Hello Jonathan,
A bit late but…………….
Congratulations in striving for a shorter response. I too will challenge myself to see how short I can make mine. We both agree on personal responsibility and how important that is from our health, to all our relationships, and everything in between. But why is it that some people don’t naturally practice personal responsibility? Of course, I don’t have that answer, and for sure, there is more than one reason why humans are the way they are. I remember reading long ago about one particular colony in the 1600 or 1700s; I can’t remember which colony, but it was in the south, maybe North Carolina or Virginia. This particular plantation started off with the concept that everyone would farm, and then pool all their harvested crops to be divided equally between all community members. That sounds good and loving; however, human nature was not added into this equation. They discovered that some people decided not to work so hard; they reasoned, why should they since they would get an equal share of the crops regardless of how much they did or didn’t produce. Yup, even back then, some people, in a small community that depended on each other for survival, still took advantage of other people who worked hard. The shocking thing is that the attitude had a domino like effect on others as time went on. When other people saw some being lazy, more and more people thought the same thing, “why should I work hard when he isn’t working hard, and we will still all share equally in the bounty anyway?” Well, it got so bad that only a few were really producing, and as a result the colony almost starved. So they changed the rules. They decided as a group that people could keep whatever they grew, and trade the excess if they wanted to, but they didn’t have to share their crops. The colony then flourished.
Personal responsibility, civic responsibility, morality, honesty, egalitarian relationships and attitudes are wonderful qualities that I wish everyone possessed, but they don’t. Why is it that humans are the way they are? I don’t know what the ratio is between inherent traits, and socially engineered traits to keep us addicted, weak, and under the thumbs of TPTB. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all humans practiced personal and civic responsibility; and that as a community we nurtured strength, honesty and ethics instead of control and weakness? But alas, it would appear that group dynamics usually follows the same bell curve, of many communities, by having a lot of nice people with the same ratio of not so nice people. Humans do such atrocious things to themselves and each other, yet every once in a while a miracle happens and they do something amazingly good. I just wish the miracles happened more often.
I can see this is already too long, so I will cut to the chase. I think I do understand where you are coming from with your legal studies. All you are describing to me sounds ever so familiar with what other people have tried to convince me of well over a decade ago. There have been people teaching seminars on similar information, if not the exact thing, all over the country for years. I know because my attic is filled with tapes, and books that so many people gave me wanting to convince me, like you, that I must study it because it’s how things really work. And which edition to Black law’s dictionary do you prefer? Or do you prefer Bolívar’s? (spelling?) I am aware of the Administrative Procedures Act and how all is “paper driven” There was this man called the inhabitant, out of Maryland, about seven or eight years ago who I met, who spent quite a lot of energy talking about that . He had quite a following and taught a lot of seminars. I don’t know if he still has a presence on the net. But chances are high that you can trace that material back to him. He was quite the legal researcher. Is it correct? Yes. Will the courts always recognize it to be right ? No. The courts are corrupt. It is my opinion from observation that sometimes you will win with this material, but most of the time you won’t. Court is a crap shoot. Honesty, the law doesn’t mean too much there. The judge’s first obligation is to support the system and his own career.
Jonathan, as you can see I am not saying the material is wrong. Some of it is quite correct. I am saying that if it is challenged by a court of law, it will in all likelihood be thrown out. The courts will probably not acknowledge it. Yes, there are some really great non-attorney, legal scholars who have brought up some of this material, especially some points on jurisdiction, and the paper driven administrative acts, holds water in some courts; but the odds are, that the majority of this legal view you have will be not be accepted by the courts. Have you tried using it in court? People can make contracts; they can set up as many trusts as they want. That is a good thing. But the create, and then discharge, or accept for value, or whatever the latest buzz words are, in playing with who has sovereignty here, I wouldn’t touch that material with a ten foot pole. The courts are extremely corrupt; and the old boys club network rules there. They don’t like outsiders. They don’t like some pro se coming in trying to use their rules against the system. And I do believe, freeing yourself, to them, means you are
working against the system. One of the many things I have learned in life, so far, is that the truth doesn’t matter in court. As a matter of fact, the courts don’t even follow their own rules, especially when challenged by someone in the pro se arena. So in using many parts of this material, I do hope you stay under the radar.
My other objection to some of this material, especially the material connected to the ucc laws is all the twists and turns and covert information. It is not always straight forward material. I can remember having discussions about this years ago and I have not changed my mind. I believe in honest money, and straight forward constitutional laws. In my opinion all this play acting with words and definitions, doesn’t appear, to me, to be honest. And I think you well you know my feeling about the “more laws there are, the more corrupt the system”. If I were to attack anything, I would attack how, through the banking’s magical accounting system that the borrower actually funds their own loan.
I can feel the excitement you have for the knowledge of this material you are studying, but I believe in simple ethics. I believe in money and laws not being manipulated but being used as it was meant to be used in a simple honest direct way. The methods you write about don’t appear to be simple and direct at all, but merely layers upon layers of twists and turns of laws to not to serve justice and truth but merely for one human to control another through the hierarchical dealings of social/political power. Law was meant to be straight forward for the average American to comprehend not be fooled by or taken advantage by. You also seem to be blending together many different methods, and putting them all in the same pot. Some are right and some are not so right. You even bring in the Bible as a study for basic law, which it is. But you bring in so many aspects and appear to mix them altogether. Some of it is I think is good and true and some of it is not, but the question is do you know which is which?
Since I now believe I understand what material you are talking about. I prefer not to discuss it further. It is interesting material to study as arm chair legal eagle, but in the real world of walking into a court room with this as your brief…….. my opinion is that it is very risky. I am a very pragmatic individual, I stick with what works, avoid the corrupt systems as much as I can and only take very calculated risks. Experience will have to be your teacher. I hope we can agree to disagree on this one, and have a truce on this particular topic. I suppose, considering the changing times we are all facing, I am wondering, does this even matter any more?
It is a shame that you are unfamiliar with Dr Vieira’s work. I admire him for his brilliant legal mind and for his tireless work in educating Americans in understanding the freedoms that they inherited, and how to work at keeping them. I can’t name one contemporary, in my opinion, who is more knowledgeable about the monetary system, and who also possesses the talent to clearly pass that information on to those who don’t have the time to study it in depth. He is a brilliant and honest man. He is in my top ten list of people I admire.
In reaching for my goal of keeping to a shorter post, I will address one more point.
You write: “ Laws are made to be broken because laws are designed to control, not to promote understanding. Freedom is inherent to human nature, therefore Laws will never work universally. My children taught me that. Trust is living agreement and all parties have a stake.” In my opinion, there is good law and bad law, and both are ignored and broken all the time. Some law is meant to control and some law is meant to protect. For example, we have a law against murder. Even the bible has its Ten Commandants, thou shall not kill is one of them. What must we think of human nature, if even the bible tells us that we must not kill? What type of inherent morality do we have? Is the basic law that murder is against the law an act of control on society or a heads up to humans “ hey it is wrong to kill a human being.” Goes to show you humans need a some prompting to do the right thing? Of course, there are exceptions to murder like in self defense. And, of course, some societies believe in capital punishment. But why is it the bible needs to tell us not to kill.? We don’t innately know that is wrong?
You write that “Trust in living agreement and all parties involved.” Is what works. Well, those people in that early colony had an agreement that they obviously tried to use trust with and it didn’t work. My opinion is that some laws and rules, certaintly not the majority, are there to try and keep humans as honest as possible because inherently some, if not many humans are not so honest. You keep talking about trust. Yet why do we have written contracts? Because we do not “trust” another person to always do what they say they will do? I trust less than a handful of people. I wish I could trust more. But with every interaction it is always risky whether or not a particular person, on a particular day, will do what is
right and good. And even if that person did the right thing 100 times in a row, there is no guarantee that on the one hundred and first time that person will again keep a trust honored. It is just human nature.
I agree humans need freedom and privacy along with all of the other unalienable rights. And as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “ that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” So how is your government doing? Not so good? But why is your government not doing so good on protecting your freedom and privacy? Could it be because humans were lazy with their civic responsibility, and rationalized that someone else will give of their time and be honest, and act in everyone’s best interest by keeping an eye on the government? Just like in that early colony that almost starved, must humans rationalized away their civic responsibility to make sure their freedoms were being secured by their government. Now Americans have the TSA. They have no one to blame except the person looking back at them in the mirror.
Hmmmm, a familiar theme don’t you think? If personal and civic responsibility are not inherent in humans, then where do you get “trust” from. I will trust a written contract, where I might be able to enforce an agreement. An agreement done on just the shake of a hand increases the odds of maybe I will get ripped off. I might not, but the odds increases as a millions factors change over the course of each day.
So much for the short response! I will have to continue to strive to be better about that!
Sincerely,
Mr. Davis
2/27/11
PS. Jonathan, I just started a new thread on Sharing the truth.
Could you please share with me something that you know for sure?
Bookmarks