nothing

[Guest]

nothing
[Moderator: the post contained only noise, so it was emptied as a warning]

 

[Guest]

And your determination that this " noise " was in fact "noise" was based upon what grounds might I ask?

Am I out of line in requesting that summary "warnings" be made more constructively, so that I might be aware in some small way of what I am being warned against?

If the information provided in the following linked pdf file is without any legal validity, then it seems certain that you might provide a very benificial service to a great many truth seekers who are studying law in hopes that they might discover legal remedies to the problem of defacto legal fictions which operate to subjugate the many to the unnatural domination by the few.

http://www.freedom-school.com/keating_seminar_transcription.pdf

Personally speaking I know that facts given showing the above to be incorrect ( as I can't honestly say that I understand the actual point made with the description alleging "noise"). Assuming that to be an inference that the information subjected to this warning was guilty of being worse than merely incorrect, I still maintain that any instruction you might share clarifying it as being without any essential merit would, if presented so that I might understand, I and others might apply a better understanding towards other legal precepts more likely subjected to this education.

 

[Guest]

Furthermore, research inspired by your warning is somewhat interesting, as if objective reality itself might occasionally be amused at futile attempts to restrict it...

In an article titled "OWNERS OF THE PRISON SYSTEM IN AMERICA " at http://www.wealth4freedom.com/money/prison_owners.htm

I couldn't help but smile in appreciation of the great cosmic joke being played unknowingly by the author when giving this punchline:

........................................................................quoting.............................................................................

We're not in common law in the courts, we're in admiralty and they get jurisdiction by arresting the vessel. They (lawyers/district attorneys/law enforcement) don't use the proper process and they need to trick, cajole, deceive, pressure us to do whatever they need to do and have us make a mistake to give them 'in personam jurisdiction' over us when we take on the attributes of a general appearance to the subject matter of the pleadings against the defendant "in rem" and we start acting in any capacity on the merits of the charges or by taking on the persona of the defendant vessel 'in rem.' There's lots more to this, but I think you get the gist about 'prisons for profit.'

In tying this all together it would appear that there are many laggard souls, some are incarcerated in prison and some are working in the prisons. And many, many more are indifferent to what is going on in our country as far as prisons and prisoners are concerned. When I explained my case to women, many said, “Why do you bother trying to change things? To stand up to the system?

 

[Guest]

281 pages of background research upon the subject:

Chronology

Dillon Read and and the Aristocracy of Prison Profits

http://dunwalke.com/dillon_read_chronology.pdf

 

[Guest]

The noise I hear are alarm bells!

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/law/prison_treatise.shtml

when contemplated with

http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/news.jsp?newsurl=/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2006/kbrnws_012406.html

brings the following summation almost as if this was some type of mathematical equation,

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf

I guess Uncle Sam is still looking for a few good men, as much work seems to remain being done...

 

[ark]

Please, if you have nothing to say yourself, say nothing. If you have something to say yourself, make it clear and concise. You can complain as much as you want about prisons in the US or in Russia, but there is nothing new about that. Totalitarian systems are what they are: totalitarian systems, whether it is the US or somewhere else. If you have some new perspective on the subject - state it, but state it once instead t of bombarding the forum with posts having essentially the same content: complaining about what is.

 

[Guest]

You misunderstand me if you think any posts made by myself in this thread was made as a complaint.

My original post beginning this thread which was removed was in fact presented to see if anyone here might understand better the implied remedy and therefore enlighten me if in fact such a remedy does exist, as I could then be better able to help the people in my community who ask me to help them escape the fate planned for them by their lawyers and the local criminal justice system in secret arrangements against the legal interests of victims otherwise powerless to resist the deck stacked against them.

I never refuse such a request, and these endeavors are made to the best of my ability, and never exchanged for compensation. In fact, though I can not now afford a pack of smokes, I still refuse to accept a gift of 50 bucks that was offered yet again for the umpteenth time for some legal research I gave to the would be benefactor last July.

Today I constructed a letter to a local attorney that I advised someone I was helping of my belief that he was the only local attorney that I felt offered any possibility of being afforded any good faith reliance. That letter was a forced response to the proof that a continued good faith trust in him that afforded him every benefit of the doubt had been misplaced by his complete breach of the written contract he had made with his client so that he could no longer be trusted to provide any legal representation. The letter advised that "advocate" that he could best work towards both his and his clients legal interests by subtracting a fair amount for services rendered from the 35 hundred dollars he bhad been paid and refunding the balance.

Additionally I typed out an "Application to Withdraw [the not guilty] Plea to Information so that the defendant might avail himself of the legal issues that he had contracted for with his attorney and then made unavailable because of deceptions of the legal "counsel."

Started but unfinished is a supporting affidavit that promises to be the greater work as the facts showing that the gentle assurances of the attorney directly contradict the harsh reality of his actions are many.

After I have that project behind me, the brief in support should be a breeze, as the research is already made.

I shared this so that you might understand the very real interest I have in discovering new non-traditional legal concepts that might be more uniformly effective in halting criminal cases than the more traditional remedies described in written opinions held by appellate courts.

Therefore, I was asking for intellectual reasoning greater than mine when I began this thread exactly as follows:
( Since I copied and pasted it here: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/11348-jean-keatings-prison-treatise.html#post106815 )

...................................................quote of original post................................................

I guess I'm just not smart enough to fully comprehend this, as repeated reading of this material seem to provide me with enlightenment. And this really bothers me, as the answers I have been seeking in protracted legal research might be revealed here.

So, if anyone here can educate me on this I would be forever in gratitude for the learning.

Dane

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=18178

..........................................unquote................................................................

Now if you go back and review my posts made in response to the removal of that request called "noise" and further advised that I was being warned...It should be clear that I am uncertain of the nature of the allegation made that I posted "noise", but the conclusion that seems logical to me is that the information was at minimum false.

And because the noise accusation was brought as a warning ( with implications of future undesired consequence to myself if I continued to misbehave being inherent to the very definition of the word "warning"). was I really out of line to post references validating that which had been summarily determined as noise in a warning that provided not an iota of the reasoning behind that accusation?

If so, please explain, so that I may, if I elect to remain here, be better able to conduct myself in a way more acceptable to our goals that we are striving for as a collective group.

Thanks,
Dane

 

[ArdVan]

So, if anyone here can educate me on this I would be forever in gratitude for the learning.

Now if you go back and review my posts made in response to the removal of that request called "noise" and further advised that I was being warned...It should be clear that I am uncertain of the nature of the allegation made that I posted "noise", but the conclusion that seems logical to me is that the information was at minimum false.

Hi Heyday

Let me tell you how what kind of impression I get by looking at what you posted in this forum.

I have the impression that you didn't really educate yourself about what this forum is and what we do here. Of course you are new in this forum and so we gave you the benefit of doubt. This means we will give you some time to learn the rules here. Yes, there are rules and I hope you have read them. "Noise" is explained there. Hint: there's a link on the top of the forum page.

You just came to this forum and started to IMO "dump" huge samples of text without explanation of your part why I should read it and what I can learn about it.

Sometimes you gave links without explanations or you did say:

"[...]I was very impressed with the information here that suddenly clicks into a new view after I have just freshly reread the wave series.[...]"

But you didn't say what information had clicked into a new view. Or you gave once a link and said "Highly recommended!!!" So Henry gently tried to point out to you that just posting a link is not enough.

Dane,

Could you elaborate a bit on what it is that you find so important from this source?

Henry

For me this was an invitation to give us some NEW information about "The Real World/Our Orwellian World", things we don't yet know and how this relates to the link you gave.

[...]it is my view that the author of the site provides one of the best, if not the best, descriptions of the political structure in America I have ever seen[...]

Why is it the best? It gives a better explanation about the world that what you find here? Well if so, what makes it so? What could we learn from it?

For convenience of all, I am posting [some of it) here now, and if it is flawed, the very pointing out of those flaws would be, in my opinion, a good learning experience.

So you once again dumped on us some text, without what we call external considering if the people on the group really want to read it. You already gave us the link, so everybody interested can go there on his own. And you said don't mind about possible flaws, they are a good learning experience!

Well sorry to say i expect you to tell me first what you think the flaws are and then I can discuss them with you, if I like.

Look how many entries you have done without anybody answering. It seemed to me that you often were talking to yourself. Could it be that nobody had the time and patience to tell you that you bring up stuff that's nothing new to this group?

I have just freshly reread the wave series.

I feel really ignorant, but, what is NLP?

It's also mentioned in the Wave Series

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave11i.htm

I haven't read, just scanned those two links when I thought I posted them, and, despite my resolution to Ark about being more careful about what I post, I am committed to submitting them here now in their carefully read state.

So what is it now? Did you just scan them and decided to post them anyway, ignoring Arks advice. I don't know why the text in the link is in "carefully read state"? For me it looks the same.


On the other hand you said things that lead me to question you real intents:

But, talk is cheap, so forget all that philosophy stuff i just expounded and I'll blame you not.

If you just do cheap talk here you will soon be gone.

I hope that a requirement of not being stupid is not too rigidly enforced here!

It is "rigid" for those who produce noise.

Maybe better for me to listen more and speak less.

Yes, and read everything on this site and all the recommended books.

I don't know how to make the quote thingies like you did, Ark, [...]

If you are really interested that others can easy distinguish between what you say and others say you would already learned it, because it's easy. But, do you care? At the bottom where you can "Quick Post" are three links if you click at them and you read them you know how to do it. You already knew how to do smilies. :D

Interesting take, sleepyvinny. I don't know what to think, I really don't. Especially when you start delving into the game theory aspects. Oh how I crave a simple life!

This sounds like Cipher: Ignorance is bliss. Unfortunatly you won't get this here. :P


Hope this helps
ArdVan