Statistics: Posted by Eric — Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:08 pm
Statistics: Posted by Eric — Sat Sep 18, 2021 3:09 pm
Statistics: Posted by :Joyce-M: — Sun May 09, 2021 3:37 pm
Statistics: Posted by :Joyce-M: — Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:42 pm
Statistics: Posted by Halakana — Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:50 pm
Statistics: Posted by GabrielMiguel — Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:20 pm
Statistics: Posted by :Joyce-M: — Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:19 pm
Statistics: Posted by Jerry — Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:11 am
I am not oversimplifying. You would be hard-pressed to find any government activity that is not commercial in nature by their own legal definitions of "commercial" and by multiple court opinions. But, few people are aware of that or how to use that knowledge, and based on the recent posts in this discussion, I doubt you will research deep enough to gain that knowledge.So it is certainly an oversimplification to believe that the other 73 titles can safely be neglected, although I'm not sure that's what you're saying.
That depends on how you define your terms. If legal scripture is what is found in the law and in my direct experience of applying that law then it could be said that I'm fluent in that legal scripture. However, I'm certainly not writing that law.As to the rest, could it be that you are writing "legal scripture"?"
So you jumped from asking me to telling me that I'm writing and speaking "legal scripture". Regarding the majority of your recent post (and parts of other posts), Jerry, when you make your points by vilifying me or others that you wish to disagree with in order to give your points some form of "authority", you cease to be a contributor to harmony and benefit. All you need in order to give your points legal "authority" is to quote the Congressionally enacted law relevant to the jurisdiction you support, that you use for your legal source. Opinion, yours or any others, is only a belief not substantiated by knowledge or proof (American Collegiate Dictionary).You wrote, "I say there is no evidence that such events have actually taken place, because this is all "legal scripture" you are writing and speaking about."
Statistics: Posted by :Joyce-M: — Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:24 pm
Statistics: Posted by megdcl — Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:37 pm
After watching the film of Agafia Lykova, how can anyone seriously believe that a young woman could survive in such a climate without clothes or shelter, and be sustained by wild animals? They would simply eat her alive. Beyond the absurdity of the basic premise, many more fantastic elements quickly emerge as the story unfolds. Anastasia "exists for those, for whom she exists" and for the rest of us, she exists as a parable, or a symbol, or an inspiration; but certainly not as a physical human being. Call me a "doubting Thomas" if you will, but I say that Vladimir Megre made this up.This series of nine books tells the story of a remarkable woman named Anastasia, discovered in 1995 by a Siberian trader, Vladimir Megré, while he was plying the waters of the remote Ob River. Anastasia was born in the forest in 1969 to parents who died tragically when she was just a baby. Living for the most part without warm clothes, food cultivation or man-made shelter, she has survived on fruit, nuts, berries and mushrooms, brought to her by "wild" animals with which she lives in peaceful harmony.
Statistics: Posted by Jerry — Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:04 am
It may be hard to swallow, but all STATE OF..., CITY OF..., COUNTY OF ..., are Federal. At the level of heads of departments they know this. Judges all know this. I won't go into that with full legal citations here but if you're interested you can find the full legal proof of this in references to actual US Titles, regulations and Statutes at this link https://purgingamericaofthematrix.wordpress.com/. Download the PDF and read the section titled, "The Fable of Federal Jurisdiction", particularly pages 14-25. I am not recommending that you use the author's process, at least not without a LOT more study.I find that your argument is still not convincing. Title 5 of USC and subsection 552 (the Freedom of Information Act) specifically refer to Federal agencies.
I don't need to prove this. It's the law in all States and anyone can read it for themselves or hold the opinion that they don't need to. Your STATE REVISED STATUTES are available to download on your state website. All you need to do in order to verify this is look through your state revised statutes to find the UCC section. In Colorado it's Title 4. Just a quick scan of the general definitions will reveal numerous references to court actions and terms. The agencies and courts must function within the same law as the general public. If you believe the govt agencies have a different set of statutes in conflict with the state revised statutes, show me that law and it's legislative authorization.Your contention that local building code and land use enforcement agencies are subject to UCC because they charge fees and issue citations and fines seems spurious to me.
What the building codes are modeled on is irrelevant to the UCC jurisdiction. Building codes are for controlling commercial builders, and only they are legally subject to that jurisdiction, by the department's own code that governs their purpose and activity. UCC is for governing all commercial transactions. Nearly all government transactions are commercial in nature. I have been in a courtroom where I heard this acknowledged by a judge. I have read the codes of several agencies and seen the explicit limits restricting their jurisdiction to commercial activities and licenses. I have read a letter from Colorado Dept of Revenue acknowledging that non-commercial property is not subject to taxation. The problem with standing on such a claim is that most people actually do hold their "real estate" as a commercial investment, intending to make a profit at a later sale. Regardless of any underlying jurisdiction (building department, revenue department, court action, police action, etc.), if a transaction is commercial in nature it is governed by UCC. That is superseding law and is written in every STATE REVISED STATUTES. Go find it to prove your opinion or don't, as you wish.Building codes are modeled on the International Building Code and other model specialty codes, not the UCC.
This request is based on flawed reasoning (programming). You assume incorrectly that court opinion is the "proof" of correctness or incorrectness, and you also probably assume that in the absence of court 'approval' 'correctness' cannot exist. I'm not sure there's much point in addressing this. You've made it very clear that you do not accept that there are multiple jurisdictions that exist and function outside and even above the jurisdiction of the Federal, State, municipal and county courts (actually since 1972 they're all Federal). However, if you could accept that reality of intentionally hidden jurisdictions, you would be able to reason that it would be foolish for a Man who has established his life and function outside a court's jurisdiction, to go into that court for an opinion that is not relevant to the Man's jurisdiction. Or that if a case comes into a court that is shown to belong in another jurisdiction or threatens to expose the court's hidden side, the court will immediately either dismiss the case or seal the court record. Evidence of this from another source is found in the second to last sentence of the letter at this link https://archive.org/stream/PurgingAmeri ... 5_djvu.txtWhere is there even a single court case where one of these "sovereign citizen" or "Quantum self governance" legal theories has been upheld at an appellate level?
That is not technically correct in any jurisdiction that I know of. The law, if it is actually law (rather than "color of law"), is not subject to court determination of its application. Courts are their own jurisdiction with their own agenda. I've heard a judge say to me, "My court, my law". She was right in saying that because she knew the nature of her jurisdiction when the parties in a case don't know how to invoke their jurisdictional law-form. But if they do, it's no longer her court and her law. She becomes bound by the higher law of the party's jurisdiction, at which time she will take the needed action to protect the illusion -- that usually takes the form of a dismissal of the case, or sometimes a sealed case....nevertheless the courts must determine the application of those laws.
Statistics: Posted by :Joyce-M: — Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:50 pm
Statistics: Posted by Jerry — Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:44 am