ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE

[SteveSy]

"Oh, and I could really couldn't care less what a [sic] some federal judge says who is appointed by and paid by the very people trying to usurp the constitution. [ . . . ] Do I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it's my right." -SteveSy

I thought I would place this back in context since you so graciously decided to misrepresent what I originally said.

I could care less what a judge says the law is, that is true, if it is contradictory to what I read with my own two eyes. Judges decide issues concerning individuals that appear before them and nothing more. I have a right, just like everyone else does, to read the public law and come to a conclusion of what the law says based on reason and common sense. I have no obligation to accept the word of a person simply because they or their cultist following declares I must. This is not to say that if I were before a judge that he would be forced to accept my view of the law but that doesn't make him a law maker. It no more changes the law than does a rogue cop illegally arresting or beating people does. In both cases both have the power to punish you, and judge your situtation, the power to have you punished does not equate to being right or making law.

While I may disagree with most of what people say from Sui Juris I do think the author hit the nail almost on the head about lawyers, judges and their cultist mentality.

[wserra]

You guys and gals should take your imaginative original thoughts and embellish them here
[snip lengthy cut and paste]

There is no declaration of being in some concoction of the minds of dead people here
[snip lengthy cut and paste]

From my point of view, everything is around me. I can imagine that it is not this way, and that some other point is the 'center point', but this is imagination.

Unless you really do believe that you live in the fiction.
[snip lengthy cut and paste]

Arguments about the reality of the fiction are pointless.

Thus the observation of the group psychosis is obvious to anyone that doesn't lack the ability to determine reality from fiction.

Reality is Earth. It is in the Universe. I am in the Universe, on Earth. I know this to be true.

You're travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.

Like 50s TV, do we, aksis?

[aksis]

Unless you really do believe that you live in the fiction.

You're really serious about this crap?

I am serious about the fact that I was born in the Universe, on Earth. This is where I live.

Vattel calls it the State of Nature in his work "Law of Nations".

Thus, the idea that someone can be "stateless" is a product of psychosis.

Joined: 01 Mar 2003
Posts: 5506
Location: Earth

You also declare you are located on Earth as well.

Okay, so every map of North America published since 1798 is wrong.

A map is an abstraction. More fiction. Earth is Earth.

But an even bigger problem is that state governments are abstractions also, so no one has ever been born in any state, either.

Here you have identified what you see as a problem.

The problem, from my point of view, is the lack of an ability to determine reality from fiction, and an even bigger problem is that it leads people to harming one another.

People are killing and harming each other over imaginary lines drawn on maps (among other things). You don't think this is a problem?

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if anyone has ever been born anywhere, because it's difficult to think of any place on earth that is not governed by a "fiction" (as you call governments).

Governments are works of fiction. The People who created them and pretend they are real are not.

The Universe exists. Earth exists. People are born in the Universe, on Earth. Are you really having that much difficulty thinking of this?

Some of you probably still wonder why I am saying that people are suffering from a group psychosis.

Don't bother answering, because I've fixed it and I don't really care to know why you think it makes a difference.

Good. I didn't really care to explain. It seemed self explanatory to me.

governments never have standing in court, which means that no one could ever be prosecuted for murder (which he admits is true).

People would be punished for murder regardless of if people pretend there is a government or not.

[aksis]

You're travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.

Like 50s TV, do we, aksis?

You are the one likening what I am saying to the twilight zone.

Do you like 50s TV?

I don't really care for too much TV... garbage in, garbage out.

We are in the Universe, on Earth. wserra, are you in denial of this fact?

[Quixote]

It's called a joke, you ditz. For one thing, there's no such thing as a quatloos. I adopted the title because ever since I heard a college (there's another word for you to look up; I'm sure you never went to one) history professor use the term "chancellor of the exchequer," I thought it sounded cool. That is what Britain calls their equivalent of our Secretary of the Treasury.

Location: Atlanta, Ga

You misunderstood the point in my post. Forgiven.

Atlanta, Georgia is a real place. If you don't believe me, check a map or road atlas of the United States.

You can't fool askis that easily. There are maps of Oz and Middle Earth, too.

[webhick]

It's called a joke, you ditz. For one thing, there's no such thing as a quatloos. I adopted the title because ever since I heard a college (there's another word for you to look up; I'm sure you never went to one) history professor use the term "chancellor of the exchequer," I thought it sounded cool. That is what Britain calls their equivalent of our Secretary of the Treasury.

Location: Atlanta, Ga

You misunderstood the point in my post. Forgiven.

Atlanta, Georgia is a real place. If you don't believe me, check a map or road atlas of the United States.

I believe that aksis is saying that the lines that define Atlanta are imaginary and is part of the "fiction". And I suppose you're part of the fiction for thinking you live between those lines.

Not directed at UGA Lawdog:

Really, Atlanta is just an easy way to say "I live here. On this section of the planet Earth, in the Universe".

Part of language is naming and defining things. Every word we use is fiction.

Why? Let's see. The very first dingbat in the history of our world to hold up a cup and said "cup" created a fiction. "Cup" isn't actually that thing that holds water that you drink from. You can't reach out and touch "cup". You *can* reach out and touch the thing that holds water that you drink from.
To sum up, "cup" is not something that holds water that you drink from. That means it's not true. That means it's fiction.

Well, eventually, calling that thing that holds water that you drink from was being called a "cup" by the rest of the tribe. And one day, that tribe is out getting their "tribal" on and encounters another tribe. Dingbat's tribe offers them a "cup". Other tribe doesn't know what that is. After much head bashing and bloodshed, Other Tribe determines that the "cup" is really what they all a "doohahingy". Everyone rejoices. But now we have two fictions. That thing that holds water that we drink from is neither a "cup" nor a "doohahingy".

So, until we stop using any kind of language, we're all living in fiction.

Deal with it. Get on with life. It's part of evolution.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I thought I would place this back in context since you so graciously decided to misrepresent what I originally said.

I could care less what a judge says the law is, that is true, if it is contradictory to what I read with my own two eyes. Judges decide issues concerning individuals that appear before them and nothing more. I have a right, just like everyone else does, to read the public law and come to a conclusion of what the law says based on reason and common sense. I have no obligation to accept the word of a person simply because they or their cultist following declares I must. This is not to say that if I were before a judge that he would be forced to accept my view of the law but that doesn't make him a law maker. It no more changes the law than does a rogue cop illegally arresting or beating people does. In both cases both have the power to punish you, and judge your situtation, the power to have you punished does not equate to being right or making law.

While I may disagree with most of what people say from Sui Juris I do think the author hit the nail almost on the head about lawyers, judges and their cultist mentality.

Steve, it doesn't look like anyone has misrepresented what you originally said.

[grammarian44]

You don’t follow the law, you follow what someone else has told you what the law is. You follow someone else's interpretation of it.

And what version of the law should we follow? Yours? Wouldn't that just be someone else's interpretation?

The fact is there is no such thing as law apart from someone's interpretation of it.

Can you show me any law that is not the interpretation of some human being?

[Paul]

I quit reading aksis' "cult" post at:

The “Supreme” leaders ensure no one outside the cult is permitted to teach the wanna-be cult members.

Funny, when I was at Stanford Law School, I had 3 professors who were not lawyers, including Myron Scholes. Kinda makes you wonder what else about that post might contain "facts" that are not quite true.

[aksis]

Location: Atlanta, Ga

You misunderstood the point in my post. Forgiven.

Atlanta, Georgia is a real place. If you don't believe me, check a map or road atlas of the United States.

You can't fool askis that easily. There are maps of Oz and Middle Earth, too.

There are also older maps of Earth.

I saw one that was drawn during a time when knowledgeable People used to say the Earth was flat. It had some sea monsters on it.

People can be pretty silly.

Even a map of Earth is not the reality of Earth. A map is a picture of a thing that exists, an abstraction. Like the word "cup" is not the cup. Yet the word is addressing something that is real.

The names and lines on the map are fiction. They address fiction.

The People who claim to live on the part of Earth called "Atlanta" are real, and so are their houses, etc.. And many of them make-believe they are in a "bubble" because they are suffering from the group psychosis. It is not so much a "vacuum" as it is a "bubble"... from what many People tell me.

I can't say for sure, I don't see any lines or bubbles or any evidence of them (nation states) being real. But when I read the fiction, they are describing the State in 3d, and not in 2d in this century.

I suppose you're part of the fiction for thinking you live between those lines.

Do you now?

How silly.

Really, Atlanta is just an easy way to say "I live here. On this section of the planet Earth, in the Universe".

Part of language is naming and defining things. Every word we use is fiction.

Why? Let's see. The very first dingbat in the history of our world to hold up a cup and said "cup" created a fiction. "Cup" isn't actually that thing that holds water that you drink from. You can't reach out and touch "cup". You *can* reach out and touch the thing that holds water that you drink from.
To sum up, "cup" is not something that holds water that you drink from. That means it's not true. That means it's fiction.

Well, eventually, calling that thing that holds water that you drink from was being called a "cup" by the rest of the tribe. And one day, that tribe is out getting their "tribal" on and encounters another tribe. Dingbat's tribe offers them a "cup". Other tribe doesn't know what that is. After much head bashing and bloodshed, Other Tribe determines that the "cup" is really what they all a "doohahingy". Everyone rejoices. But now we have two fictions. That thing that holds water that we drink from is neither a "cup" nor a "doohahingy".

So, until we stop using any kind of language, we're all living in fiction.

You make some very erroneous conclusions here.

[aksis]

I quit reading aksis' "cult" post at:

The “Supreme” leaders ensure no one outside the cult is permitted to teach the wanna-be cult members.

Funny, when I was at Stanford Law School, I had 3 professors who were not lawyers, including Myron Scholes. Kinda makes you wonder what else about that post might contain "facts" that are not quite true.

I simply posted an article. I did not write it.

Thanks for the first hand testimony. I am attempting to cut through the sea of truth with a dull knife.

Paul, what were the terms of the contract that these professors agree to? Were the contracts legally binding? Perhaps, rather then speculating as to the contents of the contracts, we could acquire certified copies of them and see for ourselves.

___________


The skewing of facts seems to be present in both communities, (loosely speaking and presuming there are only 2 communities - Sui Juris and Quatloos). What is the reality? Well, there are many many groups and many of these groups don't even have names. The members of any group will have some similar perspectives and they will also have very different perspectives.

We also find that People's perspectives change. The growing process...

[webhick]

You make some very erroneous conclusions here.

Exactly.

[aksis]

You don’t follow the law, you follow what someone else has told you what the law is. You follow someone else's interpretation of it.

And what version of the law should we follow? Yours? Wouldn't that just be someone else's interpretation?

The fact is there is no such thing as law apart from someone's interpretation of it.

Can you show me any law that is not the interpretation of some human being?

Cause and effect happens regardless of if someone believes in it or not. People do write down their observations about it.

We observe the working of natural law, or the Law of Nature every day. It doesn't depend upon a "Nation State".

You asked to be shown: Take a small cup of vinegar and put a little baking soda in it... and observe first hand Law "that is not the interpretation of some human being." What some may see as a mess, others see as a remedy for a bee sting, and still others observe something else.

We depend upon Law and upon the direct observations of it's workings. We plant crops according to these observations, and we live with one another on Earth hoping that people will live according to the basic simplicity of Law as its workings manifests in our relationships with each other.

Keep in mind, while I quote vattel, I am not of a mind that thinks a sovereign is subject to vattel's work, his juris diction. I simply like that he didn't exclude the State of Nature or Natures laws in his work and because of this, he makes observations that are reality based when he digress into the fiction of the Nation States.

I don't agree with all of his work.

5. To what laws nations are subject.
behold
As men are subject to the laws of nature, — and as their union in civil society cannot have exempted them from the obligation to observe those laws, since by that union they do not cease to be men, — the entire nation, whose common will is but the result of the united wills of the citizens, remains subject to the laws of nature, and is bound to respect them in all her proceedings. And since right arises from obligation, as we have just observed (§3), the nation possesses also the same rights which nature has conferred upon men in order to enable them to perform their duties.

§ 6. In what the law of nations originally consists.

We must therefore apply to nations the rules of the law of nature, in order to discover what their obligations are, and what their rights: consequently, the law of Nations is originally no other than the law of Nature applied to Nations. But as the application of a rule cannot be just and reasonable unless it be made in a manner suitable to the subject, we are not to imagine that the law of nations is precisely and in every case the same as the law of nature, with the difference only of the subjects to which it is applied, so as to allow of our substituting nations for individuals. A state or civil society is a subject very different from an individual of the human race; from which circumstance, pursuant to the law of nature itself, there result, in many cases, very different obligations and rights: since the same general rule, applied to two subjects, cannot produce exactly the same decisions, when the subjects are different; and a particular rule which is perfectly just with respect to one subject, is not applicable to another subject of a quite different nature. There are many cases, therefore, in which the law of Nature does not decide between state and state in the same manner as it would between man and man. We must therefore know how to accommodate the application of it to different subjects; and it is the art of thus applying it with a precision founded on right reason, that renders the law of Nations a distinct science.

From this we can come to the conclusion that, regardless of one's Nationality (or lack there of), all People on Earth are subject to the law of Nature.

Thus, the idea of an anarchy is also a psychosis.

[LPC]

This guy really could be loopier than TSFBFKADMVP.

The heart of all of his arguments is that, if he doesn't like something and doesn't want to deal with it, he calls it a "fiction" and ignores it.

[LPC]

Unless you really do believe that you live in the fiction.

You're really serious about this crap?

I am serious about the fact that I was born in the Universe, on Earth. This is where I live.

And you can't be more specific than that?

You must be very bad at giving directions. ("Go five miles until you get to Earth, turn right, and keep going until you get to Earth....")

Vattel calls it the State of Nature in his work "Law of Nations".

Thus, the idea that someone can be "stateless" is a product of psychosis.

You've also claimed that states are a fiction, and now you're saying that living without fictions is a psychosis?

Okay, so every map of North America published since 1798 is wrong.

A map is an abstraction. More fiction. Earth is Earth.

Words are abstractions. Mathematics is an abstraction. Science is abstractions. Laws are abstractions. Civilization is nothing but a collection of abstractions.

You seem to want to return to the stone age.

But an even bigger problem is that state governments are abstractions also, so no one has ever been born in any state, either.

Here you have identified what you see as a problem.

The problem, from my point of view, is the lack of an ability to determine reality from fiction, [....]

It's what I see as *your* problem, because you're projecting your own mental problems onto everyone else and assuming that everyone else has the same cognitive problems that you are experiencing.

governments never have standing in court, which means that no one could ever be prosecuted for murder (which he admits is true).

People would be punished for murder regardless of if people pretend there is a government or not.

Yes, and the lynchings would be real.

[wserra]

Words are abstractions. Mathematics is an abstraction. Science is abstractions. Laws are abstractions. Civilization is nothing but a collection of abstractions.

You seem to want to return to the stone age.

Stone is an abstraction. Until one hits you upside the head.

A lot like law.

[wserra]

OK, let's try being serious.

It's really funny to see a Sooey regular quoting de Vattel. De Vattel's main concern was relations between nations. His discussion of the law of nature focussed almost exclusively on nation dealing with nation, not state relating to citizens, or citizens to each other. While he certainly believed that individuals had rights, his main thesis was that the state had to protect itself at all costs (granted, that behaving morally was the best way to do that). People, if they disagreed with what the state was doing, were free to either try to change it or leave.

Perhaps in reaction to the writings of the great English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes a generation earlier, de Vattel made his view of the citizen-state relationship clear early on. Hobbes extrapolates from the person to the state - he writes that the greatest duty of the state is to protect the individual from "natural law", survival of the strongest and fittest. (Hence my favorite law firm, Leviathan's characterization of life in the state of nature: "Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short".) From the beginning, de Vattel makes it clear that he approaches from the opposite direction:

It is evident that, from the very act of civil or political association, each citizen subjects himself to the authority of the entire body, in everything that relates to the common welfare. The authority of all over each member, therefore, essentially belongs to the body politic, or state.

Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter I, sec, 2. De Vattel explicitly states that, for purposes of his book, the form of government is irrelevant - but he personally prefers a monarchy. (To be fair, so did Hobbes.)

I don't mean to paint de Vattel as an apologist for despots, which he certainly wasn't. But it's equally hard to describe him as a libertarian.

[grammarian44]

You asked to be shown: Take a small cup of vinegar and put a little baking soda in it... and observe first hand Law "that is not the interpretation of some human being."

OK, next time I'm confused about the the meaning of the tax statutes, I'll just stare really hard at the words on the page and their true meaning will come to me. Brilliant response.

[grammarian44]

Stone is an abstraction. Until one hits you upside the head.

French literary theorist Roland Barthes taught that all reality was socially constructed. He believed that until the day he walked off a sidewalk in Paris and was struck and killed by a socially constructed bus.

[Imalawman]

The 14th Amendment (private, feudal, Roman Civil Ecclesiastical Trust Law) is a "Public Charitable Trust" (PCT), formed to manage the estates of decedents who died civil deaths in the law. Such legal decedents are barred from access to law because of their artificial / abstract status as "persons," their bankruptcy, and enemy status under the Amendatory Act. They are as legally devoid of substance and rights as ghosts. 14th Amendment citizens, like juveniles and insane people, are in legal incapacity and cannot manage their own affairs.

Now that's loopy. How the hell do you read the 14th and come up with that. I think that like DMVP, this guy/girl is very much afflicted with mental illness.

But the B.A.R article was fun reading. Seems like I've seen it before though. Oh, and my oath was taken in a room filled with non-lawyer friends and family - hardly secret.