so what i get from this is that in 1933 when the government issued SSN's, the gov signed everyones names into corporations (all cap)
these traffic courts challenge a fictional corporation which is your name (In all caps)
Credit Cards, Government Issued Id's, Driver licenses and checks all have your name in capital letters because that is how corporations interact with each other?
can anyone point me to a book for this kind of stuff? or something that explains the fictional corporatiom thing... having trouble finding stuff on this
Sat. 12/06/30 18:32 EDT.post #188 weedface:can anyone point me to a book for this kind of stuff?I don't know if this is the "definitive work," but anyway...Title 4 Flag Says You're Schwag!: The Sovereign Citizen's HandbookTitle4FlagSovereign Citizen movementFBI page on the Sovereign Citizen movement
weedface:can anyone point me to a book for this kind of stuff?
Edit:See also this thread:Man pwns judge by NOT playing the legal game
also, lol @ the fbi trying to scare us, I'm buying that book.
Sat. 12/06/30 19:10 EDT.post #189You're welcome! Not having read the book, I'm curious to know what you think of it.
Don't try it unless you have a lot of spare time that you don't mind spending in jail or spare cash you don't mind paying in fines.
What people get confused about on this 'fictional person' issue is that it doesn't matter how the government's courts categorize you (fiction, real, whatever), they still have the same power either way (they can send a police officer to hit you over the head, cuff you and then cage you) and there's no magic incantation you can invoke in their courts which will revoke this fact. I don't think the capitalization of the name matters, I've seen it written both ways in legal documents that I've had to deal with (which, to my chagrin, has been no small amount). Maybe other jurisdictions are more finnicky about capitalization and they require names to always be capitalized but, again, I doubt very much that it's anything but a formal requirement for any legal document in that jurisdiction.
Where fictional personhood is a problem is as a liability limiter. The State itself is the ultimate fictional person. The "crown" or the "papacy" or the "presidency" does this or that. Not a single living, breathing person is actually legally liable for whatever these fictional persons do. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for corporations which are created in the image of the State. If the government's courts perpetuate this same concept onto private citizens, it is only as a legal blind for what they really care about: making sure the King, Pope or President himself can never be held legally liable for anything.
Sat. 12/06/30 22:06 EDT.post #190 Clayton:Don't try it unless you have a lot of spare time that you don't mind spending in jail or spare cash you don't mind paying in fines.To clarify, I haven't read this book, I know very little about this movement, and I'm not advocating employing any of the techniques.I'm not promoting this in any way.
Clayton:Don't try it unless you have a lot of spare time that you don't mind spending in jail or spare cash you don't mind paying in fines.
@Mark: Of course - but weedface is promoting it and people do get tripped up by this stuff.
The courts are really evil in the sense that Santos Bonacci describes here. His facts are pretty much nonsense but the essence of what he's saying is true. I know, I've been put through the wringer on the civil side which is the gentler side of the court system. It's pure evil. The whole thing really is modeled on Inquisitorial practices. And to say this is conspiracy theory is laughable... the cornerstone of the County Courthouse where I've been victimized is engraved with the emblems of the local Masonic lodge that laid it. Wanna wager what percentage of courthouses around the country are similarly adorned?
If you think you can waltz into one of these dens of evil and say something that's going to keep them from victimizing you, you're out of touch with reality. It's a meat-grinder. So it grinds the meat. It might grind the bones a little harder, but the grinder will grind everything, meat and bone alike. If you think you can just walk out of the courtroom after "refusing to accept that you are the fictional person" and that's the end of it, you are delusional. The legal system - particularly as it regards legal dealings with the State - is mostly a lot of dirty tricks designed to get you to incriminate yourself or plead guilty. But when those tricks fail, they don't throw up their hands and give up, they have an infinite number of options to dispose of you.
The only people they really have to worry about are those who have a lot of familial, religious or other community backing. If you can afford good lawyers and have good press in your community, then they're stuck playing more fair.
"The legal system - particularly as it regards legal dealings with the State - is mostly a lot of dirty tricks designed to get you to incriminate yourself or plead guilty. But when those tricks fail, they don't throw up their hands and give up, they have an infinite number of options to dispose of you."
I understand the whole thing of the plea bargin, but what are their other tricks?
Schools are labour camps.
Just to give you a peek into the lower-levels of what they do:
The state isn't a fictional person, but rather a legal person or legal construct.
To some that is part of the social contract. Like with every contract this can of course used to any kind of rackets.
Now I will never ever ever talk to a police officer, only listen. This video is kind of creepy though. I suspected false confessions, but I had no idea that police would apply a double standard to evidence, and reinterpret it in a way that fits their motives. If possible, I would love some more links or discussion into this, as I feel that false confessions are only one of the tools used by the police. I need to read as many of your posts as possible Clayton, as they are pretty well-thought out and informative.
Got to agree with Clayton on this one. If you do not have sufficient communal or financial backing, they can pretty much victimize you at their liking, as long as they avoid to make any provable procedural mistakes. And it isn't that way only in one country. If you get victimized by the court system, one ought to get as many facts on judge, prosecution and witnesses as possible, dirt is worth its weight in gold - and you need organised backing. After that you'll be able to act with more confidence.
@eliotn: That's just the 'standard playbook'. When you get into the drug-war and anti-terrorism stuff, it will just stand your hair on end. There's no limits to what they can do and they're doing it every day. One major source of their power is jailhouse informants, responsible for many a botched SWAT raid, not to mention untold convictions of innocents. They are an ample source of counter-testimony - remember the law professor says it doesn't even matter if the counter-testimony is false and yours is true... the jury's going to go by the numbers... one man saying no I didn't do it versus two others saying yes, he did.
Perhaps the best part of that lecture is the last part with Officer Bruch... it's worth watching more than once to really absorb the level at which they operate. It's like street magic, they don't have to be brainiacs to trip you up, they just prey on your weaknesses. The good guys feel justified because they're getting bad guys to confess to the bad things they did. But the more self-seeking, asshole-types just want promotions and they figure it's not their problem if an innocent man incriminates himself for whatever reason.
Three-strikes laws and amped-up, mandatory sentencing for minor, first-time offenses (e.g. DUIs) play right into the hands of the prosecutorial complex who hangs over your head the constant, vague threat of much more serious charges if you don't just fold and plead right away to whatever they're offering, innocent or not. Things get even dirtier when you take into account that they know which prisons and holding facilities are rougher than which and they can have you sent here or there. Sometimes, they just turn off the camera and assault you.
By far the scuzziest and most disgusting part of the Leviathan meat-grinder is the family-law industrial complex: child protective services, domestic violence, etc. I'll start with the disclaimer that human beings are pretty horrible to each other in the family setting. There is no doubt about that. But what the government does with this is the lowest, most disgusting form of extortion combined with "divide-and-conquer"/prisoner's-dilemma tactics that only take bad situations and make them worse.
For example, during a divorce, if one party falsely accuses the other of being a "danger to the children" (a common, hyperbolic accusation in the wild, flailing attempt to make the other party out to be Evil Incarnate), the child protection services may try to intrude with the following strategy. Mom accuses Dad of being a danger to the children, "He gets angry and yells at them and I fear for them!" On the next exchange, she drops off the children to see their Dad anyway. Now, child-services is going to try to build a case against Mom. Sound crazy? Listen closely. She dropped the children off with their Dad knowing that he's a danger to them, so she's the real danger to the children. So, child services will contact Dad and try to befriend him in order to begin building their case against her. If he's stupid, he'll cooperate, not realizing that that's just the first step in a one-two punch. Once Mom has been deprived of custody by child services because she lacks parental judgment, they will then befriend her and double back on Dad with her original accusations.
We can go on and on all day with this, there's literally no end to it. But, as Carlin said, "Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care." Until they get put into the meat-grinder, that is. But then it's too late.
amazing! thanks for your insight clayton
still though, looks kinda handy to know this stuff....
seems like you could opt out of the federal reserve "contract"
Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul - Page 75
would like your insight on that link clayton
Sun. 12/07/01 12:17 EDT.post #191 Clayton:"Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care." Until they get put into the meat-grinder, that is. But then it's too late.I wonder if, at this point, any of those who have become ensnared realize that the government is not "protecting us"...do they question their beliefs and sacred cows, or do they rationalize their predicament by affirming that "the system is basically good, but it makes mistakes now and then"?
Clayton:"Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care." Until they get put into the meat-grinder, that is. But then it's too late.
Sun. 12/07/01 14:55 EDT.post #192This post is partly in response to the OP's question, and partly in response to Clayton, who has posted about some results of his research of the topic in Thoughts on de facto liberty.Here's another book (in PDF) I recently discovered that may have some relevance to this thread's topic.How I Clobbered Every Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known To ManMary-Elizabeth Croft's tactic is to ask the judge if giving her name constitutes entering into a contract with him. That tactic might be discussed in this book:No Contract, No CaseI found that book in this archive of books.At 07:20 in this video: Mary-Elizabeth: Croft - Natural Man vs. Artificial Person, Law, Money & Banking P2S2the interviewer connects Croft's use of the word "suretyship" with marine or admiralty law, for no other apparent reason than that the suffix "ship," which means "condition" or "character," is homophonous with the noun "ship," which means "marine-going vessel." Ms. Croft, at 07:54, enthusiastically agrees with this error, then offers her "favorite example," of the word "birth":"Ships are birthed; baby's are born."But ships are not "birthed"; they are berthed. The words "birth" and "berth," while identical in pronunciation, are completely different in meaning.Then she claims to have "looked up" the word "Canada" and found that what it said was "for greater understanding." I don't know what she means by this.Name of Canada:
The name of Canada has been in use since the earliest European settlement in Canada, with the name originating from a First Nations word kanata (or canada) for "settlement", "village", or "land".
"Perhaps the best part of that lecture is the last part with Officer Bruch... it's worth watching more than once to really absorb the level at which they operate. It's like street magic, they don't have to be brainiacs to trip you up, they just prey on your weaknesses. The good guys feel justified because they're getting bad guys to confess to the bad things they did. But the more self-seeking, asshole-types just want promotions and they figure it's not their problem if an innocent man incriminates himself for whatever reason."
Also, it can be problematic even if its the good guy, for how does he know that the confession is honest. After all, police can easily be mislead by first impressions, misinterpreted confessions, and the like. Seriously, knowing this, I wonder how many innocent people get hanged. I am also starting to realize how poorly law enforcement works, even in "enlightened" countries such as the US. While people will readily admit that courts sometimes have bad days, I see that it only scratches the surface of what is wrong.
I wonder if, at this point, any of those who have become ensnared realize that the government is not "protecting us"...do they question their beliefs and sacred cows, or do they rationalize their predicament by affirming that "the system is basically good, but it makes mistakes now and then"?
Judging from anecdotal evidence (cop shows, personal friends, etc.) I would say there are three basic types of reactions to being falsely accused and convicted.
First, there are those who accept the identity being placed on them by the system... "that's right, I'm a thug, I'm a killa, fuck the cops!"
Second, there are those who internalize their experience with a psychological crisis of identity - "How could this happen to me? How did they fail to see that I'm innocent? If I could just explain it to the prosecutor one more time, I'm just sure he'd see the truth! Or perhaps I really am guilty of breaking the law in some way. After all, I didn't think about how my statements might unintentionally have misled the police in their investigation even though everything I said was the truth." Or whatever.
Third, there are the righteously indignant. Now, this is the most reasonable reaction of the three, in my view. However, most people channel their indignation in any of a number of wholly misguided ways. They rail against "those damn corrupt judges" or "those slimy lawyers just in it for the money". They often feel that the solution is a return to Constitutional government or reinstitution of folk law, etc.
I think only a tiny minority of people directly perceive the conflict-of-interest of a government court handling a dispute between an individual and the government. And that's precisely the purpose of the whole charade. The government and its courts know they can't delude 100% of people but they only need to keep 99% or so of people from perceiving the true nature of how they are being victimized and the system will keep right on chugging along.
The three common reactions to being victimized by false accusations (which all statutory "crimes" such as "not paying taxes" ultimately are) still presuppose the very corrupt system they are reacting to! In the first and second cases, the individual is actually consenting (psychologically) to the system. "Yes, this is who I am". The only difference is that, in the first case, the individual adjusts to his new identity without a crisis whereas, in the second, it causes a psychological crisis.
In the third case, the individual might be outraged, but he's outraged at anything in the world except the conflict-of-interest. The courts didn't hire the right judges. The lawyers are too greedy. The prosecutor has had it out for him because his family is from Ireland and the prosecutor's family is from England. Or whatever. All the solutions he offers, such as returning to Constitutional government, are still compatible with the law monopoly and its inherent conflict-of-interest.
If he perceived the conflict-of-interest, he could not be righteously indignant because he would have perceived the actually sinister nature of the system. It's no mistake that innocent people are being hanged. That's precisely what the system is built to do. What is the point of being outraged? Do you get outraged at the mugger who has a gun-barrel jammed in your kidney? Of course not, you figure out the most efficient way to extricate yourself from a potentially deadly situation. One's attitude in dealing with the courts should be no different.
Pay No Taxes legally
TBH, I didn't even look at the thread - the title is obviously confused. "Pay no taxes legally" is either to be understood in the common law sense in which the "legally" part is redundant - of course it's legal not to pay taxes, no one was ever born with a monetary obligation to anybody else - or it's to be understood in the statutory sense in which case it's simply wrong. There is no magic incantation which you can invoke in the government's courts and then say, "See? so I don't have to pay taxes... bye now!" There is no secret code which you can give which will make them OK with you not paying taxes. And I don't see why anyone would want to get the government's permission not to pay taxes anyway. It's like getting the mugger's permission to keep your wallet. What's the point?
Side note: GLP is a creepy website and I recommend people stay away from it. A mod on their forums somehow accessed my local browsing history and made sure I knew it by posting a web search I had recently performed. After this happened, the entire thread was disappeared. They're really creepy weird and the whole thing reeks of being a front for some nefarious intelligence service.
Of course you weren't born with a monetary obligation to anyone else, yet you're agreeing to take on the debt of the fed every time you cash those checks
that's the whole point of the thread, you should check it out and stop living in fear