Clark seeks third term as sheriff

Clark seeks third term as sheriff

There are 39 comments on the The Brattleboro Reformer story from Jun 12, 2014, titled Clark seeks third term as sheriff. In it, The Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

On his office's website, Windham County Sheriff Keith Clark says he believes "the sheriff's department can only be successful with the support of its surrounding communities."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Flat Lander

United States

#1 Jun 12, 2014
He is the best thing to happen in Windham county in awhile since that useless stubby itch that the law breaking misguided fools of the county thought she was a prize, and they were right. Thank for your example Keith!
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#2 Jul 2, 2014
Sheriff deputy drove up the road today in Vernon. I stopped him and his drive along partner. I asked him if he was a person and he replied, "yes". I then asked him which person he was and he replied "what do you mean?"

Of course I assumed at this point that he did not realize that under the statute there are two distinct persons. Legalese defines a person as either a human being, or, a corporation (legal fiction).

I then asked him if he knew the difference between a law and a statute. He replied, "yes, but why don't you enlighten me".

At this point it was clear to me that the deputy did not appear to want to discuss what it meant to be a person, or, the difference between a law and a statute.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#3 Jul 2, 2014
This is always the typical type of way that this sort of scenario will play out, and the reason for this is very simple.

The deputy was presenting as a person, a corporate fictional character, and not as the human person. Of course he does not want to acknowledge this because it is revealing about many other things that are not right.

The deputy assumes that anyone that he deals with is also a person, a corporate legal fiction.

But who among understands that they are presenting as a fictional character, thereby, waiving their rights as a human being in exchange for the privileges granted to a corporation, or, a "person"?
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#4 Jul 2, 2014
In order for someone to present as a corporate fiction, there must be a lawful contractual agreement in place in order to support the fundamentals of such an agreement.

One of the main things required for any contract to be lawfully binding is, consideration. This means ones has to have the proper information in order to consider whether they want to agree to the terms or not.

I have never come across anyone who understands that they are presenting as a corporate fiction. It follows that there is certainly no lawful contract in effect to support such a scenario.

And this is why any police officer or deputy is always making assumptions. They assume jurisdiction. They assume you "understand" etc.. etc..

If the officer takes the lead (assumes) and you don't question (follow), then this is called, implied consent.

Implied consent is absolutely necessary because there is no actual consent (contract).

Under the statute, if you remain silent, you are consenting. It's called, implied consent.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#5 Jul 2, 2014
Now, there are two scenarios possible with all this I mention here. The first is that the "officer" does not know about any of this and as a result can be found negligent in carrying out his duties.

The second scenario is that he or she knows this stuff and ignores it and leads you into a situation in which you are totally unaware of what is actually going on. In this case, the common law charge of legal fraud can be filed, as the officer is knowingly misleading and abusing you.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#6 Jul 2, 2014
Now, I completely understand that there will be some who read what I've posted here who will be angry at me. All I can say is that I'm sorry you feel this way. Try to figure out for yourself exactly why it is that you get upset over this information. If you get upset because you feel as though it's all lies, and you're being honest with yourself, well, that's fine. If you are upset because you feel that it's true, but you'd rather not here about it, well, don't shoot the messenger just because you feel like you've been conned.

Most people that I engage with this info are taken aback by it, but they walk away scratching their head, wondering how something so ridiculous could get by them.

If someone asks you if you are your first, middle and last name (corporate fiction), it's o.k. to reply ,no, but I am the administrator for that account.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#7 Jul 2, 2014
And finally, if someone insists on telling you what your name is, ask them for the contract that gives them that sort of power and authority over you. The last time I checked, that was called tyranny.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#8 Jul 2, 2014
The beautiful thing is that we are all equals. This means that as implied consent has been used against you, without your knowledge, you in turn can also use it as well.

Example: When you walk into the court, every "official" you see in that court, you tell them, "this is a common law jurisdiction". When they fail to make a counterclaim, under the statute you have an understanding with that "person". This means that they were silent in the matter, i.e. implied consent.

Under the statute, silence equates with consent. You have the right to remain silent, and so don't they.

There are no common law crimes against the United States. Because the United States is a corporation. The United States is not defined as a society, but rather, is defined quite well as a corporation.

Corporations are hierarchal in nature, and as such, there is no equality in the corporation. Who understands this? Or rather, who has agreed to this?

In the corporate chain of command, the person known as the officer is above the person known as the subject.

Just try to ask an officer basic questions that he can't answer when you get pulled over out on the road. It will probably go very bad for you. That's because the officer perceives their authority over you as arbitrary, that is, you have no say whatsoever. And you never did.

Even if you have a very particular contract due to your understanding that you are capable of negotiating contracts using your fiction, they will most likely ignore it when you show it to them. When they do this, they are denying you due process and disrespecting you as a human being. It's what they are trained to do, just follow the corporate chain of command and be masters over the subjects.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#9 Jul 2, 2014
I think of it this way. I'm a Human Being who happens to have a person. The person I have is the name and number I was assigned when I was born (birth certificate). The person is not me, it's mine. It's my societal vehicle. But I'm not the vehicle, of course. I can use my vehicle for things in this society. But if I go out into the African bush, my person will mean nothing to the local tribes. Out in the bush I'm a human, like them. But not in this society. In this society I get beat over the head because I happen to have a person, and I'm led to believe by the state that I am literally, my person.

It's like the car I drive is my vehicle. I can do things with it. I can get food. I can go to the movies with my vehicle. I can even go to California if I so choose. But I'm never so confused as to think that I am my car. It's mine, it's not me.

Corporate fictions can't govern themselves, they must be governed. There must be an operator for the fiction. If you are not the operator, then who is? And if the state is managing you as a commodity, where's the humanity? Don't look too hard for it because it's not there.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#10 Jul 2, 2014
When I grew up, the state sponsored education I received hammered it into my head that I was free. This sounded good to me. Naturally, I believed it, trusting as I am. Then I found out what the "legal" definition of person was, and also the definition of "free". It didn't take me long to realize that if I was presenting as a fictional entity and I did not previously understand this, then how could I possibly be free if I didn't even know who or what I was?

I researched further and discovered that when I was born, I was bonded by way of quasi contract (birth certificate). I realized that the birth certificate was a "bond" and hence, I was in bondage.

Then I recalled having been made to stand up in the classroom and pledge allegiance. Then I discovered that a pledge was a promise and the promise was to pay a debt that I owed on the bond (birth certificate).

The person was the vehicle by which I was to me made a debt slave without my knowledge. I never once understood that I was ignorant in thinking that I was my fiction. I can hardly think of a worse human rights violation than brainwashing a massive amount of people in order to sustain a corporate beast that is completely unlawful and totally unsustainable.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#11 Jul 2, 2014
The idea that I am breaking the law when I travel down the road in my vehicle without a seat belt is now comical to me. But the seat belt violation is statutory in nature. The officer will say that you've broken the law and if you don't put it on, you face being arrested and thrown into a cage.

This is why the officer does not wish to discuss the difference between a law and a statute. For the officer, it's all law, even though there is no evidence at all to support this claim. The officer neglects to inform you that you are a victim if you are unknowingly waiving human rights by presenting as the corporate fiction. It's the "officer" who is breaking the law.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#12 Jul 2, 2014
These are all my understandings. If someone disagrees, please make the argument. I sent my affidavits to Sheriff Keith Clark and he failed to respond. Under the statute I utilize implied consent and have an agreement with Keith Clark they he is breaking the law. It's my understanding that he is committing fraud and misprision of treason. It is required that one understands what they are doing in order for them to be doing it (fraud and misprision of treason). I am confident that he understands as he was given ample opportunity to make a counterclaim not merely to set the record straight for himself, but to fulfill an obligation he took on when he swore an oath to uphold the constitution. The constitution has to do with human beings, not fictions. From one Human Being to another he had the opportunity and obligation to set me straight as well. He chose not to take my claims seriously at all. And in doing so he puts those under his command at great peril for acting out in a lawless manner.

I have more than enough reason to believe that Sheriff Keith Clark understands full well that those citizens who are being stopped by his deputies know nothing about waiving their human rights as a result of unknowingly presenting as if they were literally their fiction. This is not right and it needs to stop immediately!
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#13 Jul 2, 2014
There is no such thing such thing as arbitrary enforcement of statutes. This idea negates the idea that this "society" exists by the consent of the governed. Consent has been craftily removed and replaced with implied consent (due to no lawful contract). This means that officers can assume just about anything they wish because they don't need consent, just implied consent. And then when implied consent fails due to someone being informed as to what is going on, the tazers and mace come out and the charge is failure to comply with a direct order, and then what follows is a charge for resisting arrest just to make it look good. What we have here is tyranny that has not been fully realized yet. Hence, fraud and misprision of treason. Attempting to pass off tyranny as "democratic freedom" is not smart. And if someone suggests to you that you are engaging in such acts and would like clarification to show that it is in fact not true, I would think you would take it very serious and set the record straight.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#14 Jul 2, 2014
A true law enforcer will claim authority over another Human Being if there is actual harm done, unless there is a lawful contract in effect in order to oblige someone to be responsible for less than harm. In a common law jurisdiction there is no need for an officer who adheres to those principles to establish jurisdiction, it's automatic due to the allegation of actual harm to another Human Being. And in a common law jurisdiction everyone is equal and everyone has the power to enforce actual law and also be supported by the society as a whole in this.

But the problem arises for a corporate enterprise when humans are informed, as they may be completely unwilling to represent as a fiction and as a result be submissive to the whims of those with the most influence (money). So, naturally, the people must not know anything, and for the corporation, it's all or nothing.

Because if the people have a choice to opt out of the corporation, what you would end up with is dueling societies. On the one hand you would have Human Beings who were not obliged to be responsible for statute, and on the other you'd have the corporation. But at least in this scenario, those in the corporation would be informed and understand what they are a part of.

Ultimately, those not part of the corporation would rise up against the corporation due to the inherent destructiveness of putting money and things ahead of the environment and the rights violations of Human Beings who are not incorporated.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#15 Jul 2, 2014
The answer is simple, but not for those who wish to rule by way of deceit. Education is the key. The focus needs to be on the importance of cooperation and enlightened choice. It will become clear to everyone that certain rules beyond actual harm need to be in place, but not in order for the business model to succeed at all costs. The goal will be maximum freedom and minimal restraint while restoring the environment and providing the basics needed to live healthy. Common law will again take hold in it's true form until a happy medium can be worked out paving the way for a society rooted in equality, and not hierarchal madness.

Those who still opt out (because you can't force it) will be few and it will be difficult for them to allege wrongdoing on the part of the enlightened masses who are working toward something better. In addition, those who opt out will not be eligible for the benefits of the truly enlightened society, and they can opt in at any time.

Of course every effort should be made to insure that those who opt out are treated like the Human they are, with dignity. It must not be forgotten the great harm that has been caused to the human condition as the result of this mindless corporate hierarchal mess. Many human beings are broken at this time.
Flat Lander

United States

#16 Jul 2, 2014
Vern are you finished talking to yourself if so get a life on this planet.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#17 Jul 2, 2014
Flat Lander wrote:
Vern are you finished talking to yourself if so get a life on this planet.
I saw your first post and I didn't reply to it specifically because I could tell right away that the things I was going to write would probably offend you. So, it's not my intention to offend you to the extent that you are getting angry with me. If I'm just talking to myself, I'm o.k. with that, as everybody talks to themselves at some point. It does not make me happy that I have to point out the obvious, that most of us live as corporate fictional slaves to tyrannical ideologies. But it would however make me happy if the adults could deal with this nonsense now, so my children don't have to deal with it in the future. I suppose I would venture to guess that you don't have any children of your own? That would explain why you would not have a vested interest in fixing the problems that are right in front of our faces. And if you did have children, I assume that you would talk to them the way you did to me on this forum. Sounds like what I've claimed as my understandings here have lit a person fire under you. I understand, I really do. Some have a real hard time coming to terms with stuff like this, it's not for the faint of heart. It requires that you take a look in the mirror. When we look in the proverbial mirror and see things we don't like, we point our finger at others and see it in them as well. Maybe you look at yourself in the mirror and you don't like what you see, so you kick and flail about and try to insult others, and try to bring them down to where you are. If it were not so, then you would engage me in a respectful manner and offer up some dialogue which suggests that the things I'm saying which anger you must be wrong. But, since you have not added anything beneficial to all my thoughtful posts, I'll assume you have nothing but vile hatred and venom in you.
I don't believe in casting my pearls before a swine, so I won't. I'll just sit right here and talk to myself.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#18 Jul 2, 2014
For all I know, flatlander is the one who oversees this topix forum, and is the one who is responsible for jamming up my keyboard so that it is difficult to post my posts. I never, never, ever have had a problem with my keyboard, but whenever I get on topix, I have to constantly struggle to get the words to record.

Any moderator would probably feel pretty important. After all, the power to take away or interfere with ones free speech is certainly huge. I can just imagine how those who work for the NSA feel. Some of them probably have a conscious and go home feeling like dirt. The others probably are on an ego trip having access to so much information.

If I had to guess just based on flatlanders disrespectful post, I'd guess he works for the NSA through this topix forum and has a vested interest in seeing the corporation continue as long as it can. Hmmm, maybe he does have children and recoils at the thought of what he would perceive as anarchy coming to this land.

Just a news flash for you flatlander. Common law has nothing to do with anarchy, so just settle down. Common law means justice can be had. In the corporate model we have the hierarchal mess, which, might feed your children for now, but it flushes their future down the toilet with a continuation of the lawless tyrannical rule.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#19 Jul 2, 2014
All Humans are equal from the beginning. This idea is unique to humans as opposed to the animal kingdom. The wolf pack is hierarchal in nature because it's a wolf pack. Same with the lions, the monkeys, etc... etc...

Some will argue that humans are animals and need to be managed like monkeys. Those who like this idea are those who long to be an alpha male, even as they are despicable and despotic. They are the most undeserving of being in charge because they make a complete mess of things.
vern

Brattleboro, VT

#20 Jul 2, 2014
The hierarchal system for animals works because they have no need for automobiles, flush toilets or bon bons. The alpha male is responsible for ensuring that the rest have what they need, food. And the alpha male is the one who demonstrates the skills the best that are required to be a leader in this way.

Human Beings have tolerated being micromanaged, in part, because of the carrot and stick nonsense. The Human Being perceives that the system is providing to them above and beyond what they could normally have (things), and they are lulled to sleep with their things.

But this is not normal behavior. It has to be introduced and reinforced repeatedly. This is why tyrants have such a need to control by any and all means available to them.

Trick the people slowly and steadily and they will wake up one day and think that they are their fiction. Rule by secrecy, rule by tyranny.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Dummerston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Vermonts new economy (Jun '14) Wed Diversity Dude 183
News Brattleboro: Retreat under investigation by Att... Wed John 1
Stand With Rand - Pillory Hillary Aug 21 Alex - Infowars d... 8
Declaration of Dependence -by We The Sheeple Aug 21 Alex - Infowars d... 9
News Sex abuse suit against Williston Northampton Sc... (May '10) Aug 20 Sacred Cow of Lib... 8
News Vermont towns vote to arrest Bush and Cheney (Mar '08) Aug 12 Brooklyn Bernie 1,167
News Large local employer looking elsewhere Aug 10 God Hates Nukescum 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

West Dummerston Mortgages