Consider the word muslim originaly defined as someone that is firm in their faith. Then there is the Islam oriented "Muslim" (not muslim) that is differently defined in scope to Islam.
Jesus didn't preach anything New Testament. Jesus competed with the Synagogue of Satan; preaching circumcision as opposed to men chewing off the foreskin of a genital. Most peopel forget they are reading doctrine that has survived transcription and its meaning is being destroyed and perverted by changing the defenitions of the words.
Matthew 5:18; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Congratulations, New Testament is only a summary judgment of abandoning the new doctrine everyone calls "Old Testament"
I've read the KJVAV 1611 Holy Bible and found no such authority but self-evident truth. The temple grew old and were ministering the law to have no effect. Yeshuah wasn't treated as a heretic by heretics, but served as a devil to devils; taught nothing but truth in existant scripture. Consider when Yeshuah was accused by them that are of Abraham and not of God:
Matthew 23:8,9 "(8)But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.(9)And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." John 8:40-47 "(40)But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.(41)Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.(42)Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.(43)Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.(44)Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.(45)And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.(46)Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?(47)He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
You can't preach New Testament when you have Pentateuch, Psalms, and Proverbs, and surely with such fragrant verse as Psalm 127 and the two great commandments there is nothing more to need unless to found a presence to competition. To my comprehension, most "Christians" think Jesus is the Lord; half true, and depends on the context. The scripture quoted in John 8 above should serve also to reprove that anyone of God is not equal to God but as though accepting God; Jesus bear witness to sinful acts of Abraham that were not dually of God in that respects. Jesus was chosen King, and many rumors dedicate that he is first to England in that respect. It was always thought recent that accepting someone devoted to the Lord is the same as accepting the Lord. By this context, Paul preached that Jesus is the Lord, God in flesh form, where the distinction is near idolatry. Consider when an Angel appeared, everyone would fall on their face and worship the Angel as though is God and not respectfully of God. This is a good basis for the Principle and Agent treatise, yet where many people can't seem to isolate the standing of both is where people are spread apart by presumptions and invest in denominations. Some teach "Trinity", others preach "Baptism", others preach "Fish, Bread, and Wine"; I just want the truth, not the agents that bring the truth, not the water thrown at me by the agents of truth, not the cooked carcasses or crushed grapes of the agents of truth.
Just build a lightsaber. A real one. That's all.
According to sources, there is some debate one what compses "lightsaber";
On the set, the actors use props composed of handles that have aluminum rods attached to them, and these rods are the length of the lightsaber "blade." The handles are plastic models and the aluminum rods are painted red or green or blue. The actors use these props as though they were lightsabers./blockquote The sources claim they are both real and fake, whereby the truth in the matter is a "lightsaber," with contrast to the action used in combat, is built of aluminum. I believe this radioactive aluminum is remeniscent of Scotty's "transparent aluminum", but I can't say because it is verry exclusive technology not often encountered. In what part of the Historical Documets, there is claim that "lightsabers" are false, but then there is described the physical elements that compose a "lightsaber" and I found them to be quite existent and non-fiction. You be the judge.
Question: if everyone just lived life without declaring their affiliation, would they be known?
By his actions, is he Jedi or just a poser? On same thought, what if people actually joined a political group with intention of turning the founding doctrine upside down? It can be said about Democrats and Republicans, that none have held the qualities that were self evident of their political party founding.
Not to be a bum, yet this is how most religions are started. Research a man (of God), known as Guru Nanak; He acknowledged the bankruptcy in Muslims and Hindus about 500 years ago, and founded Sikh religion because they did not adhere to their law. Guru Nanak has quite a great documentation here. I'm a follower of Yeshuah, yet I need acknowledge that no matter how people bear witness of themselves by saying they are "Jedi", or "Christian", or "Muslim", or "Hindu", or "Seikh", it isn't words alone but your actions adherence to the word. If my logic is correct, knowing wicked people strive to claim a good name only to hide behind and bring ill will to it, someone claiming to be "Jedi" could just be a guise for a "Sith". Same for Satanic hiding behind Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Yet, returning to political affiliation, when will a Democrats act as a democrat and a Republican as a republican? I believe the first president, General George Washington, answered that question with the following words and I quote:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind [which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,] the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments, occasionally, riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
There you have it. It is self evident, by the existence of "Jedi" is Britain Parliament they are obviously implying there are Sith overlords among them, or the Sith truly is not the one to strike back but is the First Strike by claiming to be Jedi.
It sounds like the beginning of the end for corporate-franchise theatres. With this technology, people can build their own theatres in their house for cheap and avoid the big sitting match at the nearby stank theatre. I instinctly remember agents of the MPAA angry about home-set movie theatres, yet the more technology improves and technique and consumption then the closer MPAA and RIAA grow together to prosecute people that download a mastered digital feed through a broadband connection. I am always thinking that MPAA and RIAA are intended to mutually combine their jurisdiction; almost as though they can mind-meld eachother into one monstrosity as did the BATF. Rivaling thought-crimes is when an "agent" arrives on the crim^H^H^H^Hscene with a sound sensor and prosecutes people for detecting patented "soundwaves" irradiating from the home theatre system. Come to think of it, if they hear through private-walls a masculine voice say "I'll be back", that would be possible to be prosecuted as though a public exhibition because distant sensors would detect and discern the commercial and copyrighted sounds.
Freedom is an illusion. Bombing for freedom is just a combustible credit extracted from commercial pursuits of war, to hold independence ransom from the people that the war debt was thought to apply. Libel and charagme is put on the people in Iraq to organize Revenue to collect on that war debt.
I could see an unstable illusion that freedom is not attainable within the scope of law; but organized as a share in a property, then freedom is to the extent of your share and measurable. Can you measure you freeom? Step outside and count what remains of your curses, or the obverse (blessings). Just because someone has "power" to posess property doesn't confer authority from the true party in interest; I don't sell and seal war bonds and related draft vestiture to barter Freedom for Iraq from an unusual target. "United States" is a desperate corporation; it's agents are invading foreign countries to hide its search for a microscopic-minority estate that is confiding seizure to whatever property it nears; more property damage and loss of life that can be held accountable to war debt collections. The greatest victory in global propoganda transmittals is portraying private polls as public and stuffing the mechanism with necessary entropy to regulate the debate with strawmen; invasion speculated on unfounded premises, being a political conversion itself, can suppress the market a little with some corporate charters to compel use of patented crops, and further derive a profit from a prolonged militant occupation to indoctrinate civilianism. All the people in Iraq, before the appears of Sadam Hussein, were counted neither Civilian or Military but both; having duties to perform. Patented foods as indoctrination to promote acceptance of intellectual taxation on everyday life. Don't you remember the days of duplicating data that was never demandant by DRM?
No matter how much UNITED STATES flagwaving, ignoring the prime application of the Constitution of the United States, to spread STATE religion to new heights is un-called forth:
"No State shall... make any post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."
You all wonder why all those people in foreign countries entreat U.S. Army as though illegal aliens... What do you call an illegal alien that bombs buildings to separate you into a foreign politic; but Freedom that isn't free? For every bomb sent to Iraq is someone else's freedom held ransom to a war debt that was not waged or CONTRACTED by them. The protesters are an awfully large minority. Even so, a country-wide fighting spirit is a greater military obstacle; most "strategists" thought a disarmed people would ward off attacks and redirect to centralized military. I have a Tiger Rock too, but I can't throw it any effective distance when forced to wear such heavy anti-arm burdens. If Sadam Hussein didn't perform to expectations, then U.S. simply returned to depose him; Iraq was never free while Sadam Hussein was granted "power" from United States. I suppose one can learn from the strategies developed by Freemasons puppeting Liberia, to predict the conclusion to freedom. The stock in Cuba is maturing today; that's the next crop to harvest, according to banking policy. Agents of "United States" funded Fidel Castro with "power" without a
Your government can now take your property for the "public good"
Nothing new there. The government has always been allowed to do this. It is right there in the Bill of Rights: Amendment Five.
[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
You are misinterpreting it; taking the property implies rent. Not to sell, give them a lease and keep your lawful standing; when the renter needs the property no more, or when you find a better use for it, evict them. You are confusing "Government", a fictitious person that can buy and sell, with an activity that everyone partakes in known as government. If someone needs to take you to court for property, then their ownership is questionable. See my previous post on the codified laws and how seizures may progress.
What I want to know is why so many people think they can get away with violating property ownership just by citing those amendments to the Constitution! If anyone had their claim perfected, they'd not need the federal benefit of the Bill of Rights that derives the foreign jurisdiction in a state. Has anyone actually seen an original Constitution of a church-state, without being modifed or "corrected" if you believe that is what the amendment seeks? Take a hint from the Constitution of the United States:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
The question has always been what constitutes "public use." It is not always a simple calculus of whether private companies benefit first. For example, railroads would not have been built without this power of eminent domain, and those all clearly benefited private entities on their way to the public good. Land for roads, airports, and such are also routinely "taken."
And when wilderness is deemed "Federal" property and off-limits, everyone tucks their head in the sand thinking about royalty.
That said, I think that this idea that urban renewal (extending beyond a blighted area, which has been allowed for a while, for cleaning up slums and such) is a valid reason for taking, seems problematic to me. MBITLITF (My brother is the lawyer in the family), but it seems clear that this is a continuation of a trend to expand this power beyond what I would consider reasonable. Building a hotel and whatever else in the hopes that people will come to visit and thereby provide jobs seems just plain dumb, but the courts basically said that they can't make a ruling based on that; if the government thinks it is a good idea, that is good enough, and to overrule them would be a kind of judicial activism. (See, everyone hates judicial activism when it is convenient!)
Urban renewal? Blited areas? What is this trash talk about? A friend of mine just got kicked off His cattle ranch in Irvine, California by a corporation known as "City of Irvine". The deed, not senior title, said that no permanent constructions were allowed for the charter because of endangered Riverside Fairyshrimp, Native American-Indian artifacts and gravesites, ocean fossils, and horrendous phaultlines with visually apparent soil erosion about a cubit length. "City of Irvine", a juristic corporation, forced him off the land and had it re-zoned to allow closly-stacked USD 1.5-million mansions built all over the place. They were burrying telephone poles with concrete all over the place to "stabilize" the area from soil erosion. The Fairyshrimp, Indian artifacts, whale fossils; notwithstanding but to keep the poorer people from curing superior claim to the soil. There went the last family-owned cattle-ranch in Orange county, California.
Eminent domain exists to solve a riddle of problems, whereas public good has no standing in commercial pursuits. Contrary to what people on this forum believe about the fifth amendment in taking property by compelling to commerce (just compensation), it isn't allowing to discharge the ownership of any holder of the deed but by a controlling interest. This doesn't even apply when the holder is in possession of Allodial (supreme) title the property; an act of war is needed to seize the property, resulting in no compensation.
Yet, peeling through my caselaw notes, I can give an example of when the United States, not (confederacy) "The Unitd States of America", neither the Independence known in the Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, seizes property and the course of events intending the seizure of property; whereas it is not a seizure at all, but a schism that brings forth a paradigm shift to pursue the contested property in a name of the United States that serves motions as a corporation "United States": read on:
28 U.S.C. 1349; The government by becoming a corporator, (See: 22 U.S.C.A, 286e) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen 28 USC 3002(15)(A)-(C). It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; U.S. vs BURR, 309 U.S. 242).
Corporations are the cause for diversity of citizenship; most seizures on land are done through the corporate mechanism, and none EVER expected "United States" to be a corporation of the United States. Whoever said the United States is not to blame or given greater standing is halft true, when it is "United States" that is doing all the dirty work. "United States" is not a synonym for the United States; think of it as in the antonym and hominymn of transmittals from a man's mouth.
"A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor. According to the rule of the common law, the injured party alone is permitted to sue for a trespass, the damages being deemed not legally assignable; and if there be an equitable claimant, he may sue only in the name of the injured party. In admiralty, however, the common practice is to have the suit conducted in the names of the real parties IN INTEREST." 1 R.C.L. 33, pg. 424 (1914)"
Real parties in interest must have more interest in the property than a loaded gun and a false court order.
1 R.C.L. 33, pg. 424 (1914); "...and when a statute of the United States so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States."
Obviously, "United States" is the corporation name of the United States when it attempts the same thing; see 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15)(A), "United States" means a Federal corporation.
F.R.C.P. 17 The district courts are prohibited from granting venue where the United States has less than "one-half of its capital stock...." of the Respondents/Libelants Principal, the Fund and Bank.
There you have it in a nutshel; whoever has the controlling interest may have a say in the matter; eminent domain appears to be effective if the people are the controlling interest and not "United States" corporation or its related "State of **" corporations that say you live in unaffirmed illegal two-digit corporate "State" postal trademark XY alongside federal [Zone Improvement Plan]. There are more corporations, such as those claiming to be a "City" within a city and a "County" within a county. I believe those to be positive law jural societies. Here in Westminster, it is the City of Westminster that sends you the Ticket to the Freak Show if caught parking in a City-graffitied "NO PARKING" area.
I quoth partial the emphatic statements in a certain treatise on law by Judge Lynn N. Hughes; whereas I have placed in bold is my intention of revealing to you that judges look upon the world as the movement of energy in the form of monetary instruments and who is entitled to that energy. Your real-world capacity: bank. I, Gregory-Thomas, speak from the Mundt embankment, and do swear that the below quoth is true and correct for its intended purposes.
BEGIN BLOCKQUOTH {
WORD HINTS: Five Minutes to Clearer Writing Judge Lynn N. Hughes
1. Capitalize only proper nouns. Never capitalize whole words.
2. Do not use roman numerals.
3. List in columns series of more than three dates, names, or numbers.
4. Adopt short, clear labels for the parties.
A. Use part of the name: Acme Consolidated Bank & Trust Co. = Acme
B. Use its real-world capacity: bank (no quotation marks).
C. Do not use their lawsuit capacity: plaintiff, respondent.
5. Be concrete, not abstract: car wreck, not vehicular collision; moved, not filed motion.
6. Caption the document helpfully, but briefly.
A. Exxon's Answer
B. USF&G's Motion for Summary Judgment
C. Allied's Cross Action against Chase
7.
[...]
"The Most valuable of all talents is never using two words when one will do."
Thomas Jefferson
} BLOCKQUOTH
Thus concludes transmission and further saith naught, executed on this twenty-third Day of the sixth Month in the Year of Our Lord and King Jesus two-thousand-and-five;
Gregory-Thomas: Mundt
It may not be over legally owned land, but a contest for the deed. A deed is not superior claim. Allodial title is supreme, and only the holder can issue a deed; that is, to dedicate the land. Statutes change directions like the wind, but common law will never change. I can see this as being a dispute over the deed, the holders for the time being have been lied unto that they have superior claim with no intention to sell the deed. Although in lawful possession of the deed, it can be re-dedicated; by "lawful", I mean as defined two parties in agreement, voluntarily exchanging lawful consideration, satisfied, sworn, notarized, deed or Allodial title transferred. I compare deed to Allodial title as I would compare coupons to Gold, insurrance to assurance, ice to drinkable water.
It seems in this occasion, they weren't transfering title, but the deed. That's a tricky thought, when people think they own the soil when it was actually only lent to them with a warranty deed for which they are limited for what purposes the soil can be utilized. Having senior title, the Allodial, would be unhindered use of the soil at unlimited liability at non-limited liability to whatever arises of that use. Statutes effect the case for limited liability; you get none when you have appointed no land management other than nature.
I need say, "cold, dead, fingers" doesn't apply to this situation, but looking deeper; the structures on the soil are applicable; everything that you aren't in partnership or joint ownership, you hammer down on whatever assumptions made upon it. They're tresspassers. A friend of mine had an oozie that was seized when his cowardly neighbor made a false complaint saying he was torturing animals; he was a perfect example of what happens; beaten in jail, property seizures, no warrants, false warrants issued post-facto and on hear-say, seizures for tools and effects having no affiliation with the original complaint, four year court-battle, and the only people that were willing to stand by him were the "conspiracy nuts" and Uniform Commercial Code and Constitution "theorists" that go way back to some Martial Law crap Abraham Lincoln had put the States under et al etc etc etc. This all happened here in Westminster, California -- Orange County! TONY RACKAUCKAS dba DISTRICT ATTORNEY, may God bless you for profiting from a vacant office with the corporation COUNTY OF ORANGE within Orange County!
Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of Americans who paid the price for you.
Hello merchant Marine. I don't know what you are selling today. You are selling FREEDOM just as the Rothschilds and Morgans. No thanks, I already have one that is better. I was born with it, it tends to run out every once in a while, but I give it a free-Will refill. No, you can't see it!
I en-joy my freedoms because its otherwise unjoyable; I need to say they are joy, so I can identify who is willing to hold them ransome if I do not perform as an murderer from time to time. Do you realize how difficult it is to maintain my freedom to shower? Ask any rank geek; they're freedom is waining cold, can't you comprehend? My country is six feet tall with red hair on the peaks; I'll defend that first so I can defend others.
The landing is closed, their is NOT SAIL on the mast; the state flag is right-side up on the aft, 50 standing stripes; thus no national emergency. I freely come and freely go; no amendments beyond the 13th.
If you don't get them one, you can't use them as a deduction...!
To date, there is no requirement, but a presumed requirement. Ignorance is the new replacement for charagma. You just assigned these children as chattel to that so-called unrevocable contract; the beginning of all requirements for corporate registrations, harassment from credit monopolies and related fictions; created a perpresture in all upper-case letters. Did you not know that only God can birth children into the world? Read the Constitution for the nearest state because it needs to acknowledge God before it can acknowledge the people. Use negotiable-instruments law, accept for value under threat/duress/coercion, and dba Liveing-Child to UNDEAD CHILD HELL.
My country is six feet tall, covered in white skin with hills of long dark-red hair growing atop, two anti-masonic near-sighted eyes, and a mouth of teeth. I need to defend this country before I can defend an other or Questionable country. The more I learn about my country, the better I can help others. I need to be careful, because there are some clonse out there that try to say that I voluntarily donate money to them when in fact it was stolen at the barrel of a gun. My country is the people, not lifeless soil hidden behind two-peice suits; living water.
Hello again; I responded to another of your couriers.
How much it is worth to me...
1. UCC1 Financing statement incorporating the eMail address as a transmitting utility:
USD 99.00 2. Unsolicited use of the transmitting utility:
(with double bonding) USD 198.00 3. Metred internet service.
USD 0.05 per eMail 4. Lien for USD 198.05! 5. Non-profit!
Do the same to just about anyone that engages you with commercial warfare: IMF IRS, US, CA, DMV, et al.
I suppose you want to know why such an horrible speler. My apologies, friend. To thees recent days, I've read more old English and old Frensh hybrid texts than modern. I take part in what some say is excessive law research, and given Slashdot is the only forum I read it is starting to effect the dialect. I can't say I have a native language other than His Majesty's lawful assembly.
Someone Inbox: NRAdude has sent you 5 x 0^100 GoogleDollars(TM).
Someone thinks "How did they send me GoogleDollars without my having an account?"
NRAdude to Someone: What? You didn't have an acount yet? I'll try to to reverese the transaction and just send you a Money Order through snail-mail...nope, it won't let me retract the transfer. Just click on the link in the eMail and it'll let you "get it"(TM).
