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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] a man to trade

Expand Messages
  • Moisha Pippik
    Here are some other good cases regarding citizenship, and that of private citizens, and substantive rights. Munn v. Illinois(right to withdraw from commerce,
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Here are some other good cases regarding citizenship,
      and that of private citizens, and substantive rights.

      Munn v. Illinois(right to withdraw from commerce, from
      public to private)
      Owens v. City of Independence(substantive rights, even
      as a public official)
      Jersey City v. Hague(fiduciary duty of public
      official)

      The reason I provide these cases is because it shows
      that we can go in and out of the matrix, at our
      convenience. I can withdraw at any time, as well as
      engage at any time, and only I can determine this
      fact. Regarding the citizenship concept, we can be
      private citizens of public citizens, but not at the
      same time. And if we don't know the difference, we
      cannot claim one or the other, and the enemy will
      always classify you as a citizen they can regulate,
      which is a public citizen. This is commerce. Private
      property cannot be in commerce, only public property.
      We must expand our minds with the definition of
      property, that property as defined by the [Scriptures]. It
      is also defined and described any many great court
      cases, that property being life, liberty, and the
      pursuit of happiness. Our claim of citizenship(or
      distinction of citizenship) can and should be part of
      our property.

      Moisha


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • paradoxmagnus
      Maybe people should consider the POSSIBILITY that real & personal property does NOT INCLUDE private property . Just as public rights does NOT INCLUDE are
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Maybe people should consider the POSSIBILITY that "real & personal
        property" does NOT INCLUDE "private property".

        Just as "public rights" does NOT INCLUDE are UNALIENABLE RIGHTS which
        are "private rights".

        Patrick in California

        "Those who are SLAVES to DEFINITIONS are SUBJECT to REGULATION."--PKM
      • Frog Farmer
        ... It used to be that the people knew that The Merchants were a special class with their own law, and not of the people . The Law Merchant was applicable
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Moisha Pippik [mailto:moishanb@...] wrote:

          > Munn v. Illinois(right to withdraw from commerce, from
          > public to private)

          It used to be that "the people" knew that The Merchants were a special
          class with their own law, and not "of the people". The Law Merchant was
          applicable only to merchants. Now they've gotten everyone to want to be
          a merchant, and under their international law.

          > Owens v. City of Independence(substantive rights, even
          > as a public official)
          > Jersey City v. Hague(fiduciary duty of public
          > official)
          >
          > The reason I provide these cases is because it shows
          > that we can go in and out of the matrix, at our
          > convenience.

          In other words it is possible, but in today's world, improbable if only
          because most cannot see any dichotomy. You and I and a few others could
          do it because we know the indicia of the two paradigms. Most couldn't
          see it if you handed out brochures and 8x10 glossies with pictures and
          arrows.

          > I can withdraw at any time, as well as
          > engage at any time, and only I can determine this
          > fact.

          This is because little goes on between your ears without you knowing
          about it! You are in command of the Time & Space Vessel Moisha Pippik.
          You can see the edge and decide which side you will operate upon. Most
          see no edge, no sides. Most do not see themselves as "in command".
          They do as they are told, and do not "make waves". The FRN economy is a
          wonder to behold.

          > Regarding the citizenship concept, we can be
          > private citizens of public citizens, but not at the
          > same time.

          Or our citizenship can be nobody's business until somebody can prove
          it's their business, which will be hard to do, and is hard to do now.

          > And if we don't know the difference, we
          > cannot claim one or the other, and the enemy will
          > always classify you as a citizen they can regulate,
          > which is a public citizen. This is commerce.

          Beautiful, isn't it? "VISA. It's where you want to be."

          > Private
          > property cannot be in commerce, only public property.
          > We must expand our minds with the definition of
          > property, that property as defined by the [Scriptures]. It
          > is also defined and described any many great court
          > cases, that property being life, liberty, and the
          > pursuit of happiness. Our claim of citizenship(or
          > distinction of citizenship) can and should be part of
          > our property.

          Yes, all rights are property. Labor is property, but people part with
          it for nothing and say they abhor slavery. Many say, "I may be being
          robbed, but I can just as easily rob somebody else." America has lost
          its old morality.

          Regards,

          FF
        • Michael Noonan
          ... Maybe there is something I am missing, but in reading Munn, all it seems to say is if one uses their private property for public purposes, a license is
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 12, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Moisha Pippik <moishanb@...> wrote:

            > Here are some other good cases regarding
            > citizenship,
            > and that of private citizens, and substantive
            > rights.
            >
            > Munn v. Illinois(right to withdraw from commerce,
            > from
            > public to private)
            > Owens v. City of Independence(substantive rights,
            > even
            > as a public official)
            > Jersey City v. Hague(fiduciary duty of public
            > official)
            >
            > The reason I provide these cases is because it shows
            > that we can go in and out of the matrix, at our
            > convenience.

            Maybe there is something I am missing, but in reading
            Munn, all it seems to say is if one uses their
            private property for public purposes, a license is
            required. If not used for public purposes, no license
            is required.

            That is going "in and out of the martix?"

            My reading of Hague informs me that public officials
            have a fiduciary obligation to those who elected them.

            My impression in reading this post was that some sort
            of revelation was to be had. Perhaps my reading is
            too literal, but I fail to see the significance?





            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            TV dinner still cooling?
            Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
            http://tv.yahoo.com/
          • Moisha Pippik
            ... I believe what you are asking for is the silver bullet. You are searching for something that says, Michael Noonan, here is the specific answer to your
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 12, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Michael Noonan <mn_chicago@...> wrote:


              > That is going "in and out of the martix?"
              >
              > My reading of Hague informs me that public officials
              > have a fiduciary obligation to those who elected
              > them.
              >
              > My impression in reading this post was that some
              > sort
              > of revelation was to be had. Perhaps my reading is
              > too literal, but I fail to see the significance?


              I believe what you are asking for is the silver
              bullet. You are searching for something that says,
              "Michael Noonan, here is the specific answer to your
              specific question". Right?

              Well, I'll tell you my experience in using anything,
              if it doesn't make sense to me, but someone who truly
              cares has given me this information, I read, then
              reread, then break down each and every segment of what
              I have read, until I become completely convinced that
              it either has significance or is completely useless to
              me. Your statement reminds me of me not too long ago.
              Maybe it's youth and exuberance. I know I had to
              break my old way of thinking. I had to open up my
              mind to knew concepts. If these cases do not help you
              in whatever pursuit you are endeavoring, then I have
              taught you something, either that these cases have
              merit to you or they are simply a complete waste of
              your time. Either way you gained something.

              Munn v. Illinois tells me that we can withdraw from
              the public at any time, whether that be our body, or
              any other property that has been registered for public
              use. Kind of like being an employee of a company from
              8:OOam to 5:00pm, but not before or after. I for one
              don't even claim to be an employee for that long, but
              surely no longer that 8:00am to 5:00pm. My deed that
              was registered with the county recorders office, makes
              my home a commercial property, as residence is a
              commercial term. If I want to take my home out of the
              public realm, then I have to declare it to be private
              property. Private property cannot be regulated, nor
              can it be in commerce. Think of your body as
              property. Your birth certificate makes your body
              commercial, registered and regulated through the
              public government. However, you can dismiss this
              presumption/assumption/fact because you are in control
              of your body.

              I hope this lets you in on my thinking regarding this
              topic.

              Moisha





              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
              with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
              http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
            • Michael Noonan
              ... No. I stated that I may be too literal in my reading the cites provided, which is not the same as asking for the silver bullet. ... Being
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 16, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Moisha Pippik <moishanb@...> wrote:

                > I believe what you are asking for is the silver
                > bullet. You are searching for something that says,
                > "Michael Noonan, here is the specific answer to your
                > specific question". Right?

                No. I stated that I may be too literal in my reading
                the cites provided, which is not the same as asking
                for "the silver bullet."

                > I read, then reread, then break down each and every
                > segment of what I have read, until I become
                > completely convinced that it either has significance

                > or is completely useless to me.

                Being literal-minded, sometimes even several readings
                does not lead to a break-through, but that is my own
                dilemma.



                > Maybe it's youth and exuberance.

                I'm probably older than you.

                I know I had to


                > Munn v. Illinois tells me that we can withdraw from

                > My deed that was registered with the county
                > recorders office, makes my home a commercial
                > property, as residence is a commercial term. If I
                > want to take my home out of the public realm, then I

                > have to declare it to be private property.

                Thank you for the explanation. I will re-read Munn to
                see if I gleaned that, or if I can now.

                My point to you is that some, like me, are reading
                challenged, as it were, when it comes to reading
                between the lines. It is not laziness or being
                unwilling to do the work, but I do appreciate your
                input.


                > I hope this lets you in on my thinking regarding
                > this topic.

                Thank you.

                Cheers!



                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
                with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
                http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.