Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Apr 25, 2015

Posted on April 27th, 2015 by Calvin

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Shella from CA: the value of the “Marcratic methodology” when questioning authoritarians <> making philosophical and ethical objections within the[ir] statist legal framework <> examining the philosophy and roots of ownership and indentured servitude <> statist cognitive dissonance <> the common stubbornness of those who resort to the logical fallacies of appeal to tradition and popularity <> disassociating the [arbitrary] title from the person <> voluntary statist societies <> continuing the conversation of property rights as it applies factually to establishing jurisdiction <> “jurisdiction begs the question: what gives you authority over me?” <> what makes a legitimate crime: the loss of value, injury, or damage <> restitution in a free society versus a statist society <> “statists have a lot to risk by examining their own ideas” <> knowing, and communicating to, your audience in a courtroom <> and committing to getting video footage to submit for the Same ol’ Lie World Tour asking city bureaucrats and attorneys “what evidence do you have to prove your laws and statutes apply to me or anyone else?” and the statist double-standard question.
  • Keith from Canada: more circular logic: “the code is the facts, m’kay.”
  • Johnny D from CA: dego talk <> retired C.P.A. fighting the I.R.S. <> how to go about challenging jurisdiction within the government’s parameters and language <> one of the initial ways the system will hook you is by your first 1040 <> the U.S. government is the most successful crime syndicate know to man, even better than the mafia <> challenging jurisdiction without accepting jurisdiction <> bureaucrat’s and agent’s reflexive and abusive use of the frivolous “frivolous argument” objection <> and role-playing to better prep for litigation.
  • Fabrice from England: new radio show “The Bunker Show” debuting on Dark City Radio with Marc making an appearance this Wednesday on a AiLL UK roundtable <> sharing effective questioning techniques that have been fine-tuned from repeated use in court <> developing “side-scripts” for when bureaucrats try to distract you away from your line of questioning <> helping people help themselves <> confidently understanding your defense and questioning thoroughly <> 7 P’s: proper prior preparation prevents poor performance <> engaging local bureaucrats with questions of evidence <> making the assumption that government bureaucrats work for you helps them open up for further questioning <> conducting oneself in a consensual manner <> and how some bureaucrats enjoy being engaged and challenged.
  • Brandon/”Free at Will” from CA: jailed for possessing a firearm while being searched by a cop who responded to an accident <> discovering AiLL and anarchy after pleading out with an attorney <> questioning the attorney and judge who do not want to answer <> and spending significant time daily to learn truth after 32 years of statist conditioning.
  • John from NC/Turkey: questioning a cop on the stand on what facts they have that the laws apply just because you are in the “STATE OF __________” <> how do you respond when they claim “your presence” is the fact that proves jurisdiction <> playing devil’s advocate to build better responses to their interference techniques <> and claiming that one “violated the law” IS a legal determination, which cops aren’t qualified to make, but do so with every summons they issue.
              

114 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    I’ve not listened to the whole show yet but I really liked Shella’s contribution. One point that I want to make to her is this: asking why someone doesn’t just totally “get it” about jurisdiction, freedom, ethics and such when presented with evidence is forgetting about one crucial point. Consider a person who has built a life around a given set of memes. He or she has years invested, a culture within which he operates, a pension and regular income to feed the regular debts he’s taken on. He has a family with children who mean the world to him, and so on.

    So now you present this person with logical evidence refuting his entire structure which, if he accepts the logic and acts upon it, will rip the foundation from under his entire life. All of his friends, his business associates, his business itself, his pension perhaps, and the very structure which puts food in the mouths of his family.

    Can you see why it might cause someone like the Supreme Court guy to laugh? What else CAN he do in the moment, especially if he indeed SEES the truth in what you are saying? He SEES his entire life turned upside down and dumped in the gutter.

    I’m not saying it’s right to continue being a criminal, I’m just pointing out that it might be hard to swallow in the moment when you’re up there in front of the microphone with the lights on you and you see that what you say next may utterly GUT YOU.

  2. FBA Says:

    If we didn’t have roads we would all have gyrocopters.

  3. i.n.rem Says:

    don’t kid yourself…or me, for that matter
    once you traverse above the local criminal court level,
    every Judge knows the sham perpetrated on the public
    it’s a job for narcissistic control freaks, and it pays well to boot
    the percentage of attorneys that realize the scam in their first year of practice is prolly 80%
    the other 20% were bad students, and would have been better off as cops

  4. NonEntity Says:

    Government Indicted e-book is on it’s way!?! COOL! I wonder how long shipping will take. I hope the truck doesn’t get into a wreck or similar. 😉 You never know with these delivery companies nowadaze.

  5. Steven Richards Says:

    Seems the first caller believes she was born in the US, and she seems to believe when someone claims to have jurisdiction over “you” that it’s her they’re referring to. Wonder how that’s working out for her, and for anyone else that believes the same things.

  6. Don Penners Says:

    Marc, the absence of jubilation by friends and posters regarding your professional question to the AZ chief justice stuns me. I can discover no reason for the lifeless attitude by your faithful readers and video watchers. I found the occasion bona fide proof of the system’s tyrannical nature and precisely what you anticipated. The judge’s feeble laugh and then his “keen” observation that violators get incarcerated show how disgraceful and intolerable the American judiciary is. It shows gross ignorance and depravity from one who should know better. We also know that guilty malum prohibitum violators are those who never effectively rebutted the court’s presumed jurisdiction. I posted the judge’s ineffective reply on the Redding Tea Party with a view-count of twenty in a few days. I wonder if folks feel too embarrassed to even think about how pathetic the American legal system’s alleged due process protection has really become.
    There’s also a substantial battle waging between a NM county assessor and a MS student, plus I have found the MS approach effective with the FATCA application for information.

  7. NonEntity Says:

    Don P. sed: “I can discover no reason for the lifeless attitude by your faithful readers and video watchers.” —- Don, I can sympathize with your and Marc’s frustration, but as I said to notavoter when informed of the event, (regarding the judge’s laughter) “Well what else could he do?” He can’t refute Marc’s implied position. The only other option is to admit that he’s a violent criminal and part of a sociopathic cartel. Or he can laugh and try and escape with his life intact. Since we know he’s not an honorable person the only option he had was the one he took.

    I have immense respect for what Marc does. I say that on what I think is a somewhat regular basis. I really do. From the first time I read his first book I was blown away by the clarity of his vision, his integrity, and his balls. That said, the response he got was the only one he could have gotten. I’m guessing that most/many/some/me get that. Mega kudos to Marc are indeed in order, but not surprise.

    At least that’s how I see it.

  8. RAD Says:

    It’s another instance of Marc’s excellent material, but it doesn’t cover any new ground except the interview subject has more volts of the jurisdiction magic. The mind-blowing Buttrick interview already covered the basic concepts and in a more in-depth interview without the interference from the handler. As great as the material is, Marc has material just as good and better in my opinion, like Kolby and Buttrick. Marc is one of the greatest visionaries of our time – most of his stuff is ahead of its time and many aren’t even at a level of understanding to “get it”.

    “It shows gross ignorance and depravity from one who should know better.”

    If you are a fan of Marc and the NSP and follow the show it’s what you’ve come to expect.

  9. Don Penners Says:

    True, Marc has put other prominent functionaries under the spot light, but not the top legal authority in AZ. I’d have thought Bales would have said: “the law says we have jurisdiction because the legislature created this power grant for the public protection”. His incarceration “rationale” seemed weak coming from such an arrogant know-it-all.
    Buttrick certainly produced obvious anxiety over this critical criminal element which made him look as deceiving as any county traffic arbiter. You’re both right, Marc has stepped into a realm of natural law that remains beyond the grasp of nearly all of us Americans, no matter how “exceptional” we imagine we are. I offer this point; if the so-called “patriot community” can’t get this well proven foundation of law mentally squared away, we can hold little expectation of the overall benefits we know will accrue from it. We also recognize that the bulk of the public will always remain deluded about their state religion.
    I recently attempted to help three people with red light tickets. To my dismay they all refused my assistance once they learned they’d have to stand toe to toe with the costumed character and timely object to his bad behavior. Paying the 469 meant nothing to them, compared with the embarrassment of arguing with a rogue.

  10. RAD Says:

    The reality is this Bales guy is a priest of a religion – the contemporary government religion or State religion. A religion which denies it is a religion. He is giving you a scriptural article of faith as a “sacred truth.” He thinks his interpretation of the sacred scripture is somehow magically the “right” interpretation because: 1. He is well educated in the scriptures and their orthodox interpretations. 2. He has a personal relationship with the higher power of the religion, the “person” called state. He is one of the chosen ones of the personalized “entity” which he literally believes in as some external “entity” with its own personality and personhood. A deity in other words.

  11. NonEntity Says:

    Just read some of the crap that “Truth Seeker” posts about his religion in the forum. Change a few words and the statists are equivalently delusional and immune from rational thought. The human mind has a lot more evolving to do if we don’t kill all life forms above cockroaches first.

  12. damon Says:

    Hello and peace be with you,

    They have changed the meaning of religion in order to deceive. The meanings of the words never change but the usage does (bad, cool, nice, kid are some examples.) If one were to go back a few years and look at an older version of what religion actually means one will find;

    RELIGION. Real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men. Bouveir’s 1856

    So one can see religion is a duty to not only God but also to ones fellow man or neighbor. So what is this duty?

    Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. [Ecclesiastes 12:13]

    So what are the commandments resulting in fulfillment of these continuing duties?

    at 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
    Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.

    So we see here that this duty involves loving our fellow man or neighbor. We have not done this in a very long time and drifted far from it. We have been slothful in our care for one another and taking care of one another. We can see this duty echoed here;

    Jas_1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

    We again have been slothful in this. Instead, everyone has elected for benefactors to exercise authority over their neighbor to provide for their welfare through forced contributions. This is covetousness. This is bondage. This is sloth as it is written;

    Pro_12:24 The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute.

    Now, because people refuse to care for their fellow man out of their own free will through the perfect law of liberty and be their welfare they are “forced” to do so to keep the law.

    People have desired much at the expense of their neighbor and now that which should of been for their welfare is become a snare and a trap for them which allows Marc much talking time but never coming to the knowledge of the truth;

    Psa_69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.

    Now people find themselves back in the bondage of Egypt (only a 20% tax then) and are found to be crying out for the kings they have chosen for themselves.

    Is anyone here willing to gather together in free assemblies in order to learn how to care for their neighbor instead of at their expense, learning how to love (sacrifice) one another through faith, hope, and charity? Is anyone here willing to NOT force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare? Is anyone here willing to not take the benefit from their authoritarian benefactors so as to not burden their neighbor?

    Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
    Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

    Mans kingdoms use force to provide for the needy whereas God’s kingdom uses charity and free will offerings of the people to provide for the needy. In one, the authoritarian benefactors choose how much you give and the other (liberty) you get to choose how much you give. Those free will offerings of the people were the “burnt sacrifice’s” or “blood sacrifice’s”. They were “blood sacrifice’s” because it takes your energy (blood pumping) to produce the sacrifice with the work you do. Metaphors.

    So who is willing? If no one is willing to be the welfare for their neighbor then you might want to question your motives? Are you covetous of your neighbors goods? Do you care as much about your fellow mans liberty as you do your own? Are you willing to “set him free” by not taking the benefits from authoritarian benefactors who force them to contribute? If you are not willing to set your neighbor free than what makes you think that you deserve the freedom/liberty? Do you take from the table of kings who exercise authority over your neighbor to provide you with benefits?

    Real religion is not forcing your neighbor to provide you with welfare, public education, food stamps, health care, W.I.C., and so on. Religion is NOT “what you believe about God”. Everyone has a “religion” and it is how one cares for the needy of their society. Most people have chosen the religion of the STATE called socialism. There is a better way, a way to true liberty under God.

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  13. NonEntity Says:

    Stranger and stranger indeed.

  14. NonEntity Says:

    Demon sed: Hello and peace be with you,… Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
    —-
    Peace based upon fear. Can you feel the love?!

  15. Don Penners Says:

    There may indeed exist many similarities of govern-mental behavior and religious minded humans. But, like the marine general said, “I turned off my mind while in the service. I turned it on only when retired”. Like all religious zealots, we have scant, if any, capacity to help them mature into real human beings.
    One pathetic aspect of ordinary American thinking is the concomitant embrace of the govern-mental’s religious rites performed when they protect the public at large by simply oppressing them.
    Hence, it seems that our best intention is to continue to learn from and back Marc’s magnificent efforts of aiding those under attack.

  16. damon Says:

    Peace be with you,

    Aiding Marc is going to do little to nothing even with the “best intentions” without a virtuous people who are willing to sacrifice in real love for their neighbor as opposed to forcing them to contribute to their welfare.

