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!! ***

TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Charter

Discuss the citizen right and remedy etc.

TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Charter

Postby country_hick » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:22 pm

TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS
Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation
by Richard L. Grossman and Frank T. Adams

https://ratical.org/corporations/TCoB.html
This paper <shown in its entirety>explains how corporations have changed how government works by subverting that same government. The remedy may still theoretically exist but realistically will it ever happen?

Preface

Corporations cause harm every day. Why do their harms go unchecked? How can they dictate what we produce, how we work, what we eat, drink and breathe? How did a self-governing people let this come to pass?

Corporations were not supposed to reign in the United States.

When we look at the history of our states, we learn that citizens intentionally defined corporations through charters -- the certificates of incorporation.

In exchange for the charter, a corporation was obligated to obey all laws, to serve the common good, and to cause no harm. Early state legislators wrote charter laws and actual charters to limit corporate authority, and to ensure that when a corporation caused harm, they could revoke its charter.

During the late 19th century, corporations subverted state governments, taking our power to put charters of incorporation to the uses originally intended.

Corporations may have taken our political power but they have not taken our Constitutional sovereignty. Citizens are guaranteed sovereign authority over government officeholders. Every state still has legal authority to grant and to revoke corporate charters. Corporations, large or small, still must obey all laws, serve the common good, and cause no harm.

To exercise our sovereign authority over corporations, we must take back our political authority over our state governments.


Claiming Our Legacy

Today, in our names, state legislators give charters to individuals who want to organize businesses. Our legislators are also supposed to oversee how every corporation behaves. Corporations cannot operate -- own property, borrow money, hire and fire, manufacture or trade, sign contracts, sell stock, sue and be sued, accumulate assets or debts -- without the continued permission of state officeholders.
<snip>
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 49 time

 

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby palani » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:40 pm

In case you hadn't figured it out you were born into a corporate structure. Your BC likely states a municipality and definitely states a country. Your paper currency is a corporate coupon. You own nothing. Instead you have either use (if you are a consumer) or a usufruct (if you desire profit and gain). You participate voluntarily in this corporate universe and can step out of any time you wish but you lack the eyes to see what is happening and the education provided to you by this corporate world indoctrinated you even if you could see it.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby Tuaca1107 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:57 pm

Actually you were born as a human-being. Later you were converted to the term "Person". USC Title 1 sec 1 and USC Title 1 Sec 8.
Tuaca1107
Voluntary Servitude
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:00 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 1 time

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby palani » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:15 pm

Tuaca1107 wrote:you were converted to the term "Person".

A person is not flesh and blood. It is not even necessarily human. A person might be a country or a corporation. Anything that can be represented is a person.

Ever wonder why you can shoot any dog with practically no downside but yet you shoot a police dog and you could be jailed for life? It is because the dog is a person who occupies an official capacity.

The other way to create a person is calling yourself a citizen (that is after all an office), robbing a bank (that is an action that is frowned upon) or utter a word that casts doubt on the character of another (libel or slander).

And there you have three ways to create a person
1) word
2) action
3) representation

and this is just as Hobbes described in the 16th century.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor

palani has been thanked by:
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby Shikamaru » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:02 pm

Governments, themselves, are PUBLIC corporations.

Colonies were corporations.

The power of incorporation was granted by Kings in which to enrich their coffers and create profit streams.

Its all corporate and about profit ultimately.

Citizenship (with regard to Rome) started out as a private club, but over time evolved into increasing the revenue stream of the state through taxation.

Revenue and profit.
Shikamaru
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:56 am
Has thanked: 326 time
Have thanks: 283 time

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:30 pm

Tuaca1107 wrote:Actually you were born as a human-being. Later you were converted to the term "Person". USC Title 1 sec 1 and USC Title 1 Sec 8.

But most people have not figured out that they are no longer infants. which if they had figured that out then they would no longer fit the term person as defined in 1 USC title 1 sec.8
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"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 god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 127 time
Have thanks: 55 time

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby wealllbe20 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:06 am

"shall INCLUDE"
... 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
------
"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: 1389
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 86 time

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:49 am

Infant

noun
1.
A very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk. Synonyms: babe, baby. "She held the baby in her arms" , "It sounds simple, but when you have your own baby it is all so different
http://www.dictionaryone.com/define/infant
verb
"Shall /ʃæl/ Listen [Listen 'shall'] Shall v. i., v. (past should) (Shall is defective, having no infinitive, imperative, or participle)
1.
To owe; to be under obligation for. (Obs.) "By the faith I shall to God"
2.
To be obliged; must. (Obs.) "Me athinketh (I am sorry) that I shall rehearse it her."
3.
As an auxiliary, shall indicates a duty or necessity whose obligation is derived from the person speaking; as, you shall go; he shall go; that is, I order or promise your going. It thus ordinarily expresses, in the second and third persons, a command, a threat, or a promise. If the auxillary be emphasized, the command is made more imperative, the promise or that more positive and sure. It is also employed in the language of prophecy; as, "the day shall come when..., " since a promise or threat and an authoritative prophecy nearly coincide in significance. In shall with the first person, the necessity of the action is sometimes implied as residing elsewhere than in the speaker; as, I shall suffer; we shall see; and there is always a less distinct and positive assertion of his volition than is indicated by will. "I shall go" implies nearly a simple futurity; more exactly, a foretelling or an expectation of my going, in which, naturally enough, a certain degree of plan or intention may be included; emphasize the shall, and the event is described as certain to occur, and the expression approximates in meaning to our emphatic "I will go." In a question, the relation of speaker and source of obligation is of course transferred to the person addressed; as, "Shall you go?" (answer, "I shall go"); "Shall he go?" i. e., "Do you require or promise his going?" (answer, "He shall go".) The same relation is transferred to either second or third person in such phrases as "You say, or think, you shall go;" "He says, or thinks, he shall go." After a conditional conjunction (as if, whether) shall is used in all persons to express futurity simply; as, if I, you, or he shall say they are right. Should is everywhere used in the same connection and the same senses as shall, as its imperfect. It also expresses duty or moral obligation; as, he should do it whether he will or not. In the early English, and hence in our English Bible, shall is the auxiliary mainly used, in all the persons, to express simple futurity. (Cf. Will, v. t.) Shall may be used elliptically; thus, with an adverb or other word expressive of motion go may be omitted. "He to England shall along with you." Note: Shall and will are often confounded by inaccurate speakers and writers. Say: I shall be glad to see you. Shall I do this? Shall I help you? (not Will I do this?) See Will.
http://www.dictionaryone.com/
define/shall

Business and Professions Code - BPC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 399. )

19.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 399.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Code of Civil Procedure - CCP
PART 3. OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS OF A CIVIL NATURE [1063 - 1822.60]
( Part 3 enacted 1872. )

TITLE 7. EMINENT DOMAIN LAW [1230.010 - 1273.050]
( Title 7 repealed [comm. with Section 1237] and added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275. )

CHAPTER 2. Principles of Construction; Definitions [1235.010 - 1235.210]
( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275. )


ARTICLE 1. Construction [1235.010 - 1235.070]
( Article 1 added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275. )


1235.060.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Corporations Code - CORP
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1947, Ch. 1038. )

15.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1947, Ch. 1038.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20


Code Text
Education Code - EDC
TITLE 1 GENERAL EDUCATION CODE PROVISIONS [1. - 32500]
( Title 1 enacted by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1010. )

DIVISION 1 GENERAL EDUCATION CODE PROVISIONS [1. - 32500]
( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1010. )

PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS [1. - 446]
( Part 1 enacted by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1010. )

CHAPTER 1 General Provisions [1. - 95]
( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1010. )


ARTICLE 7. Definitions [70 - 95]
( Article 7 enacted by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1010. )


75.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1010.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20


Code Text
Education Code - EDC
TITLE 3. POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION [66000 - 101060]
( Title 3 enacted by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1010. )

DIVISION 8. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY [89000 - 90520]
( Heading of Division 8 amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 143, Sec. 87. )

PART 55. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY [89000 - 90520]
( Heading of Part 55 amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 143, Sec. 88. )

CHAPTER 8. Housing and Auxiliary Services [90000 - 90089]
( Chapter 8 enacted by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1010. )


ARTICLE 2. The State University Revenue Bond Act of 1947 [90010 - 90083]
( Heading of Article 2 amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 106, Sec. 26. )
(4) “Shall” is mandatory, and “may” is permissive.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Elections Code - ELEC
DIVISION 0.5. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS [1 - 362]
( Division 0.5 heading added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 1143, Sec. 17. )


CHAPTER 4. Definitions [300 - 362]
( Chapter 4 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )


354.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Evidence Code - EVID
DIVISION 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND CONSTRUCTION [1. - 12]
( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299. )

11.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Food and Agricultural Code - FAC
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1967, Ch. 15. )

47.

“Shall” is mandatory, and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1967, Ch. 15.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20


Code Text
Family Code - FAM
DIVISION 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS [1. - 185]
( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. )

PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS [1. - 13]
( Part 1 enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. )

12.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive. “Shall not” and “may not” are prohibitory.
(Enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. Operative January 1, 1994.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20


Code Text
Fish and Game Code - FGC
DIVISION 0.5. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS [1 - 99.5]
( Division 0.5 heading added by Stats. 1998, Ch. 1052, Sec. 2. )


CHAPTER 1 General Definitions [1. - 89.5]
( Chapter 1 heading added by Stats. 1998, Ch. 1052, Sec. 2.5. )


79.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1957, Ch. 456.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Financial Code - FIN
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1951, Ch. 364. )

15.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1951, Ch. 364.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Government Code - GOV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 134. )

14.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 134.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Harbors and Navigation Code - HNC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 368. )

16.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 368.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Health and Safety Code - HSC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )

16.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Insurance Code - INS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 145. )

16.

As used in this code the word “shall” is mandatory and the word “may” is permissive, unless otherwise apparent from the context.
(Enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 145.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Labor Code - LAB
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )

15.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Military and Veterans Code - MVC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 389. )

14.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 389.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Public Resources Code - PRC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 93. )

15.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 93.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Probate Code - PROB
DIVISION 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS [1. - 88]
( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1990, Ch. 79. )

PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS [1. - 13]
( Part 1 enacted by Stats. 1990, Ch. 79. )

12.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1990, Ch. 79.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Public Utilities Code - PUC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1951, Ch. 764. )

14.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1951, Ch. 764.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Revenue and Taxation Code - RTC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 154. )

16.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 154.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Streets and Highways Code - SHC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 29. )

16.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 29.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Unemployment Insurance Code - UIC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1953, Ch. 308. )

15.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1953, Ch. 308.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Vehicle Code - VEH
General Provisions
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

15.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20

Water Code - WAT
GENERAL PROVISIONS
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 368. )

15.

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.
(Enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 368.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ndatory%20
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"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 god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 127 time
Have thanks: 55 time

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby wealllbe20 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:24 pm

The keyword is: include

shall means must.
... 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
------
"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: 1389
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 86 time

Re: TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Citizenship & the Corporate Char

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:21 pm

[quote="wealllbe20"]The keyword is: include

shall means must.

Yep clearly,
Must include infant. That's the explanatory part.

the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual",
is what infant is explaining.So to be any of the quoted, one must be an infant.

But none of this has anything to do with me as I am neither on territory that is owned in any way by The United States of America. Nor am I a citizen of that territory/ district called The United States.(I'm not, nor was I ever eligible to be a person,even when I was an infant, as it is defined in 1USC 8:)

1 USC 8: "Person", "human being", "child", and "individual" as including born-alive infant Text contains those laws in effect on March 27, 2017
From Title 1-GENERAL PROVISIONSCHAPTER 1-RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
Jump To: Source Credit
§8. "Person", "human being", "child", and "individual" as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant member of the species **** sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species **** sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species **** sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, §2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926 .)
Emphasis mine
Last edited by Nunya_Bizness on Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"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 god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 127 time
Have thanks: 55 time

Next

Return to Citizenship & Jurisdiction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred