[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51181#msg51181 date=1300825340]
Aside from all this, why would you be supporting a felon with a stolen gun?
[/quote]
I am not supporting the police in this case.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-05/justice/texas.police.seizures_1_police-officer-highway-robbery-personal-property
I hear they're going to paint Jolly Rogers on the cruisers, next…
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51180#msg51180 date=1300825283]
[quote author=mackler link=topic=4846.msg51175#msg51175 date=1300824219]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51160#msg51160 d[quote author=mackler link=topic=4846.msg51131#msg51131 date=1300649058]
The way it works is that you temporarily stop a predetermined vehicle, be it the 3rd, 6th, or 10th vehicle. Those vehicles with blatant violations get stopped regardless of their place in line. The stopped vehicles get nothing more than a document check unless there is something else, ie. odor of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana in the vehicle.
[/quote]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51132#msg51132 date=1300666251]
Your attitude plays a huge role in how you are treated.
[/quote]
So don't worry, you won't get anything more than a document check unless he doesn't like your "attitude."
[/quote]
So you better put on a smiley face.
[/quote]
The Upton Sinclair quote is appropriate:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51181#msg51181 date=1300825340]
Aside from all this, why would you be supporting a felon with a stolen gun?
[/quote]
The question isn't why would I support a felon with a stolen gun, but why did the felon have to resort to a stolen gun in the first place? Why couldn't the felon own a gun, if he was no longer 'serving time', assuming his 'debt to society' was paid of course.
A felon who has 'served his time' and paid his 'debt to society' ought to have all of his rights restored, including the right to own and possess a firearm. I know, sounds like crazy talk to you, because gods forbid a man who needs a firearm to protect himself shouldn't be allowed to protect himself because of some crime he was convicted of, 'served his time', 'paid his debt to society', because of the off chance that he'd use the firearm to commit another crime. Personally, I'd love to see him try to use a firearm to commit a crime, then he'd be put where violent people need to be put, not in a cage, stealing from people everyday he is there by way of government extortion, but in the ground where the Bible says he ought to be. 'Those who live by the [gun], die by the [gun].'
Of course this whole 'game' perpetrated on people who lack the very 'services' that they 'pay' for, work to defend themselves against people who are actually violent, and then are made to be the criminal. Every cop who's been shot, has been so because of the previous encounters that that individual faced with his relations to law enforcement. It is assumed, rightly so, that if in the past a LEO has been violent toward them, that is actually initiated force against him/her, that every other LEO will continue to do the same. It is the initiation of force by LEO's that puts them in to harms way, every single time.
I'd rather see LEO's trained to use psychology to 'disarm' a suspect, rather then resort to violence. That is of course hard to do when the very people that the various LEA's seeks are those who have, in relation to their job description, a very low education in the first place. Seems to me that if you want LAW ENFORCERS, they ought to know a little bit about law, at least half as much as a lawyer knows. So they can better understand what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. For example, knowing the difference between a real crime and 'legal crime', and along with the understanding that attempting to enforce a 'legal crime' is itself a real crime. Knowing the difference between Law and 'statutory law', and that enforcing the latter is a crime and not enforcing the former is also a crime.
Having the ability to use logic and reason is a must. Assuming that because one is taught that this 'government' is 'of the people, for the people, by the people' that it must be true when the reality of the situation is that this 'government' is nothing more then a master/slave relationship, with the slaves having no real power. Sure, people are taught, 'if you don't like the system, change the system' however these are mindless automatons who lack any real ability to think for themselves and actually sit down and mathematically work the problem. You can't change the system if you can't get elected, that is become a master. Even if you can get elected, you need to draft a bill, get 50 percent plus 1 of the committee to move the bill toward a vote. Voting on the bill isn't enough either because, usually, you need the support of 50 percent plus 1 of the other masters to create change. Even if you get the bill voted and approved, you still need the signature of the Chief Executive, who can decide not to support it and then veto it. If he does that then now you have to get upwards of 3/4's of the other masters in congress to approve the bill and override his veto, then it becomes 'law'.
As proof that such a system is, at the very least ineffective, look to the issue of slavery. By every reasonable man today, slavery is immoral, unlawful, and illegal. By the US Constitution, as written, every one had the same rights, slave and master alike. Granted that for districting purposes a black man was 4/5's a white man, for a time. It wasn't enough that the US Constitution wasn't being applied to blacks and women as written, an amendment, purported to end slavery when in actuality it now made everyone a slave, to 'free the slaves' was passed. That still wasn't enough, because it took another 100 years before a black man could see anything near equality to a white man. Why did it take 60 years to 'end slavery', and another 100 years for blacks to achieve 'equality'? Yep, its that very system that people so highly hold as the 'best system in the world', never you mind that its immoral at its base by subjugating the minority opinion to the majority opinion. Even when the majority opinion is itself immoral and unlawful.
Anyone with half a brain can see logically that there exists no 'representative form of government'. Can one man really represent more then one side of any opinion. No, that's crazy, and you are crazy if you believe so. If one man can't represent more then one side of any opinion, how can he really be said to represent more then one person at a time since he can only hold one side of a position of an opinion at a time. If he can only hold one side of an opinion at a time, is he really representing those who hold the other side of that opinion? No, he can't. So to say that there is 'representative government' is a falsehood. In fact, it is more over the opinion of the representative that counts rather then the opinion of those he so-called represents. Case in point, "Obamacare". Polls, even democratic leaning polls showed no majority level of support for it, but those who 'represent' everyone voted for it anyhow.
If you wish to be cognitively dissonant and ignore the logic that says that no man can truly represent anyone but himself all the time and instead focus on 'the majority rules the minority', logically this is, as the NH Constitution puts it, '…is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.' So, the very same system that brought you slavery because the majority willed it, will allow for all kinds of immoral and destructive ends. If you believe, logically, the wants of the many outweigh the needs of the few, then you have to logically agree that every evil and immoral thing that the majority agrees upon is instead moral, good, and just. This includes slavery, genocide, rape, murder, and every other evil and immoral thing that 'government' does. If you hold the opinion that 'majority rules', then you too are immoral and evil person. A good and moral purpose does whatever they can, within their moral code, to stop immoral and evil things from happening, even when those things are 'legal', 'just', and 'right'.
cyberdoo78,
great stuff in your last post, I think that we are kindred spirits
might I add that most "legal crimes" are nothing more than excuses to collect revenue, as most of these "legal crimes" are not actual crimes, it could be argued that using "legal crimes" as a means to part people from their property is a crime in and of itself
and yes I do recognize the extenuating circumstance that most people have signed a contract agreeing to go along with these "legal crimes", but even that has been done through constructive fraud (a nice way of saying, "deceived") which is immoral, just plain wrong and as far as I am concerned is another actual crime
I wonder how would OhCrapItsTheCops react to a "state Citizen" telling him that he has no jurisdiction over him?
Indeed does OhCrapItsTheCops even know the difference between a "US citizen" and a "state Citizen"?
chime in OhCrapItsTheCops, I am very interested in your response, because for all the ramblings on all the differient subjects here, not that those subjects are not without merit, but the two questions above I believe are at the very root of what is wrong in America today
[quote author=cerberil link=topic=4846.msg51236#msg51236 date=1300909823]
I wonder how would OhCrapItsTheCops react to a "state Citizen" telling him that he has no jurisdiction over him?
[/quote]
I think he already answered that question. He would use "appropriate force" based on his victim having a bad "attitude."
Mackler,
give the man a chance to answer the questions
if he truly does not understand the difference between a US citizen and a state Citizen, then his use of "appropriate force" is somewhat excusable, we must exercises some compassion for the ignorant as we have all have been and continue to be ignorant in some capacity
though I find it deplorable that a "law enforcement" person would be ignorant of this information as I would think it vital to the proper performance of his duties, but the current system keeps this from all of us as part of its' control mechanism
now if he does understand the difference and uses "appropriate force" against state Citizens he is not much more than a criminal himself, as far as the use of "appropriate force" against US/federal/14th amendment/District of Columbia citizens goes, I can only say that they signed up for it, so they should live with the consequences
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=4846.msg51227#msg51227 date=1300897333]
The question isn't why would I support a felon with a stolen gun, but why did the felon have to resort to a stolen gun in the first place? Why couldn't the felon own a gun, if he was no longer 'serving time', assuming his 'debt to society' was paid of course.
A felon who has 'served his time' and paid his 'debt to society' ought to have all of his rights restored, including the right to own and possess a firearm. I know, sounds like crazy talk to you, because gods forbid a man who needs a firearm to protect himself shouldn't be allowed to protect himself because of some crime he was convicted of, 'served his time', 'paid his debt to society', because of the off chance that he'd use the firearm to commit another crime. Personally, I'd love to see him try to use a firearm to commit a crime, then he'd be put where violent people need to be put, not in a cage, stealing from people everyday he is there by way of government extortion, but in the ground where the Bible says he ought to be. 'Those who live by the [gun], die by the [gun].' [/quote]
Uh, no. Do you research ANY of what you post? The rearrest rate for violent US offenders was 61.7% in 1994. Then you put on your Rambo voice and quote a ridiculous text claiming death for all offenders. Cute…
[quote]
Of course this whole 'game' perpetrated on people who lack the very 'services' that they 'pay' for, work to defend themselves against people who are actually violent, and then are made to be the criminal. Every cop who's been shot, has been so because of the previous encounters that that individual faced with his relations to law enforcement. It is assumed, rightly so, that if in the past a LEO has been violent toward them, that is actually initiated force against him/her, that every other LEO will continue to do the same. It is the initiation of force by LEO's that puts them in to harms way, every single time. [/quote]
Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously? That is a bold statement from some pissant that never worked a day on the street, nor has any clue about society in general. I guess all people are angels until they run into the police- then they turn into some sociopath that wants to gun all the cops down? Are you fucking insane?
[quote]I'd rather see LEO's trained to use psychology to 'disarm' a suspect, rather then resort to violence. That is of course hard to do when the very people that the various LEA's seeks are those who have, in relation to their job description, a very low education in the first place. Seems to me that if you want LAW ENFORCERS, they ought to know a little bit about law, at least half as much as a lawyer knows. So they can better understand what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. For example, knowing the difference between a real crime and 'legal crime', and along with the understanding that attempting to enforce a 'legal crime' is itself a real crime. Knowing the difference between Law and 'statutory law', and that enforcing the latter is a crime and not enforcing the former is also a crime. [/quote]
MORE inane nonsense. So the guy that just got done stabbing his wife is REALLY going to consider reason? You want me to 'talk the guy down?' Jesus, how fucking old are you, and what shit are you smoking- because I need some of it. Maybe in your fantasy land cops can talk people off the ledge 100% of the time, but in reality shit happens in milliseconds and there's often no time to talk. I especially love the idea of talking when some guy wants to blow your goddamn head off, and you want to know about how his inner child is feeling at that moment.
[quote]
Having the ability to use logic and reason is a must. Assuming that because one is taught that this 'government' is 'of the people, for the people, by the people' that it must be true when the reality of the situation is that this 'government' is nothing more then a master/slave relationship, with the slaves having no real power. Sure, people are taught, 'if you don't like the system, change the system' however these are mindless automatons who lack any real ability to think for themselves and actually sit down and mathematically work the problem. You can't change the system if you can't get elected, that is become a master. Even if you can get elected, you need to draft a bill, get 50 percent plus 1 of the committee to move the bill toward a vote. Voting on the bill isn't enough either because, usually, you need the support of 50 percent plus 1 of the other masters to create change. Even if you get the bill voted and approved, you still need the signature of the Chief Executive, who can decide not to support it and then veto it. If he does that then now you have to get upwards of 3/4's of the other masters in congress to approve the bill and override his veto, then it becomes 'law'. [/quote]
You're some kind of activist right? CHANGE it.
[quote]
As proof that such a system is, at the very least ineffective, look to the issue of slavery. By every reasonable man today, slavery is immoral, unlawful, and illegal. By the US Constitution, as written, every one had the same rights, slave and master alike. Granted that for districting purposes a black man was 4/5's a white man, for a time. It wasn't enough that the US Constitution wasn't being applied to blacks and women as written, an amendment, purported to end slavery when in actuality it now made everyone a slave, to 'free the slaves' was passed. That still wasn't enough, because it took another 100 years before a black man could see anything near equality to a white man. Why did it take 60 years to 'end slavery', and another 100 years for blacks to achieve 'equality'? Yep, its that very system that people so highly hold as the 'best system in the world', never you mind that its immoral at its base by subjugating the minority opinion to the majority opinion. Even when the majority opinion is itself immoral and unlawful. [/quote]
Clearly THIS is also the fault of the police. Nice stretch.
[quote]
Anyone with half a brain can see logically that there exists no 'representative form of government'. Can one man really represent more then one side of any opinion. No, that's crazy, and you are crazy if you believe so. If one man can't represent more then one side of any opinion, how can he really be said to represent more then one person at a time since he can only hold one side of a position of an opinion at a time. If he can only hold one side of an opinion at a time, is he really representing those who hold the other side of that opinion? No, he can't. So to say that there is 'representative government' is a falsehood. In fact, it is more over the opinion of the representative that counts rather then the opinion of those he so-called represents. Case in point, "Obamacare". Polls, even democratic leaning polls showed no majority level of support for it, but those who 'represent' everyone voted for it anyhow. [/quote]
Never said I agreed that representatives actually represent us. What I DID say was that you should get elected or back someone who can in order to have your voice heard.
[quote author=cerberil link=topic=4846.msg51236#msg51236 date=1300909823]
cyberdoo78,
great stuff in your last post, I think that we are kindred spirits
might I add that most "legal crimes" are nothing more than excuses to collect revenue, as most of these "legal crimes" are not actual crimes, it could be argued that using "legal crimes" as a means to part people from their property is a crime in and of itself
and yes I do recognize the extenuating circumstance that most people have signed a contract agreeing to go along with these "legal crimes", but even that has been done through constructive fraud (a nice way of saying, "deceived") which is immoral, just plain wrong and as far as I am concerned is another actual crime
I wonder how would OhCrapItsTheCops react to a "state Citizen" telling him that he has no jurisdiction over him?
Indeed does OhCrapItsTheCops even know the difference between a "US citizen" and a "state Citizen"?
chime in OhCrapItsTheCops, I am very interested in your response, because for all the ramblings on all the differient subjects here, not that those subjects are not without merit, but the two questions above I believe are at the very root of what is wrong in America today
[/quote]
I'm assuming your idea of a 'state' citizen means they think they are sovereign and feel they aren't bound by any of the rules of the land they are currently in?
If that's the case, I will not recognize your 'state' citizenship if you do something illegal in front of me, and just let you off because you thinks it's ok to do whatever you want. If you are on public property, you need to follow the rules. If I try to pull you over for breaking a rule, you need to pull over. If you don't, I'm not going to take the time to listen to your dissertation on how you aren't bound by these rules, you are going to get locked up or ticketed accordingly. If you feel you are a 'state' citizen, then go make your own state. When I come to your land, I'll follow your rules. When you come to my land, you follow mine.
Mackler ranting about how I said it was 'my land' in 3…2…1…
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51245#msg51245 date=1300928979][quote]Of course this whole 'game' perpetrated on people who lack the very 'services' that they 'pay' for, work to defend themselves against people who are actually violent, and then are made to be the criminal. Every cop who's been shot, has been so because of the previous encounters that that individual faced with his relations to law enforcement. It is assumed, rightly so, that if in the past a LEO has been violent toward them, that is actually initiated force against him/her, that every other LEO will continue to do the same. It is the initiation of force by LEO's that puts them in to harms way, every single time.[/quote] Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously? That is a bold statement from some pissant that never worked a day on the street, nor has any clue about society in general. I guess all people are angels until they run into the police- then they turn into some sociopath that wants to gun all the cops down? Are you fucking insane?[/quote]
Um, no, that's not the point.
Because of how you behave, the know that cops are dangerous, armed sociopaths who want nothing more than to attack them and violate their human rights.
Responding with defensive force to your attack does not make them sociopaths. That actually makes them sane.
Now, an individual who doesn't feel bound by concepts of "right" and "wrong" is a textbook sociopath. Doesn't matter if your dog tells you to do it, or the voices coming from your fillings, or some man in a dress - if you believe that someone can tell you to do something wrong, and it magically becomes right because of who told you, then you are a textbook sociopath.
Joe
^^^ I have to agree with Maine Shark. I think that last paragraph speaks volumes.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51246#msg51246 date=1300929537]
When I come to your land, I'll follow your rules. When you come to my land, you follow mine.
[/quote]
Sounds good to me.
