Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
Current time: 07-25-2017, 07:47 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: 11:11
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 68
Views: 21202

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
04-23-2015, 03:46 PM
Post: #46
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
(04-22-2015 08:29 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  evidence?
Who are the owners? Each state has ownership in the Federal Government. Each Person who is a citizen of a State is the real owner. Not the President or Congress. They are just public servants to the true government of YOU and ME.

Why do you insist it is a contract when the evidence proves there is no contract? Pay or go to jail does not equal a contract.

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
04-24-2015, 03:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-24-2015 03:01 PM by gearheadmm.)
Post: #47
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
(04-23-2015 03:46 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  Why do you insist it is a contract when the evidence proves there is no contract?
Pledge of allegiance or oath is a contract.
YOU NEVER?????

(04-23-2015 03:46 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  Pay or go to jail does not equal a contract.
HELLO!!!!!!!
You guys act like its been this way for 200 yrs.
It wasn't up until the civil war.
Then the corporations took over.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-27-2015, 08:48 PM (This post was last modified: 04-27-2015 08:49 PM by gearheadmm.)
Post: #48
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
The Judge who is ‘pissed off’ is Judge Anna von Reitz, and I would title her statement here from her own words. “I suggest gentlemen that we cut the crap.”

http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2015/04/us-...etent.html

This is probably the best link I have ever put here.
I will use some of this in future motions.
I would suggest any one here with enough balls do the same.
I will also do some more research on this judge to see if this can be used as a presidence.

Evidently that "oath" (contract) she took meant something.

found at NESARA news.com
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-28-2015, 06:06 AM (This post was last modified: 04-28-2015 06:14 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #49
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
(04-24-2015 03:01 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  
(04-23-2015 03:46 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  Why do you insist it is a contract when the evidence proves there is no contract?
Pledge of allegiance or oath is a contract.
YOU NEVER?????

i for one, never!!!!!
(nor technically has any other whose childhood included the indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, etc labeled "Public Education".?)

gearunicornheadmm Wrote:
(04-23-2015 03:46 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  Pay or go to jail does not equal a contract.
HELLO!!!!!!!
You guys act like its been this way for 200 yrs.
It wasn't up until the civil war.
Then the corporations took over.

HELLO???????? Facepalm
Yet more B.S. 'Con'artistry circa CONstitutionalism (but what else is knew from Onemm supporting "The Republic" myth, regardless of how long One can keep it duping folks)
Classic control freak speak/methodology (i.e. speak of only one Tax).

What part of the so-called Whiskey Rebellion aka The American Tea Tax Revolution v2.0 (and how far pre-"Civil War" was it?) wasn't pay or go to jail (or worse)?
And what corps (of Fed war engineers) was behind that? (hint: your beloved/believed in "Republic" aka new boss same as the old boss)

What ole Ben should have said was: Here's your Tax Farm v2.0 if you can keep it relabeled The Republic. Secret (whether ole Franklin was self-deceived/delusional about such too, who can say? --that's how the best con artists tend to be regardless)

Not to even get into the magical myth of "Corporations" as imagination being able to "take over" another imagiNation. Stare (tho even in other popular fables the evil step-children can take over the control freak foster parents kingdom!? seeing as how it's all in the head, of course, one can imagine anything... including The Magic Kingdom Oz Wonderland Legaland 'er "The Republic" --whiskey Tax payment not an option)
Aye, gearunicornheadmm?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-28-2015, 07:10 AM
Post: #50
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
Yep, it was definitely better before the Civil War. Well, except for the part where we didn't have air conditioning. It did tend to get a bit sticky.

- 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
04-28-2015, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 04-28-2015 08:33 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #51
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
[Image: smiley-char054.gif]
This moment in word history (see also an etymology romp; see also this moment in CoNtext), brought to you by the letters "Wake" and "Up"...

some dudes posting on The Online Etymology Dictionary website Wrote:corporation (n.)
mid-15c., "persons united in a body for some purpose," from such use in Anglo-Latin, from Late Latin corporationem (nominative corporatio), noun of action from past participle stem of Latin corporare "to embody" (see corporate). Meaning "legally authorized entity" (including municipal governments and modern business companies) is from 1610s.

incorporation (n.)
late 14c., incorporacioun, "act or process of combining of substances; absorption of light or moisture," from Old French incorporacion or directly from Late Latin incorporationem (nominative incorporatio), noun of action from past participle stem of incorporare (see incorporate). Meaning "the formation of a corporate body" (such as a guild) is from early 15c.

corporate (adj.)
early 15c., "united in one body," from Latin corporatus, past participle of corporare "form into a body," from corpus (genitive corporis) "body" (see corporeal).

Hmmm, let's see now, where have i heard that combiNation of terms...?...18c?... "united" "for some purpose" "in one body"..."in Order to form a more perfect Union")? Ah, yeah, the nifty relabeling of "We The People" (We The Corporeal, aka "In Congress formed into a body Assembled", The Body Politick can you see Me We=Us now!?) ...
"The United States" "The Republic" (Corporation)!!!
Seeing "The Body/Union/Republic" as if it's a living, breathing body (corpsUs delecti)... the living dead! Since The Genesis/The Beginning!
Makes Perfect sense to mme. [/sarcasm]
In gearunicornmm's head though, The Corporations only took over after the "Civil" war.? R-e-a-l-l-y~ (that's how fantasia/phantomization/phantomNation works after all, aye? you're getting sleepy... sleepy...) Yawning Snooze

Voluntary society... if you can keep it, Sir!? (you know, actual personal/individual consent not of the mere lip service variety circa TDoI Authors)

--NonLEgallyAuthorizedEntity2i

* and lest one be tempted to pick up yet another corpse bone of such Body Politicking:
Quote:person (n.)
early 13c., from Old French persone "human being, anyone, person" (12c., Modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona "human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "mask, false face," such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater. OED offers the general 19c. explanation of persona as "related to" Latin personare "to sound through" (i.e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying the voice)...

Of corporate entities from mid-15c. In person "by bodily presence" is from 1560s. --The OED
corporeal (adj.)
early 15c., with adjectival suffix -al (1) + Latin corporeus "of the nature of a body," from corpus "body" (living or dead), from PIE *kwrpes, from root *kwrep- "body, form, appearance," probably from a verbal root meaning "to appear"
corpus (n.)
(plural corpora), late 14c., from Latin corpus, literally "body" (see corporeal). The sense of "body of a person" (mid-15c. in English) and "collection of facts or things" (1727 in English) both were present in Latin.

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-28-2015, 10:04 AM
Post: #52
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
Since this is uhfishuhly the porcine vessel symposium eYeToo thread, let me throw this his way... DUDE! Y'all otter listen to episode #555 of This American Life (frum Chicago Socialist Radio).

- 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
04-28-2015, 03:33 PM
Post: #53
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
“I suggest gentlemen that we cut the crap.”
eye your such a douche.
I have ignored the whiskey rebellion just like you have ignored all of my links.
How do you like it.
Please do something constructive or STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you spent as much time actually fighting the problem as you do whining and bitching you might not be as iritating.

http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL...ocates.pdf

https://jhaines6a.wordpress.com/2015/04/...attention/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-28-2015, 03:42 PM
Post: #54
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
(04-28-2015 03:33 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  ...you might not be as iritating.

Naw. Just like you, heez inherently irritating. 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
04-28-2015, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 04-28-2015 04:37 PM by gearheadmm.)
Post: #55
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
You should also know that Blacks Law is the only definition that they recognize.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Did anyone read the links?????????????????
jezz!

Your to busy being A$$clowns to find this...
http://annavonreitz.com/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-28-2015, 05:10 PM
Post: #56
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
(04-27-2015 08:48 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  The Judge who is ‘pissed off’ is Judge Anna von Reitz, and I would title her statement here from her own words. “I suggest gentlemen that we cut the crap.”

Anna Von Fritz is NOT a Judge, has NEVER been a Judge
her writings are pure crap along the lines of Tim Turner
would you like to read her reply to some of my questions that she willingly states " that anyone may be considered a judge " ... ??
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-28-2015, 08:17 PM
Post: #57
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
Fritz/Reitz
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-28-2015, 08:21 PM (This post was last modified: 04-28-2015 08:23 PM by NonEntity.)
Post: #58
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
(04-28-2015 08:17 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  Fritz/Reitz

Damn! That certainly was a comprehensive and verbose reply. You've been studying Brucie's style sheet it would appear.

- 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
04-29-2015, 03:45 AM (This post was last modified: 04-29-2015 03:51 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #59
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
(04-28-2015 03:33 PM)gearheadmm Wrote:  “I suggest gentlemen that we cut the crap.”
eye your such a douche.

Being a "douche" is surely/obviously why i find these two sentences placed together puzzling (to ironic). [/sarcasm]
(and who are you quoting here? your "President" choice per your signature?) [/sarcasm]

(or was your grammar actually intended? where i'd have to ask how one is to go about eyeing their such a douche...? is hearing that a godist thing too?) Investigating
Poke
Quote:I have ignored the whiskey rebellion just like you have ignored all of my links.
How do you like it.

i'd "like it" just fine if it wasn't apples to oranges comparison.
The issue for me with your links isn't the factual information they could contain, but rather the sources themselves. i've not found them reliable or trustworthy e.g. they claim (yet more) beliefs/opinions as evidence/fact etc. (see also that they're too douchE?)

Can't you pick as many sources you like as far as the so-called "Whiskey Rebellion" facts, no? (you do remember how to netsearch e.g. google it, right? where in doing so, it's wise to examine all sides of such regarding fact rather than opinion claimed as if fact?)

Meanwhile, what a convenient aka douche-bag excuse for not addressing the problems with your actual post circa "Republic" aka Governmental aka Corporation beliefs.?

“I suggest gentlemen that we cut the crap.”
Indeed.? (assuming on a site for voluntaryism, governmentalism is crap...?)
(and maybe quote that to the guy in your mirror too?)

Quote:Please do something constructive or STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a gentleman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(you just gotta love having "please" and "STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in the same sentence, aye gentlemen?)

Classic Governmentalist? You'remm here to tell others what is and isn't "constructive" regarding bringing about a voluntary society, as one advocating for involuntary society aka a "Republic" (with zero evidence to date that such is required "in the meantime" or otherwise?)

Quote:If you spent as much time actually fighting the problem as you do whining and bitching you might not be as iritating.

Again, what a gentleman (where it seems you define the term as synonymous with a governmentalist aka control freak).

Of course when one doesn't see their self as part of the problem, one can only take another's fighting the problem as instead being "whining and bitching", aye? (and yet again, what a gentlemanly way of expression?)

But for those others reading along here, let's go through it again:
Marc's stated purpose for the forum: "Bringing about a voluntary society one visitor at a time."
Please show us where i'm not supporting that in challenging you in regards to your doing that?

Please show us where i've ever been a "douche" (aka took you to task) in regards to your courageous willingness to challenge/confront/resist The Man (corporation/"corpsoreal"/dead man walking) circa Their (so-called) Courts?

Where instead, my challenges to and confrontations of you are when you champion for "The Republic" past or present (as even "temporary" Government)? And make b.s. claims like believers in "The Republic" were hunkie-dorie (didn't "Tax"/didn't initiate aggression/violence/weren't douche con artists) prior to the so-called "Civil War", and wasn't a Corporation, when the historical records clearly refute such.?

A voluntary society, if you can keep it, sir!?

--NondouchE

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-29-2015, 04:01 AM (This post was last modified: 04-29-2015 04:11 AM by pigpot.)
Post: #60
RE: Can pigpot be given his own forum thread...
Ammaaaaaaaaazzzzzzing.

Let's just slow it all down. I like the fact that my avatar has been devoted to "MAN"... shit loads of people... That is great (I was going to type 'cool") but I thought against doing so.

All that matters to ME is that you CONTINUE to use my "AVATAR" name and continue about how I matter NOT...

Listen people, "gearheadmm" has stuffed the usual candidates up their own "bum" over some while. What NEXT?

How far do people HAVE to prove they are STUPID?

(04-29-2015 04:01 AM)pigpot Wrote:  Ammaaaaaaaaazzzzzzing.

How far do people HAVE to prove they are STUPID?

They have to prove NOTHING. A court cannot make a determination based upon the thoughts of another. End of. Legal Maxim.

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
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)