Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16167Traficant's "bankruptcy" of the US & a patriot lie

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    May 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Paradoxmagnus pointed out:
      >
      > Isn't it FUNNY that the author TOTALLY IGNORED the other DEFINITION
      > of "constitution" LISTED in the 1856 Edition of BOUVIER'S LAW
      > DICTIONARY?
      >
      > CONSTITUTION,, government. The fundamental law of the state,
      > containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and
      > regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers, directing to what
      > persons each of these powers is to be confided, and the, manner it is
      > to be exercised as, the Constitution of the United States. See Story
      > on the Constitution; Rawle on the Const.
      >
      > 2. The words constitution and government (q. v.) are sometimes
      > employed to express the same idea, the manner in which sovereignty is
      > exercised in each state. Constitution is also the name of the
      > instrument containing the fundamental laws of the state.
      >
      > 3. By constitution, the civilians, and, from them, the common law
      > writers, mean some particular law; as the constitutions of the
      > emperors contained in the Code.
      >
      > http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm
      >
      > Patrick in California

      I think a lot of the confusion about which jurisdiction applies, which
      meaning of the word "constitution" anyone is using at any time,
      personally, in relation to themselves, could be removed by asking the
      question, "Is there monetized debt and a contract involved?"

      If the answer is "no" then one may safely assume that "constitution"
      means government and common law. Debt diminishes if not totally removes
      sovereignty. If the answer is "yes" then it is OBVIOUS, or should be,
      that rights were waived over a signature in anticipation of future
      profits and gains from a maritime venture in the equitable jurisdiction.
      Then the "contract" definition is appropriate.

      Despite propaganda to the contrary, "we" humans are NOT all equal under
      law because we have the FREEDOM to ALTER our own legal status. We can
      choose the rules under which we will proceed with our fellows around us
      by taking actions and speaking words appropriate to one or the other.
      Most people can be tricked into verbally claiming a status not their
      own. If that happens, because of pride or whatever reason they use to
      justify the lie, they should bear the consequences.

      It seems to be in nobody's economic interest to have an
      informed populace, so a general dumbing-down has been taking place at
      least since the 1970s. People are not educated to even the basics of
      law anymore. On many lists I still see people expecting a guaranteed
      jury trial for any issue involving over $20.

      They fail to notice it refers to "common law" cases, and the dollars
      mentioned are the ones defined by the still-unrepealed Monetary Law of
      1792, not the things that people "call" dollars while at the same time
      their maker denies ever intending them to either be or substitute for
      dollars.

      And now we have the recent case explaining more of the obvious, that
      congress, wittingly or unwittingly, has created two co-existing but
      separate monetary systems.

      A "Fifty-dollar" gold minted coin is ONLY $50, not the inflated number
      announced in London every day that most are aware deal with imaginary
      fiat "dollars" (USD). People had been being taxed as though the fake
      dollars were real dollars. They case only fixed things for those smart
      enough to know and care. Most people still allow the confusion to their
      detriment to continue, most likely out of personal laziness. But anyone
      can start dealing in gold and silver as I have for decades while
      avoiding the equity jurisdiction. I didn't need a court case to tell me
      what history already told me. Government employees trying to lengthen
      their session at the public feeding trough needed that as a stalling
      tactic.

      There's no "we" or "us" anymore folks. There's you and me, and others.
      The odds on any sharing common understandings that could be used to
      define a "nation" are slim, what with most having their minds dominated
      by lie heaped upon lie heaped upon lie.


      Regards,

      FF
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic