4 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- This is spot on. What so many fail to realize is the fact that you have the right to discriminate against whom ever you wish, however if you choose to accept the benefit of doing commerce in the public jurisdiction for federal Reserve notes, then you are subject to statutory regulations. Most don't realize how to exist in private and keep a strict seperation between commercial activities and transactions taken place in private WITHOUT the corporate United States.
The reality is, if a bakery possessed allodial title to their property, or even a paramount form of legal title, and they were NOT operating as a corporate entity such as an LLC, C Corp, S Corp, or the like, and they accepted private currencies like bitcoin, postal money orders, gold or silver, combined with an expressed contract expressing the capacity of the parties to be Sui Juris, waiving ALL benefits of the public; then they are truly operating outside of their jurisdiction and the courts would have no authority to rule on way or another. There are so many sources out there on the principles of contract and jurisdiction that, in my opinion, every entrepreneur should become an expert in.Aug 14, 2015
- You know that the courts would not care if all those conditions were met. That's not how the state works.Aug 14, 2015
- I'm actually having this debate in other threads, and my latest comment applies here as well I think.
"I'm not sure I agree. The rule of law must be followed to keep up the appearance of legitimacy. Without the appearance of legitimacy the very system the global elite so desperately depend on would crumble over night.
Take Halliburton for example. Clearly a US person yet they were in court back in 2009 defending a law suit against them by one of their contractors who was raped over seas while working for their subsidiary KBR. She signed a private arbitration clause stating any and all disputes where to be handled by a private arbitration firm and the US had no jurisdiction to hear any disputes. They challenged jurisdiction and won based on this contractual agreement. Just because you may have a title of Citizen or some other US person, doesn't automatically grant the US an interest or jurisdiction in every conflict, dispute, case or controversy or transaction.
Conversely just because you AREN'T a US person doesn't automatically mean they can't conjure jurisdiction if they can show an interest in persons or subject matter involved. Take foreign bank accounts for example. How is it that the US can seize foreign accounts like swiss or off shore bank accounts? Clearly they lack jurisdiction right? Bit those accounts were holding FRN thus they have an interest in those instruments...and therefore jurisdiction."Aug 14, 2015
- So yes I would say that if you are actually operating in a private jurisdiction, and you maintain a strict seperation, they would be forced to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Carlton Weiss, who worked for the IRS, and his job was to find ways to pierce private entites like trusts and conjure jurisdiction, wrote several books and essays on how to maintain this seperation.
George Mercier's authored "Invisible Contracts" speaks of these minimum contacts as well. The key is to cover all your bases. Not just conducting private commerce without a corporate entity like an LLC or the like, but to actually express the capacity if the parties, express the jurisdiction and venue, and the appropriate party fir dispute resolution. It's important to be conscious of even the interest granted by the currencies used. Maintain a strict seperation and they won't even know you exist, must less have any legal grounds to conjure jurisdiction. One could operate freely of any government regulations or oversight.Aug 14, 2015
- It's a great read. Other great reads on how to use private entites such as Trusts are: Trustee Handbook - Carlton Weiss, Those Who Mistrust - Carlton Weiss, Trustees in Commerce - Carlton Weiss, and Art of Passing the Buck - I forget the name of the author but this book was actually targeted by the IRS, who wanted the book banned.Aug 14, 2015