It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?

page: 15
153
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


Was the statue bronze, iron or ceramic? Was it a little statue or a large statue of a political figure? In all cases, you could sue for personal injury and medical costs. Then again, if it was a "statute", I would get a lawyer to explain things.




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by duality90
 


I must again laugh at YOUR ignorance. Stare Decisis. You can not say that cases that have been fought and won in the past matter not now or that an actual law created in the past can be changed or altered now. THAT is unlawful, unconstitutional and makes the new law null and void, Nunc Pro Tunc, for all intents and purpose.

Stop claiming that you know the "law" because you went to school. We know it is all a scam, a Masonic organization or brotherhood of thieves. I have been in court enough to see the handshakes and the patting on the back and the collusion. Sickiening.

YOU do not know or understand Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, nor any other LEGAL and binding contractual document. You do not understand what happened in 1913 or in 1933. You obviously think that we are ignorant, are we traded on Wall Street, Yes we are, Dunn and Bradstreet is a good place to find this out. Yes we ARE corporate fictions, ALL current law is Equity law, law by contract. THAT is all there is, you will convince no one any different.

I am sorry to say you are wasting your time here with your BS statements.


Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if a statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)


Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; /inklũwzh(iy)ow yanáyəs ést əksklũwzh(iy)ow oltíriyəs/. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)


When, in any law or statute, code or regulation, a reference is made to a “person” it is to the exclusion of Natural and sovereign persons or people. This has been held to be truth and fact in all cases.

"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally
includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C.
paragraph 1." -- Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425:
(emphasis mine)

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) (emphasis mine)



What the OP is talking about is liability. The Child is not his, therefore he is not liable. The "State" must prove up it's claim or cease and desisit under the "color of law". If HE is part of the "State", "the people", then how can he condemn himself or prosecute himself?

If he is to ask the "State" to take the stand, WHO will do this?


*snip*

You also plainly do not understand what equity is. A contract is not 'created in/under equity' - equity is a body of rules based on reaching fairness between parties, or preventing unconscionable conduct.

You have just quoted a large number of cases/maxims that do not add any strength to your argument whatsoever. Those maxims do not necessarily apply with legal force, you should know. In England, the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy states that Parliament can enact any law it wishes to. It can therefore legislate contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights or even contrary to the English Bill of Rights. The courts would simply refuse to uphold such legislation. Obviously, Parliament would not legislate contrary to any of those constitutional safeguards, but the point remains that it is nonetheless empowered to legislate whatever it pleases to - that is why there have been cases where courts have had to interpret statutory provisions and have then declared that provision incompatible with Convention commitments.

At the end of the day, you are lecturing against various lawyers who have cropped up in this thread and have the supreme arrogance to claim that you (miraculously) actually know the law better than those who have devoted to their lives to practicing it! You are the quintessence of arrogance, and self-indulgent ignorance. You are unbelievable, and also quite probably the sort of man who leave a stench on the hell of my boots if I trod on you. I have tried here to be reasonable and disprove the arguments (if you can call them that) placed before me. Time and again you have shown your preference for some crackpot theory which is literally unproven and appears to have had no effect whatsoever every time that some dunce has had the severe lack of common sense to try and raise these issues as a legal defence.

How you claim that you are part of the legal personality of the state, I do not know. Your argument is so fallacious that it is honestly difficult to believe that someone honestly holds these beliefs. When you are prosecuted for a crime, the case is usually listed as (for instance) Texas v John Smith. Are you honestly trying to argue that because you are part of the legal personality of the state (which you are not - you are a citizen and the legislature legislates on the basis of the implicit consent of the population, by virtue of their deciding to keep a republican form of government - your individual consent has no bearing whatsoever. If everyone or a majority of people opposed and refused to consent to local government, then that government would lose its mandate and authority to legislate - as per the texas constitution, anyways) that the state has no legal means by which to prosecute you? You have obviously not heard of the criminal law.

Anyways, with regard to the OP, although I am not entirely familiar with his state's rules on family law, the state is able to legislate in the field of family law in the interests of the public at large i.e. on grounds of public policy, the state is allowed to interfere and regulate the lives of individuals in family matters to ensure the well-being of children and the best interests of society at large as well. If the OP has had substantial dealings with the child, is registered on the birth certificate as his father, or has had some emotional connection to the child, he may indeed be recognised by the law as the childs father (on the basis of the law attributing parentage to him). Legal and biological parenthood are two very, very different things.

On the other hand, if this was a woman he once slept with, then never saw again, and has disproved any biological paternity, then the case is frivolous and any good (or even bad one) should be able to argue successfully that there is no reasonable ground to impose liability or responsibility upon him.

BTW - if you are going to quote cases, it helps to explain their relevance to your argument.

I hate to tell you as well, but the beauty of the common law is that is a constantly evolving body of laws which allows for social change to be reflected in the laws. Stare decisis dictates that lower courts have to follow previous decisions, but it does not mean that a superior court (such as, say, the Supreme Court of Texas - again just using TX as an example) is bound to follow its previous decisions. In the UK, the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court of the UK) is allowed to depart from its previous decisions and revise its opinion on cases. That is how the common law mixes certainty with the ability to evolve over time. The instances of legal rules changing is near countless. Once more, I hate to tell you, but you still misunderstand what the common law and the doctrine of stare decisis are.

I don't understand why you refuse to believe or listen to me. I have worked very hard the past few years on the academic study of law, and any lawyer with half a brain will tell you that this is one more instance of someone seeing a conspiracy where there patently is none. As you refer to 1913/17 and 1933, why don't you elaborate on what proof you have beyond saying that the Crown in the UK bailed out the US? How people can possibly insist that the UK is profiting from America I do not know. If any of you have visited the UK in the past ten years, you will know for absolute certain that the US is plainly a far wealthier and prosperous nation, notwithstanding the national deficit the US is running at the moment. To suggest that your income tax is going to the Crown in England is honestly one of the most hilariously inane lies I have heard in a while.

Unsurprisingly, I would not be shocked if there were no substantive proof of this 'conspiracy'. Many here would draw the conclusion that the absence of evidence IS evidence (as one reader said in this thread, I believe) - those of us able to draw logical conclusions from the facts as they appear before us will conclude that the absence of evidence suggests nothing more than an absence of evidence. You cannot make blind assertions and expect others to believe it without having any proof whatsoever to back it up.

Go to law school. You sound like you would like it, as you seem to enjoy intellectual argument. Not sure where you get the idea of freemasonry from though.

Incidentally, for all those people going 'lawyers are all scum and just hate people' - have you never heard of the UN or Amnesty International? Surely two of the largest bodies of international lawyers in the world who devote their time and lives to ensuring justice is maintained throughout the world. The insidious words and arrogance (not to mention the plain lack of intelligence displayed by many) in this thread are absolutely and unforgivably disgusting.

Also, to go back on your quoting of that USSC case (Church of Scientology). The court there made reference to the definition within the United States Code. Pretty convenient of you to have omitted that eh?

1 USC s.1 (or Title 1, Chapter 1, S.1 - however you Americans write it). And I quote (in full):

"the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"

As well as individuals. Gee. That just rains on your parade doesn't it?

Some people just refuse to open their eyes... It must be interesting living a life where you are the ultimate source of all knowledge.
edit on 12-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)



Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on 3/12/2011 by maria_stardust because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sorgfelt
reply to post by greenovni
 


Was the statue bronze, iron or ceramic? Was it a little statue or a large statue of a political figure? In all cases, you could sue for personal injury and medical costs. Then again, if it was a "statute", I would get a lawyer to explain things.


aha! Yes! It is very hard to believe in the legitimacy of someone's argument when they can't even use the correct term. And yet they still insist that is the lawyers who don't know what they're talking about... but instead to believe in the infallible word of some chronic masturbators posting on internet forums at all hours of the night.

I think I'll put my money on those with the relevant academic and professional training...



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by sorgfelt
reply to post by greenovni
 


Was the statue bronze, iron or ceramic? Was it a little statue or a large statue of a political figure? In all cases, you could sue for personal injury and medical costs. Then again, if it was a "statute", I would get a lawyer to explain things.


aha! Yes! It is very hard to believe in the legitimacy of someone's argument when they can't even use the correct term. And yet they still insist that is the lawyers who don't know what they're talking about... but instead to believe in the infallible word of some chronic masturbators posting on internet forums at all hours of the night.

I think I'll put my money on those with the relevant academic and professional training...


An idiotic professional teaching others still makes idiotic professionals. Who is ignorant here? Do you NOT understand the history?

See, I work with people who "claim" they went to school for the trade, but they are less than average in intelligence and have no common sense, they can't find their rears with both hands and a state of the art GPS system. But they still claim they know everything. I don't know everything but I am absolutely sure I know what I know to be fact as I have researched it at length and have used it in the real world.

Equity has a monetary value to it. Human beings are ONLY equity when they are used as slaves, which all of society is, hard for you to believe or comprehend, but I know that the vast majority here will agree with that. IT IS A FACT. Obviously you have not done the research or do not understand your existence or others.

Lawyers are traitors and liars to their fellow man, that simple.

Do unto others, is the only true common law, no damage to property, no harm to another individual or group, no violation of their inherent rights and THERE IS NO CRIME.

Man came first, he CREATED GOVERNMENT TO SERVE HIM!!!!!!!!!! What about that do you not understand, the government can create NO LAW, STATUTE, CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION or RULE that violates the sovereign, inherent, natural rights of man. If men were responsible, as they should be, we would go before the sheriff for any dispute and judges and lawyers WOULD NOT BE NEEDED. THAT is why you fight so vigorously to keep your position and your job.

I respect and appreciate your passion for your position and your job, we all need to do something to keep us busy, but you must understand that what YOU believe in is not exactly the truth of the matter and it does not help the OP.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
To practice law in the United States, you are required to have passed the BAR exam and be a member of the BAR Association in good standing. The "B.A.R." in BAR Association stands for British Accreditation Registry. Read that again, BRITISH ACCREDTIATION REGISTRY! Note the world British! This is because ALL of the courts in the United States are Courts of Uniform Commercial Code and NOT Common Law. Judges are not judges at all as "Judges" can only hear Common Law cases, they are Administrators and Managers. They enforce regulations, codes and statutes - all of which only apply to corporations and not human beings. All of this is rooted in Maritime Admiralty Law, better known as "Contract Law" or "Commercial Law." Every time you interact with the government you are contracting. Get a driver's license and you sign a contract. Get a marriage license and sign a contact. Register for the draft and sign a contract. Take employment and submit a w-4 or an I-9 and you have signed a contract.

Here's the catch, a "Contract: is void when either party enters said contract under duress or sans full disclosure. As you can clearly see, all of the methods employed to trick people into entering contracts are clearly under circumstances of duress; eg, without a driver's license you will not be permitted to drive, and lack full disclosure. As a result, it is quite simple to extract one's self from the contract and mount a defense. In the above example, "Driving" is an activity of commerce and is subject to regulation. However, you are free to travel unencumbered as provided for under Common Law and the Bill of Rights. As a result, you are able to control a motor vehicle without a license or registration but be prepared to be hassled by the revenue police and their administrators.

Again, go back to the BAR association... Now do you beter understand why attorneys carry the title "Esquire"? Can you see where Uniform Commercial Code comes into play and how it is enforced? The whole system is smoke and mirrors and we are tricked into participating.
edit on 12-3-2011 by kozmo because: spelling



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by sorgfelt
reply to post by greenovni
 


Was the statue bronze, iron or ceramic? Was it a little statue or a large statue of a political figure? In all cases, you could sue for personal injury and medical costs. Then again, if it was a "statute", I would get a lawyer to explain things.


aha! Yes! It is very hard to believe in the legitimacy of someone's argument when they can't even use the correct term. And yet they still insist that is the lawyers who don't know what they're talking about... but instead to believe in the infallible word of some chronic masturbators posting on internet forums at all hours of the night.

I think I'll put my money on those with the relevant academic and professional training...


An idiotic professional teaching others still makes idiotic professionals. Who is ignorant here? Do you NOT understand the history?

See, I work with people who "claim" they went to school for the trade, but they are less than average in intelligence and have no common sense, they can't find their rears with both hands and a state of the art GPS system. But they still claim they know everything. I don't know everything but I am absolutely sure I know what I know to be fact as I have researched it at length and have used it in the real world.

Equity has a monetary value to it. Human beings are ONLY equity when they are used as slaves, which all of society is, hard for you to believe or comprehend, but I know that the vast majority here will agree with that. IT IS A FACT. Obviously you have not done the research or do not understand your existence or others.

Lawyers are traitors and liars to their fellow man, that simple.

Do unto others, is the only true common law, no damage to property, no harm to another individual or group, no violation of their inherent rights and THERE IS NO CRIME.

Man came first, he CREATED GOVERNMENT TO SERVE HIM!!!!!!!!!! What about that do you not understand, the government can create NO LAW, STATUTE, CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION or RULE that violates the sovereign, inherent, natural rights of man. If men were responsible, as they should be, we would go before the sheriff for any dispute and judges and lawyers WOULD NOT BE NEEDED. THAT is why you fight so vigorously to keep your position and your job.

I respect and appreciate your passion for your position and your job, we all need to do something to keep us busy, but you must understand that what YOU believe in is not exactly the truth of the matter and it does not help the OP.


Equity in a monetary sense is different from the term equity when used in the place of the law.

I understand perfectly well, to be honest, the point you are trying to get across about government not being able to legislate against the rights of man. That is presumably why our legislatures are not able to legislate against habeas corpus (in theory).

Unfortunately, what I don't think you understand is, again, that government (in the United States) was created to serve man but not to serve his every whim. The government was created to serve the people in so far as organising their lives in the sense of creating rules and laws that would regulate commerce and crime (amongst other things) across the land. Each state obviously has their own right of reservation to legislate in this area, but federal crimes nonetheless exist and are prosecuted by federal, rather than state courts.

Because the people of the United States and of each state jurisdiction consent to be governed by their government (otherwise they would overthrow them, presumably), the legislatures are able to make law which governs the interactions of human beings.

There is nothing about making the OP pay child support which is inherently contrary to his rights either under the US constitution or presumably state constitutions. If the OP has been involved with that child in a manner of prescribed ways, then on the basis of public interest (because the legislature has a legitimate interest in ensuring the well-being of society, and particularly children), the OP will be required to support and maintain that child until he reaches legal age.

There is nothing, in my eyes, which is inherently contrary to the constitution or to the OP's 'God-given' rights in forcing him to support a child with which he has had a familial relationship.

If he has had no such relationship, and this woman is claiming falsely against him, then the courts will not order him to do anything. I know that's hard to believe, but in the field of family law, there are numerous instances where objectively unjust decisions have been reached in order to accord with the law as prescribed (i.e. father finds out his child is not his shortly after the birth - court holds that no such familial relationship has yet been established between the child and father and thus allow father to walk free without any encumbrance).

On the other hand, if he has been involved emotionally with the child, the court will likely decide (on the basis of both previously decided cases and relevant statutes, of which there are many in family law, regulation of the family being a relatively recent creation) that the need of the child for a familial relationship with the man that it sees as its father (on the basis of some previously enduring relationship - it need not be biological) will outweigh the liberty of the father to walk free from the family. This is done in the best interest of society, hard though it is to believe.

None of this previous discussion will really have anything to do with helping the OP avoid a court-order (sorry guys, but going before a court and trying to say you do not recognise the authority of the court is literally going to get you nowhere. It would be nice to have a convenient means of escape from legal control, but unfortunately it is exactly that which legal regulation is designed to prevent).

Best of luck to the OP if he is being 'set up' by the mother; if he has not, and has spent considerable and significant time with the child, man up and care more about the child (who presumably sees you as its father, even if you are biologically not) than your bank balance.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
To practice law in the United States, you are required to have passed the BAR exam and be a member of the BAR Association in good standing. The "B.A.R." in BAR Association stands for British Accreditation Registry. Read that again, BRITISH ACCREDTIATION REGISTRY! Note the world British! This is because ALL of the courts in the United States are Courts of Uniform Commercial Code and NOT Common Law. Judges are not judges at all as "Judges" can only hear Common Law cases, they are Administrators and Managers. They enforce regulations, codes and statutes - all of which only apply to corporations and not human beings. All of this is rooted in Maritime Admiralty Law, better known as "Contract Law" or "Commercial Law." Every time you interact with the government you are contracting. Get a driver's license and you sign a contract. Get a marriage license and sign a contact. Register for the draft and sign a contract. Take employment and submit a w-4 or an I-9 and you have signed a contract.

Here's the catch, a "Contract: is void when either party enters said contract under duress or sans full disclosure. As you can clearly see, all of the methods employed to trick people into entering contracts are clearly under circumstances of duress; eg, without a driver's license you will not be permitted to drive, and lack full disclosure. As a result, it is quite simple to extract one's self from the contract and mount a defense. In the above example, "Driving" is an activity of commerce and is subject to regulation. However, you are free to travel unencumbered as provided for under Common Law and the Bill of Rights. As a result, you are able to control a motor vehicle without a license or registration but be prepared to be hassled by the revenue police and their administrators.

Again, go back to the BAR association... Now do you beter understand why attorneys carry the title "Esquire"? Can you see where Uniform Commercial Code comes into play and how it is enforced? The whole system is smoke and mirrors and we are tricked into participating.
edit on 12-3-2011 by kozmo because: spelling


*snip* there is no such thing as a 'court of uniform commercial code', nor is any Bar organization an acronym. Myself and a previous poster have explained the colloquial source of the term 'bar organisation'.

Furthermore, I am sorry to say this (as I hate seeing this) but you have plainly not taken the time to read my prior posts. You are literally making up definitions of contract law and commercial law. Maritime law deals with contracts pertaining to (surprise, surprise) contracts of carriage, marine insurance et c. ie it regulates international trade over water. Commercial law and contract law apply just as much to domestic, land-based transactions as they do to transactions governing international sale (i.e. CIF, FOB contracts).

And again... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'COMMON LAW' CASE. There are such things as rights, definitions, and remedies 'at common law' (i.e. existing by virtue of prior legal decision and not enshrined in any statute). Statutes apply just as much to individuals as they do to corporations. You still do not understand the concept of legal personality and what a 'corporation' is (which is actually legally considered a 'person', just as you are...unsurprisingly). If statutes do not apply to individuals, how in the f**k do you possibly describe both the purpose and consistent application of a statute like the Texas Penal Code which regulates all criminal justice in the State of Texas. Many of the crimes contained therein were previously crimes at common law (i.e. murder) but which have now been codified viz. PUT INTO WRITTEN, LEGAL CODE. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, your example with the motor vehicle is patently untrue. You are allowed to travel unencumbered, but driving is regulated by states because it is in the public interest to ensure the safety of citizens on the roads by ensuring that drivers are competent to drive (by virtue of having passed tests which prove that - hence you are licenced i.e. legally permitted by the state to drive). You are NOT allowed to operate a motorvehicle on public highways without a licence because there is no means to prove to the state that you are a competent driver - skills without which you may injure and kill other members of the public.

Esquire, furthermore, has no legal significance, and many, many lawyers do not suffix their name with it. I can assure you that the American Bar organisations (note: that is NOT an acronym) operate on a very different basis to the Bar of England and Wales, which is only composed of a small minority of the legal profession who are Barristers.

You are again putting out these quite literally made up 'facts' with no support whatsoever, other than your bold assertion that what you say is truth.

If you believe that you are nonetheless correct, I implore you to actually use substantive evidence to give weight to your arguments. You will otherwise be presumed by both myself, and anyone else with common-sense reading this thread, to be both incorrect, and wilfully spouting falsehoods.


Vulgarity and the Automatic ATS Censors
edit on 3/12/2011 by maria_stardust because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
To practice law in the United States, you are required to have passed the BAR exam and be a member of the BAR Association in good standing. The "B.A.R." in BAR Association stands for British Accreditation Registry. Read that again, BRITISH ACCREDTIATION REGISTRY! Note the world British! This is because ALL of the courts in the United States are Courts of Uniform Commercial Code and NOT Common Law. Judges are not judges at all as "Judges" can only hear Common Law cases, they are Administrators and Managers. They enforce regulations, codes and statutes - all of which only apply to corporations and not human beings. All of this is rooted in Maritime Admiralty Law, better known as "Contract Law" or "Commercial Law." Every time you interact with the government you are contracting. Get a driver's license and you sign a contract. Get a marriage license and sign a contact. Register for the draft and sign a contract. Take employment and submit a w-4 or an I-9 and you have signed a contract.

Here's the catch, a "Contract: is void when either party enters said contract under duress or sans full disclosure. As you can clearly see, all of the methods employed to trick people into entering contracts are clearly under circumstances of duress; eg, without a driver's license you will not be permitted to drive, and lack full disclosure. As a result, it is quite simple to extract one's self from the contract and mount a defense. In the above example, "Driving" is an activity of commerce and is subject to regulation. However, you are free to travel unencumbered as provided for under Common Law and the Bill of Rights. As a result, you are able to control a motor vehicle without a license or registration but be prepared to be hassled by the revenue police and their administrators.

Again, go back to the BAR association... Now do you beter understand why attorneys carry the title "Esquire"? Can you see where Uniform Commercial Code comes into play and how it is enforced? The whole system is smoke and mirrors and we are tricked into participating.
edit on 12-3-2011 by kozmo because: spelling


The definition of a contract is offer and acceptance followed by consideration. Duress is also different from what you claim is duress (i.e. can you imagine someone escaping a contract entered into by pleading duress on the grounds that 'well, I contracted to buy a tv, and since I would not be able to watch the game without buying it, I was acting under duress'?) That is not duress. Freedom of contract is both something by which parties can benefit, as well as lose if they are not thinking clearly when they enter into a legal agreement.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
To practice law in the United States, you are required to have passed the BAR exam and be a member of the BAR Association in good standing. The "B.A.R." in BAR Association stands for British Accreditation Registry.


No it does not - care to show a official source that shows that - not some silly conspiracy theory site. You believe silly conspiracy theory sites as you cannot handle the facts.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I've only dipped my toe in now and then because of my high Irritation Quotient. It would be possible to write a thirty page brief on why the Freeman arguments are wrong, won't work, or both, but I have no intention of doing that. Some people would simply say "brainwashed" and throw it all out.

But I got lucky, someone did write all this up, including some case cites, links to documents, appellate court decisions in their entirety, and other materials. Here's the link. You can go to the bottom of the first page for a few brief summaries or choose your particular issue from a middle-of-the-page link.

I would be delighted (and amazed) to see an opposing argument as persuasive.

Legal Research on Freeman Movement Issues

Please don't brush this aside. This is the best presentation I've seen so far. This is a chance to see why the Freeman Movement hasn't worked, and why you need a different approach.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 



I noticed how you conveniently ignored the post by Jean Paul Zodeaux linked below, yet go on and try to nit pick nuances in words or misspellings etc. Like a good attorney who ignores the weight of the matter and just tries to walks all around the edges so he can collect his fees at the end of the day taking no thought for the lives he is participating in ruining by his sworn duty to the de facto court.

post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



All cases today are in equity under the law merchant or UCC which is now a hybrid body of law not recognized as lawful rules of procedure by any constitution state or federal for any court in the land today that is why there are "CHARGES" and legislatures pass BILLS. Your are being treated as merchandise and CHARGED with non performance of the contract under a BILL of lading (statute) a charge is a monetary assesment. So next time you are CHARGED in a court ask them HOW MUCH do I owe to satisfy the contract and who is making the claim. It has to be a man or women who makes a claim the state is a corporate fiction and cannot makes claims against men or women.

if you can't pay you are then warehoused in the jail as collateral on the said charge and a bond is written against you the collateral and traded on the market until the charge is paid then you can be released.

Yes I know it is done every day, it is done because of ignorance and because they/you can by bringing government coercion force and fear to bear. yes it is really that simple your entire livelihood that you devoted your life too depends on government coercion , force, and fear not some command of municipal corporate policy you falsely believe is law.

In short you harm people for a living ruining thier lives pretending to defend them or prosecute them and subjecting them to the whims of some judge who ruins lives daily for victimless crimes. This is why attorneys are despised, and you are an attorney licensed to "practice" law, not a lawyer in fact. You see practice is not the real thing, practice is is a mock up of the real thing. Just like baseball there is practice and then there is the real game.

This is why attorney's "practice" at law. they are like little kids playing grown up and having fake tea parties because they know not the law, they know pseudo law which is a mishmash of maritime, merchant, and UCC contract policies. The constitution only mentions two forms of law, common law, and Admiralty law. All others are unlawful because they are not authorized in the constitutions which is the law that all government entities must abide by. Failing to do so makes them outlaws hence government are outside the law in any action that is not specifically defined in thier governing bodies of law; i.e. the constitutions of the several states and the union.

.


edit on 12-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90
 



I noticed how you conveniently ignored the post by Jean Paul Zodeaux, yet go on and try to nit pick nuances in words or misspellings etc. Like a good attorney who ignores the weight of the matter and just tries to wall all around the edges so he can collect his fees at the end of the day.

post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



All cases to day are in equity under the law merchant or UCC which is now a hybrid body of law not recognized as lawful rules of procedure by any constitution state or federal for any court in the land today that is why there are "CHARGES" and legislatures pass BILLS. Your are being treated as merchandise and CHARGED with non performance of the contract under BILL of lading (statute). So next time you are CHARGED in a court ask them HOW MUCH do I owe to satisfy the contract and who is making the claim. It has to be a man or women who makes a claim the state is a corporate fiction and cannot makes claims against men or women.

Yes I know it is done every day, it is done because of ignorance and because the/you can by bringing government coercion force and fear to bear
.


Jean Paul Zodeaux repeated the same half-cocked arguments that everyone else has on this thread. He added nothing to the debate that could not be disproven with relative ease and quick perusal of some internet sites (consultation of textbooks wasn't even necessary).

All legislatures pass bills. A 'bill' is just a term used to refer to legislation before it has been given legal force by consent/passing procedure of the legislature. That is what a bill is. A bill is not related in any way to the maritime-law meaning of 'bill'.

And also, I honestly don't know where you get the idea that a corporate entity cannot bring legal action against individuals. That is just plainly and simply not true. Just as an individual can raise action against a corporate entity (which is legally a person - it has legal personality), so can a corporation (with legal personality) raise action against an individual.

Equity has nothing to do with commerce whatsoever. Equity is a distinct body of rules which was invented to circumvent the harshness of the common-law rules (see: Law of Judicature Act 1873 (UK) if you want to see a fairly basic explanation of the differences between what used to be ourts of common-law and courts of equity - I should stress that 'common law' court is a term entirely different form what is described in the OP, and refers to procedure and the writs that could be brought rather than any rights accorded to the individual). Equity is largely limited (at least in the UK) to trusts, wills, and property law, although other areas of the law have borrowed some of its concepts, such as estoppel.

I'm not entirely certain what relevance the term 'charged' has if someone is suing you for breach of contract. I haven't heard that term used before but that might be the norm in America, I'm not certain. Unless of course you are referring 'charge' in the sense of a right granted over secured property (real or personal).

I'm sorry but you consistently misunderstand what the UCC and Equity are. Furthermore, how can you possible claim that the UCC is not recognised in the United States? it is THE definitive harmonising commercial code which makes inter-state commerce feasible and easy. You are literally just telling non-truths.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I've only dipped my toe in now and then because of my high Irritation Quotient. It would be possible to write a thirty page brief on why the Freeman arguments are wrong, won't work, or both, but I have no intention of doing that. Some people would simply say "brainwashed" and throw it all out.

But I got lucky, someone did write all this up, including some case cites, links to documents, appellate court decisions in their entirety, and other materials. Here's the link. You can go to the bottom of the first page for a few brief summaries or choose your particular issue from a middle-of-the-page link.

I would be delighted (and amazed) to see an opposing argument as persuasive.

Legal Research on Freeman Movement Issues

Please don't brush this aside. This is the best presentation I've seen so far. This is a chance to see why the Freeman Movement hasn't worked, and why you need a different approach.


Thank God, perhaps then people will stop perverting legal terms in this thread.

I shall have a read through. Thank you for this! Perhaps many here will be forced to recant their vicious words and defamatory cries.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
haha I'm not sure why I didn't post that Judicature Act sooner actually... Common law courts have not existed in the United Kingdom since 1875 when they were abolished...

Amazing that the UK freeman court insists that they still exist, despite the statute plainly stating otherwise...

*Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873
edit on 12-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I've only dipped my toe in now and then because of my high Irritation Quotient. It would be possible to write a thirty page brief on why the Freeman arguments are wrong, won't work, or both, but I have no intention of doing that. Some people would simply say "brainwashed" and throw it all out.

But I got lucky, someone did write all this up, including some case cites, links to documents, appellate court decisions in their entirety, and other materials. Here's the link. You can go to the bottom of the first page for a few brief summaries or choose your particular issue from a middle-of-the-page link.

I would be delighted (and amazed) to see an opposing argument as persuasive.

Legal Research on Freeman Movement Issues

Please don't brush this aside. This is the best presentation I've seen so far. This is a chance to see why the Freeman Movement hasn't worked, and why you need a different approach.


Been reading through this. It is excellent.

I urge every poster on this thread to read through.

Your apologies will be accepted in due course.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





Jean Paul Zodeaux repeated the same half-cocked arguments that everyone else has on this thread. He added nothing to the debate that could not be disproven with relative ease and quick perusal of some internet sites (consultation of textbooks wasn't even necessary).


Typical of the priest class lawyer set, all you can do is reify, and like the poser that you are, instead of actually refuting my assertions you instead dismiss those assertions as being "easily dis-proven with relative ease", without yourself dis-proving a damn thing I said.

You are a perfect example of just how dangerous lawyers have become. While lawyers and judges in these modern times love to repeat ad nauseum the aphorism; "A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client", the tragic reality is that increasingly if a man turns to an attorney for representation that man is not only a fool client, and if that man has you as his attorney, he most assuredly has a fool for a lawyer.

Here is what you have effectively managed to do in this thread, Snidely Whiplash, you have purposefully and willingly put on your black hat and with every post greedily rub your hands together while plotting how you can harm the next person. You have no regard for freedom, and you certainly have no regard for the rights of people. You are a government sycophant through and through, and the thing about governments is that if they are a just government they need no sycophants.

If there were actually such a thing as a wise lawyer in this modern age, and that wise lawyer actually had some respect for the accreditation of attorneys, they would be closely monitoring sites such as this and would not hesitate to pounce on people like you and urge you, nay beg you to shut up. Not that the priest class lawyer set needed your help, but you most assuredly help make them look bad.

All people have the right, when faced with criminal charges, to the competent assistance of counsel. In today's modern age, it would be a grand mistake to simply assume that a licensed attorney would function as that assistance of counsel, let alone competent assistance of counsel. Indeed, if they are a part of the priest class lawyer set they will flat out refuse to be assistance of counsel and insist that a person sign over power of attorney and allow that priest class lawyer to handle their defense. If people today ever hope to have any form of competent assistance of counsel, they must be very, very, careful if they choose a lawyer for that assistance of counsel, and they must never, at any time, sign over power of attorney, and since all people are presumed to know the law, then it is in all peoples best interest to face criminal charges pro per, and then demand their right to assistance of counsel be respected.

Keep posting away Snidely, I with all my craft and skill of language could never do the damage to the priest class lawyer set that you have managed to do yourself in this thread, all by yourself. Keep bwahhhhahahahaing while rubbing your greedy little hands together, for truly the good and righteous know you for the villain that you are, and this is why you have been shown the respect you deserve in this thread. You are being shown the respect all villains deserve.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm not sure you're being entirely fair to Duality90. I can certainly understand frustration but you did seem to go a little excessive in the effort you put forth just to call him (her?) names. It just didn't seem as thoughtful and productive as some of your posts have been.

I can understand where the idea that he was brushing you off came from (the first paragraph) but after that he went on to explain that words such as "Bills" have alternate meanings and that you were using them in the wrong context. You may argue that he is wrong, but he did attempt to deal with your contentions. (By the way, Go, Bills")

I liked your discussion on what appeared to be the junction of Natural Law and Statutory Law. That's worth a full chapter, if not a book, in political philosophy.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





I can understand where the idea that he was brushing you off came from (the first paragraph) but after that he went on to explain that words such as "Bills" have alternate meanings and that you were using them in the wrong context. You may argue that he is wrong, but he did attempt to deal with your contentions. (By the way, Go, Bills")


You are misreading that clowns post. That fool of priest class lawyer was responding directly to hawkiye in regards to "Bills" and made absolutely no attempt what-so-ever to refute what that clown claims are assertions easily refuted. I made no contentions regarding "Bills" and the contention I made was that legislation is no more law than the map is the territory or a picture of a pipe is a pipe.

Any fool that thinks all they have to do in order to refute an argument is simply reify and claim that the argument made is easily refuted and leave at that is a fool that demands to recognized as a fool. This is member representing them self as a wanna be attorney for crying out loud! Can you imagine if this member was acting as your attorney and responded to a plaintiff's claims by arguing that he need not refute the claim because the claim is easily refuted and all the judge or jury has to do is go on the internet, or read a text book, and they will see why this fool does not have to respond to the claims of the plaintiff? Would you want that person as your assistance of counsel?

The priest class lawyer set wants it both ways. They want to rely on the long established legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but they want you to remain ignorant of the law so they can remain a priest class set. There is nothing admirable about this position, and it should not be tolerated by reasonable people.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding, I appreciate it.

Were you proposing the existence of a universal natural law which was to be protected by written laws designed for that purpose? Or, perhaps, in the presence of an educated citizenry written law would be unnecessary? I know that discussion is off the topic, but it is fascinating.

As far as the topic goes, unless I see something remarkable, I'm going to stick with my belief that the Freeman movement is non-functional.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





Were you proposing the existence of a universal natural law which was to be protected by written laws designed for that purpose? Or, perhaps, in the presence of an educated citizenry written law would be unnecessary? I know that discussion is off the topic, but it is fascinating.


I would argue that natural law does not need any protection. Sir Isaac Newton did not write down the mathematical equation to gravity in order to protect it, simply just to describe it, or at the very least describes properties of it. This is how a legislative act rooted in law should be seen, as an act describing law, or properties of a a certain law.

I would also argue that the term "educated citizenry" is a double edged sword for the use of both words. Sadly, in today's world the "educated" are rarely that, and would be better classified as the indoctrinated, and in terms of citizenry, people need not be citizens in order to know the law. Indeed, people do know the law, even today in this age of disinformation, people know the law. No one needs it explained to them why murder is unlawful, nor does anyone need explained to them why theft is unlawful, even in this age so saturated with Marxist ideology, people still need no explanation as to why theft is unlawful.

Law is self evident. I find it amusing that there are always people willing to argue this claim that law is self evident by asserting that if it were self evident everyone would be in a agreement as to what it is, where it is, and what it means, but this is not what is meant by self evident. The sun is self evident only during the day, and during the day no person need use a flashlight to find the sun, even if they are not immediately aware of that suns presence, or know where precisely in the sky that sun is positioned, or what chemical compounds make up that sun. The sun, as long as it continues to blaze in the fashion it has since time immemorial will remain self evident.

So too are the rights of people self evident. No one needs it explained to them by some one wiser that they have a right to life, (would this be one of my "half baked" claims that the priest class lawyer could so easily refute, I wonder?), and no one needs it explained to them that they have the right to speak up, or to write and publish their ideas as they see fit, or to worship a deity according to the dictates of their own conscious. These rights are self evident.

So too is the right to make a living. Of course, some may wish to point to the current age of credentialism and the fact that so many people willingly rush to city hall and apply for a license to do what is self evidently a right to do as evidence that the right to earn income is not a self evident right at all. It would be, if one were to point to the current situation as a refutation to my assertion that the right to earn income is self evident, a valid point. However, I would suggest that people still rush to city hall to apply to a license to what is other wise a right to do because people tend to be reasonable, and will place a great deal of faith and trust in the goodness of government.

It is not that the right to earn an income isn't self evident to these applicants of a business license, it is that they wish to co-operate with their own government as best they can in the belief that such co-operation lends itself towards a better society. The mistake these people who've sought credentials in order to do what is otherwise a right to do have made is believing that government can be trusted to do good. I am not arguing that government is incapable of doing good, only that they cannot be trusted to do this good without the ever present watchful eye of people who jealously guard their rights, and zealously defend them. When these watchers of the watchmen are relegated to a lunatic fringe, and the vast majority of people turn a blind eye to the encroaching predilections of tyranny, it matters not how "educated" this "citizenry" is, they are acting as foolishly as the man who swims in a pool filled with his favorite pet sharks.

Just because a person has had a boa constrictor as a pet for several years doesn't make it any safer to allow that boa constrictor to hang around their neck as if some sort of affectionate bond has been made between snake and human. The snake must always be handled with care. So to must government.

The Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment on government, and no one need be a Constitutional "expert" to understand that this document was created for the express purpose of restraining government from acting in ways that governments all too often tend to act. This is why people have the natural and unalienable right to keep and bear arms. To protect themselves from the tyranny of government.




As far as the topic goes, unless I see something remarkable, I'm going to stick with my belief that the Freeman movement is non-functional.


I have not entered this thread to sell any "freeman movement" ideology, and you my friend are entitled to your beliefs, and I will defend your right to own those beliefs until the day I die. That said, between members of the "freeman movement" and the priest class lawyer set, it is the members of the freeman movement of whom I trust and respect and more closely identify with. Just as I willingly defend your right to own your beliefs, so to do I willingly defend their rights as well, and to the best of my knowledge, the vast majority of "freemen" will fight just as passionately for your rights too. This cannot be honestly said about the priest class lawyer set, and the best you can count on from them is that they will fight for your "civil rights" and even then, only half heartedly, and always steeped in arrogance.



new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join