[chadnezzrr]

They better find a way to put their blood in some one else's name, because that is what the people will be after.

As i understand it most Police Dept have blanket bonds for all the officers, they do not have individual bonds anymore, (as they are Lawfully required). I have not been able to verify this?

If i commit a crime, then move all of my assets out of my name for reasons of evading, i would have the book thrown at me.

[Xewksghy]

If i commit a crime, then move all of my assets out of my name for reasons of evading, i would have the book thrown at me.

That is why North Carolina is advising policymen to do it NOW before the liens start hitting the recorders office.

A local guy liened up a deputy sheriff. Did it by the book. Got his permission and all (silence). Now the deputy cannot sell his house until the lien is settled. Too bad. So sad!!!

If there were a personal bond in place the liability would be limited to the bond (I believe this to be a true statement but not verified). The lack of a bond makes an officer de facto. There is no limit to his liability.

[PNCarl]

i have heard you can only take so much blood from a corporate so would that mean that you could only get so much paper notes from them if you were to sue ? if so would it make it so you could not cause a corporate to fail ?

[Flikemommoilt]

i have heard you can only take so much blood from a corporate so would that mean that you could only get so much paper notes from them if you were to sue ? if so would it make it so you could not cause a corporate to fail ?

You would have to have an ACTION against that corporation. What you can recover are dictated by your damages. Simply because a corporation is recognized to exist does not give you an automatic right to name it in a suit.

There is a concept called "piercing the corporate veil" that allows damage to flow from a corporation to the individual man or woman (their corporate identity that is) who actually did the damage. As far as I know this a one-way concept. You don't go after the individual to get to the corporate assets. You would go for the corporation and try to show that it is used as a front for the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercin...corporate_veil

[teodaschwartia]

Governments and states are separate entities. States erect constitutions to rule the actions of their governments and governments cannot exceed the mandate they are given.

When I say state I mean YOU. A state is a body politic and at its' most elemental level that is a single individual. Turners republic does not change these ideas a bit. Simply stated it is easier to gain attention when a group of people become interested. Turners' state is no more sovereign than my own or yours.

PALANI...last time I respond to anything you post, you arrogant JERK!

I was giving Turner as the SOURCE for you to listen to the Bond V US discussion w/r/t your opening N.C. post. THAT is where I found the reference to what is going on in North Carolina and Why, from Turner's own lips. You can hate TUrner or whatever on your time, but don't you dare dump crap on me for posting a source of pertinent follow-up comment in regards to any of your opening posts.

It is the SUPREME COURT'S DECISION/DEFINITION of what a Sovereign is, and where I got the new intel, not YOUR definition/decision/imposition crap.

I don't need CRAP from you for posting a source when I responded to what I thought you wanted in your opening post, which was any additional comments regarding NC.

If you "knew about the Bond V US decision" and didn't feel like the rest of us sovereigns needed to know about it, that's on you. And it certainly begs the question as to why you didn't feel the need to "share..."

Sucks to be you, pal. I ain't posting squat to you in the future, since you are such a friggin' know-it-all, your way or it's no way. You may be a sovereign/state/pimple on a gnat's ear, but you act like an asshole and I'm callin' you on it.


ticked off BEEFSTEAK

[Elissetecausa]

You can hate TUrner or whatever on your time, but don't you dare dump crap on me for posting a source of pertinent follow-up comment in regards to any of your opening posts.

I have never met Turner and don't believe I have even heard him speak. That said as there is no requirement to hate anybody then I choose to stay neutral on the subject.

You may be a sovereign/state/pimple on a gnat's ear, but you act like an asshole and I'm callin' you on it.

You can tell that from a few sentences? I'm truly impressed. You must be worth a fortune.

[SergeyLisin]

I briefly whisked through these posts but never saw Palani as described by beefsteak. Hey Beef- you got PMS again?

[sasaderesada]

Spec...
instead of bragging about not reading, why don't you read...

PMS==You mean, Perturbed Male Sydrome...
Yeah, that's the way I signed my name to my post, joker.
Not surprised you couldn't see it...
I get PMS when I see your name too, come to think of it, Spec....

[gerturiotf]

Dude... don't know what is eating you, but you have been wound too tight for a long time.

[Kayakeenemeds]

Spec...
instead of bragging about not reading, why don't you read...

PMS==You mean, Perturbed Male Sydrome...
Yeah, that's the way I signed my name to my post, joker.
Not surprised you couldn't see it...
I get PMS when I see your name too, come to think of it, Spec....

Beef, he hadn't replied in this thread till you posted yesterday. I don't know that the first response he posted was even directed at you. What gives? You've been on edge.

[ResuNezily]

Turners' state is no more sovereign than my own or yours.

ticked off BEEFSTEAK

I could be way off on this, but I think Palani was just trying to say that each human being is an independant state, and Turner is no more or no less a "State" than any other human being. (Does that even make sense? WTF and I typing? Haha!)

But my Palanese is pretty sub-standard, so I could be wrong.

[Kolokireo]

I could be way off on this, but I think Palani was just trying to say that each human being is an independant state, and Turner is no more or no less a "State" than any other human being. (Does that even make sense? WTF and I typing? Haha!)

Basically correct but I would not use human being. I would refer to the the class called "man".

States and governments are separate entities. Governments represent states but I doubt if human beings can be states. Man has the elements of both state and government in himself yet if he chooses to be irresponsible then he must be governed externally.

[aspinswramymn]

Basically correct but I would not use human being. I would refer to the the class called "man".

What about K-os?

[JOR4qxYH]

What about K-os?

...........

Genesis 1:27 KJV

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Male and female are the two varieties of man.

Man is both male and female.

I'm a male man (but I'm not postal).

[idertedype]

...........



Male and female are the two varieties of man.

Man is both male and female.

I'm a male man (but I'm not postal).

'Male'/'female' refers to animals.

With God's creation of the image of Himself it is 'man' and 'wo(mb)man'.

Do NOT refer to me as a 'male'.

[elektikaka]

'Male'/'female' refers to animals.

With God's creation of the image of Himself it is 'man' and 'wo(mb)man'.

Do NOT refer to me as a 'male'.

Take it up with King James' translators; I was quoting them. In the original hebrew "man" is "ha adam" (האדם). The essence of man/האדם is both "man" and "woman". That is to say, genderless, like the Creator. In other words, a complete man is actually a couple composed of a man and a woman.

In the context of the KJV of Genesis 1:27, I am a male man. Otherwise I am just a man.

[Zjohkrbi]

If you wish to consider yourself an animal, have at it.

[ultimda horaf]

Take it up with King James' translators; I was quoting them. In the original hebrew "man" is "ha adam" (האדם). The essence of man/האדם is both "man" and "woman". That is to say, genderless, like the Creator. In other words, a complete man is actually a couple composed of a man and a woman.

In the context of the KJV of Genesis 1:27, I am a male man. Otherwise I am just a man.

So according to what you say, one has nuts and the other is nut-less as in non gender?