Clint Richardson's arguments
Current time: 05-26-2017, 01:48 PM
User(s) browsing this thread:
Author: Marc Stevens
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 49
Views: 19323

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Clint Richardson's arguments
06-23-2015, 09:55 AM
Post: #1
Clint Richardson's arguments
First, some rules. I will monitor this thread, please keep all things civil and friendly, no personal attacks and no profanity. This thread is only to discuss Clint's arguments, if you feel the need to discuss personal issues, do it off this forum.

Also, absolutely no walls of text, you can link here and provide short quotes, but it is encouraged to address each argument, not just post 250k words you copy and paste here. It is much easier to follow and address each argument when it is in it's own post. If someone links to audio/video as a response to an argument, please provide the times in the audio/video so people do not have to listen/watch the whole thing.

Because Clint's article is so long, I will only start with just the link to it. Copy and paste in only those arguments you are addressing in your post. Reference the post you are responding to instead of copying the entire post, this will keep things from getting confusing.

[Image: coffee_talk_linda_richman11384268890.jpg][/align]

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2015, 10:32 AM (This post was last modified: 06-24-2015 06:50 AM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #2
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
I was in a court room in Canada where the Judge flat out stated that the type of legal arguments presented in the linked article "Don't work and have never worked in Canada". This was followed by the presentation of a bound copy of Meads v Meads from the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.

I simply fail to see how legal arguments (even if thought to be correct by the government) can prevail, when at the end of the day you are only left with the opinion of the Judge.

According to the constitution of Canada, fundamental justice cannot be served if it cannot be understood. (My words, but the general point)

How could fundamental justice be served if it is beyond the scope of most people to understand with out years of study? This seems contrary to the principle.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2015, 04:25 PM
Post: #3
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Maybe it would be constructive if Clint and Jan were to both get a parking ticket and report their experiences of their respective ordeals. Of course they would have to be sincere in their attempts to thwart the govtard's assertions. I know this will not happen and that is too bad.

When I see all the cops driving around and see all the surveillance cameras everywhere I imagine there are a lot of other people noticing the same things. But the difference between most of them and me is as long as some politician/bureaucrat has deemed it legal they are ok with it. Clint and Jan are like most.
I'm verklempt.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2015, 09:13 PM
Post: #4
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
I see that Clint has registered to the forum today.
http://marcstevens.net/board/user-32175.html

[Image: wavinfrombehindcomputer.gif] Welcome aboard, Clint.

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2015, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 06-23-2015 11:01 PM by Clint Richardson.)
Post: #5
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
This was supposed to be a dialog, not closed statements.

Tell me, since there are no questions, when did I ever claim, at any time on the radio or in my writings or movies:

1) That I support surveillance cameras or don't notice them?
2) That I support politicians?
3) That I'm "OK with it" or anything we've discussed?
4) That I'm anything like most, and most what?

And what the hell is this about a parking ticket, and are you seriously chastising myself and Jan because we wont (not that anybody asked us to) purposefully go "get a parking ticket"? Seriously?

Does anybody actually want to learn anything or ask legitimate questions, or even make rational or at least constructive statements?



(06-23-2015 04:25 PM)notavoter Wrote:  Maybe it would be constructive if Clint and Jan were to both get a parking ticket and report their experiences of their respective ordeals. Of course they would have to be sincere in their attempts to thwart the govtard's assertions. I know this will not happen and that is too bad.

When I see all the cops driving around and see all the surveillance cameras everywhere I imagine there are a lot of other people noticing the same things. But the difference between most of them and me is as long as some politician/bureaucrat has deemed it legal they are ok with it. Clint and Jan are like most.
I'm verklempt.

Thanks Andy. That's the nicest thing anybody has said in weeks 'round here.

(06-23-2015 09:13 PM)Andy Wrote:  I see that Clint has registered to the forum today.
http://marcstevens.net/board/user-32175.html

[Image: wavinfrombehindcomputer.gif] Welcome aboard, Clint.

--&e
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-24-2015, 01:26 AM
Post: #6
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
(06-23-2015 10:59 PM)Clint Richardson Wrote:  This was supposed to be a dialog, not closed statements.

Tell me, since there are no questions, when did I ever claim, at any time on the radio or in my writings or movies:

1) That I support surveillance cameras or don't notice them?
2) That I support politicians?
3) That I'm "OK with it" or anything we've discussed?
4) That I'm anything like most, and most what?

And what the hell is this about a parking ticket, and are you seriously chastising myself and Jan because we wont (not that anybody asked us to) purposefully go "get a parking ticket"? Seriously?

Does anybody actually want to learn anything or ask legitimate questions, or even make rational or at least constructive statements?



(06-23-2015 04:25 PM)notavoter Wrote:  Maybe it would be constructive if Clint and Jan were to both get a parking ticket and report their experiences of their respective ordeals. Of course they would have to be sincere in their attempts to thwart the govtard's assertions. I know this will not happen and that is too bad.

When I see all the cops driving around and see all the surveillance cameras everywhere I imagine there are a lot of other people noticing the same things. But the difference between most of them and me is as long as some politician/bureaucrat has deemed it legal they are ok with it. Clint and Jan are like most.
I'm verklempt.

Thanks Andy. That's the nicest thing anybody has said in weeks 'round here.

(06-23-2015 09:13 PM)Andy Wrote:  I see that Clint has registered to the forum today.
http://marcstevens.net/board/user-32175.html

[Image: wavinfrombehindcomputer.gif] Welcome aboard, Clint.

--&e

Hi there "Clint",

I'll keep this really polite as I've been known to give it a little more than what some would like but for the purpose of this discussion I'll stay right on track because after never being allowed on to Quatloos and having an account suspended on JREF (and if you are in contact with them please ask them to allow me to log on but that's a matter for another thread) I want to attack everything about someone who supports the idea of the "State".

How you can prove it exists?

What proof do you have as the claimant that the "State" is anything "real" and not fictional?

How do some people become more "powerful" and can carry guns for instance when then general populace can't?

Other such stuff, like the original bill of sale of the land. From who to whom.

I'm talking about the original owner of the land "Clint".

I want your proof of sale to whatever government, wherever (on this planet) that is in power, that they possess the authority (derived) from the original owner.

Then I want you to prove that force wasn't used to take it and ask you then to prove that initiating force is okay.

I'll wait on you "Clint".

Cheers.Applause

Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment. Do not act on anything entered anywhere by the avatar known as pigpot.

All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-24-2015, 07:16 AM (This post was last modified: 06-24-2015 10:07 PM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #7
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Clint. I noticed I was completely ignored.

Does your message only apply to the United States of America?

Fundamental justice can almost be interchanged with natural justice.

So to ask the question in a different way. Can you only free yourself from government control with years of study?

If so, are you not just left with the opinion of one judge? (presuming that the goal has to be achieved in a court room)

Though not my case. I personally witnessed a Provincial Court Judge make the statement I quoted in post #2. I have talked to the person whose case it was. He was influenced by Winston Shrout and Eldon Warman.

With all these legal methods to attempt to resolve the issue. How would one be able to distinguish you ideas to be the correct method vs. Winston Shrout for example?

Is there any way that your ideas can be verified?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-24-2015, 09:19 AM
Post: #8
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Clint,
I apologize if I accused you of something that is not true, I was wrong for doing that. Actually I think it is really cool that you have chosen to come in here.

Have you ever been forced to go to court for any reason, like a traffic violation? If so, how did you deal with it? Did you try to fight it on principle and/or did you pay to get those who were extorting you off your back? The parking ticket suggestion was only that, a suggestion. I would not wish you, or anyone else, to do something that would really hurt you.

Marc helped me get out of a government attack a few years ago. He advised me what to do and gave me no guarantees. He told me it was all on me whether I was going to defend myself or not. I took all of that to heart and was successful.

Maybe you could come into the Skype chat and participate in one of the many court role-play sessions we have. I for one would not attack you in any way and I know the others would not either. Again, just a suggestion.