Someone: It wants information I don't have! Bullpie!
NRAdude: Well, you have a PayPal account and you acknowledged that I sent you money.
Someone: Damnit!
******
This is how I had my first PayPal account installed, 6 years ago. What a great way to spread venue; let your idiot existing users do it for you, and force the account open just by having an eMail address. Nonsense!
I suppose the exchange rates for USD 0.01 to Googlecoins would be 1^99. Am I wrong??? Then eBay will ^1-up them, but it'll be too late...Google would've already radiated everyone with enough Googlecoins and everyone would be aires 0^99 aires.
Damn those commercial advertisements... "If I had the patent, I'ld be rich!" "This metal detector helped me lose weight!" "Bo Dell, this is teh best deal of thai-sporks ever."
A deposit-only account linked to PayPal would prevent PayPal from automatically drafting unlawful and overdrawn Bills on your bank. PayPal is meant as a replacement for credit accounts, yet when one is demanded to be linked to PayPal it is self-evident PayPal is an interest squatter and nothing else. I think it's perverted to credit someone with debt instruments.
I suggest to not give PayPal a shadow of controll to any banking account. PayPal is a middle-man to middle-men. I suggest opening a deposit-only checking account, then if you plan on buying anything through PayPal you can fund your PayPal account with the fiat-money everyone is acustomed to using.
I've been a PayPal member for no less than 6 years. I remember the first day I received an eMail for selling RAM to someone on eBay; I, being without a PayPal account, a bidder sent PayPal fiat-money to then non-existant PayPal account which was immediatly opened without authority from me. The bidder said to not be able to retract sending the money into that PayPal account, and I have been stuck with it there ever since. PayPal gave some liberty to their prison, however; I was able to spend about USD 100 in one month, but by the third month they left a deaf demand that I attach more "information." First they wanted Checking account; I don't have one. Then they wanted Savings account; I don't have one. And what realy angers me is when these "services" ask for Social Security Number yet do not attach the correct name on the Social Security account to their side; almost as though they aren't even legally allowed to use Social Security Numbers.
Well, so there is my PayPal, my eBay, and my frustration.
I have found a deposit-only cheque account has been effective to defensively participate in PayPal toward away the few degrees from the center of Dante's Inferno. Then the Internation Monetard Fund Internal Revenue Service starts trying to do business with people through PayPal's account information...snakes.
Part of the purpose of using anti-virus software on multiple architectures and platforms is to give redundancy. Utilizing competing products in the same area is better if one fails to a particular exploit while others prevail for the time being. The administrators to the root servers know this, and Microsoft decisions have hurt the stability of the Internet evidently today more than any other.
I wouldn't be surprised if more malicious software is identified in transit by non-Microsoft software than when it is scanned after being received by the receiving host/peer. Most Internet Service Providers have done this because of lazy or ignorant administrators or subscribers that are unrepentant on this chore.
I suppose you are the strawman that made two other posts insulting the person I had been writing with.
I am writing with a defined scope and you confess to not comprehend; I'll explain in further detail.
There was an earlier motion that was assumed upon some representatives from certain colonies apparently: it was titled, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" and it was written to quash the absent colonies with States of those colonies. Never is defined at this moment the United States, but the thirteen united States of America.
It wasn't until the Articles of Confederation, that we can see not a transmittal of the united States of America, but the United States having existed it transmitted through "We the People" to confederate the Declared united States of America into the "stile" as written "The United States of America"; this is without the arrival of "United States" of the United States as apparent in USCODE. I am trying to show, by documentation, each step of the way that leads upto today, that every phrase is accounted for and bears significance.
I am saying the United States existed before the Revolution; there are "We the People" of the United States and then there are the people. I am never writing about the Confederacy known as "The United States of America", but am writing about the United States that existed before "The United States of America" and was never directly administered until the fatefull Civil War.
An example that we all can agree upon is there are two known persons in this Slashdot forum that are known as either "slashdot.org" or "slashdot".
"slashdot.org" is of Slashdot.org, and "slashdot" is of Slashdot.org. If you can't comprehend what I am saying, then I have nothing more to say.
Your insanity stopped amusing me a few days ago, but the hilarity you continue to provide is priceless.
I can just as equally slander you as being insane by saying that your comments are without merit and are amusing or hillarious, but I don't because I want no ill will to come to anyone; i believe insanity is not an accusation, but self evident. You need sound mind to plead insanity, but someone that is insane is said to be lacking sound mind -- unless the accusation is post-facto whereby having relapsed from insanity. If you think I am insane, then I thankyou for trying to reason with me on why I am insane and not the miles of USCODE that I have no intention to represent. Anyone that sits in anger to say uneffectively that an insane man is insane is an doubly-negative action according to relativity. In this matter, is it me that is insane, or the authoritative codes I quote? I have no standing in the USCODE; on soil I stand without USCODE.
Your entire argument is based upon a flawed belief that 28 USC 3002 somehow declares that the United States is a corporation. I've already dismissed this argument quite thoroughly elsewhere, and unless you can come up with additional evidence of your claim, you've got nothing to go on here.
If you are trying to redeem me from my insanity, you are not making a welcome effort if the insane demand documents to support an idea. You have not ackowledged a difference between "United States" from the United States. In the USCODE, you need to notice that the United States is not quoted and "United States" is the dispute. In every code, it is always "United States" emphasized or distinguished, and not the United States. In a related Title, there is a Government of the United States, not of "United States"; I'll quote from (GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES) USC Title 5, Section 5921;
(4) "United States", when used in a geographical sense, means the several States and the District of Columbia; (5) "continental United States" means the several States and the District of Columbia, but does not include Alaska or Hawaii; and (6) "foreign area" means-- (A) the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; and (B) any other area outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, and territories and possessions of the United States.
Columbia itself is a state, yet there is George Washington's District of Columbia counted as a State. Supporting that George Washinton's District of Columbia is a State engaged in commerce, reference to Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 Section 102, Clause 76 and I quote;
(a) In this article: [...]
(76) "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Also, read Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 Section 307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR, and I quote;
(a) In this section, "place of business" means a place where a debtor conducts its affairs.
(h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
My words are not idle, the argument is not with me; I quoted the relelevant USC Title 28, Section 3002 definitions that govern the verry use of the symbols "United States" in establishing witness and collection of debt, I then quoted the above US Title 5, Section 5921 definitions that govern the use of the symbols "United States"; the distinguished "United States" is consistent as a corporation in its right seeking remedy, "United States" is of the United States, or "United States" is used to prefix to an agency of the United Staets. Then, to give scope of commerce engaged or utilized through "United States" by an agency of the United States, I quote Uniform Commercial Code to show forth. It appears George Washington's District of Columbia has multiple political divisi
"The FTC is considered the United States for purposes of the FDCPA. See id. 3002(15)(B). Therefore, the United States, not any individual or group of individuals, is the formal owner of the judgment." F.T.C. v. National Business Consultants, Inc., 376 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2004).
Misnomer again. The United States are not amused. United States is laughing hysterically. You haven't addressed the misnomer. "United States" as used in USC Title 28, Section 3002, 15(b) is a noun, and is distinctly different from (plural) the United States. Your quote is verry relevant, nonetheless, because it addressed the role between principle and agent; "United States" is in equal standing as "FTC", unless FTC dba United States while an agent of the United States. If you think you are in the United States, and a flag-waving bunch of people dressed in black-clothing seize your property under the guise "United States", would that suggest that you were subject to seizure by the United States or forfeited property through negotiable instruments law by "United States"? You've forgotten that "United States" doesn't exist outside Washington District of Columbia, and the nearest embassy is hosted by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE as a direct evidence repository and process server to a district court and your postal savings account in the national bank.
It is not proclaiming that the United State is a federal corporation. Instead, it is stating that for the purpose of Title 28, any and all federal corporations are considered as the United States
Misnomer again. The United States are not amused. United States is laughing hysterically. For your information,
USCODE Title 28 is titled "JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE", further to Part VI is titled "PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS", further to Chapter 176 is titled "FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE", further to Subchapter A is titled "DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS", further to section 3002 we ascertain that "United States means a Federal corporation."
For the very use of Title 28, "United States" is a specie of juristic corporation acting in debt or bankruptcy proceedings. Imagine that "United States" is a jurist. Read the rest of TITLE 28, because it is consistent that "United States" is a corporation acting as an agent of the United States sometimes. Isn't that odd now?
Slashdot Mirror
Consider the word muslim originaly defined as someone that is firm in their faith. Then there is the Islam oriented "Muslim" (not muslim) that is differently defined in scope to Islam.
Jesus didn't preach anything New Testament. Jesus competed with the Synagogue of Satan; preaching circumcision as opposed to men chewing off the foreskin of a genital. Most peopel forget they are reading doctrine that has survived transcription and its meaning is being destroyed and perverted by changing the defenitions of the words.
Matthew 5:18;
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Congratulations, New Testament is only a summary judgment of abandoning the new doctrine everyone calls "Old Testament"
You can't preach New Testament when you have Pentateuch, Psalms, and Proverbs, and surely with such fragrant verse as Psalm 127 and the two great commandments there is nothing more to need unless to found a presence to competition. To my comprehension, most "Christians" think Jesus is the Lord; half true, and depends on the context. The scripture quoted in John 8 above should serve also to reprove that anyone of God is not equal to God but as though accepting God; Jesus bear witness to sinful acts of Abraham that were not dually of God in that respects. Jesus was chosen King, and many rumors dedicate that he is first to England in that respect. It was always thought recent that accepting someone devoted to the Lord is the same as accepting the Lord. By this context, Paul preached that Jesus is the Lord, God in flesh form, where the distinction is near idolatry. Consider when an Angel appeared, everyone would fall on their face and worship the Angel as though is God and not respectfully of God. This is a good basis for the Principle and Agent treatise, yet where many people can't seem to isolate the standing of both is where people are spread apart by presumptions and invest in denominations. Some teach "Trinity", others preach "Baptism", others preach "Fish, Bread, and Wine"; I just want the truth, not the agents that bring the truth, not the water thrown at me by the agents of truth, not the cooked carcasses or crushed grapes of the agents of truth.
By his actions, is he Jedi or just a poser? On same thought, what if people actually joined a political group with intention of turning the founding doctrine upside down? It can be said about Democrats and Republicans, that none have held the qualities that were self evident of their political party founding.
Not to be a bum, yet this is how most religions are started. Research a man (of God), known as Guru Nanak; He acknowledged the bankruptcy in Muslims and Hindus about 500 years ago, and founded Sikh religion because they did not adhere to their law. Guru Nanak has quite a great documentation here. I'm a follower of Yeshuah, yet I need acknowledge that no matter how people bear witness of themselves by saying they are "Jedi", or "Christian", or "Muslim", or "Hindu", or "Seikh", it isn't words alone but your actions adherence to the word. If my logic is correct, knowing wicked people strive to claim a good name only to hide behind and bring ill will to it, someone claiming to be "Jedi" could just be a guise for a "Sith". Same for Satanic hiding behind Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Yet, returning to political affiliation, when will a Democrats act as a democrat and a Republican as a republican? I believe the first president, General George Washington, answered that question with the following words and I quote:
There you have it. It is self evident, by the existence of "Jedi" is Britain Parliament they are obviously implying there are Sith overlords among them, or the Sith truly is not the one to strike back but is the First Strike by claiming to be Jedi.
It sounds like the beginning of the end for corporate-franchise theatres. With this technology, people can build their own theatres in their house for cheap and avoid the big sitting match at the nearby stank theatre. I instinctly remember agents of the MPAA angry about home-set movie theatres, yet the more technology improves and technique and consumption then the closer MPAA and RIAA grow together to prosecute people that download a mastered digital feed through a broadband connection. I am always thinking that MPAA and RIAA are intended to mutually combine their jurisdiction; almost as though they can mind-meld eachother into one monstrosity as did the BATF. Rivaling thought-crimes is when an "agent" arrives on the crim^H^H^H^Hscene with a sound sensor and prosecutes people for detecting patented "soundwaves" irradiating from the home theatre system. Come to think of it, if they hear through private-walls a masculine voice say "I'll be back", that would be possible to be prosecuted as though a public exhibition because distant sensors would detect and discern the commercial and copyrighted sounds.
