Silk Road forums

Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: BE HERE NOW on April 14, 2012, 05:14 am

Title: CONTRACTING
Post by: BE HERE NOW on April 14, 2012, 05:14 am
Hey all!

Perhaps this would be best in SR discussion. Mods move please?

I'd like to start a thread here that may help some of us in regards to dealing with LE. This is potentially an extremely in depth topic, about CONTRACTS and how EVERYTHING we do comes down to contracts. Our system is designed and based around most of us not knowing a damn thing about LAW about what our words mean and about us not knowing WHO WE TRULY ARE. Have you ever looked at your state issued license? A credit card? Birth certificate?

Let me ask you this: are you your name? Is that who you are? When a copper asks if you are what's printed on your license, do you say "yes"? Have you ever noticed that your name on your ID's and DOCs and mail, is always ALL IN CAPS??? This has been created so that Governmental agencies and government agents can conduct commerce with you. Why? Because governmental agencies are fictitious entities. AKA NOT REAL! And that ONLY a fictitious entity can conduct commerce/business with a REAL entity by that entity having what's called a STRAW MAN, a fictitious entity... as in a corporation. That's why your name is in ALL CAPS! (ALL ARRESTS, COURT CASES, JAIL SENTENCES believe it or not are commerce commerce commerce!!!).

So let's think about it. Are you your name? Are you a couple of words on a document? Let's look at it another way. Do you own your car? Or..... do you own TITLE to your car? Do you own your house? Or... do you own title to the house? DO YOU OWN YOUR BODY? Well.... it would seem as NO when talking about the jurisdiction the state has over you. How else could they pick you up, kidnap you and throw you in a cage? Of course they don't truly own you, but that's how things are set up. And most of us have no clue we are truly sovereign beings. Even media and LE agencies are telling people these so called "sovereigns" are fucking to be considered terrorists! For those who don't know what sovereign means, it means authority. It means that we were created (however you want to believe) and NO OTHER BEING has jurisdiction over us. We have unalienable rights to live as we please, go where we please, as long as we are peaceful and do not infringe on any other who has the same unalienable rights as we.

So in regards to contracts, every time we give our names to LE we are following their business. Granting jurisdiction. No one here has to ever give a name, a picture (which is your fucking property), discuss anything, do any sort of business that is not our own, whenever we are being told we have to. There's a number of groups out there that teach this stuff, teach people that all LAW is about contracts and that you can win any case, any issue, if you educate yourself and learn now not to contract, how not to grant jurisdiction and how to be on YOUR BUSINESS and YOUR BUSINESS ALONE!

Basically the facts have no place if you know how to conduct yourself as what many call a creditor. There are two types of people in this world. Creditors, and debtors. Creditors bring solution, offer remedy, conduct themselves properly. Debtors argue, fight, wine, and expect other people to handle their business.

I'm starting this discussion (not sure if it's been brought up here yet) for the reason that everyone here (well, most or many) believe they should be able to conduct their own business, their own lives as they please, as they have right to, granted to them by life. We are pioneers folks. This place is INCREDIBLE and allows us to conduct our own business with like minded folk. I'm also starting this discussion because I believe without a DOUBT that after educating myself as much as I have (and it's been a LOT, and I still feel like I don't know SHIT!), I know deeply within my being that it all comes down to contracts and ANY OF US can get out of the TIGHTEST fucking situations in dealing with LE's, and come out okay, respected, understood and seen as true creditors, able to handle our own business, and NOT in a cage.

It's a serious rabbit hole of info and it requires dedication to learning about contract law, but I promise you, it may be exactly what will save your ass if ever in a very tight spot. I'm speaking more so to the vendor folk but buyer folk as well. It comes down to how interesting it is, and how important it is to knowing how to navigate the seas of commerce and the systems set in place with which is used to squeeze every last bit of Life, money and dignity from ourselves.

Now when I say "Contract Law" I don't mean like becoming a lawyer. Lawyers, unfortunately ALWAYS have allegiance to the state. They only know how to argue and fight, and I'm sorry, but if you truly want to get out of a serious pinch, a lawyer can ONLY reduce the amount of grief by a little bit. A public defender will ALWAYS fuck you over royally. They are NOT on your side. Knowing who you are means knowing you are NEVER the defendant. They will refer to you as the defendant, but just like your true self is not your name, you are not the person they are trying to fuck over. You are the agent of the defendant. You are the accommodation party. You are the paramount security interest holder OVER the defendant: (Your name - your straw man).

Is this making sense???

Unless you begin to understand who you really are, or more appropriately... who you are NOT. You will always go down in a pinch. I have various links, tons of audio, video I've researched that can help us all out, but I'm curious first if this resonates with any of us here. I'm saying I don't care how much they catch you with, it will be a long haul, a serious struggle, but would you believe any one of us, conducting ourselves honorably and providing remedy in pure legal terms, will have you out free as a bird with no repercussion and a dismissal of whatever kinds of charges and crap they try to throw at you. Sounds hard to believe but I've witnessed many accounts from others dealing with this stuff head on. It takes a fuck load to become a believer that it's all about contracts but I've seen AMAZING SHIT GO DOWN. I've heard transcripts, seen vids where normal regular people, who aren't lawyers SCHOOL THE SHIT OUTTA JUDGES in their own courtrooms, turn the contract around and hold the judges responsible on all commercial liability for the defendant! This has had judges themselves BOLTING from the court room because one dude did their homework so well, they could not for the life of them slip them up!

Court means right here. This is court guys. We're holding COURT! And in LAW every fucking word counts. Every action you express has meaning. It's by the book. And judges are contract law EXPERTS designed to knock you off your game to see if you truly know who you are.

Look at LE's, DA's, judges as good people. (I know I know it's reallllly hard. They are the worst kinds!) But there are many many good people out there who have jobs in those positions and if you know who you are, and can show them you know who you are, many times (one guru says ALWAYS) you will find that they operate by the book to the fucking letter. If you know how to contract properly you can get out of ANYTHING.

Is this resonating with anyone?

It's a touchy subject because of how we feel about the law game but try and keep an open mind here and let's see if some other sr folk can contribute and see where this can go. If you want to pm me I have 40 hours probably in links of audio of conference calls and plenty of free video in teachings with real folk dealing with this stuff for IRS shit, drug shit and all sorts. And they're WINNING! AKA NOT GOING TO JAIL! NOT HAVING SUPERVISED RELEASE. NOT HAVING YEARS OF PROBATION AND BEING TIED TO THE SYSTEM FOR GOOD and undergoing a life of total fucking grief.

What you all think?

Peace.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: JamesTaylor on April 14, 2012, 05:31 am
Whatever your smoking on chief let me get a few puffs.   :P
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: BE HERE NOW on April 14, 2012, 05:57 am
Here's a link to "the rules of the game" if you feel like listening to a workshop while you're high. Might prove to be "educational" ....if that sorta thing is of any interest to you:

http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/audio-contract-law.php
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: radium1911 on April 14, 2012, 09:25 pm
This isn't true, and numerous court cases have shown this.

You remind me of the people who claim they don't have to pay income taxes.

Is the gold fringed flag the next topic of yours?
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: dolphinspeak on April 14, 2012, 09:56 pm
OP, have you really researched this topic or have you seen a Zeitgeist-style film and "realised" that you're "surrounded by sheeple" and you've taken upon yourself to "open their eyes"/"wake them up"?
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: BE HERE NOW on April 14, 2012, 11:28 pm
I have actually extensively researched this. You don't have to believe if it is or is it not true. Everyone has their own path to take, and their own choices to choose.

I've seen the court cases, and I've heard the testimonials on a weekly basis for the last two years of those who are living this truth, and are handling their own court cases and walking away as free people. By our unalienable rights you do not have to contract with any entity unless you do so by your own admission whether you are aware of it or not.

When you use this stuff and it "doesn't work" it is ALWAYS something YOU do wrong. Judges and courts follow the rules of contract. You have four options in all interactions:

-Accept the offer (staying in honor
-Conditionally accept the offer (this has the legal ramifications of declining the offer and offering another solution and allows one to stay in honor)
-Stay silent (dishonorable)
-Argue/Fight (dishonorable)

And yes, I've watched all the z-movies but this is not about those. Many claim it doesn't work, and that's fine. I know the route I will take if ever in a serious pinch. I will not be seeking someone else to argue for me, and I will not allow a public defender to ruin me as well.

Schmoogle "talk shoe contracts in motion" for hours and hours of conference calls of real folk using administrative processes with which to handle charges. Or simply spend a little time listening to the first link I left and see if it resonates with you. It's definitely not for everyone. Most of us prefer to stay as uneducated debtors and to be governed instead of governing ourselves. But yknow I'd imagine there are those in THIS place that might seek to have a better understanding of how the system allows them to be free if they can learn how.

This also plays into paying your debts. It is possible to administratively handle all our business privately instead of publicly. And yes, there are those who have gone up against IRS in court and have won. The percentage of losers against the IRS when going to trial is some sort of staggering 99.97 percent or something very very impossible sounding. I know of those who have been the tiny percent, and they've used the system of private administrative processes.

It's why we have what's called a REPUBLIC.

Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: BE HERE NOW on April 14, 2012, 11:42 pm
This isn't true, and numerous court cases have shown this.

You remind me of the people who claim they don't have to pay income taxes.

Is the gold fringed flag the next topic of yours?

There are those who claim the fed income tax is voluntary... they're called the IRS.

Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: philter3 on April 15, 2012, 12:07 am
Be Here Now,

  I'm familiar with the "straw man" arguement (bit of a pun there.. u like it?). I guess what it boils down to in my mind is this...

  Do I, personally, have any ethical or moral reason to interact with agents of authority other than on grounds of convenience?

 I'm sorry but I don't see any obligation. Contracts can only be followed when they are voluntary, and any attempt to force participation in a contract is violence or threat of same. Since all interaction with legal authority figures is typically enforced on their part I don't see as how there is any moral or ethical rationale to suggest participation (beyond whatever is practical to escape) is at all required.

 Let me put it this way.. I'd rather trust a pedophile or a crackhead than a cop or a judge. At least the pedophile and the crackhead don't think they have the moral high ground and the law on thier side :D.

 Cops, judges, prosecutors etc.. they are all murderers, rapists (by proxy), kidnappers, extortionists and thieves. When faced with them in numbers.. the prudent response is to RUN THE FUCK AWAY.

 I do not suggest violent resistance. That would be impractical (though it is certainly morally justifiable and would be emotionally satisfying till they blasted you full of holes). RUN AWAY.

 Do not reason with REAVERS. They are REAVERS. RUN AWAY.

 Follow the wisdom of the great prophet Trent the Uncatchable!!
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: BE HERE NOW on April 15, 2012, 12:36 am
It sorta comes to contracting without realizing it. Granting jurisdiction without knowing you are.

Cop says "Get oVer here!"

You comply.

You've just granted jurisdiction. Instead of saying perhaps "why are you accosting me?"

Most of us don't want to argue... scuse me, most of us don't want to ask questions. Hold our stance. This is NOT resisting. Of course any time being threatened, or under duress, you can say since your are threatening to taze me, I will get out of my car! That's when the rules change because everything from that point is under threat of violence. So most don't want to rock the boat and prefer to comply. I am often one of them. I make no claims of knowing how to get out of all situations. The site talk shoe with gordon hall and the material found on CIC site gives many examples and many personal accounts of how they've gotten out of issues, honorably.

But when it comes to say COURT, just by answering that you are YOUR NAME, when called, you've just entered into contract and are deemed to claim surety for the defendant. The straw man. You lose that way and always that way. What many teach is to take EVERY SINGLE question as an OFFER. You can accept the offer if it's good.

Hey we need to speak to YOUR NAME, we have a winning lottery ticket, or this or that. Legally... you can say "In that case, I am YOUR NAME. However if they say, we need to speak with YOUR NAME, and you ask what's this about? And say they say, well we need to talk to YOUR NAME in regards to a murder charge, or robbery, and you can literally say, in that case, I'm the authorized representative for YOUR NAME. Because you truly ARE!

When you follow an order "Sit DOWN!" as many judges will say if they don't like what you're saying... and you do it. You've just assumed to grant jurisdiction in a public setting. When they say is YOUR NAME here, and you say I'm YOUR NAME, you've just began the public game and are subject to its rules. Where we never win.

So you can learn to conditionally accept ALL OFFERS upon proof of claim that you are not the authorized representative, or paramount security interest holder for YOUR NAME. By conditionally acceptance you place the burden of proof upon that asker. A funny way of looking at is.... who's doing the asking. Look at the word asking. AS-KING. Kings do NOT answer questions. They only ask them.

Check out the audio and workshops on CIC website and there's more than enough material to get a good grasp to start learning how we give up staying on the private side of contracts and enter in the public side. Entering the bar in court without clarifying who you are, meaning the agent of your straw man, you become unknowingly contracting with the public. If you're told to do something by cop or judge, and you ask "is it okay with you if I sit here?" As in, you make the decision, you direct where you stand, sit, move etc.... "Okay, I'm going to sit right here" Then you've held jurisdiction. Kinda silly when you think of it, and they will often look at you like you're off your rocker, or say what you're saying is jibberish, but TRUST ME.... they know. They know EXACTLY what the game is. It's a game of contracts.

Has anyone been to traffic court recently? Last few times, the judges were soooo smooth in simply directing EVERYONE towards the guilty plea... and pay this and pay that. Last two times I was in traffic court, not a SINGLE PERSON plead not guilty. At least if you plead not guilty there's a CHANCE the cop won't show up and you will get your case dismissed! NEVER CAN HURT!!! Judges are CONTRACT LAW EXPERTS.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: bp on April 15, 2012, 06:08 am
You need to get clear one thing.....there is the truth and there is either respect for it or disrespect for it.
We all own our own bodies. Only we can direct our will. It is INALIENABLE.

Our bodies, along with their inalienable will, exist under a set of irrefutable conditions. Those being an absolute need for continuing consumption to maintain the life of the body and a real scarcity in the goods that must be consumed to maintain the life of the body.
From these basic truths a body of natural law as applied to humans may, MUST be derived. This is the only law that exists.

Now others may use might , the ability to influence or indirectly control the will of others through violence, the threat of violence, reward or the promise thereof. This boiling down to utility either beneficial utility of Dis utility. And this need only be PERCEIVED utility or dis utility. The treat or reward need not be true, or even if true not actually as helpful or harmful as perceived.
It it only the perception of what the individual expects to gain or avoid that causes the will to act.
Might is NOT force. It often employs force but might is the ability to indirectly control the inalienable with of others.

As true as everything you have stated in the tricks of "law" played by the power hungry in this world it still does not grant them any legitimacy in their actions. Especially in cases where the nature of the contracts are serupticiously employed, but not limited to that.

As you say, when you comply with the police or anyone attempting to "arrest" or otherwise control your will, YOU must choose to do so. You can choose not to in the very next instant.
He will likely shoot you but that doesn't mean he would be justified in doing so....not unless you were the one initiating aggression against him.

We have been conditioned to believe that because a group systematically refuses to recognize and respect our natural rights, and that they perpetuate their power to do so by buying the will of enough who would be their agents of violence, and by fooling so many into believing they have some control over the whole situation by letting them "vote" for who will rob and enslave them next, that this group is somehow legitimate.
Simply not so.

It matters not what paperwork traps they set, in the long run we are free to choose and "law" is simple. Don't initiate aggression against the rightfully owned property of others, beginning with their prime piece of property....their body.

I know this isn't much help in staying out of jail when you have been targeted, but it is helpful to know that no matter what anyone tries to do to your mind, you are free. You do not belong to anyone and owe nobody anything you do not voluntarily exchange for n a free marketplace.

When more people come to know, accept and teach this truth. the gobblygook set up by the moneychagers you have described will shitcanned and never mentioned again.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: Bud on April 15, 2012, 07:21 pm
No, you don;t know the truth about anything, you're just another nutbag. It's amazing how these people can write paragraph after paragraph of ignorance. I think it;s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Try looking that one up.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: Fuk_this on April 16, 2012, 05:57 am
I did not read all the info the OP  wrote because most is wrong, but her fundamentals are correct.  So, she most likely a 1L.  That is, she is likely in her first year of law school.  She got most of the basics right.  Three elements for a contract: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration.

qoute]
So in regards to contracts, every time we give our names to LE we are following their business. Granting jurisdiction. [/qoute]
Absolutely wrong.  Reread your civil procedures book.  42 USC 1331 and 42 USC 1334 (if I recall correctly) diversity and federal jurisdiction are important.  One you bone up on Civ Pro.  Reread criinal procedures - review the fourth and fifth amendments, closely.

[qoute]There's a number of groups out there that teach this stuff, teach people that all LAW is about contracts and that you can win any case, any issue, if you educate yourself and learn now not to contract, how not to grant jurisdiction and how to be on YOUR BUSINESS and YOUR BUSINESS ALONE![/qoute]

Nevermind, she's not a law student.  She's high.  Understanding contract law is complex, but saying "win any case" is utter hyperbole.  Jurisdictional issues are fairly straight forward: federal or constitutional questions or diversity jurisdiction.  I'm not going to explain each of them, federal question will confer jurisdiction not create a jurisdictional bar.

Since I read your crap a little closer, I realize this is a waste of my time.  But, before I quit,  your claim "We all own our own bodies. Only we can direct our will. It is INALIENABLE" is ludicrous.  An cop can require a blood draw if he has reasonable suspicion that the person is under the influence.  Is blood part of your body? Yes.  So your reasoning is flawed.

Your writing as if only one form of law exists: statutory.  But, you've missed common law, case law, and judicial activism.

It's far more complex than what you've written.  I bet you are really fucking high.



Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: lefthandspinner on April 16, 2012, 06:31 am
my friend reckons that the law in uk says u can do what u want in your own home as long as not harming people ,is this bullshit it must be
say i had gear and they raided if i said i had it delivered and never left house id still be nicked no matter what coz its against law even if im in my house
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: bp on April 22, 2012, 12:50 pm
I did not read all the info the OP  wrote because most is wrong, but her fundamentals are correct.  So, she most likely a 1L.  That is, she is likely in her first year of law school.  She got most of the basics right.  Three elements for a contract: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration.

qoute]
So in regards to contracts, every time we give our names to LE we are following their business. Granting jurisdiction. [/qoute]
Absolutely wrong.  Reread your civil procedures book.  42 USC 1331 and 42 USC 1334 (if I recall correctly) diversity and federal jurisdiction are important.  One you bone up on Civ Pro.  Reread criinal procedures - review the fourth and fifth amendments, closely.

[qoute]There's a number of groups out there that teach this stuff, teach people that all LAW is about contracts and that you can win any case, any issue, if you educate yourself and learn now not to contract, how not to grant jurisdiction and how to be on YOUR BUSINESS and YOUR BUSINESS ALONE![/qoute]

Nevermind, she's not a law student.  She's high.  Understanding contract law is complex, but saying "win any case" is utter hyperbole.  Jurisdictional issues are fairly straight forward: federal or constitutional questions or diversity jurisdiction.  I'm not going to explain each of them, federal question will confer jurisdiction not create a jurisdictional bar.

Since I read your crap a little closer, I realize this is a waste of my time.  But, before I quit,  your claim "We all own our own bodies. Only we can direct our will. It is INALIENABLE" is ludicrous.  An cop can require a blood draw if he has reasonable suspicion that the person is under the influence.  Is blood part of your body? Yes.  So your reasoning is flawed.

Your writing as if only one form of law exists: statutory.  But, you've missed common law, case law, and judicial activism.

It's far more complex than what you've written.  I bet you are really fucking high.

Getting nutcases confused but I'll try again.
I would argue that their is indeed only one body of JUST law....natural law. I would blame the Dunning-Kruger effect for the mass brainwashing that small groups have used over the eons to consolidate power over the larger groups by steering them away from the rational consistency of natural law and manufacturing consent to be ruled, even the consent of people to be ruled who signed no contracts or were even offered any,  made no votes or verbal agreements, no consent of any kind. Or no invitation of any other to come and rue them. Society, especially elites within it,  for longer than recorded human history has gone on as if being born automatically enrolls one in a club where there are to immediately begin paying dues and taking orders, even if they have never harmed or even come in contact with anyone else, until their first meeting with their presumed rulers.

It's been said (argued over who first said it actually) that if you gave a child or childlike primitive a gun they would show no fear of it as they have to learn that. It isn't in human nature to fear or respect anything out of instinct. The same would go if that primitive were told he was now ruled. Accepting rule, or rejecting it, is a human choice, made for a variety of reasons but none because it is naturally inevitable that they must be ruled.

So regardless of what X% of any given set of humans believe to be just law,  it is only just law if consistent with the both the observable and the deducible nature of man himself in the reality with its requirements of him and scarce means to meet them, and that no gaps in the reasoning exist or can be demonstrated either experimentally or empirically.
Yes, it is complex, even the natural law that most people reject in favor of laws they can vote for and lobby for.
But it is nowhere near as complex as the body of man made law with its circular references, obfuscated meanings and outright arbitrary construction. Try figuring out the logic behind gun laws in places where they obviously just looked at a set of weapons and went through just adding the ones that looked scary to the list. Just one low lying example of the how the arbitrary law made for specif fears that miss the nature of the problem can only be complex and convoluted.
Keeps lawyers in money and most politicians are lawyers.

So while to study the derivation of natural law is involved it can be far more easily and intuitively understood than modern criminal law, civil code, financial regulation and on and on, never mind the overlapping areas between federal, state and local jurisdictions and gray areas not covered by any. In keeping to natural law one must only learn the deriving principles and more complex applications can be reconstructed as needed. A small notebook would be enough to carry around.

The first principle of natural law is that you are alive and must act to stay alive. In this action property must be procured as you must have the property rights over the food you eat and water you drink. To act at all you must command the body and as only your will can move the body (directly without force from outside of it) you must own it. Any nature given goods you them blend with the labor of your body are then your property, assuming no other claims had already been made and improvements rendered on said nature given goods. This homesteading process of property is valid for only that which you can apply your labor to. You have no claim on that which you have no way to improve for either consumption or capital goods.
No other human may arrest this action for any other reason than your action causing damage to his previously homesteaded (or exchanged) property. No human may INITIATE aggression against another humans property, including their body.

The example of the cop taking your blood against your will (stealing your property) is clearly illegitimate when viewed in this frame work....unless there is proof you have harmed (not increased risk but actually harmed) another humans property.


Look, I know what our "leaders" and their "enforcers" think just law is.....anything they want it to be and preferably that which guarantees them revenue, fuck the actual victim.
I simply say it is not legitimate and the more students of natural law we get the sooner things like hiding in here come to an end.

And I know about the "principles the OP talks about....and how rarely they work. About as often as Jury Nullification, which is right in the Constitution but might as well not be. Want to get out of jury duty? Say the words "Jury Nullification" That'll do it.
The "Real" you and the fiduciary you trick won't work either but the won't toss you off a jury for bringing it up. They aren't afraid of it.



Real Change....Ha.
The people aren't quite ready yet. They let Ron Paul get blacked out and misquoted, only mentioned with the words fringe or unelectable in the entrance. And now they are acting as though the race is over when the "law" allows for...calls for a brokered convention.
But they are so close. So many people know everything I just typed better than I do and they are young and full of energy.
Add in the fact that the financial smoke and mirror game is starting to let the man behind the curtain show, and that a major crises is going to come. when? who knows but probably sooner than later, and well, there's hope.

Even if people hiding in a dope forum care more about defending the injustice that put them hiding here than learning, believing in and teaching natural law.....and hard (natural) money.

But hey, I didn't make it up. Menger, Bohm Bawerk, Mises, Visor Hayeck, Rothbard....these guys developed it, Rothbard explained it better than anyone else and the Mises Intitute and lewrockwell.com is spreading it like wildfire.
Hundreds of new Austrians every year. Thanks to these guys hard work and Ron Pauls dedication to liberty.
Read  Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, for free, as the best possible comprehensive study of natural law and the yet unseen but not  impossible unhampered market.

The Dunning-Kruger effect alright. it's the life's blood of government schooling and mainstream media.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: Horizons on April 22, 2012, 02:40 pm
BHN, you need to do a lot less drugs. Maybe cut down to 5% of what you're doing now, then 5% of that. This is my friendly advice to you.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: kmfkewm on April 22, 2012, 03:54 pm
No, you don;t know the truth about anything, you're just another nutbag. It's amazing how these people can write paragraph after paragraph of ignorance. I think it;s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Try looking that one up.

The Dunning Kruger effect is also why so many people talk out their ass about computer security totally convinced about every word they say
Unfortunately the reverse is also true, people who are highly skilled often assume that everyone else is just as skilled and that they are about average
and people who are not skilled often think that they are about average as well.

Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: kmfkewm on April 22, 2012, 04:11 pm
BHN is a soverign citizen apparently. They are a very strange breed of people, who think that they know the real law and that all the police and judges have it wrong. They think that their perception of the law is in any way tied to reality, so must be fairly delusional. I do give them props though, they have killed enough law enforcement officers to be classified as a domestic terror threat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-20062666.html

I actually am highly sympathetic to their cause, the main difference between me and them is that I don't think there is a secret version of the law, and have not become preoccupied with holding mock trials and 'convicting' judges/police officers. There are probably some other differences too. They are very close to libertarian / anarchist and can often be found in the same circles, however they have become obsessive compulsive in regards to certain beliefs that have no real ties to reality, and that nobody really cares about except them (ie: ranting on about how the law "really is" to exhaustive detail, despite all indications showing that they are completely incorrect) 

Anarchists / Libertarians: Think that taxation is morally wrong and don't like it
Sovereign Citizens: Think that taxation is actually illegal under the real law and that they will not get arrested if they don't pay it provided they follow the procedures in their made up laws that they think are real

Anarchists / Libertarians: Think that things like the roads and drivers licenses should be handled by the free market, not the government 
Sovereign Citizens: Think that it is not illegal for them to drive without a license under the real law, and sometimes shoot police officers when they are pulled over

I think most of them also believe that the federal government owes everyone a hundred thousand dollars or something like that and keeps it hidden in a secret bank from us because they don't want to pay up.

etc etc. Sovereign citizens take libertarianism and anarchy to their insane extremes (which doesn't mean that they are radical anarchists or libertarians, but means that they are insane people with libertarian and anarchist beliefs. The reason they are insane is because they both think and act like we live in an anarchist society, so they think doing things like shooting police, will not get them arrested, because if the police arrest them for say drug possession, they are convinced that this is actually kidnapping UNDER THE LAW instead of just in reality) 
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: anarcho47 on April 22, 2012, 05:05 pm
BHN is a soverign citizen apparently. They are a very strange breed of people, who think that they know the real law and that all the police and judges have it wrong. They think that their perception of the law is in any way tied to reality, so must be fairly delusional. I do give them props though, they have killed enough law enforcement officers to be classified as a domestic terror threat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-20062666.html

I actually am highly sympathetic to their cause, the main difference between me and them is that I don't think there is a secret version of the law, and have not become preoccupied with holding mock trials and 'convicting' judges/police officers. There are probably some other differences too. They are very close to libertarian / anarchist and can often be found in the same circles, however they have become obsessive compulsive in regards to certain beliefs that have no real ties to reality, and that nobody really cares about except them (ie: ranting on about how the law "really is" to exhaustive detail, despite all indications showing that they are completely incorrect) 

Anarchists / Libertarians: Think that taxation is morally wrong and don't like it
Sovereign Citizens: Think that taxation is actually illegal under the real law and that they will not get arrested if they don't pay it provided they follow the procedures in their made up laws that they think are real

Anarchists / Libertarians: Think that things like the roads and drivers licenses should be handled by the free market, not the government 
Sovereign Citizens: Think that it is not illegal for them to drive without a license under the real law, and sometimes shoot police officers when they are pulled over

I think most of them also believe that the federal government owes everyone a hundred thousand dollars or something like that and keeps it hidden in a secret bank from us because they don't want to pay up.

etc etc. Sovereign citizens take libertarianism and anarchy to their insane extremes (which doesn't mean that they are radical anarchists or libertarians, but means that they are insane people with libertarian and anarchist beliefs. The reason they are insane is because they both think and act like we live in an anarchist society, so they think doing things like shooting police, will not get them arrested, because if the police arrest them for say drug possession, they are convinced that this is actually kidnapping UNDER THE LAW instead of just in reality)

I don't buy into MOST of the sovereign citizens doctrine because it has been so muddled by the post-modern reconstructionist movement in "intellectual" circles, and then double raped by hegellianism.  You've got guys like Rob Menard running around preaching that we are born into some kind of abundant wealth that our benevolent state is just holding on our behalf, and that just by being alive you are entitled to a laundry list of shit for filling out some basic paperwork.  It's insanity, and completely twisted, AND in total violation of the natural law they purport to uphold and live by.

That being said, I did watch the special that 60 minutes did on Sovereign Citizens a year or two ago, and it was very telling.  They spent the entire show basically painting them as whack-jobs (80% correct).  The most poignant part of the show was where they went over the whole liens and bond revoking.  Even 60 minutes admitted that judges and cops and DA's ARE getting liens put on them, meaning that in our legal system there actually does exist a remedy for a contract (oath) and the bond upon which the taker of an oath must operate (within the parameters of their contract).  They admitted right on the show that it's making the lives of judges and lawyers and cops a nightmare because they can't do their job without being bonded, and you can't have a bond when you have a lien against it.  So there's legitimacy going on there, even though they just brushed over it and painted a sob story on behalf of the public "servants" caging and kidnapping peacefully associating people.

There have been some great inroads along these lines in South Carolina, where police have been having their bonds liquidated so much, they have been instructed to move their assets to other people's names to avoid repossession (which is fraud, lol), and the supreme court essentially ruled that they have about the same authority under the law as a "Walmart Cop".

There are certain things that SC's have nailed down that exist within the law, like silence=assent, compliance=assent.  These are all part of the common law structure that was enacted in the 1800's.  That being said, the hokey, "I'm entitled to everything ever because I'm breathing" shit just needs to die, and die now.  I am all for taking away a police officer's job for arresting someone for a non-violent "crime", or having a DA disbarred for attempting to prosecute a non-violent "crime".  That's the good stuff.  But this socialist, born-into-prosperity, hegellian bullshit is completely eroding the foundation upon which a non-devolving society is built.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: kmfkewm on April 22, 2012, 05:13 pm
Quote
  I am all for taking away a police officer's job for arresting someone for a non-violent "crime", or having a DA disbarred for attempting to prosecute a non-violent "crime".

I am also all for this, but I do not think that the current law calls for this to happen, unlike soverign citizens who think that under the law they can kill police in self defense if they attempt to arrest them for victimless crimes. I think its fine if they do kill them, and I think that the law should not be how it is, but I think it is quite clear that the law is not the way sovereign citizens claim it is.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: bp on April 27, 2012, 11:24 am
Under natural law as developed along the Misen/Rothbarin line, which holds no hope of ever achieving utopia, a polio officer is just a qualified employee of a privet company, subject to all the scrutiny by his fellow man that anyone else would be.
And morose their would likely be competing firms to choose from.
The removal of the government created  "blue line" would be impossible.
Without the monopoly protection of the legal use of force they joey they would find themselves subject to eery law  they are supposed to uphold. Kick in th wrong door and shoot the dog beat dad around asking wheres the shit (wolnd't be a law) and he gets sreaested by his partner, or a competing agency.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: thereisnospoon on April 27, 2012, 05:02 pm
I believe any true "sovereign" acting human, is one that has found and embraced acts of true honor. True embracing of the system passed unto them by the forefathers. That we have a republic..... we have a god given right to our private life, business etc... That's sorta what I've gathered from some info and chats I've had.

Those that I converse with who consider themselves a sovereign, actually believe the system is for them to use it. That cops are good people. Doing a good job. That judges do things perfectly. That unless we govern ourselves, we're doomed to be governed.

Only people who are going to make it in this world ultimately have discovered that peace is always the answer. Love is always the road to take. I would never even be friends with someone who would shoot a cop. I don't like cops, I stay as far away from them as possible, but I see everyone as like me. I see myself in everyone else. I can't fault people who are completely unaware. Especially when the system they support tells them it's okay. We as a society support all these things. Little by little people are gathering a better consensus about true freedom.

Staying in harmony with your brother. Staying respectful, and if you are in a troubled cop arrest position, you stay honorable! You educate them by your actions and words. You use the system as you can, as a sovereign. You trust in your abilities to stay on the private side, not relinquish your unalienable rights and use the system as some believed it was designed for.

I mean, do YOU truly believe there are others in society that are.... "HIGHER" than you? More.... elite? Have MORE authority? Or is that part of our societal indoctrination to keep us in order? No one is higher or lower than you.

I tell you this. You are equal to all men. And you can conduct yourself honorably in all situations instead of resisting what is so, fighting and so on. Which is what causes most suffering on the planet. Resisting what is so.

Do we recognize how indoctrinated we all are? Even in the system of "laws" or "statutes". Let me ask this... when a cop GRABS you... accosts you and throws in jail... by what authority does he have that right??

Some would say... well, the state gave him that authority... and... who gave the state the authority?? The govt? Who gave them the authority? All authority is that which is self given. Which is what "sovereign" means. Authority. Words have serious implications here brothers and sisters.
Title: Re: CONTRACTING
Post by: cerealbox on April 27, 2012, 08:49 pm
See kids, this is what happens when you do too much drugs.