Of course, those who formed a church around this mythology changed significant portions of the story to suit their agenda of control over the masses.

Perhaps the best explanation about how people become entangled in these matters involving government is explained in the Consent.pdf linked to in the other thread. While there is some overlap and repetition in this piece, the repetition of concepts helps to bring home the point in a convincing fashion. This will help to clear up a lot of misconceptions and perceptions about how the present setup in government works. That and the concept of assumption/presumption in the Presumption.pdf. If you can understand these two concepts and how they work in the real world, you're half way home to understanding how to preserve your personal liberty.

Anyway, it should make this an interesting thread.

RE: Personal liberty in a lawless world
Answer
3/8/13 3:59 PM as a reply to Ian And.
I'm re-posting this from the previous thread as it contains, in brief, all the knowledge one needs to become apprised of in order to maintain their personal liberty. While it may not make much sense now, by the time this thread is fleshed out (and presuming that the reader is keeping up with the information being posted) a reasonably informed person should be able to understand each and every point made in this post.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


[quote=Conor O'Higgins]
Ian And:
The two most important things to keep in mind with regard to the establishment of personal liberty are being able to withdraw one's "consent" and cognizance of the jurisdiction one is in. One needs to know how to avoid what are called "franchise agreements" with the state and federal government (and how to exist within that system without drifting over into statutory jurisdiction).
Are you saying that a person can live in a country but renounce the state and its laws? I think I've heard something like this before.
First, you have to understand that the "state" is a fiction. It is considered a fiction at law and therefore subservient to the non-fiction at law. This is how black letter law considers this issue.

Second: Who created the fictional state?
Answer: "We the People." Through the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and finally, the Constitution for the united States of America. These documents, along with the Declaration of Independence, constitute organic law for the inhabitants of the north American continent in the area known as the union of States in America. (It is interesting to note that neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Northwest Ordinance have ever been repealed and were never nullified by the Constitution and are therefore still in effect. Think about the implications of that!)

Next question: Who are the People?
Answer: Those non-fiction, flesh and blood men and women who inhabit this geopolitical area known as the United States of America (or their own State without – meaning outside of – said national boundaries).

Third: Realize that the 14th Amendment is where "the People" become confused and mixed up. Anyone consenting to being identified as a "14th Amendment citizen," who is therefore "subject to the jurisdiction" of the "United States" (read: the corporate state created and sanctioned by the de facto and not the de jure Congress in 1871 in the city of Washington, district of Columbia) has now transferred, by consent, their state Citizenship to a diminutive national citizenship, thereby becoming "subjects of" the corporate State. (This is no different than those who may have, at one time or other, been subjects of a king or queen in a European state or nation.) This condition of "citizenship" is further "evidenced" by the claim of ownership of the Social Security number, the state issued "certificate of birth" and "driver license," among other documents issued by this corporate conglomerate State.

Fourth: Realize that within the founding documents of this nation state in the First Judiciary Act of 1789 at section 9 of that document reads the following:

SEC . 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; . . . and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it;...
Fifth: Realize that you have a choice of law (where there have been no contracts or agreements brought forth as evidence) in any court situation and your choice or preference for the common law where the common law is competent to give it, is inviolable. (This speaks to your inalienable "right of avoidance" of statutory law.) However, if you inadvertently (ignorantly) "consent" to a statutory jurisdiction without refutation or rebuttal, then you have bound yourself over to that jurisdiction.

Sixth: Realize that there is no need to formally renounce anything. Just establish your identity as being within the substantive law realm (where law goes unwritten and is based on universal observations or maxims of law such as the writings on law composed by Fredric Bastiat in 1850) and therefore outside the statutory realm (written law, laws written by men – legislative congress – who are self-serving sycophants existing at the leisure of their benefactors who intend to diminish and thus enslave their fellow man). Substantive law (such as the English common law from which our American common law derives) deals with non-fictions; statutory law deals with fictions at law (corporations, associations, partnerships, public officers, public employees, public office holders, and various other "actors" on the public stage such as agents, deputies etc.).

Seventh: Realize that the majority (if not all) courts in America these days (municipal, state and federal courts) are set up to adjudicate statutory law (and ordinances) and not the common law. If you wish to access the common law, you need to know how to go about doing that! Also, make certain you are in a "court of record" and not a "court of no record", and keep – document – "the record" of your truth yourself. If you allow the state to identify you or create the record (without refutation) about the issue under examination, your chances of prevailing will be significantly reduced!

The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/24/13 11:55 PM as a reply to Ian And.
If you have been monitoring the political situation taking place in America today and wondering how the Congress can get away with what seems to be the erosion of our personal liberties and you haven't figured it out yet from Lee Brobst's PDF USA the Republic Is The House That No One Lives In, you may find this next PDF an enlightening education. This is one area (the erosion of personal rights and/or privileges based on the debasement of the monetary system) that I have been observing for over 38 years. For much of that time, I could see no justification (that I was aware of, at least) explaining how this was allowed to be occurring. Where was it that the country got off the track and started heading toward a ditch? And why aren't intelligent people of integrity and who support a republican form of government standing up against what is occurring?

As happens so often in public life, when all else fails, follow the money. But also understand that the political system envisioned by the Constitution allowed for there to be two venues of law set up. And that it is up to us as individuals to make that choice one way or the other. Otherwise, in today's political environment, given the history of what has taken place (the passage of the 14th Amendment and the confusion surrounding the original 13th Amendment, which is still in effect if you have the documentation to prove it!), that choice will be made for us by the existing de facto government.

In his piece "The Law, The Money and Your Choice or The Constitutionally Legal Internal Revenue System and How You Volunteered," Lee Brobst once again traces the origin of the legal and lawful dilemma in which we find ourselves embroiled. As the editor states in his opening remarks:

". . . here revealed is the actual substantive cause that moved the American citizen away from literal constitutional common law guarantees into the relative constitutional franchises and privileges established by Congress’ “spirit” and “true meaning” interpretation of the constitution. This document addresses what the real substance of the law is and how its loss and conversion into many forms has effectively created an unincorporated interstate banking association. This association, which the American people have unknowingly volunteered for, has changed the absolute substantive constitutional rights under the common law into relative privileges and forms. These privileges and forms, called civil rights and procedures of codes and statutes reflect only the legislatures’ interpretation as to the true meaning and spirit of the constitution."

Since this PDF is secured, I wasn't able to enable the comment mechanism in order to update (through commentary and clarification) some of the issues that Lee covers. Therefore I've also provided a Rich Text format file for download which has my commentary in red text between black brackets. I think it is important for readers to see this material in its original form as a PDF (with all the footnotes in place so as to make the reading easier and more seamless) which is why I'm including the original PDF. I've highlighted different important passages in the Rich Text version to provide a bit more focus to the reading process. Red = means very important; rust = next most important; and green = is used as a distintive difference to highlight important ideas within important passages; green is used within either a red or rust section to further highlight an idea that I want to call the reader's attention to.

The following are excerpts taken from Brobst's essay. If they seem thought provoking and compelling enough out of context, you need to read them within the context of the passages from which they have been pulled and excerpted here in order to fully understand the implications.

Despite HJR 192, Congress cannot override the state governments incorporated powers under Article I Section 10 of the Constitution. Despite current public policy, Congress cannot override an American’s right to maintain a private policy under the common law principles as they are expressed in the first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. However, because the gold is the “Standard” substance of the law, and law follows the “Standard” substance of money, when Congress, acting under public policy, suspended the “Standard” gold substance in “Payment” of debt, a shift away from the common law transpired by what is called “operation of law.”[16] The shift occurred because everyone was given a quasi corporate privilege under HJR 192 of NOT paying their debts even though it is demanded under the common law of each state in the Union according to Article I Section 10 of the Constitution.

In other words, Congress cannot compel you to participate in a federal interstate unincorporated banking association under Article IV Section 3 clause 2 and HJR 192 for the NON payment of debts. The choice of law is up to each person still.

Corporations are artificial creations of the state or federal government under physical charter (franchise) issued via state or federal civil law for commercial regulation under Article I Section 8 clauses 1 & 3. They are not under the literal common law because of the charter (franchise). Any legal action against the corporation is legally called an “in rem” action, because it is against the thing or property (also called res) of the corporation under charter. The courts have automatic subject matter jurisdiction, because the physical charter is the subject matter.

On the other hand, under HJR 192,[20] there is no physical charter issued by the government out of a state or federal secretaries’ of state office that defines the federated association’s duties, responsibilities, its officers etc. This results in a federated association that is a quasi[21] in rem unincorporated debtor’s society. The law treats this association as an outlaw entity, to the letter of the common law for the Payment of Debt. The courts then proceed, to uphold contract law under diversity [of jurisdiction], to establish the association’s guide lines by invoking their equity powers based on the “spirit” of the constitution. They will form [i.e. legally construct] a charitable trust to commercially regulate the association, because it is presumed that is what the group intended as there is no charter of incorporation. Under the letter of the constitutional law there is no commercial regulation, but HJR 192 along with 15 USC brought in a third party[22] for commercial regulation for the social security public policy. Remember, “equity compels performance.” The law views unincorporated associations as a danger to the substance of the common law, because of their debt / credit system. This is because there is no counter balance to the demands the association puts on the substance of the earth, thus the reason for all the federal and state regulatory agencies.

In other words, there is a presumption by implication in the civil law that a charter (a metaphysical / abstract / unreal type) exists, because persons are availing themselves (volunteering) of the privileges pertaining to HJR 192. Therefore, these persons come under a ‘quasi in rem’[24] jurisdiction of the civil law in order to regulate, control (including compel) those that are outside the literal common law principles. Yes, as long as the individual remains silent, it is presumed that they have volunteered for the non payment of debt privilege under HJR 192, 12 U.S.C. Section 95a and 15 U.S.C. Chapter 41 Section 1602(c)(d)(e).

Those who have volunteered for the privileges and immunities of the federal social debt security of the unincorporated interstate banking associations for the non payment of debt, have no access to protection of the strict letter of the Constitution under the first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights, especially the 10th Amendment.

Before HJR 192 existed, the Federal Government could not have any implied contact with Americans. They could only have an actual contact through a two party (bilateral) contract. Americans were presumed to be under Article IV Section 3 clause 1[28] as primary state citizens. After HJR 192, the voluntary unincorporated federal social debt security association, known as federalism, was formed under Article IV Section 3 clause 2[29] supported by 15 U.S.C. Chapter 41 Section 1602 (c)(d)(e) and 12 U.S.C. Section 95a becoming the new “public policy.” That is, implied contracts[30] (see also quasi contract at footnote 19) under federalism have become business as usual — i.e., public policy.

Going along with HJR 192 means, you do not have the literal letter of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights working in your behalf. Because you have volunteered into the social debt security unincorporated association of federalism, the courts,[31] under conflict of law (diversity) principles, look at your “life, liberty, and property” as relative, not actual. Your “life, liberty, and property” are converted to “privileges or immunities” and “civil rights.”

Yes, under HJR 192 the Americans have volunteered to give up their land, because they have forfeited the “Substance” of the land for the convenience of a federal commercial social debt security system, via the jurisdiction of “a territorial” (“inchoate” or incomplete) state (other property) or governmental subdivision promoting an unincorporated interstate banking association to defer payment of debt. This is what the milestone decision of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)[34] is all about.

In 1916, the Brushaber Court determined that Brushaber’s income was derived, not from the substance of the land of the Common Law, but from the profit and gain from stocks and bonds through the use of commercial paper issued by Union Pacific, a private corporation. That commercial paper, in the form of stocks and bonds, was NOT “Standard” Lawful money or legal tender of the United States in “payment” of a debt, but only a “discharge” of an obligation via a privilege under the civil law. Therefore, the income from this commercial “discharge” privilege was subject to an indirect or excise tax, which was proper under the Constitution (the same with income from stocks and bonds today).

Moreover, whether you have volunteered unwittingly or by conscious choice, there are steps you can begin to take for remedy.

There is much in this essay that presumes the reader's cognizance of the law and how the law works and looks at things in relation to the actions at law being brought before a court. While I have made an effort to explain some of these fine points of law in my commentary in the Rich Text file, it was not an aim to be fully exhaustive in terms of an explanation of these fine points in that commentary.

Hopefully, these excerpts have provided readers with a compelling reason to read the full essay, and to read it slowly and thoughtfully so as to understand (or at least get the gist) of the significance of what is being discussed. Understanding these concepts and putting into practice the remedies available are crucial to reestablishing one's standing as a sovereign individual and to regaining personal liberty.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/25/13 10:45 AM as a reply to Ian And.
In considering how to approach an unfamiliar subject that is abstract, contentious, technical, and potentially time-consuming, context can help a bunch in sorting the wheat from the chaff. To that end, I found this quote from Mr. Brobst:

"By the end of the Obama administration, President Obama will have signed so many executive orders as to eliminate Congress on important issues. Those executive orders will become precedent that cannot be overturned by a future president, because Obama was elected as a foreign citizen president; as such, he is not bound by the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution.... Change to a dictatorship is exactly what obama had in mind when he ran for president. After all, his background training in whatever form you want to call it, whether Communism, Fascism and the likes thereof, had him well prepared for that position as the start of a dictatorship. All executive orders must be published in the Federal Register, then, they become law."

And that is the clearest statement I've come across in relation to this thread. Anyone think this sounds like a credible person?

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/25/13 3:29 PM as a reply to Some Guy.
Some Guy:
In considering how to approach an unfamiliar subject that is abstract, contentious, technical, and potentially time-consuming, context can help a bunch in sorting the wheat from the chaff. To that end, I found this quote from Mr. Brobst:

"By the end of the Obama administration, President Obama will have signed so many executive orders as to eliminate Congress on important issues. Those executive orders will become precedent that cannot be overturned by a future president, because Obama was elected as a foreign citizen president; as such, he is not bound by the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution.... Change to a dictatorship is exactly what obama had in mind when he ran for president. After all, his background training in whatever form you want to call it, whether Communism, Fascism and the likes thereof, had him well prepared for that position as the start of a dictatorship. All executive orders must be published in the Federal Register, then, they become law."

And that is the clearest statement I've come across in relation to this thread. Anyone think this sounds like a credible person?


You know, none of this is relevant as far as I can see, to the purpose of this forum. Why not take your soap box and go where it will be attended to. Thanks.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/25/13 4:40 PM as a reply to Daniel F Gurzynski.
Daniel F Gurzynski:
You know, none of this is relevant as far as I can see, to the purpose of this forum. Why not take your soap box and go where it will be attended to. Thanks.


I'm not sure what you mean. I was responding to the content of the thread. The quote is from the person linked to and quoted extensively by the OP.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/25/13 5:53 PM as a reply to Some Guy.
Daniel F Gurzynski:
You know, none of this is relevant as far as I can see, to the purpose of this forum.


I agree with you there. Perhaps this was meant for the OP?

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/26/13 11:22 PM as a reply to Some Guy.
Yeah, I checked that guy's website too. Along with poor proofreading, a lack of credentials, and some other red flags, he removed himself as a being a source on anything when he stated he was Birther. "Obama was elected as foreign citizen president."

That's too bad. The arguments might be worth a look. But not from a Constitutional Purist frothing at the mouth.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
8/20/13 3:23 PM as a reply to Some Guy.
Jason B:
In considering how to approach an unfamiliar subject that is abstract, contentious, technical, and potentially time-consuming, context can help a bunch in sorting the wheat from the chaff. To that end, I found this quote from Mr. Brobst:

"By the end of the Obama administration, President Obama will have signed so many executive orders as to eliminate Congress on important issues. Those executive orders will become precedent that cannot be overturned by a future president, because Obama was elected as a foreign citizen president; as such, he is not bound by the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution.... Change to a dictatorship is exactly what obama had in mind when he ran for president. After all, his background training in whatever form you want to call it, whether Communism, Fascism and the likes thereof, had him well prepared for that position as the start of a dictatorship. All executive orders must be published in the Federal Register, then, they become law."

And that is the clearest statement I've come across in relation to this thread. Anyone think this sounds like a credible person?


Yeah, I checked that guy's website too. Along with poor proofreading, a lack of credentials, and some other red flags, he removed himself as a being a source on anything when he stated he was Birther. "Obama was elected as foreign citizen president."

That's too bad. The arguments might be worth a look. But not from a Constitutional Purist frothing at the mouth.

I'm afraid you've both missed the point of this thread, fellas. If it's not your cup of tea and you don't want to spend the time in research and study of the principles involved in understanding the intricacies of how law works in America, then no one is forcing you to read or pay any attention to this thread at all. Be well and on your way to other diversions.

It might have been compelling if either of you could have addressed anything substantive about the research that Mr. Brobst (USA The Republic) has done and proven him mistaken in any of his conclusions or explanations. Yet, lacking anything of substance to challenge him on, throwing mud at the wall of his character and seeing how much of it might stick through ad hominem attacks just seem childish and something I would have expected of the people at another Buddhist forum.

At any rate, be well in your illusions about what has taken place in this country. Apparently, the mainstream media is doing its job only too well. emoticon

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/27/13 2:36 AM as a reply to Ian And.
Yeah, I anticipated that.
If I sought information from someone on evolutionary biology and the first sentence out that person's mouth is "Well, first God created Adam and then from his rib came Eve!" I no longer take the person seriously. Time is just too precious.
Unless you are saying this guy isn't a birther, then that's pretty much what we're looking at.
And not being from the mainstream media (whatever that is anyway), doesn't mean he's automatically credible enough for me to wade through arid text. There's lots of nutjobs that are card carrying non-members-of-the-mainstream-media.

We all derive self-esteem from our world view. That's natural. What's surprising to find on a Buddhist site is someone who has such an unflinching devotion to a lopsided political/legal treatise. At least that's how it appears. I'm sorry, birther equals nutjob.

You got someone who isn't a birther, or someone who doesn't call atheism a religion, or someone that at least understands the science behind bias is humble enough to admit the complexity of issues, I'm all ears.

edit: a belief. He calls atheism a belief. Not a religion.
It is, of course, not a belief, but a lack of a belief.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/27/13 8:44 AM as a reply to Ian And.
Ian, the only ad hominem attack I'm aware of is the charge of being childish, and the insinuations about being brainwashed by the media. Has anyone attacked you like this? Please be nice. An author's credibility is certainly fair game. Michael's analogy to the biologist is apt.

It is common to feel that our opinions are intrinsic to self. When they are rejected, we may feel rejected too. A lot of discord stems from this, especially in politics.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/28/13 2:18 PM as a reply to Michael Cannon.
Michael Cannon:
Unless you are saying this guy isn't a birther, then that's pretty much what we're looking at.


Hey all,
I, for one, feel a little uncomfortable with this thread in this forum only because I really appreciate the tight focus this place provides. That said, I also appreciate IanAnd's pasion for tying some Personal Liberty themes together in a way that's rare to find and obviously well researched.

I , for the record, do not believe that the president was born in the united states after looking at the evidence. Call me crazy.

@IanAnd - Thanks for the reading material

Cheers friends.

tom

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/29/13 10:31 PM as a reply to Ian And.
Ian And, this is interesting. Could you cite some cases which have been won using this legal theory, please? Links to the court decisions would be handy, too, as I don't have easy access to Lexis-Nexis.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/30/13 12:54 AM as a reply to fivebells ..
fivebells .:
Could you cite some cases which have been won using this legal theory, please? Links to the court decisions would be handy, too, as I don't have easy access to Lexis-Nexis.

Your use of the term "legal theory" tells me that you haven't quite grasped the importance of the difference between the words "legal" and "lawful" and what that can mean in a real world confrontation with the "system" here in America (and elsewhere, for that matter).

Have you taken the time to read the Consent PDF? And the Presumption PDF? Those two pieces will provide you with a foundation for study as well as providing case cites with regard to what you ignorantly call "theory." Theories are often viewed as generally being unproven facts or principles of some kind or another. Lawful process (using the common law), on the other hand, has a long and glorious history in humankind, and is well worth looking into.

As for court decisions, in most instances, the kind of challenge to the legal system that these so-call "theories" present them with usually end up in their cases being dismissed without further harassment, therefore there are few cases, beyond mere personal anecdotal examples, to be cited. They simply are not recorded except by the individual victorious suitor. Once one understands why this is, it becomes less mysterious.

If you're looking for evidence of success, you can find many instances in this sub-forum where Success Stories are posted. As a matter of fact, this forum (and it's previous iterations: suijuris.net and suijurisclub.net, both of which are now defunct) is a good place to learn about the practical application of these "ideas" from people more knowledgeable than myself. (However, the proof in the pudding happens to be how well one understands these principles of law enough to successfully apply them, and in that endeavor, I have had my share of victories.)

Otherwise, the purpose of this thread is for self-education and knowledge in the law and lawful process as it can be asserted in present-day America. Obviously, the people who are interested in pursuing these alternative remedies to the statutory jurisdiction will be interested to learn about their effectiveness. That part of my presentation comes later in the process of this thread. I am extremely busy at the moment, and as I have time, I will add to this thread. It takes time to properly compose and prepare a posting.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/30/13 4:49 AM as a reply to Ian And.
Ian And, did not mean theory in any dismissive way. Thanks for the pointers.

RE: The Law, The Money and Your Choice
Answer
3/30/13 4:33 PM as a reply to Ian And.
After being bullied on this thread, I must say my interest was piqued. I found some interesting things. First, for the record:

The ad hominem fallacy is often confused with the legitimate provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted. Calling into question the reliability of a witness is relevant when the issue is whether to trust the witness.


Moving on. Searching for "common-law court movement," and "personal sovereignty movement," quickly brings one near to the dark side of the internet. However, most materials seem to have not been updated since the '90s. I found one credible article from the South Dakota Law Review (LAW UNTO THEMSELVES: THE IDEOLOGY OF THE COMMON LAW COURT MOVEMENT,1999). It's behind a paywall (unless you have a university password - that's my definition of freedom, baby!) so I'll quote it at length.

Most of these cases emerge from activists' belief that they can exempt themselves from the jurisdiction of the legitimate courts, and from government in general. As such, the common-law court movement is best understood as a form of social contract fundamentalism that has incorporated important aspects of American nationalism. While fundamentalism is generally spoken of as a religious phenomenon, we argue that common-law court activists fit the definition of fundamentalism as a social
movement. According to Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, fundamentalism shares several attributes which may also be found in forms of right-wing activism: fundamentalists are "convinced of the conspiratorial nature"of a nonbelieving majority, have "adopted a set of strategies for fighting back," and feature leaders who have "ransacked the tradition's past, retrieving and restoring neglected or soft-pedaled doctrines and practices, and creating others" with the purpose of creating militant grassroots organizations. Labeling common-law court activists as social contract fundamentalists emphasizes how these groups have reconstructed social contract theory in a literalist fashion.
Traditional social contract theory has held that the majority consent of the population was necessary for the creation of a civil society in a fictional past, and that the members of a civil society can dissolve the political authority of the government through a majority decision." Common- law court activists assert a radical version of social contract theory which argues that consent may be withdrawn by individuals and small groups, who thereby escape the jurisdiction of a government which is accepted by the majority. Such a doctrine is equivalent to anarchy, and its implications have become manifest in adherents' numerous acts of lawlessness. Rather than working within a system they perceive as unlawful, activists form their own "common-law courts," which they claim to be superior to the federal and state courts. Common-law courts have issued a
constant barrage of illegitimate writs, liens and other documents, causing problems for local, state, and federal authorities, as well as the legitimate court system. The personal sovereignty movement, in which participants claim to free themselves from the jurisdiction of the courts and such government agencies as the IRS, Social Security, and Department of Motor Vehicles, is closely allied with the common-law court movement in its insistence that individuals may be sovereign over democratic institutions... personal sovereignty activists pose a direct threat to the principle that all persons are equal under the law by propounding their own radically individualistic political theory.


The movement is closely aligned ideologically and culturally with right-wing militias and racist hate groups, http://archive.adl.org/mwd/common.aspaccording to the ADL. It's too grotesque to quote here, so have a look for yourselves if you wish.

So, in this thread we have a subject way off-topic, abusive posters, and content that effectively amounts to a call to subvert the US government. Moderators?

Announcements Announcements