Speak with the Claimant?

[StevenRichards]

Why speak with the one said to represent “so and so”, or said to do something on his behalf, instead of asking to speak with so and so? Seems people come to believe the state of …, the city of … etc are collective nouns, rather than someone to speak with, or a sound someone answers to. In so-called court, people are answering to the prosecutor, the plaintiff, the defendant, the court stenographer, the judge, the bailiff etc, so are you sure that someone doesn’t answer to the city of …, or the state of …? How about Verizon, AT&T, Walmart, Lowes etc, are you sure nobody answers to those sounds, if you ask?

Why claim to own things, unless you can “prove” such a claim, and how might anyone ever do that? Seems most claim to be and own the name they use, along with claiming to own anything else that might show on paper as registered to the name they’re using… why be so common? If asking to speak with the claimant, maybe you’ll meet someone that shows you how he proves owning whatever he’s wanting paid for, so you might then prove owning money to pay with. “(How might I prove) it’s mine to give?”

Seems if one stays in honor, by not making claims, except maybe “I believe …” or “I heard ….” and “I was/am using …” and asks to speak with the claimant, they’ll meet someone that settles the matter honorably. Too simple? You would have noticed? What’s the alternative, blaming and complaining?

Skype discussion group

[ofd]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[RichardY]

 

[StevenRichards]

Someone answering to the prosecutor offers fines and/or time, in exchange for a plea of guilt, but what about the one they’re said to represent? When the one they’re said to represent is mentioned, how about asking to speak with him, or are you convinced it’s merely an “entity”/collective noun? Seems people answer to all sorts of phrases and sounds. I hear “the city of …”, or “the state of …” settles matter honorably, meaning nobody "loses", when one asks to speak with them and doesn't make claims.

 

[ofd]

Quote

but what about the one they’re said to represent? 

What about them? Still no clue what you mean.

[StevenRichards]

Just now, ofd said:

What about them? Still no clue what you mean.

"Them" or him/her? That's the point, seems to me. Why is it that people don't seem interested in speaking with the claimant, and instead speak with the one said to represent him, the prosecutor? Or do they believe the claimant isn't someone they can speak with, because it's a collective noun, or idea, or "fictional legal entity"?

[ofd]

And why is that important?

[StevenRichards]

2 minutes ago, ofd said:

And why is that important?

I believe it's important because I hear asking to speak with the claimant and not making claims helps settle the matter honorably, meaning nobody "loses"...

[ofd]

Where did you hear that?

[StevenRichards]

1 minute ago, ofd said:

Where did you hear that?

On the "batcalls", bottom link in the sig i'm using, and the videos above

[ofd]

You are aware that these pseudolegal theories don't work, right?

[StevenRichards]

Who claimed (pseudo)legal?
You know something doesn't "work", because you did it?

[RichardY]

I understand what you are saying. The Shawshank Redemption,  kind of like when Andy Dufresne creates the legal fiction, Randall Stephens. Mike Cernovich was talking to Stefan Molyneux recently along a similar train of thought, when Mike brought up social constructs and factionalism.

"Salvation lies within."

Might want to think about how limits are established, Ethics as well. Have some constructs, if not collective ones.

[ofd]

I know the pseudolegal bs the sovereign try at court doesn't work becasue there are a lot of videos showing how they got owned and no evidence that it does. 

[RichardY]

27 minutes ago, ofd said:

I know the pseudolegal bs the sovereign try at court doesn't work becasue there are a lot of videos showing how they got owned and no evidence that it does. 

Kind of the point though. How many bankers and politicians were imprisoned in the Financial Crisis? (excluding Iceland...)

Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

[StevenRichards]

55 minutes ago, ofd said:

I know the pseudolegal bs the sovereign try at court doesn't work becasue there are a lot of videos showing how they got owned and no evidence that it does. 

Interesting... I thought there were at least a few different theories on that pseudolegal "sovereign" bs, guess there's only one.

[ofd]

Quote

Interesting... I thought there were at least a few different theories on that pseudolegal "sovereign" bs, guess there's only one.

That may well be. None of them works.

[StevenRichards]

7 minutes ago, ofd said:

That may well be. None of them works.

Agreed. pseudolegal "sovereign" bs is garbage. Even Marc Stevens beats that crap, and that's saying something