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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Appearance by non-appearance

Expand Messages
  • Ed Siceloff
    People (men) have INALIENABLE RIGHTS & persons have LEGISLATIVELY granted PRIVILEGES. One of those rights is to be in a proper court. i.e. a court for
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

       

      People (men)  have INALIENABLE RIGHTS & “persons”  have LEGISLATIVELY granted PRIVILEGES.  One of those rights is to be in a proper court.  i.e. a court for men.....not a court for persons. Only a U.S. Citizen has standing in today's courts.  American Citizen's have no standing in today's courts and if one appears he is considered a person with legislative granted privileges which they will apply to all that appear.    But when served to appear in their court what can one do?. I once heard of a document/pleading you can file called  APPEARANCE BY NON-APPEARANCE. As I remember if was George Gordon's creation.  In that document you state that you have no standing in the court making service because you are a man and not a person. Does anyone have a copy of this document or any input on its use?

       

        I’ve played and played with this word.  And I do not think that this quite exhausts the idea either, not that I’ve exhausted my own “playing” with the word.  Most of us look at our inalienable rights from within a constitutional format.  “We” made “government” “duly constituted” with all its “expressly delegated” “powers” to protect particular rights or all of our rights, with its power. 

        But implicit to the definition of “person” is the idea that a group (not a man or a woman, but a group—person) expressed their will to create a legislature, executive, judicial (government) that would protect the people (group or person) with these “lawful”/ “legal” rights.  In creating something to protect ourselves, we create something from which we need protection.  In creating something to protect our rights, we become the focused upon subjects of that which we intended to be subject to ourselves. 

        It’s impossible.  There is only one government that works, and that would be to govern ourselves in the spirit of our Creator, Yahuwah, having Him in our hearts.  There is no other government that can protect our rights either.  And, those “rights”….They are only “rights” in a context of deciding for ourselves how we are to serve our Creator, fulfill our obligations to Him (which includes our obligations to each other).  They are inalienable but they only have context within His law. 

        If you actually look at a man created government to protect your rights, you’ve become the legal subject (person) you abhor.  You’ve become the subject of someone else’s role playing. 

        And this brings up some of the meaning of the word.  In some of the older ways of speaking the particular word, I enjoy (if that is the word) the person of a father over my children.  At one time, I was the person of a husband to a wife.  Person often carries the connotation of a “role”, or an “office” within a particular social context.  And all of these can be extrapolated to a “role” with inalienable rights to it, because it is a role played by a flesh and blood man (protected by that government thing again).  But the “inalienable rights” connected to the man in a particular role are only as long lasting as is the role.  One eventually becomes less a father, perhaps, than a good friend and counselor.   

        The truth of the matter is, if it is something that is not protected by Yahuwah, then it is unprotected.  And it would be foolish to seek protection of something when Yah is not protecting it.  One would have to question one’s own behavior. 

        And, I am sort of hoping that this little ditty calls into question the need for man-made government. 

       

       

      Ed

    • Frog Farmer
      The Handyman wrote: Appearance by non-appearance ... As I understand it, that would be the one supreme court that existed before the legislatively created
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The Handyman wrote: Appearance by non-appearance

        > People (men) have INALIENABLE RIGHTS & "persons" have LEGISLATIVELY
        > granted PRIVILEGES. One of those rights is to be in a proper court.
        > i.e. a court for men.....not a court for persons. Only a U.S. Citizen
        > has standing in today's courts.

        As I understand it, that would be the "one supreme court" that existed
        before the legislatively created ones. I understood it to be up to "the
        man" (who apparently does not believe he is an "individual") to control
        his own court, but that if witnesses or a record can show some act of
        abdication to another or others, then that abdication stands in the
        record and any claims that it be ignored are hard to legitimize. Case
        in point: Joe claims all his rights at all times yet presents a drivers
        license when asked by a man in fancy suit and shiny regalia. No other
        act is attempted prior to the delivery of the contradicting
        documentation.

        But as I like "first things first" I have to recall that courts of any
        kind require some contested question to be determined. If the question
        is whether some critter be man or individual, with the answer dictating
        the proper court, and the man and his court being the superior one to
        the corporate tribunal, then cannot it be assumed that any record
        showing that the critter exhibits characteristics of BOTH classes
        necessarily puts him into the lower caste?

        > American Citizen's have no standing
        > in today's courts and if one appears he is considered a person with
        > legislative granted privileges which they will apply to all that
        > appear. But when served to appear in their court what can one do?

