Thinkfree Be Free
« its a plant [ie a fixture] look it up »
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register. Dec 10, 2009, 1:46pm
Please go to thinkfreeforums.org. All new posts should be there now.
Remember to use your username and the password "password" without quotes and all in lowercase if you have not yet signed in to the new forums.
Posting here is now disabled
The first step in building any case which has a chance of winning is to analyze the problem.
A common pattern for doing this is to recognize a problem that needs answering; analyze the problem by first stating it; reach a satisfactory judgment; and then defend our judgment.
In preparing our case, our legal research will be determined entirely by the facts of the case for, without facts, the law is meaningless.
In marshaling our facts we need to keep a few guiding principles in mind so we aren't led astray: we must discount preconceptions; postpone judgements;
and we must observe for a purpose, know why we are observing and stick to relevant facts about the case. The answers must be based on evidence, premises and inferences.
THE COMMON LAW The following brief is believed to have been presented to a Grand Jury in the State of California circa 1982 in an attempt to correct judicial abuse of people involved in patriot and income tax protest movements.
Many people were being incarcerated as political prisoners of what is apparently a "shadow government" now in control of the USA. These patriots were attempting to educate as many of the general public as would hear their message.
Unfortunately, short-sighted self-interest and apathy seem to have prevailed.
This narrative is based upon the American system, however, for Canadian readers, the American system of government and the Canadian system, are but "slips", or more appropriately "suckers" off the same plant, the British limited monarchy.
Most of the following is, therefore, also directly applicable to the Canadian and 'commonwealth' dilemma's.
Before proceeding, you should know that there is a vast difference between 'British Common Law' and 'Anglo-Saxon Common Law'. To learn which is the true Common Law and which is the hoax; and, which version you may have been attempting to access in attempts to get out of 'admiralty law', go to:
Treason Learn the facts about the Vatican's and British Crown's continued claimed ownership of the USA; and, their continued collection of 'tribute' from Americans through the Pope's 'Holy Roman Empire'.
Editors notes: Apologies to the original author of this treatise. It came into my possession with author anonymous.
New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information.
The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is , therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law 'operating orders' or 'ship's orders'; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system.
The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a 'body politic' - both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire.
All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are 'ship's orders' of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause (In the US Constitution, it is the 'general welfare' clause).
This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion
'The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY 'rules or regulations' when he DEEMS it necessary for the GOOD of the ship.'
That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the 'common sense' realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land.
Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire.
The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences.
A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will.
As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract.
The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.
We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution?
And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing--playing the wrong ball game.
We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce - Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).
Let's explore the Common Law in depth; and, its embodiment in our Constitution. Probably one of the best ways of explaining what this Common Law is, is to explain what it is not -- to compare it to its antithesis.
There are, fundamentally, two competing systems of man-made law in the world that are in constant ideological conflict against each other.
One is the Common Law and the other is the Civil Law, or Roman Civil Law. For example, the Magna Carta (1215) used the antithesis method. Most articles are statements of normal practise in Roman law - with a "thou shalt not" added.
A brief study of the philosophic background is presented in order to grasp the significance of the differences in the two systems. A tri-unity of God (or, Supreme Being) concepts, composed of:
1. God Is [the God out there], 2. God Within [God indwelling each individual], and, 3. Within God [the person being a part of God, a cell in the body of God, etc],
are the basic building blocks of religious understanding, the basic elements of man's religions and religious institutions. A balanced tri-unity, regardless of concept quality, would make for a harmonious religious and social structure.
[Some of the North American Indian tribes achieved such a reasonably balanced plateau in their culture]. However, some socially dominating cultures, such as Judaism, are dominated by # 1, and a bit of # 3. Buddhism calls mostly on # 3 with some #2. Consider where one would place Communism, Oligarchic dominance, American republicanism, the Renaissance?
One can find these concepts ruling ancient civilizations, and extending into the very roots of our current concepts of statehood.
The ancient Greek city states developed in two, and opposing directions because their philosophic thought gave some the "God is" concept in isolation to the other two concepts, while the other took the "God within" as their sole concept.
One was Oligarchic, the other was Republican. Aristotle was a spokesman of the first, Plato, of the second.
The first leads to the final conclusion that man is an evolved animal; and, as such, must be controlled by a (divinely?) appointed chosen few. This thread of belief structure comes down to our current era.
One of the strongest of such belief structures resides within the current humanist mind-set -- the Universe is [supposedly] deteriorating and returning to basic elements, -
- so too would man revert to lower forms of animalism, if left on his own, without divinely appointed leaders, the oligarchs, the captain of the ship. The cult of Mother Earth [Environmentalism] falls into this school of thought.
The Republican "God within" society believes in the worth and responsible nature of the individual. In a true Republic, representatives are appointed and given responsibility for the public good as "servants". Democracy is an oligarchic mechanism to appease those people who by nature really are Republican.
A Democracy allows the people to choose their "leaders", their slave-masters.
The Oligarchs manipulate the economic and social structures so as to create a turmoil to keep their subjects constantly striving for the basic human institutions: self-maintenance, self-perpetuation and self-gratification; and, never allow these to reach a point where Republican thought, creativity and altruism, may become established.
So, with this background, you might better understand the difference between the oligarchic Maritime Law and the Republican enhancing Saxon Common Law.
The oligarchic entrepreneur's overthrow of ancient Israel's republican form of government is recorded in 1 Samuel, Chapter 8 [some worthwhile reading].
To consider the value of the "God within" concept to society, study the effect of the results of the Council of Florence [1439] called by the Pope of the Roman Church of that time, at which the Doctrine of "The Filioque" [Christ indwelling] was established (Actually, it was a revival of the teachings of St. Augustine and Philo of Alexandria).
The anti-Philo intrigues surrounding the Nicene Council and its resulting Nicene Creed is a study in itself regarding the imposition of oligarchy and its accompanying Roman dictators type of rule over the Church.
Even though it was not accepted by the Eastern [Byzantine] Rite and the Jesuits, it resulted in the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, great artistic expression, and the republican movements in Europe and America.
J. Reuben Clark, a former US Under-Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico, succinctly stated the principles and applications of these two systems of law when he wrote: "Briefly, and stated in general terms, the basic concept of these two systems was as opposite as the poles. In the Civil Law, the source of all law is the personal ruler, whether, king, or emperor; he is sovereign.
In the Common Law, certainly as developed in America, the source of all law is the people.
They, as a whole, are sovereign. During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms: the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men of equal genius, but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions.
The Constitution of the United States embodies the loftiest concepts yet framed of this exalted concept."
"Thus, our heritage of freedom is a direct and proximate result of the Common Law, deriving its authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity.
The Common Law is the legal embodiment of practical common sense, and, its guiding star has always been the rule of right and wrong -the Golden Rule.
The Common Law, as embodied in the US Constitution, for the protection and security of persons and property, is Substantive Common Law - [substantive right: a right {as of life, liberty, property, or reputation} held to exist for its own sake and to constitute part of the normal legal order of society] -
the intention of the Founding Fathers being the assurance of access to this law by the people.
Evidence will be further presented to show how other parts of the US Constitution dealing with the totally different jurisdictions of Admiralty and Maritime Law, have been used to subvert the people into, or under this jurisdiction,
and bar access to the substantive Common Law.
The basic element of the substantive Common Law is you [the individual man (m/f)].
In this jurisdiction, you are the sovereign and the captain of your own ship.
The restoration of that exalted concept, and access to the law by which men have established liberty and free institutions - is the object of this brief.
http://www.landrights.com/index.html money for free people , it insures only our security [as long as people feel it to have more worth than what the allready have]
see wikiseed/wikigeld
thats why we invented the wikiseed [based on the bush that didnt get consumed [didnt burn [or rather on the seed from the tree [of life ],
its sovereign assured credit [cash]money /insurance/reassurance , by devine right , to balance and give sure return you can eat ,
or use or trade for goods and services [or debt]
[]accounting ;abayance]
its worth is in the value of the bronze seeds by pounds as weight and worth
its a promise to pay note fuly filling gods promise it bears [as proof of genuinity and certainty] a living seed allowing the holder to grow thier own tree of [sustainable] life
THE MEN AND WOMEN HOLDING POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY IN THE HOAX GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA/australia /usa [inc] AND THE IMPOSTOR CROWN OF CANADA ARE COMMITTING HIGH TREASON AGAINST THE PEOPLE Posted: March 1st, 2002
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the USA Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is obvious that Jefferson gained his inspiration from:
Virginia Declaration of Rights (June 12, 1776) Drafted by: George Mason
Article I: That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
It should be noted here that the primary unalienable (meaning: a value cannot be ascertained) right is 'life'.
The secondary unalienable rights are 'property' and 'liberty'.
'Property' is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of life - the maintenance of one's body.
'Liberty' is absolutely necessary to take one's produce to market - to travel to one's place of work where labour, the primary property, may be exchanged for the necessary property to maintain life - food, shelter and clothing.
The 'Pursuit of Happiness' (Hope of Happiness) is vital for one's mental and physical health.
Notice that Jefferson 'conveniently' left the property right out of the Declaration of Independence. Modern charters of rights use the term 'security of person'.
Since 'person' is a legal status declaration by which (corporate slave status)becomes attached to one's body, the statement is meaningless relative to rights.
That to secure these rights,freedoms and powers, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ie the powers inherant by freemen [and free woman]
Article II: That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates ,courts , governance , acts and laws are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to thier welbeing and civel protection's are systimaticlly preserved to them.
Article III: That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; by all the various modes and forms of government serving the common weal that is best, fair and true for all, that govt service is that which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the dangers of elitist or systemised maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public common weal.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their ongoing Safety and possabilities of ongoing Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government's abuses , and to provide and empower new Guards for their future comunal security.
1. We, the People are creations of God - NOT creations of government.
2. The RIGHTS of LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS are bestowed upon us by our Creator - NOT by government ,nor act nor bill of right . 3. We, the People create government and install kings, queens or presidents as our servant.
4. As creator of government, we are the "MAJESTY", and government is our enjoined official servant.
5. When the men and women, acting as members of a SERVANT government, scheme to overthrow the "MAJESTY" of the MASTER and subjugate or destroy the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, there exists the crime of HIGH TREASON.
6. The People have NOT had one iota of opportunity to participate in deciding whether we will have the Monarch of Great Britain as the Crown of Canada austrailia indeed usa , nor by what form of government we will have , nor any opportunity to write or ratify a peoples constitution.
From the 1893 Dictionary of Law:
Treason. Betrayal, treachery, breach of faith or allegiance.
Treason may exist only as between allies:
it is a general appelation to denote not only offenses against the king and government, but also accumulation of guilt which arises whenever a superior reposes a confidence in a subject or inferior, between whom and himself there subsists a natural, a civil, or even a spiritual relation,
and the inferior so abuses that confidence, so forgets the obligations of duty, subjugation, and allegiance, as to destroy the life of the superior.
When disloyalty attacks majesty itself it is called, by way of distinction, high treason, equivalent to the crime n loesoe majestatis of the Romans
High treason is the most heinous civil crime a man can commit. If indeterminate, this alone is sufficient to make a government degenerate into arbitrary power.
The Treasonous Acts Against the people of the common weal [formerly the common wealth]
The Governments, at all levels, by use of a "STRAWMAN", a sound alike name of your name, but combining your family name with your given names, has converted you into a tax slave, and subject to summary forced obedience to the corporate rules of government. A family name is for reference only.
As of recent years, the 'legal identity' name is spelled in all capital letters or family name first, and called a NATURAL PERSON.
The legal identity/natural person name, created and owned by the Crown in right of the Province of your birth, can be found on your birth certificate, or, for an immigrant to Canada, by the Crown in right of the Province of entry, and found as the name on your immigration documents.
By this legal identity name being supposedly attached to, or identified by our physical body, the Crown (government) has made all Canadians SUBJECT to the CROWN, (a corporate entity) by changing our status to that of a FEUDAL SERF of the MIDDLE AGES.
This is a deliberate act of HIGH TREASON against the People as it results in the loss of the Creator bestowed rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY, and the right to a common law court.
Queen Elizabeth II has allowed her name to be prostituted to this evil scheme in direct violation of her oath of office as Monarch of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
In her oath, she swore on the Holy Bible that she would uphold and defend the rights of the People over which she reigns as Monarch.
There is a question as to whether the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has any right to be called the Monarch or the Crown of Canada,australia [indeed the common wealth] as the right to succession in the BNA Act (section 2) granted to the successors and heirs of Queen Victoria was struck by the British Imperial Parliament in 1893.
Any claim of absolute sovereignty rights by the English Monarchy was shown to be non-existent in the Magna Carta of 1215.
Yet, over PERSONS, be they natural persons (man under contract of servitude with the Crown, and without right of free will - except for obedience) or artificial corporate bodies, as created by the Crown, there is absolute rights of the MASTER over the servant exhibited by the Crown over PERSONS.
The Crown, whether it be in so-called right of Canada or of a province, by deviously changing our status before their corrupt courts as being corporate MEMBERS created by the Crown, has deprived us of our lawful courts and has plundered our lives which have been expended in labour to obtain the very necessities of life.
In ALL cases in a court in Canada, where Canadians are taken to court for disobedience to a statute, or regulation therein, they are considered a "CORPORATE MEMBER".
This fact is an unknown to most Canadians. People believe that they are dealing directly with the Canadian Justice system as a full liability man or woman with full rights.
All corporations are a legal fiction, and are SUBJECTS of the Crown.
The People have a basic RIGHT to Common Law , and as such, are NOT SUBJECTS of the Crown for the imposition of corporate ADMINISTRATIVE Law - the ONLY type of law which is to be found in the Canadian Court system. T
his subterfuge is totally in the realm of legal sleaze and trickery for the purpose of denying your God Given RIGHTS.
In using the term "Common Law", I refer to the Anglo-Saxon Common Law.
The English Monarchy began the defrauding of the English people of their individual rights protecting Anglo-Saxon Common Law in a concerted effort by Edward I in conspiracy with the Pope of Rome sometime around 1300 AD.
The term "common law" and "English common law" was concocted as a fraud; and, is in fact, a system derived directly from Roman civil law - commonly called "dictator's law".
Considering that Anglo-Saxon Common Law period of England preceded the Norman Conquest of England by some 500 years, we have evidence of this fraud posted on the Canadian Federal Justice website:
"The common law, which developed in Great Britain after the Norman Conquest, was based on the decisions of judges in the royal courts.
It is called judge-made law because it is a system of rules based on "precedent". whenever a judge makes a decision that is to be legally enforced, this decision becomes a precedent: a rule that will guide judges in making subsequent decisions in similar cases.
The common law is unique in the world because it cannot be found in any "code" or "legislation"; it exists only in past decisions.
However, this also makes it flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances."
The primary feature of Roman civil law used by the deceitful English monarchy, and it's so-called justice system, is the "notwithstanding clause".
This derives from the fact that Roman Law is based upon all commercial and political organizations being make-believe ships.
All 'ship's orders' - laws, rules and regulations concerning the ship, have within them the necessary right and duty of the captain to disregard any such rules or regulations when he deems it necessary for the 'good' of the ship.
The complete "flexible and adaptable" feature of so-called English or British common law is nothing more than the common usage of the notwithstanding clause
to insure that the Crown's pleasures, prerogatives and privileges come before the individual rights of the people.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809), the great American philosopher of man's individual rights and freedoms, wrote in his book Rights Of Man (page 218): "Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up."
In Paine's day, government's primary reason for existence was the justice system.
We can see how "flexible and adaptable" this fraudulent English common law is by the way Canadian and American judges use the Anti-Government Movement Guide Book
to institute treasonous actions against Canadians , australians(and Americans, as the case may be) when people use unalienable rights or statute and/or constitutional law to defend themselves against government extortion rackets.
As the above quote from the 1893 Dictionary of Law states: High treason is the most heinous civil crime a man can commit.
If indeterminate, this alone is sufficient to make a government degenerate into arbitrary power.
Government, bodies politic, are corporations wherein men supposedly have protection against the actions they do by the "corporate veil".
All corporations are "make-believe" ships, based upon the Roman Empire system, which itself was based upon the ancient Persian model whereby the ship was the entity, and the men on board as crewmembers were non-volitional (non-free-will minded) body parts with only the duty to obey the captain's orders.
But, this make-believe corporate veil protection to do as they please is only a fictional game.
Men (and women) who do damage to another while in a contract (oath of office) to be a servant to the People are full liable for their unlawful actions when it entails HIGH TREASON.
The PENALTY for HIGH TREASON is DEATH BY HANGING - and that penalty is still in effect in Canada.
The DetaxCanada detax program is a good start. Also, get yourself educated as to your rights. Learn about the corporate veil, and the possible remedies to defeat it.
I would suggest reading a Discourse on Voluntary Servitude written by Éttiene de la Boétie of France around 1560.
My primary answer is the Magna Carta Kanata Project.
We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce - Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).
Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize.
Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war -- such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property -- both real and personal, etc.
Another way to understand admiralty law - it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700's.
As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments - the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.
Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don't have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction.
This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law -- and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.
Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal.
Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc.
In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction -- only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.
For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case -- the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination.
There's no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways -- but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses.
There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business -- only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain's regulations.
Having identified the symptoms of the problem, we must diagnose the cause to find a solution. We have been fighting the effects too long while the disease rages unabated.
Since we have identified the cause, and understand its nature and characteristics, we [hopefully] can build a winning case.
In marshaling our information and facts it is necessary to go back in time. Let us examine the evidence and facts: Back at the time, just before the revolution -- when our Colonies were festering and threatening revolt from the King -- when we had the Common Law of the Colonies.
The King's men came over to collect their taxes. They didn't use the Common Law on us, they applied Admiralty Law on us -- arrested people, held Star Chamber proceedings and denied us our common rights as Englishmen.
This, more than any one thing, (sure, taxation without representation was part of it) -- but it was denial of our Common Law rights by putting us under Admiralty Law wherein the King was the Chancellor.
His agents deprived us of jury trials, put us on ships, sent us down to ports in the British West Indies -- where many died of fever in the holds of ships -- and very few returned.
This was one of the main reasons for the revolution in 1776.
What is the Common Law? Historically, the Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon Common Law in England. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England.
It is/was the Golden Rule (Rule of Common Justice) that in the negative form reads: "Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you." The positive Golden Rule deals with Social Justice.
Where did this law come from -- this Anglo-Saxon Common Law? Did it come from Christianity's introduction to England? Apparently not..
It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany "already have the law". It is suspect that early Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ.
The Law or Hebrew word for Law, the TORH (pronounced Tor-ah) was the basis of Hebrew religion and society.
So what has happened? The English people had this simple and pure Common Law of rights and property rights. But there also existed along side of it, even in those days, the law of commerce, which is the Maritime Law.
The earliest recorded knowledge we have of Maritime Law is in the Isle of Rhodes, 900 B. C. -- then there's the Laws of Oleron, Laws of the Hanseatic League, Maritime Law, which was part and parcel of their civil law. This is the law of commerce, whereas the Common Law was the law that had to do with the land, and with the people of the land.
William the Conqueror subjugated all the Saxons to his rule except London Town. The merchants controlled the city and their walls held off the invaders.
The merchants were able to provision the city by ships and William's soldiers were not able to prevail. Finally, acknowledging that he could not take the City by force, he resorted to compromise. The merchants demanded "the "Lex Mercantoria" [the Maritime Law].
This was granted and remains to this day. The inner city of London has its special law where the Merchant's Law is the law of the City of London.
Protection of their shipping industry was one of the primary reasons for the resistance by the merchants of London. The Saxon Common Law had no provision for fictitious entities called "persons" - men under contract to be limited liability (natural persons), as military personnel; and artificial persons (companies).
The elite desired to maintain absolute control and subjugation of the People within London.
The Anglo-Saxon Common Law recognized only full liability men with volitional and moral minds. Common Law deals with the "mind" of man. Roman Law is based upon good order and discipline on a ship.
The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries.
Identifying features of Roman Common Law are the usage of precedent and judgement by magistrate(s) in courts of Summary jurisdiction.
At Runnymede, in 1215, the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, one of three primary documents establishing the fundamental rights of the English people to this day.
However, the 1215 Magna Carta was promptly voided by the Pope of Rome. The Magna Carta was instituted voluntarily by King Henry III in 1225, making it the lawful Magna Carta of England.
The other documents are the Petition of Rights[1628] and the Bill of Rights[1689]}.
The primary objective and content of the Magna Carta was the prohibition of the use of Summary jurisdiction [the Roman or Admiralty Law] as a means of unauthorized taxation and seizure of property without due process of Law or just compensation.
The colonists were, on the whole, very well schooled in the Common Law and were quite aware of the wrongs that King and Parliament were committing against them.
This eventually forced them to rebel.
The Common Law that we had in our land is parallel to another ancient law. You will find that when our Founding Fathers set up the declaratory trust, known to us as the Declaration of "Independence", Jefferson listed 18 grievances and in each one of these grievances he showed how we were being denied our rights as free-born Englishmen.
So, he made an appeal to the nations of the world that the acts being committed against the colonists were acts committed against the Laws of Nations, and it (the Declaration of Independence) became an ordinance, a public trust, within the Law of Nations -- and those Founding Fathers knew that they would have to fight to win the independence that they had so declared.
Editors note: It now appears that Jefferson used George Mason's 'Virginia Declaration of Rights' (June 12, 1776) as the basis for his Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776);
After the English surrendered at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation period followed. Then our Founding Fathers implemented the Constitution into this Public Trust, which was the mechanism to provide for us our hopes and aspirations.
In the Constitution you will find principles; but, not necessarily those found in the Declaration of Independence.
Some of the writers of the Constitution thought it was a little too restrictive. I
t was generally conceded, for instance, that the people had the right to bear arms, but they also knew that if we ever were placed or allowed ourselves to be brought under Maritime Admiralty Law concerning our persons and property, we would have dire need of a guarantee for our rights -- thus, the ten amendments were added to the Constitution, and that became the substantive part of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the Maritime Admiralty jurisdiction.
How have we been tricked out of our Common Law rights; and, into the Admiralty courts?
How has equity as well as Admiralty been corrupted? How has the Federal Government made it almost impossible for us to receive our constitutional rights -- our substantive rights in the Constitution?
Now, to understand the Constitution -- we must examine the Declaration of Independence and those 56 men who signed it, and pledged their lives, liberty, family, property, and their honor to this sacred trust.
All of these men were very knowledgeable and learned in the Common Law -- they knew the law because they studied the law, they may not have had a high school education (many of them). But they could read, and they read and studied law.
They were men of the age or reason and they knew and they understood. They knew exactly what the king was doing. They knew the law.
Knowledge is a very important thing. And, as James Madison wrote years ago: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
Education should never be terminal!
The First Amendment to the U S Constitution cites "Freedom of Religion" that in actual fact is "Freedom of Education" since the church controlled education, at the time of its writing.
Now, there is a chronological sequence of events that placed us where we are today.
We can almost assure you that you will reject, or want to reject, parts of what you are about to see and hear.
There is a theory known as the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) that holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions.
Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you heretofore believed to be true. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware
HABEAS CORPUS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY WRIT Habeas Corpus is an ancient common law prerogative writ - a legal procedure to which you have an undeniable right.
It is an extraordinary remedy at law.
Upon proper application, or even on naked knowledge alone, a court is empowered, and is duty bound, to issue the Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding one who is restraining liberty to forthwith produce before the court the person who is in custody and to show cause why the liberty of that person is being restrained.
Absent a sufficient showing for a proper restraint of liberty, the court is duty bound to order the restraint eliminated and the person discharged.
Habeas Corpus is fundamental to American and all other English common law derivative systems of jurisprudence. It is the ultimate lawful and peaceable remedy for adjudicating the providence of liberty’s restraint.
Since the history of Habeas Corpus is predominately English we must visit that history to gain understanding of American use of Habeas Corpus.
ENGLISH HISTORY OF HABEAS CORPUS: The history of Habeas Corpus is ancient. It appears to be predominately of Anglo-Saxon common law origin. Clearly, it precedes Magna Carta in 1215. Although the precise origin of Habeas Corpus is uncertain in light of it’s antiquity, its principle effect was achieved in the middle ages by various writs, the sum collection of which gave a similar effect as the modern writ. Although practice surrounding the writ has evolved over time, Habeas Corpus has since the earliest times been employed to compel the appearance of a person who is in custody to be brought before a court. And while Habeas Corpus originally was the prerogative writ of the King and his courts, the passage of hundreds of years time has permitted it to evolve into a prerogative writ initiated by the person restrained, or someone acting in his interest rather than by the King or his courts.
Magna Carta obliquely makes reference to Habeas Corpus through express reference to “the law of the land”. From Magna Carta the exact quote is: “...no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land.”
The practice and right of Habeas Corpus was settled practice and law at the time of Magna Carta and was thus a fundamental part of the unwritten common “law of the land” as was expressly recognized by Magna Carta.
CIVIL LAW VS. COMMON LAW: However, Habeas Corpus was generally unknown to the various civil law systems of Europe which are generally devolved from Roman and/or Justinian law.
European civil law systems tend to favor collective authority from the top down while the Anglo-Saxon common law tends to favor the individual. Thus, it is altogether understandable that the ultimate right to determine the propriety of restraint upon the liberty of an individual is an almost unique feature derived from the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law of England.
Indeed, the Magna Carta itself is arguably a reaction to the incursion of European civil law into the English common law legal system via William in 1066.
The running tension and contest between the civil law of the “Norman intruders” intrusively confronting the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law continued throughout the period 1066 to the 1640’s when, following the English Civil War, and the beheading of King Charles I in 1649, the people’s parliament clearly established the respective position of King and citizen.
In this crucible of contest, the confrontation of top down authoritarian civil law principles clashed and continuously competed with, but then yielded to, the ancient “good old” common law of the land. In the final analysis, the strength and resilience, and I might add common sense, of the evolved, time tested, common law prevailed.
The interest of the people as reflected in their common law won a several centuries old contest with the civil law brought to England by the Norman conquest. Habeas Corpus is merely one feature, albeit it an important one, of the common law.
As a feature of common law, the right of Habeas Corpus reflects the age old contest between the individual and the state. Habeas Corpus empowers the individual in holding accountable the exercise of the state’s awesome power to restrain liberty.
The frequent use of the great writ reflected the tension between common and civil law practice during the period 1485 thru 1509, generally the reign of Henry VII.
At that time Habeas Corpus was employed to secure the liberty of those imprisoned by the Chancellor, the King’s Privy Counsel, the Courts of Admiralty, The Court of High Commission and its prerogative courts including its inquisitorial processes featured by the hated “star chamber court” at Westminster, so called because of the stars on its ceiling.
Conversely, the common law preference of accusatorial processes had long been a fixture of Anglo-Saxon history. The modern writ of Habeas Corpus dates from this history.
During this period, the sheer frequency of which Habeas Corpus was employed together with its procedure and results, established the Writ of Habeas Corpus as a powerful tool to check the power of the state and to preserve the rights of individuals against the arbitrary power of the King and his Counsel together with the King’s courts.
It was the King’s prerogative courts which were given to inquisitorial practices while the parallel system of common law courts employed purely common law accusatorial practices.
Thus the arbitrary character of civil law power devolved in England since William’s Norman intrusion was largely checked through employment of the Writ of Habeas Corpus by the first part of the sixteenth century.
And Habeas Corpus saw frequent use and growth in prominence throughout the reign of Charles I which, in turn, found its bloody end on the chopping block in 1649.
THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT: The English common law practice and procedure respecting Habeas Corpus was codified by Parliament in 1679 by enactment of the Habeas Corpus Act.
This historic act of the English Parliament empowered English courts to issue Writs of Habeas Corpus even during periods when the court was not in session and provided significant penalties to the judge, personally, who disobeyed the statute.
And while great hypocrisy surrounded the practice of the Habeas Corpus Act in the late 17th century, Habeas Corpus was nevertheless establishing itself as the primary means by which individual liberty was empowered at the expense of the arbitrary exercise of power by the state.
During the 19th century the Writ of Habeas Corpus was further expanded to include those held by a purely private process other than that of the state.
AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT OF HABEAS CORPUS: As with other features of English common law and practice, by the time of the American Revolutionary War, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was clearly established in all of the British colonies in New England and was generally regarded as part of the fundamental protections guaranteed by law to each citizen.
The American Constitution at Article I, Section 9 states that: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. ” It is important to note that the framers of the Constitution for the United States of America choose to include in the body of the Constitution the Writ of Habeas Corpus while other important individual rights, arguably as an afterthought, were included in the first ten amendments which were popularly called the Bill of Rights.
The “afterthought”, that is to say the Bill of Rights, was not included even as amendments until James Madison single handedly, but persistently and successfully, argued before congress for its adoption and passage on 15 December 1791, some two years after the constitution was ratified.
This fact sheds light on the importance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus as viewed by the framers of the American Constitution at the time it was established.
CIVIL WAR & HABEAS CORPUS: The most famous American Habeas Corpus action prior to the civil war was the case of Ex parte Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a slave owned by a physician.
Upon the death of his master, it was promised that Dred Scott would be set free. However, at that time Dred Scott was still being detained as a slave. Dred Scott petitioned the Federal Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Habeas Corpus was granted by the Federal District Court and subsequently upheld by the Federal Court of Appeals. However, the Habeas Corpus was overturned by the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that Dred Scott, as a slave, was not a “person” as contemplated by the United States Constitution and therefore did not have the right to petition the Federal Courts for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
As to Dred Scott, the extraordinary writ, the great writ as Sir William Blackstone put it, was effectively suspended. This notable case remains as one of the most controversial Habeas Corpus actions in American history.
As is generally known, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended by President Lincoln during the civil war. Chief Justice Roger Tanney, in the case of Ex parte Merryman (See: Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed. Cas. No.9, 487, p.144 (1861)) strongly excepted suspension of Habeas Corpus by a sitting president and concluded that only the congress had the power of suspension under Article I Section 9 of the constitution.
The ruling of the Supreme Court was apparently ignored by the President and the military during the civil war. Congress later authorized the already presidential suspension of the writ in 1863. After 1863, and acting on congressional authorization, the military was permitted to temporarily hold people who were to be turned over to and adjudicated by the civil courts.
After the assassination of President Lincoln, and in the case of Ex parte Milligan (See: Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L.Ed. 281 (1866)) the United States Supreme Court granted the writ and once again established that only Congress had the power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus and that the military had no jurisdiction over the trial of civilians in the post civil war South.
THE MODERN WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS: Today the Writ of Habeas Corpus is used in many different ways. It applies to post conviction relief in criminal matters even where the judgment of judge and jury is final.
It applies to those who are in police custody but who are not charged with a crime.
It applies to those who are awaiting trial but who have not been able to make an excessive bail.
It applies to death row prisoners who challenge their death sentence.
It applies to prisoners who remain in custody after the expiration of their lawful sentence.
Additionally, Habeas Corpus applies to both adults and children who are restrained of their liberty in some meaningful manner but who are not in the actual custody of police or other public authority.
For example, Writs of Habeas Corpus have been issued in civil cases on application of a parent where a child’s custody is being sought against the wishes of the other parent who allegedly “restrains” the child.
It applies equally to those who have been held because of their mental condition.
And the writ applies equally for any other fact or circumstance, civil or criminal, in which the liberty of someone is restrained in any meaningful manner.
Habeas Corpus extends even to those who are already released from actual custody on bail and who are contesting the manner and/or authority of the restrictions which bail places on their liberty or the charge for which they have been required to make bail.
And although, research by this writer has failed to reveal any cases to date, home schooling contest are subject to the writ of Habeas Corpus.
Parents whose authority to home school their own children and who are challenged by the state or other authority may properly file a Writ of Habeas Corpus to adjudicate the dispute as in any other child custody case.
And, the writ may properly be signed and filed by an attorney - or - by “any other person”
(See: Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.12 and 11.13.) who has knowledge of the improvident restraint of liberty. In fact, there is legal precedent recognizing the duty of any citizen to proceed by Writ of Habeas Corpus to notice a court and to invoke the duty of the court as to Habeas Corpus when any illegal restraint of any other citizen is observed.
CAVEAT & SUMMARY: On a more ominous note, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not without its detractors today.
Movement is underway throughout the United States and each of the states to curtail the employment and exercise of Habeas Corpus.
This questionable, if not highly suspicious, exercise can be divided generally into two camps. Congressional restrictions on the writ; and judicial restrictions on the writ.
For example, the United States Congress enacted the anti terrorism act in April of 1996 which effectively stripped the Supreme Court of its power to review lower federal court rulings in Habeas Corpus cases.
However, the Supreme Court retained its power to review petitions for Habeas Corpus which are directly submitted to the court. ??
Additionally, and more disturbingly, there is evidence that the Writ of Habeas Corpus has in some jurisdictions been selectively suspended in certain types of cases.
For example, frequently State courts selectively ignore, as a practical matter, the effect of the writ in cases where citizens are charged with the “unauthorized practice of law”.
In most of these jurisdictions, it is disturbing to note that it is an agency of the state Supreme Court itself which makes the complaint and then prosecutes the charge.
In these cases the supreme court is making the charge, prosecuting the charge only to later sit in final adjudication of the charge before their own court.
The consolidation of power as reflected in this practice against the liberty of individual citizens smacks of star chamber practice and should be condemned by state legislators as was the star chamber itself condemned by the English Parliament in 1641.
Additionally, many of these cases result in imprisonment of the defendant in a purely civil case only to thereafter be effectively denied review by the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Tragically, in these cases the ordinary review by appeal is also denied leaving the defendant with no adequate remedy under law.
?? The Writ of Habeas Corpus in such cases is simply “overruled” without comment or findings or supporting law.
It is precisely this practice which was sought to be avoided by those constitutional provisions pertaining to the separation of powers as well as the constitutional provisions that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is never to be suspended.
While all states have constitutional provisions pertaining to the separation of powers only a few states have provisions prohibiting the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Nevertheless, the Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus remains as the final and most fundamental process by which one may test the propriety of a restraint on individual liberty.
they will work by removing the info from vieuw [often by making seemingly lawfull yet absurd statements]
MAN'S INHERENT "TALENTS" The Great Fundamentals, II
"And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. "Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
"And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. "But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. "After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them."
"And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
"His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
"He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents besides them.
"His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
"Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed : "And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou ha
so every one tells me trouble is she dosnt was i her shop or a customer i would possably think 'her' man to be very lucky as well, good thing cyber kindness is enough for me
it was my birth day yesterday [it was a pleasure not to have 'any one 'notice] i give her respect [but thats enough , i dont need her respect]she has my name [thats enough for her] but see i came back [im like that ] till i get told to go i hang arround doing what i do with one finger and a type pad its funny when i was banned i couldnt read a single post till i logged in [you germans must have better servers than us aussies] any way thanks for the hug [my cyber sister] thought i would cut and paste my last post
Thinkfree be free :: Enlightenment :: Questions :: Acceptance for value thoughts « 123Page 4
Author Topic: Acceptance for value thoughts (Read 541 times) powder Guest Re: Acceptance for value thoughts « Reply #36 on Jan 23, 2008, 6:46am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So lets be very clear here.
There is no trust.
The BC is record of an event.[bc is birth certificate] The SIN is a contract by which you hand over a POA to the government to access your exemption, agree to be a federal government employee and other "crap". When you "apply" to another "govt" for a "thing" you are really signing a contract with them for the benefit of "xxxx" IN exchange FOR WHAT? Being a servant.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
central-fusion Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 102 Karma: 0 [ Exalt | Smite ] Re: Acceptance for value thoughts « Reply #37 on Jan 23, 2008, 6:56am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The covenents would be used to determine what to use the exemption for. That would be your lawful excuse within a NoU and a CoR would it not? Seeing the Government of Canada signed on to these.
Peace Mark
« Last Edit: Jan 23, 2008, 6:57am by central-fusion » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.
oneundergod New Member
member is online
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 43 Location: great south ;Van Die Mens land Karma: 0 Re: Acceptance for value thoughts « Reply #38 on Feb 3, 2008, 11:11pm »
Jan 16, 2008, 3:55pm, lakeshorebaby wrote:Yah. Well I guess it's important to be able to use either the SIN or the birth certificate to access the bond because we might have returned our SIN or claimed our right not to be associated with it for tax purposes. The thing is with this bond thing I can't get out of my head. It's that there IS no collective wealth of the commonwealth.
im not sure of this lakeshore [there not being wealth in the collective called the common wealth ] just in the intellectual capital of its people in imesurable creative return ,let alone in the reaping of the lands for basic minerals/food [future earnings and potential future earnings are huge
i feel we have been sold this bankruptsy by the bankers ,[gold and silver is nothing, except we deemed it constitutionally to be legal tender ] when govt made paper legal tender it was by the future promise inherant in our common weal
look at what they have harvested from our collective wealth scince the bankruptsy ,by quasi legal act anf fiction ,im sure if you could unblock this feeling of us being collective , you will see clearkly and be able to explain it better to all of us , not you alone of course we are all responsable collectivly
not to discard the real; common wealth for the lie they have been hypnotising us into believing ,i couldnt get past this part of your post so i had to write this to correct this ;We have all been in bankruptcy for a long time now.
Quote: The rumor is that all of the gold was already used to pay off debt back in the 30's from the debt incurred when the Fed and the Bank of Canada were privatized back in the early 1900's.
This is why they have switched over to an entirely debt based system. Wealth is not money. [/quote ] ahmen
Quote:
It's the land itself and precious metals by extension of a common desire for them. But money is definitely worth something. [wrong [forgive me brother , gold is junk bonds [bondage , hypnotic stuff to quell our thinking there is no gold in heaven [if there were it would be as common as merde ,;im asking them to explain but they say you all ready know [quote] I mean, we buy things every day with it. But because of the fiat nature of it, and the private nature of those who print it, and the fractional reserve nature of lending that is not pegged to anything,
except other [merde?]
Quote: the value of money goes down every second.
and as it goes down the real valuable stuff costs more of this ''merde'[why are they laughing?
Quote:
Sam Kennedy was clear about saying that when we use bonds that we set up ourselves to pay off criminal charges, there is new money introduced into the system thereby causing inflation.
This is why I am so against the use of the bond to pay things off like tickets. [so am i im doing this myself my advisers have gone silent [quote] It's seems like a much better idea to question the fraudulent nature of the security interests themselves with conditional acceptance.
or giving our birth right common weal away like tricked children
Quote: If it's true that money is created every time the bond is used then we are causing inflation when we use it. If everyone did this, we'll be spiraling towards the Amero faster.
they dont understand our common weal has never had higher price [apparently]
Quote: But there may be a difference between discharge and set off when it comes to the creation of money.
We use debt notes everyday to discharge debt.
the hopi say at the end time we find it so plenty full people try to eat it thats why we made the wikiseed/wikigeld money you can eat
Quote: Is it possible that when we direct use of the bond for set off that money is actually destroyed? given that money is debt?
Who knows.
im not sure apparently thats for each to decide for them selves money isnt promise to pay , its debt paid without promise only lie /act deemed lawfull, but actually breaking commandment regarding theft im seeing jesus spill the tables im told we dont need to spill them only turn them tweaking them a little [ti lt] Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- there are no faulse prophets;only faulse gods* & one god made the dust to live ; dont serve those who would return all life back to dust *
padreilluminato Illuminate
member is offline
When I was just a little boy, I asked my Mother What should I be !!
Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 585 Location: Terra Fermo Karma: 1 [ Exalt | Smite ] Re: Acceptance for value thoughts « Reply #39 on Yesterday at 11:54am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are a few questions I have to understand acceptance for value.
If the letter or document you recieve has a value to it, can you change the value on it to a higher amount and accept it then ?
What if the letter sent to you does not have a signature on it ? Would that mean it can still be accepted for value without a signature ?
I get the that many assume there is an amount on a piece of paper that you can automatically accept it for value, is this correct ?
If a give someone a statement of account, does that make the document eligable to be accepted for value ?
What is it we are looking for to do a true acceptance for value ? or What do we need to understand in order to accept for value ?
I thought that we need to ask for a true bill in order to accept the documents properly ?
So what is a true bill ?
I think we need to understand the true nature of acceptance, before it can be carried out properly.
Peace Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All posts are for educational purposes only. --------------------------------- Liberty is the right to choose, freedom is the result of that choice. Without Prejudice, Without Recourse, Yada Yada !!!
oneundergod New Member
member is online
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 43 Location: great south ;Van Die Mens land Karma: 0 Re: Acceptance for value thoughts « Reply #40 on Today at 4:39am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- unpaid bills are tax deductable from the communal tax fund they thus are much like a promise to pay that the govt is obligated to pay out of the excheqer ,no doudt based on our id /signature
there is as usual many layers here to see through and look into i have a pension/health card .,licence [all need my signature] i refuse to sign my pension card ,and constantly get told it MUST be signed , they then deduct the pension dicount from [say the bus fare ] or the rates , or phone bill no doudt they record this to make a bulk claim for fund reimbersament at some governmental level to balance account
i like the idea [simplicity of striking out ''ammount'' and putting value [then perhaps writing pay bearor and witing your birth number as an accounts payable referance to be reimbersed by the public weal [common wealth, inherant as a owner in possesion over the estates adminestered by the govt [of which i am an enjoined heir and equal accounted sharholder ,by right of my birth being from a free man on the land
you guys are burning out my brain here but keep it up [cobewbs are having a smelt down, some genetic memory seems to be birthing ,and while i aint got a handel on it , as in seeing it the words are gelling into a beaten pathway [who knows where too ,a fool is yet as close to madness as a genious is to a fool] its much like trying to let go of an electricle charged wire , the visions are all most to die for , but you know you have to let it go , or [ok the subject change , ended the flow] i gottra try and join the dots a signature , joimned with your title [esq] land owner [not mr ie a strawman [slave] , not mrs [ie belonging to a slave] not miss [a child of the land [the terra -firm-a] not master not captain esq [on the land , as free man] [eon [not peon] , not native , not savage ] [not jd[johndoe /jane doe] t.i.c][not tennent in common]
sun of god [sog][esq][md[phd] [bmf][rip] i can see a glimmer of it but fail to know its true name rsvp Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- there are no faulse prophets;only faulse gods* & one god made the dust to live ; dont serve those who would return all life back to dust *
oneundergod New Member
member is online
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 43 Location: great south ;Van Die Mens land Karma: 0 Re: Acceptance for value thoughts « Reply #41 on Today at 5:04am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edit of first post '' I've been trying to wrap my mind around all these issues [as well]
with the berth certificate and the "bond" associated with it,
and how to accept things for value ,not debts as promise to pay but as value paid in full , but that
you only need to point to the number on the Birth C ertificate and other
nonsense ,[ a strawman signature signed pay bearor the sum from my righ and share in the common trust account of [state ] as enjoined heir in common over common wealth of the state
Some points I believe to be true:
-Men and women are the true creditors by right of the common wealth inherant of our being born as freemen on the land [enjoined heirs of the common weal].
-Our signatures have unlimited value if we claim it, and
I highly doubt anyone could prove otherwise.
-Proper bills and presentments made to us ARE the issuence of [certification of debt ,money is a fiction created by signing obligation to repay the debt,
and by signing them ,the debt, and ''promising to pay them , we give them value ,just as our signing a morgage makes the money[credit] that sustains banks ,banking [even debt has worth to banks, [they make money out of increasing the signed for debt agreement ,as it expands the UN_recoverable [advantage]
our default allows them to somehow claim advantage from the sus-tem.[sys stem]
That having been said, if our signatures can have as much value as we decide [because those who hold our unredeemable debt get advantage from our default
, why do we even need to point back to the berth certificate at all? [it becomes clear when we see they can claim against our common right as heirs to steal a part of our share of the common wealth]
Just sign the bill, write "I value this", cross-out amount and write "value. [paty bearor the sum etc Voila!
We just took a piece of paper and GAVE it notarised promisary to make claim to the stated value , to those in the know know on how to reclaim, it in the system , there is no need to fuss with the minister of finance, the BC or other nonsense ,just use our debt agreejment like the bankers are doing and get your cash credit like the bankers do
we make the bioll into a cheq paid by the excheqer ,up to a fair share of our share from the common weal we own ,as free born men on the land ,heirs in common weal [esq] [sog]fotl] jonah/johannine [oug] pay bearor the sum of [ trip rip] « Last Edit: Today at 5:09am by oneundergod » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- there are no faulse prophets;only faulse gods* & one god made the dust to live ; dont serve those who would return all life back to dust *
« 123Page 4
ok its only the 4 th page and it only expands the other thoughts but i like to think i missed the real post i was hoping to put up about thinking through problems but i know its not for you but it works for me [as you can see im as 'out there as ever]
good thing no one reads these posts [eh]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - one under god on 02/05/2008 09:07:51
its ok some one had to take up this incarnation i cant keep up with me occasionally we under took this incarnate mission ,i chose a male part you chose the mothering part i chose the worldly you the motherly and nar [never ] ourpaths to meet [but here and now] ok perhaps tomorrow as well
its not easy walking the land with my head in the clouds , but i do the best i can as we all do
if only we could all realise the real reason of our incarnation we would all see we are but actors playing bit parts till the grand revalation the big finale till then pretend to remember our lines and if not fake it till we all make it up
wish my rebirth day would hurry up but i knew the contracted terms , stated indefitly transported for life according to 'his' [/o\] will in bonded servitude to the common love inherant upon the common weal
i am at your service for stud[dy] or stud[ent] studiously yours
im not liking bens imput to be frank len [he sends my vision askque] i know his bi focal has stan on edge as well jonah seems on walkabout [so i say adue with humour from me [we 2 u]
just so the world knows that 1000 years of war is the plan how much more lien mc lame going to install upon usa tax payers
there is a but?
govt 'precedant has chopped off the very legs it stands on read on
Bureaucrats Never Have a Case Written by Administrator Tuesday, 21 November 2006
It doesn’t matter what “charge”, indictment or complaint is brought against someone by a prosecutor; bureaucrats never have a case; their very nature dictates they can’t.
While many would cry out in protest, no doubt those invested economically and/or emotionally in statism, it is nonetheless an accurate statement.
This is such a simple exercise; I only have to use statism against itself to prove it. By statism, I mean the belief “citizens” and “states” exist and the thought patterns supporting such beliefs.
Statism is mind control; people surrender their property to men and women pretending to be “governors” and “presidents” etc., because they believe they are “citizens” of a so-called “state” and “must pay their fair share.”
Talk about abstract concepts.
Because of these beliefs, or programming, when a man pretending to be a “cop” or “state attorney” files a “complaint” against a statist, no attention is paid to the many absurdities present, even by the lawyer pretending he has a client, the so-called “state attorney.”
The issue of standing is a great way of demonstrating these absurdities.
One of these is despite the fact a “complaint” is filed, there is no “case” presented to the “court.” Statist programming equates “complaint” with “case.”
People under the influence of such programming don’t challenge what a “cop” or “state” attorney files as both are perceived as“authority figures.”
By that, I mean they do not challenge the assertion a “complaint” presents a “case” to a court.
Standing is legally defined as “The position of a person in reference to his capacity to act in a particular instance…19 Am J2d Corp § 559.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1209.
The nine lawyers commonly referred to as the “United States Supreme Court” have written: “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
If a plaintiff lacks standing, then courts, all courts, are legally/constitutionally incapable of proceeding because: “courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.”
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US 426, 430. Notice the litigants in the last case if you’re thinking “government” is somehow “exempt” from standing requirements.
People under the influence of statist mind control automatically start trying to find “loopholes” and exemptions for their “authority figures”, the government.
This psychological response is not unlike the Stockholm syndrome.
And make no mistake, this is considered a very important issue by the “Supreme Court” and government attorneys, especially when they are the defendants as proven by the recent case the Bush administration lost in regards to the NSA spying program.
Standing is usually a bureaucrat’s first line of defense. Pay attention to what the “Supreme Court” wrote about the elements of standing:
“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution.
A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).
This of course references Article III § 2 of the “United States” “constitution” which requires a plaintiff to present a case before a court may proceed: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases…”:
“The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government. The Art. III doctrine that requires a litigant to have "standing" to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines.” Allen page 750.
More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right.
The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Article II § 2 (emphasis mine).
This means everything “governments” do must be to “protect and maintain individual rights.”
The “Supreme Court” has held consistent with this principal: “the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405
Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury. Now I’ll apply this standard to “cases” brought by pretended “state” and “United States” attorneys.
First, we’ll look at a traffic case, such as failure to wear a seatbelt. Traffic cases represent a significant source of energy stolen from people every year.
I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt; the “case” is called State of Arizona v. Marc Stevens.
One of two requirements for standing is: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury…” Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I have caused a “personal injury” by not wearing a seatbelt?
Of course not: that’s one essential element missing, I’ve already established the pretended plaintiff “is [not] entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
Allegations or not, there is no injury to anyone if I don't wear a seatbelt.
The other requirement is the violation of a legal right. Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I violated the pretended “state’s” rights?
Again, not a chance. According to the “Supreme Court,” there is no standing to complain against me regardless of the fact I may not have had a seatbelt on.
Now we’ll look at a “tax” case; “willful failure” to file a “tax return.” I have read several of these so-called “indictments” and there is no standing, ever.
Even if you’ve never read such “indictment”, common sense tells you there are no allegations of personal injury and the violation of a legal right.
No, all they do is write the defendant “violated the law.”
However, just being accused of “violating a law” does not mean my failure to file a “tax return” violated someone’s legal rights and caused an injury.
Statists would argue the so-called “United States” has a legal right to receive a “tax return” from me every year and the injury is the loss of “tax revenue.”
There are several problems with such a argument though.
First, the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s fatal. Second, it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, those allegations must be based on facts; those facts must establish where, when, why and how the legal right was allegedly acquired.
And if facts are alleged, then they must be based on the testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge, Rule 602 Federal Rules of Evidence.
No attempt is made to put such allegations in an “indictment” because it’s impossible to establish factually how an obligation to file a “tax return” was created.
To prove an obligation or legal right was created, there must be a connection between the people asserting the right and the person who allegedly has this obligation.
Statists immediately point out the “constitution.” And that is the point where they lose; and lose big time.
No connection to the “constitution” can be made because the “constitution” is four pieces of paper no one bothered to sign. It binds no one and created nothing: same as any other pieces of paper from two hundred and thirty years ago.
Unless you believe in magic, placing the words “constitution” on a piece of paper will not create an obligation on someone two hundred and thirty years later.
The “constitution” is a very effective anchor that usually pacifies those critical of statism.
Most people will not challenge opinions the “constitution” is applicable or relevant; it’s one of the most sacred of cows. All “revenue agents” I have had experience with, like most people, assume the “constitution” applies to everyone. No thought is given to any facts to prove where, when, why and how the “constitution” applies to anyone.
It is very unsettling for a “revenue agent” to be challenged on the facts his opinion the “constitution” is applicable are based because he/she has not based it on any facts. Nobody enjoys having their map of reality ripped apart.
A personal injury cannot be proven because it cannot be proven the “United States” had a right to the property in question or the “required” action.
If you doubt this, then read cases such as Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). It’s tantamount to Al Capone filing a complaint against a shop owner for not paying his “protection” money.
Think big Al would have standing? in the particular case before it.” (emphasis mine).
Last, let’s look at a drug case. I’m indicted for growing marijuana on my property.
The botanical police raid my home and heroically save the world from my plants.
Surprisingly, the requirements for standing are not the raiding of my garden by troops armed with machine guns, they are: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury.
What legal right have I allegedly violated by growing plants? None.
Has the growing of plants on my property caused any “personal injury” to the non-existent “State of Arizona”? Again, there’s no personal injury of any kind. No standing, no case.
Consider that legally, or “constitutionally,” the botanical warriors may not even look at my property unless there is “probable cause” or “reasonable articulable suspicion”
I am violating someone’s legal rights: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”
Notice in the cases cited above there are no “legal” or “constitutional” exceptions to the doctrine of standing for moral or religious objections.
Just because someone thinks it’s “immoral” or against their religion to grow or possess marijuana, does not confer standing to complain.
This is true even when the moral crusaders call themselves a “legislature.”
Now some may protest by bringing up the murder argument, certainly there is the 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury.
Not even in a murder case is there standing to complain. Why? Because it has to be a “personal injury” to the plaintiff: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).
The plaintiff is literally a spoken and written phrase, an abstraction called the “State of Arizona”, and is, at best, a fictional third party.
The “Supreme Court” has repeatedly held: “we have explained that prudential standing encompasses "the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights…” Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
And there’s no merit to claim the murdered person is a part of, or a member of, the so-called “State of Arizona” because there is no such thing as the “State of Arizona.”
As I’ve written in my book Adventures in Legal Land and said many times on my radio show The No State Project, there are no such things as “citizens” and “states”.
Ad hominem attacks such as “Marc doesn't want people to wear seatbelts” are classic diversion tactics employed by those under the influence of statist mind control (remember the Stockholm syndrome).
The fact bureaucrats never have a case has nothing to do with my opinion about seatbelts (I personally use them because it’s a safety issue), it’s because governments are gangs of killers, thieves and liars.
There is no such thing as a legitimate government, so nothing they do is legitimate regardless of the endless red herrings statists throw up.
Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis; pay or get shot.
To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment they do so, they cease to be a government. That’s quite the conundrum.
Either you believe all human interaction should be voluntary or you don’t.
Those who do not believe human interaction should be voluntary are, medically speaking, anti-social. Not un-social, but anti-social as in "sociopath" and "psychopath".
I believe all human interaction should be voluntary, so ad hominem attacks that I think people who commit murder should not be held accountable are ridiculous.
Just using statism against itself proves bureaucrats never have a case regardless of what they “charge” someone with.
That’s because statism and it’s supporting theology are not here to promote freedom or protect “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”; it’s mind control to divert our attention away from the actions of anti-social individuals who are so desperate to “protect” us they are willing to kill us and steal our property.
As long as conflict is a big business and as long as so many of the every day citizens of the world can't see who is funding this sad game, this will continue.
Just as it says above the Masonic Temple in Switzerland, "Order ab Chao", Latin for Order through or out of Chaos. I'm speaking of the highest order masons in this case and they are just the keeper of a lot of the secrets and the lower henchmen.
The Rothchilds funded both sides of the French Revolution and even helped fund the American Revolution. There is a plan for the US but that's another topic. My point is that all governments are controlled and the Federal Reserve is a fine example that the Bankers are controlling the world along with the hidden hand of Royalty as they walk right in step with the Vatican. The Rothchilds are the Vatican's bankers and it sure makes sense when we see, Anubis, the Egyption god of death, floating down the Thames River in October. If that symbolism is confusing, just take a look at why our capital cities are built with Egyption architecture. The Vatican and London have 17 of the worlds 21 obelisks. When the question of Why? is answered, some of the violence in the world starts to make some sense. This of course goes back a long way. Something has been going on for a long long time that us peasents haven't been privy to.
When I was a little boy, we were taught to hate the communists. I grew up and found out that communism was funded out of London and New York by big banking to keep the Military Industrial Complex going. This is a hard cold fact. Maybe we should ask ourselves why we don't here about this in our news. Now we are told that it is terrorism that is the world's nightmare and it's a war that we need to fight for maybe 100 YEARS. Terrorist orgs have been funded by the same countries that fight it and also trained by the western Intelligence agencies and people still wonder why the war on terror is failing, just as the war on drugs is. As soon as a war is declared on something rest assured it is all about making big money for the global elite.
All the world's a stage and the ignorant masses on both sides of every conflict are fed laughable propaganda to plant the seed of hate. People want big daddy to take care of them. That's why they can't handle that their government is not only corrupt but run by a hidden group and our president is simply a puppet.
We as citizens need to empower ourselves again. Nobody can take this from us but many have given it away by allowing ourselves to be indoctrinated into this charade that is little more than a pack of lies. I'm speaking of the whole world too. Is it really freedom that we want or is it liscense? Do people really want to do the needed homework to find out these answers? It's one of the last things we want to do because we have been mind controlled for so long. Our bodies are clean and our minds are toxic from the lack of peace and harmony and it's going to take some work to take down the veil of deception.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - ottobock on 12/29/2007 02:06:58
well said otto look forward to ever greater posts i go to the heart of funding as well[they finance both sides ]
russians copied the american stuff because big buisness ''sold' thier plans to the bankers? who give it to ussr just so we have to go further to 'win' the arms race but in reality only in making more war so the industrial war machine keeps the money flowing
[we do need to empower our selves [ http://www.upmart.org/pages/q_a_1.html ,i plan to sign treaty with them fo finance it with wikigeld/wikiseed see ming the mechanic
money is a tool for free people ,it insures only our security [as long as people feel it to have more worth than what the allready have] see wikiseed/wikigeld
thats why we invented the wikiseed [based on the bush that didnt get consumed [didnt burn [or rather on the seed from the tree [of life ], its sovereign assured credit [cash]money /insurance/reassurance ,by devine right ,to balance and give sure return you can eat ,or use or trade for goods and services [or debt accounting ;abayance]
its worth is in the value of the bronze seeds by pounds as weight and worth
its a note fuly filling gods promise it bears [as proof of genuinity and certainty]a living seed allowing the holder to grow thier own tree of [sustainable] life [under right of sovereign protective assurance ]
Steven Pinker has devoted his life to studying the way we think and communicate. And language, in his hands, becomes a profound, and highly entertaining, way to shed light on every aspect of human nature. How does a mind that evolved to think about rocks and plants and enemies think about love and physics and democracy?
Why do we threaten and bribe and seduce in such elaborate, often comical ways? How can a choice of metaphors start a war, impeach a president, or win an election?
Why do people impose taboos on topics like sex, excretion, and the divine? What does the peculiar syntax of swearing (just what does the "fuc" in "fuk you" actually mean?) tell us about ourselves? Why do some names thrive while others fall out of circulation? How do we control the amount of information that we absorb? And what good does this actually do us? Pinker answers all these questions and many, many more. He shows us that language really can tell us unexpected and fascinating things about ourselves. in ''truth , the stuff of thought'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - one under god on 12/29/2007 18:49:33
George2731 Initiate
USA 4 Posts Posted - 01/10/2008 : 00:53:18 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You all are so intelligent and worldly. But none of you have listened to a word the muslims are saying to each other. They believe like many christians that their god is returning to earth but unlike christians they believe they can hasten the process. They believe that all men must become converted to Islam or die. There is no negotiations on this point. This great holy war will bring the Madi and the world will be converted to Islam. So while we discuss how we can stop doing this or that and somehow the muslim extremists will forgive us they will continue to plot and kill to bring about this great Islamic utopia. Apparently you don't get it so get a Koran and join them or DIE
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by George2731
You all are so intelligent and worldly. But none of you have listened to a word the muslims are saying to each other. They believe like many christians that their god is returning to earth but unlike christians they believe they can hasten the process.
i believe thier brothers [jews , zionists , christian neo cons]want to bring on the messiah as well so it seems the christian neo con messianics ,zealotts of many beliefs are decieved
i believe we are waiting for god [not jesus or any messiah [remembering jesus would be called ''god with us'' [emmanual]they then knew what they were waiting for how did we forget?
muslim means one who follows gods way islam =follow his [gods] will god is all living loving grace [most mercyfull]
im not in any panic regarding anything god does
its all the other religious nutters thinkkking armogeddon brings him on they are wrong
he comes when we move beyond religion when we come together as one ie as jesus said loving god /loving neighbour becomming one love for the only living loving one
nothing more nothing less
we gotta get OUR acts together [but one gives us to live makes dust to life
and many have forsworn to return all life back to dust
seems there is two camps god lives [live with that]
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=....le+Search&meta= Islam means the readiness of a person to take orders from God and to follow them. "Muslim" is a word taken from the word Islam. It applies to the person who is ready to take orders from God and follow them. [ quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as each person bows to his living loving grace filled will ,ie as each person who is ready to take orders from God and follows all of those with love in them.
So while we discuss how we can stop doing this or that and somehow the muslim extremists will forgive us they will continue to plot and kill to bring about this great Islamic utopia.
islamic utopia = GODS will be done ''thy will be done in heaven etc etc
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apparently you don't get it so get a Koran and join them or DIE
we are spirits having a incarnate experience what means this die [to die for]what who gave us all to live
jesus confirms we are all going to be born again live with it the die is cast
money for free people , it insures only our security [as long as people feel it to have more worth than what the allready have] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqjQXP2lCys
see wikiseed/wikigeld
thats why we invented the wikiseed [based on the bush that didnt get consumed [didnt burn [or rather on the seed from the tree [of life ],
its sovereign assured credit [cash]money /insurance/reassurance , by devine right , to balance and give sure return you can eat ,
or use or trade for goods and services [or debt]
[]accounting ;abayance]
its worth is in the value of the bronze seeds by pounds as weight and worth
its a promise to pay note fuly filling gods promise it bears [as proof of genuinity and certainty] a living seed allowing the holder to grow thier own tree of [sustainable] life
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - one under god on 01/10/2008 05:00:55
claim it as the word of God, doesn't make it so does it?!
Are we talking about the same Bible that has had gospels editted out of it before it became the official holy book... the guys that declared it as such missed out bits they didn't agree with and didn't like, leaving in gospels and lessons that suited them, transforming Christianity into a religion that suited them... how sad
Doubt is the beginning not the end of wisdom...
Lilly Master
USA 2809 Posts Posted - 08/26/2007 : 22:55:02 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bible is the word, from a group of Jews sitting around a camp fire about 2000 years ago--it is brilliant--Love One another, forgive all the time, and do unto others as you would hope they would do unto you.
It's too good and too simple for usa to really get the gravity and splendor of this profound and wonderfual message. We need to have a guru a savior to make it real....why?
Why can't we get that Jesus was saying-I am human and so are you.
You can do all I can do.
Heaven is here--in our midst and right now.
He never wanted to be a savior--he was a man. A human. Humble.
Alive.
He is too humble to want the degree of notice he's achieved.
Lilly
Raziel Apprentice
United Kingdom 248 Posts Posted - 08/28/2007 : 03:12:46 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The messages of peace, love and respect are the core beliefs of most, if not all of the major religions. This means that the Christian point is no more profound than the Buddhists.
Jesus was a good man, but more importantly he was an expert public speaker. On top of this he was highly intelligent, and for him, getting a group of tight knit friends (his disciples) wouldn't have been difficult. All of this means that he would've had little problems conveying his message to a simple, uneducated populace. It was the politicians and the rich who gave him his problems...
Just think, if he wanted to use his persuasive gift for his own needs he could've been a brilliant politician!!
i can only agree on what you guys have put forward on jesus but paul the roman saul , saw here was something rome could use most of the new test i meant , was wrote by paul
and a lot of what he wrote explains jesus words [but by inserting over them a veil , we get judgement day [but jesus rose again [ie he lived [wasnt seepn as te jews believe till today[thats why they all want to be buried in jerualem [for reserection day]
but jesus revealed so much ore than beng born again
jesus liked to speak in parrable , o much more has been revealed [knowing god one to one][gods love and grace, [even confirmed by mahamoud [gid is most mercyfull] yet still peple see a vengefilled judgmental god [god is love [livibng live time all the time
[we are all chilren of the one living loving god [who is not gifted to live but for him[knw god through is signs [in realtime , via syncronicity, now [gods ever new now]
but if it wasnt for saul we would never have heard of him ok it has its price , but what hasnt [we are meant to seek god [and find him] where else but here and now [whenever ''now ' is]
but in time we will search the one truth [god]the [wheat] from the chaff [evil ; vil veil live time ]velied lived , yer reviled]
knowing the real dude [jesus the human revealing the highest man kind will in time become ,jesus who's works reflect gods goodness and selflessservice [see jesus see the good of god , love god , love neighbour, for the master shall return[in act lives in our hearts
jesus said that ye see me do you will do greater
he also [as a man born of woman] proved we are all born again but somehow this absolute proof has been subverted to becoming a born again christian in this mortal flesh ,
but if they [rome] hadnt thought to exploit the proofs they [his words]would long ago have disappeared
just as if saul hadnt picked this amasing story up even less wheat would have been amoung the chaff[but the chaff protects the wheat] in hiding the lies in truth, the truth ca yet be sifted[but what is true
truth is love ,truth is good, truth live, light reason, grace
jesus with his let the tares grow with the wheat was refering in big part to his own 'church'
but in doing so has become installed as an idol and worse become more important than the message [god lives] love god le neighbour, we are eternal spirits
the real messiah delivered his awaited mssage o his people via jesus to gods children [and who was not gifted to live from god ,who is not a child of grace]]
money is a tool for free people ,it insures only our security [as long as people feel it to have more worth than what the allready have] see wikiseed/wikigeld
thats why we invented the wikiseed [based on the bush that didnt get consumed [didnt burn [or rather on the seed from the tree [of life ], its sovereign assured credit [cash]money /insurance/reassurance ,by devine right ,to balance and give sure return you can eat ,or use or trade for goods and services [or debt accounting ;abayance]
its worth is in the value of the bronze seeds by pounds as weight and worth
its a note fuly filling gods promise it bears [as proof of genuinity and certainty]a living seed allowing the holder to grow thier own tree of [sustainable] life [under right of sovereign protective assurance ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - one under god on 12/05/2007 06:14:35
ciiicrick Initiate
USA 8 Posts Posted - 12/05/2007 : 08:23:24 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it is the origin of science, which doesn't have a clue how the singularity formed or how the area containing the singularity formed prior to the big bang, or religion which is a belief system of intelligent design, neither can be proved as to how existence began although science does seem to brag on knowledge of what happened after it began it boils down to just that, how one wants to believe. As to the title why do they hate us and why do we hate them, that boils down to insecurity. If one believes in creation within a certain faith and another believes it from a different faith there is always that concern you might be wrong, whether one wants to admit it or not. Thus comes the solution, if you kill everyone that doesn't believe like you, you eliminate that insecurity for if your belief system is the only one in existence, then it must be right. So, hate, suspicion, prejudice, death and calamity.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by ciiicrick
Whether it is the origin of science, which doesn't have a clue how the singularity formed or how the area containing the singularity formed prior to the big bang, or religion which is a belief system of intelligent design, neither can be proved as to how existence began although science does seem to brag on knowledge of what happened after it began it boils down to just that, how one wants to believe.
good point bro only i suspect an infinite series of big bangs , makws more sense than a single big bang comming from nothing infinite expansions [and eventual collapses , can thus be likened to breathing in and out] the laws of enertia and pressure then explain a lot of the rest taking the last big b ,the universe expands outward , till the whole of creation is less than dust, till all the presure is nothing [then maybe as an echo it all begins to fall back in till no room left at all, and it all explodes out again
but its is only theory its just what i chose to believe
As to the title why do they hate us and why do we hate them, that boils down to insecurity. If one believes in creation within a certain faith and another believes it from a different faith there is always that concern you might be wrong, whether one wants to admit it or not. Thus comes the solution,
if you kill everyone that doesn't believe like you, you eliminate that insecurity for if your belief system is the only one in existence, then it must be right.
So, hate, suspicion, prejudice, death and calamity.
boy oh boy you sure are forgetting a lot of past purges that tried that one , that egsactly the route that got us here it simply dosnt work
ok for a generation , or if lucky two, but in time a jesus , or aristotal ,budda , luther [add infinitum] emerges to 'balance ' [un balance] [reset] the con census
i can go alone with the insecurity part but the final solution is a proven failure [even hippies couldnt get comunes past the 3 rd generation]look at the svcisims, if people cant chose thier leaders , or thier own beliefs they generally revolt ,be it open or underground ,
it just dosnt work ,belief at the point of a gun isnt belief it is proven the failure of the premptive doctrine ,the natzies and the neo cons still cant get that
money is a tool for free people ,it insures only our security [as long as people feel it to have more worth than what the allready have] see wikiseed/wikigeld
thats why we invented the wikiseed [based on the bush that didnt get consumed [didnt burn [or rather on the seed from the tree [of life ], its sovereign assured credit [cash]money /insurance/reassurance ,by devine right ,to balance and give sure return you can eat ,or use or trade for goods and services [or debt accounting ;abayance]
its worth is in the value of the bronze seeds by pounds as weight and worth
its a note fuly filling gods promise it bears [as proof of genuinity and certainty]a living seed allowing the holder to grow thier own tree of [sustainable] life [under right of sovereign protective assurance ]
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- belief at the point of a gun isnt belief it is proven the failure of the premptive doctrine --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reminds me of a serious of books from Terry Goodkind: "The Sword of Truth" series. There are over 10 books by now and more coming ... they all deal to the greatest part with religion and belief systems and social /political systems (all have been tried out in reality already and none worked for long).
So anyone not interested in real life politics or religion should read them -- they explain a lot about human "nature". And this hate <-> hate is shown very clearly.
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 464 Location: great south ;Van Die Mens land Karma: 1
Re: its a plant [ie a fixture] look it up « Reply #3 on Mar 5, 2008, 12:32am »
Cosmic Conversation
Why Do "They" Hate "Us?"= Why Do "We" Hate "Them?" Yes, religion is politician made New Topic Reply to Topic Send Topic to a Friend Printer Friendly
Next Page Author Topic Page: 1 2 of 2 Lucas Adept
Australia 2293 Posts Posted - 11/25/2006 : 16:51:23 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, religion was the first thing politicians created in order to intimidate, alienate, manipulate and exploit the crowd.
Yes, religion was created by conmen, by thugs, by the worst kind of cheats.
_________________ "Truth never damaged a cause that was just" - Mahatma Gandhi
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
aditya soni Novice
India 35 Posts Posted - 11/26/2006 : 01:50:42 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to differ again! I guess you are mistaken in concluding that 'religion was the first thing politicians created' and 'religion was created by conmen, by thugs, by the worst kind of cheats'. Most of the religions were initiated by the most noble men world has ever known. Besides,these men of strong character were the greatest thinkers and philosophers world has ever had. Unfortunately for their pseudo followers materialistic gain was more important, and they turned it into a tool to attain some superficial power.
Lucas Adept
Australia 2293 Posts Posted - 11/28/2006 : 07:25:32 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus or Budha did not created religions. Christianity as we know it today was! And yes, something as mind cripling as religion could only come from conmen, from thugs, from the excrement of society.
_________________ "Truth never damaged a cause that was just" - Mahatma Gandhi
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Well yeah Lucas, if you believe the movie The Da Vinci Code.
Lilly Master
USA 2809 Posts Posted - 12/11/2006 : 22:11:26 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiritual beliefs are uplifting and wonderful. Religious dogma is stiff and there is something wrong about feeling so ****ing right.
There is a softness about goodness. There is something real about Love, Truth and Beauty.
We cannot contain it but we can have tastes of it from time to time.
That is the Truth.
No one has the answer. When we know this we can stop expecting things of others that they cannot give us.
There are no gurus. There is no great big answer to life's struggles and hardships. We all just muddle along. We muddle along. And we continue to believe, have faith that life is going to be OK and things will work out and that we must go forth and do our best and never ever loose hope.
Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Genesh, Mary, The Holy Spirit, all the saints and spirits of those who have passed on---bless us and fill our hearts with gratitude.
And joy.
Lilly
Raziel Apprentice
United Kingdom 248 Posts Posted - 01/26/2007 : 09:05:18 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it depends on how you define religion. If you see it as something that you've got to do (whether it's pray daily or donate vast amounts of cash to your faith) or you won't get to 'heaven', then yes, I feel it's been created by those of a higher intellect than the average pleb, hundreds of years ago when the average IQ was that of a cheese sandwich. Created in order to control the ordinary folk with fear and superstition.
If however you feel that your religion is a guideline on how to live and coexist with your fellow man/woman, then that is down to modern day thinking and shaking off the shackles of tradition and fear.
In my mind, just because I don't go to church weekly and donate a whole chunk of my wages, doesn't make me any less Christian than the fully fledged 'Bible basher'. The fact that I help my fellow man/woman, whether they're black, white, yellow, blue, orange with purple spots (that'd be cool) disabled or whatever and try to live life to the full and enjoy it, makes me just as passionate about my faith as the next person and it makes me sick when I get judged by closed minded fools who preach to me but have no idea what they're preaching about.
It's this kind of twisted, power grabbing 'religion' that makes the world the complete cess pit it is... born out of superstition and fear...
Phew!! I got a little passionate there... I do apologise
thats still too narrow raziel, we define religions by what [who the messenger was? or how closly they observe and promote his [or her] message
look at jesus church, he specificlly didnt even want a church, but now there are so many divergent sects , most putting him up as the only son, [or even as god himself]
he saw his fathers [our fathers] house was divided even then, , ie read between the lines , with upsetting the money changers tables[each representing a sect, the doves, etc selling thier temple tokens ,esssentially boiled down to gods house being divided
i can picture the scene [only this token can save you , or you must have this sheep token for this sin, or one sheep token equals 4 doves, etc, etc, , clearly we can imagine jesus getting more and more angry, [even to the point of upsetting al;l those who divided our fathers house
now jesus own house is divided , he never wanted one he said love god love neighbour they said idf you aint got a coin wqith a cross ,or a cup of whine , or a cracker with cheese on it you cant be forgiven
any way feeling as he did then, is a thing i well understand ,only i have joined all of chruist , with all of budda, all of krisna, with all of mahamoud, and see the same thing i wish they were in the one room to toss thier divided tables myself]
i agree with you but where do we draw the line to say which prophett/religion/sect how to measure , doves against sheep, against goats, with cows or a ramm 's horn no wonder most say they dont want any paryt of the whole god thing]
If you see it as something that you've got to do (whether it's pray daily or donate vast amounts of cash to your faith) or you won't get to 'heaven', then yes, I feel it's been created by those of a higher intellect than the average pleb, hundreds of years ago when the average IQ was that of a cheese sandwich. Created in order to control the ordinary folk with fear and superstition.
yet they all still pushing the wrong divided god god is one living loving gracefilled god but each wants thier version [wrong version of god to be more judgmental, more vengefull, more powerfull,but to what end , they are men with no real concept of gods loving ,living oneness real time all the time infinite , omnipresent grace not pay as you go see need , meet need , to know the one love simply love to know him who serves us all to live simply serve all as he does]
If however you feel that your religion is a guideline on how to live and coexist with your fellow man/woman, then that is down to modern day thinking and shaking off the shackles of tradition and fear.
In my mind, just because I don't go to church weekly and donate a whole chunk of my wages, doesn't make me any less Christian than the fully fledged 'Bible basher'. The fact that I help my fellow man/woman, whether they're black, white, yellow, blue, orange with purple spots (that'd be cool) disabled or whatever and try to live life to the full and enjoy it, makes me just as passionate about my faith as the next person and it makes me sick when I get judged by closed minded fools who preach to me but have no idea what they're preaching about.
It's this kind of twisted, power grabbing 'religion' that makes the world the complete cess pit it is... born out of superstition and fear...
Phew!! I got a little passionate there... I do apologise
Look at stone age man: he had religion / believe in "god", something greater than him, that "made" him; something that was behind all the wonders he could see in the world around him. And only that made it necessary for him to organize the group living with rules - derived from the believe he had. If he and his group wanted to survive, they needed to trust in the "great behind all things" to help him at all times and to assure this they "invented" a religion with believe and worship to the "great behind all things" - the birth of religion as such. To make sure that all of the group work together to keep this "god" friendly stimulated towards them, they started to make a ranking on who is responisble to see things are done - the start of religious hierarchy. The group itself was still organized in equal harmony with all working on survivng with all the best each member could contribute. But the "religious leader" wasn't interested in mis-using his job - he was depended on the group for his own survival - if he would make them all fear him and not "god" the rest of the gropup simply would cast him out of the community and choose someone better suited for the task of keeping "god" favourable of man.(The split of religion and daily live occured already then.)
Once man started to get numerous, he met other groups on his wanderings through the world. They had different views of things and a new need to harmonize those differences. Only then a power distributed on only a few persons really started for this harmonizing "job".
That was when politics started. And only now "politcians" could start to mis-use religious beliefs to make people "fear" them and others - to get even more power over more people. From this point on "politicians" weren't always for the best of their community but often for the best only for themselves. With the known problems throughout all history up to now.
(I use only the "male" form to make it easier readable - the women had the same equal status in the stone age times as the men.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - Micha Fire on 12/11/2007 02:03:52
We R religion. Religion R us. We abstract. We make reference to . . . names of "things" that appear to be "outside" of the Self. We name energy patterns and then mistake then for words. If we say the word 'tree' we think, ah yes- that is it, it's a tree and there's an 'end' to it. It's a tree. We create mental outlines in which we think "things" are contained. We do not catch the larger pattern of dynamic energy in which the pattern of 'tree' exists. But some of those fools with cheese sandwich IQ's did. But we symbolize and get lost in the symbols more and more. We believe our word inventions have intrinsic meaning. We give our words power, but we are suspicious of silence. How can the word symbol "God" be useful unless it points to something inside of us. How can Power be "up there". There is no "up there". Are our Chinese neighbors standing on their heads right now?
That which can be talked about is talk. Power that can be known is speechless. It is all true- precisely because it is absurd.
petey32570 Novice
USA 18 Posts Posted - 01/14/2008 : 18:38:09 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I hear all yall.
I have believed and lost it.
I have come to believe something then questioned it.
We are humans and since we started pondering how things worked we wondered also about how we existed. One day a voice gave one of them a vision and prophets or shaman were born.
As a odd species we have one specific catagory of our species that none has. A thinking type. I couldnt figure out what was different about me then the other kids for a long time. But I seemed to fit in with the odd kids that came up with wild ideas and strangely got caught staring out into outer space. Until someone yelled my name several times and snapped me out of my trance.
Most people make up the "doers" these guys get things done and dont question to much about how or why.
Then a smaller group are the organizers these guys make sure things are done in an orderly manner and that they get done.
Then there is a small group called the "thinkers", these guys can work and organize but more often get caught up in the "why" or "how" They find ways to make things better, they want to know why it works or how to make something work. They want to know what is the best way and will try different things to find out the answer.
Read your history books and you will see why things were the way they were. We needed structure to survive. We had people, we had a leader, now we need some answers.
Religion was something many of us will not understand and there in lies the problem. It has to be explained in great detail and you just cant get that from going to church each week.
Other problems; people dont want to believe in something that is going to screw up their lifestyle or what they really think isnt hurting anyone.
Alot of priests or church organizers dont care so much about teaching as much as working once a week and having alot of free time to do studies or what ever "their" interest is.
Anything that is good will be twisted to satisfy the lazy and greedy. Look at the internet. Most wonderful world of leisure time and information. Only to have some @zzholes try to invade my privacy and steal my identity or money.
Religion in its purest form as the man Jesus taught is a good thing. The priests who killed him and chose to keep the money and power flowing was a bad thing. The Roman Catholic church started out as a good thing from the founder Peter, but soon became a money land hungry and power hungry monster that caused more problems then they solved. See the French revolutionary times. Many other churches under new titles started out with good intentions but ended up with another taking advantage of it.
Then also the king edward decided which bible was best for us as many other religious people who left out parts because they didnt think we would understand it or it didnt fit what they saw as fit.
I did find one that so far has gotten it for the most part right. See the Jesuits who believe in living as Jesus did and their numbers have stayed small. Probably most pure of the Religious denominations. The did come from the Catholic church but do not believe in the churches politics.
Funny isnt it? Almost anything can be manipulated to be what we want.
1990 paperback edition Author Gore Vidal Country United States Language English Genre(s) Historical novel Publisher Random House Publication date 1 January 1981 Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback) Pages 510 pp (first edition, hardback) ISBN ISBN 0-394-50015-6 (first edition, hardback) Creation is an epic historical fiction novel by Gore Vidal which was published in 1981. [edit]Plot summary
The story follows the adventures of an imaginary 'Cyrus Spitama', an Achaemenid Persian diplomat of the 5th century BC who travels the known world comparing the political and religious beliefs of various nation states of the time. Along the way he meets influential philosophical figures of his time, including Zoroaster, Socrates, the Buddha, Mahavira, Lao Tsu, and Confucius. As the story goes, Cyrus, who is the grandson of Zoroaster, grows up at the Achaemenid court as a quasi-noble, and became a close friend of his schoolmate 'Xerxes' (that is, Xerxes I). Because of his talent with languages, Cyrus Spitama is sent by the 'King Darius' (i.e. Darius I) as ambassador to India, but he is more interested in the many religious theories he encounters there than in establishing profitable trade relations for Darius. After his school friend Xerxes comes to power, the king sends Cyrus Spitama to China, where he spends several years as a captive and "honored guest" in one of the warring states of the Middle Kingdom, and spends a great deal of time with Confucius. Upon returning home, Cyrus witnesses the defeat of Xerxes and the end of the Greco-Persian wars. Cyrus then goes into retirement, but is called upon by the 'King Artaxerxes' (Artaxerxes I) to serve as ambassador to Athens and witness to the secret peace treaty between Pericles and himself. The story is related in the first person, as "recalled" to his Greek great-nephew Democritus. Cyrus says he wants to set the record straight after hearing what Herodotus had to say about the Greco-Persian wars. [edit]Major themes
Vidal evokes a theme which Robert Graves had previously explored, a skepticism of the reported facts and interpretations of our understanding of History as reported by the winners of its battles. The story features a rather amusingly sarcastic treatment of the pretensions of the glory of Classical Golden Age of Athens. In the parts of the book that comment on history, Vidal makes obvious use of the Histories of Herodotus. As noted in Vidal's own introduction, it can be considered a "crash course" in comparative religion, as during the story, the hero sits down with each of the religious/philosophical figures (apart from Socrates) and discusses their views."
Page: 1 2 of 2 Topic
Next Page New Topic Reply to Topic Send Topic to a Friend Printer Friendly Jump To: Select Forum Welcome! Main Page of Morgana's Observatory All Members Please Read General Conversation News, Politics, Controversies Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Current Events (International News) Politics & Commentary Controversies, Conspiracies, and Hidden History The Patriot Act's Impact on Your Rights September 11, 2001 Loose Change 9.11.2001 Questions 9/11 Revisited Collapse of the World Trade Center The Great Conspiracy Video September 11th Theories Prophecies, Dreams, Herbs Multicultural Prophecies -- Including Nostradamus Dreams & Empathic Phenomena Herbal Medicine Survival Preparation Why Do "They" Hate "Us?"= Why Do "We" Hate "Them?" Users' Resources & Miscellaneous Comic Relief 1984 by George Orwell National Archives Online Videos Chat Room Search Morgana's Observatory Contact Congress Members' Homes Declaration of Independence Not In Our Name National Resources Defense Council Lost Liberty News Links World News Links at Morgana's Observatory Online Magazine Articles Democracy NOW! Air America Radio -------------------- Home Active Topics Frequently Asked Questions Member Information Search Page Quick Reply Message:
This page was generated in 1.33 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000 I am a firm believer in the fact that there are people that have been given the gift of prophecy. However, there are so many things out here, what do you really look at? Anyone else ever get scared with what the future holds? No one in my family agree on the need to become as self sufficient as possible or gather arms for protection or storing food and water. It's not the dying I worry about, it's the surviving. How do I start becoming prepared? What do I do first? I live in the NW part of Montana. It is a small area that still holds some basic values I believe in. I am totally disabled and don't have the possibility of moving and starting over again. Would love to get to the point where Tom is.
"As above so below" was coined by somebody like St.Augustine and I believe you wil be led in the right direction on the "need to know basis" should the need arise.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by mike59901
I am a firm believer in the fact that there are people that have been given the gift of prophecy. However, there are so many things out here, what do you really look at? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pophecy [mike] is a relitive thing ,but it is only a prediction based on that likely to occur ,based on fear
think of it as like a bus scedual if all goes to plan , majuclly the bus appears at 5 min past 10 but its not a surity ,its the logical expectation prophecy is the same thing take nostra dammus ,it is not unreasonable that bears live in the woods , that bears will do as bears do
but logicly no one can tell which is the time for the bear but the bear [4 bear read fear] knowing the nature of the bear we can logiclly say the bear in any given circumstance will react with in its bear nature
thus is prophecy like a bear [human nature loves to war , thus as long as human nature includes the means to war ,that prophesised regarding war will be able to be pointed at and to have said of it ''see this is what was meant''
but we have freewill thus as to what we look at in fear relates to war that we look at in hope /love
its our free choice the big problem is that weak fools try to full fill prophecy [when at best it was meant as a warning ,that remains valid only as long as war is valid]
Anyone else ever get scared with what the future holds? No one in my family agree on the need to become as self sufficient as possible or gather arms for protection or storing food and water. It's not the dying I worry about, it's the surviving. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
many do worry about such things mike, the media pushes it on us by the every day news but mike there will allways be things to wory about but what has worry changed?
remember pre 2000 ,all prepared to die due to the millenium beat ups but in the end the computer traders just cleaned up and now we got the latest computers all installed with windows
it was all just a plan to get us on the same programs [that leak like sieves with thier wet cookies and non stop spying but it also was done by /for mans made fears
it was planned to achieve certain measures of absolute control[in real time based on unreasond omnuipresent delusional fear we who obeyed fear and gave the beast the means to total control that is what fear has cost us [its worse for them, thier fear trancends physical into spiritual listen to your family worry changes nothing
paronoia is self defeating see love be love seek to know and all you learn is others dears dont let the system upload cookies into your mind trust god , or trust your family
they seem to be getting on [moving beyond worry] move beyond worry with them
there really is nothing to fear but fear itself remember they [who have it all need to worry,]= we who have nothing also have no need to worry
[qote] How do I start becoming prepared? What do I do first? I live in the NW part of Montana. It is a small area that still holds some basic values I believe in. I am totally disabled and don't have the possibility of moving and starting over again. Would love to get to the point where Tom is. [/quote]
prepare to survive [and survive well] do the things that please you , do the things you love to be doing if your digging a hole [check to see that it is to plant a tree , not burry one years worth of food]
if you have any idea how much food got buried before 2000 ,you would weep ,one man i know put so much fear into his children that his children burried 30 drums of food and other surval ''goods'' , even spent all thier credit buying it [figured they were safe from debt collecters that way] [ok they now know they wernt]
thing is mike what is living a few more years in this material hell, there really is a heaven everyone dies [its a rule ]
you either believe you live and you die [and thats it or you live now then die [then are born again ; that is the real truth ] [energy cant be created nor destroyed [a living sperm [energy] created your life , and all that of your lifes energy you have now transmutated into you , it is so much more energy
this energy gets its astral body , after death, in time it disolves and the new spiritual body emerges
[much like a grub becomming a butterfly, we all are [spirtually ] born again ]
the best way to prepare for our next birth day is to live a loving life [to love living and to love love ][do the right thing , throw away fear , and love those you hold dear
being where tom is may not suit you [you arnt tom] your you ,the grass is allways greener on the other side dude but till you walked in an other mans shoes , you can never really know all life is only what you [or tom] or any of us chose to make it [our own life to be ]
take tom, he got to where he is by deciding to do something [not by wishing he was harry] the only disabilities that follow us into the next life are the mental ones we burden our soul with
money is a tool for free people ,it insures only our security [as long as people feel it to have more worth than what the allready have] see wikiseed/wikigeld
thats why we invented the wikiseed [based on the bush that didnt get consumed [didnt burn [or rather on the seed from the tree [of life ], its sovereign assured credit [cash]money /insurance/reassurance ,by devine right ,to balance and give sure return you can eat ,or use or trade for goods and services [or debt accounting ;abayance]
its worth is in the value of the bronze seeds by pounds as weight and worth
its a note fuly filling gods promise it bears [as proof of genuinity and certainty]a living seed allowing the holder to grow thier own tree of [sustainable] life [under right of sovereign protective assurance ]
the media spins us a repitition of distractions that accord us a version [thier version] of reality ,it is so convincing it is able to replace fact with fiction [ok test the red chips] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4 but what power science against neo con spin [right?] here we have the auther of the towers of deception speaking about the media spin in relation to 911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyZt846NgQ8&feature=related
money is a tool for free people ,it insures only our security [as long as people feel it to have more worth than what the allready have] see wikiseed/wikigeld
as long as the elites arnt attacking the indivisual you call me/i[the self-ish] we will stand there and watch any percicution
[note end of this tape exposure of the fed] continues below
the natzies killing the terminally sick , turned into killing the mentally sick , then honosexual,deviates the homeless and finally the jews
just as today the reds under the bed ,then the peacenicks ,the hippies with beards ,the youth using drugs , the blacks , the foreigners the arabs now the zionists who is not a child of god? that ye do to the least you do to god http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1zsFxxzD20
they shall speak his name all that hidden shall be revealed ye shall see unspeakable things
thats why we invented the wikiseed [based on the bush that didnt get consumed [didnt burn [or rather on the seed from the tree [of life ],
interesting to note charlton heston is wearing his sandles [because he stood /stands on unholy land?] guns kill [in the hands of killers]
he is a poor acter [it all looks so fake where the burning bush ,who's design mosus ''saw on the mount? that will be the design for the lamp stand before the holy of holies'' ahh men http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWoFryIbKK8
its sovereign assured credit [cash]money /insurance/reassurance ,by devine right ,to balance and give sure return you can eat ,or use or trade for goods and services [or debt accounting ;abayance]
its worth is in the value of the bronze seeds by pounds as weight and worth
its a note fuly filling gods promise it bears [as proof of genuinity and certainty]a living seed allowing the holder to grow thier own tree of [sustainable] life [under right of sovereign protective assurance ] The vodun Esu’s power lies primarily in his unfixed and fluid nature. He is a god chiefly associated with trickery, ambivalence, communication and the crossroads, a fateful symbolic site where one’s journey might take any direction. Esu’s essential indeterminacy makes it difficult to produce a definitive account of the god’s abilities, attributes and incarnations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apKl3TEOMxc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TbXJOzDcSQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - one under god on 12/23/2007 14:23:18
Topic
New Topic Reply to Topic Send Topic to a Friend Printer Friendly Jump To: Select Forum Welcome! Main Page of Morgana's Observatory All Members Please Read General Conversation News, Politics, Controversies Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Current Events (International News) Politics & Commentary Controversies, Conspiracies, and Hidden History The Patriot Act's Impact on Your Rights September 11, 2001 Loose Change 9.11.2001 Questions 9/11 Revisited Collapse of the World Trade Center The Great Conspiracy Video September 11th Theories Prophecies, Dreams, Herbs Multicultural Prophecies -- Including Nostradamus Dreams & Empathic Phenomena Herbal Medicine Survival Preparation Why Do "They" Hate "Us?"= Why Do "We" Hate "Them?" Users' Resources & Miscellaneous Comic Relief 1984 by George Orwell National Archives Online Videos Chat Room Search Morgana's Observatory Contact Congress Members' Homes Declaration of Independence Not In Our Name National Resources Defense Council Lost Liberty News Links World News Links at Morgana's Observatory Online Magazine Articles Democracy NOW! Air America Radio -------------------- Home Active Topics Frequently Asked Questions Member Information Search Page Quick Reply Message:
The building didn't crumbled to dust, there was mangled steel with bodies buried in between them. Only the outer shell was steel, the inner structure which supported the outer steel was what melted. When the inner structure collapsed the strength of the building was compromised and collapsed. I'm sorry that you think we are all on a high horse based on the same garbage TV we are forced to watch... it would serve you well to actually visit NYC and ask the people there to get off their high horse. I don't think we'd ever hear you speak badly of them again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - juggernaught on 01/18/2008 13:30:06
"it would serve you well to actually visit NYC and ask the people their to get off their high horse."
you think that would work?
Edit: so what was the inner core made of? here's what I found...
"...To support most of the downward weight of the building Robertson created a separate inner core made of steel girders. The core also housed the lifts and emergency stairwells, but neither the outer skeleton nor the inner core could stand alone, so Robertson used steel floor trusses to knit the whole thing together."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - curiouser on 01/18/2008 13:35:36
those who debate havnt bothered to check the facts or cant face facts or chose to ignore the facts in all history no steel frame building has ever collapsed except the twin towers incident ever is a long time but the towers had a fire in it before [some american terrorist set off a fire lower and hotter that burned klonger [in the basement] yet no collaps but a few smoldering fires neatly covers thier demolition years later co incidentially giving the leessee a brilliant double pay out of 3 billion , plus a new building with a 100 year lease when its gets rebuilt a building he picked up for a song, because of some older problems declining occupancyy, contamination , a previous fire ,in a dead part of town yes martha there is a satan clause now let dead dogs lie http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/200....uldnt-have.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - one under god on 01/18/2008 16:14:50
juggernaught Adept
USA 524 Posts Posted - 01/18/2008 : 16:13:47 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did the Twin Towers fall? 1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.
3. Collapsing Floors Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they crashed into the floors below. With the weight of the plunging floors accelerating, the exterior walls buckled.
juggernaught Adept
USA 524 Posts Posted - 01/18/2008 : 16:18:22 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed its performance study of the buildings in May 2002. It declared the WTC design sound and attributed the collapses wholly to extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders. While it called for further study, it suggested that the collapses were probably initiated by weakening of the floor joists. When the floors detached from the main structure of the building and fell onto each other, said FEMA, a progressive "pancake" collapse began.[3]
FEMA's proposed explanation was rejected by a subsequent and much more detailed investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), completed in September 2005. Like FEMA, NIST vindicated the design of the WTC, noting that the severity of the attacks and the magnitude of the destruction was beyond anything experienced in U.S. cities in the past. But NIST did not attribute the collapses to failing floor joists. On the contrary, NIST found that sagging floors pulled the outer walls of the buildings inwards until they buckled
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - juggernaught on 01/18/2008 16:20:18
juggernaught Adept
USA 524 Posts Posted - 01/18/2008 : 16:22:25 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On that note, this is the end of the discussion for me, I don't care to debate with people who get their information from websites clearly designed for an agenda... I say clearly designed... because even the DOT COM is named after the issue. You think us Americans are aggressive now... keep pushing us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - juggernaught on 01/18/2008 16:23:27
jugger see what one plane did to the pentagone nearly nothing google the burning temp of kero-seen google the melting temp of hardend steel[below the fires ,ie heat rises bro that steel below the planes should have had full integrity
the planes didnt hit square on [thus if the steel on one side was weakened it shoulda leaned] no lean bro] it fell down when the steel frame was taken out from blow the fire, simultaniously they still are the only steel; buildings to ever fall down despite hotter temp
the planes didnt make it all fall down when the planes hit bro it fell down later
interesting the sprinklers not working? one of the previous links showed the heat picture floors colapsing [pancaking on each other would have left the steel core intact and still standing [but the bases of them was melted with thermite [demolition cord]
not sure what your saying here ''Do a search for the designer of the building... then find the blue prints. '' could use a link
but this one worries me '' I've had enough of you America bashers, you think we are an aggressive people when we aren't pushed... wait till you push us over the edge.''
this is a mossad issue concieved to motivate american support for israel purposes thier finger prints are all over it that americans can just stand by and do the dirty work for the zionists is unbelievable
bro 244 [of 8 inch steelm colums of hardened steel weakened [think bro how thick a tank steel 2 inches yet that needs an armour piercing artilory round to break a mere tank it wasnt faulty design if some neo con zionist says it was think what they got to gain from a lie excuse to kill arabs,excuse to double the price of oil get relected, invade iraq, bring in terror legislation
monitor our comunications ,lock up anyone at will declare war on any one the think tank deems a cause or a threat bro the buoilding was designed to withstand a bigger plane hitting it it was in the specks , who built it, designed it [why they not charged with treason or building bad buildings [cause it wasnt]
was it god old us ingenuity that designed /built a faulty building [no way]
if your really an american loyalist you know americans arnt that stupid [they over engeneer everything]your acusation of sub standard engeneering is a joke
that building was as strong as americans can make it only treasonous nayzi neo cons could and did have bring it down from the inside ,by getting a zionist to lease it mossad to plan and exi-cute it
why no one allowed to see the steel ,as soon as it was brought out of the world traitor center it was melted if there wasnt any evidence needing to be destroyed a zionist wouldnt have short circeted the inquiry into the issue
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by juggernaught
On that note, this is the end of the discussion for me, I don't care to debate with people who get their information from websites clearly designed for an agenda... I say clearly designed... because even the DOT COM is named after the issue. You think us Americans are aggressive now... keep pushing us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - one under god on 01/18/2008 17:17:09
Cosmic Conversation Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ You are logged on as one under god
All Forums September 11, 2001 September 11th Theories a new idea New Topic Reply to Topic Send Topic to a Friend Printer Friendly
Next Page Author Topic Page: 1 2 3 of 3 rinehart55 Initiate
Rather than taking sides in this conspiracy theory I have a slightly different view. Our government may have known about the attack before it happened, but most people are believing they could have been behind it. I believe they knew about it, but simply did nothing to stop it purposely. Purpose being the war for oil. If Bush wanted a reason to invade Iraq, what better reason than to allow an attack. He already had troops deployed and ready to invade which should have taken months. When the attack actually happened, he already knew more than what was broadcast on TV. If he was in a school, why didnt he budge. Just as stated on 60 minutes, bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from the start of his presidency. Our government wouldnt blow up its own buildings purposely, but would they allow it if it caused enough hate and motivation to get revenge on terrorists?
rtcctr Novice
USA 33 Posts Posted - 01/23/2007 : 01:53:56 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think if he wanted the war,He should go fight it not our troops
An open minded person trying to learn all I can rtcctr
orphia Adept
Australia 1847 Posts Posted - 03/10/2007 : 05:42:16 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the US wanted a war for oil, why are the proceeds of Iraq's oil going to the Iraqi people?
General Wesley Clark said in a speech that on 9/12 he was in the Pentagon and they were already putting together the plan to invade Iraq. Even though they already knew about Al-Qaida and the Saudi's.
Those kinds of plans don't materialize overnight. Some kind of plan was waiting in the wings and 9/11 gave them the opportunity to take it out and brush it off.
abu Adept
USA 589 Posts Posted - 05/01/2007 : 20:38:16 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush was president when 911 happens. This is interesting.
orphia: "If the US wanted a war for oil, why are the proceeds of Iraq's oil going to the Iraqi people?" yes, the Iraqis are swimming in money. dear dear...
what about this witness statement by Norman Mineta (Transportation Secretary)?
"The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
what about the firemen and other people that'd been trapped in the towers and reported several explosions, as if bombs had gone off? those national heroes all liars? _____________________________________________________________________
does anyone know a reliable poll on what percentage of Americans believe/disbelieve their government as far as 9/11 and the wars are concerned?
juggernaught Adept
USA 524 Posts Posted - 01/18/2008 : 23:08:28 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We had invasion plans for Iraq all the way back to the first gulf war... We have invasion plans for many countries that never get past the planning stage. This is our defense departments job, so that if a problem rises we don't have to wait 3 months for a plan to be made. The President never sees these plans until the Chief of Staff presents them when deemed necessary. He then has the power to approve or not. Yes we had plans to invade Iraq, we also have plans to invade Iran, China, Somalia, Syria, Russia, and I'm sure many more.
good luck invading Russia jug. and anyway, I thought you was tired of discussing 9/11?
juggernaught Adept
USA 524 Posts Posted - 01/18/2008 : 23:13:11 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a state department issue... people that don't understand that we always have plans to invade hot spots should know this when they think somehow that we had an invasion plan that it means we were going to attack either way. Which I agree we were... Iraq violated the no-fly zone repeatedly.
was THAT the reason? u just keep amazing me. ROTFLMAO
Page: 1 2 3 of 3 Topic
Next Page New Topic Reply to Topic Send Topic to a Friend Printer Friendly Jump To: Select Forum Welcome! Main Page of Morgana's Observatory All Members Please Read General Conversation News, Politics, Controversies Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Current Events (International News) Politics & Commentary Controversies, Conspiracies, and Hidden History The Patriot Act's Impact on Your Rights September 11, 2001 Loose Change 9.11.2001 Questions 9/11 Revisited Collapse of the World Trade Center The Great Conspiracy Video September 11th Theories Prophecies, Dreams, Herbs Multicultural Prophecies -- Including Nostradamus Dreams & Empathic Phenomena Herbal Medicine Survival Preparation Why Do "They" Hate "Us?"= Why Do "We" Hate "Them?" Users' Resources & Miscellaneous Comic Relief 1984 by George Orwell National Archives Online Videos Chat Room Search Morgana's Observatory Contact Congress Members' Homes Declaration of Independence Not In Our Name National Resources Defense Council Lost Liberty News Links World News Links at Morgana's Observatory Online Magazine Articles Democracy NOW! Air America Radio -------------------- Home Active Topics Frequently Asked Questions Member Information Search Page Quick Reply Message:
It was one of the reasons... you see the UN set up these no fly zones... and well only the British and Americans flew the patrols for the UN. And for about 2 years leading up to the war... Iraq Anti Aircraft systems repeatedly pinged our jets... and fired on a few occasions. Then Saddam gave millions to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel. Then he threatened to cut off oil... and if I remember correctly... he did for about a month. All of this, and then kicking out the UN inspectors... yah that is why.
well, unless u call him a liar, he's stating that cheney did not want action to be taken. but why ever not?! because according to them, the US was being attacked by terrorists. was he waiting for the job to be done with by any chance?
what's my point... LOL
juggernaught Adept
USA 524 Posts Posted - 01/18/2008 : 23:36:32 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well instead of just laughing... why don't you look at how it really happened... Planes were scrambled after the 2nd plane went into the WTC. The jets... national guard jets... needed to be armed before taking off... by the time they were in range it was too late. On top of the fact that no one wants to give the order to shoot down your own citizens out of the sky. Would you have told them to shoot your own people out of the sky?
u telling me, that the country with the best defense systems in place was not able to intercept those planes in time? this is especially doubtful where the pentagon is concerned. and I don't even wanna get started on that. so if you don't want me laughing, then I suppose I'd have to start crying at such outrageous lies.
nnnaaa, I think I'll stick with laughing. anyway, you carry on believing whatever your leaders tell you. but you might wanna take a look at examples from history, what blind obedience can lead to. oh sorry, I forgot you don't like history. I wonder why that is?
juggernaught Adept
USA 524 Posts Posted - 01/18/2008 : 23:46:01 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We didn't even know it was a terrorist attack until the second plane flew into the WTC... that is why it took so long... At first it appeared as a freak accident of a plane hitting the WTC... until the second one did. However, I do realize that you choose not to believe what happened... and with all the disinformation out there... what really happened has been forgotten by most. You go back to your happy life of reading conspiracy theories... Debating with an unarmed man is quite tiring.
I suppose you are quite unarmed where knowledge and truth are concerned. another good idea might be, not to follow me around, considering that you didn't want to discuss this anymore a few hours ago.
so I'll say good night. and my statement stands: blind obedience leads to disaster.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - curiouser on 01/18/2008 23:51:22
and just one beautiful little statement I found, that sums it all up, whatever your belief about 9/11, made by Nelson Mandela:
"What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by juggernaught
We didn't even know it was a terrorist attack until the second plane flew into the WTC... that is why it took so long... At first it appeared as a freak accident of a plane hitting the WTC... until the second one did. However, I do realize that you choose not to believe what happened... and with all the disinformation out there...
what really happened has been forgotten by most. You go back to your happy life of reading conspiracy theories... Debating with an unarmed man is quite tiring.
update via syn-crone-icity currently in a debate on the moon landings was searching there for blowing in the wind my guides gave me this little gem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang it would have been off topic to post it there so i mention the how of it here
but now [it is done]back to the moon landins debate
plus the media http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zYWveqjFgg the arm that controles egzecutive power by owning the media [ok that and the aipac lobby] i had thought the debate closed but as its still going on i thought perhaps now i could put up some opinion
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 464 Location: great south ;Van Die Mens land Karma: 1
Re: its a plant [ie a fixture] look it up « Reply #5 on Mar 14, 2008, 11:36pm »
this has been posted to ''new site but its part of this one
so i place it here
if you notice it standing out by itself you now know what its about
i could cut and paste the posts together but am unsure what belongs here this is the dead site [righjt?]
we were worried about losing the info ''here'' [right?]
so the info is now at the new site?
any way here is page 7 to go with page 1
note a plant is a plant [not a drug] but by lie of deeming see dictionary definition deeming see also standing a standuing tennent alone can permit the removal of a fixture turning it then [by act of harvest into a fungable [a tradeable commodity] but while in the ground belongs to the land alone [ie is a fixture [not a plant [thus not a drug here is a bit of the end of what i wrote earlier
All Forums here is an extract of page 5 of a post on drug laws this link leads to the first page posted
http://morgana.forumco.com/topic~TOPIC_ID~23111.asp News, Politics, Controversies Politics & Commentary drug laws torts or rorts Posted - 02/04/2008 : 18:08:24 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------continued from page 6 discussion.....
teqniclly from the core of the earth into the sky on your boundry lines is yours by right of title
if a tree on your land tresspasses with root or branch [fruit] on your side you can cut it off [but must return it to the land on which the tree stands or its owner][leasee ,a leasee owns the crop untill harvest , thats real estate law
it affixt to the land ,is part of the land [and[ ] can only be removed with the leaseee consent
the land lord cannot [because it is a conditional of the lease] nor can the police because it is affixt to the land , thus belongs not to the land lord ,nor to the tennent untill such time as harvested when it belongs to the leaseee and becomes then a fungable
it is the duty of the harvester to return the seed to the land [its first fruits] it is a duty to return any seed to the land from which it was created that owns all seeds [teqniclly] of course the land cant insist it does ,but it has other means of 'pay back''
I do, evidently, live in another part of the world than you do, so I am starting to think that where you live, pot is not a drug and a person who uses pot is not using a drug? That isn't true here, well actually its called a gateway drug to still even more morbid drugs.
You might say, probable cause is junk but SWIM got busted on reasonable whateverthatwas I said in the previous post, and it is a real deal and SWIM is in a shtload of trouble.
The law is waaaayyyy to complicated to say this is the law and I will tell them a thing or two. Too bad SWIMs dad isn't a lawyer or a prominent businessman or mr. big or somethin
dear cat i began my addiction with mothers milk in time got addicted to cows milk [still am] in time gate wayed into coffee and tea then booze [while in the army reserves got introduced into nicoteen] then found a plant so where is its gateway ,milk was my gateway to a plant i can grow for free that led me away from booze
im live in the british colonised common wealth , dicscovered by cook same place as orphia [i think]
as for the other stuff if you dont know the law you get victimised by it
learn your rights [or rather tell her to learn hers] tell her to visit here http://thinkfreebefree.proboards105.com/index.cgi i fight for a plant only god can make grow its nearest relitive is hops the next is the mulberry tree
if you drink beer [minus the alcohol affect from the sugers] you allready using a relitive of this plant but i wont bother you with more mush ,you feel no need to rebut
juggernaught Adept
USA 534 Posts Posted - 02/04/2008 : 22:15:48 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what he means by mush is, when a plant is still wet it weighs more. Even pot dealers do this... fresh off the plants the pot weighs more than it would if properly dried out. Therefor they make more money because it is sold in weight. The police also charge you penalties in weight... and I don't know if this is common practice but I'm sure it has been done...
Here though when they confiscate plants they don't weigh the plant... they count the number of plants and assign 2,500 dollars in street value to each plant, since the leaves and stalk aren't the actual "drug". But they say the potential of each plant is to produce 2,500 dollars worth of drugs. It is very easy to introduce moisture though to dried out marijuana in order to inflate the weight.
here they collect the plants root and dirt weigh it , the annalyst states the weight and number , id's it as being cannabis sative [after getting qualified as an analist under the act [a 4 day course] then states they egsamined it by eye macro scoped it and micro scoped it found identifiers that prove it is sativa [a bold lie] but so they have been ''taught''
when pushed they bring in the teacher who quote asmall and tornquist [taxonimy] in other states they spectro anylise it [yet] dispite the fed law stating ''where laws are divergent fed law applies ''[and fed has no such law] the fatrce goes on , one state sees seeds as no crime the other includes them with the weight of stems/roots leaves
but heroin is done by the percentage of drug ,5 percent pure gets the quantity reduced to the actual drug
they cant do that with hemp because the so called ''drug'' thc ,is unmeasurable [relitive to the weight being one of 3000 other [non] drug xcompounds in the PLANT ,so wet weight is the norm [i opened a pakage once it was like lettuce left in the bottum of the fridge
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i opened a pakage once it was like lettuce left in the bottum of the fridge --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They worry or grieve for Bubbles, Bodie or Wallace, certain that these characters are fictional yet knowing they are rooted in the reality of the other America,
the one rarely acknowledged by anything so overt as a TV drama.
These viewers, admittedly a small shard of the TV universe, deluge us with one question: What can we do?
If there are two Americas — separate and unequal — and if the drug war has helped produce a psychic chasm between them, how can well-meaning, well-intentioned people begin to bridge those worlds?
And for five seasons, we answered lamely, offering arguments about economic priorities or drug policy, debating theoreticals within our tangled little drama.
We were storytellers, not advocates;
we ducked the question as best we could.
Yet this war grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring resources, turning city neighborhoods into free-fire zones.
To what end? State and federal prisons are packed with victims of the drug conflict.
A new report by the Pew Center shows that 1 of every 100 adults in the U.S. — and 1 in 15 black men over 18 — is currently incarcerated.
That's the world's highest rate of imprisonment.
The drug war has ravaged law enforcement too.
In cities where police agencies commit the most resources to arresting their way out of their drug problems, the arrest rates for violent crime — murder, rape, aggravated assault — have declined.
In Baltimore, where we set The Wire, drug arrests have skyrocketed over the past three decades, yet in that same span, arrest rates for murder have gone from 80% and 90% to half that.
Lost in an unwinnable drug war, a new generation of law officers is no longer capable of investigating crime properly, having learned only to make court pay by grabbing cheap, meaningless drug arrests off the nearest corner.
What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass.
Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose.
but to the purpose that secret agencies get cash for thier drug ops financing [thier own cash flow, unchecked by govt and The prison population doubles and doubles again;
the drugs remain. the drug operations of the ''secret services rake in the trillions of dollars to make its secret wars while the state declares war on its own people
many drug users find thier only criminality is drug use a personal choice [nothing to do with govt but assure its purity]
Our leaders?
There aren't any politicians — Democrat or Republican — willing to speak truth on this.
Instead, politicians compete to prove themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most profound and enduring policy failure that allows war on civilians , as well as real and actual percicution [for a plant?] .
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right," wrote Thomas Paine when he called for civil disobedience against monarchy — the flawed national policy of his day.
In a similar spirit, we offer a small idea that is, perhaps, no small idea.
It will not solve the drug problem, nor will it heal all civic wounds.
It does not yet address questions of how the resources spent warring with our poor over drug use might be better spent on treatment or education or job training, or anything else that might begin to restore those places in America where the only economic engine remaining is the illegal drug economy.
It doesn't resolve the myriad complexities that a retreat from war to sanity will require.
All it does is open a range of intricate, paradoxical issues. But this is what we can do — and what we will do.
If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. [jury is allowed to judge the law AND any ''crime'' ,;see jury nullification
Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence , they have no l;egal standing because they dont have victim status [in courts] see rulings on standing ]
we are alleged ,to be punishable for a victimless crime of using a plant only able to be deemed a drug [despite being a fixture while in the dirt
, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war.
No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York,
and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest.
If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there,
we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace.
And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional.
The authors are all members of the writing staff of HBO's The Wire, which concludes its five-year run on March 9
Yes, I read about this earlier, it seems to be making headlines on all the 'alternative news' pages, this is excellent!
We can finally hold our own government for declaring war on it's own citizens!
Posted by phil e. drifter on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 7:49 PM [Reply to this]
Enjoy Cannabis
Great Show, Great Points ... "No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens."
stop treating the american public as sources of revenue and stop blaming & arresting us for problems the government created ...
Prohibition breeds corruption and distrust of not only law enforcement but the very people who create the laws as well.
people are wising up and will not stand for this ill treatment forever ...
don't believe me? go ask Mussolini , he was kind of a tyrant and how did it work out for him?
Posted by Enjoy Cannabis on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 7:49 PM [Reply to this]
Minister Paul
Thank you for reposting this incredibly relevant article Jack. I am very impressed with the brave writers at HBO's "The Wire."
Thanks to HBO for allowing these strong writers to show the cold, intimate inhumanity of our drug war on America's poor and politically unconnected communities.
Peace, love and Cannabis
Minister Paul Founder/President of Hope Ministry, Hope Sanctuary and Hope Patient Support Group
Posted by Minister Paul on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 7:50 PM [Reply to this]
THE INDIVIDUALS
Let them tell that to the kid who hasn't had breakfast, lunch, or dinner because Mommy is smoking meth or crack!
It is the job of the Government to make sure that all of it's citizens are not junkies.
Marijuana on the other hand is NOT a Drug!
We wish Marijuana was not spoken about along with the War on Drugs.
As long as we continue to bunch Weed in with everything else Marijuana will remain illegal.
Marijuana is a Herb, Drugs are man made!
the War on Drugs does not and should not include Pot Smokers!
Posted by THE INDIVIDUALS on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 7:50 PM [Reply to this]
Rev. Dustin Bowls™ - The Antagonist
The Individuals wrote:
It is the job of the Government to make sure that all of it's citizens are not junkies.
Go live in China you communists.
I want my civil liberties. I don't want more government to make up for the lack of parenting skills.
If you want these things to stop, then take away the wellfare checks and the tax breaks for breeding.
Besides, the taxes are illegal in the first place.
Our government is only to protect our borders, (which they are not), and protect our civil liberties, (which they are stealing), and The Individuals want to give up more?
Sorry, but The Individuals are enough reason alone for me not to vote for Obama. Especially if that's the type of government they want.
The Wire Rocks.
Posted by Rev. Dustin Bowls™ - The Antagonist on Friday, March 07, 2008 at 7:42 PM [Reply to this]
U.S. HEMP
Makes me sorry I haven't tuned in to TV more. Excellent article. Hope we all spread the word together. Peace and Clarity U.S. Hemp
Posted by U.S. HEMP on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 7:50 PM [Reply to this]
Mark
Wish I could see it! I'm glad we have it!
Posted by Mark on Friday, March 07, 2008 at 9:18 AM [Reply to this]
Chabha
Great points you have here. So true the poorest areas are the targets for the most arrest in theory if the poor is in jail and the rich prevail then there would be no crime which isn't the case. The poor just cannot afford defense lawyers like the rich can. Just one thing I want to point out. In my thoughts if it's in a natural form it shouldn't be illegal if utilized by ones self and not to harm others or force upon others. Sad to see what our "Founding for Fathers" believed in to almost fully abolished. Anyone that has read the Constitution and most I know did it in 8th grade American History. The fear and control that has been in place since the days of prohibition. Has made for a basic Constitution right, one of the rights that is seriously being violated is the right to free thinking. So with politics and media forms the greater opinion of the populous and control the out look of the whole. The saddest thing of the whole issue is that the real crime goes by and the small drug crimes over lead the law enforcement, courts, and filling up the jails with people tat ma just need to go to a place to get off the hard drugs. Then educate! Education is the key to letting kids know what is right and wrong and also educate the rest of the people so then they can make a sound judgment of what to do with what they put into their body. How they use and what effect they have on their world around them. With prescription drugs especially. Since I know from first hand pain management actually will enforce one to take pain meds on a regular basis. They will expect one to be on them. If you have to see them therefore having to drive ones self if no other means of getting there. They expect one to drive in on narcotics and be irresposible DUI. Actually making for the chance to cause a accident and harm or kill someone. Doesn't make sense. They would get upset I wasn't on my meds back when I did pain managment. I would have to say what you want me to get a DUI. So education and understanding will be the only way to change the situation. It's great the media is opening up to it. It's just they need to portray it more as education not misleading. It is funny that there is some great documentries out in recent years show the truth and what is going on. We live in the freaking 21 century and by now you would think there wouldn't be a 3rd world in the US or anywhere that people would have to suffer and resort to crime and drugs that feeds the fire. Personally drugs should be what someone wants to utilize in their own fusion as long as the person doesn't harm another in the process. Just plane old common sense which has been lost in the World and wrapped up ignorance. Another thing to add is they like to know where the crime is so to keep certain area of the population in poor zones is a money making business. My 2 cents. Peace
Posted by Chabha on Friday, March 07, 2008 at 7:43 PM [Reply to this]
Get up, stand up...STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!
the wire and the shield are on the edge of tv drama, but no exaggeration about what happens on a daily basis. it may be a tv drama, but the idea of it came from somewhere...the general public needs to see how this machine of corruption has made it possible for illegal drugs to be a major source of income for organized crime. take away that burden on our law enforcement, and they can focus thier budgets and labor forces on the real issues, like violence and theft.
Posted by Get up, stand up...STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS! on Saturday, March 08, 2008 at 7:28 PM [Reply to this]
Mad Scot
Cannabis is a plant not a drug. The federal government has no right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot consume. Drug abuse is a public health issue and should be addressed as such by state and local government. The focus of the so-called "War on Drugs" should be on the god-damned pharmaceutical companies.
Posted by Mad Scot on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM [Reply to this]
ASC-One -C18H13ClFN3
i live in switzerland, i am Lücky about this situation. I grow self, and its not legal here, but, 2 Lamps, the police dont make a big thing about that... Of course a bib, big bill....
I grow since 3 Years, man, evritime waiting for this Green, an the Price is extremly high here in Europe. So, last yer i startet with growing, a good friend, he groes since 1996, give me Tips. peeZH,1,respect asc8304ZHNORD
Posted by ASC-One -C18H13ClFN3 on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 9:00 AM [Reply to this]
†Nipahc Adoroare†
Glad people are picking up that the War on Drugs is INSANE!!
I agree with many that commented that Cannabis is Herb and stupid to throw in there! So silly when it grows anywhere, and you pick it a smoke it. Its like an apple, still a fruit, a fruit YHWH made for us!
Though I must say the "War on Drugs" isn't a solution for ANY drug! We need to help out brethren that have problems with drugs not lock them away! Why? Doesn't help anything. The "Were gonna get you" impact on prices and threat to people kicks up the violence!! If we have communities that need help we need to find a new solution to help them, not have out law officials beat down their doors and get honest officers killed in the 'line of duty' trying to do some good. The 'War' of the "Drug War" makes it exactially that. Scaring people getting police shot at, putting a huge price on the drugs they carry, often even making it an advantage for Gangs to sell drugs for their arms since their prices are jacked up do to the illegality. War is completely the wrong way to address this for any drug (especially Cannabis!) it arms, gives reason for the other side to shoot! Need to change it indeed. Even when drugs become an issue, I can guarantee its easier to dead with a doped up person with drugs whom may be causing trouble than dealing with one who thinks that people are here to destroy his 'lively hood', take his drugs and in the best situation just toss him in the pen (if your not getting a gun fight, or beating him). The 2nd guy is out to fight!
Good article to share! Thanks!
Posted by †Nipahc Adoroare† on Thursday
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - one under god on 03/14/2008 22:57:58
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of 7 Topic
Previous Page New Topic Reply to Topic Send Topic to a Friend Printer Friendly Jump To: Select Forum Welcome! Main Page of Morgana's Observatory All Members Please Read General Conversation News, Politics, Controversies Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Current Events (International News) Politics & Commentary Controversies, Conspiracies, and Hidden History The Patriot Act's Impact on Your Rights September 11, 2001 Loose Change 9.11.2001 Questions 9/11 Revisited Collapse of the World Trade Center The Great Conspiracy Video September 11th Theories Prophecies, Dreams, Herbs Multicultural Prophecies -- Including Nostradamus Dreams & Empathic Phenomena Herbal Medicine Survival Preparation Why Do "They" Hate "Us?"= Why Do "We" Hate "Them?" Users' Resources & Miscellaneous Comic Relief 1984 by George Orwell National Archives Online Videos Chat Room Search Morgana's Observatory Contact Congress Members' Homes Declaration of Independence Not In Our Name National Resources Defense Council Lost Liberty News Links World News Links at Morgana's Observatory Online Magazine Articles Democracy NOW! Air America Radio -------------------- Home Active Topics Frequently Asked Questions Member Information Search Page Quick Reply Message:
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/avatars/dog.gif)
![[homepage]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Logged
???????
