Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Discuss anything about life situation.

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby Shoonra » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:41 am

[url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6737752342347867888&q=heraldic&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006#[4][/url]
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 208 time

 

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby wealllbe20 » Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:22 pm

Shoonra wrote:Weallbe20:

I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the Mackovich decision. That "gold fringe" nonsense has been tried at least 20 times in reported cases, phrased up and down and sideways, and NEVER once worked. The simple fact is that courtroom decor does not affect the court's validity or authority. The gold fringe, according to the US Army's Institute of Heraldry - which is responsible for, among other things, designing the arrangement of stars in the flag when Hawaii and Alaska became states - says that the fringe has NO significance. What anyone can see for themselves is that govt - and military - buildings have un-fringed flags on the outdoor flagpoles, where the flags are made of sailcloth and wave in the wind (which would rip up a fringe), and indoors have flags with fringes (flags made of thinner fabric like silk, and the gold fringe compensates for the lack of sunlight on the flag).


The point I am making is the flag is mere evidence of admiralty jurisdiction.
If the flag doesn't exist; it's just the evidence of admiralty that doesn't exist.
The admiralty jurisdiction still does...
That is the point I am making.
The other part is, ok; so it's admiralty jurisdiction, that doesn't get your case dismissed.
It is a big who gives a crap argument.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby Shuftin » Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:01 pm

wealllbe20 wrote:
Shoonra wrote:Weallbe20:

I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the Mackovich decision. That "gold fringe" nonsense has been tried at least 20 times in reported cases, phrased up and down and sideways, and NEVER once worked. The simple fact is that courtroom decor does not affect the court's validity or authority. The gold fringe, according to the US Army's Institute of Heraldry - which is responsible for, among other things, designing the arrangement of stars in the flag when Hawaii and Alaska became states - says that the fringe has NO significance. What anyone can see for themselves is that govt - and military - buildings have un-fringed flags on the outdoor flagpoles, where the flags are made of sailcloth and wave in the wind (which would rip up a fringe), and indoors have flags with fringes (flags made of thinner fabric like silk, and the gold fringe compensates for the lack of sunlight on the flag).


The point I am making is the flag is mere evidence of admiralty jurisdiction.
If the flag doesn't exist; it's just the evidence of admiralty that doesn't exist.
The admiralty jurisdiction still does...
That is the point I am making.
The other part is, ok; so it's admiralty jurisdiction, that doesn't get your case dismissed.
It is a big who gives a crap argument.
The problem with the North American Indians is that they had no flags what-so-ever. One day foreigners landed on the North American [Eastern] beaches. These foreigners promptly walked up the beach and planted their flag.

Foreigners: This is our land because we planted our flag on it!
North American Indians: This is our land!
Foreigners: Do you have a flag?
North American Indians: NO?
Foreigners: Well----we have a flag [Planted there]. So therefore this is our land!

All I can say is, where there is smoke----there is fire. Pursuant to the flag issue.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)

The Government is the People, by the People, just not ---- YOU People. - Unknown

When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content. - Niccolo Machiavelli

The old police motto of TOprotect and servehas been replaced with YOU "comply or die.”

Better ten innocent Sheeple in jail than one guilty Person on the street! Blue Wall Of Modus Operandi
User avatar
Shuftin
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3868
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:06 am
Has thanked: 187 time
Have thanks: 374 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby snoop4truth » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:48 pm

Dear Wealllbe20,

Respectfully, there is nothing about any of my examples that is a "half truth" or "half lie".

You will note that I use ACTUAL QUOTES in my case summaries. I do this precisely to prevent claims of the type that you made here. The words within my quotation marks ARE THE WORDS OF SOMEONE ELSE (either the words of the court or the words of the litigant raising the legal defense under discussion). My own words are NOT WITHIN THESE QUOTATION MARKS, unless they are inside brackets (to show that the words or letters inside brackets are mine and not the words of the original speaker being quoted).

The phrase with which you take issue CLEARLY indicates that THE DEFENDANT'S THEORY (NOT MY THEORY) WAS THAT THE YELLOW FRING IN THE COURTROOM "makes the [court's] jurisdiction foreign". Except for the single word "[court's"] (which I added inside this quote solely for clarity), the words within the quotation marks ARE THE WORDS OF THE DEFENDANT, NOT MINE. So, THE DEFENDANT (NOT ME) THOUGHT THAT THE FLAG "MAKES THE ["COURT"S"] JURISDICTION FOREIGN".