Peace,
Dan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-24-2015, 10:54 AM (This post was last modified: 06-24-2015 10:58 AM by Bruce Sloane.)
Post: #9
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
welcome
nice you could stop by, Clint
lets use this thread to really explore some of your opinions/postulations
-- one that you brought up I tend to give some credence to:

"acting as a registered agent for a legal entity"
this strays close to the " name game", but logical thought would bring one to conclude that you are indeed creating a artificial legal entity by the submission of a B.C. and a SS# to receive a STATE D.L. , or alternately a STATE I.D. card, with your " signature"

--which is required I.D. by any Agency, Institution, Instrumentality
let's look at what this establishes :
---> STATE Residency
---> FEDERAL Citizenship
---> Venue
in prosecutions people are asked to voluntarily associate with " the name",
or involuntarily be bound to the "name" by evidence of actions, i.e. exemplars

perhaps some of our most vociferous posters could refrain from pollution of this thread, and actually allow discussion of issues
or
more than likely it will be business as usual

anyways, could you please support your position on this
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 05:14 AM
Post: #10
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
"Does anybody actually want to learn anything or ask legitimate questions, or even make rational or at least constructive statements?"


I do.....Why do you feel the need to not only recite, but now write or type dozens or hundreds of definitions (your article) when someone ask you a simple question?

Why can't you just answer the question? Hint. It is a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

That is the only acceptable and responsive answer..... Okay, let's try it again. Pretend you are in court, and we all know what that means. We don't need anyone posting the definition of what court means. Got it?...Here we go.

Do you believe the United States government exist?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 05:28 AM
Post: #11
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Slow learner are we Rippy? Wink

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 12:07 PM (This post was last modified: 06-25-2015 01:02 PM by Clint Richardson.)
Post: #12
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
First of all, why would you wish to attack anyone? And why would you start a legitimate inquiry with such a threatening tone and expect anything but a similar, reciprocal response? I'll endeavor to respond without such notions, as I would rather live by the standard that I do unto others as I would expect them to do unto me.

The government as a general definition for the government of the United States and the individual States, which you are referring to generally as "the State" exists exactly as it describes itself - as a fiction. Steven King writes fiction, and I have some of his fiction on my bookshelf. Does it exist? Of course it does. Your asking the wrong question. The proper question is what is existence? Legal existence is a well-established truth and fact within the legal realm. A lie (fiction) exists as long as men believe and put faith, fealty, oath, and pledge allegiance to and even die for the fiction. I cannot answer this in any other way except to tell you that those who created government did so with complete understanding that it was a fiction. The issue is not whether or not it exists in reality, the question is does it exist in fiction? And so the answer is yes, it exists in and as a fiction. Only a fool would believe that his disbelief in government would make government not exist.

I would not attempt to make such a claim that government exists, for I'd be judged to be an idiot for suggesting that the very court I'm in doesn't exist, despite the fact that I just made an appearance in it as a fictional person, which is the only way the court can hear my prayer to its magistrate (god). And by the way, the word "real" in the legal fiction does not refer to reality, but to estate and other fictional titles. So my use of the word "real" would be nothing but a confusion of terms in that legal artifice of court. When in Rome, do as the Romans. Render back to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God's. In other words, stop appearing in government persona, instead sever your legal tie to that legal fiction and live under God's law of nature.

Since when can't the general populace not carry guns? I live in Utah, and I can carry a gun without license. My friends have a virtual arsenal of guns. If you don't like the rules of your particular state, move to another. Or, stop registering them in the name of a government person and then government will not have the voluntary authority you granted it to regulate and restrict a "legal firearm" which is the legal status (personhood) title attached to the lawful "arms". The legal firearm is a public legal thing, the arm is a private thing. Government controls the legally attached name and title and serial number, not the real thing. So too it controls man's assigned and accepted persona, not man himself. Thus the scriptures state that a man shall surely smart (be put in pain) for being surety for another.

There is no original owner of land. Land is conquered through violence or purchase. If you are claiming to own land, you can only do so through artificial (legal) means. If you'd like to actually learn how land was purchased before our current education process and false-literacy of common language then you need to study the Livery (delivery) of seisin process. Here is a good video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS0i6dMlOKU - Again, not my opinion, just how the entire land of Pensylvania was purchased (conquered). Either learn or say that it doesn't exist. I care not. That is my answer based on proper grammar. This was a ceremony based on the land and witnessed for legitimacy and voluntary will, though often done with trickery. A legal mortgage and sale is based purely in legal currency and law. These are ancient ways, based on principles of natural law and protected by law vs. the modern organized crime of government as it exists today in anarchy to those ancient and scriptural principles. Good or bad? I'm not here to say, for often these honorable men were at the same time holders of slaves to work their land. Just answering your questions.