OhCrapItsTheCops,
I am not an advocate of people using the political status of "state Citizen" to go about willy nilly disrupting society for the sake of being able to do it, I am advocating people take back their proper political status as a way to return this land to a constitutional republic instead of the legislative democracy that it currently is (both currently exist simultaneously with the legislative democracy falling into disuse because of the programed ignorance of the majority of the population)
btw I do not claim to be sovereign, I know most do not differentiate sovereigns from state Citizens, sovereigns do not align themselves with anyone or anything, I think that is wrong, I am willing to give allegiance to a proper government and the US corporation is not a proper government for me, as a matter of fact it can be argued that it is not a government at all, but a business arrangement and US citizens have no stake in this business, instead US citizens are the property of this business, do you like being a piece of property?
now that you have arrested or ticketed the state Citizen, which court will you bring the state Citizen to? will it be a article 3 court operating under the constitution of 1789 or will the venue be dispensing territorial, municipal public policy under the act of 1871?
as for being on your land, it is not a question of being on the land, but a question of what political body are you or I a member of, you took an oath to uphold the constitution, the 13th amendment forbids involuntary servitude, I am not a member of the US corporation, would you attempt to bring me into this corporation against my will, for you to do so would be breaking your oath and an attempt to enslave me (for proof that US citizens are in a condition of servitude, read the 4th section of the 14th amendment) yes if you claim to be a US citizen you are a slave, now say yowsa boss
I have no qualms with you doing your duty, I believe that society needs a way of protecting its' Citizens and citizens from real crime not the bs revenue collecting that most policy enforcers are currently engaged in, my beef lies in what those duties are
[quote author=cerberil link=topic=4846.msg51256#msg51256 date=1300964350]
OhCrapItsTheCops,
I am not an advocate of people using the political status of "state Citizen" to go about willy nilly disrupting society for the sake of being able to do it, I am advocating people take back their proper political status as a way to return this land to a constitutional republic instead of the legislative democracy that it currently is (both currently exist simultaneously with the legislative democracy falling into disuse because of the programed ignorance of the majority of the population)
btw I do not claim to be sovereign, I know most do not differentiate sovereigns from state Citizens, sovereigns do not align themselves with anyone or anything, I think that is wrong, I am willing to give allegiance to a proper government and the US corporation is not a proper government for me, as a matter of fact it can be argued that it is not a government at all, but a business arrangement and US citizens have no stake in this business, instead US citizens are the property of this business, do you like being a piece of property?
now that you have arrested or ticketed the state Citizen, which court will you bring the state Citizen to? will it be a article 3 court operating under the constitution of 1789 or will the venue be dispensing territorial, municipal public policy under the act of 1871?
as for being on your land, it is not a question of being on the land, but a question of what political body are you or I a member of, you took an oath to uphold the constitution, the 13th amendment forbids involuntary servitude, I am not a member of the US corporation, would you attempt to bring me into this corporation against my will, for you to do so would be breaking your oath and an attempt to enslave me (for proof that US citizens are in a condition of servitude, read the 4th section of the 14th amendment) yes if you claim to be a US citizen you are a slave, now say yowsa boss
I have no qualms with you doing your duty, I believe that society needs a way of protecting its' Citizens and citizens from real crime not the bs revenue collecting that most policy enforcers are currently engaged in, my beef lies in what those duties are
[/quote]
I like this post, and agree with the majority of it. You make a good point that even the Constitution itself seems hypocritical, which I'd not thought of before. But in order to believe that, you need to believe that the US is in fact a business and you are the property, which I fully believe on one end, but doubt at the same time. Where I fully believe this is the case is with the draft. You MUST go to war or get put in jail. That's slavery.
On the other end, you have freedom to do what you want (within the constraint of the law), come and go as you please, and actually be part of or control the business itself. Even on it's lowest levels of local elections, you have the opportunity to change or control the business. If you have this opportunity, you are not fulfilling the definition of slave.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51257#msg51257 date=1300967226]On the other end, you have freedom to do what you want (within the constraint of the law), come and go as you please, and actually be part of or control the business itself. Even on it's lowest levels of local elections, you have the opportunity to change or control the business. If you have this opportunity, you are not fulfilling the definition of slave.[/quote]
If massah lets you go to town for supplies, occasionally, and gives you five minutes of "free time" to do whatever you like, and lets you choose whether you get caned or flogged, then you're not a slave! :roll:
Joe
OhCrapItsTheCops,
even if you argue against the current defacto "government" not being a business, according to the clearfield doctrine any government that deals in commercial notes sinks to the level of an ordinary business and must follow the law that all businesses operate under, that would be the law of contracts, federal reserve notes are commercial notes
so any so called court operating under this so called "government" has to be willing to present said contracts showing that they have secured the right to demand said performance of a person, now this person has to have entered into this contract knowingly, willingly, intentionally having been given full disclosure as to the consequences, without this the contract is null and void ab initio
now, when were you ever educated as to the difference between a state Citizen and a US/federal/14th amendment/District of Columbia citizen? if you do not know the difference then you never had full disclosure, we are all born sovereign and if we are truly free then we can choose to stay that way as long as we do not encroach upon others God given rights, I however as stated before I believe in a proper government to help preserve and protect my God given rights and to such a government I give my allegiance
to clarify my last point, we will use the boy scouts as an example, when a baby boy is born, he is not obligated to be a boy scout, he has to come of age and go down to the scout master and volunteer in knowingly, willingly and intentionally to be born free means to be born without any constraints from anyone or anything
The fourteenth amendment is full of s**t, it is just that nobody really takes a good look at it, part of it states that a US citizen is born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the US, now I have already established that US citizens are in a condition of servitude, so as a US citizen you are born into a condition of servitude, I say bs
also pay attention to the way that subject is used as a verb instead of a noun to slip it past the inattentive, the writers knew that to use subject as a noun would have been a dead give away, but I say that to be subject to something or someone is to be that someone or somethings' subject, I am nobodies' subject
bottom line is that as a free man I get to choose my political and legal relationships, US citizenship is actually more of a legal relationship than it is political and I want nothing from the US corporation as its' main mode of operation is DECEIT
this deceit has been carried out so successfully through the misseducation system , media and various other institutions to such an extent that the proper government has all but disappeared
notice how everytime that you intact with the US corporation they always ask if you are a US citizen, they do that to establish jurisdiction, of course most being ignorant of state Citizenship say that they are a US citizen (my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge)
I think the logjam I am having with you is that we are talking about two different things. Your right to claim citizenship is not what we are disputing. You have that right, and you can claim you are from Mars if you want.
The problem is that when you are on someone else's land, your claim of sovereignty does not hold up in regard to local laws, but you seem to think it exempts you from those laws. Whether or not you think those laws are fair is moot because you choose to live where the these laws are in place.
Then of course we need to figure out who 'owns' what land, and who you need to listen to. By default, the government corporation owns all the land. Although WE supposedly run the government, WE don't own the land personally. How this is able to exist is anyone's guess, but I assume it's based upon the premise that WE still own the land vicariously through our representatives in government. We know this is not the case in real life, since the representatives don't listen to us, but in theory it's all roses.
Is it fair to any of us? Sometimes yes, most times no. Talking out of both sides of my mouth? Maybe, but my views on corrupt government vs law meant for the greater good are two completely separate things, even though the corrupt government MAKES those laws. There is a tangible disconnect between what I view is right in politics vs what's right in real life.
"Misguided and misdirected anger, we're not ALL bad"
I haven't been following this thread, but I just want to chime in quickly and say that I don't believe all cops are bad. I think there are exceptions. It's just challenging not to be in that environment.
OhCrapItsTheCops,
apparently, I am failing to present this in such a way that you understand me, hell I may be confusing everybody reading this thread, I hope not, I will attempt to clarify
you keep mentioning the land, that is fine, the land is real, it has substance, it can be felt, tasted, smelled among other things, it has natural laws attached to it that most humans cannot avoid, running of a cliff is going to hurt, these are Gods' laws
now when we get around to talking about governments or so called governments, we are talking about an artificial creation, made up in the minds of men, this is where you are having a difficult time understanding me
we are in fact talking about two different artificial creations, we are talking about the original united states of America government created by the articles of confederation in 1781 (to later come under the constitution of 1789) and the UNITED STATES corporation created by the act of 1871, the original united states of America operated under public law, the UNITED STATES corporation operates under public policy
this may be the first time that you have ever been exposed to this information which is why you are having difficulty grasping it, we have the UNITED STATES corporation strangle hold over the misseducation system to blame for that
basically I am saying that my allegiance is to the original united states of America and not the UNITED STATES corporation, the original united states of America is still here waiting for state Citizens to resurrect it
if this not clear enough, perhaps you need to contact a Richard McDonald, he was a former policy enforcer for the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and found out about the wool that had been pulled over his eyes and become the systems worst nightmare (a former enforcer that found out the truth) I believe is current telephone number is 818-703-5037
[quote author=cerberil link=topic=4846.msg51265#msg51265 date=1300985591]
…and the UNITED STATES corporation created by the act of 1871…
[/quote]
What is this mythical "act of 1871" you keep imagining exists?
Please post a link to it or stop pretending it's real. Thank you.