|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 24, 2007 13:05:56 GMT -5
I want to point everyone to an interesting interview. FreeTalkLive.com did a two hour interview with Robert Menard of ThinkFree.ca which resonates really well with Marc's thinking, in my opinion. Like Marc, Robert decided to sit down and study the actual rules the thugishly behaving folks use and find out if he could benefit by using these rules in his own interactions with them. Some of the things he presents sound a lot like some of the PayTriot arguments I've heard, but Robert comes at it all from an entirely different perspective, and one which I really like: Love. I offer this up for perusal and discussion. - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 24, 2007 14:14:32 GMT -5
Yeah I seen this guy on a youtube video and he explained the whole thing from the standpoint of it actually being voluntary but twisted by bad people.
Also, big thumbs up to him because he came to the "love" position AFTER they stole his daughter. That is character, whatever you think of the theory and demands respect in my book
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 24, 2007 20:38:14 GMT -5
Some of the things he presents sound a lot like some of the PayTriot arguments I've heard, but Robert comes at it all from an entirely different perspective, and one which I really like: Love.
I offer this up for perusal and discussion.It does ring-- even the "love" aspect --very aligned with one 'patriot' thread that was once known several years back as RightWay Law here in the States. Jack Smith and Rick Shramm were the originators; I know Shramm left the group at one time; I don't know about Smith. They too were big on seeing "God's Law"/The Bible's rule of love and honor-versus-dishonor being central, as I feel I hear with this individual. They were keen on dissecting word duality/pluralities (legalities) and the "tricked into volunteering" into the Legal System (ie "person" not being the living being, the strawman/"coat", etc). I honestly don't know where RWL stands as an association presently, as the God's Law/Word thing became a dividing line for me [ie I find belief, based on mere faith, to easily sway perspective when it comes to yet another belief/faith-based system, etc]. "fwiw" I heard little in this presentation that differed from where that group had explored years back; and my opinion from those I heard about literally using such procedures was that it was hit and miss initially, with mostly miss. Where of course, Bible-holding simply makes that being "purified by fire"/tested by goD, yada, yada. Of course its possible this guy's discovered (yet another? " finally" a) "silver bullet" those guys just hadn't found yet, as we'd just not gotten to a place where goD could show it to us yet, etc, etc. Specifically, regarding the radio show and gleaning from it, in the second hour he mentioned something about discussing with a linguist what it might take to develop a new language. He then said the linguist said it would take two simple word reversals: "you" and "me". The host sort of jumped on without any further discussion. Anyone get a sense of what the linguist meant? Then more specifically, the guy spoke of the legal term "registration". He said it legally means when a ship's captain (aka "admiralty jurisdiction"?) signed over chattel property/cargo, etc. [RWL was big at one time on admiralty/maritime jurisdiction having been "brought ashore" ie on land/in courts] I have a Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition and a 6th Edition and neither of them have that definition listed: REGISTRATION. Recording; inserting in an official register; enrollment, as registration of voters; the act of making a list, catalogue, schedule, or register, particularly of an official character, or of making entries therein.
REGISTER, v. To record formally and exactly; to enroll; to enter precisely in a list or the like. To make correspond exactly one with another; to fit correctly in a relative position; to be in correct alignment one with another
RECORD. To commit to writing, to printing, to inscription, or the like, to make an official note of, to write, to transcribe, or enter in a book or on parchment, for the purpose of preserving authentic evidence of, or on a wax cylinder, rubber disk, etc, for reproduction, as by a phonograph, or its register or enroll. To transcribe a document, or enter the history of an act or series of acts, in an official volume, for the purpose of giving notice of the same, of furnishing authentic evidence, and for preservation. --Black's 4th [some court case sites given but not typed here --2i2](I haven't looked to search for what The "Official" Code(s) might have for sectional definitions specific.) Granted, though, perhaps goD told him/gave a revelation of the "true" definition, akin to being told that the gal was pregnant. (who could argue with that?) [note to self: wonder if she was a " virgin", too?] Central to all this again, from where I've been, is whether such duality/plurality of possible word meanings is indeed a "loop hole" left there (to be discovered when "pure" enough to see it?), or whether it is simply the inherent, natural result of centuries of minds building upon illusion/fantasy/make-believe to start with? Toss in as well, the debate of whether the word artists of such as the legal-eze are also the authors of The Word/The Holy Scriptures, written so that such would parallel; both simply for control. That, along with just who decides (ie legal opinion/interpretation) the difference, getting us right back to the guys with the guns in the room-- the real law-determiners. From my experience, this guy's ground has long been theoretically (and theologically) covered and Marc's core approach is the most valid/more valuable, as it gets at the undeniable root, ie the violent enforcement and facts of the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 25, 2007 5:35:42 GMT -5
I can see this working, actually, but only at first.
If I were a bunch of lawyers/liars, setting up a system of dominance, I would design into it loopholes of one sort or another. As these loopholes are discovered I would close them and open new ones.
The other thing is, that he's telling other people about it. This guarantees it's going to ultimately fail. Horrible people that they are, the 'crats will let a large amount of people join in, then nail as many as possible at once. One or two people find my loophole? No biggie. Hundreds start at it? .....hmm.....cannot be allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 25, 2007 10:36:52 GMT -5
I can see this working, actually, but only at first. If I were a bunch of lawyers/liars, setting up a system of dominance, I would design into it loopholes of one sort or another. As these loopholes are discovered I would close them and open new ones. The other thing is, that he's telling other people about it. This guarantees it's going to ultimately fail. Horrible people that they are, the 'crats will let a large amount of people join in, then nail as many as possible at once. One or two people find my loophole? No biggie. Hundreds start at it? .....hmm.....cannot be allowed. Let's see... that's called "fishing"... and "hunting"... and "baiting the field"... and "trapping"... etc, etc, in the other world (in other words).  Who can say...? |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 25, 2007 10:56:19 GMT -5
I find it interesting that all videos that I've looked for on this subject have been removed from GoogleVideo. I wonder what that's all about.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Apr 25, 2007 10:59:52 GMT -5
Marc, Marc, Marc,
U Gotta Get this Guy for interview. His voice sounds familiar. have U talked with him B4?
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Apr 25, 2007 11:31:21 GMT -5
PS, What is a fee schedule and how does it work when applied to.....  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 25, 2007 17:37:53 GMT -5
|
|
freeborn
Junior Member
without a bill, there is no obligation! PERIOD!
Posts: 86
|
Post by freeborn on Apr 25, 2007 20:20:05 GMT -5
thanks for the link None
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Apr 26, 2007 9:37:55 GMT -5
Marc, Marc, Marc, U Gotta Get this Guy for interview. His voice sounds familiar. have U talked with him B4? I haven't, I'll check out the interview and maybe contact him. |
|
|
|
Post by lesactive on Apr 26, 2007 19:12:05 GMT -5
I attended a seminar put on by Rob about 2 years ago which jump started me into researching these ideas further. As far as I can tell, according to definitions in our Canadian statutes, there is most certainly a duality in the meaning of 'person'. A common meaning, human, and a legal meaning, corporation. The presumption is made that you agree to be a person in society by taking part in 'benefits'. I started a thread in a Canadian political forum based on a couple of Robs' videos that are still on google (links in the thread) and got quite the response. A lawyer or 2 get involved and then Rob shows up by page 7 and completely loses his cool with the forum about 5-6 pages later but not before clearly stating his positions. You may enjoy it... www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8612 |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 26, 2007 19:36:26 GMT -5
Interesting. Too bad the discussion is on MapleLeafWeb -- their software is lame (no way of seeing all-on-one-page, idiots...) and also it seems nobody really wants to discuss the facts behind a lot of political opinions (such as the whole concept of "politics"  ) Maybe I'll skim it at home tonight... Wonder if there's some way of seeing all 15 freakin' pages at once tho. :-\ |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 26, 2007 19:37:53 GMT -5
Honey, run out an pick up 14 more laptops for me real quick-like, would you dear?
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 26, 2007 19:38:57 GMT -5
|
|
??
)