On Legal "WORD TRICKERY"


A

Amadeus Jinn

Vicegerent said:
Government documents (in general) are excluded.
...according to:http://Copyright.gov
In the wrong section, but it's in there.
The point is that all government documents in the USA,
including the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution,
all statutes, all Acts, all executive Orders, all State
legislation and Constitutions, all municipal legislation,
are applicable ONLY to "PERSONS" - either fictional
ships(incorporations), or to humans in a false status
of "plantation slave", with America/Virginia being
a "plantation" of the Vatican/Holy Roman Empire.
[as is Canada]. The 'copyright' issue is a non sequitur
relative to the main message on this thread.
No, Vice. I stated it as a tangent, but you alluded to the
concept that statutes are copyrighted.
You are competely wrong. No biggie, but I thought
I would point it out. (mostly, seems, since there is no
person... but I'm sure that is just one reason)

As I said... not in the correct section.

BTW:
Any arguement that you aren't a person (in the legal sense)
will fail (I assume)...
 
Ad

Advertisements

V

Vicegerent

The point is that all government documents in the USA,
including the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution,
all statutes, all Acts, all executive Orders, all State
legislation and Constitutions, all municipal legislation,
are applicable ONLY to "PERSONS" - either fictional
ships(incorporations), or to humans in a false status
of "plantation slave", with America/Virginia being
a "plantation" of the Vatican/Holy Roman Empire.
[as is Canada]. The 'copyright' issue is a non sequitur
relative to the main message on this thread.
No, Vice. I stated it as a tangent, but you alluded to the
concept that statutes are copyrighted.
You are competely wrong. No biggie, but I thought
I would point it out. (mostly, seems, since there is no
person... but I'm sure that is just one reason)

As I said... not in the correct section.

BTW:
Any arguement that you aren't a person (in the legal sense)
will fail (I assume)...


Vicegerent
One can assume that the arguments of which you speak
are in a courtroom before a make-believe officer [judge]
of a make-believe ship called a body politic.

Obviously, if one is arguing in such a situation, then
the make-believe officer can assume that the
accused party is a "member" of the corporate body,
and is in the courtroom as an accused disobedient
slave.

Under such circumstances, the provision one finds in
Section 6 of the American Fugitive Slave Act 1850
is invoked in any of these Roman law based courts:

"In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony
of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence;"

[A judge does not hear any evidence given by the accused,
ie, does not hear or react to arguments - the disobedient
slave is denied due process of law.]

"and the certificates - - shall be conclusive of [guilty as
charged] ------ , and shall prevent all molestation of such
person or persons [agents or officers laying charges] by
any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate,
or other person whomsoever."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm

But, there are ways besides "arguments".

Vicegerent
 
A

Amadeus Jinn

Vicegerent said:
Vicegerent said:
Notice the word "man" or "woman" are not anywhere to be
found in those copyrighted statutes either.
Are statutes copyrighted? Really?
Tangent, but I don't think government documents are copyrighted.
Who owns the copyright?
You are correct, according to info at Wikipedia. The author
of the above quote may not be aware that not all government
legislation is "public law".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law
See: Federal and state laws are not copyrighted
However, all or most of Title26 USC has not been enacted
into "public law", and thus would not fall into the restrictions
against government not copyrighting a "private statute"
designed as terms of a contract of servitude for State
owned slaves - citizens/persons.
Government documents (in general) are excluded.
...according to:http://Copyright.gov
In the wrong section, but it's in there.
The point is that all government documents in the USA,
including the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution,
all statutes, all Acts, all executive Orders, all State
legislation and Constitutions, all municipal legislation,
are applicable ONLY to "PERSONS" - either fictional
ships(incorporations), or to humans in a false status
of "plantation slave", with America/Virginia being
a "plantation" of the Vatican/Holy Roman Empire.
[as is Canada]. The 'copyright' issue is a non sequitur
relative to the main message on this thread.
No, Vice. I stated it as a tangent, but you alluded to the
concept that statutes are copyrighted.
You are competely wrong. No biggie, but I thought
I would point it out. (mostly, seems, since there is no
person... but I'm sure that is just one reason)

As I said... not in the correct section.

BTW:
Any arguement that you aren't a person (in the legal sense)
will fail (I assume)...


Vicegerent
One can assume that the arguments of which you speak
are in a courtroom before a make-believe officer [judge]
of a make-believe ship called a body politic.
They have jails, and guns.
Obviously, if one is arguing in such a situation, then
the make-believe officer can assume that the
accused party is a "member" of the corporate body,
and is in the courtroom as an accused disobedient
slave.
I've been there.
Under such circumstances, the provision one finds in
Section 6 of the American Fugitive Slave Act 1850
is invoked in any of these Roman law based courts:

"In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony
of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence;"

[A judge does not hear any evidence given by the accused,
ie, does not hear or react to arguments - the disobedient
slave is denied due process of law.]

"and the certificates - - shall be conclusive of [guilty as
charged] ------ , and shall prevent all molestation of such
person or persons [agents or officers laying charges] by
any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate,
or other person whomsoever."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm

But, there are ways besides "arguments".
Maybe, but some of these judges can and will put you
in jail, depending. Seems most of your rhetoric
would be ignored. I can't even seem to tell my story.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Abbot

No, Vice. I stated it as a tangent, but you alluded to the
concept that statutes are copyrighted.
You are competely wrong. No biggie, but I thought
I would point it out. (mostly, seems, since there is no
person... but I'm sure that is just one reason)
As I said... not in the correct section.
BTW:
Any arguement that you aren't a person (in the legal sense)
will fail (I assume)...
One can assume that the arguments of which you speak
are in a courtroom before a make-believe officer [judge]
of a make-believe ship called a body politic.

Obviously, if one is arguing in such a situation, then
the make-believe officer can assume that the
accused party is a "member" of the corporate body,
and is in the courtroom as an accused disobedient
slave.
Abbot) Yeah, we got it, Eldon.. . .no need for you to to beat a dead
horse. According to you no law applies to you 'cause you aren't a
person.

That foolishness aside, your real problem is that detaxers have
figured out that your "I can do as I damn well please" attitude
applies to them too. They know that you have no problem at all telling
them to do stuff you have only badly researched on the web and just
pretend to do for yourself.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

USA Legal ? 1
UK Is this legal and possible to do? 2
Looking for word to describe a tax related legal situation 16
The world is full of trickery. 0
Is this legal? 13
Is this legal? 7
Is this legal? 1
Word 0

Top