    As interesting as some of Marc’s material may be it still results in people remaining in their bondage. Not forcing people others is only part of the solution. People need an alternative in caring for the poor and needy of their society and there is an alternative but it takes a people who are willing to care about their neighbor as much as themselves.

    There are two governments. Man’s government uses forced contributions to care for the needy of society whereas God’s government uses the freewill offerings of the people through charity to care for the needy of society. One results in bondage like most are in today and the other results in liberty. That liberty requires responsibility. It requires sacrifice. It requires charity. It requires a virtuous people. Just about everyone today thinks it is ok to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare at their neighbors expense so they elect men who promise them the most benefits. This is a direct reflection of the majority of the hearts and minds of the people.

    @Nonentity.

    That word fear means reverence. Much like a child is to reverence their Father we ought to reverence our Heavenly Father. The people have refused to do this also and have prayed to the Patronus of the country for their benefits. They look to another to provide for them at their neighbors expense. So they make covenants with the “gods” (ruling judges/magistrates) of the people. Are you willing to care for your neighbor’s liberty as much as you care for yours Nonentity? Are you willing to do what is required to actually attain that liberty that only comes from above? Are you willing to not accept or take the benefit that comes at the expense of your neighbor? If you are not then you would have no place to complain about the force that your neighbor uses against you to provide for them. It is not the government that is the problem…it is the slothful, selfish, covetous people that will not sacrifice for one another in love. Who is willing to not only not take of the benefit but provide another way through charity and not force?

    We have been so far removed from true liberty that people do not even know what it looks like. Let alone what would they do with it if they had it. Would they keep it? Not with their current hearts and minds. They would quickly fall back into forcing their neighbor. Are you willing Nonentity to provide for the fatherless and orphans through charity so that you do not need to be forced to do so? Are you willing to be the welfare for those that cannot care for themselves? Or is everyone here just here to listen to Marc ask questions of the people that are elected about the force they use to provide welfare then turn around and go back to taking that welfare from the very people they are complaining about.

    Lets say one obtains their “stateless society”. How then does one care for the poor, the elderly, the orphans, and the needy? What replaces the force used now? And who here is willing to be that provision? If your not willing to be that provision in some way then your part of the problem as it is written;

    “He who is not with me is against me; And he who gathers not, scattereth abroad”.

    Are the people here just people with “itching ears” waiting to hear the next witty thing? Or are they people who are really willing to seek that liberty in truth? There is only one way. They have tried the other over and over and over and the result is always the same. Rome did it. Germany did it. Egypt did it. Babylon did it. The result is always the same. And so it goes that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    In His peace and authority,

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  17. NonEntity Says:

    Isn’t it interesting how the religious love to lookdown their noses at everyone else, tell them everything they’re doing wrong and dictate the correct path for them?

  18. Andy Says:

    NonEntity said: “Isn’t it interesting how the religious…”

    Any interest wore off long ago. Yawn!

  19. NonEntity Says:

    Point taken, &e. In case it wasn’t clear I was speaking of religious in but the godist AND statist forms.

  20. NonEntity Says:

    By the way, in case I was misunderstood regarding my statement about “what else CAN he (Bales, for instance) do but laugh… I’m not meaning to imply that his response is the proper one. I’m only trying to get across that very few people have the personal integrity to live according to their ethics if it means they must turn their whole lives upside down to do so. Most people are happy to continue ruining OTHER peoples’ lives rather than upset the apple cart of theirs.

    I assumed that my point was clear/obvious on that, but assumptions are dangerous things to rely upon.

  21. Don Penners Says:

    Damon regarding your April 29th post at 12:39, you likely may have a reason to insert your beliefs, but I find your logic goes off the track and will not benefit me and mine. Thank you for reminding me of my slothful attitude though I firmly disagree with your adjective. And I don’t need preaching about my alleged slothful behavior with the public at large. Your adaptation of proselytizing others is a defect found in many so-called religious theorists. Faith, Hope and Charity won’t catch a court’s interest whatsoever.
    Mind you, I’m not rebutting your ideas, but marking the inappropriateness of their content regarding the topic at hand, e.g., the AZ miscreant. The overwhelming issue to the government’s victims concerns how can I deal with an immediate attack by this criminal court? The value of Marc’s efforts to bring the troublemaker to “justice” comes from the plain deception and obviously fallacious logic Scott employed.
    Marc’s teaching comes from a structure that we can miss if not alert. We should only approach govern-mentals by seeking their facts. Any other subject amounts to our personal assertions based on personal opinions and beliefs. In another arena, our personal thoughts make sense, but assuredly, personal opinions have not a smidgen of value, as a defendant, in a courthouse.
    So, instead of berating yourself by confessing your slothful life, why not focus on teaching others to seek the government’s facts? Certainly we know that each case’s sine qua non is jurisdiction and it must consume our mind to attain relief. We also know that absent jurisdiction the court’s have nothing.
    You can quote translations of ancient laws to your ending breath, but it’ll matter not one wit to an arbiter. Whatever “on point” law/rule/regulation/statute/code/authority you present as your defense, the arbiter has heard it all and has precisely the opposite precedent ready to destroy your position.
    In conclusion, why not set aside arguing your personal beliefs and law/religious arguments? I suggest that we all fix our body and mind on the arrogant one’s absence of facts proving the codes apply to us.

    PS. I personally filed a massive religious argument in federal district court thirty years ago with the expectation of overturning a Show Cause Order. The judge opened his remarks with: “Religious arguments have no place in Court”. He’s right, opinions don’t mean a thing since they are NOT FACTS.

  22. NonEntity Says:

    Very well said Don.

  23. damon Says:

    Peace be with you,

    An “immediate attack by the criminal court” is only a symptom of the real issues I am attempting to bring up. Jurisdiction is, in most cases, already given due to a usually overwhelming amount of “tacit acquiescence” which is consent by action. Along with this they also are able to secure “express consent” usually in the form of an oath (perjury statement) on the wide array of “benefits” they offer (tax forms and so on). Continued use and participation of the social security number/card is all the “evidence” they need to see that you have and continue to consent to their rule over you. It is your “agreement” to be bound by ALL the rules that accompany such use. One of these agreements is your consent to pay a tax. Here is the link to see for your self to what you agree in the very first three lines by your continued use of the “benefit”;

    http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html#TITLE VIII

    What we should be doing is caring for our neighbor. Just trying to “mitigate” the damages they attempt on you in court is fine and all but not the way to true liberty.

    My wife and I had a run in not long ago where my wife spent 13 days in their “hotel”. She was not charged, fined, and never put before a magistrate. She was also interviewed by an agent from the F.B.I. who also found no fault with her. Nothing filed only served.

    A problem with your “religious argument” is that you FILED it. We do not file anything with them. We serve them process. But that is not the issue either.

    Somewhere you have possibly agreed to be bound by their rules and regulations. Your continued use of the licensing and cards and citizenship and so on show that you are still in agreement with them. Now people are turning and “crying out for the kings they have chosen”. I am not “turning my nose” or the like but if we cannot at least admit that it might be us that is the problem then we are blind to the truth.

    As long as people continue to elect authoritarian benefactors to exercise authority over their neighbor to provide them with welfare they will remain in bondage. No question about it.

    There is a better way. In love and peace, but it takes sacrifice and hard work. It takes a virtuous people. If one is not willing to be the welfare for their neighbor then one does not want liberty.

    In His peace and authority

    Damon Israel

  24. Bo Says:

    It might be a good idea not to throw the ‘religious baby’ out with the bath water in trying to encourage others to come on board with the factual truth of Marc’s exposure of the illegitimacy of authority.

    Unashamedly, a plug for a phiolsophical approach, simply put, and that those with religious inclinations could appreciate, particularly one that combines God, the facts, freewill, the necessity for full disclosure in contract, as well as why contract exists, without having to deny a higher calling, as well as one that arguably supports Marc’s position of a voluntary society, can perhaps be thought of in the explanation given from the reading headed, TO BE OR NOT TO BE – THE CHOICE IS YOURS TO MAKE, to be found here –

    RULE THYSELF LEST YE BE RULED
    https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/rule-thyself-lest-ye-be-ruled/

    As for the position of the clergy, in whatever denomination they happen to be found, this maybe of some amusement –

    OWNERSHIP OF LAW
    https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/ownership-of-law/

  25. NonEntity Says:

    Rapist, “But she WANTED IT! Just look at her!”

  26. damon Says:

    Peace be with you,

    I must note that I am not in an adversarial position with anyone here. I am trying to drive a point home. If one expects to be free while not turning their neighbor free, they are no better than the tyrants they keep electing and will not see that freedom/liberty but remain in bondage.

    So I will write it again to stay on point which is relevant no matter what or where the topic is.

    There are two governments. Always has been. One uses force to provide for the needy of society while the other uses the free will offerings of the people. One provides for bondage while the other provides for liberty. One is of man while the other of God.

    That “ancient law” is just as applicable today as it was “then”. The results are in. People are back in the bondage of Egypt because they have coveted their neighbors goods. They have been slothful in the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy and faith. They have thought it ok to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare which in turn brings that same judgment back on them as it is written,

    Mat_7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    People have put shackles on their neighbor. I am not here trying to say “oh your bad and I am not”. I am here trying to say there is a better way. If we cannot understand why there is this bondage and the reasons it is here than how can one know what to repent (turn the other way) from?

    In is peace and authority

    Damon Israel.

  27. Don Penners Says:

    Damon, I appreciate your help explaining your reasons and opinions. You may find it of interest to become familiar with the two general categories of criminal law. One, which dates from the earliest days of human society is called “malum in se” and which loosely translates as a real crime. The other modern crime is the malum prohibitum which translates as a violation of some politicians dream legislation.
    The malum in se crime requires careful analysis of the fact patterns developed by investigators and prosecutors. These crime are seen in religions such as the Christian ten commandments. But, common sense tells us what makes a malum in se itself we don’t need it written for us. These crimes do have several specific elements that the prosecution must prove to a jury or judge beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Today, our problem is the explosion of “prohibitum” crimes which effectively have no elements. There’s no malum in se crime if one carries a gun, smokes dope or drives without a seat belt affixed. Yet, at the urging of insurance companies, drug companies and do-good groups an onslaught of political money makers have appeared from thin air. These offenses all lack a complaining party element found in the “in se” crimes. Thus, absent a complaining party, (the cop is a witness) how does a cop, a prosecutor or a court gain jurisdiction? They never have jurisdiction no matter your driving license and etc.
    We know that cops don’t ponder our potential money benefits or know we have waved our right to due process when they see a profitable traffic violation. Once a cop files his ticket, what prosecutor is going to research our status as SSA recipients? The line of reasoning that cops and the IRS exercise comes from their presumed jurisdiction. We may guess it arises from some tacit consent or an adhesion contract but such reasoning arises from those who lack familiarity with the legal constructs called presumptions.
    If you feel strongly about providing sustenance for supposedly “unfortunate” humans, be sure they want you to intrude in their version of a free life. Some may indeed want/need help, but you don’t know. For those who empathize why not give everything they have, no problem. But, I’ve known professionals who have dropped out and love their homeless and penniless lifestyle. They are offended when do-gooders insist on “helping them”. You can become a homeless wandering monk and enjoy a free lifestyle never even imagined by moderns.
    The court filing I did 31 years ago differs considerably from today’s filing. If you are arrested you may find filing the appropriate papers eases your mind considerably. If you file papers and your charges are dismissed, you’d be surprised how good you will feel. As far as voting for either twiddle dee or twiddle dumb, no thanks. My candidate: “none of the above” never appears.
    Here’s an review of the basic facts that support presumptions and a burden of proof.
    Burdens of Proof and Presumptions
    Quick Review, Evidence
    By Professor Steven Goode
    Two senses of burden of Proof exist. One is the burden of Production and the other is known as the burden of going forward with the evidence. Sometimes it’s called the burden of persuasion (or risk of non-persuasion). The one bearing the burden of production but fails to meet it loses without going to the jury. The party that bears the burden of persuasion may get to the jury but will lose if he fails to meet this burden
    Substantive law determines which party bears the burden of persuasion as to an issue. In Civil Cases the plaintiff (Plain) has the burden of persuasion as to the elements of its claim, while the defendant (Def) bears the burden of persuasion as to any defenses raised. In a defamation action the Plain has to prove the defamatory statement was made by Def. Def seeks to assert truth as a defense, and has the burden of establishing the truth of the statement.
    PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES. Normally the jury has discretion in deciding what inferences should arise from the evidence. A presumption, (pres) however, is a procedural device which requires the jury to draw a particular conclusion from certain proved basic facts.
    Basic and Presumed Facts The proved fact from which the prescribed conclusion must be drawn is called the basic fact. The prescribed conclusion is called the presumed fact, which must be inferred if the basic fact is proved.
    Example: The law presumes that a letter that was properly addressed and mailed, will be received in due course by the addressee. But, even absent this presumption, the jury could permissibly infer receipt of a letter from evidence of proper mailing. The presumption, however, requires the jury to find that the letter was received if they believe the letter was properly addressed and mailed. (This may be rebutted.) The facts of “proper addressing” and “proper mailing” are the basic facts which must be proved, “receipt of the letter” is the presumed fact which must be inferred if the basic facts are proved.
    HOW PRESUMPTIONS WORK IN GENERAL. In dealing with presumptions, it’s important to distinguish between the treatment of basic facts and presumed facts.
    a. Basic Facts. Presumptions come into play only if the proponent proves the basic facts. If no dispute about the basic facts exist, the presumption is triggered. If there is a dispute about the basic facts, the presumption comes into play only if the jury finds that the basic facts exist. The opponent of a presumption may always try to show that the basic facts don’t exist.
    b. Effect of Triggering the Presumption. If the basic facts are found to exist, the presumption is triggered. The effect of the presumption differs, however, depending on whether it is an irrebuttable (or conclusive presumption) or a rebuttable presumption. If a conclusive presumption is triggered, its opponent may not attempt to disprove the presumed fact. With a rebuttable presumption, the opponent may try to disprove the presumed fact as well as the basic facts.
    1. A conclusive presumption is really a substantive rule of law masquerading as a rule of evidence. It operates only if the fact finder is convinced of the existence of the basic facts. Thus, the opposing party may always challenge the existence of the basic facts.
    REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS Most presumptions (pres) are rebuttable. If the basic facts of a rebuttable pres are proved, the jury is required to find the presumed fact unless the opponent of the pres rebuts it. How much evidence one must produce to negate the effect of the pres depends on the jurisdiction’s approach to rebuttable pres. Two basic approaches to rebuttable pres exist.
    a. Presumption Shifts burden of Persuasion. One view of rebut pres called the Morgan-McCormick approach is that they shift the burden of persuasion. If the proponent triggers the pres by establishing the basic facts, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists unless the opponent persuades it that the presumed fact does not exist. That’s the effect of this type of pres; it places the burden on the opponent, of persuading the jury that the presumed fact does not exist.
    Example. If Plain is trying to prove that Def received a letter, Plain testifies that she properly addressed and mailed the letter. Def cross-examines Plain about her testimony. Later Def testifies that he never received the letter. The judge should instruct the jury that if they find that Plain addressed and mailed the letter to Def, they MUST find that Def received it UNLESS Def convinced them by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not receive it.
    This Presumption Version Furthers Public policy. By shifting the burden of persuasion to the opponent of the presumed fact, the Morgan-McCormick pres makes it more likely that the presumed fact will be found. This reflects a view that presumptions should be used to promote public policy by increasing the likelihood that juries will reach certain outcomes.
    b. Presumption Shifts Production Burden: The Bursting Bubble Approach. Under this approach (Thayer-Wigmore) the pres acts merely to shift the burden of production to the opponent. In other words, the opponent of the pres may negate its effect merely by producing evidence that would allow a juror to find that the presumed fact does not exist. If the opponent does this, the pres disappears from the case. (the bubble bursts). This pres has a practical effect only if the opponent of the pres fails to produce evidence to rebut the presumed fact.
    Example: Plain is trying to prove that Def received a particular letter. Plain testifies that she properly addressed and mailed the letter to Def. Def cross-examines Plain about her testimony. Later, Def testifies that he never received the letter. Under the bursting bubble approach, the judge should not give the jury an instruction. By testifying that he did not receive the letter, Def has produced sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the presumed fact (receipt of the letter) does not exist. Thus he has met his production burden and eliminated the presumption from the case. Remember, Def does not have to persuade the judge or jury that he did not receive the letter in order to negate the presumption; he need only produce evidence of non-receipt.
    Presumption is Gone, But Logical Inference Remains Although the procedural effect of the pres may be overcome, any logical inference that flows from the basic facts remains. Thus if the jury believes that the letter was properly addressed and mailed, it may still infer that Def received it. The difference is the judge gives no jury instruction which is intended to cause the jury to reach a certain outcome.
    Presumption Only a Procedural Convenience. The “bursting bubble approach“ to presumptions reflects a view that they are merely procedural conveniences designed to expedite litigation and (sometimes) to force the party with greater access to the evidence to come forward with it. Under this view, therefore, they should be given little weight.
    c. Determining Which View to Apply. FRE 301 adopts the weaker form of presumption, shifting only the burden of production and not burden of persuasion to the opponent of the presumption. Keep in mind that the bursting bubble (FRE) approach views presumptions merely as a procedural convenience, whereas the Morgan-McCormick approach views presumptions as a means of advancing public policy.
    SUMMARY OF PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES and CRIMES
    In dealing with presumptions, it is important to focus on three things,: a. the type of presumption involved; b. whether the basic facts have been contested; and c. whether evidence has been introduced that disputes the existence of the presumed facts.
    The Constitution requires the state to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This limits the ability of the state to use a presumption to prove an element of a crime. See Sandstrom v. Montana.

  28. NonEntity Says:

    Awaiting the next installment of chastising from the prophet of love…

  29. Andy Says:

    NonEntity said: Rapist, “But she WANTED IT! Just look at her!”

    It’s akin to the blind leading the blind. In this case/instance, as you pointed out, it’s the delusional leading the delusional.

  30. Andy Says:

    But, NonEntity, he used the Brian Williams opening line “Peace be with you” ~ Brian Williams.

    Yes, that Brian Williams, the fraudster. It’s a matter of presentation to APPEAR that there is underlying substance. When all there really is is wind.

  31. desertspeaks Says:

    Some “if not most or all” of you may have heard of Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, which states the following;
    But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by
    suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. “end quote”

    It goes on to say the following;
    The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain. If they do, the right stands waived. Could not the States, in their sovereign capacities, or Congress (if it has the power) as their agent, forgive such a breach of the Constitution, on the part of a State, as that of imposing a tax on imports, or accept reparation for it? In case this were done, what would become of the claims of private persons, for damages for such breach? To let such claims be set up against the forgiven party, would be to do away with the forgiveness. No, if there existed such claimants,they would have to appeal, each to his own sovereign for redress. It was that sovereign’s business to get enough from the offending sovereign, to cover all private losses of his own citizens-and if he did not get enough to do that,those citizens must look to him, alone for indemnity.

    The above provides us with evidence that we private men/women “private person/persons” are not parties to their CONstitution, as the parties are clearly the States!
    In contract law, when one is not a party or signatory to some agreement, contract or compact* (see their CONstitution) then one cannot obligated to adhere to the agreement, contract or compact* or any promulgations arising from, of or by any alleged authority granted by the original agreement, contract or compact*! ie laws, statutes, codes, policies, etc..
    I would further point out that slavery and involuntary servitude is, per their own law and international law, ILLEGAL..
    So, if we aren’t parties to their CONstitution and we’re not slaves, where is their authority over us??

    I would also add that we private people have not sworn an oath to obey, support or defend their CONstitution, unlike all of the fraudulent governments employees are required to do.
    Is it not interesting that they all believe that their CONstitution and laws automatically apply to everyone but their employees are required to swear an oath to something that supposedly automatically applies?
    If it truly automatically applied, there should be absolutely no reason to swear an oath to obey, support and defend something that already automatically applied. OR am I missing something??

  32. desertspeaks Says:

    I should have included the following link, the quote is on page 45-46
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14566693/Padelford-Fay-Co-vs-The-Mayor-and-Alderman-of-the-City-of-Savannah#scribd

  33. damon Says:

    Peace be with you,

    @ Desertspeaks,

    The authority they have comes from the both implied and express consent that most have given and continue to give through their continued use of the benefits taken at their neighbors expense. They cannot impair your contract obligations. There is also a maxim that states “contract makes the law”. Most people have agreed and continue to agree to pay the tax as I pointed out earlier. Use of the social security card/number is ones agreement to pay the tax. It is contractual. Their constitution provides for no “INVOLUINTARY SERVITUDER”. The issue is that most have volunteered and continue to do so.

    One is “employed” by “uncle sam” if one uses “uncle sam’s” slave surveillance number. Do you have and use government issued identifying numbers? Does one claim year after year to be an “employed taxpayer” on tax forms under oath?

    Minimum Contacts: “A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court’s personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state.” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 US. 310, 66 c.c. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.

    Minimum contacts is satisfied.

    “Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its benefits, they can not divest themselves.” Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).

    As long as one accepts the benefits one cannot divest themselves of the hold they have. Jurisdiction satisfied.

    It might also be important to note that America is conquered and under an occupying force. It is called martial law.

    @ Don

    “Today, our problem is the explosion of “prohibitum” crimes which effectively have no elements. ”

    I disagree that this is the problem. This is only a symptom and will get worse until the people repent. The problem is many people have joined themselves to a religion called socialism where people elect authoritarian benefactors to exercise authority over their neighbor to provide welfare at their neighbors expense.

    Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
    Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

    But people will not hear it so they remain in their bondage. Those hermits might like to be at peace alone and all but what does that have to do with caring for their neighbor? What do they do when they fall ill and need care? To whom will they go? Is that a reason for me to sit on the sidelines because some hermit “might take offense” if I try to help him? It honestly sounds like a far reaching excuse for me to do nothing and remain in ones current state.

    All the knowledge about presumption is great and all. Still does not change the fact that those that use the benefits are bound. Unless one is willing to provide for their neighbor in another way than by force they will remain under that same force. This should make perfect sense. If I do not set you free than I do not deserve the freedom.

    the people have been slothful in their care and love for one another. They have not cared about their neighbors liberty as much as their own and have been made merchandise;

    2Pe_2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you…

    it is because of the sloth that the people are back under tribute to the Pharaohs of Egypt and Caesars of Rome;

    Pro_12:24 The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute.

    That diligence is diligent care of your neighbor in that he remains free and unbound. That diligence is not throwing shackles on your neighbor through our covetousness to force them to provide for our welfare.

    If one is not willing to be the welfare for their neighbor in love so that they do not have to go to the benefactors who exercise authority then they are part of the problem. It is people crying about the jurisdiction that they themselves gave and now want to do nothing but complain about it instead of make any real change. Many of which probably still want and actually take the benefits offered at their neighbors expense.

    Psa_69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.

    People do not hear it.

    In His peace and authority

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  34. Steven Richards Says:

    “If one expects to be free while not turning their neighbor free, they are no better than the tyrants they keep electing and will not see that freedom/liberty but remain in bondage.”

    What does “freedom” mean to you? Could it be freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose?

    Could it be some people will always want to be governed? If so, why try denying them what they want? Could it be as long as you try “saving” the world, you’ll never “save” yourself?

  35. NonEntity Says:

    Help me make it through the night!

  36. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, COMPELLED participation is not even tacit acceptance to any agreement or adhesion contract, and where pray tell is the full disclosure for this CONTRACT??Whats that, there hasn’t been full disclosure? alleged contract, NULL AND VOID!

    As for being an “employee” um where’s my check? they owe me 50 years of back pay if they are going to call me one of their employees, I also DEMAND the exact same IMMUNITY to their laws, that they afford to judges, congressmen, senators, potus, scotus, etc. since as you seem to BELIEVE, that I’m their EMPLOYEE!
    Now what??

  37. NonEntity Says:

    desert, in an effort so save demon the stress of having to write another nonsensical diatribe, I’ll jump in here with a reply:

    “People do not hear it.

    In His peace and authority”

    😉

  38. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Non,.. thanks lol.. his text tantrums are getting old and as reason and evidence don’t exist in his twisted little universe!
    I include had to include the following;
    Black’s law 4th edition, page 1743
    VIS COMPULSIVA. In the civil and old English
    law. Compulsive force; that which is exerted to
    compel another to do an act against his will;
    force exerted by menaces or terror.

  39. Damon Says:

    Peace be with you,

    @ Desert. I have been very reasonable and provided much evidence in my posts/replies. There are some fundamentals of law that seem to be overlooked. You may like to complain and say you are compelled but this is not so. Chances are you may have agreed at some time in the past and they have no reason to believe you have any dissent as you may very well be a full participant. One cannot claim full disclosure even though they do not come out and just say “this will bind you to us”. They have something called “plausible deniability”. That is ignorance of the law is no excuse. You are charged with knowing the law. That law is;

    He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.

    and again here;

    One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.

    and again here;

    What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.

    The people have been eating at the kings table and do not like the chains that accompany the meal.

    Pro 23:1 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee:
    Pro 23:2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.
    Pro 23:3 Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.

    What many are feeling are the “disadvantages of attending those benefits”. They do not like the servitude that comes along with it. If one has and uses a social security number/card one is considered and treated as “federal personnel”. This can be found here which they do act on;

    (12) the term “Federal benefit program” means any program administered or funded by the Federal Government, or by any agent or State on behalf of the Federal Government, providing cash or in-kind assistance in the form of payments, grants, loans, or loan guarantees to individuals; and

    (13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

    here is the link for the above https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a

    If one has and uses a drivers license they agree to the terms found in the Motor Vehicle Code. One asking for “facts that the laws apply” is kind of silly if one has the license.

    We will find ourselves always back to the main issue. The forcing of ones neighbor to provide oneself with benefits. This is the way of bondage that most people are finding themselves in. The elected authoritarian benefactors are doing what the people have elected them to do, which is provide the welfare at the expense of their neighbor. Now some of the people do not like the deal they agreed to and want change. they do not want to accept that they are partly responsible for the current state of affairs so they blame everyone else instead of looking at the real problem, themselves. So they complain more without ever really doing anything to change so they remain in their bondage looking for others who will blame everyone else also. Then they can feel a little better about it all, yet their bondage remains. this is in some part because “they do not hear” nor do they want to hear it because it causes us to look at ourselves and realize we are not really as good as we like to think we are.

    Real change requires real sacrifice and love of ones neighbor. don’t want your shackles? do not shackle your neighbor. Learn how to be one another’s welfare in faith, hope , and charity. Learn how to gather together to figure out how to care for one another instead of using force. Just going to their temples to ask for facts is not going to cut it. It is a sinking ship and a lot of people are on it. I am here trying to throw a life jacket to those who have an ear to hear.

    The system they have now has been tried repeatedly WITHOUT success. This as I understand it is the VERY definition if insane.

    2Co_3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

    the scriptures is about how to keep you at liberty under God free from the yoke of bondage of men who exercise authority.

    In His peace and authority

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  40. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, everything you’ve spewed does not consist of factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence of applicability, but nice try.. perhaps you could spread your disinformation elsewhere, where they’ll buy into the propaganda!

  41. RAD Says:

    “Damon Says:…
    There are two governments. Always has been. One uses force to provide for the needy of society while the other uses the free will offerings of the people. One provides for bondage while the other provides for liberty. One is of man while the other of God.”

    You are basically comparing governmental systems of governance to non-government systems of governance. Government is people who take money from others by threats and violence and use religious articles to claim “authority” to do so. In so doing, they “sell” this “service” as a system of governance. Think of neighborhood watch compared to police – two systems of governance used to deal with “street crime”: one that is part of the government and one which operates outside of government. Government and governance are two different things. Part of the statist belief system seems to be conflating them to be interchangeable and I think one of our challenges in getting these ideas across is to make it clear that government and governance are NOT interchangeable concepts. A “tribe” is not a government until it institutes taxes. A family is not a government unless you turn your kids into your slaves/property. Yet talking to statists, how often do you hear them say things like “Government is that which governs” “The family unit is the basic model of government” “Government is that which makes people play nice with each other” etc.

    Or: “Anarchism is naive. They want to get rid of all rules.”

    Basically conflating “governance” with “government” – not the same thing.

  42. NonEntity Says:

    I’ve got it!
    We can solve police brutality by embroidering, in place of where they used to have name tags, “Peace be with you!” And maybe a little smiley face.

  43. Damon Says:

    Peace be with you,

    I am trying to say it as plainly as possible which the law also shows. If one uses and takes the benefits one is bound to the rules and regulations that accompany such use. If one uses and partakes of the benefits and then turns around and asks “what facts do you have that your jurisdiction and laws apply” is delusional.

    What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.

    He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.

    He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage.

    Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation.

    If one thinks they can contract and swear oaths to get the benefit and then turn around and have the regulations that accompany such oaths and use of benefits then not apply to them is a fools demise. If one expects that they will not try to enforce your own oaths against you and the consent you have given and hold you accountable to your own word, again is a fools demise.

    Pro_6:2 Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.

    People have chosen this form of government and they continue to do so. The people “pray”(request) to the “gods” (judges/magistrates/benefactors who exercise authority) of the people to provide them with “benefits” which bring an enhanced measure of regulation (voluntary servitude).

    If one cannot show that they are responsible to care for one another and refuse to do so they ought to be in their current state. The Amish are a good example. They have not been subject to the tax code because they took no benefit and cared for everyone “in house”. Now many of them are turning to the use of the mark (social security card)and are going in the way of bondage. People have not cared. They want their benefits now. They do not care who the benefactors had to plunder to get the benefits. They want them now. They do not care who has to get plundered to get “free education” for their children. They want their benefits now. They do not care who had to get plundered to get “free” food. They want it now. They do not care that their neighbor got plundered to provide for “free” health care. They want it now. It is the people that are the problem. If one takes from the pool of plunder then that one is just as guilty as the people they seek to blame for the plunder. If I steal something and you have knowledge it is stolen, and buy it from me you are and then become an accessory to the theft. If you see wrong and do nothing to correct it, it means you consent to it which is further compounded by ones very own participation (licenses, citizenship, residence, socialist insecurity cards) in the plunder.

    One wants to claim they are compelled?

    Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. (Maxim)

    No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. (maxim)

    One needs to repent from the error of their ways and quit taking the benefits. If one is not willing to do that then they will remain in their bondage. If one is not willing to set their neighbor at liberty then they will not be set at liberty. It is straightforward. One cannot take from the plunder, be a partaker of the sin, shackle their neighbor, put their neighbor in bondage and expect to be free. There is no propaganda here. Just things people do not want to recognize about their own bondage that they themselves are responsible for. People do not want to hear it because people do not like to hear it. It is easier to blame others instead of take on the responsibility of ones error. Are we givers of life or are we takers? The majority are takers. They are the walking dead of the zombie apocalypse. Everyone taking a bite out of everyone else. The governments so many seek to blame are just doing what so many have refused to do because of their callous hearts. They care for the needy, widows, and orphans of society. If people would do this themselves and become the welfare themselves they would see miracles and their liberty.

    Neither am I here “spreading disinformation”. There is no disinformation in caring one for the other in faith, hope , and charity.

    Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse as written above. We are all charged with knowing to love our neighbor as ourselves. They even teach it in their public institutions and everyone has heard it. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the law. Everyone knows they ought not to force their neighbor to provide for their welfare. Yet that is what they do. And here I am in a forum that champions a “voluntary society” not realizing that it is usually by their very own hand through which the force comes.. If anyone wants to quit feeling that “force through the barrel of a gun” it might be wise to stop forcing ones neighbor at the barrel of a gun in like manner.

    Need facts? Look at what benefits you have agreed to take. Who do you look to for your authority to do the things you do? Who is your protector? Who provides for you in your time of need? Who do you pay your tithe to?

    One will not find liberty while being a socialist. Who was it that said something like “He who wants security more than liberty deserves neither”? Who also said that “Those not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants”?

    It is one or the other. Two choices. Force or free will offerings. That’s it.

    Psa_119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  44. NonEntity Says:

    This is fun! Pretty soon demon’s posts will approach eYeTooz in length. I wonder if the interwebz will run out of space?

  45. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, COERCED or COMPELLED use of “alleged” benefits IS NOT A BENEFIT! To say otherwise is FRAUD!
    How bloody thick are you?

  46. desertspeaks Says:

    I would further point out that you have yet to proffer factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence that proves a damn thing! Its just you spouting YOUR OPINION!

  47. Damon Says:

    Peace be with you,

    Mocking me will not change the bondage one is in. Nor will it change the answer to become free. One can call me what they will but until the people are willing to no longer force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare they will remain in the bondage of Egypt.

    There are and is only two choices. Force or free will offerings.

    Does anyone honestly believe that they can remain and be free while at the same time forcing their neighbor to contribute to their welfare if in fact one does take the benefits from those who exercise authority?

    What about you Nonentity? Everyone here should be familiar about Marcs ideas about a “voluntary society”. Not forcing ones neighbor to provide for their welfare is a part of that idea, no? Or is it your understanding that one can remain at liberty while taking benefits from authoritarian benefactors that took from your neighbor to provide those benefits?

    If one wants “voluntary society” one might want to look into a “living network” of people who are trying to be and care for the welfare of the needy through faith, hope, and charity, instead of through “forced” contributions.

    Should I not understand that to take from what I know to be plundered from my neighbor is to CONDONE that behavior. It shows my consent to it that it is fine by me that you guys take from everybody else to provide me of my wants.

    If the posts are a little long, I apologize, I felt what I wrote needed to be addressed thus far.

    So it goes, unless one is going to release their neighbor they will not be released. I am sharing with you all the way to true peace and liberty and your real “voluntary society”. It is one thing to talk about it. Not knowing how one got where they are to avoid bondage later and real ways to obtain liberty are , in my understanding, far more important. What about my children. My family. I want their liberty as well. I would like them to keep that liberty and know how they can give it up.

    I am also here telling all who have an ear because I would like to see you at liberty as well. A lot of people have some very deluded preconceived notions about what Christ said and what the Bible is really about. Please forgive if this post is too long.

    Psa_119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

    Damon Israel.

  48. Andy Says:

    Demon said: “Everyone here should be familiar about Marcs ideas about a “voluntary society”.”

    Yes, Mark has acknowledged that in a voluntary society there will still be people that are delusional. Just not as many as there are now. Personally, I think you have a good chance of making it just for the fact that you’re here now. Ahead of the curve, so to speak. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

  49. Damon Says:

    @ Desert,

    They are not compelled unless I agreed. Then by my continual participation my consent is given. They would have no reason to believe otherwise. Now they are just forcing or fining the obligations one did or failed to do based upon the use of the benefit. No one forces me to get a drivers license, so I don’t. No one forces me to fill out tax forms, so I don’t. You do not see the “facts”. Just not wanting to see them does not mean that they are not there.

    So I will say it again. If one takes and continues to use the benefit they create a duty and obligations because of such use. Is anyone forcing you to be a citizen or a resident? I think not.

    “Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its benefits, they can not divest themselves.” Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).

    Now one may try to use Marc’s argument for the existence of a “citizen” but it will not matter. Why? Because it is a status(BENEFIT of codes regulating such status) that one has chosen for themselves and continues to use. Who am I to tell you, you are not what you say.

    Minimum Contacts: “A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court’s personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state.” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 US. 310, 66 c.c. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.

    Do you, Desert, have the sufficient contacts with the forum STATE to be subjected to the court’s personal jurisdiction? If you do then do not complain.

    One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.

    Your only compelled to keep what you have agreed to from your protectors. Otherwise stop making agreements;

    Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit.

    No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.

    And again here;

    Exo 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
    Exo 23:33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.

    In short “Do not make any contracts with the heathen or they will trap you”.

    Damon Israel

  50. desertspeaks Says:

    @ demented damon,.. so if I hold a gun to your head and compel you to do something, YOU are not compelled unless you agree??
    There is something wrong with you.. again you completely fail to produce any factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence. You keep trying to feed us your OPINION and BELIEFS! Neither of which is EVIDENCE of anything other than your indoctrination and you spew your learned propaganda at us!

  51. Damon Says:

    @ Desert,

    Please do not try to mischaracterize my “speech”. Have I called you any names to insult you? I have been peaceful with you.

    “It is a well settled rule of law that he who seeks benefits of contract must also assume burdens.” Higgins v. Monckton (1938), 28 C.A.2d 723, 83 P.2d 516.

    “Voluntary acceptance of benefit of transaction is equivalent to consent to all obligations arising from it, so far as facts are known, or ought to be known, to person accepting.” Northern Assurance Co. v. Stout (1911), 16 C.A. 548, 117 P. 617.

    If you have agreements with them and use their benefits that is the “proof” and evidence given by your own hand. There is nothing difficult to understand about it.

    Stop using the benefits that gives them the rule over you and creates a duty on your part to be obligated to them.

    My opinion means little. Law is what matters.

    • One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity. (Maxim)

    Do you take any benefits that may give rise to an obligation your part? If so what benefit are you claiming you are forced to take that you do not take on your own free will?

    You say your compelled and I disagree because I am not compelled.

    Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. (Maxim)

    No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. (Maxim)

    Those maxims are not my opinion. Do you disagree with them?

    Maybe we ought to show them that we are capable of being responsible adults and take care of one another so they do not have to.

    What I was attempting to say earlier which is being mischaracterized is ;

    If one swore oaths and has outstanding contractual agreements with them, then yes they can compel performance because of duties and obligations that one may have created. If one has a license they have no reason to believe anything different then one has agreed to be bound by the Motor Vehicle Code. No one forces another to sign and swear oaths to them. They can then attempt to compel the performance after agreement is secured. Contract law.

    Still remains only two. Forced offerings or free will offerings.

    Gal_5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    Let us be careful that we are not so quick to blame everyone else when it might be very possible that it is our own fault.

    Damon Israel.

  52. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, yes, you have insulted me with your insanity, beliefs and opinions.
    Your beliefs border on the psychotic.. you believe you need an OWNER of one sort or another because you can’t seem to comport yourself peacefully in interactions with others without the imminent threat of punishment or death by some deity, be it your precious government or your invisible friend in the sky!

  53. Damon Says:

    Peace be with you Desert,

    Insanity as I understand it, is trying the same thing repeatedly expecting different results. This is the social welfare systems of men. Trying to force ones neighbor to provide the welfare has been tried throughout the ages, over and over again. From Pharaoh’s Egypt to Nimrod’s Babylon to Caesar’s Rome right on through to the “New Deal” under Roosevelt to this very day. What does that say of those that participate in it?

    There is nothing insane about trying, wanting, and caring for our neighbor in love and truth. A voluntary society is fine and all but what of the sick, the poor, the hungry and the elderly and the orphans? What do you do with them in your “voluntary society”? Who is going to provide for them? Right now it is the government which I perceive you hate so much that provides for them through the “forced” contributions of the people because the “people” have been slothful in tending to the needs of their neighbor through faith, hope , and charity. Who is going to care for your mother when she cannot walk? What about you when you cannot walk or you injured yourself to badly to work? How does one make provision for them? What is Marc suggesting?

    Or have we forgotten about them again because we are so wrapped up in our own desire for liberty we cannot see beyond that. And instead of taking responsibility for our own actions which is the reason for the bondage to begin with, we again try to blame everyone else around us. It is truly sad.

    I have asked some questions Desert that I perceive you are avoiding.

    Do you have sufficient contacts with the forum STATE to be brought under the courts personal jurisdiction?

    Do you have, use, and receive any benefits from the federal government, STATE, or otherwise that would create an obligation/duty on your part to pay a tax or regulations that you may have overlooked?

    Are you willing to provide for an alternative for caring for the needy of your “voluntary society” that may take some sacrifice on your part?

    Just mocking me and trying to insult me does not make the bondage go away. Nor does it alter the reasons for the bondage. There is really nothing insane about taking a benefit of a contractual nature and then having the “people” you contracted with enforce the duties now attached to the use of that benefit. It is actually quite foolish to think one can continue to take of the benefit and not be obligated of the duties arising out of such use of said benefit.

    Damon Israel

  54. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, you insanity is believing in things you can’t prove exist but insist that it or they exist!
    You want a mommy or daddy to care for all the ills of society, if you feel so strongly about it. What precisely are you doing about it?.. apparently NOTHING since you’ve spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convince me that your god exists and that the government OWNS US.
    FORCED contributions is THEFT! but you obviously believe that there are no crimes that your precious government can commit. Speaking of their crimes,.. your precious government has been in armed conflict for 220 out of the last 240 years!
    It has MURDERED tens of millions of people, but you don’t have a problem with that as long as you or those you personally care about not under attack, right???
    Those FORCED contributions you tout, paid for MILLIONS of murders, that makes you an accessory to murder! Not only that, but you condone MURDER! So much for your christian charity.. How do you rationalize the murders you support and PAY FOR??
    Oh but let me guess, you’ll rationalize it away because it’s one of your gods “the government” so that makes it ok because they do some good too! they care for orphans “while creating those orphans” what a concept!
    You’re delusional and quite possibly insane!

  55. Incubus Says:

    “Insanity as I understand it, is trying the same thing repeatedly expecting different results.”

    Then you don’t understand it, since that’s not what it means. That “definition” hails from a quote falsely attributed to Einstein and is wholly inaccurate.

  56. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon,.. your precious government MURDERED 52 “7 of which were children” people in Syria today WITH YOUR CONSENT! Congratulations, those children won’t be orphans on your dime!

  57. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon.. More of your FORCED donations at work. WHO’S CRAZY NOW? AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION SUPPORTED TORTURE “AT EVERY CRITICAL JUNCTURE”.
    http://www.blacklistednews.com/Who%E2%80%99s_Crazy_Now%3F_American_Psychological_Association_Supported_Torture_%E2%80%9CAt_Every_Critical_Juncture%E2%80%9D/43731/0/38/38/Y/M.html

    Do I need to mention the chicago police department black site as well?? The list of crimes that your precious government commits against people “should” chill you to the bone, if as you claim, you’re a god fearing man.. but alas, you’ll just rationalize it away, with everything else! something along the line of you have to break a few eggs to make a cake or spilled milk???
    You psychopath!

  58. Damon Says:

    Peace be with you Desert,

    It is not my government. When I explain why the bondage is here it is not to condone the endless wars they like to engage in either. I have stated on several occasions that it is important to understand why and how in order to avoid and keep your children from same in future generations. It is also easier to blame them for all the faults when in fact and in DEED a large part of the problem is the people.

    I do not condone what they do and do not support it with tribute or with allegiance for citizenship. Simply put, they are not my lawgiver and I am not one of theirs. I never did claim to be a Christian either nor do I.

    Those questions are still pending and I ask them again here;

    Do you have sufficient contacts with the forum STATE to be brought under the courts personal jurisdiction?

    Do you have, use, and receive any benefits from the federal government, STATE, or otherwise that would create an obligation/duty on your part to pay a tax or regulations that you may have overlooked?

    Are you willing to provide for an alternative for caring for the needy of your “voluntary society” that may take some sacrifice on your part?

    How do we care for the elderly like your mother and my father who maybe cant walk or care for themselves?

    How do we care for you in your time of need, by say, a bad injury where you cannot work for a time?

    I see that there is a failure to understand that the continued use of the benefits is to subjugate oneself to the overwhelming large amount of regulations that accompany such use. It is contract law. Ones use = agreement.

    You can try to claim fraud and force all day long but the maxims are stacked against you;

    •He who consents cannot receive an injury.

    •You ought to know with whom you deal.

    • To him consenting no injury is done.

    • One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.

    •He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.

    There is a way out of this Desert and it is not Marcs way. Marcs way does not provide for the needy and elderly which will one day be you and me if not already. Marcs way does not keep a bound people at liberty free from the bondage from Pharaohs and Caesars.

    Maybe if we can be honest with ourselves we can admit that we may have been “given to appetite” for what is on the kings table and got caught in a web and a snare. Maybe the “governments” of men a are really a reflection of the people and their hearts. Being covetous of their neighbors goods and looking to authoritarian benefactors that exercise authority over their neighbor many have been made merchandise as it is written;

    2Pe_2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you…

    All the claims and insults and mockery you have in those lungs of yours Desert will not alter the fact that you may possibly have some open contracts with the government. You may possibly take some benefits from them and now do not like the snare it has placed on you. Is it possible that you and all of us have been slothful in attending to care for one another and because of such many are in bondage and under tribute;

    Pro_12:24 The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute.

    No insanity here Desert. I write plainly in laymen’s terms. I submit to you again that the current religious system of social welfare has been tried repeatedly without success. This can be confirmed very easily as history shows. Yet, here we can see it again being tried (without success). This as I understand it is the very definition of “insane”. So again, what does that say of those who actively participate.

    I really spent little to no time trying to convince you that my Father exists whom you call God. I have tried and try again to show the reason of the bondage you may be in and the way to real liberty.

    I see that to not engage in any real discussion that you must accuse me and attempt to insult me as a defense mechanism in order to avoid the real issues I address. It is well, I hold no ill will towards you.

    One cannot be at liberty while forcing their neighbor to pay for their welfare. If I take from the federal trough I condone the covetousness and am found guilty. If I take from the bounty of plunder, then there is no reason for me to be at liberty if I place shackles on my neighbor. If I take the benefit I must also bear its disadvantage.

    The delusion is thinking one can take of the benefits and not be under an obligation that arises from its use. Don’t want the obligation…stop taking the benefits they offer, especially ones that come at the expense of your neighbor.

    In His peace and authority

    Damon Israel

  59. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, It’s not your government?? You’ve spent a lot of time supporting it, although you’ve shown zero FACTUAL, firsthand, irrefutable evidence that proves they have jurisdiction over anyone “including me”..as to those “contracts” you keep mentioning, you have less than zero knowledge of contract law, so stop pretending as though you know of what you speak, when referencing contracts!

    You’re not a christian? really? with all the biblical quotes and platitudes? “IN HIS PEACE?” to whom or what are you referring to when you post that bs at the end of every single post?? or you’re a fraud and a liar!

    What did you do today to support orphans and the elderly? did you “voluntarily” give them money? NOPE, not one single penny left your pocket today to help anyone!
    We know your forced donations have murdered people today! Congratulations!

  60. Damon Says:

    Peace be with you Desert,

    Most people have voluntarily submitted themselves to a government because of their covetousness. If one has and uses the benefits offered by the current authoritarian benefactors they have created an obligation which can be read in their accompanying codes and regulations.

    If one accepts the benefit they must also bear the burden. I understand that much. I would submit that those that take the benefits and then turn and claim fraud are actually the ones with a limited understanding of contract law.
    Now what we have is people complaining about the burden that is imposed because of their acceptance because we were covetous.

    If you want to know how I am taking care of the needy of society through free will offerings you are more than welcome to come and see and gather with those of like mind who do not want to force their neighbor to provide their welfare. We have a network of people all over the country and probably some folks near you.

    As far as being a “Christian”. The name was used in reproach usually by the heathen to those that followed Christ;

    “This name (Christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is never used by Christians of themselves, only as spoken by or coming from those without the church. The general names by which the early Christians called themselves were ‘brethren,’ ‘disciples,’ ‘believers,’ and ‘saints.’ The presumption is that the name ‘Christian’ was originated by the heathen.” Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths (1882), page 567, note 3.

    “The name (Christian) given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch.” Easton’s Bible Dictionary.

    I do not claim to be a Christian and deny the assumption. I also deny that I am a citizen of the government of the U.S. This is neither here nor there however.

    My questions are still pending and I ask them again. I copied and pasted them below;

    Do you have sufficient contacts with the forum STATE to be brought under the courts personal jurisdiction?

    Do you have, use, and receive any benefits from the federal government, STATE, or otherwise that would create an obligation/duty on your part to pay a tax or be bound to regulations that you may have overlooked?

    Are you willing to provide for an alternative for caring for the needy of your “voluntary society” that may take some sacrifice on your part?

    How do we care for the elderly like your mother and my father who maybe cant walk or care for themselves?

    How do we care for you in your time of need, by say, a bad injury where you cannot work for a time?

    If you do not like your servitude a good place to start is to stop taking the benefits. Even more importantly one may want to start seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all the other things will be added unto you. I know you do not like to hear that but I have to tell you.

    @ Incubus,

    Thank you for your insight Incubus.

    Exo 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
    Exo 23:33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.

    in His peace and authority

    Damon Israel

  61. Don Penners Says:

    When we ask the judge or prosecutor for factual evidence of the court’s supposed jurisdiction (which is an element of a crime), why do you suppose he laughs, gets upset, dodges the question and or moves on without answering the request? If all courts, at all times, have jurisdiction over us, then why don’t they reply with “you have a driver’s license or you have a marriage license or amusingly, you breathe the UN’s air as their jurisdictional evidence? The courts don’t play this easy “jurisdictional” card because this kind of license fact is irrelevant and not an element of a crime.
    Jurisdiction refers to a damaged party who has alerted a prosecutor so a judge can then conduct a trial. A trial (try some facts) is solely meant to make the damaged party whole again with cash or assets if the court/jury so decide. It helps to understand a real crime or a crime in itself (arises from a damaged party) which is always nonexistent in a malum prohibitum offense such as IRS charges, all traffic tickets, drug violations and etc.

  62. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, you keep repeating yourself as though that answers “my” questions, when it doesn’t! You got nothin, just like every other sycophant.
    Where is your factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence that any of it is applicable to the private man just because of his physical location? oh that’s right, you don’t actually have any but you’re hoping I’ll stop asking!

  63. Damon Says:

    Peace be with you Don,

    They are mostly dealing with breach of contract. They are administrative tribunals sitting in summary court martial enforcing contracts with “alien enemies”. To answer your question Dan, they have no duty to tell people about their bondage because everyone is presumed to know the law and sadly the majority of time jurisdiction is granted usually through ignorance. Just as the scriptures say they have made merchandise of men. This does not mean they will not move against one where no jurisdiction is granted as I have seen in the past usually stemming from pride. What the people have right now is martial rule (military law) and they do not realize it.

    “A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule…And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have, from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency”. Congressional Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Emergency Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency, page 1, November 19, 1973, pursuant to Senate Res. 9, pub. By the U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Wash D.C.

    Furthermore;

    According to the Supreme Court, “Congress has made little or no distinction between a state of national emergency and a state of war.” Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. pa., 49 F. Supp. 728, 732.

    This is also in part why they try to get you to accept a fictitious name in all caps to wit;

    “An alien enemy cannot maintain an action during war, in his own name.” See ‘alien’ in Wharton’s Pa. Dig., Sec. 20.94. Cited in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989, published by Clarendon Press.

    and again here;

    Nom De Guerre: “War name. A pseudonym.” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, Page 920.

    Nom: “[French. ‘name’]. Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name; esp. a nom de guerre, lit. ‘war name,’ a name assumed by, or assigned to, a person engaged in some action or enterprise.” The Oxford Universal Dictionary, (1964), page 1333.

    This is also the reason for the military flags flown in all their administrative tribunals.

    “…the Flag is trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 ½ inches wide. The [military] flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for…each military installation….each military courtroom. ” United States Army Regulations, AR 840-10, Chapter 2, October 1, 1979.

    What you have now is a completely conquered nation under “emergency rule” or military law if you will. The flag is flown to show what law they are under and what contracts they plan to enforce.

    As far as them “telling you the truth” it might be noted that it is ok for them to deceive their enemy.

    “When a citizen is arraigned before a military commission on a criminal charge he is no longer under the protection of the law, nor surrounded with those safeguards which are provided in the Constitution. The accused may be sentenced to death, and the sentence may be executed without a judge. A sentence which forfeits all the property of the accused requires no approval.” 12 Op. Attorney General 182 (1867).

    Still want your day in court?

    the real issues remain to which I keep referencing.

    In His peace

    Damon Israel.

  64. Damon Says:

    Peace be with you Desert,

    If I hope anything it is that you would see that ones acceptance of the benefits is ones consent to the duty attached to the use of said benefit.

    The “factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence that any of it is applicable to the private man” is given by the private man himself by his continued use and acceptance of the benefits he takes and uses.

    Does the private man, swear oaths on tax forms, fill out tax forms, use a social security card, take food stamps, send his children to public schools, receive unemployment insurance, use commercial insurance, receive and use Medicare/Medicaid/”free” health care, maintain citizenship, maintain and claim to be a resident, have his mail dropped off at the foot of his door instead of pick it up general delivery at the post office itself or take any privilege, benefit, or opportunity from the federal government, STATE, or local or otherwise?

    If yes then there are duties attached to these and they write a ton of rules for all to see as they are on display for the public found in their U.S. codes and Statutes at Large. And no, it does not matter where one is at physically.

    Continuing to choose not to see this does not make it “go away”. They will enforce the duties that accompany the use of the benefit that is almost always taken from your neighbor.

    The bondage is a direct result of disobedience which you may choose to not see. But it is the tenth commandment “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods”. We are all guilty of this in some form and many continue to still be guilty of such.

    If one forces their neighbor they will be forced also.

    In His peace

    Damon Israel.

  65. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, your rinse repeat bs is getting tired

  66. Damon Says:

    @ Desert,

    I still have some questions pending that are geared for people to be honest with themselves. I still perceive that they are avoided intentionally because one or many, may have to admit that they do take the benefits from those that exercise authority that are provided at the “barrel of that gun” at their neighbors expense.

    If you do not want to answer the questions in a public forum at least answer them for yourself.

    Admit that if one takes the benefit there is a duty attached to it.

    Admit that one cannot force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare effectively placing shackles on them and at the same time walk at liberty and expect to be free. (voluntary society?)

    Admit that the current way DOES NOT WORK and places everyone into bondage.

    If you want to answer the questions publicly with a sincere heart, honesty, I will respect that. If you still choose not to, I understand why.

    If you are interested about your liberty and the liberty of others. If you are interested in not forcing your neighbor to contribute to your welfare. If you are interested in caring for your neighbor in faith, hope, and charity then I again extend the offer to come and see what we are doing.

    I will tell you, if I want my liberty I have to seek liberty for others. It is the “golden rule” which I understand to be the law. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    In His peace and authority

    Damon Israel

  67. Don Penners Says:

    Israel, it’s clear you have encountered a number of “patriot” theories in your time and embraced some portions of these naive beliefs. You insist on trying to interpret and remodel the American legal system into some heretofore unknown creation which obviously irritates other serious posters. The purpose we lay people study the law comes from our desire to manage conflict with functionaries who want our life or our money. You have potential, but mixing all these patriot speculations about how American law works makes no sense and labels you as naïve. I’ve tested most of these supposed legal remedies for three decades and found Marc’s approach superior and sole position for any intelligent defendant. Perhaps you’ll find some approach that works better, and we can learn from you.
    You said: “They are mostly dealing with breach of contract. They are administrative tribunals sitting in summary court martial enforcing contracts with “alien enemies”. Since you never clarified what “they” refers to, I’ll speculate that you meant American courts. If that’s wrong I apologize. You speculate that they deal with a breach of contract. Whatever you conceive as a contract, it must have several elements to make it valid. It must come from a mutual meeting of the minds, such as buying a car. It must come into existence with a buyer’s consideration. Though a contract has other elements, common sense tells us that a traffic ticket or any malum prohibitum doesn’t begin to comply with the two contract’s elements mentioned.
    The court’s uniformly consider the “prohibitum” offenses as criminal in nature and not contractual. If you wish to verify the matter of contracts, martial law, the militia and money, you will find Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. the most qualified researcher who knows American law regarding the Constitution.
    You may find Mosaic Law of interest, though it IS NOT AMERICAN law.

  68. desertspeaks Says:

    @ don penners, well stated. He will of course reject your post out of hand and will ignore what you said, as it doesn’t fit with his imagined view of reality.
    He will inevitably interject his unique form of insanity into the mix along with a few bible quotes if he answers you.
    As we can all clearly see, he has no concept of what factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence actually consists of. I’m fairly certain he means well but he just can’t grasp it.

  69. NonEntity Says:

    Desert, you really are a disappointment. No one should be as jaded as I. It’s unseemly.

  70. desertspeaks Says:

    @ non, get used to it 😛

  71. Damon Says:

    @ Don,

    I appreciate your seemingly peaceful manner. As I understand it America is a conquered nation and has been under emergency rule since at least Lincoln and his war. It is a matter of public record that it is under military rule, courts included. If one does not agree with this, it is fine with me. You asked so I answered.

    No matter what one thinks the courts are doing is really still not the issue. The real issue that it seems no one wants to deal with is ourselves and our covetous nature. No one wants to deal with what to do with the elderly and widows and orphans if and when one gets their “voluntary society”. How are we going to care for one another in our time of need? I know of only two ways. One belongs to man and the other belongs to God. One leads to bondage like so many are in now, while the other keeps one at liberty and their neighbor too!

    I am found wondering how many here who frequent this webpage desire a “voluntary society” while at the same time take the benefits from the authoritarian benefactors who exercise authority over their neighbor to provide those benefits.

    Who here is willing to admit that to take the benefit is to place shackles on ones neighbor and further condones the behavior of the ones Marc seemingly likes to blame?

    Who here can honestly admit that they have quite possibly made contracts and covenants with the now “military power” and continue to make contracts with them?

    Who here can honestly admit that to continue to use the benefit is consent to all the obligations arising from it?

    “Voluntary acceptance of benefit of transaction is equivalent to consent to all obligations arising from it, so far as facts are known, or ought to be known, to person accepting.” Northern Assurance Co. v. Stout (1911), 16 C.A. 548, 117 P. 617.

    He (above) is just quoting the maxims I have repeatedly posted here over and over yet the people who engage me continually make excuse instead of “take their pill” like men. They continue to blame everyone else instead of look at the real problem. OURSELVES.

    Those psychopaths are doing what so many have appointed them to do which is exercise authority over their neighbor to provide welfare at their neighbors expense. This will not just “go away” because no one wants to address it.

    I keep telling all here who are following, that unless one is willing to make the sacrifices to care for their neighbors liberty as much as their own they will not see that liberty themselves. One can attempt to “mitigate” their damages in court all they want but I think that a crummy way to live while still being under the tribute anyways like so many are and then passing the same curse onto their children and children’s children. Some here may be just fine with that as many do not want to “rock the boat” to much lest they become uncomfortable in their lives.

    If one is not willing to set their neighbor free by not taking benefits at their neighbors expense that one will remain in bondage and under tribute and it will continue to get worse. One not only needs to NOT take from the kings table but ALSO provide another way for the poor, the elderly and those who REALLY have need.

    Real liberty is responsibility. Who here has children? who sends them to public school? Who pays for that? Where do the funds come from to have someone else educate my child if they did? Is it not my responsibility to educate my children in the home? So many have given up their responsibilities to the STATE and now do not like what the STATE asks in return, which is what the beggar agreed to. Of course it will treat its “residents” as little children. What would anyone honestly expect? The parents will not even train their children in the home….!!!!! Instead they send them off to complete strangers to teach them how to be productive drones to the “god like” STATE and God knows what else these days. What does that produce? A bunch of selfish, covetous, taxpaying zombies who have no problem taking a bite out of the next generation because everyone is so benefit happy feeding at the federal trough looking for their next “tax break” from their masters. Public school is just ONE little example of where the people have given up their responsibilities to others who will gladly take the reins to “educate” those children. I mean come on man, lets be real here. No wonder there is a nanny state. From cradle to grave to care for and tend to all the needs of its “residents”.

    And all of this at the expense of ones neighbor. We have been told from long ago what would happen if one goes to elect authoritarian benefactors who exercises authority. It is right in 1 Samuel chapter 8 if anyone cares to go take a look. It is stated plainly. There is good reason He told them to “not to return to the ways of Egypt and the house of bondage”. There be some here that hate it, regardless of the mockery and insults, maybe they should look deep within and ask themselves why? Especially if I have spoken no evil. sometimes we have to let go of the pride and admit that we might not have all the answers. It is quite possible that Marc does not have them either. Even though they be good questions are they the right questions?

    If one takes the benefit pay the tribute, as you would and do not have any place to complain. Ones continued use is the equivalent to consent. this is not some “new thing”. It is quite similar to “accord and satisfaction” They have some rules that accompany the use of the benefit that at some time one possibly went down their and signed some forms under oath. Now keep in mind no one forced this fella to do such. He was just going through the motions. He probably signed some things under oath and now has some identifying card or mark that shows to those that granted such, that they are in agreement with the rules and duties involved. He who does not deny admits , right? Have a club membership number and a status to go along with it? Then why complain? They have no reason to think one is NOT a member. “Ah they have forced me”…

    One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.

    •What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it. ( one cannot simultaneously confirm and then deny EX. “there are no citizens” are you a citizen? “yes I am”)

    There is really nothing insane about understanding that one cannot expect to be free while attempting to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare. There is nothing insane about caring for the widows, orphans, elderly and those in need. One day “those in need” will be you Don, Incubus, Nonentity, and all the rest whom are here. Perhaps your parents or some loved one will have the need? who takes care of them in this “voluntary society” and on who’s dime? what about that broken arm where I cant work for a couple six weeks? who is going to help care for me in this “voluntary society”? If the answer is “fend for yourself” then it does not sound like a voluntary society many would like to be a part of and I will tell you it will not be “voluntary” for very long. Some Pharaoh will come along with great swelling words and appeal to the peoples covetous nature again and bam, back in the bondage of Egypt …Just…like…today.

    I have questions still pending. Are they being avoided intentionally and what does it show to avoid them. There is a way out but it takes a little sacrifice and a little faith on ones part.

    Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

    In His peace and authority

    Damon Israel

  72. Damon Says:

    I apologize for the length.

  73. Incubus Says:

    Charity is great and I commend those willing to help others. I’ve given and received charity in my life and have been happy to do so and grateful to have a helping hand. That said, I am not obligated to care for anyone nor am I entitled to be cared for.

  74. NonEntity Says:

    Incy, you set a terrible example for the parasites!

  75. NonEntity Says:

    Damon sed: Don,I appreciate your seemingly peaceful manner. —
    For those not familiar with the term or concept of “passive aggression,” BEHOLD!

  76. desertspeaks Says:

    Damon the man who claims to not be a christian, again quotes bible verses.. rolls eyes.
    He makes statements and provides no evidence of its applicability, just like every talking head in government.
    He makes assumptions and asks questions but provides no answers.
    Well scooter, here’s a quote for you. None are so blind as he who will not see! and i’ll add to it, none are so deaf as he who will not hear!
    You really should look up the meaning of factual firsthand irrefutable evidence because you have none, although you seem to believe you do.. your beliefs and opinions are not evidence no matter how many times you post your beliefs..
    I can only presume that you not only endorse slavery but condone it, because you believe everyone should be forced to do as you and your ilk believe.
    I have another inquiry for your “forced charity drive” who did you help today? how much of your hard earned money did you afford to the poor? NOTHING! what a godly man you are!
    You talk a good game but you want to force everyone else to do what you personally won’t do without coercion!

  77. damon Says:

    Peace be with you Incubus,

    It is more like a duty to care for one another. Just like I have a duty to you in that I have to treat you like I want to be treated, even better. It is the law. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Well what does that really look like. We have been so far removed from it no one even knows what it really looks like nor would many even be able to identify it if they seen it in action.

    It is because the people have refused to care for one another in faith, hope , and charity through the perfect law of liberty that they are now bound because sloth, covetousness, and greed, and have appointed authoritarian benefactors to do so for them. They have given up that responsibility also. Either way the law must be kept and those that have a real need must be cared for. So who is going to do it and how does it get done in a voluntary society? Are people going to go to the governments of men to ask for handouts? what provision is going to be set up for those folks and what are the people willing to sacrifice for them? To love ones neighbor means to me that I should be investing about 50% of my time/energy into my neighbor to make sure all is well with him or at least be there for him if he calls and it is in my power to help. So what are you suggesting then to care for those that will have the need? You may be that guy in need one day, especially when you are further on in your years. I only know of two ways. And it seems that those two ways is all that has ever been used throughout history. Forced contributions because of covetous people or free will offerings from people through faith , hope, and charity in the perfect law of liberty.

    People have bound themselves with shackles and their neighbors through their covetousness. They are all entangled as a nation. People need to bind themselves in another way. Real bonds without force.

    Unless one obligates themselves with real bonds of love to care for and sacrifice for the liberty of their neighbor that one will not see liberty. They will remain under tribute to the Caesars and Pharaohs of the world.

    So how do we care for the folks in this “voluntary society” and how do we train up those after us to not entangle themselves with another yoke of bondage?

    Gal_5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    Psa_119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

    2Co_3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

    I post scriptures concerning liberty. The whole of scriptures is about government. It is about governments of men and how they carry people away captive and the kingdom of God which is from generation to generation. One provides for liberty while the other provides for captivity.

    Ones lawgiver is their god.

    Damon Israel

  78. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, i notice you never mentioned which poor people you assisted today “without being coerced to help”.. I reiterate you talk a good game but when push comes to shove, you’re an empty vessel, completely devoid of sincerity and honesty!

  79. damon Says:

    God bless you Desert,

    My questions are still pending.

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  80. desertspeaks Says:

    Yeah and I’m still waiting for an answer to my first post to you, which is. Where is your factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence that proves applicability because of physical locality!!
    You dodged that question with your inane rant but have yet to answer it..

    Further, you REFUSE to answer what homeless orphan/needy person, you assisted today financially without government coercion??

    You avoid both questions like the plague, I can only imagine that you have no answer to the first question, as the evidence has never, nor will ever exist.

    On the second question, you haven’t helped anyone other than yourself and you’re all talk..

  81. Jeff Evans Says:

    Yo! the argument between Damon and desertspeaks is better than the Mayweather fight. This only goes to show that no time in this world will we act on one accord. there will always be division/deadly division between those who can live and those who have the want to survive. Man is nothing more than a plague/bacteria on this planet destorying it. If only animals and insects were in existance there would be not guns, gas shortage, climate change by industrial means, sewage treatment plants you get the picture. who determined how civil order need be addressed did not do a good job nor does it make sense to use outdated methods of governing in today’s world. Anyone who does not know that people that call themselves government are nothing more than flunkies for the rich and powerful is the biggest fool on the face of this planet and Mars, Jupiter ect. Hope Marc goes mainstream sells his books, get filthy rich and buys an island for him his wife and kids and does his program from out of reach of the murderers liers theives and statist apologist. Marc we black folks have had the worst history of modern times. If you watch some of the news from B-More and heard the pathtic nonsense coming from a people that have boots on their necks to the point of “I CAN’T BREATH” and still are apologizing for the cops; there is no helping our race. Obama calls black kids of his own race ‘thugs’ yet his wife states if she could be anybody she would be the soft-porn star Beyonce! These are the kind of people my race worship! So, there is no hope for us collectively as a race only individually as a people. Sadam got killed because he was going to sell his oil and resource chanking the US dollar. Bush has his ass killed quick fast and a hurry and didn’t give two cents about women, children or the elderly their. The world governments are no different from Issis only better public relations and media outlets.

  82. desertspeaks Says:

    @ jeff evans, mowing my yard would have been a better watch than the mayweather “can’t really call that a fight” incident, and who allowed jamie fox to absolutely murder a song??

  83. Incubus Says:

    No, I don’t have a duty (which unless we’re approaching that word from different angles, is synonymous with an obligation). I have a choice. I can help another or not help another.

    “It is the law.” Meaning?

  84. damon Says:

    @ Desert

    I have attempted to repeatedly answer your question. There is an element that some may be refusing to see but is there none the less.

    If one takes the benefit there are duties attached to them. There are obligations. It is a well settled rule of law;

    “It is a well settled rule of law that he who seeks benefits of contract must also assume burdens.” Higgins v. Monckton (1938), 28 C.A.2d 723, 83 P.2d 516.

    “Voluntary acceptance of benefit of transaction is equivalent to consent to all obligations arising from it, so far as facts are known, or ought to be known, to person accepting.” Northern Assurance Co. v. Stout (1911), 16 C.A. 548, 117 P. 617.

    • One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity. (MAXIM)

    If one takes and continues to use the benefit that IS the evidence (ones own actions) of consent. That IS the ” factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence that proves applicability”. Physical locality doesn’t matter. If one has “sufficient contacts with the forum STATE one can be brought under the courts personal jurisdiction under the minimum contacts doctrine.

    Minimum Contacts: “A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court’s personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state.” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 US. 310, 66 c.c. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.

    Just choosing to not see this and disagree with these well settled rules does not mean they simply do not exist or are not there. If one takes the benefits they are expected to fulfill the duties attached to them, and rightfully so. Don’t like the duties? Stop taking the benefits. The main ones are citizenship/residence and the socialist insecurity number/card.

    Please quit asking me for the evidence that most of the people provide through their own actions by the continued use and acceptance of the benefits that are at their neighbors expense through that “barrel of the gun”.

    As far as what I am doing to care for my neighbor I am not going to be lulled into self testimony. I have invited you to come and see what we are doing to be the welfare for our neighbor in faith, hope , and charity in the perfect law of liberty in a real network of people.

    I have answered repeatedly. Will you be so kind to answer mine?

    @ Incubus,

    I have a duty to you and others. At the very least the duty is to treat you as I would like to be treated. If I want liberty I have to look for yours. If I want to be healthy I have to look to make sure you are healthy. If I want to be cared for I have to make sure you are cared for. I agree you do have a choice. You have been given the “power to choose (exousia). Most people have given their power of choice to authoritarian benefactors who exercise authority.

    As far as law , to love your neighbor as yourself is the law that if the people actually walked in it would be set at liberty.

    Rom_13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

    We have a duty one to the other to at least not force each other to contribute to one another’s welfare effectively coveting each others goods. One can find it echoed in their maxims;

    • No one ought to gain by another’s loss.
    • No one ought to enrich himself at the expense of others.

    You are right and I agree we do have a choice. Most have chosen to force their neighbor to provide for their welfare at their neighbors expense.

    There are two ways. One uses force while the other uses free will offerings. One, the people have given up their power to choose and are told how much they will contribute while the other one chooses themselves how much they will contribute. In one we keep our neighbor at liberty while the other forces them into bondage.

    Choosing not to see or refuse to believe it is the law does not change that it is. It is one of the great commandments on which all the law hangs.

    In His peace and authority

    Damon Israel

  85. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, you quote their court cases as though they apply to me.. where is your factual firsthand irrefutable evidence that their CONstitution, laws and subsequent court cases apply to me? whats that, you don’t actually have any?

    You note court cases “fyi every case is fact specific” you probably don’t know what that means either. but it will suffice to say, it doesn’t apply to me. You presume I seek or use benefits. Do you have any evidence that I voluntarily do so? NO! you just assume! So much for your court case cites!

    It is amusing that you beg me to stop asking you for evidence, none of which you have, which is why you wish me to stop asking.

    You help your neighbor? so is this neighbor a homeless poor orphan? and precisely how much money did you take out of your pocket?? NOT ONE PENNY!

  86. Incubus Says:

    If you’d like to believe you have an inherent duty, so be it. If you’d like to believe others share this inherent duty, so be it. I do not possess this duty nor do I share your beliefs.

    You didn’t answer my question about what you meant by “It is the law.” Forget I asked. Whether it be man’s law or this so called “God” you’re so fond of, it doesn’t matter. It’s got nothing to do with me.

    Goodbye and I guess, good luck, supposing your intentions are benevolent.

  87. damon Says:

    @ Desert,

    Desert I do not have to provide any evidence. IF you take the benefits YOU have provided the evidence already and it is furtherer solidified by your continued use if you do in fact take and use benefits, privileges, and opportunities from the authoritarian benefactors that exercise authority over your neighbor. I am not here to “prove” you do or do not. I am here trying to show you that, this may be something you have missed and I know Marc does. It becomes moot and borderline insane to ask for evidence if one has government identifying numbers, citizenship/residence, fills out tax forms, swears oaths on tax forms, has and uses a drivers license, plates, opens bank accounts with government identifying numbers, takes out loans on credit, and so on.

    “Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its BENEFITS, they can not divest themselves.” Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).

    Furthermore a large majority of these benefits are taken from your neighbor through “forced” contributions effectively causing one to covet their neighbors goods if the benefits are taken.

    People have again opted for socialism as a way to care for their neighbor which is done through force instead of free will offerings. Socialism (a form of religion) always breeds captivity which so many find themselves in today.

    If people are not willing to care for one another out of charity from a pure heart and release their neighbor from the bondage they have placed them in then that one will also remain under tribute, in bondage, bound to the protector they have chosen for themselves.

    If anyone here thinks they can still take benefits from authoritarian benefactors without duties and obligations being attached ESPECIALLY if they come at the expense of ones neighbor then they believe a lie and remain in the darkness of their foolish heart.

    Everyone here knows what is right from what is wrong. People here know what is evil from what is just. Everyone here ought to know to treat their neighbor as they want to be treated. Don’t lie steal and cheat. The law is fulfilled in loving one another as ourselves. If you disagree that the law is not to love your neighbor as yourself then I am sorry for you. I do understand we have a duty to one another. I have a duty to you to allow you to keep all of your interactions voluntary correct? You have the same duty to me.

    We should at least be able to agree in that we ought to treat each other as we want to be treated whether you understand it to be law or not. Without that there is no “voluntary society” as is seen now. just keeping ones actions “voluntary” is not enough because people quickly go back into captivity through covetousness and become again duty bound to authoritarian benefactorsthrough the acceptance of benefits offered at their neighbors expense.

    Do you, Incubus, believe that you should treat others as you want to be treated? What about you Desert?

    do you believe one can walk at liberty while at the same time forcing their neighbor to provide for their welfare at their neighbors expense?

    How do the people here intend to care for the people who have need in their “voluntary society” without forcing their neighbor? Those in need one day may be you/me/your mom/dad/loved one.

    If people are not prepared to care for one another in faith hope and charity through free will offerings they will not see liberty and remain in their bondage.

    In His peace

    Damon Israel

  88. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, so just like the government, you are above providing evidence, it just is, in your twisted little world, right?
    and since you’re so fond of quotes; .”Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

    AND since you enjoy quoted court cites; “Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43”
    He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors

  89. damon Says:

    @ Desert

    Desert your cherry picking Hale vs Henkel and adding in what isn’t there. Why not finish what the judge said? I have added emphasis to the pertinent part;

    The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, SINCE HE RECIEVES NOTHING THEREFROM, BEYOND the protection of his life and property. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

    You also added neighbor in your quote in order to mislead and refuse to see that we ought to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The judge says “Since he receives nothing therefrom”. Problem is most people do receive something therefrom and now have obligations and duties because of what they receive.

    Please do not bear false witness and please do not attempt to deceive me and the others that are following this thread. I have not done so to you. This is in part what I am attempting to address with you is people not willing to be honest with themselves let alone with others. If we are dishonest in the little things how then can we be honest in the big things like a “voluntary society” which take real sacrifice to actually keep “voluntary”.

    There power to contract is “unlimited” and most have contracted with authoritarian benefactors who exercise authority to provide them with welfare at the expense of their neighbor. They have made contracts and accept benefits that have duties attached to them one of which is a duty to pay a tax and to “pay your fair share” in ones part they play in their religion called socialism. Continued use is continued consent. And he who consents cannot receive an injury.

    Still cannot claim fraud because they have written the terms of the contract/agreement in their U.S. code, federal regulations and their statutes at large. It is public domain for all to see and read the terms before signing agreements with them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Moreover continued use is continued consent. Again this is not academic and pretty straightforward.

    One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.

    He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.

    He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.

    He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden

    And since “Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit” and “No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent” but many still do then they have no place to complain, claim fraud and so on.

    One who takes the benefits has already provided the evidence for them that they agree to all the terms.

    How are you going to take care of the elderly, the sick, the poor, the orphans in this voluntary society without forcing people to contribute? If one is not willing to sacrifice and lay down part of their life for them through free will offerings this one will remain in their bondage to the STATE. They will remain compelled to contribute because they refuse to be responsible for their neighbor which some here seem to claim ” I have no duty” to my neighbor.

    “The politics of the kingdom of God which sets men free is the politics of love and liberty. It is where men and women choose to serve one another by attending to the Weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith which include caring for the needs of your neighbor, the widows and orphans of your society in Pure Religion in matters of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Way of Christ was not like the way of the World and the Corban of the Pharisees nor modern Christians. The Corban of Christ was and is done through a real voluntary Network providing a daily ministration to the needy of society through Faith, Hope and Charity by way of Freewill offerings of the people, for the people and by the people through the Perfect law of liberty in Free Assemblies.”

    In His peace and authority

    Damon Israel

  90. Steven Richards Says:

    Why don’t you guys just link to some pics, and we’ll be the judge of who’s is bigger?

  91. NonEntity Says:

    Steven, no need. Demon’s has obviously taken over his whole head. Contest OVER. Desert loses. 😉 (sorry dez!)

  92. desertspeaks Says:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/201/43/case.html
    You’re a liar or an idiot, it does in fact say neighbors, you excluded it to buttress your lie! Do a word search sometime numbnuts!
    And who says i have to utilize the entire quote? YOU??? yeah right! This is from “you” the same guy that says he doesn’t need evidence.. you can hush now!

  93. Incubus Says:

    http://abnf.co/NJ-Giant%20Chicken/IMG_0639.JPG

    I win.

  94. NonEntity Says:

    Too much COFFEE! That chicken is really WIRED!

    (Adding to the intelligence level of this thread, one post at a time.)

  95. damon Says:

    @ Desert,

    We are quoting from two different parts of the same case dealing with a duty. The part you quoted from does in fact say neighbor. I posted in haste early this morning before I left. Please forgive my error in not realizing you were quoting from a different part. I admit my error in not being more diligent in that. The part I quote from does not mention neighbor so that is what I ran with in the A.M.

    Lets post the pertinent parts of the case;

    Page 201 U. S. 74 “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors TO DIVULGE HIS BUSINESS, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, SINCE HE RECEIVES NOTHING THEREFROM beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

    My emphasis is added by way of capitalization of the parts I would like to address, one of which you are quoting from the other which I was quoting from.

    What seems to be an attempt to reassure yourself that no one owes a duty to anyone you quote, very selectively I might add, the Henkel case. You have no duty to divulge your business to your neighbor. This does not alleviate one from treating their neighbor as they would treat themselves.

    The STATE on the other hand , if you have and use benefits, you do have a duty to “open the books” to them. As it is carefully slid in by the judge where he states;

    “He owes no such duty to the State, SINCE HE RECEIVES NOTHING THEREFROM”.

    That is the clincher I have been harping on that you seem to refuse to see and at this point seem to be intentionally neglecting. The benefits and receipt and continued use of said benefit/s if in fact you are a resident with benefits is the grant of jurisdiction and consent to ALL the obligations arising from the use of said benefits which has duties attached .

    And again, the one accepting the benefits provides ALL the evidence they need. They will know to whom you belong according to the law you look to for your protection and authority to do the things you do. They will know who you look to for your security by whom you “pray” to for your benefits. The one with the benefits and status has already given the evidence you keep asking me to give. I cannot give it because I can claim your status for you. Only you can do that. Me not claiming your status for you is part of the DUTY I have to you and you to me.

    The truth is through covetous we have returned to the house of bondage and have been made merchandise;

    2Pe_2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you…

    Everyone wants their liberty now and are promised such from many different places. Unless people are willing to sacrifice for their neighbor’s liberty they will again return to their house of bondage like they are in today;

    2Pe_2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

    So ones “voluntary society” is not going to be voluntary for very long without a virtuous people who are willing to set their neighbor at liberty and keep them there through sacrifice by way of free will offerings instead of forced contributions.

    How are we going to care for one another in the “voluntary society” Marc proposes?

    In His peace,

    Damon Israel

  96. NonEntity Says:

    Hey demon, If I come over and mow your lawn, are you then obligated to me? Even if you never asked me or had any connection with me before I just decided to randomly mow your lawn so that I could then demand something in return? I mean, you’ve got a really nice looking lawn now, so SURELY you’re obligated feed my cats or SOME DAMNED THING! Right?

  97. damon Says:

    @ Non entity,

    No it would not create a duty save for the continued debt to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Treat me as you want to be treated.

    But if you make covenants , agreements, and contracts with me that create obligations and duties and sign and swear oaths then yes. Then one would having something enforceable in a court.

    You can find the terms of the social security agreement in title 42 of the U.S. code and is accompanied by title 26 which involve some of the duties to “pay tribute” for agreement to be surety for their debt because people have no problem “borrowing” from the future to get their benefits now.

    I would not let you mow my lawn for nothing unless you insisted. If what you wanted in return was cat food I would gladly get you cat food.

    You still seem to be looking at it as though you are forced to sign contracts with them and use their benefits and that it is their fault and not your own. At least this is what I perceive. People are not looking at it for what it is. The continued use is the bondage.

    • One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.

    Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation.

    there is good reason it is written;

    Psa_69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.

    In His peace and authority,

    Damon Israel

  98. NonEntity Says:

    …benefits conferred by statute…? You really can’t see the contradiction there? Really? “Ya see, I’ma gotta confer dis baseball bat on yore kneecaps you don’t confer dis weeks protection payments… capish?”

  99. desertspeaks Says:

    @ non, but he “benefited” from you mowing his lawn, that created “in his words’ an adhesion contract.. he now owes you, it matters not if he agreed or consented “in his world” because he benefited.. I think he should now be obligated to pay for your retirement.. sounds fair and reasonable in a government sort of way!

  100. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon,.. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors “for a damn thing”
    His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,… He owes nothing to the public
    so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. “again, he doesn’t owe them a damn thing”

  101. NonEntity Says:

    “adhesion contract” Doncha just LOVE IT! Talk about a mind f*ck of a concept. Come on now! So the concept of a “gift” is meaningless to you? A gift is something that is entirely free of strings. It’s totally a one way transaction, if transaction is even a word that can be used in conjunction with “gift.”

  102. NonEntity Says:

    I’m kinda likin’ this retirement fund idea though. Do I get free beer, too?

  103. damon Says:

    Peace be with you,

    Round and round we go.

    Whoever takes the benefits and continues to has waived those rights for statutory privileges.
    Whoever takes the benefits and continues to has to do so at the expense of their neighbor.
    Whoever takes the benefits and continues to grants jurisdiction.

    Ignorance of this does not give excuse.

    I do hope that above all the mockery and name calling that people will consider with some diligence the exchanges that have taken place here.
    I would ask all to consider the contradiction that one can continue to take and use benefits that come at the expense of ones neighbor and then attempt to claim fraud and accuse others of criminal misconduct.

    Who is more guilty? The thief or the one who buys the stolen property knowing it is stolen?

    If one does not want to be forced then do not force others.

    In his peace and authority

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

    P.S. I am still wondering how people are going to take care of the elderly, widows and orphans and sick and those that cannot care for themselves in this voluntary society that you guys are working towards? No one has offered any suggestions or ideas or…anything.

    Since it is voluntary, I am under the perception that everyone will understand they cannot force their neighbor to provide for their welfare like so many do now. I am sure everyone in this voluntary society will carry this dut….mutual understanding and they can count on each other to not use this force because they have formed real, lasting bonds of love and are prepared to treat one another as they want to be treated in love and sacrifice.

    Psa_119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

  104. desertspeaks Says:

    @ non, yes but he gets to pick the beer.. so more than likely it will be a near beer so you don’t run over some orphans or the poor!~

  105. desertspeaks Says:

    OHH now we see him modifying the adhesion contract.. “Whoever takes the benefits and continues to” So you must mow his yard more than once, this apparently cements the adhesion contract and your retirement, non!!

    HOWEVER; “Whoever takes the benefits and continues to has to do so at the expense of their neighbor.” So not only is he attempting to weasel out of his duty to afford you a comfy retirement, he wants your neighbors to pay for it, EVEN THOUGH he was the one the benefited!

    I am confused about STATUTORY PRIVILEGES?? What pray tell is that?? as I understand a license “a license” gives one the PRIVILEGE to do something, that would otherwise “without the license” be illegal.” Would this be one of those statutory privileges?? So much for liberty of movement! I guess liberty is a statutory privilege as well then!

  106. desertspeaks Says:

    Give me liberty or give me statutory privileges! hmm that doesn’t seem to sound right..

  107. damon Says:

    God bless you.

  108. desertspeaks Says:

    stop dragging your invisible friend in the sky into this!

  109. Jeff Says:

    Didn’t see my dismissal doc. Here it is.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/8b75cyy0658ubpj/Jeffs%204%20Case%20Dismissed.pdf?dl=0

  110. Don Penners Says:

    Many thoughtful and worthwhile comments have come from this thread. Can we agree that facts prove that no branch of government represents the people today? Can we also agree that the American general government has effectively disregarded and bypassed the US Constitution and state constitutions since ratification? Can we further concur that the constitutional bypass is also toughened by the elitist’s Fukushima nuclear “knife” at the throat of the government?

    Somehow, most consider this “exceptional” republic intact and healthy? How do we justify this conflict between what is really happening and what some presume as happening? Do we have any grounds to presume that American governments protect anyone but themselves? If we hold that grounds exist to support the belief that all-is-well because we the people are protected, let’s take the following into account.

    The original version of the Golden Rule says: “Do nothing to another that you don’t want done to you”. This exemplifies what early Americans expected of their small governments and of each other. This original version differs from the commonly stated version which states, “Do unto others what you would want others to do to you”.
    The first version requires only a small non-intrusive government of functionaries who leave the people alone as long as nobody trespasses on others.

    Yet, the second version seems personified in the form of the arrogant American government as seen in “The Ugly American” by Eugene Burdick. This version of government goes about its non-productive activities imagining itself to be faithful golden rule followers. There’s not an inch of ground on this earth without a need for these functionaries to “do something” about it. If the ground’s owners dislike the do-gooder’s behavior, the busy bodies rationalize that the ignorant owners of the land just don’t know what’s good for them, though we do. These activists strive to make the world deluded, in the vein of their own delusions. Hence, they engender a need for an ever expanding array of bureaus, bureaucrats and taxes to service their fantasy. The sole way to support the government’s lust for control (to protect themselves) is to force a progressive tax on hapless victims.

    DO AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS REALLY GIVE BENEFITS?

    Since the first Virginia Colony, all American Governments still produce absolutely nothing. They merely redistribute what they have collected under duress and coercion. Does their criminal tax scheme mean the recipient of stolen goods is actually an accessory to their crime or recipient of stolen goods? Or, do we find the recipient to be just a naïve and appreciative beneficiary who welcomes the government’s US Taxpayer jurisdiction? However we construe the government’s criminal behavior, we can never agree that their “largesse” has granted the real thief control or authority over any recipient’s life.

  111. Andy Says:

    Almost everyone agreeing on something; do you know the secret to herding cats?

  112. NonEntity Says:

    Tuna.

  113. desertspeaks Says:

    would you like corexit or radiation with your tuna 😛

  114. Don Penners Says:

    it has something to do with how hungry they are.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Ownership of Law | there is no debt Says:

    […] The Socratic Method, Teaching By Questioning NSP – Apr 25, 2015 http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150425.html […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via youtube.com. You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.





Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here