- What we view as Citizenship Duties are, when view from the King s perspective, his expectations of reciprocity. A private commentator once expressed some ideasMessage 1 of 8 , Aug 3, 2004View SourceWhat we view as Citizenship Duties are, when view from the King's
perspective, his expectations of reciprocity. A private commentator
once expressed some ideas regarding the "sale" of the duties of
Citizenship to other parties, by asking the question: Should Citizens
be able to contract out to others their required reciprocal services?
Under the concept of inalienable duties [inalienable meaning that
they cannot be transferred], Government requires certain actions of
its Citizens and forbids the transfer of these duties to others. For
example, calls for Voters, Jury Service, and Military Enlistment are
based on the invisible contract attachment of Citizenship, and are,
at the present time, inalienable.I believe you have used the wrong word in using inalienable. It is unalienable that means your rights can not be transferred. You can transfer or contract away inalienable rights.K----- Original Message -----From: m4thdownSent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 9:25 AMSubject: [tips_and_tricks] WHO PAYS TAX?Contracts are entered into by the acceptance of benefits, and they
are terminated by the explicit disavowal rejecting benefits [
explain section on Federal Reserve Notes]. And Citizenship is one of
the most important contracts the Judiciary takes Notice of for
purposes of perfecting taxation enstripment
And so it is the explicit rejection of juristic benefits that will
sever the adhesive reciprocal liability of King's Equity Jurisdiction
that attaches itself invisibly to everyone else. So getting rid of
your National Citizenship,
- In a message dated 8/3/2004 1:07:17 PM US Mountain Standard Time, ... a major confidence game by our friendly banking cartel. ... Nilbux@aol.com The FedMessage 2 of 8 , Aug 18, 2004View SourceIn a message dated 8/3/2004 1:07:17 PM US Mountain Standard Time, joseph_toman@... writes:
we are living in an ALICE in WONDERLAND world.
a major confidence game by our
"friendly" banking cartel.
The Fed admits on page 3 of Modern Money Mechanics
that they operate a confidence game and that the history
of banking is a history of fraud.
It matters none what they admit if less than one percent
read it and the few who recite it are subject to ridicule.
- ... At least the few who understand it can avoid the suffering experienced by those who cannot. As Tonto asked the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded byMessage 3 of 8 , Aug 27, 2004View SourceOn Aug 18, 2004, at 9:22 PM, Nilbux@... wrote:
> The Fed admits on page 3 of Modern Money MechanicsAt least the few who understand it can avoid the suffering experienced
> that they operate a confidence game and that the history
> of banking is a history of fraud.
> It matters none what they admit if less than one percent
> read it and the few who recite it are subject to ridicule.
by those who cannot.
As Tonto asked the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by hostile
Indians, "what you mean 'we', Kemosabe?"
Children often ridicule that which they are incapable of understanding.
I once had a court case dismissed because prior to going to the trial,
I had captured the court clerk on tape demanding payment in Federal
Reserve Notes, using just those words. First he said, "regular green
money", but upon a request for clarification, he said, "we demand
Federal Reserve Notes"! There were also three witnesses.
The first words out of the judge's mouth were not about my alleged
offense, but were about my pre-trial visit to the clerk's office to
ascertain just what it was they wanted from me, as there was a "note"
attached to the case file. He didn't want to discuss the issue in
front of a roomful of FRN-laden sheep, so instead he said, "should I
denominate the fine in doubloons?" I replied, "you'd still have the
same problem". He replied, "Case dismissed". I was ready to plead
"guilty" just to force the issue of the payment of the fine, but the
results were not worth it to the court. Better to lose a little on me
than a lot from any who might wise up as a result of hearing any
People do not understand that little encounter. They imagine a lot
more had to be said, but that was how it went.