Sir Humphrey, is that you?
You are asked the direct question “Inasmuch as it seems to me that you feel we are using the term incorrectly, what term would you use to describe these two phenomena?” In what possible way is “For your purpose you can use the meaning of the word to mean “over” and “under” as it suits whatever purpose you have in mind.” a response to this question?? You have been asked to describe two phenomena-what “word” are you talking about?
I propose the thread become a clearing house for funny anecdotes about SovCits and FOTLs. The OP has run its course, indeed circled around and run it repeatedly.
Or Humpty Dumpty.
Really? from your link to Elliot’s Debates:
Sorry. You do not get to re-write history for your own convenience.
The above is a list of the dates referenced by your article in the order in which they appear. There is no indication that the references are to separate conventions carried out a year apart. Your link indicates an assembly that occurred in September and October of 1774 and your anti-slave trade, (not anti-slavery) clause was inserted in that period according to your source. Your citation describes a single convention conducted over two calendar months in 1774.
Trying to re-write history only works when there is no evidence that you are making the change. It always fails when you contradict your own citations.
I wonder if his definition of “debate” intersects with our reality in any significant way.
I am not sure that his definitions of food, water, or air intersect with reality in any way, at all.
Why do you capitalize the word “BAR”?
Reminds me of a FOTL (“kay jay”) who posted his encounter with police on youtube. The cops were unamused and unimpressed and ended up hauling him out of his car. Before that, though, he was oddly (seemingly randomly) evasive about giving the first officer his birthdate. He would admit to the year and month but not the day, because he “was not conscious” of it. For some reason, this irked me:
Bryan: How do you know where you were born? Were you conscious at the time and able to read maps?
kay jay: because there is proof of where i was born… there is proof i was born in july, there is proof of the year i was born in, but the day is in question because of the time, there is no way to actually know.
Bryan: Proof like… your birth certificate? I thought that was just your strawman. Anyway, if you were born in a hospital, there’s probably a record of the time of your birth (assuming you can trust such records and not attribute them to an act of fraud). I don’t get why you’re certain of the month and place of your birth (details you were not “conscious” to) while being coy about the date. I share the cop’s amusement at the selectivity of your beliefs.
kay jay: no, proof like pictures with dates, family members presence. hospital records are not absolute, i am not saying that they are wrong, i just have no way to confirm how accurate they are, time and day is quite specific, i cant claim to know what is was when there is not hard proof, no one took a picture of me next to a clock or anything with a date, just someones word.
Bryan: By the way, and I mention this just to go on record with it, I looked at some other freemen/sovereign videos and apparently there’s a belief that providing the data that is on your birth certificate is an act of fraud (because the certificate is “not to be used for testimony” or something), hence a policeman who asks for your birthdate is trying to entrap you into committing fraud, for which he can then arrest you. I don’t know if this is specifically what [kay jay] believes, but who the hell knows.
kay jay: or i can say whatever i want because i am a free man.
Bryan: Well, you weren’t after you got arrested, but okay.
USNA2008: Get your brain involved and leave the country. …
kay jay: fuck you 
i have a right to live where i was born, no one has the right to make me leave.
Bryan: Until your mom testifies to such effect, your claims of where you were born lack evidence.
kay jay: how about signed documents from both my parents from the hospital? besides, the burden of proof is on the accuser. i don’t have to prove shit.
Bryan: Do those documents name an exact date? I’d be quite surprised if they did not. I’d have to call “Bullshit!”, in fact, as is my right as a free man with a working brain.
kay jay: still irrelevant, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Bryan: It’s relevant to show the sloppy selective inconsistency of your beliefs - you’re confident the documents correctly state the place of your birth, and the year and month, but not the date. I take this as a symptom of selective freemen beliefs in general, like how the word “employ” can ONLY relate to one’s job, thus operating a motor vehicle (even if at a speed higher than posted limits) doesn’t count as “driving” unless it is job related, therefore a driver’s license is not required and any laws relating to drivers do not apply. Of course, any dictionary will say “employ” has a broader definition, but that won’t support the belief that you are immune to speeding tickets.
kay jay: no, you are making assumptions about my beliefs.
Bryan: So do you believe the documents signed by both your parents accurately describe the place and month and year of your birth but are unreliable about the DATE of your birth? Or, alternately, are you implying these documents don’t include references to a specific date? If there’s a third option I’ve overlooked, feel free to share.
…
Bryan: So how about that whole “I trust the place and month on my documents but not the date,” question, Kevin?
kay jay: i never said that.
Bryan: So you want to waste time being literal? Okay. Why do you trust that the place and month on the documents about your birth are correct but not the date?
kay jay: its not wasting time, there is right and there is wrong, your claim was wrong. i don’t trust any documents, i never made that claim. i have already explained that that day is to specific and no one claims to know for sure. my exact words in the recording were “i cannot confirm.”
Bryan: So you don’t trust any documents, but you trust the “signed documents from both my parents from the hospital”. Those are YOUR words. Do these documents have a birthdate on them? If they do, then SOMEONE was claiming to know for sure. Do you think you might have been born at exactly midnight, making the date ambiguous? Do you think the hospital clocks might have been out of whack? Heck, in that case, maybe you weren’t born in July at all. If it was on July 31st close to midnight and you’re not trusting the time, maybe you were actually born just after midnight on August 1st. If instead it was on July 1st and you’re not trusting the time, maybe you were actually born just before midnight on June 30th. Since you weren’t conscious, you have no way of knowing, and if you’re going to rely on the testimony of your parents, it is dishonest to accept their information selectively without a good reason. If, by your own admission, you do not trust ANY documents, your claim to have been born [in] the U.S. lacks evidence BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS. If you “cannot confirm” the date of your birth, you also cannot confirm the month, year, or place.
This is really a very very very simple point. If you’re not getting it, it’s because you’ve decided not to, for what I can only assume is some obscure sovereign pretzel-logic belief and/or the notion that withholding information from the cops means they have no authority over you. You were given an adequate demonstration otherwise.
That said, you DO have a number of rights based on legitimate case law. Similarly, you also have a number of obligations, namely that if you’re going to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, you need licensing and the vehicle must be registered and insured. I know that the sovereign philosophy is to recite the magic phrases that will let you parasitically keep all your assets while letting you discard all your responsibilities, just as you pick-and-choose what laws to obey and what information to give. Fortunately, the rest of us are willing to be adults to your benefit.
kay jay: like i said before, i believe my family that was witness, because of the time frame none of them are sure on the actual day. i can neither confirm nor deny the actual day of my birth. you continue to assume to know what im all about.
i, as every other member of the public here within the borders in the u.s. (according to the constitution and constitutional law) are only expected/required to obey constitutional laws, every unconstitutional law is a violation of the constitution and not in any way an actual law and you have no legal obligation to obey it. anything that violates personal liberty is a violation of the constitution. there is a reason why they are called statutes, codes, regulations, rules and by laws, because they are in fact not law, they are all in violation of the constitution, the bill of rights, the universal declaration of human rights, self ownership and personal liberty. you obey them because you think you have to and because you are afraid, i am not afraid.
Bryan: Seriously? No-one in your family could name your birthdate? There’s no document from that time that specifies a date? I don’t see how you can trust the alleged month or place of your birth by such standards, but whatever. More on this later.
It’s interesting to see you shift from COMMON law to CONSTITUTIONAL law, though you’re just as wrong. Just because the word “law” doesn’t appear in the name of, for example, the Revised Code of Washington doesn’t mean you get to ignore it (unless, of course, you’re not in Washington at the time). The RCW is actually a compilation of the permanent laws of the state of Washington, so implying you’d obey “the law” but not the RCW is contradictory (and saying you’ll only obey “common law” is simply foolish). I can’t make out exactly which section of the RCW the cop said you were violating because you were talking over him at 6:52 when he gave the cite, but I think it’s RCW 46.61.400 and, yes, it’s a law.
I have no expectation that you’re willing to give a straight, rational answer to the birthdate thing, so I’ll just speculate. In your mind, there IS a Kevin M. Johnson, born on (arbitrarily chosen date for the sake of argument), say, the 15th of July 1987, but he’s a fictional character, a legal construct for the convenience of the government, brought into existence by the issuance of a birth certificate. YOU, however, are Kevin M. <no last name>, born in July of 1987, a flesh-and-blood human being. Kevin M. Johnson is a sheeple slave who lives in fear and pays taxes and has to get a driver’s license and car registration. Kevin M. <no last name>, in contrast, is special, a free man, a sovereign. Kevin M. <no last name> owns a car and has the right to use it to travel (not “drive”) on public roads. Kevin M. <no last name> has all the assets and rights, while Kevin M. Johnson has all the debts and responsibilities. It’s as infantile as telling your parents that all the drawings on the walls were not done by you, but by your imaginary friend. Punish HIM for it, leave me alone.
kay jay: you are missing the point and continuing to make stuff up.
Bryan: So answer the questions. Was your birthdate ever specified by a person you trusted or appeared on a document that you could trust? You’re being cryptic and evasive with this “because of the time frame” stuff. Were you born during a county-wide blackout where no clocks functioned? Was there an electromagnetic pulse that disabled all wristwatches? If you (or your straw man or whatever) has a birth certificate or a hospital record of your birth, is there a date on it? And if there is, why do you doubt its accuracy? If the cop had asked “What date appears on your birth certificate?”, would you have told him or found a reason not to? If the latter, what reason would you have to withhold this information? Would you withhold it just because you feel you CAN, as a free man, and in the belief that there is no law compelling you to give the date (or any other information) to a police officer? Does RCW 46.20.001 (the requirement for a valid driver’s license as a condition for driving on Washington highways) not apply to you? Do you still believe the RCW is “not a law” ?
I feel I’ve spent more time analyzing your beliefs than you have. If I’m missing your point, it may be because you don’t have one.
kay jay: dude, you are basically talking about a book you have never read. i am under no obligation to make sense to you, nor am i here to explain myself to you. if you’re going to be a dick, fuck off or i will just block you.
I’m not sure why it was important to me to get him to admit his birthdate - I guess I was using this arbitrary act of stubbornness as indicative of the general problems with his beliefs. Similarly, I wouldn’t recommend anyone get obsessed with trying to find out why Josf likes to write “BAR” and such. Possibly kay jay and Josf see value in withholding information, even harmless information. It looks like a recurring freeman/SovCit strategy.
No need to be sorry about pointing out obvious errors. If someone claims to be in command of perfect knowledge then that someone is foreign to my understanding of reality. Debate, if nothing else, is a means by which knowledge is a mutual (federal) benefit.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/
The Congress ordered:
That day can be more accurately understood as 20th October, 1774. Before the “commencement of hostilities” at Lexington and Concord, but certainly after the failures to Redress Grievances.
Thanks for improving my understanding of the dating involved in Elliot’s Debates Volume 1.
That was the Congress in October 1774, which was a bunch of guys, but it was the Congress bunch of guys, and they agreed “to discontinue the slave trade.”
Then:
Then:
Then:
In reference to the commencement of hostilities John Adams [perhaps not J. Adams as author] offers:
So the bunch of guys called Congress, a federated congress forming federated states for mutual defense against very powerful people perpetrating crimes listed in a Declaration of Independence, crimes that happened in fact, not on paper, and these bunch of guys agree to “to discontinue the slave trade” Oct 1774. Then this bunch of guys in April of 1776 expressly prohibit “the importation of slaves.”
Well before the bunch of guys explain the meaning of federation there were the events of Lexington and Concord: “commencement of hostilities.”
As to any redirection away from the Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule, there will be (if possible) an effort to redirect back to the Topic.
Obvious divisions:
Criminal Rule:
-
No redress, no way out, only obedience to any immoral order.
-
People claim that their few numbers in their group can own other people because they say it is legal for them, only them, to own other people.
-
War of Aggression, perpetrated by British people, and later perpetrated by Nazi people, naming only 2 examples of people perpetrating War of Aggression.
Rule of Law:
-
Bill of Rights #1 Amendment, grievances are redressed = Do Not Repeat the same mistakes over, and over, and over, and over again, and again
-
Before 1787 there were many efforts to point out the absurdity of claiming to be fighting for Liberty while subsidizing the slave trade, the surface of these efforts (as a whole) is merely being scratched in this topic on this particular effort to end slavery, which is now called Human Trafficking.
-
Before 1787 the federal mutual defense part of the government DID NOT step in and help defend the Revolutionary Veterans during Shays’s Rebellion, but the people of Vermont did defend those Veterans as those Veterans ran away from the legalized slavery that was ongoing in Massachusetts. Rule of Law, if it does anything for anyone, is provide sanctuary for victims so that victims will no longer by injured by their tormentors.
Therefore Divisions include:
Independent people defending innocent victims VERSUS Dependent guilty dictators attacking and injuring targeted innocent victims
Exactly. They proposed forbidding the importation of slaves, (effectively supporting the home-grown slave breeding industry against British imports–just as all other British imports were proscribed), while making no motion to abolish slavery or proclaim emancipation. Your attempt to cast those worthies as working toward universal freedom fails on the facts.
Similarly, your attempt to portray the 1774 convention as an effort by an established nation fails on the fact that their October, 1774 petition sought reconciliation with the crown. It was not until the battles of Lexington/Concord, Breed’s Hill, and the siege of Boston that the various colonies recognized that the breach between Britain and its American colonies should be seen as permanent. The Continental Congress certainly played a part in shaping the discussion that led to the Declaration of Independence, but you attribute to it both too much authority and too much power. (Much as your rather silly claim that the Continental Congress had so much power that they defeated the largest army on Earth. The British Army began the war with only 45,000 troops scattered across the world and they had to rent soldiers from various Germanic principalities to field enough troops to carry out the fight–all the while fighting the larger French Army along with Spanish and Dutch troops.) Your desire to shape history to support your beliefs are simply counter to the facts regarding that history.)
Instead of reading Sovereignty propaganda, you might want to look at actual history books.
The Bill of Rights falls under Rule of Law and not Criminal Rule? I thought you thought the whole Constitution was Criminal Rule.
A viewpoint is offered:
That is a viewpoint offered.
Another viewpoint offered:
That is a viewpoint offered.
That viewpoint offered is not this viewpoint:
Those words above do not constitute my viewpoint.
My viewpoint is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
Among the many members of congressmen from the first congress to the current congress there are individuals who offer individual viewpoints.
Such as:
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/richard-henry-lee/
That is a tactic knowable as sin tax, or in this case a tax that taxes the criminals who perpetrate the crime of slavery.
Repeating:
I can repeat, so as to reinforce the counter-claim: my viewpoint is not expressed in the above quote at all. The above quote is an independent viewpoint that is divided from my viewpoint. The above viewpoint is not my viewpoint, and any attempt to claim that the above viewpoint is my viewpoint is hereby countered with a counter-claim that the above viewpoint is not my viewpoint. I did not write those words, I do not think along those lines, so the one who wrote those words, the author of those words, is mistaken when the author of those words makes a claim that the viewpoint expressed in those words is my viewpoint.
Among the many independent minded individuals who made up the various sessions of Congress, added to the individual named Richard Henry Lee, is the name Thomas Jefferson, and that individual offered the following viewpoint concerning the make-up of these groups of men:
In those viewpoints quoted there are divisions along the lines of Rule of Law (which affords everyone protection against harm done to innocent people as harm is done by guilty criminals) and a crime known as slavery.
The same individual named Thomas Jefferson wrote words, by his pen, into the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, where his viewpoint is expressed with his words as such:
A member of congress is on a side expressed in his own words.
Other members of congress are on another side, and on that other side those members of congress represent those “who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves” after “the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited” and in addition to those “who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves” after “the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited” are those “who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it,” and in addition to those who “had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others,” and that is, again, a clear division.
-
Rule of Law
a.
“discontinue the slave trade”
b.
“the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited”
c.
“crimes committed against the liberties of one people”
d.
“to lay so heavy a duty on the importation of slaves as effectually to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.” -
Criminal Rule:
a.
“who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves”
b.
“who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it,”
c.
“had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others,”
That above is a clearly enumerated division between Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule, and that is the viewpoint connected to me personally.
That is not my viewpoint. I don’t even know what “cast those worthies” could mean according to the one who wrote those words and I can only presume that the one who wrote those words intended those words to mean something to someone.
The topic is Divisions along Rule of Law (offer innocent victims defense against guilty criminals, such as criminal slave traders) and Criminal Rule (slave traders criminally enslaving slaves).
But domestically bred slaves were allowed, as they were just against importef slaves. And tea.
It’s definitely Babelfish.
Richard Henry Lee owned 63 slaves.
Thomas Jefferson owned 83 slaves.
If slavery is “criminal rule”, then Lee and Jefferson promoted “criminal rule”.
Why might a slave owner oppose the slave trade? The biography of Lee linked above contains some insights:
PS - Know who didn’t own slaves? John Adams, Federalist, and architect of the Constitution:
Though, Adams lacked the fiber to take political action:
Well, if only you had just said this in the first place, everyone would have understood!!
Yes, they do.
You persistently post as if the Continental Congress took direct action against the keeping of slaves as if it supported your hypothetical “Rule of Law.” Nothing you have posted supports that position.
You have posted the feelings of one person who opposed slavery. There were many like him, (leading to the abolition of slavery in five colonies/states between 1770 and 1783). However, your claim that abolition was the will of Congress is wrong. Every act or resolution issued by the full Congress that I have posted or that you have posted has addressed only the importation of slaves in the context of stopping all trade (aside from the profitable rice trade) under the laws of Britain.
No act or resolution of the Continental Congress abolished slavery.
No act or resolution of the Continental Congress emancipated any slaves.
Preventing the import of slaves, (along with the import of tea, molasses, and other items), simply does not rise to the level of abolishing slavery.
Further, the Articles of Confederation made no effort to end slavery. Article IV expressly identifies “free” persons, establishing by that distinction that it recognized enslaved persons as, as well.
Why do you capitalize the word “BAR”?