Marcus the ex-lawyer reveals the ServantKing

[arayder]

Said theory being neither new nor original.

By the time the average freeman/sovcit gets around to turning in his driver's license and disclaiming his birth certificate he's already drunk the woo koolaid.

So when he stands in front of a judge, claiming to have given up his "slave status" it doesn't sink into his head that the court doesn't need either document to establish jurisdiction over him.

All that is left for the freeman guru, who got the poor gullible in trouble in the first place to do is to sell hime another line of BS about the the judge's oath or some such thing just to keep the woo flowing. Sometimes the gullible freeman is told he's discovered how the courts really work and as such is sooooo dangerous to the powers that be that the court was forced to railroad him.

The guru correctly figures that the poor dupe would rather be a brave warrior lost in battle then what he is. . .an ignorant, impressionable fool who can't figure out how the law and the courts work.

The notable exception to this scenario is that of Brian Alexander who has recently taken Robert Menard to task for the bad legal advice he gave out.

---------
Dope Clock: It has been 23 days since Robert Menard promised to bring legal actions to secure precedent setting judgments. So far there is no documentation of a single legal action by Menard.

[Hallow]

The theory in some circles is that having a birth certificate means the state owns you and hence you are a slave. It is thought that this ownership is evidenced by the jurisdiction and power of the courts.

Of course that's all horse crap.

The governments of western democracies receive their authority through the powers granted them, by the people, in their constitutions. It's just that simple.

I think the people of which I speak have confused the the "nanny state" with the "slave state". In many part of the western world the various governments go out of their way yo to see to it we are safe, sound and acting properly. . wearing seat belts. . .driving slowly. . parking in the proper place. . .not littering. . .not drunk. . .not playing music too loud. . .and on and on.

Of course none of this nanniness means we are slaves. We have the power, unlike slaves, to un-nanny our communities any time we want. Here in the states many communities with stubborn, independent streaks have wiped needless nanny laws off the books and have sent packing the officials who enacted them.

It have been my observation that communities which seem to like such nanny laws are crowded and hence see the need to control so many accepts of human behavior. Often tourist towns which are crowded during peak seasons enact laws to control visitor who have no stake in the town and hence wouldn't mind parking on lawns and peeing on somebody's bushes after they have had a few too many brews.

Quite right the government of the day obtains its authority from the will of the people, those who vote, and then use that power granted by the voters to govern the voters according to the laws and customs of the voters. A presumption is everyone is born in i.e. Canada, a corporation created by an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html, and thus their allegiance is to Queen and country. For most people that is true as confirmed by their actions, what they say and do. An obvious question comes to mind. How can one be born in a corporation? And this corporation by the way, as in the U.S.A. is run, as stated by a lawyer on 60 Minutes, by lawyers as are its citizens. Lawyers draft the laws and lawyers defend for the sole purpose of financial benefit and gain. And people are considered property belonging to the corporation as evidenced by a court case in British Columbia. The pig farmer. They found 27 dead female bodies on his farm yet he was charged with 26 murders. One was dropped because they could not identify the body in a legal sense (no legal identification). So ya, people are slaves because they choose to be i.e. by identifying self by a legal name or document, or have been tricked. And you are quite right the absence of a birth certificate does not stop them in court from proceeding with a claim against one. The question is, what will one who does not wish to be subject to these corporate rules, a.k.a. laws, do about it? There is not one single solitary Act of government a.k.a. law, that contains the word man or woman. If all laws apply to all men and women then why the absence of the mention of men and women in the Acts, laws, rules, regulations? As much as it can be said we cannot allow man or woman to rape, murder and plunder, neither can we allow lawyers to do exactly that. The creator of man and the earth has written laws and judgements for his children and the lawyers laws for those employed by the corporation, CANADA, U.S.A. etc.

[Hallow]

What is happening now is some people are catching on to s. 279.01 (1) - 279.04 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, Trafficking in Persons. The Department of Justice put out a manual for the criminal practitioner re Trafficking in Persons.
Now don't be fooled by the common understanding of what trafficking in persons is. It is exactly what lawyers do to every so called citizen of every country that is party to the UNTOC Convention. See also UNODC Modules, in particular Module 13.

Lawyers were known by the Colonists as vermin, parasites.

[AndyK]

Quite right the government of the day obtains its authority from the will of the people, those who vote, and then use that power granted by the voters to govern the voters according to the laws and customs of the voters. A presumption is everyone is born in i.e. Canada, a corporation

And here we start our journey into Wonderland. That is, if we accept that the 'corpration' allegation is accurate. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. Neither the government of the United States nor that of Canada is a corporation. Hallow did post a link to what he presumes establishes the corporation. Unfortunately, we don't do his research for him so the link remains unread. Hallow needs to quote the law AND explain how it establishes the corporation. Until then, his comments remain in the extremely absurd and funny subdivision of Lala Land.

created by an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html, and thus their allegiance is to Queen and country. For most people that is true as confirmed by their actions, what they say and do. An obvious question comes to mind. How can one be born in a corporation? And this corporation by the way, as in the U.S.A. is run, as stated by a lawyer on 60 Minutes, by lawyers as are its citizens. Lawyers draft the laws and lawyers defend for the sole purpose of financial benefit and gain. And people are considered property belonging to the corporation as evidenced by a court case in British Columbia. The pig farmer. They found 27 dead female bodies on his farm yet he was charged with 26 murders. One was dropped because they could not identify the body in a legal sense (no legal identification). So ya, people are slaves because they choose to be i.e. by identifying self by a legal name or document, or have been tricked. And you are quite right the absence of a birth certificate does not stop them in court from proceeding with a claim against one. The question is, what will one who does not wish to be subject to these corporate rules, a.k.a. laws, do about it? There is not one single solitary Act of government a.k.a. law, that contains the word man or woman. If all laws apply to all men and women then why the absence of the mention of men and women in the Acts, laws, rules, regulations? As much as it can be said we cannot allow man or woman to rape, murder and plunder, neither can we allow lawyers to do exactly that. The creator of man and the earth has written laws and judgements for his children and the lawyers laws for those employed by the corporation, CANADA, U.S.A. etc.

And finally an invocation of religious law. Unfortunately, there was no clear specification of which Creator is in charge so we can close with a heart-felt RAMEN.

[arayder]

Nations are nations and as such have greater power and authority than mere corporations, or businesses.

Nations are formed by the people who help to create and eventually ratify Constitutions which grant authority to Congresses and Parliaments. The bug man, the car manufacturing plant, department store the down the street have no such power.

This granted authority states the powers given to the governments of the western democracies. If one bothers to do a little reading one can see that governments attempt to extend their authority by using the elastic clauses of their constitutions, not by making citizens into slaves. These clauses give congresses and parliaments the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated lists of powers. By stretching the practical application of these "elastic clauses" legislatures are not limited solely to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, but extended to the implied implied powers necesssary to make laws needed to ensure that the expressed, enumerated powers can be carried out.

Hallow, maybe you can answer the questions no freeman/sovcit has ever been able to answer:

How did the governments of the western democracies gain their authority in the time when births were recorded only in family Bibles?

How is it freemen never win when they stand up in court and deny the court's authority?

I believe the answer is clear. The Constitutions grants their legislatures, courts and police the power to make and enforce binding law, provided the laws comport with the Constitution. These laws apply to citizens, foreign visitors, tourists and even misguided freemen who have convinced themselves they can opt out.

Birth Certificates and freeman theory have nothing to do with it.

But, I will grant you that the system is packed with lawyers and ignored by the many blissfully ignorant domesticated among us.

[LordEd]

They found 27 dead female bodies on his farm yet he was charged with 26 murders. One was dropped because they could not identify the body in a legal sense (no legal identification). So ya, people are slaves because they choose to be i.e. by identifying self by a legal name or document, or have been tricked.

Pickton murders on Wikipedia:

On May 26, 2005, 12 more charges were laid against him for the killings of Cara Ellis, Andrea Borhaven, Debra Lynne Jones, Marnie Frey, Tiffany Drew, Kerry Koski, Sarah de Vries, Cynthia Feliks, Angela Jardine, Wendy Crawford, Diana Melnick, and Jane Doe (unidentified woman) bringing the total number of first-degree murder charges to 27.

[Burnaby49]

They found 27 dead female bodies on his farm yet he was charged with 26 murders. One was dropped because they could not identify the body in a legal sense (no legal identification). So ya, people are slaves because they choose to be i.e. by identifying self by a legal name or document, or have been tricked.

Pickton murders on Wikipedia:

On May 26, 2005, 12 more charges were laid against him for the killings of Cara Ellis, Andrea Borhaven, Debra Lynne Jones, Marnie Frey, Tiffany Drew, Kerry Koski, Sarah de Vries, Cynthia Feliks, Angela Jardine, Wendy Crawford, Diana Melnick, and Jane Doe (unidentified woman) bringing the total number of first-degree murder charges to 27.

Damn it LordEd, I wish that you'd stop that. Putting facts up to refute misrepresentations isn't playing fair.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Hallow wrote:

One was dropped because they could not identify the body in a legal sense (no legal identification).

Please provide verifiable evidence that proves the reason this specific charge was dropped was because the body could not be identified.

[LordEd]

How about verifiable evidence Jane Doe was dropped for other reasons? I found Jane doe was actually dropped as a charge: http://canlii.ca/t/2cgtg

It was disallowed because it was not fully proven that this body was related due to distance from the house and was different in the tool used.

[grixit]

The SerpentKing would have figured that one out.

[LordEd]

Damn it LordEd, I wish that you'd stop that. Putting facts up to refute misrepresentations isn't playing fair.

Need to contribute something occasionally other than sarcasm. The first one was a bit off point but the canlii link clears that up.

[Hallow]

I did not say Canada and the provinces are corporations, the supreme court judges discussed it during an 1881 matter before that court.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/en/d/s ... 1881-11-14

Quotes from that case

"It is to be observed, in the first place, that the new legislative authority for the dominion is declared to be a “Parliament”—it was only a “Legislative Council and Assembly” before—and the “Queen” is eo nomine declared to be a part of that Parliament. It “consists” of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. But she is not a part of any other corporation or legislative body under that act".

"Were these powers of the provinces revoked by the federal compact which became the B.N.A. Act? On the contrary the old provinces preserved their corporate identity under confederation. A distinction must here be made between the former province of Canada and the other provinces, as those of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which entered into the federal compact under their old corporate names".

"and can it be said that they have become new corporations"?

"and vests it in the Dominion and the provinces respectively as corporations capable of holding property"

"the Act [BNA Act] deals with, not with the legal estate in such properties, divesting the Crown thereof and transferring the legal estate in some to the provinces and in some to the Dominion as corporations"

"vested in the provinces as corporations"

Then there is,

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/en/d/s ... 1979-12-21+

Further, although s. 91(1) gave the Queen the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, to alter the “Constitution of Canada” except in certain expressly designated areas, it does not confer a power to amend the B.N.A. Act. The word “Canada” in s. 91(1) does not refer to Canada as a geographical unit but refers to the juristic federal unit. “Constitution of Canada” does not mean the whole of the British North America Act, but means the constitution of the federal government, as distinct from the provincial governments.

[Hallow]

Nations are nations and as such have greater power and authority than mere corporations, or businesses.

Nations are formed by the people who help to create and eventually ratify Constitutions which grant authority to Congresses and Parliaments. The bug man, the car manufacturing plant, department store the down the street have no such power.

This granted authority states the powers given to the governments of the western democracies. If one bothers to do a little reading one can see that governments attempt to extend their authority by using the elastic clauses of their constitutions, not by making citizens into slaves. These clauses give congresses and parliaments the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated lists of powers. By stretching the practical application of these "elastic clauses" legislatures are not limited solely to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, but extended to the implied implied powers necesssary to make laws needed to ensure that the expressed, enumerated powers can be carried out.

Hallow, maybe you can answer the questions no freeman/sovcit has ever been able to answer:

How did the governments of the western democracies gain their authority in the time when births were recorded only in family Bibles?

How is it freemen never win when they stand up in court and deny the court's authority?

I believe the answer is clear. The Constitutions grants their legislatures, courts and police the power to make and enforce binding law, provided the laws comport with the Constitution. These laws apply to citizens, foreign visitors, tourists and even misguided freemen who have convinced themselves they can opt out.

Birth Certificates and freeman theory have nothing to do with it.

But, I will grant you that the system is packed with lawyers and ignored by the many blissfully ignorant domesticated among us.

How did the governments of the western democracies gain their authority in the time when births were recorded only in family Bibles? THEY WERE ALSO ENTERED ON THE CRADLE ROLL BUT THAT IS NIETHER HERE NOR THERE. QUESTION IS, WHY ARE BIRTHS REGISTERED WITH THE STATE, NOW, AND WHY ARE BIRTH CERTIFICATEs ISSUED, NOW? DO YOU USE THE NAME YOUR MOMMY AND DADDY GAVE YOU OR THE ONE THE STATE GRANTED YOU? I can answer that for you. The one the state granted you. You beggars you.

Vital Statistics Act.....Who may obtain certificates

Birth certificate

44. (1) Upon application and upon payment of the required fee, any person who furnishes substantially accurate particulars, and satisfies the Registrar General as to the person’s reason for requiring it, may obtain from the Registrar General a birth certificate in respect of any birth of which there is a registration in his or her office. R.S.O. 1990, c. V.4, s. 44 (1); 1998, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 299 (1).

How is it freemen never win when they stand up in court and deny the court's authority? I KNOW NOTHING OF FREEMEN. EVERYONE IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW SO HOW CAN THERE BE FREE-MEN?

[Hallow]

How about verifiable evidence Jane Doe was dropped for other reasons? I found Jane doe was actually dropped as a charge: http://canlii.ca/t/2cgtg

It was disallowed because it was not fully proven that this body was related due to distance from the house and was different in the tool used.

How convenient.............

[Hallow]

The theory in some circles is that having a birth certificate means the state owns you and hence you are a slave. It is thought that this ownership is evidenced by the jurisdiction and power of the courts.

Of course that's all horse crap.

The governments of western democracies receive their authority through the powers granted them, by the people, in their constitutions. It's just that simple.

I think the people of which I speak have confused the the "nanny state" with the "slave state". In many part of the western world the various governments go out of their way yo to see to it we are safe, sound and acting properly. . wearing seat belts. . .driving slowly. . parking in the proper place. . .not littering. . .not drunk. . .not playing music too loud. . .and on and on.

Of course none of this nanniness means we are slaves. We have the power, unlike slaves, to un-nanny our communities any time we want. Here in the states many communities with stubborn, independent streaks have wiped needless nanny laws off the books and have sent packing the officials who enacted them.

It have been my observation that communities which seem to like such nanny laws are crowded and hence see the need to control so many accepts of human behavior. Often tourist towns which are crowded during peak seasons enact laws to control visitor who have no stake in the town and hence wouldn't mind parking on lawns and peeing on somebody's bushes after they have had a few too many brews.

Quite right the government of the day obtains its authority from the will of the people, those who vote, and then use that power granted by the voters to govern the voters according to the laws and customs of the voters. A presumption is everyone is born in i.e. Canada, a corporation created by an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html, and thus their allegiance is to Queen and country. For most people that is true as confirmed by their actions, what they say and do. An obvious question comes to mind. How can one be born in a corporation? And this corporation by the way, as in the U.S.A. is run, as stated by a lawyer on 60 Minutes, by lawyers as are its citizens. Lawyers draft the laws and lawyers defend for the sole purpose of financial benefit and gain. And people are considered property belonging to the corporation as evidenced by a court case in British Columbia. The pig farmer. They found 27 dead female bodies on his farm yet he was charged with 26 murders. One was dropped because they could not identify the body in a legal sense (no legal identification). So ya, people are slaves because they choose to be i.e. by identifying self by a legal name or document, or have been tricked. And you are quite right the absence of a birth certificate does not stop them in court from proceeding with a claim against one. The question is, what will one who does not wish to be subject to these corporate rules, a.k.a. laws, do about it? There is not one single solitary Act of government a.k.a. law, that contains the word man or woman. If all laws apply to all men and women then why the absence of the mention of men and women in the Acts, laws, rules, regulations? As much as it can be said we cannot allow man or woman to rape, murder and plunder, neither can we allow lawyers to do exactly that. The creator of man and the earth has written laws and judgements for his children and the lawyers laws for those employed by the corporation, CANADA, U.S.A. etc.

Darn right it is a load of crap to suggest if one has a birth certificate the government owns you. The real insanity is people present a birth certificate and say, yup, that is me.

[rumpelstilzchen]

How about verifiable evidence Jane Doe was dropped for other reasons? I found Jane doe was actually dropped as a charge: http://canlii.ca/t/2cgtg

It was disallowed because it was not fully proven that this body was related due to distance from the house and was different in the tool used.

How convenient.............

It makes more sense than your claim that the charge was dropped because the body could not be identified.
Still waiting for your evidence...............

[Hallow]

Nations are nations and as such have greater power and authority than mere corporations, or businesses.

Nations are formed by the people who help to create and eventually ratify Constitutions which grant authority to Congresses and Parliaments. The bug man, the car manufacturing plant, department store the down the street have no such power. CORRECT, BECAUSE THOSE ENTITIES ARE NOT THE MOTHER CORPORATION. EVERYONE ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES REGISTERED WITH THE MOTHER CORPORATION AND MOTHER ISSUED BIRTH CERTIFICATES. SORRY, I MEAN CERTIFICATES OF INCORPORATION.

This granted authority states the powers given to the governments of the western democracies. If one bothers to do a little reading one can see that governments attempt to extend their authority by using the elastic clauses of their constitutions, not by making citizens into slaves. These clauses give congresses and parliaments the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated lists of powers. By stretching the practical application of these "elastic clauses" legislatures are not limited solely to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, but extended to the implied implied powers necesssary to make laws needed to ensure that the expressed, enumerated powers can be carried out.

Hallow, maybe you can answer the questions no freeman/sovcit has ever been able to answer:

How did the governments of the western democracies gain their authority in the time when births were recorded only in family Bibles?

How is it freemen never win when they stand up in court and deny the court's authority?

I believe the answer is clear. The Constitutions grants their legislatures, courts and police the power to make and enforce binding law, provided the laws comport with the Constitution. These laws apply to citizens, foreign visitors, tourists and even misguided freemen who have convinced themselves they can opt out.

Birth Certificates and freeman theory have nothing to do with it.

But, I will grant you that the system is packed with lawyers and ignored by the many blissfully ignorant domesticated among us.

[Hallow]

How about verifiable evidence Jane Doe was dropped for other reasons? I found Jane doe was actually dropped as a charge: http://canlii.ca/t/2cgtg

It was disallowed because it was not fully proven that this body was related due to distance from the house and was different in the tool used.

How convenient.............

It makes more sense than your claim that the charge was dropped because the body could not be identified.
Still waiting for your evidence...............

[rumpelstilzchen]

Hallow you quoted my post but did not respond at all. What was the point of that?

[LordEd]

How convenient.............

Very. Thank you for making a verifiably false statement and treating it as though it was fact. It makes convicting you of Freeman idiocy in the court of Quatloos that much easier.

What else have you used as a false fact to support your claim? Why trust anything you say without link and quote to go with it?

That's why I link and quote. In school it was called 'show your work'.

Go back to your shepherd Freeman sheep. Go find out what you're supposed to say when your facts are proved fiction.

Baa baa.

Edit: phone autocorrect