I will interact with the UCC. I guess I am right now whether I like it or not, but do I have to pay 180usd to file something? I don't know, I'm listening.
This was in Bali, where they had a deep knowledge of the exopolitical situation, and the ongoing disputes. Have you ever heard this time being called the war of contracts?Indonesia is a muslim country, albeit more moderate than some. Just examine that faith a little bit and you should be very weary about religion in general.
Ciauzar (18th June 2015)
So I am sitting in the grey area between legality and magic. As soon as you write something, infinity responds.The biggest issue is always enforcing, as I say earlier. So the question still comes up, does such a legal maneuver actually matter? What do we actually want to do?
We are accustomed to thinking in terms of dismantling in 3D, but I want to expedite the dissolving process. Something is losing it's grip, we can all feel it. Something is fading away.
We want to write a new contract between humans (or at least myself) and the universe, and void all implied contracts. Then file it somewhere, somehow, probably quietly and without fanfare. I have enough background knowledge to know that these contracts are viewed by many civilizations. The occupiers, "They" can walk around acting normal if they want, but they know they are losing their energy.
I won't go round making dramas with judges or making a movement. I will just write the document and maybe put up a poll to ratify it.
*
Next week, if time permits, will write my document in layman's language, and maybe someone can help me make it stronger and tighter.
Ciauzar (18th June 2015)
War of contracts. That is an interesting term, the patent wars with apple and samsung going nuclear, has been by and large diffused by the courts.
I have come to understand justice as being a force to maintain the status-quo, not a means of fairness. In that sense, there really is no war.
Do you know how negative averment differs from a normal statement? My affidavits normally make declarations in this later form. To give an example, you can claim:
I am a sovereign human being with free will;
or you can make the same claim in the form that merely establishes the presumption thereof:
There is no evidence that I am not a sovereign human being with free will, and I believe no such evidence exists;
The interesting part of establishing presumptions is that if anyone wishes to challenge the statement, and they may, with the negative averment wording the challenger, hopefully a civil individual, will have the burden of proof required in overcoming the presumption, whereas normally the claimant has this burden. It is called reversing the onus probandi.
You can write an affidavit, or statement of truth, in such terms to establish any presumption you want.
I think it certainly is used as a foundation by which the contracts and transactions are based. At this point though, there is so much fraud and corruption going on, that perhaps it is used only for the sake of appearances. Courts can't even seem to be able to follow the law they are entrusted to uphold. As you can probably tell, I actually have almost no faith in the powers that be.Originally posted by Contact Point
One can not be a citizen and free at the same time. One can not serve two masters. There's no such thing as a free citizen. A citizen is considered the lowest of lifeforms (Blacks Law Dictionary). I've been studying the law for almost two years and here's my interpretation. There are two forms of law. One is an illusion, the other while suppressed is still recognized and still has teeth.
#1 Man's Laws: Statutory Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Corporate law. They're not laws. This is the illusionary law that currently governs most of the globe Codes, statutes and acts are not laws. We get our rights from the Creator/Universe/God/ and the government(s) gets its rights from us (consent of the governed). Jurisdiction and authority is an illusion. It doesn't exists. It's a legal fiction. Those in power know this and they don't want the masses to know this. This form of law is keeping us as slaves. This form of law is purposely made to be complicated and confuse. This form of law is nu-natural, fraudulent and unenforceable unless consent is given. I'll get back to this.
#2 Universal Law/ Common Law/ Gods Law/ Natural Law: All the same. Under this law, everyone is equal. There's no hiding behind statutes of immunity from prosecution. Another words, if you are assaulted by a police officer he/she will not be immune from being prosecuted. Under this form of law, a crime must have been committed to be enforced. There must be a victim. A crime is causing harm or loss to another with intent. Under this law, driving without a license, possession of natural healing plants is legal and thus can not be prosecuted. While this form of law has been suppressed, it is still used and still has teeth.
Now for the infuriating part.
Our justice system and government has been *******ized beyond recognition. It is a for-profit corporation that has a vested interest in your conviction. It uses violence, fear and intimidation to extort money from the uneducated masses under the guise of protection. Does this sound like the mafia? Well, it might as well be because it surely is a criminal racket.
That man or woman sitting on the bench will swear to you under oath that he/she is a fair and impartial judge. That is a bold-faced lie. He/she supposedly takes a constitutional oath each day and yet has the gall to sit in that chair and enforce non-laws upon the public. The state/corporation pays the police, the prosecutor, the judge, the public defending-attorney and even the jury (if there is one). Does this sound fair or impartial? It is a direct conflict of interest. If you think you're assured of a fair trial because you hired and attorney, think again because he/she belongs to the same union as the judge and it's called the BAR Association. The fake court uses a *******ized/fraudulent form of English called legalese. It changes and twist the meanings of common words in order to confuse. You can easily recognize the fake court by the Red, White & Blue US War Flag hanging in the room with gold trim.
No one can be free or sovereign unless they educate themselves enough to defend themselves from these parasites. I can walk out of any court room in minutes because I know enough about the real law to protect myself. Contrary to what we have been taught or brainwashed to believe, you do not need the governments permission (getting a license) unless you're going to do something illegal. Illegal is anything that goes against nature. Buying and selling with money is considered illegal in because it is unnatural. Memorize the following words as it will help defend you from the Black Robe Mafia. Take time to study our founding documents. Knowledge protects and ignorance endangers.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ---Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." ---Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." ---Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." ---16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
If you don't want to play the game, then don't play their game. You don't need to file any of their BS paperwork (pleas to dismiss, UCC, etc). Don't give them legitimacy by playing their game. As long as I have not committed a crime, I can walk out of any court room in minutes because I have educated myself enough to protect myself from the parasites that rules over us. If you don't want to be governed it is as easy as saying no. Example: When I am summoned to a fake court, I show up to keep from being locked in a cage. When the bailiff enters the room and orders everyone to "rise", I remain seated. If he/she threatens me in any way, I politely remind them of their oath and threaten to sue them under common law for assault if they lay hands upon my body. They will back off. When the fake judge enters the room and wants to know what is going on, I simply tell him/her they have no jurisdiction or authority over me and to have a nice day. I then walk out. When you "rise", you just gave the fake court legitimacy and you gave them power over you. Please don't take what I am saying as legal advise. Study the law for yourself and make up your own conclusions. I know what works for me.
I'm running out of time. I have to get ready for work. I will edit this later to provide some educational links.
Chester (19th June 2015), johnjen325 (19th June 2015)
Very true, indeed. Although consider, you may serve more than one master if one of them is an agent for the other. IE if their interests are aligned.
I am with you until this part. The term crime as used in modern day is a declension from what the term original meant. These days administrative oversights or errors can be classified as a crime, and indeed so can almost any action that is not compliant with demands made by those who claim to enforce the law at least in the United States.
In the most basic sense, law basically means contract. If you wish to go into the details of how and why, we can, but I suggest we first decide if we need a new thread for it. The synopsis is based on a presumption that the followers of an open and transparent system of law all agree to follow it. I suggest that the term "secret law" is an oxymoron for that reason.
The reason contract is important is simply because of what it means in accordance to your aforementioned Universal Law. It is the meeting of minds concerning an exchange of consideration. The abstract nature of that idea is innate to the definition of the term and make no mistake about it, it defines the very nature of social behavior whether corrupt or pure. And its from that sense that no signed paper is actually required for contract to exist. Read my comment on page 2 regarding memorializations thereof.
In the exchanges of ideas I have on this thread, the nature of law or contract is separate from the system whether corrupt or pure, it is merely a tool by which the system creates order within itself. It is common knowledge, I presume, between all of us that read this thread that systems are not innately good or bad, they are like the pie crust that is filled with the goodness that is innate in the ingredients used to fill the pie. Much like economic systems we know of as capitalism and communism, they are in and of themselves devoid of character but they take up the character we perceive as a result of actions taken by people who participate in the system. Law, contract, courts and law enforcement are no different at all.
In that sense, for us to attempt to tarnish the image or nature of the system with unsubstantiated statements is actually off-topic here. Perhaps the Contact Point can better help you understand what his intentions where when he opened the thread with a model of a Declaration.
I welcome comments related to aspects of the system that should be contemplated for the purpose of choosing a strategy, language, or viewpoint to fix what may be suboptimal or broken. I prefer constructive ideas and questions rather than what can only otherwise be described as polarizing "hate" speech.
I will ask, if you might be willing to oblige, to put up a link to Blacks Law published before 1933. That would be a useful link. (mods please advise if linking should be done in a certain way).
Chester (19th June 2015), johnjen325 (19th June 2015)
I agree. Perhaps this should have been created with another topic. Mods, if it's not too much to ask or too much work, could you please move my above comment to a new topic? If not, no biggie. I'll copy & paste it to a new topic and just refer my thread to the new topic. I need to edit and add to it anyway. Either way will work.
Thank you and blessings to all.
Chester (19th June 2015)
Hugh, let's leave your comment where it is; you raise interesting views about the two types of law that is very good to consider here. Just create a new thread with an opening remark building on the new off-topic issue where you see fit.
Chester (19th June 2015)
Opinion only - in 3D...
One cannot exist in the material realm and not at times compromise.
I hope the new thread gets made.
Last edited by Chester, 19th June 2015 at 18:30.
lcam88 (19th June 2015)
This stuck out…
With my added emphasis upon "exchange of consideration."
So just what constitutes "consideration"?
What are the limits or comprises the extent of the factors, that make up "consideration"?
HMMmmmmmmmmm…
JJ
Last edited by johnjen325, 19th June 2015 at 23:04.
It goes beyond that. I'm talking about the war of contracts over Earth, the legal status of humanity. The reversal or negation of our implied contracts, and all who think they are our owners.War of contracts. That is an interesting term, the patent wars with apple and samsung going nuclear, has been by and large diffused by the courts.
I had played around with that before, but had no idea of the legal term. Yes, I see how powerful it is, and see how it could be a direct contract with infinity. The burden of proof goes on the opposing party. Very clever.Do you know how negative averment differs from a normal statement? My affidavits normally make declarations in this later form. To give an example, you can claim:
I am a sovereign human being with free will;
or you can make the same claim in the form that merely establishes the presumption thereof:
There is no evidence that I am not a sovereign human being with free will, and I believe no such evidence exists;
The interesting part of establishing presumptions is that if anyone wishes to challenge the statement, and they may, with the negative averment wording the challenger, hopefully a civil individual, will have the burden of proof required in overcoming the presumption, whereas normally the claimant has this burden. It is called reversing the onus probandi.
You can write an affidavit, or statement of truth, in such terms to establish any presumption you want.
*
What are we trying to do? I was thinking: If Frodo, Jupiter Jones, and John Connor spent a year in law school, what papers would they file as their final project? Those characters all represent energetic manoeuvres humanity has to perform. Frodo voids. Jupiter Jones writes a lien. John Connor? A novation, maybe?
Hugh, if you want to make a new thread: copy paste your comment, and delete it here.
Another idea. What is a court? Anyone can hold a citizens court. Can we hold an online citizens trial for major players on the dark team? If the don't rebut the judgement, I guess they stand unrebutted.
Enforcing it? That comes later. I am happy to play a small part in dissolving the current ruler's legitimacy right now.
johnsen235:
Consideration can by anything at all, monetary value,a good, service, the exchange of one monetary value for another (a 20 note for 2x10 notes) for example is an exchange of consideration. A consideration can be any tangible or intangible including peace of mind, knowledge, advice, favor or even promise.
In fact a 10 dollar note is actually a promise if you understand it's origins from the Federal Reserve Act and the UCC.
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties (the meeting of minds) concerning the exchange of consideration. Disagreement cannot be the foundation of a contract, but failure to manifest an opposition can construe an agreement given the right circumstances. Such a circumstance is called tacit acquiescence. The unspoken can in fact be in agreement simply because it is reasonable to presume that an individual acts responsibly for the ordeals that involve him. There are maxims that support this. Qui tacet consentire videtur. (He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.) http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml
All of that said, take a look on page 2 about what I say about memorializations of contract to understand why, in all actuality, contract also has space in Universal Law.
Contact Point:
Froto voids? you mean by taking an action to destroy the object of power?
I am not familiar with Jupiter Jones.
John Conner. hmmm It seems his greatest asset is his ability to reprogram machines. That is indeed a metaphor of novation.
The citizen court should be renamed (citizen from my first post here on your thread...). Universal Open Court is better. It would first be required the formation of a ship (vessel) and to establish the charter (purpose) and then nominate or elect the officers who take responsibility for the ship (vessel) who are establish as neutral if not for their efforts to navigate the sea of Commerce and Electronic forum that are the formation about which the vessel, its officers and its crew must contend for survival as well as the objective of their mission. I have 3 cent stamps (without the rectangular border that indicates the non-existence thereof in Admiralty) that we can sign to invoke universal postal code to our memorializations.
I think it behooves to research and establish the requisites as defined in Admiralty so that a claim to illegitimacy may be made more difficult.
And then, some aggrieved party may make a motion...
I think it a good idea, at least for educative purposes, to try and adhere to a code or rules of the court/evidence that are substantially similar to those found in courts of some worldly jurisdiction, perhaps as a US court, so that the experience can be educational as well.
And then we invite a representative, perhaps a senator or house member, to make the case for the US corporation in the venue. That invitation can include language that communicates our intention to utilize secondary option, a member here whom we nominate to represent the US case; they need only remain silent to express the quiescence to offered representation, our nominee...
Yes. In Earth terms, some people say the destruction of the One Ring is the act of destroying the collateral accounts. Other people say it's about healing the Saturn matrix.Contact Point:
Frodo voids? you mean by taking an action to destroy the object of power?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THVFkk-sEusI am not familiar with Jupiter Jones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLyk00gFPdQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQHKolIqBGs
Jupiter Ascending, Plot:
*At the beginning of the story, Earth's residents are unaware that the human species on Earth and countless other planets were established[17] by families of transhuman and alien royalty[18] for the purpose of later "harvesting" the resulting organisms to produce a type of youth serum for the elites on still other planets.[19] After the death of the matriarch of the House of Abrasax, the most powerful of the alien dynasties,[9] her children, Balem (Eddie Redmayne), Kalique (Tuppence Middleton), and Titus (Douglas Booth), quarrel over the inheritance, with Balem inheriting an enormous refinery on Jupiter and Titus declaring his intention to dismantle the youth serum trade, of which Earth is the next intended source. Protagonist Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) narrates that her father, Maximilian Jones (James D'Arcy), met her mother, Aleksa (Maria Doyle Kennedy), in Saint Petersburg. After Maximilian is killed in a robbery, Aleksa names their daughter Jupiter, after his dying wish, and they move to Chicago to live with Aleksa's family.
I agree with everything you said about citizens. You're right, it's just a habit I feel into.
Your setup for the court is brilliant, from the name to the invitation. I think it could all be done from a blogspot. What do you think? Would it have to be done public for it to be legitimate? We could also use a poll to ratify it at the end...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks