Could it be Art 46 that we enslave ourself by?
To wit, “Neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their position or power in the hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate. Offenses to the contrary committed by COMMISSIONED officers will be punished with cashiering or such other punishment as the nature of the offense may require; if by soldiers, they shall be punished according to the nature of the offense.”
A warrant or authority or LETTERS PATENT issuing from the government, or one of its departments, or a court, empowering a person or persons named to do certain acts, or to exercise jurisdiction, or to perform the duties and exercise the authority of an office, (as in the case of an officer in the army or navy.) Bledsoe v. Colgan, 138 Cal. 34, 70 Pac. 924; U. S. v. Planter, 27 Fed. Cas. 544; Dew v. Judges, 3 Hen. & M. (Va.) 1, 3 Am. Dec. 639; Scofield v. Lounsbury, 8 Conn. 109. Also, in private affairs, it signifies the authority’ or instructions under which one person transacts business or negotiates for another. In a derivative sense, a body of persons to whom a commission is directed. A board or committee officially appointed and empowered to perform certain acts or exercise certain jurisdiction of a public nature or relation; as a “commission of assise.” In the civil law. A species of bailment, being an undertaking, without reward, to do something in respect to an article bailed; equivalent to “mandate.”
A government assigns title or rights to a private entity through this legal instrument.
So, as a result of voluntarily operating a “Trade or Business” (26 usc a 26) year after year we admit to using position or power [including a personal power of election http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/Follow-the-White-Rabbit-to-The-Matter-of-Herter-tp1126.html;cid=1502683792352-694
]in the hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate.
The dude says, “knowing and knowledge are differentiated by the knowledge that knowledge is innately flawed. Knowing, however, is without fault; As in logic “fault or not fault”. Any “knowing” that has been REASONED through any greater than the eye of the needle is not knowing but knowledge.”
From wiki: “A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop; for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that drivers and passengers may be ordered out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures, although such practices might not be authorized under state law. Drivers and passengers may be searched for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment.
Without a warrant, probable cause, or the driver's consent, police may not search the vehicle, but under the "plain view" doctrine may seize and use as evidence weapons or contraband that are visible from outside the vehicle.
Writing for a unanimous Court in Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009), Justice Ginsburg gives a comprehensive summary of most of the above-cited jurisprudence relating to traffic stops.”
This is the whole of the law as according to knowledge . This is not the whole of the law according to knowing.
What has worked before may not work again. What was right at one time, may not be necessary again.
Be pure of heart and in speech the tongue will not fail.
Love you Dude,
Don't know why i can't post from the phone...can admin move to correct thread?