        When served to appear in their court, one can think back and realize
        that this moment cannot be the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation)
        which has already occurred. We can believe today that many people might
        be in the state of consciousness where the serving of a subpoena is a
        complete surprise, where the topic it relates to is one they are totally
        unaware of, but the record will show the true date of the IMOC and will
        indicate that the "accused" ("the served"?) did some act, signed some
        contract, appeared on film or tape, submitted some paper, used his
        signature, ignored some notice, etc. etc. So, as one thinks back,
        trying to retrace the steps that lead to a paper being created called a
        subpoena, and it listing items it wants produced, should provide The
        Surprised One with further clues as to the true identification of the
        IMOC. Now, once that moment is correctly identified, one can hope that
        the next one will be dealt with appropriately, which I believe is with a
        Formal Docketed Administrative Hearing On The Record. THIS is where the
        man and the individual act and behave differently to create the record,
        and the purpose of that stage is to make the record of the "critter's"
        own claims and behaviors. So, if one awakes to find himself buried in
        subpoenas, he might think to act sooner IF he wants to avoid being
        treated as just another individual person, and not a man in control of
        his own court, which would never have to be entered if the record shows
        he won in the hearing, where he took control and dismissed the
        ministerial officers after verifying their credentials to pose in the
        roles provided for by law.

        > I once heard of a document/pleading you can file called APPEARANCE BY
        > NON-APPEARANCE. As I remember if was George Gordon's creation. In
        > that document you state that you have no standing in the court making
        > service because you are a man and not a person. Does anyone have a
        > copy of this document or any input on its use?

        I never heard of that myself, but I did hear of "an appearance without
        an appearance" where a man is present with enough witnesses to create an
        affidavit that he appeared in the place and time stipulated. He does
        not identify himself because either he wants his right to be confronted
        by the accuser, or he just has a general policy of not being the first
        witness on a record for his own prosecution.

        I once told the story here of my friends and I taking my friend to court
        in handcuffs (did someone say he appeared voluntarily?) and then when
        they called his name he refused to react. When they kept calling his
        name and asking if anyone knew if he was there, some friends yelled out,
        "let the accuser point him out!" He stood up to make it easy to see
        him, but said nothing. The judge saw the cuffs and went ballistic! He
        ordered my other friend, a top Bay Area cop, to release him immediately.
        As soon as the cuffs were off, my friend turned and walked out and
        didn't respond to anything or anyone and we were waiting to see if the
        bailiffs would grab him. Guess what? They didn't! "A free man is not
        dragged to equity in chains" (or shouldn't be, anyway!)

        Regards,

        FF
      • inpropriapersona2
        ... The above definition is a nice work of legalese serving the purpose of obsfucation.. I suggest the following: 1. substitute an equal mark in place of the
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "The Handyman" <ebobie@...> wrote:
          >
          > WHAT DOES PERSON ACTUALLY MEAN?
          >
          > What is a person? The word, "person," is ambiguous. Courts often use it as a synonym for "human being." or a "natural person" so as to suck you into their law system. But what does human being and natural person mean in today's law system and how can we avoid being considered such?.

          > LOUISIANA R.S. 9:11392 (13) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity.
          >
          > Person appears to apply to an individual but does an individual include a man?
          >
          The above definition is a nice work of legalese serving the purpose
          of obsfucation.. I suggest the following:
          1. substitute an equal mark in place of the commas, or
          2. Using the legal maxim that "disimilar things ought not to be
          joined" it follows that "idividual" being grouped with
          other legal entities, is is a legal entity, ie,
          individual = corporation = partnership = person

          There should be a law against legalese.
        • Rickity & Rutheless
          This discussion over person has GOT to be one of the most worn out ones on this or any forum. The one thing I can say that I have learned from experience
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 3, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            This discussion over "person" has GOT to be one of the most worn out ones on this or any forum.  The one thing I can say that I have learned from experience and study is that you have to know who you are.  No one can prove that you are something that you are not.  Personally I take my identification from Scripture.  I am a man.  The Creator created men and women (people), not persons, individuals, human beings, "folks" or any other term that can be legally manipulated regardless of what anyone insists!  It is up to you to firmly stipulate what and who you are, the correct and only spelling of your name and stand by it!  They can produce no document that you wrote your name on (autographed) that legally authenticated ANYTHING unless you SAY it is your "signature."  The court needs your permission to steam roll over you and it is not that difficult to NOT give them that permission.  When you indicate that "yes, that's me" or "yes, that's my signature" then you stuck your head in their noose.  Rickity


            From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of inpropriapersona2
            Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 3:59 AM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Appearance by non-appearance

            --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, "The Handyman" <ebobie@...> wrote:

            >
            > WHAT DOES PERSON
            ACTUALLY MEAN?
            >
            > What is a person? The word, "person," is
            ambiguous. Courts often use it as a synonym for "human being." or a "natural person" so as to suck you into their law system. But what does human being and natural person mean in today's law system and how can we avoid being considered such?.

            > LOUISIANA R.S. 9:11392 (13) "Person" means an individual,
            partnership, corporation, or other legal entity.
            >
            > Person appears
            to apply to an individual but does an individual include a man?
            >
            The above definition is a nice work of legalese serving the purpose
            of obsfucation. . I suggest the following:
            1. substitute an equal mark in place of the commas, or
            2. Using the legal maxim that "disimilar things ought not to be
            joined" it follows that "idividual" being grouped with
            other legal entities, is is a legal entity, ie,
            individual = corporation = partnership = person

            There should be a law against legalese.

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.