Proof of sale? The only way you could have proof of sale and have that proof be legitimate is for it to be a legal proof using the currency of the state. All proof my friend is prima facie, and is as rebuttable as any other fiction or law. Proof is a thing of legal, for nature requires no names or titles as proof of its existence. Whereas legal existence relies solely on proof.

Ironically, any purchase you make in the United States at any store or in any transaction is with blood money. You cannot at the same time use dollars and also claim anarchy. The right to buy, sell, and trade comes only because this land was conquered through violence or purchase and you are participating in that government (state) by utilizing its fiat and consumer protections of persons. The money is property of a government corporation, and patented as such. Don't believe that? Go ask the fool who minted silver coins with the words UNITED STATES on them while at the same time calling them "LIBERTY DOLLARS." His jail time is evidence that one does not counterfeit U.S. property.

But you can believe what you wish. Or you can do due diligence. I am only hear to hopefully teach with grammar and talk reason into misled folks as one who overcame being misled. Calling me a statist because I have learned government legal law and custom is irrational. Never have I tried to tell you government is good. And my attempts to tell folks to comprehend that the Bible is the answer is met with ever more ignorance by those who have not read it properly or at all.

I say again that my book will explain all this in detail, and it is frustrating attempting to speak about these things to people who will not even consider the meanings of words. If you don't know the meaning of the words you speak, your words have no meaning, and the meaning will be applied by your adversary (judge).

-Clint-



[/quote]

Hi there "Clint",

I'll keep this really polite as I've been known to give it a little more than what some would like but for the purpose of this discussion I'll stay right on track because after never being allowed on to Quatloos and having an account suspended on JREF (and if you are in contact with them please ask them to allow me to log on but that's a matter for another thread) I want to attack everything about someone who supports the idea of the "State".

How you can prove it exists?

What proof do you have as the claimant that the "State" is anything "real" and not fictional?

How do some people become more "powerful" and can carry guns for instance when then general populace can't?

Other such stuff, like the original bill of sale of the land. From who to whom.

I'm talking about the original owner of the land "Clint".

I want your proof of sale to whatever government, wherever (on this planet) that is in power, that they possess the authority (derived) from the original owner.

Then I want you to prove that force wasn't used to take it and ask you then to prove that initiating force is okay.

I'll wait on you "Clint".

Cheers.Applause
[/quote]

Not sure how you were ignored, but ok.

What message do you refer to? I have no message. Except maybe to quit using the term anarchy as a good thing when no evidence for that opinion has ever been put forward except by these so-called citizen anarchists.

As for the years of study question, I can only say that at some point you will realize that there is no place you can stop learning and call it good. You can only live in a dialectic (logic) that is based on what you have learned or been told. So yes, at some point you may get to the point where you not only understand government but also that it only governs over voluntarily ignorant men. Ignorance is a verb of action, and can mean idiocy or will. Ignorance of the laws of nature is governments declared reason for governing over men. Problem is government always becomes corrupted by those wishing to democratize it for their own benefit.

For the "opinion of one judge" question... your goal should not be to fall under the opinion of a judge, but to learn the law that binds the judge and present it as your case, so that the judge has no room to stick his corrupted opinion. Your goal is to make the judge recognize and therefore consider you as a private man, not a commercial entity (person). At that point, his opinion wont matter, because you have no need and cannot be summoned to appear before the judge because his power is only upon public, fictional persons, not private men. Until you come to understand that we are dealing in totality with a commercial system, then we will continuously fail in our attempts to use moral reason and logic to decypher its code. Only when you conclude that it exists in its own right can you stop using its persons in legal existence by adhering only to the laws of nature, which are against all artifice (evil).

I know very little about Winston Shrout except by reputation. I am not influenced by anyone. I continuously state this fact. I only read and study primary source documents. I follow no one. And I only ask that people do the same - not to follow me but to stop following gurus. For to demonize others who are leaders and not the ones you currently follow is nothing if not irrational and unreasonable. The only path is self-teaching without influence of men selling you books and who are vested in their rhetoric even when provably wrong. Again, my "book" will be free to all who seek knowledge, not culture.

Again, I have no method, nor am I telling people to even go to court. My court is the mail system. My goal is to become free from the state government by showing evidence that I can self-govern and therefore need no fictional person to be bound in bond and surety to. You cannot win in court, because you never stand as anything but in voluntary servitude in person before the court. And the court only administers artificial things that exist only in its legal jurisdiction.

The notion that you are looking for ways to go to and beat a government court while claiming government doesn't exist is the epitome of irrationality.

Verification of what? Legal fiction? Again, if government doesn't exist, why are you asking me to verify something created by it exists? I can provide no answer to a question that has no substance.

-Clint-




(06-24-2015 07:16 AM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  Clint. I noticed I was completely ignored.

Does your message only apply to the United States of America?

Fundamental justice can almost be interchanged with natural justice.

So to ask the question in a different way. Can you only free yourself from government control with years of study?

If so, are you not just left with the opinion of one judge? (presuming that the goal has to be achieved in a court room)

Though not my case. I personally witnessed a Provincial Court Judge make the statement I quoted in post #2. I have talked to the person whose case it was. He was influenced by Winston Shrout and Eldon Warman.

With all these legal methods to attempt to resolve the issue. How would one be able to distinguish you ideas to be the correct method vs. Winston Shrout for example?

Is there any way that your ideas can be verified?

I have never, ever been forced to go to court. I can say though that my unfounded perception of threat was a causality for me to appear in court when I should not have, for something that could be taken care of via mail or with a default judgement of the court clerk. But we always appear in court voluntarily unless we are already arrested. The volunteerism happens not by physically showing up to court, but by crossing the bar and claiming to be a fictional person in representation and agency. I've been many times to court just to watch others without ever being summoned there, which I highly recommend.

To be clear, there is no fighting commercial law on moral principals. The law surrounding commerce is strict and not in harmony at all with moral law. I would never fight a ticket or citation using my own opinionated outpouring of morals and values. The court is not required in any way to hear an argument on moral law, the constitution, or any other formality except the strict law regarding what matter is before it. So I would only present the law and its applicability, nothing else. Why? Because the second I appear as "Clint Richardson" I have just become a subject of the law and can have no other rights except what is afforded the person "Clint Richardson" which is not under any circumstances anything but property of the Untied States. The only way I can adress the court on a matter of strict law is to appear either as the person or the agent of that person. And so that you understand, I will never appear as the person, only as the registered agent. Once you learn about the law of agency, you never look back to the foolishness of gurus.

Only one rule matters... the agent (attorney) is not responsible for the actions of the person he represents. You can learn about agency or you can continue in ignorance that your whole problem is that you don't know you are a registered agent in third party relationship with the State you reside in. Again, I can only provide primary research. Don't follow me, follow the remedy and administrative law.

I have not claimed that Marc's approaches do not work, I have only stated that a slave may have only insignificant victories but always remains a slave. I explained why Marc's methods work in my article above, and it is not because you are winning a case. All you are doing is blocking up the commerce and exaction process of court, and so it is easier to dismiss the case outright and move on to the next of dozens of victims. But you are still bound to the person in agency and will continuously be harassed until you cut the chord of the agency relationship. A slave never wins... he's a slave. A permanent loser. So again, follow the guru and continue to be a slave that can say "I won in court" or learn the grammar that will make you immune from the court system.

I attempted to attach "A Treatise On The Law Of Agency" but the file is too large. Contact me on skype @ TheCorporationNation if you'd like a copy.

You see, what Marc gave you was confidence to play in the confidence game. Nothing else. Imagine calling the judge by his first (christian) name and never acknowledging his title as magistrate or yourself as his person. Now that is power.

-Clint-



(06-24-2015 09:19 AM)notavoter Wrote:  Clint,
I apologize if I accused you of something that is not true, I was wrong for doing that. Actually I think it is really cool that you have chosen to come in here.

Have you ever been forced to go to court for any reason, like a traffic violation? If so, how did you deal with it? Did you try to fight it on principle and/or did you pay to get those who were extorting you off your back? The parking ticket suggestion was only that, a suggestion. I would not wish you, or anyone else, to do something that would really hurt you.

Marc helped me get out of a government attack a few years ago. He advised me what to do and gave me no guarantees. He told me it was all on me whether I was going to defend myself or not. I took all of that to heart and was successful.

Maybe you could come into the Skype chat and participate in one of the many court role-play sessions we have. I for one would not attack you in any way and I know the others would not either. Again, just a suggestion.

Peace,
Dan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 02:53 PM
Post: #13
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
(06-25-2015 12:07 PM)Clint Richardson Wrote:  So again, follow the guru and continue to be a slave that can say "I won in court" or learn the grammar that will make you immune from the court system.

-Clint-

Bold is my emphasis. Can't help the insult though can you Clint? I won't moderate your insults, just those against you.

So far you are unable to show any evidence of this alleged "immunity." All you have is a "KW" who claims to have an alleged declaratory judgment, but strangely, he won't give you a copy. Why not?

What you have is someone's word. I've seen many, many people claiming to make people "immune from the court system." Like you, they had absolutely no facts, no proof of their claims. I'm not surprised you mentioned this was not a public court, care to elaborate on the name of the court, who actually gave this alleged declaratory judgment? A private court, that issues declaratory judgments that are followed by public courts and government employees and agents?

Keep trying to marginalize the tickets, assessments and felony complaints kicked I have posted here, it is still what you don't have, actual proof. The honest investigators see you have no proof of this alleged immunity.

[Image: breaking-bad-gif-saul-goodman-9986269.gif]

"grammar that will make you immune from the court system." I thought it was "bloodline" only? You mentioned "White, but not Caucasian..." Or do you mean "grammar [with the right bloodline] will make you immune from the court system?

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 06-25-2015 03:43 PM by Clint Richardson.)
Post: #14
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Bruce, your disposition and honorable tone is a breath of fresh air.

This clever jingle about the "name game" should not prevent you from comprehending that the name is everything. We have discussed this so much on my show that I would refer you to my interviews with Daniel every Wednesday on my archives. But the one thing we must know is that the court cannot claim you appeared unless you use your full legal name, for the surname in last position over the given (gift) name as the christian name stands in authority over it. Last means burden, as in beast of burden.

LAST - in old English law, signifies a burden; also a measure of weight used for certain commodities of the bulkier sort. (Black's 1st edition)

Now I don't care what you think last means, I only care what last means when appearing under a legal last name in legal jurisdiction where the word last is specifically defined.

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2015...os-mentis/

In this show, KW reads his declaratory judgement, which is within a private administrative court.

Volunteerism is defined as the law of master and servant. As KW explains the agency relationship, you can understand that the agent is always under his principal's rules.

Thanks for the intelligent questions. Hope I covered what you wish to know.

-Clint-





(06-24-2015 10:54 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  welcome
nice you could stop by, Clint
lets use this thread to really explore some of your opinions/postulations
-- one that you brought up I tend to give some credence to:

"acting as a registered agent for a legal entity"
this strays close to the " name game", but logical thought would bring one to conclude that you are indeed creating a artificial legal entity by the submission of a B.C. and a SS# to receive a STATE D.L. , or alternately a STATE I.D. card, with your " signature"

--which is required I.D. by any Agency, Institution, Instrumentality
let's look at what this establishes :
---> STATE Residency
---> FEDERAL Citizenship
---> Venue
in prosecutions people are asked to voluntarily associate with " the name",
or involuntarily be bound to the "name" by evidence of actions, i.e. exemplars

perhaps some of our most vociferous posters could refrain from pollution of this thread, and actually allow discussion of issues
or
more than likely it will be business as usual

anyways, could you please support your position on this

Appologies. This is the interview with the Declaratory Judgement read.

https://corporationnationradioarchives.w...y-14-2015/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 05:21 PM
Post: #15
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
(06-25-2015 03:39 PM)Clint Richardson Wrote:  Appologies. This is the interview with the Declaratory Judgement read.

https://corporationnationradioarchives.w...y-14-2015/

ooohhh good doG
all I got from that was endless conjugation of Words, and Opinion, not one single FACT Stare
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: