Dean Kory - A Study in Free Living

[Arthur Rubin]

Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 – 2000, The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government.

Not bad -- as creative writing. The word "Sovereign" does not appear in the opinion.

is a summation [expletive deleted]

Is the summation by people with no credibility, even within the Sovereign community.

[theSovereign1]

its actually from a retired judge...i bet that just burns you up...one of your own revealing your FRAUD for what it is?

are you willing to show us where he is wrong...or ya gonna just flap yer gums and whistle dixy?

so far the only one in this discussion with no credibility is you....as you can't seem to back up your claims!

[Arthur Rubin]

its actually from a retired judge...

Retired while under impeachment proceedings, no doubt.

By the way, could you learn to use your shift key and reasonable punctuation. It's not easy to read your posts to determine alleged content. I already deleted one or two as not having any content.

[theSovereign1]

again another assumption bordering on libel...and again no basis for your argument. Sad and pathetic. Seems like you are full of shit. and you judge credibility when you have none of your own.

oh and i see you use weak excuses to delete things that don't correspond with your pre-conceved notions...why? cuz you can't come up with an intelligent response is my guess. I didn't know we were in the grammar police state here...i thought it was an informal forum for discussion? apparently you can not exert control in your household so you have to come here to have any kind of authority...lmao!

watch out everyone its the grammar police! there coming to take you away haha hehe

[Arthur Rubin]

Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 – 2000, The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. The court went on to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions. [damaged citations removed]

What are the implications of this 2000, U. S. Supreme Court ruling?

Very little. SCOTUS found that feeling a piece of luggage was a search. Nothing more, nothing less. No "Sovereign", no "personally liable".

Perhaps your sovrun website was discussing a different case?

[theSovereign1]

again it was a summation of the principals mentioned in the case you moron...is that the extent of your reasoning skills...really?

I mean just because you couldn't come up with a logical summation and inference to a case doesn't mean we are ALL that daft!

[Arthur Rubin]

again another assumption bordering on libel...and again no basis for your argument. Sad and pathetic.

Actually, you're right. I shouldn't have said that -- however, the fact that less than half of the summary is potentially related to the actual case should be taken into account, even if it weren't completely absurd and contrary to law in all jurisdictions.

Even if it were a correct summary, it is a US case, and we are talking about Canadian law. As the real summary shows the 4th Amendment plays a major part in the case, there is absolutely no reason to believe the ruling is relevant in Canada.

[Arthur Rubin]

again it was a summation of the principals mentioned in the case

Now that is daft. It's a summation of principles, but they're not mentioned in the case.

[theSovereign1]

again another assumption bordering on libel...and again no basis for your argument. Sad and pathetic.

Actually, you're right. I shouldn't have said that -- however, the fact that less than half of the summary is potentially related to the actual case should be taken into account, even if it weren't completely absurd and contrary to law in all jurisdictions.

Even if it were a correct summary, it is a US case, and we are talking about Canadian law. As the real summary shows the 4th Amendment plays a major part in the case, there is absolutely no reason to believe the ruling is relevant in Canada.

that sounds like a bold claim care to back that up? how is the principals of freedom contrary to law in all jurisdictions..when the corporate fiction of canada was founded on the same principals? It is principals recognized in every claimed "free society" silly fker. If i really cared what you thought i could go find the canadian equivalent i am sure.

its basic fundamental principals of law you dolt...men and women are sovereign in their own capacity and CREATE governments to ensure that the sovereignty of the individual is protected. dumbass.

and also the rest is on par with truth as well...people do not like it when fictional corporations masqurade as public entities and abuse the rules set out for those institutions...and in fact its called FRAUD and could be construed as breach of public trust and piracy and impersonation as well as treason!

[Hanslune]

.and in fact its called FRAUD and could be construed as breach of public trust and piracy and impersonation as well as treason!

Well if you are into US law (enemies foreign and domestic) and you think the government of Canada is a fraud why are you not in armed rebellion against it?

Please explain.

[Burnaby49]

Well if you are into US law (enemies foreign and domestic) and you think the government of Canada is a fraud why are you not in armed rebellion against it?

Please explain.

Don't encourage him. He seems on the edge of losing it. He's posted a two hour wave of pure craziness. Why us? We're clearly in no way sympathetic. Is it because nobody else will let him post?

[Hanslune]

Well if you are into US law (enemies foreign and domestic) and you think the government of Canada is a fraud why are you not in armed rebellion against it?

Please explain.

Don't encourage him. He seems on the edge of losing it. He's posted a two hour wave of pure craziness. Why us? We're clearly in no way sympathetic. Is it because nobody else will let him post?

Just giving him more rope the gentleman seems to be trying a form of legal gibberish Gish Gallop - that or he's trying desperately to be banned so he can claim he was 'silenced'.

Comedy gold too!

[Burnaby49]

Banned? Are you insane? Allen wants to be a new guru who replaces the old discredited burnt-out lags like Menard, Belanger, and Clifford. What better way for us to reveal that he too has nothing to offer but self-destructive craziness than to allow him to post here? Granted he is getting out of hand, cluttering up discussions with cut and paste gibberish totally unrelated to the discussion topics, but that can be easily remedied. No doubt we mods will get around to discussing him and we might well do a purge of some of his posting in a big delete binge just to tidy things up. No idea at the moment, that posting storm hit so quick it caught us off-guard. But, at least for the moment, I'm letting him go to it.

How'd all those tacit agreements work out Allan? Collected your millions yet? You seemed so happy, carefree and confident in that video. It must have worked out well for you.

[notorial dissent]

I think our boy has already gone 'round the bend as they say. If he is trying to prove his cops for being the next Canadian High Guru of jibber jabber, doing it by quoting, and badly, American law and equally bad text is certainly not the way to do it. I mean we all know that the UCC is paramount in Canadian law, but two century old US Supreme Court decisions???? I mean really!! Actually I think he's kind of cute and quaint in a shouty, desperate, petulant desperate sort of way.

[theSovereign1]

I am quoting US law because its superior and I am showing principals of law...i get it that you all are not equipped to reason and think critically and extract the underlying principals...but you don't have to make it so obvious! If you think shelflife has anything to do how law is applied then i guess we should throw out the Bible?

I also notice none of you can rebut anything i have claimed with anything but wild accusations and hearsay....pretty much ad hominum attacks. This shows you have no way to rebut and have to resort to slander to feel like you have any valid arguments....lmao what a bunch of morons you are....no wonder you all come here to spew your bullshit...cuz nobody else anywhere would take you seriously. Kinda sad considering some of you have been afforded a monicome of authority and you are to stupid to wield it properly.

ooop there it is again...grammar police! watch out cuz if you don't spell a word like they have been taught to perceive it somehow that make one not credible...oh no OMG what shall I ever do the quatloo creepers don't like my grammar I shall never sleep again!

[theSovereign1]

Well if you are into US law (enemies foreign and domestic) and you think the government of Canada is a fraud why are you not in armed rebellion against it?

Please explain.

Don't encourage him. He seems on the edge of losing it. He's posted a two hour wave of pure craziness. Why us? We're clearly in no way sympathetic. Is it because nobody else will let him post?

just so yo know your borders and countries are FICTION OF LAW and do not really exist...so you believing there is some difference in FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPALS OF LAW between fictional corporations pretty much shows your incompetence....can one be in an imaginary abstract idea? really? you are completely insane looks like to me....you believe you live in a political FICTION!!! hahahaha

[LordEd]

So to support your fiction of law theory, you cite law created by a fiction of law for a fiction in law.

Self invalidating theory. Santa Claus doesnt exists because the easter bunny said so.

Thanks for playing. Try again.

[theSovereign1]

Well if you are into US law (enemies foreign and domestic) and you think the government of Canada is a fraud why are you not in armed rebellion against it?

Please explain.

Don't encourage him. He seems on the edge of losing it. He's posted a two hour wave of pure craziness. Why us? We're clearly in no way sympathetic. Is it because nobody else will let him post?

"on the edge of loosing it" hmmm thats quite the assumption..why would you say that cuz you can't rebut my statements with anything but slander and ad hominum? not sure how posting principals of law to educate unruly and ignorant PUBLIC SERVANTS is "loosing it"?

[LordEd]

No need. You self rebut.

[theSovereign1]

So to support your fiction of law theory, you cite law created by a fiction of law for a fiction in law.

Self invalidating theory. Santa Claus doesnt exists because the easter bunny said so.

Thanks for playing. Try again.

I cite some case-law because it shows the underlying principals and most people like the morons on this forum cant seem to think critically and need case-law in order to feel like they have some substance to relate to...i can use maxims if you like but alas most idiots like you ed seem to not comprehend that maxims are accepted points of law that have already been deliberated on for many centuries and found to be fundamental truths....you guys are just not ready for that yet.