Executive Order 6102 did NOT apply to regular men and women
4486 sats \ 74 comments \ @kytt 6 Apr bitcoin
Do not fall for it again.
Legalese is tricky for those not versed within it. Surprisingly, many (low level) judges & lawyers still do not understand the statutory construction concepts of ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis.
Let's look at the last sentence of Section 1 of EO 6102:
The term "person" means any individual, partnership, association or corporation.
At first glance, it looks like the word "individual" would apply to an actual human being. When a definition contains a list such as this, the terms within the list must be within the same class. Human beings are not within the same class as the other commercial/statutory entities within this list, so in this case, an "individual" is just one of those other "persons".
Rarely does a person mean a human being, but it is often misapplied to us. Those that know how to fight it in court can ensure that it is not, but unfortunately, many do not have the want to learn court process and fight it.
To see when a person actually means a regular human being, look at the definition of "person" within your state's penal code.
write
preview
related posts
522 sats \ 5 replies \ @supertestnet 6 Apr
When a definition contains a list such as this, the terms within the list must be within the same class.
Who says? Suppose I define the term "mammal" like so:
The term mammal means any animal with warm blood, vertebrae, milk glands (in females), in utero gestation (in females), and fur
If someone said "fur must mean something else because everything else in the list is in the class 'things inside the body'" <-- I would think that's a silly statement
In any list of things, you can always find some principle of distinction by which one of its items isn't in the same class as the others. Therefore not every item in a list has to be in all of the same classes as the others. If this was a requirement, definitions could never contain lists while remaining true.
reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Who says? The legal system. Within LEGAL definitions, this is how they are construed.
Legalese is not everyday English.
A simple Google search of those concepts will explain them for you.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Apr
Supertestnet only use code language, he doesn't know legalese :)
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 6 Apr
Who says? The legal system. Within LEGAL definitions, this is how they are construed.
Afaik, the intention of a law is more important than how the law is written. Judges exist to interpret laws, not take them literally.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 7 Apr
Read this book https://mises.org/library/book/law
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
To an extent, yes, but definitions play a crucial part.
reply
649 sats \ 5 replies \ @nullcount 6 Apr
Have fun building a quaint legal defense based on a polite and pedantic argument like this!
Be not intimidated...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice. ~ John Adams
Meanwhile, we, The Sons of Liberty, those who protect freedom, boldly, will remind the tyrants, they too, can bleed.
There is nothing more feared by a tyrant than an rebel who has no desire for money, no respect for unjust laws, nor fear of death.
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Lux 6 Apr
why would be polite? a sovereign living man requests, orders, asks and gives instructions. slaves comply that simple
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nullcount 6 Apr
A 'slave that complies' is just another way to view a 'tyrant who rules'. There are no slaves, as men are created equal. There are only tryants, men who act as gods over men.
Any interaction with a tyrant that does not make them bleed, is 'polite' by the standards of Liberty.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Apr
Is slavery by consent. You give your consent when you accept to became a citizen, when you vote to be ruled, when you pay taxes. You accept to be a corporation controlled by the state. And that means you must play by their rules. So you are a slave,
So stop consenting.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 6 Apr
a man requests to be a taxpayer and then complains that taxes are unfair. all slavery is voluntary, by law. don't get me wrong, I'm for bleeding tyrants. they trick ppl to voluntarily comply
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @MarsIronPI 6 Apr
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson
reply
132 sats \ 1 reply \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 6 Apr
“But sir, I am traveling” (smashes window)
The nice thing about Bitcoin this time is you can encrypt the signing material. It’s a little more difficult for the state to break.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Only an idiot would try this on the street. You can only enforce your rights in court. You, unfortunately, cannot enforce it until then in our current system.
reply
100 sats \ 9 replies \ @Lux 6 Apr
Thank you for this post.
I don't want to sound like disagreeing with you, but I will :)
human being is not the same category as man and woman, look it up in Black's law dictionary, everything else is fine.
reply
100 sats \ 8 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Black's Law 4th:
MAN. A human being. A person of the male sex. A male of the human species above the age of puberty.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Lux 6 Apr
oh my bad, it's from Ballentine's dictionary, check here #360735
MAN. A human being. A person
they put all three categories together, lol
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
A natural person (who is ascribed rights and duties), such as a Sheriff, Governor, etc can still be a man.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Lux 6 Apr
nope, still a person, same category as human being https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_person
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
That literally confirms what I just said. Is a Sheriff, who has DUTIES, a living human being?
reply
69 sats \ 3 replies \ @Lux 6 Apr
a man has freedom and responsability, a person has rights and duties
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 6 Apr
I know you don't like this guy, but it goes over it https://rumble.com/v4imjfl-define-person-rights-and-duties.html
reply on another page
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Bud. You're still saying the same thing as me:
"Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person.
Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13, 122 P.2d 850, 853.
A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person.
Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. IL
view replies
31 sats \ 7 replies \ @chairman_pretense 6 Apr freebie
Is this some sovereign citizen nonsense?
Executive order 6102 was a real event which happened in the past, which means we can observe the actual effects.
Regular men and women were compelled to give up their gold.
The end.
Good luck with your word games, but laws don't work like riddles. The government gets what the government wants.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Spend any amount of time in the legal system on your own or follow those who do that and you'll find out how ignorant your comment is.
reply
21 sats \ 5 replies \ @chairman_pretense 6 Apr freebie
If you think there's a special way to opt out of laws by employing riddles, you are quite literally delusional. 6102 was amended multiple times. The government got what they wanted and there are no examples of anyone opting out by claiming they are a "free man not an individual".
Show me an example of someone opting out of law in court successfully.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
The government convinced the entire world that there was a pandemic and that they should get a vaccine for it, yet you still seem to believe everything you read.
There are plenty of examples of "opting out of law" here. Join the fight.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @chairman_pretense 6 Apr freebie
Your first sentence is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. You have no examples of people opting out of 6102. You have no examples of anyone using sovereign citizen defences in court successfully.
If you are going down this intellectual path you are almost certainly being swept into a cult or scam. I don't say this lightly.
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 7 Apr
Ansel Linder does a really good job breaking down what happened with this Executive Order
https://www.bitcoinandmarkets.com/why-a-bitcoin-6102-wont-happen/
And how it’s unlikely this will happen with bitcoin any time soon
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @lloyddunne 8 Apr
I think this kind of information should be set up similar to an open-source project. Similar to how you previously posted it could be used to limit the power of the state, if the plebs had this information at their fingertips then it'd be more likely to make a difference.
I've looked into it and understand the concept, just unsure as to whether it's a load of baloney (have tried to research and still unclear).
same process could also apply to unschooling/homeschooling.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @lloyddunne 8 Apr
or maybe on something like wikifreedia.xyz
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kytt OP 8 Apr
That's my hope too. It's just difficult to find a lot of people willing to put forth the time.
reply
0 sats \ 37 replies \ @Fabs 6 Apr
Doesn't everyone have a legal person attached to their natural person, meaning that, in fact, the above does apply?
reply
100 sats \ 18 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Who says you have a natural person? A natural person is a statutory entity with rights and duties. See my examples above (Sheriff, Governor).
A man is a man. Nothing more. He has no duty to anyone.
The legal person is a whole nother topic that many don't question, but should.
reply
0 sats \ 17 replies \ @Fabs 6 Apr
"A natural person is a living human being. Legal systems can attach rights and duties to natural persons without their express consent."
And now?
reply
10 sats \ 16 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Pay attention to the order of words. It doesn't say:
"A human being is a natural person."
It says:
"A natural person is a human being."
Which is correct. For example, a Sheriff (which is a natural person) is a human being. But just because someone is a human being does not mean they are automatically in the role of a natural person.
When referring to human beings, think of "person" as "persona", a mask, a role someone is playing.
reply
0 sats \ 15 replies \ @Fabs 6 Apr
But... Wouldn't that mean that no law is applicable to me? I can do whatever I want?
I have totally no idea about this all, and am simply asking, since you seem to spend some free time reading about it.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @xz 6 Apr
Not that I'm well-versed in legalities..
but I'd say that would depend on which particular brand of passport or ID you own. I know that myself, although I disagree with the essential status of peon, I'm a subject of such and such king, queen of the moment..
Meaning, I can't commit treason without expecting to get hung (if caught.)
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Fabs 6 Apr
Humans are truly remarkable, ain't it? 😜
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @xz 6 Apr
You reminded me of that first scene in 2001 A Space Odyssey with the apes
view replies
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Technically yes. As long as you do not hurt another man/woman or their property, then it doesn't. Unfortunately, you have to know how to defend that in court or they'll railroad you.
Alphonse Faggiolo's Telegram group is a good one to start learning this. He helps those willing to help themselves, as do many others. However, I'm not saying it's easy.
One day this terrible system will be no more, but these are the "rules" for now.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Fabs 6 Apr
Are there actually people who get away with it? Who "know" how to engage without being railed? Would be interesting to know.
People going rogue (in a nice way), and getting away with it while giving a "fuck you"-wink to the jury. 😜
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @kytt OP 6 Apr
Most have to show they know their rights in court, usually by suing the official(s) who misapply statutes to them, and then may get left alone. Then again, some don't.
Here's a great learning experience: https://t.me/b_speeding_texas_dps
view replies
100 sats \ 17 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Apr
Are you aware of when was that "legal person" attached to you? Did you remember that you sign a contract consenting that?
reply
0 sats \ 16 replies \ @Fabs 6 Apr
Wikipedia stumbled something about it coming "naturally" after being born, but I don't know, and frankly, I don't care anymore. 🌞
I don't know anything about these topics, so I figured I'll give it a shot and see what storms engulfs me.
reply
100 sats \ 15 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Apr
and frankly, I don't care anymore.
And that is exactly what the "masters" want. You to not care about these things and just a live a "wonderful" life of an obedient slave worker that never question anything and especially do not question any authority. Good luck.
reply
0 sats \ 14 replies \ @Fabs 6 Apr
If I didn't question anything, how did I end up in Bitcoin?
reply
0 sats \ 13 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Apr
you just said that you don't care anymore to know WHO you are
reply
21 sats \ 12 replies \ @Fabs 6 Apr
Firstly: that doesn't answer my question, and secondly: I don't care about the gibberish details of either"white law", "black law" and everything in between.
You can act smart all you want, but I bet you arent that much better than me in this regard.
reply
100 sats \ 11 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Apr
Especially in this regard, I think I am the one that knows more than anybody else on SN.
view replies