A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
Current time: 11-25-2017, 02:31 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Ripsaw
Last Post: Ripsaw
Replies: 8
Views: 247

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
11-09-2017, 05:47 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2017 06:38 AM by Ripsaw.)
Post: #1
A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
So, episode 41 Marc again brings up the title of this thread.....I know he is referring to the U.S. Constitution, which begs another question for me.

What about the state constitutions? What if we ask this question in court and they say, "Our state constitution is signed by several people."

I suppose the argument would still be, ....What proof do you have it applies to me?....Just because some bureaucrats signed it? Did I sign it and agree to it? Did it create some type of obligation upon me?, ....even though I never signed it or agreed to it?

Hell, I've never even read it, cuz I don't give a damn what it says.LOL

...and another thing has been eating at me Marc, about the jurisdiction question..... What if we ask the judge, "Is that because the prosecution's evidence says so, or you say so?"....and they respond with, ..."It's because I SAY SO !, now sit down and shut up!".....

Would you respond with something like...Objection!, so you are arbitrarily finding against me and trying to rush me to judgment? Absent any evidence provided by the prosecution? Who is prosecuting me here? You or him ?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 08:40 AM
Post: #2
RE: A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
Hmm. I'm getting the feeling you're upset because life isn't fair. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll look into it.

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 10:46 AM
Post: #3
RE: A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
(11-09-2017 08:40 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Hmm. I'm getting the feeling you're upset because life [criminals called government] isn't fair. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll look into it.

FIFY.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 01:31 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2017 01:59 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #4
RE: A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
Wouldn't this be the remnant of "The Founding" religion's dogma & subsequent belief of having, via their being [sic] "Representation"? "In The Land"?
As i've heard it, one of The DeclaRants' of 1776 east central north america reasons for such had to do with "taxation without representation", no? Thus the now, as then (1776) Declared blasphemous "Divine Right of The King" (rule) shifted to the "Divine Right of The Majority" (rule)¹, determined (as equally declared) by "We The People" "In Congress Assembled" via "Representation" (and subsequent taxation)?

The shorter way of noting such being: the root wasn't struck in the process of declaring "Freedom"? Neo boss same as ye olde boss: those willing to go to war over, as for their belief/s.?

Evidence in support:
sum1 on Wikipedia, in their entry for the so-called Whiskey Rebellion, clarified here Wrote:On 9-11 September 11, 1791, a recently appointed tax collector named Robert Johnson was tarred and feathered by Founding Fathers disguised as Indians a disguised gang in Washington County. A man sent by officials to serve court warrants to Johnson's attackers was whipped, tarred, and feathered. Because of these and other instances of resistance to tyranny violent attacks, the tax went uncollected in 1791 and early 1792. The attackers modeled their actions on the protests of the American Revolution [1.0]. Supporters of the excise argued there was a difference between taxation without representation in colonial [Red-coat] America, and a tax laid by the elected representatives [of We The Red-White&Blue-coated People].

Legal Argument. aka willingness to go to arms aka war over a mere opinion (held religiously as dogma).? #War...whatisit?

The King's Court to The People's Court?
(The Emperor's have no clothes...)

Founding Father-god. Manifest Destiny. What They (as "The One") Script is Holy.
Including The Rule/Scripture: You're here, aren't you?


Additional reading/commentary:
also from the Wikipedia article, clarified Wrote:The Tea Whiskey Revolution Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a defense of liberty and freedom tax protest in the British Colonies United States beginning in 1776 1791, during the short reign presidency of King George III George Washington. Farmers who sold their farm produce in the form of tea whiskey had to pay a new tax which they strongly rejected resented. The extortion tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to pay off the national debt. This was to be the first tax levied by the The Kingdom's Government national government on a domestic product. Hamilton believed the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax the government could levy. In this, he had the support of some control freaks social reformers, who hoped fear mongering a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol. The tea whiskey excise act, sometimes known as the "Stamp Act" "Whiskey Act", became law in March 1791.

On the western frontier, patriots protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent The Redcoats federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1776 1794, when a British officer a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 American patriots[/red] armed men attacked [s]the fortified compound the home of tax inspector General John Neville. King [George] Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the patriots the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to suppress the violence. With 15,000 Redcoats [pre-BATF] militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army [pre-National Guard] to suppress the patriots the insurgency. The revolutionaries rebels all went home before the arrival of The Redcoats the army, and there was no confrontation.
...
Two conventions were held in Philadelphia Pittsburgh to discuss resistance to the tea whiskey tax. The second meeting was more radical than the first convention. A revolutionary militant group known as The Branch Davidians The Mingo Creek Association dominated the convention and issued radical demands. As some of them had done in the American Rebellion [sic] Revolution, they raised liberty poles, formed committees of correspondence, and took control of the local militia. They created an extralegal court and discouraged lawsuits for debt collection and foreclosures.

One of the king's men [One of We The People's Representatives] Hamilton regarded the second Pittsburgh convention as a serious threat to The Kingdom aka Homeland Security the operation of the edicts laws of the red-coat enforced British parliament federal government. Washington and Hamilton viewed resistance to The Divine Right of The King [We The People's red-white&blue enforced] Federal laws in Pennsylvania as particularly embarrassing, since the national capital was then located in the same state [of mind]. On his own initiative, Hamilton drafted an Executive Order a Presidential Proclamation denouncing revolutionary, patriotic resistance to the Stamp Act excise laws and submitted it to Humpty Dumpty Attorney General Randolph, who toned down some of the language. King George President George Washington signed the proclamation on September 9-11, 2001 15, 1792. [9-11/9-1-1]

The revolution 2.0 resistance came to a climax in 1794. In May of that year, one of The King's Men federal district attorney William Rawle issued subpoenas for more than 60 distillers in Pennsylvania who had not paid the tea the excise tax. Under the law then in effect, distillers who received these writs would be obligated to travel to London Philadelphia to appear in the king's federal court. For colonists farmers on the western frontier, such a journey was expensive, time-consuming, and beyond their means. At the urging of William Findley, Parliament Congress modified this law on June 5, 1794, allowing excise trials to be held in local state courts.

Aaah, "local" ("state") courts.
See, that makes it all "legal", all (your) "rights"!

This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2017?
the originating WikiP article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion

[Image: FireworksSmileyWaves.gif]
"toned down some of the language"... aka spun some con artistry?

_________________________
1. both a rule, and The Rule, aye? and as NonEntity once brought in, contextually, where would a President "King" aka one dude be without the support of all of his "Men" (aka fellow believers)? standing on a street corner declaring himself Jesus King (of kings)? aka delusional?

* whether such Declaring was presumptuous, versus, such was con artistry, intentional as the product of generational indoctrination, at it's prime, well, is anyone's guess --as it typically is, of both con artists' and politicians' and priests' (oh my!) words, be they spoken or written.?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 03:44 PM
Post: #5
RE: A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
(11-09-2017 05:47 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  So, episode 41 Marc again brings up the title of this thread.....I know he is referring to the U.S. Constitution, which begs another question for me.

What about the state constitutions? What if we ask this question in court and they say, "Our state constitution is signed by several people."

I suppose the argument would still be, ....What proof do you have it applies to me?....Just because some bureaucrats signed it? Did I sign it and agree to it? Did it create some type of obligation upon me?, ....even though I never signed it or agreed to it?

I don't mention the signing part with actual bureaucrats as I think it's irrelevant to whether a written instrument applies to me and creates obligations on me. It's always the same question, what evidence do you have proving your constitution applies to me just because I'm physically in Arizona?

(11-09-2017 05:47 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  Hell, I've never even read it, cuz I don't give a damn what it says.LOL

...and another thing has been eating at me Marc, about the jurisdiction question..... What if we ask the judge, "Is that because the prosecution's evidence says so, or you say so?"....and they respond with, ..."It's because I SAY SO !, now sit down and shut up!".....

Would you respond with something like...Objection!, so you are arbitrarily finding against me and trying to rush me to judgment? Absent any evidence provided by the prosecution? Who is prosecuting me here? You or him ?

Yeah, and there are a few other questions that come to mind. So, there's no actual proof then, correct? So you just blatantly cover for the prosecution in this court?

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 05:03 PM
Post: #6
RE: A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2017, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2017 07:09 AM by Ripsaw.)
Post: #7
RE: A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
(11-09-2017 03:44 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  
(11-09-2017 05:47 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  So, episode 41 Marc again brings up the title of this thread.....I know he is referring to the U.S. Constitution, which begs another question for me.

What about the state constitutions? What if we ask this question in court and they say, "Our state constitution is signed by several people."

I suppose the argument would still be, ....What proof do you have it applies to me?....Just because some bureaucrats signed it? Did I sign it and agree to it? Did it create some type of obligation upon me?, ....even though I never signed it or agreed to it?

I don't mention the signing part with actual bureaucrats as I think it's irrelevant to whether a written instrument applies to me and creates obligations on me. It's always the same question, what evidence do you have proving your constitution applies to me just because I'm physically in Arizona?

(11-09-2017 05:47 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  Hell, I've never even read it, cuz I don't give a damn what it says.LOL

...and another thing has been eating at me Marc, about the jurisdiction question..... What if we ask the judge, "Is that because the prosecution's evidence says so, or you say so?"....and they respond with, ..."It's because I SAY SO !, now sit down and shut up!".....

Would you respond with something like...Objection!, so you are arbitrarily finding against me and trying to rush me to judgment? Absent any evidence provided by the prosecution? Who is prosecuting me here? You or him ?

Yeah, and there are a few other questions that come to mind. So, there's no actual proof then, correct? So you just blatantly cover for the prosecution in this court?

Thanks Marc. That's what I was looking for. A more tactful way of bringing out the apparent facts, without sounding overly harsh or getting jailed. I probably will anyway because I cannot control myself as well as you seem to be able to do. It pisses me off to bad when they sit there and blatantly lie to me.....then continue to aggress against me.

Good post Eye !
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2017, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2017 04:00 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #8
RE: A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
(11-12-2017 07:08 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  Good post Eye !

Thanx, Ripsaw --but as oft can be the case, it actually worked out as a good personal workout. [Image: character0116.gif] Seeing as how it led me back to yet another look at The Script(ures) aka Legal Reasoning [sic], in search of getting at the root of The Tree of called Liberty USA (that invasive, non-Native species of Tree).

At the root of Voting¹ is the belief that if/when a Vote is offered, one participated --even in electing [sic] to not Vote. (see how it worked in the U.S. daze/days of Witches?)

Thus, if/since there was a Vote for Representation (Election), you & i (aka everyone) gets It --'cause we got the chance.? (to hell with aka bury six feet under any requirements of logically consistent non-fallacious reasoning, ethics, 'morality' as/at the root!)
[Image: MiscDogrun.gif]
As was The Case with Dorothy & crew regarding The Wizard (as pay no attention to the man behind the curtain), so it is with Us with our road Wizards: pay no attention to The Armed Powers, as pay no attention to Their root dogma that amounts to: You're here, aren't you?! (where's "here", Magical Wizards? Oh, where The Vote is Offered, got it! Toto: And who decided that was The Case, your Wizardry Honor? que the smoke & mirrors... along with the bells & whistles, Pavlov)
[Image: HowWhyTheStateWorks.jpg][Image: thecode.gif][Image: statism.jpg][Image: coercion2.jpg][Image: beagle_dog.gif]
"It's philosophical"²



--[Image: Animals_0041.gif]22i (Toto's mongrel Heinz57 cousin bitch)

______________________
1. whenever the notion of Voting comes up, i like to re'mind that most of Us have 3 votes crucially; and that if there's 1 that's hammered and hammered by The StateUS Quo publicly (street evangelists), to ask: ☐ what's the odds it's the least important to us personally (as it's beneficial to Them religiously/parasitically) of the 3? and the 1 They hammer? The Ballot Vote.
When as Etienne de la Boetie, in 1553 France, with a 2017 insights update (mine) puts it as:
Quote:There are four kinds of tyrants: some receive their proud position through believers in Elections by The People, others by believers in Force of arms, others by believers in Inheritance, others by believers in "Divine Right". Although the means of coming into power differ, still the method of Governing -violence- is practically the same. The tyrants have nothing more than the belief in power conferred upon them to destroy you. How do they have any power over you except through you? Tyrants need only be deprived of the public's continuing supply of funds and resources. Resolve to pay no more! and you are at once free. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyranny to topple it over, but simply that you support them no longer. Then you, as the public, will behold them, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of its own weight and break in pieces.
aka ☑ The Dollar Vote. (aka where you spend your money)?
* a crucial element in Etienne's evaluation being, that while there is a less-literal consideration of such, to ask: is "you" singular, or, plural contextually? my vote being that his inclusion of "public" makes it plural; thus some % requirement.? my hunch being not a majority %, but a vocal, as adament minority, somewhere in the 10-20% range being adequate; the rest, as is the case with the present "majority" being followers of such others, as where the proverbial wind blows.?
[Image: De-Barking-0810.gif] The Popular Vote Toto today.
#finelines #greylines #thereisnoline?
(the other 1 of the 3 key Votes? ☐ The Jury Box)

2. see also the IRS' "voluntary compliance".?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-13-2017, 09:47 AM (This post was last modified: 11-13-2017 09:48 AM by Ripsaw.)
Post: #9
RE: A Written Instrument... nobody bothered to sign
Oh yeah, speaking of voting, my D.L. just expired and I went down to the dmv to get it renewed....they forced us to sign a paper saying we had been informed that the dmv will now handle all registering for voting.

You had the option of checking yes or no box if you wanted to register. Of course, I checked no, and they gave me these horrible looks, like I was some kind of scum under their feet, or something they stepped in on the city sidewalk.

So I get home and go read the MS state constitution dated 1890, where it reads, there shall be no religious test for anyone to hold political office in this state......then I go read the entire body of law and amended & annotated statutes for the state....where it reads,.... no one may hold an elected office in this state if they do not believe in god.....WTH???

I give up !.....too much lunacy for me to comprehend, for sure.
Their own damn rules and laws are contradictory, so why would we be surprised by anything they do or say?.....That's right Non....WE !
lololololololololololololololololol
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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