So, I have not mislead or tricked anyone. I have not told a "half truth" or "half lie". My quote of THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS WAS PERFECTLY ACCURATE. Please read the summary again. And, pay careful attention to quotation marks and brackets (in any legal writing). Doing so will help you better understand what's being said.

As to your claim that a flag is "evidence" of jurisdiction, the courts appear to disagree with you. According to THE LAW, jurisdiction is created SOLELY (exclusively) by WRITTEN WORDS that appear on the face of the pages of the constitution and by WRITTEN WORDS that appear on the face of the pages of statutes (both of which are written by representatives of "we the people"). Flags in courtrooms CANNOT CHANGE THE WORDS APPEARING IN THOSE BOOKS. In order to change the jurisdiction of a court, representatives of "we the people" WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE WORDS THAT APPEAR IN THESE BOOKS. So, fringe on flags (and flags without fringe) EVIDENCE NOTHING IN TERMS OF A COURT"S JURISDICTION. Flags are irrelevant to the WRITTEN WORDS in those books.

I agree with your statement that presenting this "fringe on flag" argument in court "correctly" (whatever that is) WILL NOT WIN A CASE. In fact, presenting such an argument in court (correctly or not) will do nothing at all.

Respectfully, your conclusion about my list ("half-truth/half lie") is intellectually and legally flawed for the reasons set forth above.
snoop4truth
Agent In Commerce
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:01 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby snoop4truth » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:59 pm

Dear Shoonra,

You are correct that the title (case name) of case 29 is incomplete. I inadvertently omitted the defendant's name. Thanks for calling that to my attention.

Respectfully, you are incorrect about me misrepresenting the content of case 29. You will note in examining the format of my case list, that every few cases, there is as NEW subject being discussed UNDER A NEW SUBTITLE NAME. For example, if you look between case number 15 and 16 of the list, you will note a NEW SUBTITLE there that reads "YELLOW (OR GOLD) FRINGE ON FLAG" THEORY in all capital letters. All of the cases that appear below that new subtitle (including case 29) address that particular subject. So, I placed case 29 (about which you take issue) under the subtitle of "YELLOW (OR GOLD) FRINGE ON FLAG" THEORY for the reason that case 29 addressed the subject of "YELLOW (OR GOLD) FRINGE ON FLAG" THEORY. I NEVER represented anywhere on my list that case 29 addressed ALL OF THE OTHER SUBJECTS UNDER OTHER SUBTITLES (other cases under those subtitles do that).

I agree with you that case 29 ALSO addresses subjects other than just "YELLOW (OR GOLD) FRINGE ON FLAG" THEORY. This is because, generally speaking, people who believe that flags can change the words appearing in the constitution or in statutes (as to jurisdiction) also believe in other false claims about the law and the legal system (capital letters theory, strawman theory, etc.).

The reason that I cited these cases in the first place is because I WANT PEOPLE TO LOOK UP AND READ THE LAW THEMSELVES. THIS IS THE ONE (AND ONLY) WAY TO BE CERTAIN ABOUT THE CORRECT STATUS OF THE LAW. READ IT YOURSELF. NEVER RELY ON A MIDDLEMAN TO TELL YOU WHAT THE LAW IS. Too many middlemen have an agenda other than telling the truth.

There is a very specific reason why I cited the cases IN THE MANNER THAT I DID (whether "unnecessarily verbose", or otherwise). I explained this reason in the fourth paragraph at the top of my case list. Please review it.

I am trying to help ordinary people, not lawyers. Ordinary people do not have access to law libraries or to lawyer databases. But, ordinary people do have access to Google Scholar, a FREE online case law database. The overwhelming majority of cases that I cited on my list ARE NOT EVEN REPORTED by West Publishing or Westlaw online. So, if an ordinary person went to Google Scholar and keyed in the standard legal form of citation (case name, volume number, abbreviated West Publishing Company reporter, page number, abbreviated court name and year date), NOTHING WOULD COME UP AT ALL. So, I consciously decided to cite the cases on my list here in such a way that if an ordinary person simply went to Google Scholar and simply keyed in the information that I provided to them in my citations (party names, whole case numbers, whole court names and whole dates), THE CORRECT CASE WOULD ACTUALLY COME UP. Thus, in citing the cases on my list, I simply specified THE SAME WORDS, NUMBERS AND LETTERS THAT GOOGLE SCHOLAR ITSELF USES WHEN IT CITES THE SAME CASE.

I know the correct way to cite a case. I actually taught legal research and writing to law students in law school. But, I am not trying to impress anyone with what I know about the correct form of citation. That is irrelevant. I am trying to help ordinary people find the law for themselves. If that means doing things in a different way than lawyers and judges do it, then so be it.

And, thank you for your kind words.
snoop4truth
Agent In Commerce
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:01 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby wealllbe20 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:11 pm

snoop4truth wrote:Dear Wealllbe20,
AS PERFECTLY ACCURATE. Please read the summary again. And, pay careful attention to quotation marks and brackets (in any legal writing). Doing so will help you better understand what's being said.

As to your claim that a flag is "evidence" of jurisdiction, the courts appear to disagree with you. According to THE LAW, jurisdiction is created SOLELY (exclusively) by WRITTEN WORDS that appear on the face of the pages of the constitution and by WRITTEN WORDS that appear on the face of the pages of statutes (both of which are written by representatives of "we the people") Flags in courtrooms CANNOT CHANGE THE WORDS APPEARING IN THOSE BOOKS.

In order to change the jurisdiction of a court, representatives of "we the people" WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE WORDS THAT APPEAR IN THESE BOOKS. So, fringe on flags (and flags without fringe) EVIDENCE NOTHING IN TERMS OF A COURT"S JURISDICTION. Flags are irrelevant to the WRITTEN WORDS in those books.

I agree with your statement that presenting this "fringe on flag" argument in court "correctly" (whatever that is) WILL NOT WIN A CASE. In fact, presenting such an argument in court (correctly or not) will do nothing at all.

Respectfully, your conclusion about my list ("half-truth/half lie") is intellectually and legally flawed for the reasons set forth above.


I will address this only for the sake of making this short and sweet.

Flags are just the mere evidence.
They don't create the jurisdiction.
The words of congress as well as seasoned judges would indicate we are in admiralty.
notice those cases are not saying that we aren't in admiralty.
All those cases are saying is that the flag does not change the jurisdiction of the court.....

AKA half-truth's and half lies..
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby snoop4truth » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:24 pm

Dear Wealllbe20,

Do you have a cite to a case (or cases) that you believe supports the proposition that flags are evidence of jurisdiction?
Do you have a cite to a case (or cases) that you believe supports the proposition that we are in admiralty?

Why not simply post the legal documents to which you refer here (or cite them here)?

Perhaps I should make a list of cases addressing these two propositions and post them here. What do you think?
snoop4truth
Agent In Commerce
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:01 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby wealllbe20 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:49 pm

The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 558 558 (1874)

Annotation 15 - Article III

But, this doesn't prove what you are looking for.
Unless you understand other things.

Lots of things to elaborate on, that have already been discussed on this forum.

Look around.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby wealllbe20 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:10 pm

Update:

now take those.

with this post http://www.suijurisforum.com/3-indisputable-tests-as-to-admiralty-jurisdiction-t5834.html#p52193

along with this: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s63.html DeLovio v. Boit

Then look up what social security is you will see it's an insurance policy.

What are you in?
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: How To Kill Off The Straw-Man?

Postby snoop4truth » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:37 am

Dear wealllbe20,

Thanks for your timely response to my inquiry about case law that you believe supports the proposition that we are in admiralty (jurisdiction). I was hoping to read something definite and unequivocal on this subject in the case law that you posted. But, I was unable to find anything definite and unequivocal in that case law.

I began my research into admiralty jurisdiction this weekend. I reached this conclusion. The law does not generally serve to disprove the existence of jurisdiction that is not there. The law tends to only prove the existence of jurisdiction that is there. So, my research on this subject was difficult. But, I located a sufficient number of decisions on Google Scholar that define the limits of admiralty jurisdiction. I will post my results when I get the time.
snoop4truth
Agent In Commerce
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:01 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 time

PreviousNext

Return to Living and Survival

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred