What is your take on capitis diminutio maxima & maritime law. Also, quote by Col. House.

[tommyrp12]

He addressed every single claim that was made (some of which are also trying to be made in this thread); in fact, I've never seen a set of arguments so thoroughly destroyed.

he thinks there is no such thing as verbal contracts or thinks we don't know what they are. he addresses multiple cases involving the same people . so bringing up the people who fail repeatedly is a weak representation of what he's trying to nip in the bud.not to mention it does not matter much what a judge believes, the laws is what matters and since they cant legislate , they can only rule on the right or the wrong side of it.

he also calls the courts jurisdiction inherent ? well the court or the jurisdiction did not create itself ,if it did its a argument equally without merit in facts, there is cause and effect not spontaneous legal systems that appear.

 

[PRB]

why couldn't he just give the kid a straight answer instead of luring him into actual court to get in personam jurisdiction. what would he need a ID for you think someone else is going to volunteer to show up for him especially if the person maybe even got a summons by mistake about a issue they don't know about I would think that people would just say they made a mistake and throw it away ,not show up on the date.

you lost me here, who showed up?

[edit:] He didn't lure him, a person smart enough to think he's a person who is a beneficiary of a trust would be smart enough not to walk into the courtroom if he thought that'd have made a difference (and there's no way he'd not know, given his wild conspiracy theories). he didn't need the person to show up in the room either, if you don't show up, you're at a great disadvantage, luckily even sovereign citizen conspiracy thoerists know this.

Getting a summons by mistake is never your fault, if you're not the person identified on paperwork, you're off the hook, but courts don't buy the "all caps is not my name" bullshit arguments. The person (conspiracy theorist) didn't throw it away probably because he wasn't stupid enough to show such contempt for the court, he was naive enough though,to think he can wing his way with his retarded conspiracy theories. So again, why did he show up? He must've known the court had SOME connection and jurisdiction over him, if any other private person wrote a summons, order, complaint or document claiming to have authority over another person (oh irony, that's exactly what sovereign citizens do), people ignore and laugh at it, there's nothing that can be done to enforce it. On the contrary, sovereign citizens think they can smart their way out of laws and jurisdictions, yet they walk the line that doesn't exist, always putting themselves in the position where they'd lose the argument (because facts are just not in their favor).

Sovereign citizens and conspiracy theorists DO have one thing right, that if a person sincerely and honestly believes he isn't the person asked to be at the court, or that he's mentally incapable of consenting to laws and jurisdictions, judges and juries are normally sympathetic to people who actually don't understand the system. But this is not catch 22, people who know they know the system and can manipulate it, don't qualify!

 

[tommyrp12]

sorry, the lawyer asked for his ID , who else would show up, what's the purpose of asking for that ? I'm thinking its to identify him with the all caps name, and the lawyer got antsy when he stated the obvious trusts cant drive cars and he asks why are you suing my trust then ? so either its a trust and it cant drive ,therefore theres nothing to sue ,that also does not already belong to the state , or the name and person are one in the same in which the lawyer could have just stated that and ended it there, not look nervous and shuffle him inside as quickly as possible to gain jurisdiction that way.

 

[Acala]

sorry, the lawyer asked for his ID , who else would show up, what's the purpose of asking for that ?

While anyone can represent themselves in court, only licensed attorneys may represent another person. So they were checking to make sure the individual at the bar was either the defendant or a licensed attorney representing the defendant.

 

[PRB]

sorry, the lawyer asked for his ID , who else would show up, what's the purpose of asking for that ?

Who is he? the person named on the documents? What's the purpose of asking for ID? to make sure the person is who he claims he is? I don't know.

I'm thinking its to identify him with the all caps name, and the lawyer got antsy when he stated the obvious trusts cant drive cars and he asks why are you suing my trust then ?

Yeah, to identify him with the name, all caps or not. Again, nobody claimed they are suing a trust, only he is. They are most likely suing a person, the person who claims he is "beneficiary of the trust".

so either its a trust and it cant drive ,therefore theres nothing to sue ,that also does not already belong to the state , or the name and person are one in the same in which the lawyer could have just stated that and ended it there

Yes, the name and the person are likely one in the same, the fact people don't always immediately react to nonsense and correct a person's gibberish does not mean they agree with his nonsense.

, not look nervous and shuffle him inside as quickly as possible to gain jurisdiction that way.

Oh, lawyers don't need to gain jurisdiction that way, he was probably saying "Come inside and see who gives a crap about your arguments" He had no reason to show up if he really believed the name wasn't him and there was no jurisdiction over him, there's no much another private citizen can do if you can't make a person show up in a court, so the fact this person shows up at all, means he recognizes the authority of the court and knows the powers of a court to throw contempt charges or otherwise harass him.

You can't sue a trust? then who and what can you sue? and how do you?

 

[PRB]

I watched the video again, cool, you got the lawyer saying "trusts can't drive a car" which is totally true, but he never admitted he was suing a trust, the conspiracy theorist is claiming that the all caps name is a trust account. the suit was intended to sue a person, most likely the person in this video.

Still though, it's not impossible in legal system to sue assets, forefeiture trials do exactly that "State vs $9000"

 

[tommyrp12]

you lost me here, who showed up?

[edit:] He didn't lure him, a person smart enough to think he's a person who is a beneficiary of a trust would be smart enough not to walk into the courtroom if he thought that'd have made a difference (and there's no way he'd not know, given his wild conspiracy theories). he didn't need the person to show up in the room either, if you don't show up, you're at a great disadvantage, luckily even sovereign citizen conspiracy thoerists know this.

well there's the police, you are right it might of scared him in to showing up theorist or not, but not for another person (completely different living person) with a different license, which was why I prompted the question why check they should know who they actually charge before hand, they do check licenses at the time of the interaction with LEO there should be no questions about it.


here is a interesting article, and accompanying video , I agree with the fellow in the video as to the trust/estate situation, but the remedy is where I differ, its there in trust law and private property (feudal system) , you simply have to own property then you would have allodial title then you are sovereign no master or servants and no debts.
since you have a estate you must claim it, then use it for your own enjoyment.

the united states/several states, land was never not the king of Brittans, the subjects were free, but the land/corporations (uses) in which the king owned remained as the kings and today in conservatorship by a foreign bank. the redemption in lawful money ,means you are not in that system and trust and that there are no maritime leins on your property(estate), and own your own property therefore you make your own rules.keeping the account zeroed is not needed just if that if you have money it is money (u.s. notes in the case of redemption) ,wealth, and not a debt, thats my comprehension.

Proverbs 11:1 , A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

they just have make their claim of life and survey, to be made public notice.

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

1666 CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2

IV

If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.

until then its soccage and ward for everyone with the presumption of the COLB and BC. its going to take a lot of reading on the subject to probably get what im saying but you shouldn't ignore it its there as far as I can tell.

here is a interesting video in which this is partially explained.

The New Frontier Discharge Reversionary Interest

Legal Tender Status
Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

 

[osan]

Judges are people. they are often very busy people. They can get annoyed and impatient, especially with minor offenders who represent themselves, take up tons of court time, and make no sense. They will sometimes just let someone go rather than deal with the headache. It is also possible that judges can be embarrassed by questions they can't understand. But I absolutely assure you there is no secret body of law that has judges terrified. If there was, Congress would simply change it. That's what Congress does.

Too simplistic and pat for my comfort. Granted, it could be the case, but it is as plausibly otherwise. Read my previous post about the characteristics law must have in order to have any meaning at all. Even Theye have to have a basis for operating or there is naught but chaos. Given this, they must then be bound by their own rules, but that does not mean that they cannot obfuscate the truer character of that which they have inherited. It is also not inconceivable that Theye hold something sacred, cynical pragmatists that many of us take them for; it may not be strictly so. In fact, I am confident that it is not the case. Screaming believers of every sort have been historically documented as being willing to do anything they deemed necessary to attain the objectives of their righteous visions for a proper world. But that sometimes accounts for only one side of their stories. Very often such people are bound by a sense of honor and obligation to the principles to which they subscribe. Otherwise, what are they but mere animals of a low form? Perhaps some are, but not all. I maintain with good certainty that even Theye are bound by something more than pure pragmatic whim, because without it they would not be able to trust even each other - those of their own kind. This is the trap into which even Theye fall - the price they pay to avoid living in chaos and suffering its nontrivially unpleasant consequences.

Therefore, I am not yet prepared to dismiss the issues here under consideration. I seenothing to lose by investigating thoroughly, come what may.

 

[PRB]

well there's the police, you are right it might of scared him in to showing up theorist or not, but not for another person (completely different living person) with a different license, which was why I prompted the question why check they should know who they actually charge before hand, they do check licenses at the time of the interaction with LEO there should be no questions about it.

Did he have a different license? Or is "different" what you call "all caps vs not all caps"? Typos happen too, but you don't get off the hook of most legal problems just because somebody made a typo, they can quickly correct it. The fact he claimed he was a beneficiary of the alleged trust account means the name wasn't spelled wrong, any other person COULD throw the paper away and wait for the court to issue an arrest warrant if it were indeed a totally wrong person. But he didn't, because he probably knew he couldn't pull off that bullshit argument.

 

[PRB]

here is a interesting article, and accompanying video , I agree with the fellow in the video

I'm not interested in videos, articles and conspiracy theories, let me know when you actually have an example of a person winning in court with these arguments.

Tax evasion? FAIL
Redemption account? FAIL
Right to travel without a license? FAIL
Avoiding registration and licensing fees? FAIL
"I'm a creditor not a debtor"? FAIL
"My name isn't in all caps, that's my strawman"? FAIL
False liens? FAIL
"All rights reserved under UCC"? FAIL
"That gold fringe flag means this court is invalid" FAIL
........the list goes on and on.
Let me know when somebody actually wins a case in court, I'll be waiting.

 

[tommyrp12]

I'm not interested in videos, articles and conspiracy theories, let me know when you actually have an example of a person winning in court with these arguments.

Tax evasion? FAIL
Redemption account? FAIL
Right to travel without a license? FAIL
Avoiding registration and licensing fees? FAIL
"I'm a creditor not a debtor"? FAIL
"My name isn't in all caps, that's my strawman"? FAIL
False liens? FAIL
"All rights reserved under UCC"? FAIL
"That gold fringe flag means this court is invalid" FAIL
........the list goes on and on.
Let me know when somebody actually wins a case in court, I'll be waiting.

uhhhh huh ? half those thing I didn't even say and the way you wrote them is not how they work or are understood by most people, are you even reading any of it or are you just going to watch from a distance. I have no problem if you are skeptical but at least read it.

im not going to post court cases that I don't have permission to post they contain often a lot of personal info ,with regards to taxes.

but to bolster support of one of my positions regarding the taxable obligation being voluntary here you go.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

EDIT! actually ,here is one I found from the link above

524 F.2d 629

Mobley M. MILAM, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1666.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 1974.

Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal.

 

[Acala]

Too simplistic and pat for my comfort. Granted, it could be the case, but it is as plausibly otherwise. Read my previous post about the characteristics law must have in order to have any meaning at all. Even Theye have to have a basis for operating or there is naught but chaos. Given this, they must then be bound by their own rules, but that does not mean that they cannot obfuscate the truer character of that which they have inherited. It is also not inconceivable that Theye hold something sacred, cynical pragmatists that many of us take them for; it may not be strictly so. In fact, I am confident that it is not the case. Screaming believers of every sort have been historically documented as being willing to do anything they deemed necessary to attain the objectives of their righteous visions for a proper world. But that sometimes accounts for only one side of their stories. Very often such people are bound by a sense of honor and obligation to the principles to which they subscribe. Otherwise, what are they but mere animals of a low form? Perhaps some are, but not all. I maintain with good certainty that even Theye are bound by something more than pure pragmatic whim, because without it they would not be able to trust even each other - those of their own kind. This is the trap into which even Theye fall - the price they pay to avoid living in chaos and suffering its nontrivially unpleasant consequences.

Therefore, I am not yet prepared to dismiss the issues here under consideration. I seenothing to lose by investigating thoroughly, come what may.

As you like. It matters not to me.

But for the viewers watching at home I'll say one more word and then let it rest.

I was a law clerk for a Federal district court judge for about a year and a half. During that time I read every brief in 50% of his entire civil docket (the other 50% going to my co-clerk). I researched all the statutory and case law cited, wrote memos summarizing all of it, discussed it all in detail with the judge, and then wrote up memos outlining his decision for him to use on the bench, and in some cases helped write his opinions when he felt like publishing one. Based on this experience I can tell you that the decisions that came out of that court were based on the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by the SCOTUS), the plain wording of the statutes in the code, binding case law from the circuit, and absent any conflict with the foregoing, the judge's own view of justice in the case and to the community. No secret law, no magic incantations, no maritime law, no fringe on the flag. Just the written law that anyone can find in a law library.

But feel free to disregard what I am saying. I'm not selling books here, so I don't care. But be forewarned, if you go into court acting like there is some secret set of laws that you can access by signing your name sideways or whatever, you WILL be regarded as mentally infirm. A decent judge, like mine, will still try to give you your day in court, such as it is, even though he thinks you are a few bricks shy of a full pallet, and he will make his law clerks read your gibberish and try to make some kind of sense out of it. A less decent judge, and there are plenty, will dismiss you summarily.

My two cents

 

[tommyrp12]

Im really not trying to be spiteful, but this may allude to why he may of not been aware of the certain cases that may have come across his desk under the admiralty side of the court.

Federal district court judge

U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by the SCOTUS),

Black Diamond S.S. v. Stewart & Sons, Ltd. - 336 U.S. 386 (1949)
U.S. Supreme Court

Admiralty practice is a unique system of substantive law and procedure with which members of this Court are singularly deficient in experience. The court below is perhaps the most experienced in this country.

so if scotus does not know and he is looking to them for advice, I don't know how that's going to resolve anything for him under the admiralty side and im not saying everything that happen is the district court is admiralty but that's where those cases might end up.

28 USC § 1333 - Admiralty, maritime and prize cases

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:

(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.

The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41 (3) and 371 (3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled” for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.”

Benedict on Admiralty

7th Edition, Volume 1, Jurisdiction
(Selected Sections)

ANCIENT CODES-BUROPE

§ 15. The Civil Law.

The admiralty law is indebted for many of its characteristics to the circumstances of the countries in which it was first administered. The countries that earliest reduced the law of the sea to a system, and adopted codes of maritime regulations, having been countries in which the Roman or civil law prevailed, the principles of that great system of jurisprudence were incorporated with, and gave character to, the maritime law; and so much were pure reason, abstract right, and practical justice mingled in that system, and so important was it that the general maritime law should be uniform and universal, that, in England, where the common law was the of the land, the civil law was held to be the law of the admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty closely resembled the civil law practice. 1

 

[PRB]

im not going to post court cases that I don't have permission to post they contain often a lot of personal info ,with regards to taxes.

If they won, it's irrelevant.

but to bolster support of one of my positions regarding the taxable obligation being voluntary here you go.

No court case?

Milam was an argument about whether a person can redeem his note in gold and silver. Nothing to do with taxable obligation being voluntary. try again.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

 

[CPUd]

If they won, it's irrelevant.



No court case?

Milam was an argument about whether a person can redeem his note in gold and silver. Nothing to do with taxable obligation being voluntary. try again.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

If they won, it would have been posted on all the freeman sites, and probably would have been posted here within the first 5 or so posts of this thread.

A group at Randi Forums offers a $10,000 prize to anyone who can win using a freeman argument in court. They have been keeping a tally of such cases since 2010:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177447

 

[tommyrp12]

If they won, it's irrelevant.



No court case?

Milam was an argument about whether a person can redeem his note in gold and silver. Nothing to do with taxable obligation being voluntary. try again.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

exactly , read it again .

Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal.

if you don't refuse the obligation on the back of your paycheck,which is voluntary, then you have not incurred the obligation.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html




The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

does it make sense now ?

 

[PRB]

exactly , read it again .



if you don't refuse the obligation on the back of your paycheck,which is voluntary, then you have not incurred the obligation.



does it make sense now ?

did you just basically say, if you didn't accept payment, you made and collected no money, and therefore aren't obligated to pay taxes??

 

[PRB]

If they won, it would have been posted on all the freeman sites, and probably would have been posted here within the first 5 or so posts of this thread.

A group at Randi Forums offers a $10,000 prize to anyone who can win using a freeman argument in court. They have been keeping a tally of such cases since 2010:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177447

exactly, but I'm willing to believe they are there , and posted,and I just didn't see it, so I'm waiting to see them posted. This guy has obviously dodged it. I'd still love to see a case when it happens.

 

[tommyrp12]

did you just basically say, if you didn't accept payment, you made and collected no money, and therefore aren't obligated to pay taxes??

Almost, in writing ,you redeem your check in US notes and reject the FED's credit by writing in the signature field "redeemed in lawful money pursuant to tile 12 sec.411, true name dba legal name". That's your opportunity. Like the milam case states though, its not in precious metals.

There is more to this process overall, like backing up your claim with photo's / proof to eliminate the presumption you have accepted FED credit, but here is a example.

 

[PRB]

Almost, in writing ,you redeem your check in US notes and reject the FED's credit by writing in the signature field "redeemed in lawful money pursuant to tile 12 sec.411, true name dba legal name". That's your opportunity. Like the milam case states though, its not in precious metals.

There is more to this process overall, like backing up your claim with photo's / proof to eliminate the presumption you have accepted FED credit, but here is a example.

you don't have US notes anymore, only Fed Notes, try again. Lawful money today only refers to legal tender FRN and US mint issued coins. So what's your point?