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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Using The Law For The Enforcement Of Rights

Expand Messages
  • dave
    Re States and an illusion of the mind: Balsaman isn t far off. The tipoff came to me when I discovered that the State of Ohio constitution-the officially
    Message 1 of 7 , May 17, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Re States and an illusion of the mind:

       

      Balsaman isn’t far off. The tipoff came to me when I discovered that the State of Ohio constitution—the officially recognized 1851 version forward—mentions no borders. [The early one’s do.] And no borders are described in Ohio Revised Code.

       

      Hmmm….how could that happen? Now of course the State of Ohio gives weight to previous Constitutions but still was puzzling as other state constitutions mentioned some borders.

       

      One day it dawned on me. Supposing the state governments were not the “the only game in town” they wanted you to believe? If a right of political association is guaranteed, then that means there could be many many many governments eh? Ahhh….no one would want THAT known would they?

       

      Thus you come to the idea that the states are largely political ideas. And sure enough they use the term “elective franchise” thus indicating freedom in political association called franchise that is elective. Now thinking….no one could newly politically associate if they could not DIS-associate first eh? So that meant one doesn’t have to belong to the state—one could just be.

       

       If a border is mentioned, it does NOT mean that everything “corralled” inside belongs the State of XYZ—that is what they WANT you to believe. Ahhh….that was how ALL the trickery occurred that would reign in everything gained in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 . It was the equivalent of a land grab only the grab occurred AFTER they sold it as you’ll learn later. [We used to call this “Indian Giving” but of course that is an insult to the natives for largely the government made the accusation to deflect from its own policy.]

       

      So if a state is defined as a territory, a law and a population and the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776  is written law, then how could ANYTHING be “made law for” UNLESS it was a proprietary territory?

       

      So thus when you look within the borders of say Ohio you find:

      ·         [Official name] STATE OF OHIO. This has a WRITTEN law and a territory upon which that law applies and IS an inseparable part of the confederacy, the United States of America for which the Constitution of September 17, 1787 is the supreme law of the land. It HAS to be, it’s a PROPREITARY territory. [Largely the population doesn’t live on the territory but DOES claim allegiance by elective franchise/citizenship…so this state does have a population.]

      ·         Some outright OWNED/CEDED territory belonging directly to the United States of America, the confederacy which ALSO has a written law. [Doubt the population lives there but yep, there is US CITIZEN allegiance thus effectuating a population.]

      ·         Rest of Ohio. This is what is left when the United States of America sold what it previously owned within the borders. It had a law formerly known as the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 but that law was by the proprietary territory owner the United States of America, the confederacy. What happens when the territory is sold unconditionally? Answer: What law existed just immediately after the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 ? Answer: The english common law, an UNWRIITEN law. So thus does THIS state have a population? Indeed it does. And a law? Indeed it does, the unwritten English common law. And does it have territory? Indeed it does, the territory of what the people own individually.

       

      This is why experts on law and government such as Ed Rivera [www.edrivera.com] can “dice up” the territory into written law and unwritten law territory. Written law territory being territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

       



      __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6130 (20110517) __________

      The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

      http://www.eset.com
    • dave
      Here is the SHORT answer: You can declare your independence ANY time you want. You can cite the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 as law for your
      Message 2 of 7 , May 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        Here is the SHORT answer: You can declare your independence ANY time you want. You can cite the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776  as law for your reliance. However, expect a fight IF you are upon the proprietary territory of another and expect a far lesser fight IF you can show that your adversary has no claim upon your territory—the latter today will take education as your adversary has been taught that his authority is everywhere.

         

        The dilemma you discuss from Translation 3 is exactly the dilemma faced in the 3rd law, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.

         

        As usual no one discussed the fundamental logical concepts back then either for the SAME reason as to keep people in bondage—so I will do so now. Let’s go back to around 1776 and you’ll see…..

         

        Here you have a people declared independent of government in the 1st law, the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 . Focus later on the fact it’s now law, and not history and the difference is law can be relied-upon to keep some party “in check”.  In essence the document provides that individual consent is an element of just government and the only law mentioned is an unwritten law of nature and nature’s God. [One can show in history all of this points to the English common law—an unwritten law].

         

        Now here is the important concept in 1776 which I come back to later: Declaring independence and achieving same are not the same. Having a right to independence with all the unalienable rights and achieving same in a society bent on your usurpation are not the same. Imagine how difficult all this becomes IF you are on the territory claimed to be owned by another where a proprietary-power to make law for territory is a well-understood concept? In 1776, the proprietary owner was the King of England.  Just post 1776 it took a war. Fortunately NOW we have one important difference: Now the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776  is LAW and it’s the first WRITTEN law. That wasn’t the case in 1776, so things were a lot harder.

         

        Now let’s fast forward to the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. Now the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776  is written law. On the other hand you have the well understood concept of proprietary power over territory of ownership. Ownership of territory begets an opportunity to make law for that territory. And of course the Northwest Territory was awarded in the collective sense to the confederacy, the United States of America, of the 2nd organic law, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, in the Treaty of Paris.  But the 2nd law ALSO acknowledges the first law in that the free inhabitants are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the FREE citizens of the states. [In other words all the privileges and immunities but none of the obligations--AGAIN it reiterates in essence what the 1st law mentioned.]

         

        It’s just a few years post 1776. The Treaty of Paris just occurred. The King just gave up rights to territory and awarded same territory to the confederacy called the United States of America. Given the choice of: (1) NOT making written law for the territory and (2) Selling the territory off (3) Giving it away without charge……what would you EXPECT any government to do? Especially one that had all the war debt?

         

        Answer: They used the PROPREITARY POWER understood to those who have OWNERSHIP of property to make LAW for the territory. [That was the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787—written under authority of the confederacy, the United States of America ] Thus, they made the inhabitants of the district liable for the war debt via taxation [Hint: Taxation today traceable…so are the districts…etc.] [Later they sold off the territory hence loosing what proprietary power they had….what they didn’t bother telling people was their proprietary-power vanished didn’t it?] Of course they understood all this when they drafted the ordinance for some smart people in the lot would “pick-up-on” the concepts of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776  and say “Hey, you can’t make law for us if we fought too!” and so they offered in the document all the appearances of state-hood—in actually two methods for states—which they took full advantage-of in the con just a short time later.

         

        In my 3rd translation I wanted to point out that when upon territory owned by another for which a proprietary power holder exercises his power and writes law for same, it’s very hard to declare independence. That would be the State of Kansas. The proprietary power holder is the United States of America. Chances are very good though that within Kansas Dorothy didn’t reside in the State of Kansas—however IF Dorothy visited a local State of Kansas government judge, he would be the wizard who would exercise a proprietary power and convince her NOT to peel back the curtain of knowledge.

        > "Translation 3" to mean we have no rights and that because they
        > switched it to "State of Kansas" rights that come from the
        Creator
        > have been abrogated? I think not. To my way of thinking, if rights
        > come from the Creator, they can change things around without our
        > permission as much as they want, our rights remain the same.

        I'm not sure "they switched" Kansas to "State of Kansas".
      • Legalbear
        I read Thomas s last statement from beginning to end. I agree with it. I ve experienced that second set of books firsthand exactly the way he describes it. We
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 26, 2011
        • 0 Attachment

          I read Thomas's last statement from beginning to end. I agree with it. I've experienced that second set of books firsthand exactly the way he describes it. We can only turn this thing around when we are armed with knowledge of what our rights are and how to enforce them, even against judges. That is what this quote is about. I just went through a felony prosecution where I had to teach the judge. By the end of trial he had learned a lot and was treating me considerably different than when we started. I think my judge would like a second chance. Part of the secret to my success was knowing in advance what my rights were and going in with a strategy to get them in the court. In Colorado, attorneys, mostly who worked in the prosecutor's office, go on the bench with no training how to be a judge whatsoever! We have to come up with effective strategies on how to let the judge know we will not tolerate judges who take sides. Bear

           

           

          The problem is there is no law in a court room - only on the paper.

          Here is the proof : http://thomasjamesball.com/

          --- On Sun, 6/26/11, Barry <bear@...> wrote:


          From: Barry <bear@...>
          Subject: [People B4 Lawyers] Using The Law For The Enforcement Of Rights
          To: PeopleBeforeLawyers@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sunday, June 26, 2011, 12:07 PM

           

          Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the
          sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound
          to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch. The
          citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or
          however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the
          law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the
          courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his right to property,
          209#####209 there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or
          artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using
          the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of
          that right. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 208-9 (1882).

          Call me at: 720-675-7230

          On Skype: legalbear

          Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

          Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

          tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

           

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