Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Dion]

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Tower

Anyone can press charges not just Police and Lawyers. You just need to have everything prepared and all your ducks in a row. I read about this briefly but have not researched it as of yet. I have other things to deal with that are taking up my time.

As part of a legal system, one can file under common law. Acts and Statues do not apply here.

As well a dejure court system can be created. One that does not answer to securities first. (It's not a business)

But this is all here nor there on this forum.

As to the pdf's... I do not know who created them. They are a read however and if what it says is even 10 percent true... That is messed up and the parties must be held accountable for treason.

Alright, but I have an honest serious question.

If you are allowed to opt out of the statues and acts that bind the rest of us, and you decide you want to press charges against me then I have two serious questions.

1) What is keeping me from saying I don't consent to these charges, and therefore you have no recourse to seek damages from me?

2) Who is responsible for enforcing any sort of decions handed down by the court system we create?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tower

This is a form expected to be filed my many across the USA. I found it and read it. I now post it. Who knows what will happen when submitted.

Hopefully mental health evaluations for all.

I can't believe that I wasted my lunch hour reading through that, I must be as ######ed as they are.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Alright, but I have an honest serious question.

If you are allowed to opt out of the statues and acts that bind the rest of us, and you decide you want to press charges against me then I have two serious questions.

1) What is keeping me from saying I don't consent these charges, and therefore you have no recourse to seek damages from me?

2) Who is responsible for enforcing any sort of decions handed down by the court system we create?

Surely one more hole in his logic will change everything!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Alright, but I have an honest serious question.

If you are allowed to opt out of the statues and acts that bind the rest of us, and you decide you want to press charges against me then I have two serious questions.

1) What is keeping me from saying I don't consent these charges, and therefore you have no recourse to seek damages from me?

2) Who is responsible for enforcing any sort of decions handed down by the court system we create?

Nobody needs to answer your questions. It is up to you, the individual to put your questions into practise and find out for yourself. We cannot spoon feed you everything.

...and as for your serious questions, try reading this link...

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/

[Tower]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But even if true...would you not then have to abide by the same laws that you so vehemently oppose?

I mean if you were awarded damages couldn't the defendant then pay you with a rock, or a traffic ticket from 1996 or something?

Or does that only apply if you lose?

Good question. Thank you for asking in an honorable way with respect and I will answer with the same respect T99. Seriously, thank you.

Acts and Statues do not need to be brought forth as they are only liable to those who gave their oath, work for the government and those who gave consent to be governed. If you have a lawful contract by you as a human being to be governed and the other party, of which such agreement was not created out of fraud, coercion and fully are able to understand what you are doing and under full disclosure from both parties, then you gave consent. You can not be forced against your will in Canada or anywhere common law is the founding law. With that in mind you have a responsibility to be responsible as well, more so for freemen.

If you work for the government you would be held under those Statues and Acts and have no choice but to act accountable for them. So if you gave an oath like a Lawyer, Judge, Civil Servants like local MP's and City Federal and Provincial Police you have no choice until you remove your consent.

As for Money. LOL this one is crazy. Because Fiat currency is set up in such a way and controlled... Hmmm No wait.

There are different ways to approach this. Corporations are fictional people much like a PERSON that is created when your registered at birth. A legal person and corporation have to operate with in the acts/statues of their society.

A bank - a bank creates money by your signature. Money has no value until you give it. You and your labor are the true currency and not the paper money you receive. Paper money is a promise to pay, or IOU. This opens up a big topic here but with that IOU/remittance/True Bill you can take it and transfer it into fiat currency because the one who created it is paying for it with his signature and promise to pay. I have a friend who has paid successfully with a Accept for Value and true bill approach for his utilities. Most would want proof, but again I don't care. Those who wish to learn will win. Those who wish to poke fun and remain where they are win too. The point is we each get what we want. Because the fiat currency is so ominous the ones asking for TRUE MONEY must give you remedy as TRUE money does not exist hence the IOU or promissory notes we use today aka "Legal tender". Rocks are not back with anything of value like precious metal . Chisel your signature in it and we are getting somewhere lol!

WTF!!! Yes I know. It hard to wrap ones head around it. It is unlearning what you have been taught and go by what is actually written down in ACTS and Statues.

So a freeman only needs to obey common law. It is a huge responsibility, but still he can bring a "legal" or, "fictional law" judgment and have it stick to one who has no choice but follow the acts that he has consented too.

[edn88]

So, I am pretty simple, and I don't really know if I get this freeman stuff, so I will use an anology to see if I get it.

So, a bunch of people decide to play a game of hockey and decide on a set of rules (somewhat arbitrary rules, but rules none-the-less, rules that are designed to make the game fun and safe for everyone involved).

So the game starts, and everyone (well mostly everyone) is having fun. Is the freeman the guy who, when he realizes he isn't very good at hockey, takes off all of his clothes and stands in the middle of the ice hoping not to get run over by the rest of the players?

That is all I feel that I can contribute to this thread.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Tower

Good question. Thank you for asking in an honorable way with respect and I will answer with the same respect T99. Seriously, thank you.

Acts and Statues do not need to be brought forth as they are only liable to those who gave their oath, work for the government and those who gave consent to be governed. If you have a lawful contract by you as a human being to be governed and the other party, of which such agreement was not created out of fraud, coercion and fully are able to understand what you are doing and under full disclosure from both parties, then you gave consent. You can not be forced against your will in Canada or anywhere common law is the founding law. With that in mind you have a responsibility to be responsible as well, more so for freemen.

If you work for the government you would be held under those Statues and Acts and have no choice but to act accountable for them. So if you gave an oath like a Lawyer, Judge, Civil Servants like local MP's and City Federal and Provincial Police you have no choice until you remove your consent.

As for Money. LOL this one is crazy. Because Fiat currency is set up in such a way and controlled... Hmmm No wait.

There are different ways to approach this. Corporations are fictional people much like a PERSON that is created when your registered at birth. A legal person and corporation have to operate with in the acts/statues of their society.

A bank - a bank creates money by your signature. Money has no value until you give it. You and your labor are the true currency and not the paper money you receive. Paper money is a promise to pay, or IOU. This opens up a big topic here but with that IOU/remittance/True Bill you can take it and transfer it into fiat currency because the one who created it is paying for it with his signature and promise to pay. I have a friend who has paid successfully with a Accept for Value and true bill approach for his utilities. Most would want proof, but again I don't care. Those who wish to learn will win. Those who wish to poke fun and remain where they are win too. The point is we each get what we want. Because the fiat currency is so ominous the ones asking for TRUE MONEY must give you remedy as TRUE money does not exist hence the IOU or promissory notes we use today aka "Legal tender". Rocks are not back with anything of value like precious metal . Chisel your signature in it and we are getting somewhere lol!

WTF!!! Yes I know. It hard to wrap ones head around it. It is unlearning what you have been taught and go by what is actually written down in ACTS and Statues.

So a freeman only needs to obey common law. It is a huge responsibility, but still he can bring a "legal" or, "fictional law" judgment and have it stick to one who has no choice but follow the acts that he has consented too.

This makes absolutely no sense. So if I chisel my signature into a rock and give it to you as payment, I've satisfied a judgment handed down by a court system that you don't agree with?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by edn88

So, I am pretty simple, and I don't really know if I get this freeman stuff, so I will use an anology to see if I get it.

So, a bunch of people decide to play a game of hockey and decide on a set of rules (somewhat arbitrary rules, but rules none-the-less, rules that are designed to make the game fun and safe for everyone involved).

So the game starts, and everyone (well mostly everyone) is having fun. Is the freeman the guy who, when he realizes he isn't very good at hockey, takes off all of his clothes and stands in the middle of the ice hoping not to get run over by the rest of the players?

That is all I feel that I can contribute to this thread.

Nope, the Freeman is the guy who shows up 5 minutes into the game. Picks up the puck, punches the goalie in the face, throws the puck into the net, and then argues, that not only should he not get a penalty, but that the goal should stand, because he never consented to the rules of the game.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Nope, the Freeman is the guy who shows up 5 minutes into the game. Picks up the puck, punches the goalie in the face, throws the puck into the net, and then argues, that not only should he not get a penalty, but that the goal should stand, because he never consented to the rules of the game.

The freeman-on-the-land movement is lead by Alex Burrows?

[edn88]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Nope, the Freeman is the guy who shows up 5 minutes into the game. Picks up the puck, punches the goalie in the face, throws the puck into the net, and then argues, that not only should he not get a penalty, but that the goal should stand, because he never consented to the rules of the game.

That makes sense. So in real life terms, a freeman is attempting to take advantage of living in a society that is willing to tolerate his behaviour, and if said freeman lived in a society without the rules he wishes to not participate with, would likely have been enslaved, disembowled or worse.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Tower

Acts and Statues do not need to be brought forth as they are only liable to those who gave their oath, work for the government and those who gave consent to be governed.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Tower

You can not be forced against your will in Canada or anywhere common law is the founding law.

Wrong, you can be coerced and you will be if you defy certain Acts or Statutes that proscribe penalties. This isn't even debatable, it happens ALL THE TIME.

Originally Posted by Tower

So if you gave an oath like a Lawyer, Judge, Civil Servants like local MP's and City Federal and Provincial Police you have no choice until you remove your consent.

Probably wrong if it made any sense.

Originally Posted by Tower

As for Money. LOL this one is crazy.

Correct and bolded for emphasis.

Originally Posted by Tower

Corporations are fictional people much like a PERSON that is created when your registered at birth.

Wrong, and to elaborate, this is a semantic error with vast consequences. Your whole theory relies upon a misreading of "fictional" as "false" when the correct meaning was, is, and will always be "abstract".

Originally Posted by Tower

A bank - a bank creates money by your signature.

Wrong by virtue of extreme oversimplification.

Originally Posted by Tower

Money has no value until you give it.

Wrong even for Monopoly money. Money, like everything else, has the value that one person will give another for it; in other words its value is not viewpoint-dependent as "you give it" implies.

Originally Posted by Tower

You and your labor are the true currency and not the paper money you receive.

Wrong. Much else has value other than labour, even in a barter economy without money.

Originally Posted by Tower

Paper money is a promise to pay, or IOU.

Wrong, and one of the prime sources of the rest of the wrongness. IOU implies a contract, which paper money is not. Paper money is a physical expression of a measure of value, not a contract and not a promise to pay. Saying it is either of those things does not make it so.

-edit- Currency backed by precious metals like silver or gold can be thought of as an IOU, because in theory you can turn over so much currency and receive so much metal from the issuing authority. Fiat currency, on the other hand, does not qualify.

Originally Posted by Tower

This opens up a big topic here but with that IOU/remittance/True Bill you can take it and transfer it into fiat currency because the one who created it is paying for it with his signature and promise to pay.

Wrong and again skirts with not even making sense.

Originally Posted by Tower

I have a friend who has paid successfully with a Accept for Value and true bill approach for his utilities.

Wrong because you have no proof and extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof.

Originally Posted by Tower

Most would want proof, but again I don't care.

Wrong if you ever want to convince anyone less gullible than a 2 year old child.

Originally Posted by Tower

Those who wish to learn will win.

Wrong, they will lose and think they've won.

Originally Posted by Tower

Those who wish to poke fun and remain where they are win too.

Yay! Correct for once!

Originally Posted by Tower

Because the fiat currency is so ominous the ones asking for TRUE MONEY must give you remedy as TRUE money does not exist hence the IOU or promissory notes we use today aka "Legal tender". Rocks are not back with anything of value like precious metal . Chisel your signature in it and we are getting somewhere lol!

Wrong, and again with the IOU nonsense.

Now get ready and think real hard now - what makes "precious metal" actually precious, and how does that differ from what makes "fiat currency" precious? Hint - think "arbitrary assignation of value" and you're getting close.

Originally Posted by Tower

It is unlearning what you have been taught and go by what is actually written down in ACTS and Statues.

Wrong. You can't reinterpret the law to your own advantage unless you get the legal apparatus to go along with you. The agents of coercion - the police, the courts, the lawyers - will demonstrate the futility of such a course.

Originally Posted by Tower

So a freeman only needs to obey common law.

Wrong, and again coercion is a certainty.

Originally Posted by Tower

It is a huge responsibility, but still he can bring a "legal" or, "fictional law" judgment and have it stick to one who has no choice but follow the acts that he has consented too.

Wrong, and once again you confuse "abstract" with "fictional", which apparently is the entire basis of your worldview. A whole philosophy built upon not understanding the difference between what is unreal, and what is false.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Nope, the Freeman is the guy who shows up 5 minutes into the game. Picks up the puck, punches the goalie in the face, throws the puck into the net, and then argues, that not only should he not get a penalty, but that the goal should stand, because he never consented to the rules of the game.

A freeman refuses to play a silly game where the rules change in the middle of the period. Picks up puck and goes home to where he makes his own game plays by simple rules that are easy to understand, fair and just. You are assuming a Freeman is violent, and I am not violent...

[Tower]

Originally Posted by jammies

Wrong.



Wrong, you can be coerced and you will be if you defy certain Acts or Statutes that proscribe penalties. This isn't even debatable, it happens ALL THE TIME.



Probably wrong if it made any sense.



Correct and bolded for emphasis.



Wrong, and to elaborate, this is a semantic error with vast consequences. Your whole theory relies upon a misreading of "fictional" as "false" when the correct meaning was, is, and will always be "abstract".



Wrong by virtue of extreme oversimplification.



Wrong even for Monopoly money. Money, like everything else, has the value that one person will give another for it; in other words its value is not viewpoint-dependent as "you give it" implies.



Wrong. Much else has value other than labour, even in a barter economy without money.



Wrong, and one of the prime sources of the rest of the wrongness. IOU implies a contract, which paper money is not. Paper money is a physical expression of a measure of value, not a contract and not a promise to pay. Saying it is either of those things does not make it so.

-edit- Currency backed by precious metals like silver or gold can be thought of as an IOU, because in theory you can turn over so much currency and receive so much metal from the issuing authority. Fiat currency, on the other hand, does not qualify.



Wrong and again skirts with not even making sense.



Wrong because you have no proof and extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof.



Wrong if you ever want to convince anyone less gullible than a 2 year old child.



Wrong, they will lose and think they've won.



Yay! Correct for once!




Wrong, and again with the IOU nonsense.

Now get ready and think real hard now - what makes "precious metal" actually precious, and how does that differ from what makes "fiat currency" precious? Hint - think "arbitrary assignation of value" and you're getting close.



Wrong. You can't reinterpret the law to your own advantage unless you get the legal apparatus to go along with you. The agents of coercion - the police, the courts, the lawyers - will demonstrate the futility of such a course.



Wrong, and again coercion is a certainty.



Wrong, and once again you confuse "abstract" with "fictional", which apparently is the entire basis of your worldview. A whole philosophy built upon not understanding the difference between what is unreal, and what is false.

Jammies... Wrong? Hardly. You do not understand the playing field and the game and the lengths one has chosen to refute them. You are corrupt and thus not contractable.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Tower

Jammies... Wrong? Hardly. You do not understand the playing field and the game and the lengths one has chosen to refute them. You are corrupt and thus not contractable.

So instead of going point by point and refuting what Jammies said.. you just call him corrupt, and that's that.

This is all you ever do.. when someone disagrees with what you say, you revert to name calling, saying that the person is closed minded, etc, and move on. You don't actually ever get into a discussion.

As soon as you don't like the rules, you change them to fit your view point, then go home and play all by yourself.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by arsenal

So instead of going point by point and refuting what Jammies said.. you just call him corrupt, and that's that.

This is all you ever do.. when someone disagrees with what you say, you revert to name calling, saying that the person is closed minded, etc, and move on. You don't actually ever get into a discussion.

As soon as you don't like the rules, you change them to fit your view point, then go home and play all by yourself.

What did he refute? He is being a jerk so I choose not too. Go join a pajama party somewhere else I'm sure jammies can dress himself.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Tower

You do not understand the playing field and the game and the lengths one has chosen to refute them.

I understand that you don't understand, which puts me ahead of you, because you only *think* you understand that I don't understand.

What you've done is replace one illusion with another, but what you don't realize is that you are still looking at an illusion. I, on the other hand, realize that it's not important which illusion we're looking at as long as we all agree to look at the same one.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Mr.Unstoppable

What are we talking about again?

I'll tell you what I'll do. I got all kinds of knowledge squirt. I'm a walking encyclopedia. I can cover that entire subject from head to toe, you haven't heard of.

So since you're interested, today I don't really have time, but tomorrow I'll start a new fresh thread, dedicated entirely to the 9/11 conspiracy theory, since you want this knowledge, and I'll share some new info for you.

So everyone, thank Captain Crutch for the great idea. It's gonna be a fun day tomorrow!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Tower

What did he refute? He is being a jerk so I choose not too. Go join a pajama party somewhere else I'm sure jammies can dress himself.

nice, why don't you try actually answering some tough questions, instead of turning to insults.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by arsenal

So instead of going point by point and refuting what Jammies said.. you just call him corrupt, and that's that.

I never thought he would try and refute any of it, I think of it more as exercise of the critical faculties. Although, to be sure, it's not strenuous exercise.

If this thread was interpreted as tennis, Tower would be lobbing serves that barely cleared the net, his opponent would proceed to smash the ball back and he would claim he "didn't feel like playing that one" as it beat him for another point. Then he go home convinced he'd won the "real" game - the one he played out in his head after everyone else had left the court.