The rantings of Danny the Dogwalker

[Dezcad]

Danny the Dogwalker's latest rantings on myspace:

United States of America vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



How can something be against itself? What the heck is this guy talking about? Let me explain, First the spelling of the country is different for a reason. I could be wrong on this and anyone can correct me as they feel fit. My understanding is that the one spelled in proper English represents the sovereign states made up of the sovereign people who formed a defense pact to protect their unalienable (pronounced un-a-lien-able..meaning your rights cannot be aliened or levied ) rights. This pact formed was a republican form of government with strict rules the government must obey. This form also protected the minority from the majority, treated everyone the same (no classes), and protected everybody's unalienable rights.



The proper English spelled country represents a federal government overseeing the general defense off all the states, using the rule if you attack one state you attack all the states. The federal level is concerned only with national defense. The states control all within its borders, no state can tell another state how to run it's state. Jurisdiction over the physical land is everything in law. All jurisdictions are left to the states individually except for national defense questions and questions of an individual's unalienable rights being denied by a state. Jurisdiction is given to the Federal government, of the seat given to it by the states, not to be greater then 10 miles square as authorized in Article 1 section 8. Jurisdiction of the Federals was to also include Forts and Ports erected in the name of national defense. This jurisdiction was still not ceded until the state legislator passed it to the federals, by law, so if the federals buy property it does not mean they have jurisdiction until the people's representatives give them jurisdiction. So, the federals have jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and over military bases ceded to them by a particular states' legislator.



How can the federals arrest people for, lets say, rape in Ohio. That's where the UNITED STATES comes in. The one in all caps represents the corporation that the proper English one created. So, the sovereign US created a corporate US (a fiction) making to separate entities, a straw man if you will. Confusing yet? Confusing is the name of their game. So now we have our government being run in the mindset of a corporation. This corporation wants jurisdiction over everything. The corporation believes if you use any of its creations you have fallen into its jurisdiction. Believe it or not if use a zip code on your mail they can use that as a jurisdiction claim, they created the zip code. The one they use the most to get jurisdiction is your birth certificate. When your parents sign that birth certificate they put you into the land of OZ. Basically they created a separate entity of you, a fiction, a straw man that is in the same realm as the fictional corporate US. You every notice on court documents they spell your name in all caps, that's because they are dealing with the corporate you, the fictional you, your straw man. They have to deal with your straw man because they can not have jurisdiction over sovereign you. Yet they get you to answer for you straw man because we know no better.



This corporation of the US has out sourced our government to other corporations. Some examples are the B.A.R. Association was given control of our courts. BAR stand for British Aristocratic Regency or British Accreditation Registration, I do not know about you, but I do not want a foreign company running our justice system. The Federal Reserve was given monopoly control over our money supply, Nice. You might as well put the chains on now, a free people can not remain free for long once the money changers have control of your money supply. Both of these corporations are in the business of making profits, they do not care about the welfare and security of the American people. Another example is the internal revenue service, it's incorporated out of Puerto Rico and is the collection agency for the Federal Reserve . The IRS is as UnAmerican, as communism, it is a direct threat to our liberties.



The question here is how do we get out of this monster's jurisdiction, and return ourselves to the sovereign plane that the founding fathers left us on. The logical answer is to take control of your straw man. Since the straw man is where they get their power we must bound and gag our straw man through the corporate process. This process includes filling out a UCC financing statement, a notice of surety act and bond also know as a silver bond, and a commercial security agreement. If you do all three of these properly that should get you out of the jurisdiction the UNITED STATES. We the people of the United States of America need to stand up and destroy the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.



Note: the UNITED STATES was incorporated out of the state of Delaware and my understanding is that its charter has expired and has not been renewed, yet it still runs under color of law.



Side thought: I am worried some people are so far gone that when they are putting the chains on them, the NWO will just tell them, it's a new style of jewelry and they will believe them, and accept their bondage with a smile. WAKE UP!



danny riley 8-8-07

[Disilloosianed]

I always wondered why my guys would put their zip codes in brackets. Now I understand it's a blatant rejection of my jurisdiction over them. Except my agency is with the state *sigh*.

[Paul]

treated everyone the same (no classes),

Well, except maybe those who were counted as only 3/5 of a person. But, other than that, he's certainly got the facts right, down to the tiniest detail.

[grixit]

Except of course, the first entity to be called "The United States of America", didn't have a constitution.

[silversopp]

Well, except maybe those who were counted as only 3/5 of a person. But, other than that, he's certainly got the facts right, down to the tiniest detail.

"Only 3/5"? Sounds like the pro-slavery movement's disappointment that their slaves only counted as 3/5. They wanted the slaves to be counted as a full person, and the anti-slavery folks didn't want to count them at all.

I wonder how much quicker slavery would have ended if we counted slaves as 0/5 of a person

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

I like how the conspiracy is shown through ALL CAPS. Your real person is not your ALLCAP person.

[silversopp]

I like how the conspiracy is shown through ALL CAPS. Your real person is not your ALLCAP person.

I'm predicting that in a few years, the nutjobs will come out with a theory that if you change your name to ALLCAPs, then you'll be immune from the FED, Income Tax, SS#, etc.

The super secret form to use can't be downloaded online or obtained at the clerk's office, but I can sell it to you, along with all the letters you need to send to various banks and government agencies, for just $500. I also do phone consulting if you have problems for $150/hr.

[webhick]

I always assumed that "Bar" in Bar association was short for barrister because of the initial relationship to the British. And it's my basic understanding that the Brits have two kinds of lawyers - barristers and solicitors with the former being members of the Bar and the latter having some other kind of membership.

[wserra]

"The bar" originally referred to the physical division in the Inns of Court between "benchers" and students. It morphed long ago to mean the physical division in a courtroom between the well of the court - the area where the judge, lawyers and litigants are - and the audience. So a "member of the bar" (or "barrister") is someone who can "pass the bar" to represent others before a tribunal.

[Prof]

"The bar" originally referred to the physical division in the Inns of Court between "benchers" and students. It morphed long ago to mean the physical division in a courtroom between the well of the court - the area where the judge, lawyers and litigants are - and the audience. So a "member of the bar" (or "barrister") is someone who can "pass the bar" to represent others before a tribunal.

Actually, according to my dictionary, the term bar is derived from Barrister, the English term for a person allowed to argue a case before the trial or appellate courts. (Outside of London, especially in smaller cities, solicitors are also admitted "before the bar."

American practice does not distinguish formally between office and "trial" lawyers. A person admitted to the State Bar of Texas (by the Supreme Court of Texas, based upon either a bar exam or reciprocity) is permitted to appear in any court of the State of Texas. However, outside of small towns, most lawyers do not do both -- and, in larger firms, there is a real division of the two roles.

Federal courts require a separate admission and many require that the applicant qualify, by examination, experience, reference, etc., at least as far as knowledge of federal procedure goes.

Incidently, "solicitor" in the US is an antique term for "district attorney" and is still used in SC, NC, and other states, to refer to the chief (elected) criminal prosecutor.

[ElfNinosMom]

I'm predicting that in a few years, the nutjobs will come out with a theory that if you change your name to ALLCAPs, then you'll be immune from the FED, Income Tax, SS#, etc.

Too late, because certain factions of the nutjob contingent have already been saying that for years. They claim that your name written in upper and lower case is the strawman, over which the feds have jurisdiction; but that if you change your name to all caps, it makes you a natural (sovereign) man so the feds no longer have any jurisdiction over you. There are, of course, a number of variations on that particularly loony theory, including some who believe the exact opposite of that due to the way names are typed on court documents.

My understanding is that the one spelled in proper English represents the sovereign states made up of the sovereign people who formed a defense pact to protect their unalienable (pronounced un-a-lien-able..meaning your rights cannot be aliened or levied ) rights.

I always thought that our unalienable rights meant that we have the right to not be taken over by aliens from outer space? Damn that dog walker, now this is getting complicated.

[wserra]

Actually, according to my dictionary, the term bar is derived from Barrister,

From Wikipedia:

The use of the term bar to mean "the whole body of lawyers, the legal profession" comes ultimately from English custom. In the early 16th century, a railing divided the hall in the Inns of Court, with students occupying the body of the hall and readers or Benchers on the other side. Students who officially became lawyers crossed the symbolic physical barrier and were "admitted to the bar". Later, this was popularly assumed to mean the wooden railing marking off the area around the judge's seat in a courtroom, where prisoners stood for arraignment and where a barrister stood to plead.

This was my understanding. It may be wrong, and I personally would surely defer to Prof's knowledge of history (but maybe not to his dictionary).

[LPC]

Actually, according to my dictionary, the term bar is derived from Barrister, the English term for a person allowed to argue a case before the trial or appellate courts.

According to my dictionary, it's the other way around, and the word "barrister" is derived from the "bar" or railing used to divide the court.

And that order makes more sense to me (not that etymology needs to make sense). For "bar" to derive from "barrister," you'd then have to explain where "barrister" came from, and then conclude that the presence of an actual railing (bar) in the courtroom was a coincidence.

I should also point out that the word "bar" itself is from old French "barre," from which we also get "barrier," so the word "barrister" could have originally referred to someone who had overcome the legal and physical barrier to appearing for a client in court.

[The Observer]

And that order makes more sense to me (not that etymology needs to make sense). For "bar" to derive from "barrister," you'd then have to explain where "barrister" came from, and then conclude that the presence of an actual railing (bar) in the courtroom was a coincidence

And here all this time I thought it derived from "barista" because lawyers spent all their time and money in Starbuck's between cases.

[Prof]

Regarding "bar" and "Barrister" I should have put a question mark after the statement that my desk dictionary said "bar from barrister." That surprised me. The OED says "barrister from bar." As LPC stated, that makes more sense.

[Paul]

"Only 3/5"? Sounds like the pro-slavery movement's disappointment that their slaves only counted as 3/5. They wanted the slaves to be counted as a full person, and the anti-slavery folks didn't want to count them at all.

Actually, my point was that the constitution expressly institutionalized the notion that some people were more equal than others.