Freeman or Lawless?

[John Edward Mercier]

Oh, another thing to think about is why do I have to go to a judge to change my name?
That's always made me wonder.

Because it's THEIR legal name they assigned you when your parents filled out the birth certificate.  There's a difference between legal and lawful names...

Please Explain.
I'm defining legal and lawful to mean the same things... per acts of law.

[FTL_Ian]

See Black's Law Dictionary.

[error]

See Black's Law Dictionary.

Oh man, the last thing I expected to see from you was quoting the magic incantations!

[FTL_Ian]

See Black's Law Dictionary.

Oh man, the last thing I expected to see from you was quoting the magic incantations!

  I didn't quote them.

You and I may think it's fantasy, but it's very real to the state worshippers.  The world they live in is sick.  Their language is english-like - but not actually english, as they can redefine words to suit them and confuse the average joe.  It's not necessary for us to understand their language.  In fact, it's a good thing to not know, so you can honestly ask bureaucrats what they mean when they say things to you.

"I don't speak your language, what do you mean by x, y, z."

I don't really understand the difference, but I know enough to know they are different.  Black's Law 2nd Ed is on Google Books.  Sometimes it's useful to translate one of their terms.

[FTL_Ian]

Legal Land is a maddening rabbithole that is of course nothing more than a cover for violence, but let's play in their world for a moment.

Everyone thinks they know what a "person" is.  It's a "human being" according to dictionary.com.  That's the english definition.

Here's their (legalese) definitions, from Black's Law 2nd Ed:

Person:
A man considered according to the rank he holds in society.

This is a long way from "human being"!  Don't stop at just one definition, though.  Dig deeper. 

Man:
Male of the human species above the age of puberty.

Consideration: (Black's doesn't have the tense "considered")
The inducement to a contract.  The cause, motive, price, or impelling influence which induces a contracting party to enter into a contract

Considered in regular english means "carefully weighed".


According:
In practice.  To agree or concur...

Rank:
The order or place in which certain officers are placed...

Society:
An association or company of persons (generally not incorporated) united together for any mutual or common purpose.

Association:
The act of a number of persons who unite or join together for some special purpose or business.  An unincorporated society; a body of persons united and acting together without a charter but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies for the prosecution of some common enterprise.

Ugh.  That's enough of that.  Dig on if you wish. 

Draw your own conclusions, but I think it's safe to say "person" has a drastically different meaning to the legal land people than it does to most of us.  All of their "statutes" apply to "persons".  Things that make you go, hmm...

So, my translation of the legalese "person":  "A human being, carefully weighed according to the rank he holds in society - an association he is either held in by his consent, ignorance, or men with guns."

What about that rank in society part?  You don't remember becoming an officer in the government, do you?  If not, it must be the "person" they created when your parents got your birth certificate.  We just unwittingly respond as the "person" when govt people attempt to interact or contract with us.  "Are you FIRSTNAME LASTNAME?  What's your Date of Birth?"  Most people just answer with the info they've been trained to answer with, and they've created "joinder" with the "person".  (At least, those are the allegations as I understand them.)  It's time we tried something different.  This could be fun.   

All we have to do is have enough people noncooperate and withdraw from their "society" and hopefully the men with guns will learn their lives are easier if they leave us alone.

Now, you can be certain the average bureaucrat doesn't know this stuff.  They are just hired to follow orders.  Judges and prosecutors on the other hand should be well aware of the scam.

[Puke]

That is some crazy shit.
WHile I don't subscribe to the "I say magic words or have magic papers that make bureaucrats disappear" theory; it is quite fascinating to see this insane legal bullshit with one's own eyes.

It's too bad 99.99% of Americans have no clue how fucked up the "system" is. (Gov't schools educating stupid.)

[Raineyrocks]

That is some crazy shit.
WHile I don't subscribe to the "I say magic words or have magic papers that make bureaucrats disappear" theory; it is quite fascinating to see this insane legal bullshit with one's own eyes.

It's too bad 99.99% of Americans have no clue how fucked up the "system" is. (Gov't schools educating stupid.)

It's neat to see some people catching on to the same crap the "elite" use and hide from us.  I hope this is only the beginning and this spreads like wildfire!

[Paul Comeau Jr]

I have watched Robert-Arthur: Menard also regarding the definition of "person". He is very intelligent and knowledgeable about misleading words in law (or more appropriately "statutes"). His videos "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" and "The Magnificent Deception" on google are very informative. He is also in the video "Hijacking Humanity - chapter 3: commerce and law" which is where I learned of the other two videos.

The first time I heard of this difference between the legal definition and the general definition of "person" was when I was watching Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class on google several years ago. Michael says the same thing as Robert. I've also read and heard many others present the same information. A really good book to read is "Citizen/Slave - Understanding the American Sovereign Spirit" by Robert Hart, who is a common law civil rights litigator in Nevada. He also spells out the definition of "person" as well as many other words used like "citizen".

NH does have a definition of "person" within it's statutes. It reads:

TITLE I
THE STATE AND ITS GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 21
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Section 21:9
    21:9 Person. – The word "person'' may extend and be applied to bodies corporate and politic as well as to individuals.
Source. RS 1:8. GS 1:8. GS 1:9. GL 1:9. PS 2:9. PL 2:9. RL 7:9.

Where does it say "human being" or "spiritual being in physical form"? 'Cause I don't see it.

And what is the legal definition of "bodies" and "individuals"?

[Raineyrocks]

I have watched Robert-Arthur: Menard also regarding the definition of "person". He is very intelligent and knowledgeable about misleading words in law (or more appropriately "statutes"). His videos "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" and "The Magnificent Deception" on google are very informative. He is also in the video "Hijacking Humanity - chapter 3: commerce and law" which is where I learned of the other two videos.

The first time I heard of this difference between the legal definition and the general definition of "person" was when I was watching Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class on google several years ago. Michael says the same thing as Robert. I've also read and heard many others present the same information. A really good book to read is "Citizen/Slave - Understanding the American Sovereign Spirit" by Robert Hart, who is a common law civil rights litigator in Nevada. He also spells out the definition of "person" as well as many other words used like "citizen".

NH does have a definition of "person" within it's statutes. It reads:

TITLE I
THE STATE AND ITS GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 21
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Section 21:9
    21:9 Person. – The word "person'' may extend and be applied to bodies corporate and politic as well as to individuals.
Source. RS 1:8. GS 1:8. GS 1:9. GL 1:9. PS 2:9. PL 2:9. RL 7:9.

Where does it say "human being" or "spiritual being in physical form"? 'Cause I don't see it.

And what is the legal definition of "bodies" and "individuals"?

Yeah, really!  Good observations, thanks! 

[J’raxis 270145]

Welcome back to the forum, Paul.

Haven't seen you here in a while...

[ali-cat]

I'm pretty sure your parents chose your name.
Government paperwork simply uses the chosen identity... you can chose anyone you'd like.
Only in a few instances are you given an actual government ID... the first usually being when your parents acting in a custodial manner apply for a SSN.

or in my children's case the hospital applies for one FOR you. I had NO intention of applying for a SSN for my daughters, and a few weeks after each of them was born I received a ss card. Of course I had to sign something in the hospital I'm sure, but they had me do the paperwork when I was still drugged up, not to mention they fingerprinted me for the first time ever too.
My dad had managed to keep me from being fingerprinted my whole like despite several tries by the local police department to print all the kids at the elementary 'in case anything ever happens to you, this will help us save you'. my dad didn't buy in.


My question Ian, is how do you propose to 'non-cooperate' with their, in my eyes, legally binding contract that your parents took out for you?

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

I'm pretty sure your parents chose your name.
Government paperwork simply uses the chosen identity... you can chose anyone you'd like.
Only in a few instances are you given an actual government ID... the first usually being when your parents acting in a custodial manner apply for a SSN.

or in my children's case the hospital applies for one FOR you. I had NO intention of applying for a SSN for my daughters, and a few weeks after each of them was born I received a ss card. Of course I had to sign something in the hospital I'm sure, but they had me do the paperwork when I was still drugged up, not to mention they fingerprinted me for the first time ever too.
My dad had managed to keep me from being fingerprinted my whole like despite several tries by the local police department to print all the kids at the elementary 'in case anything ever happens to you, this will help us save you'. my dad didn't buy in.


My question Ian, is how do you propose to 'non-cooperate' with their, in my eyes, legally binding contract that your parents took out for you?

Just an FYI...

You will go through all manner of verbal abuse at the hospital if you're watching and refuse to fill out the SSN paperwork for your kids. Part of the threat process will include: "You won't be able to take them as a tax deduction unless you have a SSN for them." The response: "I've never taken this child as a tax deduction before, I don't need to now." The real reason: We were sold into slavery by our parents' naivete' but now that we know better we will not sell our children into slavery in order to gain a few crumbs on our tax returns! The other threat will be that the State will be called if you don't get the SSN (and do some other things) and you will be reported as abusive and neglectful. Even if you stand your ground, you will have to be very vigilant because in many cases, well-intentioned but misguided, hospital workers will "do you a favor" by marking the space for your child to get the SSN even if you've specifically said that you don't want it. I know someone who works for the IRS (yeah, I know... what can I say... we argue about it all the time...    ) and they told me that as long as you don't take the kid as a tax deduction and the kid gets the SSN before they start working (at 14, 15, whenever...), then no SSN is legally required. One other problem with not having an SSN that you will have to go through is that after a certain age (above "toddler" age), any checks written to the kid will become harder and harder to cash. (Birthday, holidays, other gifts... you'll have to tell people to make the check out to you, who has a SSN, or better yet to give you cash...)

I know (through someone else) a person who filled out some paperwork and rescinded their SSN. In doing so they were told that if they change their mind, they agree that they can never rescind it again. They were also told that any money that is in their SSN account currently is forfeit and they can't get it back. Even after going through it, they still had a hard time getting their employer to stop withholding the SSN amount. I don't know for certain, but I believe they still withhold for Medicare, but that doesn't seem right to me since they don't have a SSN to get the benefits anymore.

I'm pretty confident that SS won't be around when I retire... or can't retire as the case may be. 

[Paul Comeau Jr]

Oh, another thing to think about is why do I have to go to a judge to change my name?
That's always made me wonder.

Because it's THEIR legal name they assigned you when your parents filled out the birth certificate.  There's a difference between legal and lawful names...

Here's a website defining the differences of names.

http://www.natural-person.ca/capital.html

[FTL_Ian]

My question Ian, is how do you propose to 'non-cooperate' with their, in my eyes, legally binding contract that your parents took out for you?

I didn't sign that contract.

[David]

Law is very deliberate about little things.  As I said, I don't know if the conspiracy claims are true about the ALL CAPS "person", but I do know that Sam believes he wasn't arrested recently because the cops couldn't verify his "legal" name.  There seems to be some validity to separating yourself from the legal name and instead acting as the agent for the legal name.

I would be willing to bet they didn't arrest him simply because they open themselves up to legal liability if they wrongfully arrest someone because they failed to ensure they had the right person. 
The supremes have said that you have to identify yourself, but what are they gonna do if you don't, put you in jail for a few days, weeks?  Prolly.