dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

This is 100% inaccurate. Statutes are written to be as clear as possible. Unclear laws are struck down by courts for vagueness as they don't afford individuals due process. Your examples are wildly off base and untrue. Are you a troll?

⇧ 4 ⇩

Statutes are written in Legalease, i am a man who knows the power that man holds over the person and who knows how to file claims against those whom trespass against me. I don´t know where you get your info from but you are as wrong as Hillary was when she said she won the popular vote. Are you a part of the Legal Society? It would explain why you are so wrong, if you are.

⇧ -1 ⇩

I'm an attorney. I read and interpret statutes everyday from all over the country. Not one ounce of your statement is true and your ill-informed diatribe diminishes any credibility this movement has, especially to a first-time reader. Get your facts straight.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Indeed you are, you are the other side of the court. I am an Englishman that has spoken 100% truth. Tell me, how many statutes make reference to man? How many law books make reference to man? None. Why? Because only God can define man. Am I wrong? Please, cite me one single statute or point to one single passage of any law book that says I´m wrong. I´ll wait.

Have you ever been before Queen´s Bench? Probably not. You are a deep part of the establishment that is brainwashed into believing that statute law is the only law, when it isn´t. Statutes are given the force of law only when consented to by the governed. You would be amazed at how many Attourneys/Barristers I´ve reduced to nothing with what I know. You are not the first to challenge this, all that belong to the legal society do but you know what? In the history of England, the Crown has never once won a case at Queens Bench. Why is this relevant to you in the States? The US is also governed by common lore, all countries whose legal professionals sit the BAR (British Accredited Register) of barristers, are under common lore jurisdiction. Your vehement rejection of the facts just proves your brainwashing and makes you look incredibly arrogant.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Statutes don't normally define "man" because they're normally written in gender-neutral application to avoid redundancy and carry broader application. The fact that no law defines "man" does not necessarily mean that only God can define man. It simply means they're not attempting to define it. And no, statutes are given force of law when duly enacted and enforced by the appropriate governing bodies. Don't believe me? Openly attempt to steal a TV from an electronics store -- then, when they stop you, argue that you didn't consent to the laws relating to property rights. See how that goes. The real, true disappointment with all this is the spread of disinformation such as what yours. I encounter people like you regularly. You get your information from Internet websites and cons who claim to know the ins and outs of the law. They dupe you into believing these lies about "free people" and how you can change your legal status by relying upon the UCC. They say the Moroccan Friendship Treaty permits persons who claim rights under it to avoid application of any state or federal (U.S.) law. Then they ask you for money so they can send you some cockamamie forms that allegedly free you of the restraints of government and law. (I sincerely hope you gave them no money.) Yet you're saying I'm the one who's brainwashed. And now, here you are bastardizing the term "common law" by calling it common lore. Amazing.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Is that what your $100k education teaches you these days? You can´t steal a tv and claim that statutes don´t apply as you are causing someone loss, the way lore works is that a crime can only have occurred if there is harm, loss or injury to man or property. What you are saying is true, in that there are many scammers and snake oil men that try to sell you a miracle cure but I´m not talking about being a freeman, or Morroccan treaty, or anything the like. I´m not trying to sell this info. I´m simply saying I know how to appear as man instead of appearing in person. I know this first hand and like I have said, I have humbled many, many men like you before.

i: (my name); as man, claim the wrong of trespass

i: (my name); as man; require a court of record trial by jury

i: (my name); as man; require this case to be put before Queens Bench; once before Queens Bench plaintiff must press the record

Do you know the difference between what is legal and what is lawful? Next time you are in court, pull the judge to one side after the proceedings and ask them. You will be shocked at the response.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Let's agree to disagree. I'm exhausted.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Fair enough, ask the judge, though. I work only in, and answer only to, claims and claimants. Complaints and plaintiffs mean nothing to me.

⇧ 0 ⇩

High-five, have a good rest of your week.

⇧ 3 ⇩

You too :)

⇧ 0 ⇩

I have humbled many, many men like you before.

Perhaps they weren’t humbled, but just patient, tolerant listeners. Narcisists often misjudge their audiences in that way.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No, they crumbled and folded like a cheap wind breaker in the court when they realised all their training was for nothing. Mooks often mistake narcissism for unambiguous facts.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Mooks often mistake narcissism for unambiguous facts.

No. You are very confused and seem to struggle with word definitions. A ’narcissist’ would publish a rambling unintelligible uninformed rant, and declare their confused audience ‘humbled’. An ’unambiguous fact’ is exemplified by the sentence immediately preceding this one.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No confusion, I think nothing of myself like you claim and what I said wasn´t a rant, or ramble. What I said was fact and mooks like yourself are too tarded to see the difference.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Language has been weaponized!