Why don't we just opt out of our government and stop paying taxes?

Then you'd also need to stop driving on roads that you are no longer paying for, stop relying on hospitals, police, state government, local county government and also start defending your own country

You forgot the Fire department as well. The problem with all these libertarians is that they are unbelievably ignorant. There has never been a society on earth that didn't have some kind of rules or controls over it's people. Expecting that is just stupid as well as selfish, immature and any other negatives you can think of.

originally posted by: CB328

Then you'd also need to stop driving on roads that you are no longer paying for, stop relying on hospitals, police, state government, local county government and also start defending your own country

You forgot the Fire department as well. The problem with all these libertarians is that they are unbelievably ignorant. There has never been a society on earth that didn't have some kind of rules or controls over it's people. Expecting that is just stupid as well as selfish, immature and any other negatives you can think of.

All of these Libertarian rabble rowsers exist would amount to a few dancing on the head of a pin. They don't exist anymore (those unbelievably ignorant). You may be thinking of the "Tea Party" constituents that make up a huge base of voters as "Independents".

originally posted by: erwalker
a reply to: Azureblue
It is not that hard to determine who is and isn't a real judge in Alaska.
All judges in Alaska, whether state supreme court, court of appeals, superior courts, or district courts, are appointed by the governor from a list of suitable candidates provided by a nominating commission, the Alaska Judicial Council. There is no record of her having ever been appointed to a judicial position or even of having been on a list of candidates. She certainly does not appear on any list of currently serving judges in Alaska, such as that found on the official Alaska Court System website found at Alaska Judges. Nor does she appear on a list of former judges
She can call herself a judge all she wants and issue as many orders as she desires. Nobody is obligated to listen to a thing she has to say and anyone attempting to enforce her orders could be subject to sanctions from the real court system.

Thanks for that, interesting information.

Odd that both Judge Anna von reitz and judge Dale are fakes according to many yet both write on topics the powers that should not be, are unlikely to want written about. Similarly, I've read that Karen Hudes is also controlled opposition.

According to the website of anna von reitz, there is substantial disagreement between her and Karen Hudes so it seems that Karen Hudes accepts her veracity.

At the end of the day all that matters is whether or not the subject matter is correct and if their material is written by ghost writers who is writing it and why? They must have a substantial stomach for the subject matter to write so much about it considering they cop so much flack from those the material they write is meant to help.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Azureblue
but I did not see any evidence of her not being a judge.

Because you refused to look!

courts.alaska.gov...

Where is she on that list?

Deciding who is genuine and who is not is not an easy thing to do

Wrong again, in this case it is very easy! Just have a look at courts.alaska.gov...

"There's none so blind as those who will not see"

I'm not normally given to responding to comment that is argumentative instead of 'perhaps I can learn something here" type comment but the quote is very hackneyed.

Has it occurred to you that both Anna von reitz and judge dale, who its is also claimed is not a real judge either, both write on the similar subject matter, that the powers that should not be; are unlikely to want written about? Perhaps you might like to ponder on whether or not that is coincidence or not.

In this day and age making somebodies name disappear from a list is not impossible so I cannot put much weight the absence of her name from a list as evidence.

Anyway, feel free to have your view and thanks for expressing it.

a reply to: Azureblue
You don't have to be a real judge to write nonsensical BS. In fact, I suspect that it helps to not be a real judge, appointed in accordance with a state's constitution, to write the BS both of them have produced.

I don't believe much of what Karen Hudes has to say but at least she actually was a lawyer employed by the World Bank up til 2007.

a reply to: onequestion

you can do this in the UK its called being a "Freeman"

you disassociate yourself with you birth certificate, your birth certificate is a contract between you and the Queen that you will live by the law of the Land. As you are a child and dont get a say in the matter you can as an adult disassociate yourself from this. You will then live by "Common Law" and not the "Law of the land"

common law has a few rules such as "dont do unjust to others etc. Mainly common sense you get to freely travel so you dont need passports etc.. You can freely not pay tax, you can drive without a licence, you do not need to MOT cars, you do not need to pay council tax etc etc. - dont get me wrong its not easy to live by. but if principles kick in then it is possible.

but.....

they take away your National insurance number (social security number for USA i think) - this means you cant get employed, you cant benefit from hospitals and other public services if you dont have national insurance number

so there is good and bad - if you are super rich and dont need to relie on income then its well worth it as you can afford to survive and pay form private medical care.

anyway taxes are fine ,we should pay taxes. No ambulance would come help you hurt family members, you wont have the streets maintained and other services we all relie on. however its the amount of tax and what they taxing you on is more of a focus for me. there is paying taxes fairly and being forced to pay stupid taxes.

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: onequestion

you can do this in the UK its called being a "Freeman"

you disassociate yourself with you birth certificate, your birth certificate is a contract between you and the Queen that you will live by the law of the Land. As you are a child and dont get a say in the matter you can as an adult disassociate yourself from this. You will then live by "Common Law" and not the "Law of the land"

No you really can't.

a reply to: lSkrewlooselYou can no more do that in the UK than you can do it in the US, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. It certainly isn't working very well for the likes of Alan Peter Michael Smith aka Peter of England, Guy Taylor, Hannah Shotbolt, Mark "Ceylon" Laining, Tom Crawford, et. al.
The only thing a birth certificate does is state where and when you were born, who your parents are, and your family/surname and given names. You have to abide by the "law of the land" when in the UK no matter where you might have been born.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No you really can't.

yes you really can! people do it. its not wise to do it, but you can do it. i know people who have done it so who to beilve mmm.??

i wouldn't personlley as it has a lot of issues with it. but it is possible in the UK

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: ScepticScot

No you really can't.

yes you really can! people do it. its not wise to do it, but you can do it. i know people who have done it so who to beilve mmm.??

i wouldn't personlley as it has a lot of issues with it. but it is possible in the UK

No you really really can't. If you know people who are claiming they can then they are outright lying to you.

Have a think about it. You really think you can drive a car without licence or MOT and not be breaking the law because you have renounced your birth certificate. Does that actually make sense to you?

a reply to: ScepticScot

well its fact. if you not committed to the law of the land then yes. Same with council tax etc. dont get me wrong you will be stopped all the bloody time and will be time consuming to explain this each time and for them to check. But yes it can be done. but it also means you cant get car insurance so you need to pay you own damages

its not wise or logical to do it but yes it can be done - there are many court case videos of people not having fines etc because of common law.

anyway no matter what you say its fact. so give opinions if you like but ive spent enough time on this thread now

a reply to: onequestion

If you want to opt out you better get a large number of people together to do so all at the same time, I mean in excess of 100k people probably need more than a million or they will just swoop in and arrest you without a second thought.

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
there are many court case videos of people not having fines etc because of common law.

Funny how you are unable to actually show these "court cases" won by "freeman", and the real result!

a reply to: hellobruce

funny how you cant type it in youtube and look yourself.

hers one in case surfing is to energetic for you - www.youtube.com...

this is more council tax.

a reply to: hellobruce

and another in Nevada no licence driving.

www.youtube.com...

im sure you can find otherstuff

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: hellobruce
funny how you cant type it in youtube and look yourself.
hers one in case surfing is to energetic for you - www.youtube.com...
this is more council tax.

What was the result?

oh, look

And end up losing anyway? Or did you miss the part where they got a liability order, ordering them to pay all outstanding taxes (the very thing they were trying to challenge). They achieved nothing except to waste the court's time for a few hours.

So you consider that a success, where the freeman woo did not work!

It never works!

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: hellobruce

and another in Nevada no licence driving.
www.youtube.com...

Notice comments are disabled - what were there names?

a reply to: hellobruce

i thin k you missed the bit where they had already made that decision before the case started.
the screen before the letter.

If people stop paying taxes I don't want them walking on my roads and pavements. They can stay out the forests and national parks and no drinking my water either. They can't be eating any of the foods in the shops and will have to try their best to eat non-domesticated wildlife like squirrels, wild dogs and vermin.

They need to bury their waste in deep holes and away from water courses or water table, after all, my taxes pay for the maintenance of waterways and the treatment of water. Stay off my canals and get your water from brooks and rainfall.

At night, I don't want them taking the benefit of any street lighting or sheltering under anyone's property.

All of these things are infrastructure and haven't come about by chance - taxes have bought it all.

If we all agree to abandon these things, sure, we can go back to wearing loin cloths and throwing spears at stuff. It ain't much of a life, but we'd be happy!!

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: hellobruce

i think you missed the bit

I know you missed that once again the freeman woo did not work, they lost, as always!