Private Natural Human Beings Without Legal Presences are called “IDIOTS” by BAR Attorneys

SOURCE:   Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 2.2
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf

  “Non-Resident Non-Persons” are literally called “idiots” under the etymology of the word

To an idiot, from an idiot.

True story: A man went to court. He told the judge he was an idiot and didn’t understand their statutes. He asked, “Do you prosecute idiots in your court room?”

“No,” said the judge. “Get out of here.” He left. The Judge  then said, “If there are any other idiots in my courtroom, get out now.” They all stayed, got prosecuted, and fined . . . except the idiot who left the courtroom.

IDIOT. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any. Shelf. Lun. 2. See Insanity. State v. Haner, 186 Iowa, 1259,173 N.W. 225; Jones v. Commonwealth, 154 Ky. 752,159 S.W. 568, 569.

IDIOTA. In the Civil Law. An unlearned, illiterate, or simple person. Calvin. A private man; one not in office.

In Common Law. An idiot or fool.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 880]


“Wikipedia: Idiot

Etymology

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs (“person lacking professional skill”, “a private citizen”, “individual”), from ἴδιος, idios(“private”, “one’s own”).[1] In Latin the word idiota (“ordinary person, layman”) preceded the Late Latin meaning “uneducated or ignorant person”.[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote (“uneducated or ignorant person”). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.

An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs.[6] Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education.[6] In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were madethrough education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). “Idiot” originally referred to “layman, person lacking professional skill”, “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. Declining to take part in public life, such as democraticgovernment of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. “Idiots” were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.Over time, the term “idiot” shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are “stupid“. According to the Bauer-Danker Lexicon, the noun ίδιωτής in ancient Greek meant “civilian” (ref Josephus Bell 2 178), “private citizen” (ref sb 3924 9 25), “private soldier as opposed to officer,” (Polybius 1.69), “relatively unskilled, not clever,” (Herodotus 2,81 and 7 199).[7] The military connotation in Bauer’s definition stems from the fact that ancient Greek armies in the time of total war mobilized all male citizens (to the age of 50) to fight, and many of these citizens tended to fight poorly and ignorantly.


FOOTNOTES:

1.  Liddell-Scott-Jones A Greek-English Lexicon, entries for ἰδιώτης and ἴδιος.

2.  Words, entry idiota.

3.  Etymonline.com, entry prophet

4.  Etymonline.com, entry prophecy

5. Etymonline.com, entry idiot

6.  ab Parker, Walter C. (v86 n5 p344 Jan 2005). “Teaching Against Idiocy”, Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappan.

7.  Bauer W. “English Greek Lexicon”

[Wikipedia:  Idiot; Downloaded 1/30/2017; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot]


“Idiot” is another word that has changed its meaning over the centuries,  although not as dramatically as “nice” once it was imported into English. The Greek “idiotes” meant simply “private individual” (from “idios,” meaning  “personal”), as opposed to a “public man,” a politician (government agent mine) or other well-known individual. (“Idios” also gave us “idiom,” one’s own way of speaking, and “idiosyncrasy,” one’s personal quirks and habits.)

[The Word Detective:  Idiot; Downloaded 1/30/2017; SOURCE: http://www.word-detective.com/2008/03/idiot/]

Notice the IMPORTANT phrase in the above Wikipedia definition of “idiot”:

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs (“person lacking professional skill”, “a private citizen”, “individual”), from ἴδιος, idios(“private”, “one’s own”)

To say that you are “one’s own” is to say that “you own yourself”!  That is the theme of the following video and of libertarian thought in its entirety, in fact:

In order to be successfully convicted of a crime, “mens rea” must be demonstrated by the government prosecution.  Mens rea implies that you KNOW that the act you committed was harmful and a crime and willfully did it anyway:

MENS REA. A guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent.

Guilty knowledge and wilfulness. United States v. Greenbaum, C.C.A.N.J., 138 F.2d. 437, 438.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 880]

Those who are “idiots” ignorant of the law are incapable of “mens rea” and therefore cannot lawfully be convicted of a crime.  This in fact is why the courts routinely say “EVERY CITIZEN IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE LAW”:

“Every man is supposed to know the law. A party who makes a contract with an officer without having it reduced to writing is knowingly accessory to a violation of duty on his part. Such a party aids in the violation of the law.”

[Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (1877)]

“The transaction [***29] by which these drafts were accepted was in direct violation of this law, and of the limitations which it imposes upon all officers of the government. Every citizen of the United States is supposed to know the law, and when a purchaser of one of these drafts began to make the inquiries necessary to ascertain the authority for their acceptance, he must have learned at once that, if received by Russell,  [*683]  Majors & Waddell, as payment, they were in violation of law, and if received as accommodation paper, they were evasions of this law, and without any shadow of authority.” 7 Wall. 666

[Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall (74 U.S. 169) 666 (1869)]

The implication is that KNOWING THE LAW is an integral part of being a “good citizen” and that those who DON’T, are “bad citizens”.  Most of the time, they say “every CITIZEN is supposed to know the law” rather than “every MAN is supposed to know the law”.  The reason is that those who AREN’T STATUTORY “citizens” or “residents” are not required to know the STATUTORY civil code, because it doesn’t apply to them.  They are “foreigners” among “citizens”.  These people would in fact accurately satisfy the definition of “idiot” above.  It is this fact that explains why everyone who wants to become a naturalized American has a rigorous legal education program in order to qualify.

On the other hand, for those “idiots” (no pun intended!) stupid enough to WANT to be called STATUTORY/CIVIL “citizens”, consider that there are so many laws on the books at this time that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the average American to NOT violate at least one of them and therefore EVERYONE is a criminal if they even TRY TO BEGIN to learn or understand the laws that exists.  That’s your “reward”, in fact, for conscientiously trying to become a “good citizen”.  See:

If you don’t WANT to learn the CIVIL statutory franchise codes and honestly believe that you are INCAPABLE of knowing ALL of them and following them WITHOUT violating them on a routine basis, then the ONLY options available to you to PREVENT crime caused by knowing the law are:

1.       To claim to be an “idiot” and therefore an “exclusively private human” as indicated above if they attempt to prosecute you for a crime.

2.       To change your civil status to that of a “private human”, and “non-resident non-person” with both the state and federal governments.  This is done with Forms #06.002 and 10.001 that are part of our Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 2 process.

3.       To in effect play “Forest Gump” whenever the government makes a demand of you or imputes that you have some duty or obligation.  FORCE them to satisfy the burden of proof that you can be a “subject” of the civil statutory code as an “idiot” and a “non-resident non-person”.  See:

Government Burden of Proof, Form #05.025

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

If the ONLY way you can GUARANTEE that no crime will be committed is to surrender your STATUTORY “citizen” or “resident” status, then everyone needs to do it.

In defense, some “idiotic” patriot Americans might say this approach is IMMORAL and merely a narcissistic exercise in “word games” and legal gamesmanship.  We must remember, however, that this is EXACTLY the same approach as the government ALWAYS uses, and you are merely emulating it:

1.       When you prosecute or accuse a government employee of wrongdoing, they say that they were only following procedures and don’t know the law.  In other words, they are literally unaccountable “idiots”.

2.       When they say that you did something wrong or prosecute you for it and you in defense do the same thing as them as say you were relying on their publications (meaning “procedures”) rather than the written law, they say that none of their publications are factual or actionable or even evidence in court.  You ARE FORBIDDEN from relying upon their publications!    In other words, their publications are prepared by UNTRUSTWORTHY IDIOTS!  That’s word gamesmanship.  See:

Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

3.      When you say that the government should follow the same rules as you, they laugh at you an in effect say they are above the law, have sovereign or official immunity, and therefore are NOT responsible for anything they say or do. That’s the VERY DEFINITION of anarchy, which makes them not only ANARCHISTS, but just as much an “idiot” immune from their own laws as they claim you aren’t or shouldn’t be allowed to be!

Consequently, you will always lose if you try to do the moral thing, because they NEVER play by the same rules as they enforce upon you.  If REAL “law” requires that we are ALL entitled to EQUAL TREATMENT (Form #05.033), then the ONLY option you have left to EVER win against them is to use THEIR tactics and rules RATHER than either common sense or what is moral or ethical.  Stefan Molyneux proves this in the following video:

Good and Evil, Stefan Molyneux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddq8FwIfw7w

Along these lines, we like to say:

“Don’t STEAL:  The government hates competition.”

Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court said on the subject of EQUALITY between you and the government under the law:

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”

[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]

Until they enforce the same ETHICAL rules towards themselves that they impose on everyone else, then we are ALL SLAVES.  The foundation of ALL of your freedom is EQUALITY between you and the government in court.  We prove this in:

Foundations of Freedom Course, Form #12.021, Video 1:  Introduction

SLIDES:  http://sedm.org/LibertyU/FoundOfFreedom-Slides.pdf

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikf7CcT2I8I

Therefore, the only way we can restore equality if THEY refuse to follow the ethical path is to emulate them.  If they won’t surrender their “supernatural powers” beyond the reach of the law, then we have to follow them and assert equality.  We’re going to follow their IRRESPONSIBLE, ANARCHISTIC, and unethical behavior instead of take the ethical path because the only other option available is to ALWAYS lose against them and therefore to be a SLAVE.  We have learned this valuable lesson from the BEST teacher:  The corrupted de facto government (Form #05.043).

Lastly, lest you thing we are making this up, listen to the following Youtube video:

Definition: Idiot. Do i want to be an idiot?, Karl Lentz

https://youtu.be/tPwLlcWBmcY

Have fun with this one.

Advertisements

One thought on “Private Natural Human Beings Without Legal Presences are called “IDIOTS” by BAR Attorneys”

Post a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s