Dragnets - Patriot Rabbit Holes

[/tab]

.
.

Dragnets - Patriot Rabbit Holes

 
[youtube:3p233ncr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ytvf6aBKU[/youtube]3p233ncr]

they were talking above this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY


wind0wninja  |   03 oktober, 2010

Matrix Solutions: http://therightofselfdetermination.com/?ap_id=Absalom

Parens Patriae: The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/9014/Paren...

UCC: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html

Avalon Project: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/default.asp
wind0wninja Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/user/wind0wninja#p/u



.

[§N9sh2bj]

i agree with what I have heard.

I don't know if a bus rolled over 'joeblow', I got tired of his profanity and other inclinations, and then he disappeared from TiU.
During september, he posted a related torrent of a recording of david on piratebay.org
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5833901 ... goth_Radio

in so far as people are seeking remedy publicly, they are not going to get it. The system is setup as a set of rules for people who are lawless. Confronting a judge in the public, where he is the supreme power, is not a good idea.

[targa2]

Good post tab.  I have heard this David fellow before.  I don't fully agree with his legal conclusions, but his estimation of what occured with Keith In the Canadian court is correct.  I didn't bother to wiegh in on this one before in any serious way but I concur that this video is nothing more than a silly misinterpretation of the actual situation.  It's protocol for a judge to bow when he leaves the court, for whatever reason.It seems to me  Keith is practicing a combination of Roger Elvick, Russ Porisky and a few other preachers of legal mythology to his detrimant and others who watch in amazement at what they don't understand.

Let's get this straight once and for all. You can't import common law into admiralty or equity. Period. If Keith has a bank account, postal service, Canadian Health Care etc. then he is accepting governmental benefits that are contractual in nature. You cannot import common law rights into an equitable contract after the fact.  If someone had a contract with one of us personally and then tried to weasle out of it before completion by using a common law right, would you allow it? I wouldn't so why should the government ?

Get rid of the contracts and go it alone.....that is the only way..... God said so when he said " Man cannot serve two masters "

[jai_mann]

Targa2, if you have "contracted" and all of the terms are not made clear to you, and fraud has clearly taken place, then does not the entire contract go "poof" up into the air? I know arguing that with the fraudsters isn't going to go smooth, but in principle, ain't that how it's supposed to work?

They consistently hide the terms of the contract in America with the so called "paper-work reduction act".

When we go to a so called national or state park, they charge you a fee when you travel via road, into the park. The hidden fact, if you look up the law related to the little envelope they give you which indicates the statutes associated with the fee, and the use of the paperwork reduction act, is that, if you use "benefits" you must pay to be in the park area. The so called "benefits" are literally the road you travel on, the ever so pleasant low-end shitters (I've used very nice high end ones up on vancouver island, ie: few flies, no stink, proper built to keep odor down...I digress), and "improved" camp sites.

They hold a monopoly on the capacity to put roads in the park and therefore prevent any one from going through the park in automobile. And technically speaking, what right do they have to claim land in the name of their corporation, while lying and stating that it is PUBLIC?

Just some questions for you targa2. I wish you'd post more often as I love the wisdom you bring to the forum. Reading legal work is a serious chore and you can't really share what you find with the average "person" (are they really persons if the definition applied to them isn't fully disclosed?  :think: ) because they'll think you're nuts. I just look at all the automobiles on the road, with commercial plates, and it tells me how stinking deep the brainwashing and criminal syndicate is entrenched.

Regards

/end blather

[targa2]

I sympathize with the frustration you express in posing the question regarding contracts.  Almost everything we do where there is a gain, be it financial or otherwise, is contractual in nature, and those contracts are often implied by action and not by a written agreement.  In my entire business life of 22 years as a framing contractor I have never had a written agreement for the work I do.   But I can assure you that there is a contract in place between the parties I do business with, and that contract is enforceable in a court of law.

 When I work as a sub-contractor the contractual relationship is even further removed from the main parties, putting me in a third party position to the company I do the building for.  I had a debate with a fellow I was building 3 houses for as to whether or not he and I had a contract. He insisted that I was a complete idiot to think that I had a contract with him since he hired a main contractor who in turn hired me to do the work.  I bet him the value of all 3 homes ( $25,000 ) that I could take him to a court and prove that a contract existed between him and I . After agreeing to reduce the bet to writing and educating him on some of the finer points of contractual relationships he backed down.  This is an example of the hidden nature of contracts.  This is a good thing for those of us who operate in the world of " handshake" business arrangements.  It is a great benefit for me and others like me to be able to get restitution from those who think they can wrong us because " there's nothing in writing ! "

The government is no different . Honestly, how many people would ever take the time to read the rules ( contract) of a State or Provincial Park anyway.  Probably none right.  So we use the park and apply a little common sense to our actions and for the most part everything goes smooth.  I hate those parks myself because they are a little anal retentive about noise etc. so I stay away. We can argue about how they got the right to the land but thats a long conversation that goes back to the " Divine Right of Kings" which comes from 1 Samuel 8 in the Old Testament.

Much of what we are confronted with in this world was going on long before we came here. so we have little say in how thing are.  Take your life for example. You didn't ask to be here but you are here because of the love of your mother and father.  The original sexual bond between them is a form of a hidden contract, at least in Gods eyes it is. GUESS WHAT....THE SEX IS THE MARRIAGE in Gods eyes.Not some written contract.  Contract you say.....hell, I just thought the woman was really sexy.  Yah, thats the bait God used to get man in the snare of personal responsibility through fatherhood.  Under God, you are beholding to your parents wishes by the Commandment " Honor thy mother and thy father ".  I could go on with this little " sermon " but you probably get the idea. Most contracts are invisible.  

Read the book " Invisible Contracts " if you haven't already.  Smith has it on T F C  now since I sent it to him.  I think it is the best book on the subject .

I agree that we should be given a better education about law and the nature of our relationship to others as these relationships are more often than not contractual in nature.  The problem is that this is our parents obligation and we are experiencing a multi-generational level of ignorance in the area of self reliance, so we are not passing useful knowledge on to our children. They are being taught to be corporate drones for and by the corporate system.

[/tab]

.


Of course they are speaking about the "West Indian Company" and the "Queen" without realizing the money power behind those "Corporations", but good law information anyway.


Common Law Dragnets I: Sovereignty & Patriot Rabbit Holes; Never Do This

[youtube:26tcmmr9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEMbdDFDGGM[/youtube]26tcmmr9]


Common Law Dragnets II: Sovereignty & Patriot Rabbit Holes; Never Do This

[youtube:26tcmmr9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUsGRC9cFMA[/youtube]26tcmmr9]


Common Law Dragnets III: Sovereignty & Patriot Rabbit Hole's; Trespassing Warfare & Other Don't Do's

[youtube:26tcmmr9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ytvf6aBKU[/youtube]26tcmmr9]

Common Law Dragnets IV: Sovereignty & Patriot Rabbit Holes; Into The Rabbit Hole...Again

[youtube:26tcmmr9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDvY-MBXdnM[/youtube]26tcmmr9]

Common Law Dragnets V: Sovereignty & Patriot Rabbit Holes; Into The Rabbit Hole...Again

[youtube:26tcmmr9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLhWLpIpYCg[/youtube]26tcmmr9]

Common Law Dragnets VI: Sovereignty & Patriot Rabbit Holes; Into The Rabbit Hole...Again

[youtube:26tcmmr9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbDkGHBKtiQ[/youtube]26tcmmr9]


And this one . . .

The United States Is The East India Company's Endeavor

[youtube:26tcmmr9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86CLXctnt30[/youtube]26tcmmr9]


.
.

[veritasvincit]

targa wrote:
The original sexual bond between them is a form of a hidden contract, at least in Gods eyes it is. GUESS WHAT....THE SEX IS  THE MARRIAGE in Gods eyes.Not some written contract.

Sex does define marriage in the eyes of God, however it is the intention of the sex.   Also, it is not the only element of a marriage.  If the sex is based on lust which it seems to be in many relationships today then lust is short-lived and so is the relationship unless there are dependent factors.   If sex defines marriage then there are many people in our society today who have been married numerous times or who have SEX with a different partner every week.  If the intention of the sex is based on lust then it is not of the spirit – nor is it of God.  It is a temporary desire and if the relationship does not have the other elements such as HONOUR then it is doomed.  Let's define honour – well it has many different meanings depending on the context used.  Just as words in law have different meanings depending on their context so does a word such as honour.  Sometimes words used in law have an ambiguous meaning and need clarification by using the "golden rule".  This allows the judge to make an interpretation of a word that may be outdated or antiquated or not very clear.

Honour in this context I assume would mean one of integrity, honesty, fidelity, trust and respect.  If these elements are not a part of the marriage, then it is not a marriage in the eyes of God.  Sex in of itself does not define marriage – it is the intention of the sex – if it is strictly lustful then it is an intention of the flesh and not of the spirit.  It is temporary and not everlasting.  Love and Lust are two very different words. One is everlasting and includes honour, the other is temporary and not of God or spirit.

Romans 1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.

vv