I could see an unstable illusion that freedom is not attainable within the scope of law; but organized as a share in a property, then freedom is to the extent of your share and measurable. Can you measure you freeom? Step outside and count what remains of your curses, or the obverse (blessings). Just because someone has "power" to posess property doesn't confer authority from the true party in interest; I don't sell and seal war bonds and related draft vestiture to barter Freedom for Iraq from an unusual target. "United States" is a desperate corporation; it's agents are invading foreign countries to hide its search for a microscopic-minority estate that is confiding seizure to whatever property it nears; more property damage and loss of life that can be held accountable to war debt collections. The greatest victory in global propoganda transmittals is portraying private polls as public and stuffing the mechanism with necessary entropy to regulate the debate with strawmen; invasion speculated on unfounded premises, being a political conversion itself, can suppress the market a little with some corporate charters to compel use of patented crops, and further derive a profit from a prolonged militant occupation to indoctrinate civilianism. All the people in Iraq, before the appears of Sadam Hussein, were counted neither Civilian or Military but both; having duties to perform. Patented foods as indoctrination to promote acceptance of intellectual taxation on everyday life. Don't you remember the days of duplicating data that was never demandant by DRM?
No matter how much UNITED STATES flagwaving, ignoring the prime application of the Constitution of the United States, to spread STATE religion to new heights is un-called forth:
You all wonder why all those people in foreign countries entreat U.S. Army as though illegal aliens... What do you call an illegal alien that bombs buildings to separate you into a foreign politic; but Freedom that isn't free? For every bomb sent to Iraq is someone else's freedom held ransom to a war debt that was not waged or CONTRACTED by them. The protesters are an awfully large minority. Even so, a country-wide fighting spirit is a greater military obstacle; most "strategists" thought a disarmed people would ward off attacks and redirect to centralized military. I have a Tiger Rock too, but I can't throw it any effective distance when forced to wear such heavy anti-arm burdens. If Sadam Hussein didn't perform to expectations, then U.S. simply returned to depose him; Iraq was never free while Sadam Hussein was granted "power" from United States. I suppose one can learn from the strategies developed by Freemasons puppeting Liberia, to predict the conclusion to freedom. The stock in Cuba is maturing today; that's the next crop to harvest, according to banking policy. Agents of "United States" funded Fidel Castro with "power" without a
[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
You are misinterpreting it; taking the property implies rent. Not to sell, give them a lease and keep your lawful standing; when the renter needs the property no more, or when you find a better use for it, evict them. You are confusing "Government", a fictitious person that can buy and sell, with an activity that everyone partakes in known as government. If someone needs to take you to court for property, then their ownership is questionable. See my previous post on the codified laws and how seizures may progress.
What I want to know is why so many people think they can get away with violating property ownership just by citing those amendments to the Constitution! If anyone had their claim perfected, they'd not need the federal benefit of the Bill of Rights that derives the foreign jurisdiction in a state. Has anyone actually seen an original Constitution of a church-state, without being modifed or "corrected" if you believe that is what the amendment seeks? Take a hint from the Constitution of the United States:
The question has always been what constitutes "public use." It is not always a simple calculus of whether private companies benefit first. For example, railroads would not have been built without this power of eminent domain, and those all clearly benefited private entities on their way to the public good. Land for roads, airports, and such are also routinely "taken."
And when wilderness is deemed "Federal" property and off-limits, everyone tucks their head in the sand thinking about royalty.
That said, I think that this idea that urban renewal (extending beyond a blighted area, which has been allowed for a while, for cleaning up slums and such) is a valid reason for taking, seems problematic to me. MBITLITF (My brother is the lawyer in the family), but it seems clear that this is a continuation of a trend to expand this power beyond what I would consider reasonable. Building a hotel and whatever else in the hopes that people will come to visit and thereby provide jobs seems just plain dumb, but the courts basically said that they can't make a ruling based on that; if the government thinks it is a good idea, that is good enough, and to overrule them would be a kind of judicial activism. (See, everyone hates judicial activism when it is convenient!)
Urban renewal? Blited areas? What is this trash talk about? A friend of mine just got kicked off His cattle ranch in Irvine, California by a corporation known as "City of Irvine". The deed, not senior title, said that no permanent constructions were allowed for the charter because of endangered Riverside Fairyshrimp, Native American-Indian artifacts and gravesites, ocean fossils, and horrendous phaultlines with visually apparent soil erosion about a cubit length. "City of Irvine", a juristic corporation, forced him off the land and had it re-zoned to allow closly-stacked USD 1.5-million mansions built all over the place. They were burrying telephone poles with concrete all over the place to "stabilize" the area from soil erosion. The Fairyshrimp, Indian artifacts, whale fossils; notwithstanding but to keep the poorer people from curing superior claim to the soil. There went the last family-owned cattle-ranch in Orange county, California.
Yet, peeling through my caselaw notes, I can give an example of when the United States, not (confederacy) "The Unitd States of America", neither the Independence known in the Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, seizes property and the course of events intending the seizure of property; whereas it is not a seizure at all, but a schism that brings forth a paradigm shift to pursue the contested property in a name of the United States that serves motions as a corporation "United States": read on:
Corporations are the cause for diversity of citizenship; most seizures on land are done through the corporate mechanism, and none EVER expected "United States" to be a corporation of the United States. Whoever said the United States is not to blame or given greater standing is halft true, when it is "United States" that is doing all the dirty work. "United States" is not a synonym for the United States; think of it as in the antonym and hominymn of transmittals from a man's mouth.
Real parties in interest must have more interest in the property than a loaded gun and a false court order.
Obviously, "United States" is the corporation name of the United States when it attempts the same thing; see 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15)(A), "United States" means a Federal corporation.
There you have it in a nutshel; whoever has the controlling interest may have a say in the matter; eminent domain appears to be effective if the people are the controlling interest and not "United States" corporation or its related "State of **" corporations that say you live in unaffirmed illegal two-digit corporate "State" postal trademark XY alongside federal [Zone Improvement Plan]. There are more corporations, such as those claiming to be a "City" within a city and a "County" within a county. I believe those to be positive law jural societies. Here in Westminster, it is the City of Westminster that sends you the Ticket to the Freak Show if caught parking in a City-graffitied "NO PARKING" area.
BEGIN BLOCKQUOTH {
1. Capitalize only proper nouns. Never capitalize whole words.
2. Do not use roman numerals.
3. List in columns series of more than three dates, names, or numbers.
4. Adopt short, clear labels for the parties.
A. Use part of the name: Acme Consolidated Bank & Trust Co. = Acme
B. Use its real-world capacity: bank (no quotation marks).
C. Do not use their lawsuit capacity: plaintiff, respondent.
5. Be concrete, not abstract: car wreck, not vehicular collision; moved, not filed motion.
6. Caption the document helpfully, but briefly.
A. Exxon's Answer
B. USF&G's Motion for Summary Judgment
C. Allied's Cross Action against Chase
7.
[...]
"The Most valuable of all talents is never using two words when one will do."
Thomas Jefferson
} BLOCKQUOTH
Thus concludes transmission and further saith naught, executed on this twenty-third Day of the sixth Month in the Year of Our Lord and King Jesus two-thousand-and-five;
Gregory-Thomas: Mundt
It may not be over legally owned land, but a contest for the deed. A deed is not superior claim. Allodial title is supreme, and only the holder can issue a deed; that is, to dedicate the land. Statutes change directions like the wind, but common law will never change. I can see this as being a dispute over the deed, the holders for the time being have been lied unto that they have superior claim with no intention to sell the deed. Although in lawful possession of the deed, it can be re-dedicated; by "lawful", I mean as defined two parties in agreement, voluntarily exchanging lawful consideration, satisfied, sworn, notarized, deed or Allodial title transferred. I compare deed to Allodial title as I would compare coupons to Gold, insurrance to assurance, ice to drinkable water.
It seems in this occasion, they weren't transfering title, but the deed. That's a tricky thought, when people think they own the soil when it was actually only lent to them with a warranty deed for which they are limited for what purposes the soil can be utilized. Having senior title, the Allodial, would be unhindered use of the soil at unlimited liability at non-limited liability to whatever arises of that use. Statutes effect the case for limited liability; you get none when you have appointed no land management other than nature.
I need say, "cold, dead, fingers" doesn't apply to this situation, but looking deeper; the structures on the soil are applicable; everything that you aren't in partnership or joint ownership, you hammer down on whatever assumptions made upon it. They're tresspassers. A friend of mine had an oozie that was seized when his cowardly neighbor made a false complaint saying he was torturing animals; he was a perfect example of what happens; beaten in jail, property seizures, no warrants, false warrants issued post-facto and on hear-say, seizures for tools and effects having no affiliation with the original complaint, four year court-battle, and the only people that were willing to stand by him were the "conspiracy nuts" and Uniform Commercial Code and Constitution "theorists" that go way back to some Martial Law crap Abraham Lincoln had put the States under et al etc etc etc. This all happened here in Westminster, California -- Orange County! TONY RACKAUCKAS dba DISTRICT ATTORNEY, may God bless you for profiting from a vacant office with the corporation COUNTY OF ORANGE within Orange County!
Hello merchant Marine. I don't know what you are selling today. You are selling FREEDOM just as the Rothschilds and Morgans. No thanks, I already have one that is better. I was born with it, it tends to run out every once in a while, but I give it a free-Will refill. No, you can't see it!
I en-joy my freedoms because its otherwise unjoyable; I need to say they are joy, so I can identify who is willing to hold them ransome if I do not perform as an murderer from time to time. Do you realize how difficult it is to maintain my freedom to shower? Ask any rank geek; they're freedom is waining cold, can't you comprehend? My country is six feet tall with red hair on the peaks; I'll defend that first so I can defend others.
The landing is closed, their is NOT SAIL on the mast; the state flag is right-side up on the aft, 50 standing stripes; thus no national emergency. I freely come and freely go; no amendments beyond the 13th.
Har!
To date, there is no requirement, but a presumed requirement. Ignorance is the new replacement for charagma. You just assigned these children as chattel to that so-called unrevocable contract; the beginning of all requirements for corporate registrations, harassment from credit monopolies and related fictions; created a perpresture in all upper-case letters. Did you not know that only God can birth children into the world? Read the Constitution for the nearest state because it needs to acknowledge God before it can acknowledge the people. Use negotiable-instruments law, accept for value under threat/duress/coercion, and dba Liveing-Child to UNDEAD CHILD HELL.
My country is six feet tall, covered in white skin with hills of long dark-red hair growing atop, two anti-masonic near-sighted eyes, and a mouth of teeth. I need to defend this country before I can defend an other or Questionable country. The more I learn about my country, the better I can help others. I need to be careful, because there are some clonse out there that try to say that I voluntarily donate money to them when in fact it was stolen at the barrel of a gun. My country is the people, not lifeless soil hidden behind two-peice suits; living water.
Whyt is everyone looking here, As if the subjective tytle was not applicable?
These are escrow services for escrow services! PayPal is performing as a middleman between middlemen! Is that not difficult to comprehend?
Hello again; I responded to another of your couriers.
How much it is worth to me...
1. UCC1 Financing statement incorporating the eMail address as a transmitting utility:
USD 99.00
2. Unsolicited use of the transmitting utility:
(with double bonding) USD 198.00
3. Metred internet service.
USD 0.05 per eMail
4. Lien for USD 198.05!
5. Non-profit!
Do the same to just about anyone that engages you with commercial warfare: IMF IRS, US, CA, DMV, et al.
I suppose you want to know why such an horrible speler. My apologies, friend. To thees recent days, I've read more old English and old Frensh hybrid texts than modern. I take part in what some say is excessive law research, and given Slashdot is the only forum I read it is starting to effect the dialect. I can't say I have a native language other than His Majesty's lawful assembly.
Someone Inbox: NRAdude has sent you 5 x 0^100 GoogleDollars(TM).
Someone thinks "How did they send me GoogleDollars without my having an account?"
NRAdude to Someone: What? You didn't have an acount yet? I'll try to to reverese the transaction and just send you a Money Order through snail-mail...nope, it won't let me retract the transfer. Just click on the link in the eMail and it'll let you "get it"(TM).
Someone: It wants information I don't have! Bullpie!
NRAdude: Well, you have a PayPal account and you acknowledged that I sent you money.
Someone: Damnit!
******
This is how I had my first PayPal account installed, 6 years ago. What a great way to spread venue; let your idiot existing users do it for you, and force the account open just by having an eMail address. Nonsense!
I suppose the exchange rates for USD 0.01 to Googlecoins would be 1^99. Am I wrong??? Then eBay will ^1-up them, but it'll be too late...Google would've already radiated everyone with enough Googlecoins and everyone would be aires 0^99 aires.
Damn those commercial advertisements...
"If I had the patent, I'ld be rich!"
"This metal detector helped me lose weight!"
"Bo Dell, this is teh best deal of thai-sporks ever."
A deposit-only account linked to PayPal would prevent PayPal from automatically drafting unlawful and overdrawn Bills on your bank. PayPal is meant as a replacement for credit accounts, yet when one is demanded to be linked to PayPal it is self-evident PayPal is an interest squatter and nothing else. I think it's perverted to credit someone with debt instruments.
Without recourse,
Gregory-Thomas
I suggest to not give PayPal a shadow of controll to any banking account. PayPal is a middle-man to middle-men. I suggest opening a deposit-only checking account, then if you plan on buying anything through PayPal you can fund your PayPal account with the fiat-money everyone is acustomed to using.
I've been a PayPal member for no less than 6 years. I remember the first day I received an eMail for selling RAM to someone on eBay; I, being without a PayPal account, a bidder sent PayPal fiat-money to then non-existant PayPal account which was immediatly opened without authority from me. The bidder said to not be able to retract sending the money into that PayPal account, and I have been stuck with it there ever since. PayPal gave some liberty to their prison, however; I was able to spend about USD 100 in one month, but by the third month they left a deaf demand that I attach more "information." First they wanted Checking account; I don't have one. Then they wanted Savings account; I don't have one. And what realy angers me is when these "services" ask for Social Security Number yet do not attach the correct name on the Social Security account to their side; almost as though they aren't even legally allowed to use Social Security Numbers.
Well, so there is my PayPal, my eBay, and my frustration.
I have found a deposit-only cheque account has been effective to defensively participate in PayPal toward away the few degrees from the center of Dante's Inferno. Then the Internation Monetard Fund Internal Revenue Service starts trying to do business with people through PayPal's account information...snakes.
Part of the purpose of using anti-virus software on multiple architectures and platforms is to give redundancy. Utilizing competing products in the same area is better if one fails to a particular exploit while others prevail for the time being. The administrators to the root servers know this, and Microsoft decisions have hurt the stability of the Internet evidently today more than any other.
I wouldn't be surprised if more malicious software is identified in transit by non-Microsoft software than when it is scanned after being received by the receiving host/peer. Most Internet Service Providers have done this because of lazy or ignorant administrators or subscribers that are unrepentant on this chore.
That'll be the hardware on my list to buy when they decide to move (downgrade) onto crippleware Intel DRM architectures.
I suppose you are the strawman that made two other posts insulting the person I had been writing with.
I am writing with a defined scope and you confess to not comprehend; I'll explain in further detail.
There was an earlier motion that was assumed upon some representatives from certain colonies apparently: it was titled, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" and it was written to quash the absent colonies with States of those colonies. Never is defined at this moment the United States, but the thirteen united States of America.
It wasn't until the Articles of Confederation, that we can see not a transmittal of the united States of America, but the United States having existed it transmitted through "We the People" to confederate the Declared united States of America into the "stile" as written "The United States of America"; this is without the arrival of "United States" of the United States as apparent in USCODE. I am trying to show, by documentation, each step of the way that leads upto today, that every phrase is accounted for and bears significance.
I am saying the United States existed before the Revolution; there are "We the People" of the United States and then there are the people. I am never writing about the Confederacy known as "The United States of America", but am writing about the United States that existed before "The United States of America" and was never directly
administered until the fatefull Civil War.
An example that we all can agree upon is there are two known persons in this Slashdot forum that are known as either "slashdot.org" or "slashdot".
"slashdot.org" is of Slashdot.org, and "slashdot" is of Slashdot.org. If you can't comprehend what I am saying, then I have nothing more to say.
Your insanity stopped amusing me a few days ago, but the hilarity you continue to provide is priceless.
I can just as equally slander you as being insane by saying that your comments are without merit and are amusing or hillarious, but I don't because I want no ill will to come to anyone; i believe insanity is not an accusation, but self evident. You need sound mind to plead insanity, but someone that is insane is said to be lacking sound mind -- unless the accusation is post-facto whereby having relapsed from insanity. If you think I am insane, then I thankyou for trying to reason with me on why I am insane and not the miles of USCODE that I have no intention to represent. Anyone that sits in anger to say uneffectively that an insane man is insane is an doubly-negative action according to relativity. In this matter, is it me that is insane, or the authoritative codes I quote? I have no standing in the USCODE; on soil I stand without USCODE.
Your entire argument is based upon a flawed belief that 28 USC 3002 somehow declares that the United States is a corporation. I've already dismissed this argument quite thoroughly elsewhere, and unless you can come up with additional evidence of your claim, you've got nothing to go on here.
If you are trying to redeem me from my insanity, you are not making a welcome effort if the insane demand documents to support an idea. You have not ackowledged a difference between "United States" from the United States. In the USCODE, you need to notice that the United States is not quoted and "United States" is the dispute. In every code, it is always "United States" emphasized or distinguished, and not the United States. In a related Title, there is a Government of the United States, not of "United States"; I'll quote from (GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES) USC Title 5, Section 5921;
Columbia itself is a state, yet there is George Washington's District of Columbia counted as a State. Supporting that George Washinton's District of Columbia is a State engaged in commerce, reference to Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 Section 102, Clause 76 and I quote;
Also, read Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 Section 307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR, and I quote;
My words are not idle, the argument is not with me; I quoted the relelevant USC Title 28, Section 3002 definitions that govern the verry use of the symbols "United States" in establishing witness and collection of debt, I then quoted the above US Title 5, Section 5921 definitions that govern the use of the symbols "United States"; the distinguished "United States" is consistent as a corporation in its right seeking remedy, "United States" is of the United States, or "United States" is used to prefix to an agency of the United Staets. Then, to give scope of commerce engaged or utilized through "United States" by an agency of the United States, I quote Uniform Commercial Code to show forth. It appears George Washington's District of Columbia has multiple political divisi
Misnomer again. The United States are not amused. United States is laughing hysterically. You haven't addressed the misnomer. "United States" as used in USC Title 28, Section 3002, 15(b) is a noun, and is distinctly different from (plural) the United States. Your quote is verry relevant, nonetheless, because it addressed the role between principle and agent; "United States" is in equal standing as "FTC", unless FTC dba United States while an agent of the United States. If you think you are in the United States, and a flag-waving bunch of people dressed in black-clothing seize your property under the guise "United States", would that suggest that you were subject to seizure by the United States or forfeited property through negotiable instruments law by "United States"? You've forgotten that "United States" doesn't exist outside Washington District of Columbia, and the nearest embassy is hosted by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE as a direct evidence repository and process server to a district court and your postal savings account in the national bank.
Misnomer again. The United States are not amused. United States is laughing hysterically. For your information,
USCODE Title 28 is titled "JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE",
further to Part VI is titled "PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS",
further to Chapter 176 is titled "FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE",
further to Subchapter A is titled "DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS",
further to section 3002 we ascertain that "United States means a Federal corporation."
For the very use of Title 28, "United States" is a specie of juristic corporation acting in debt or bankruptcy proceedings. Imagine that "United States" is a jurist. Read the rest of TITLE 28, because it is consistent that "United States" is a corporation acting as an agent of the United States sometimes. Isn't that odd now?