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: 17
153
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
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).


As Jean Paul so succinctly pointed out if it was so easily disproven why is it you have NOT disproven a single element of it, but instead dismiss it as half cocked? Typical attorney, when no can defend, demur.


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'.


Take note here folks this is important for you to understand. This attorney is attempting to dismiss the fact that words have specific meaning and what most people do not understand is attorneys and the legal class have a completely different language using terms familiar to society but most often having a completely different meaning then the common cultural meaning society normally applies to the term.

So here he attempts to do what attorneys do in court to use the common cultural application of the word bill knowing full well it has a different meaning legally. This is why t they have their own legal dictionaries to redefine words in the legal class. Any time you are in court know this; any word used will be defined in legal terms not in common definitions. So it is wise to have a law dictionary handy. Also they revise law dictionaries from time to time to further hide their subterfuge behind the meanings of words so it is best to get an older version like Blacks Law 4th edition or earlier.

Lets look up the legal definition of the word bill in Blacks Law 4th deluxe edition:

There are several pages of definitions but lets look at a couple that apply to our current system of de facto commercial law/UCC practised in today courts. All courts are municipal corporations hence commercial entities. In other words the are a business and their goal is to make a profit. You can look them up on Dunn and Bradstreet.

In commercial law: a written statement of the terms of a contract or specifications of the items of a transaction or if a demand; also a general name for any items of indebtedness, weather receivable or payable.

In maritime law: the term is applied to contracts of various sorts, but chiefly to bills of lading and to bills of adventure.

What's happening in today's courts is a commercial transaction you are considered chattel and the statute is the contract or bill of lading you are to perform under and the charge is to compensate for non performance of the contract. These courts have no authority under the law namely title 3 of the federal constitution and the corresponding section of their state constitution hence they are unlawful courts and no man or women is obligated to obey them. The people only do so out of ignorance, coercion, force, and fear. These thugs are nothing more then organised crime syndicates operating under color of law.

Does the attorney disagree that the State and federal constitutions are the law that govern the legislature, judicial and Executive? And that those branches are strictly limited to the specific powers defined therein?


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.


Corporations are fictional entities. Fiction means something that does not exist. How can something that does not exist bring an action? They are façades for real men and women to bring unlawful actions against other real men and women but not be liable for their actions period. That's what corporations do; they deflect liability to some fictional entity that does not exist in real life.! They should not be allowed to exist, all men and women are personally responsible for all their actions whether they form a company or not. Legally being a person means an artificial person and is still a fiction, not a flesh and blood natural man or woman. Here again folks the word person means something different in the legal class then it does to the men and women. So when ever a judge calls you a person object and say I am a natural man or woman. Fictions do not exist that is why they are called fictions.


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.


Talk about half cocked, Equity law is derived from the court of Chancery and implies fairness, at least originally it did. It deals in business not criminal cases however most cases are tried as civil even when it is criminal because again you are being treated as chattel cna charged for non performance on a contract. So to say business is not in commerce is absurd.


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).


You've never heard the phrase "charged" with a crime, or "brought up on charges". or have the charges read in court?

Blacks law 4th deluxe:

Charges: the expenses which have been incurred, or disbursements made, in connection with a contract, suit, or business transaction.


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.


I did not say they were not recognized at all. They are only recognized by unlawful de facto courts that have become the norm due to ignorance and sedition. They are not recognized as law applying to men and women on the land by the constitutions limiting the judiciary. I am literally telling the truth unlike you.

Apparently you are in the UK is that correct? If so that would explain some of your ignorance but not all. You do not seem to understand that the federal and state constitutions strictly limit the legislature, judiciary, and executive to those powers specifically defined therein and they cannot legislate or adjudicate outside those limits. Doing so is treading on peoples rights.

Also why are you arguing American law being from the UK? That does not denote good mental judgement now does it? Still the attorney class are the leeches and sores on society. If ever the SHTF I hope you have some place to retreat to because attorneys will not fair well in civil unrest as some folks seek to settle scores.


Pretty certain I included various sources in a previous post (several posts above this) wherein I posted various cases and excerpts from courts commenting on various 'freeman' arguments.

I am from the UK, but I graduated High School in the US and am probably moving back to America next year to pursue my Masters in Law.

I still don't understand where the hatred for lawyers comes from (I know it's funny to make jokes about it, but lawyers as a class are really no different from any other demographic in society).

My point about state legislatures and federal legislatures is that they do have the power to legislate and enact statutes.

I will refer to the Texas State constitution for ease (as I was formerly a Texas resident):

Article 1, Section 2 states: "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

I can see where the argument about 'consent' comes in with the wording of that Section. However, as I have said before (again, I don't know the relevant cases because I have not previously studied American law in an academic environment), but conceptually speaking, "for the benefit of the people" implies that, in return for implicit consent of the people to be governed by the Government of Texas, the Government is thus empowered to... well, govern, even if certain aspects of that governance are not to the liking of certain elements of society.

Article 3, S.43 states: "Sec. 43. REVISION OF LAWS. (a) The Legislature shall provide for revising, digesting and publishing the laws, civil and criminal; provided, that in the adoption of and giving effect to any such digest or revision, the Legislature shall not be limited by sections 35 and 36 of this Article.
(b) In this section, "revision" includes a revision of the statutes on a particular subject and any enactment having the purpose, declared in the enactment, of codifying without substantive change statutes that individually relate to different subjects. "

with s.35,36 stating: "Sec. 35. SUBJECTS AND TITLES OF BILLS. (a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.
(b) The rules of procedure of each house shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.
(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title."

Nowhere is the term statute used, but 'law'. Presumably (and if anyone has jurisprudence on the matter which would contradict what I am saying, please do correct me) that would mean that any legislation passed by virtue of the normal proceedings becomes law and has legal effect upon residents of Texas.

I don't see in this instance how the Texas Legislature is constrained from passing bills/laws/statutes that provide for legal rules which regulate the dealings of individuals.

Article 5, Section 8 states: "Sec. 8. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURT. District Court jurisdiction consists of exclusive, appellate, and original jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body. District Court judges shall have the power to issue writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction.
The District Court shall have appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over the County Commissioners Court, with such exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law."

Nowhere is 'common law' jurisdiction considered. The district courts of texas (i.e. where a civil suit would start and be tried initially) have jurisdiction in all matters except where those powers are reserved for another court i.e. jurisdiction to hear a criminal appeal et c.

As regards your discussion of equity, I regret to say that I really don't understand how you connect equity with criminal cases. Breach of contract is not a matter of criminal law. Furthermore, you are not a chattel. Can you provide any case where it was held that a human being is another? I will readily admit that, in the past, the legal position was that a wife was her husband's chattel, but this position has (for obvious reasons) long since ceased to apply.

A chattel is personal property - it is anything you own, in the sense that it is tangible or intangible property i.e. your car or contents of a wine cellar would be chattels. There is, as far as I know, no English case where it has been necessary to proclude the possibility of a human being a chattel because the definition is so plain and obvious that it would be de minimis to consider the argument.

Equity, as you correctly pointed out, is that body of rules which came from the Chancery courts to mitigate the harshness of the common law. In that sense, what Equity provides largely are remedies to preclude unjust enrichment of one party, or to restrain that parties unconscionable conduct. It may well apply to commercial contracts if, for instance, one party has agreed not to take rent for a certain period, and, to his detriment, the other party has relied on that promise, equity will intervene to restrain the other party later coming back and demanding payment of the rent that he promised to forego - this is done by 'estopping' that party from recovering by virtue of his unconscionable conduct (see: Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 - the authoritative judgment on promissory estoppel).

In that sense, equity CAN apply to commercial contracts, but it doesn't regulate commercial conduct in the sense of having anything to do with taxation unless it is contrary to good faith and conscience for the government to recover tax monies if they had done some act which could preclude them from doing so.

As regards legal personality... A corporation is a legal fiction just like the united states or the united kingdom in it's actions in the ICJ is a legal fiction - it is given legal personality so that it can raise action and have actions raised against it, just as it if were a person like you or I. A corporation (which does not necessarily imply corporation in the usual 'business' connotation) is given legal personality so that it, in the eyes of the law, is a person just like you or me, able to take people to Court. The legal 'person' is a fiction in the sense that there is no one single individual that can be pointed at (and thus no one single person that can be liable for that Corporation's debts) but is nonetheless composed of various people, usually its board of directors et c and those acting under it's name.

In what I gather is a classic US Supreme Court case, there is dicta to confirm that corporations are considered legal persons with the same constitutional rights as a natural person would have.
See: Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific R.R. (1886) 118 US(SC) 394.

I believe there was certain scrutiny applied to the case in later judgments, but the dicta of the judge remained good law.

You state that they are a means for 'real' men and women to bring 'unlawful' actions. How is that so? A corporation has interests to protect, just as a 'real' person does - those assets and interests belong to no single individual but belong to the corporation as a whole. For instance, when the US government sued BP this summer, they could sue no single individual, but instead sued BP Plc. (a British company, as denoted by the Plc. suffix). If a corporation had no legal personality, how could the Obama administration have sued BP? The corporation is treated, legally speaking, as an 'individual', and can thus be served an action against it. That case (unreported but still being litigated, I believe) is US v BP Plc/ In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon (see:www.bloomberg.com...)

The corporation sole or aggregate is thus accorded legal personality and is able to sue, and be sued. That is why a corporation is able to sue you in court. The courts recognize the power of these bodies to sue you not because there is some grand conspiracy operating, but because that is just simply the legal position. I honestly understand where you are coming from from a common sense perspective, but in the reality of today's commercial world, corporations need to be accorded legal personality in order to protect their assets, as well as to make them accountable to people or corporations that they have harmed in some way. If corporations did not have legal personality, they would not be able to sue nor be sued. That would effectively make anything other than interpersonal litigation impossible. Can you imagine the insanity and commercial uncertainty that such a system would provide? Companies would simply stop doing business in the United States if that was the case.

I apologize for the lengthy post, but I wanted to give something substantive for you guys to sink your teeth into.

Hope you enjoy. There is no question in my mind that the assertions of the freeman movement are fallacious and based upon no sound legal bases whatsoever, but alas, it obviously has a strong following, so this is my concerted attempt to continue to remove any air of legitimacy that movement has. It is honestly for the benefit of everyone to know that any attempt to use the freeman arguments in your defense in a criminal or civil trial is advisable only if you want to be either certain to be the losing party, charged with contempt of court, or both.




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 



My point about state legislatures and federal legislatures is that they do have the power to legislate and enact statutes.


No they do not they can only enact law pertaining to the specific authorities granted them by the people as specifically defined in the constitutions. What part of "all power is inherent In the people" do you not understand? The people authorized the legislature to enact laws as defined in their scope in the constitutions, they can do nothing more. And anything more is outside of law and thier scope. The fact that the do it anyway does not make lawful hence statutes are unlawful!


Nowhere is the term statute used, but 'law'. Presumably (and if anyone has jurisprudence on the matter which would contradict what I am saying, please do correct me) that would mean that any legislation passed by virtue of the normal proceedings becomes law and has legal effect upon residents of Texas.


And of course you confirm our assertion they cannot enact de facto statutes, as statute is not mentioned IF ITS NOT IN THERE THEY CAN'T ACT ON IT! What they can act on is specially defined. The key words to the articles on the cases you cited is "within thier jurisdiction" Which jurisdiction is defined in the constitutions both state and federal limiting them. The fact they assume jurisdiction outside thier scope does not make it lawful and cases adjudicated outside the scope of thier authority do not a law make.


edit on 13-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90
 









Secondly, you are so lazy that you cannot even be bothered to go back through the pages of this thread to find the reference to the Texas Constitution you speak of.

Thirdly, don't bother. Allow me to cite certain Sections of Article 1 from the Texas Constitution:


Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.


Read it and weep, sport.


Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.


Oh look at that! Here the Texas Constitution is agreeing with me that all law is simple, true, universal and absolute, and not at all arbitrary and capricious. Or, perhaps since I have not been properly ordained by the lawyer church you believe I have misunderstood this section.


I am sorry but the Texas Constitution says absolutely nothing more than the plain construction of its words implies. Your interpretation of those words is not the same as everyone elses. Nowhere in the text does it state anything that deals with natural rights (aside from the inalienable right to decide which form of governance to have). How is law arbitrary and capricious?



As yet you have produced no such evidence to justify your assertions about consent, and statutes being unlawful means of policy-making with no legal effect.




As to statutes being unlawful, the evidence of this readily apparent in judicial review. If statutes had the force of law simply by virtue of being a statute, judges would not have the authority to strike down a statute as being unlawful. Any first year law student should know this.


Wrong. Judicial review is a means of control. It did not even exist until the Supreme Court decided itself that it had the authority to review the laws of congress (Marbury v Madison). Laws are only amenable to review on a certain number of grounds, and frivolous suits will not be entertained by the Court. The Supreme Court will read the statute insofar as is possible a way that makes it accord with the US constitution. Only in extreme cases where no such broad reading is possible will the Court then intervene to review the validity of the statutes.

Statutes are good law until they are declared incompatible with (from what I gather) any section of the United States constitution. The fact that they are amenable to review does not mean that they are immediately unlawful. As you will recall, the imposition of the death penalty in the US was actually declared unconstitutional, but was then revived later. I personally find that level of fluidity in constitutional interpretation to be quite odious, but alas, it is the USSC that decides and can change its opinion over time. The fact that the death penalty is once more legal (as decreed under various penal codes - at least the Texas Penal Code) does not mean that that statute is illegal. Yes, it was once upon a time declared invalid, but is once more again deemed by the highest court in the land to be compatible with the constitution's ban on 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

Your belief that amenability to judicial review invalidates laws does not accord with the text of the US Constitution.

Article 6, Para. 2 states that the US Constitution and federal statutes are the 'supreme law of the land'.

I can see the logic in your argument, but alas, the legal position does not reflect it.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90
 



My point about state legislatures and federal legislatures is that they do have the power to legislate and enact statutes.


No they do not they can only enact law pertaining to the specific authorities granted them by the people as specifically defined in the constitutions. What part of "all power is inherent In the people" do you not understand? The people authorized the legislature to enact laws as defined in the constitutions they can do nothing more. And anything more is outside of law and thier scope. The fact that the do it anyway does not make lawful hence statutes are unlawful!


Nowhere is the term statute used, but 'law'. Presumably (and if anyone has jurisprudence on the matter which would contradict what I am saying, please do correct me) that would mean that any legislation passed by virtue of the normal proceedings becomes law and has legal effect upon residents of Texas.


And of course you confirm our assertion they cannot enact de facto statutes, as statute is not mentioned IF ITS NOT IN THERE THEY CAN'T DO IT! What they can do is specially defined.


Um... Again, I'm sorry, but I don't know where I'm losing you here.

The Constitution (both US in this case and Texas) gives the legislature the competence to 'make law'. How do governments make law? They enact bills, which become acts, which are statutes. By virtue of the nature of the common law, new rules cannot be made at common law unless they come from litigation. Nothing to litigate over, no new common-law rules.

Statute is the only means by which legislatures make law. There is no other means available to them. They pass new statutes, and they amend old ones. Statute is the law-making instrument of the legislature.

Furthermore, just because power is 'inherent' in the people, does not mean that it is vested in them. Representative democracy as a system makes this inevitable. You do not have any lawmaking power. Your elected representative, acting on your collective mandate (by a majority of people electing him) has the power to vote on bills, and introduce them.

I just don't get where you get the idea that statutes are not law. You have not offered up any decided case which has said this, and given that legislatures, both federal and state, pass hundreds of bills each year which are given effect in courts across the nation, you have not in any substantive way asserted that statutes are illegal forms of lawmaking (they are the only form of lawmaking, so I don't know what you propose the purpose of a legislature is, in that case).

Evidence/citations/decided cases/ extrajudicial writing? Anything? I have been consistently mocked on this thread for 'not disproving anything' despite being the only person to do anything thing other than refer to vague principles of democracy. It would be nice to see some substantive material and actual law coming out from those with opposing ideas. I'm not baiting you or trying to be rude, but it would be nice to see something substantive and definite.

One more thing (edit): you refer to a 'de facto' statute. You misuse the term. 'De facto' implies something which does not purport to be a statute yet which in reality is a statute (i.e. it has the substance but not the form).
edit on 12-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2011 by duality90 because: decorum



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





Wrong. Judicial review is a means of control. It did not even exist until the Supreme Court decided itself that it had the authority to review the laws of congress (Marbury v Madison).


Again you show your willful ignorance. Judicial review is a means of control of what? Are you insisting that judges do not strike down legislation as being unlawful? Is this actually an argument you are making?

If you ever bothered to read Marbury v Madison as opposed to simply uttering the case law as if that in itself explains everything, (this is one reason I refer to you as the priest class lawyer set, as you spout of case law citations as if the citation alone is enough to render an argument useless.), you would know that Chief Justice Marshall explained clearly, and with sound legal reasoning, how it is they found the implicit power of judicial review in the Constitution, and one of the points Marshall makes is that Congress had all ready found implicit powers themselves, and if those implicit powers were to have any validity then the implicit power of judicial review would have to have the same validity.

I do not agree, respectfully, with hawkiye when he asserts that if something is not expressly stated by Constitution that the authority does not exist, however, I do agree with hawkiye that unlawful legislation has no legal authority, and that a priest class lawyer such as yourself wishes to argue this speaks volumes to what you represent, and it sure is hell ain't freedom, sport.




Laws are only amenable to review on a certain number of grounds, and frivolous suits will not be entertained by the Court.


What does frivolous suits have to do with judicial review? You are a horrible magician and your attempts at misdirection are painfully obvious. If a statute is unlawful it is unlawful, and if I, or hawkiye challenge an unlawful statute in a court of law, this is not a "frivolous suit". Further, one does not have to bring suit against the government in order to challenge an unlawful statute and can merely wait for the state to attempt to charge that person with a "crime" under this unlawful statute and challenge the statute then. This, would constitute a "frivolous" suit, but the frivolity would be the state, and their reliance on a bogus statute, or ordinance.




The Supreme Court will read the statute insofar as is possible a way that makes it accord with the US constitution.


It is becoming harder and harder to believe you actually are a law student. The Supreme Court is not the only court that has the power of judicial review. State court judges have this power as well, and can and do review legislative acts passed by state legislatures, and even municipalities.

As far as the SCOTUS reading a statute in a way that is accordance with the U.S. Constitution, they do look for meaning and will consider the significance of each and every word of a statute in order to give the benefit of the doubt that this Statute was written in good faith and according to law. However, and the SCOTUS has many recent examples of legislation struck down, if that statute is not harmonious with the law, then it will be struck down as unconstitutional. This is why a portion of the Bipartisan Finance Reform Act was struck down as unlawful, and this is why a D.C. ordinance regarding hand guns was struck down as unlawful, because they were unlawful. The legislation enacted was bogus and had no force of law, and any force used to enforce this bogus legislation was done so unlawfully.




Only in extreme cases where no such broad reading is possible will the Court then intervene to review the validity of the statutes.


You are grossly misrepresenting what the courts do in regards to judicial review, and you are doing so, I believe to willfully dismiss the authority of the people. Courts do not intervene in regards to unlawful legislation. People challenge these unlawful statutes, and the courts hear these challenges. Any first year law student should know this.




Statutes are good law until they are declared incompatible with (from what I gather) any section of the United States constitution.


No they are not. As further evidence of the uselessness of unlawful legislation passed, I offer as evidence the 18th Amendment, which was actually upheld by the SCOTUS as Constitutional. However, the people saw it differently and collectively flipped their fingers at the government and refused to convict people who sold booze. Thus, 13 years later, Congress was forced to concede that their bogus Amendment was useless and they actually had to create yet another Amendment in order to repeal their bogus Amendment.




The fact that they are amenable to review does not mean that they are immediately unlawful.


If they are unlawful, they are unlawful. Your silly little dance doesn't change this.




As you will recall, the imposition of the death penalty in the US was actually declared unconstitutional, but was then revived later.


All this demonstrates is the fallibility of humans, which is precisely why law is not a function of human invention, but is instead a discovery made by humans. You pointing to the fallibility of judges only supports many of the contentions made by many of the members in this thread that you have issues with.




Your belief that amenability to judicial review invalidates laws does not accord with the text of the US Constitution.


You are remarkably moronic when it comes to comprehension skills. I never once argued that judicial review invalidates law. Quite the contrary the purpose of judicial review is to uphold the law, not invalidate it. Your attempts at trickery and sleight of hand would be frightening if they weren't so rife with fumbling and bumbling. Fortunately, your own fumbling and bumbling makes you more amusing than anything else.




Article 6, Para. 2 states that the US Constitution and federal statutes are the 'supreme law of the land'.


Precisely! No subsequent legislation can be passed to usurp the Constitution and render it moot. Duh! You have roundly won this weeks Jean Paul Zodeaux's So Duh award.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





Wrong. Judicial review is a means of control. It did not even exist until the Supreme Court decided itself that it had the authority to review the laws of congress (Marbury v Madison).


Nope you are wrong judicial review is in the federal constitution and is limited to determining law as within the scope of the constitution. The supreme court cannot make law allowing it to determine what is law, the law is already defined, it can only determine if legislatures are acting within the scope of thier authority... And Marburry vs Madison reaffirms this, you should actually read it sometime:

US Constitution Article III Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law [common law] and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;

What law? The law defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and echoed in the state constituions is the common law of America. The SC cannot interpret law outside this scope neither can state courts. That is what having limited government is all about.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299.

"The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields." DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724


edit on 13-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





The Constitution (both US in this case and Texas) gives the legislature the competence to 'make law'.


Competence cannot be given, and can only be achieved by the individual seeking competence. Constitutions, nor legislation can grant a body competence, and as you have irrefutably shown, a degree will not grant competence either.




Furthermore, just because power is 'inherent' in the people, does not mean that it is vested in them.


Yes, this is precisely what it means. Perhaps you should be more careful in your use of words, and maybe spend a little time clearing up definitions before you spout off the way you do. Vested means fixed, or absolute, and inherent means intrinsic, which is, in effect, fixed or absolute. Further, every state Constitution makes clear that the people have the right to alter or abolish the existing form of government, which should give you a clue as to what is not absolute and fixed, and that is government.




Representative democracy as a system makes this inevitable. You do not have any lawmaking power. Your elected representative, acting on your collective mandate (by a majority of people electing him) has the power to vote on bills, and introduce them.


Have you never heard of ballot propositions? Your ignorance is so pervasive, if it were cancer you would be on a life support system by now.




I just don't get where you get the idea that statutes are not law.


The map is not the territory, a picture of a pipe is not a pipe, and words are not the thing they describe. This is not a "complex beast" of a concept, which may explain why you have such a hard time understanding it. It is simple. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. The law itself is law, and at all times legislation remains what it is, legislation.


edit on 13-3-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 



Furthermore, just because power is 'inherent' in the people, does not mean that it is vested in them. Representative democracy as a system makes this inevitable. You do not have any lawmaking power. Your elected representative, acting on your collective mandate (by a majority of people electing him) has the power to vote on bills, and introduce them


Ah and now you show your complete and utter lack of understanding of any and all things law and to a free republic.

First of all the power is vested in the people or they could not give authority to the legislature to act on their behalf. Second we are not a democracy we are a free republic with all power vested in the people. Nowhere is the word democracy mentioned in the Constitution and for good reason. We do not give up our power by authorizing others to act on our behalf.

If I authorize you to drive my car for me I do not lose the power to do so myself. Individuals cannot exercise rights as a group they do not posses as individuals.


both federal and state, pass hundreds of bills each year which are given effect in courts across the nation, you have not in any substantive way asserted that statutes are illegal forms of lawmaking


Criminals rob steal and harm millions of times a year so I guess they have more authority then the legislatures according to your logic. In fact the legislature have more in common with them then with the men and women. Acting outside the law does not make new law.


One more thing (edit): you refer to a 'de facto' statute. You misuse the term. 'De facto' implies something which does not purport to be a statute yet which in reality is a statute (i.e. it has the substance but not the form)


No you have it wrong De facto means means the state of affairs that exist but is illegitimate or unlawful. Like a king or a government who obtained power by usurpation. IOW it may be the current state of things but it is unlawful. The opposite of de jure.



reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Jean Paul writes:
I do not agree, respectfully, with hawkiye when he asserts that if something is not expressly stated by Constitution that the authority does not exist,


Let me clarify, no authority exist in the legislature or other branches that is not specifically defined as within the their scope to legislate or act concerning it. For instance the Federal congress has no authority to legislate on criminal activity except in cases of treason and a few others defined in the constitution that is left up to the people in the several states. All their actions must remain within their scope period no exceptions. Now days most of it does not.


edit on 13-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


OP, you are delusional. You ARE going to pay your debts or you ARE going to go to jail. Because you don't understand the judiciary system or it's 'statues', doesn't mean your mad rambling at some poor clerks will relieve your responsibilities. The word is Statutes by the way. You continue to make it sound like people are clubbing you with nearby paperweights...

You must have done some REALLY good research before offending low level clerical state employees.

No wonder you are so confused. It would be pretty absurd if law was dictated by hefty ornamentation. Again, the word is Statutes. Please update whether you opt for jail time or a payment plan.

EDIT: Also, if you look up the definition of the word 'statute' it will become clear to you why the court has right to hold trial against you when sufficient evidence is brought forth. Man why do any criminals allow themselves to be prosecuted and instead of getting away scott free. What right does the judiciary system have to prosecute them? Oh yeah, maybe because STATUTES were created by local/state/federal legislatures EMPOWERING them to do so. You really think the judiciary system is some sort of private organization that has no power over a US citizen? It is one of three branches of the US government! This is elementary school stuff...

Additionally, your definition of common/civil/regulatory law is catastrophically incorrect. They are not pursueing you as an individual, but as the entity that entered into a business contract with another entity. This is therefore open to both common and regulatory law. I suppose I am making some assumptions here, but I'm guessing you have failed to return the balance on a loan or credit?
edit on 13-3-2011 by czerro because: educational

edit on 13-3-2011 by czerro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Wow this is so maddening I can't stop thinking about everything that is wrong with this:

Lastly, the more you fight this and display your misguided beliefs simply enforces the case against you. You did not enter into this contraction in good faith. You did not have any intention of fulfilling your contractual obligation. You fraudulently misrepresented yourself and your intentions. You are now wasting the courts time trying to rob someone else who DID fulfill their obligations and DID enter the contract in good faith. Get it over with and fulfill your obligations already, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoosKept240
they suspended my license without my knowledge and got pulled over 3 times in 2 days with a suspended license.


After you were pulled over the first time, you knew you had a suspended license, so why did you keep driving and get pulled over 2 more times?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
A true 'freeman' is unable to pay his debts and works it off of his own volition. Sorta like the anecdote about the guy who couldn't pay his tab at the restaurant and had to wash dishes. Alas, you can't even claim this ridiculous defense as you want your debts to be ignored altogether and work against ANY sort of repayment which also involves random harassment (which I believe is invented as no one wouldn't have called you out on 'statues') of government officials in the process...



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by czerro
 


Since you're so smart and knowledgable on freeman, why not explain how it is, instead of ridiculing those who ask?

You attitude stinks, either you have something of value to add to this convo, or you don't. I'm waiting



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by czerro
reply to post by greenovni
 


OP, you are delusional. You ARE going to pay your debts or you ARE going to go to jail. Because you don't understand the judiciary system or it's 'statues', doesn't mean your mad rambling at some poor clerks will relieve your responsibilities. The word is Statutes by the way. You continue to make it sound like people are clubbing you with nearby paperweights...

You must have done some REALLY good research before offending low level clerical state employees.

No wonder you are so confused. It would be pretty absurd if law was dictated by hefty ornamentation. Again, the word is Statutes. Please update whether you opt for jail time or a payment plan.

EDIT: Also, if you look up the definition of the word 'statute' it will become clear to you why the court has right to hold trial against you when sufficient evidence is brought forth. Man why do any criminals allow themselves to be prosecuted and instead of getting away scott free. What right does the judiciary system have to prosecute them? Oh yeah, maybe because STATUTES were created by local/state/federal legislatures EMPOWERING them to do so. You really think the judiciary system is some sort of private organization that has no power over a US citizen? It is one of three branches of the US government! This is elementary school stuff...

Additionally, your definition of common/civil/regulatory law is catastrophically incorrect. They are not pursueing you as an individual, but as the entity that entered into a business contract with another entity. This is therefore open to both common and regulatory law. I suppose I am making some assumptions here, but I'm guessing you have failed to return the balance on a loan or credit?
edit on 13-3-2011 by czerro because: educational

edit on 13-3-2011 by czerro because: (no reason given)



Wow this is so maddening I can't stop thinking about everything that is wrong with this:

Lastly, the more you fight this and display your misguided beliefs simply enforces the case against you. You did not enter into this contraction in good faith. You did not have any intention of fulfilling your contractual obligation. You fraudulently misrepresented yourself and your intentions. You are now wasting the courts time trying to rob someone else who DID fulfill their obligations and DID enter the contract in good faith. Get it over with and fulfill your obligations already, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole.


Wow! What an a-hole!

First, English is my 2nd language so STATUTE it is instead of Statue. Thank you very much Mr. Spelling Nazi!

Second, The word is PERSUING not "pursueing"... like the State is suing a purse... see how anyone, even Mr. Spelling Nazi can make a mistake?

Third, READ the whole thread BEFORE ASSuming!


They are not pursueing you as an individual, but as the entity that entered into a business contract with another entity.


There is nothing in my case about a contract. This case, ONCE AGAIN is about child support, for a child that is NOT biologically mine, from a 1 night stand when I was 16 and the "lady" in question was 29.

The court claims that I should pay the remaining arrears because I am the "legal" father according to STATUTE.


You did not have any intention of fulfilling your contractual obligation. You fraudulently misrepresented yourself and your intentions. You are now wasting the courts time trying to rob someone else who DID fulfill their obligations and DID enter the contract in good faith. Get it over with and fulfill your obligations already


You're correct there, I do NOT have any intention of fulfilling ANY "obligations" towards a child that is NOT biologically mine. The child HAS a father, a biological entity that should fulfill HIS obligations.

Just because courts side with people who commit FRAUD (the only person here trying to ROB someone), does not mean that I should allow them to commit fraud against me.


I suppose I am making some assumptions here, but I'm guessing you have failed to return the balance on a loan or credit?


Yes! You are making an ass out of yourself for not reading what the case was about before commenting. It is forgiven my friend.

Now, Here is a video of another Florida "father" who is supposed to pay child support for a child that its not his, DNA proven to be not his, yet the court is enforcing a STATUTE and furthering FRAUD against this poor man.

Here is the CNN article about the same man in the video.




OP, you are delusional. You ARE going to pay your debts or you ARE going to go to jail.


Neither is going to happen. You want to know why? Because the STATUTE is faulty thus void!

The court is lacking subject matter jurisdiction my friend.

I hope I spelled everything to your satisfaction, if not, please FORGIVE ME.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90
 


I do not agree, respectfully, with hawkiye when he asserts that if something is not expressly stated by Constitution that the authority does not exist,



hawkeye writes
Let me clarify, no authority exist in the legislature or other branches that is not specifically defined as within the their scope to legislate or act concerning it. For instance the Federal congress has no authority to legislate on criminal activity except in cases of treason and a few others defined in the constitution that is left up to the people in the several states. All their actions must remain within their scope period no exceptions. Now days most of it does not.


edit on 13-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



First it must be remembered that that US Constitution, as well as every state constitution was written with the expressed intent to limit the power of each respective government.
IT WAS NOT WRITTEN WITH THE INTENT TO LEGISLATE RIGHTS TO PEOPLE.

The 10th Amendment States:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


link to source

Hawkeye is correct. It states EXPLICITLY that any power asserted by the US Constitution is not only limited to the Constitution itself, but that power is solely intended to be limited in scope by the Constitution. All other....

"powers not delegated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people". -US Constitution
edit on 3/13/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90
 





The Constitution (both US in this case and Texas) gives the legislature the competence to 'make law'.


Competence cannot be given, and can only be achieved by the individual seeking competence. Constitutions, nor legislation can grant a body competence, and as you have irrefutably shown, a degree will not grant competence either.




Furthermore, just because power is 'inherent' in the people, does not mean that it is vested in them.


Yes, this is precisely what it means. Perhaps you should be more careful in your use of words, and maybe spend a little time clearing up definitions before you spout off the way you do. Vested means fixed, or absolute, and inherent means intrinsic, which is, in effect, fixed or absolute. Further, every state Constitution makes clear that the people have the right to alter or abolish the existing form of government, which should give you a clue as to what is not absolute and fixed, and that is government.




Representative democracy as a system makes this inevitable. You do not have any lawmaking power. Your elected representative, acting on your collective mandate (by a majority of people electing him) has the power to vote on bills, and introduce them.


Have you never heard of ballot propositions? Your ignorance is so pervasive, if it were cancer you would be on a life support system by now.




I just don't get where you get the idea that statutes are not law.


The map is not the territory, a picture of a pipe is not a pipe, and words are not the thing they describe. This is not a "complex beast" of a concept, which may explain why you have such a hard time understanding it. It is simple. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. The law itself is law, and at all times legislation remains what it is, legislation.


edit on 13-3-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


You continually say that legislation is not law and yet refuse to or are unable to provide any means of refuting my assertion that legislation is law.

Everything you are saying is wrong! All of your arguments are predicated on your false belief that legislation is not law. I have at various times described why legislation is law - a statement to that effect is contained in, and at the heart of, the US constitution. And yet all you say in retort is 'well, it's just not law. trust me.' without offering up anything other than your bare and unjustified assertions. I ask time and again for some proof, and all you can say is that 'the people have not consented'. The express consent to every measure is not needed from the people. The government governs by consent - consent which is evinced by the people's decision to have that form of government as their own.

Furthermore, ballot propositions are not common in many states. In that case, you are actually correct in that direct consent of the people is warranted on certain matters. Not all california laws are made the subject of mandatory referenda however, and the legislature does pass acts which do not receive public scrutiny. There can be a referendum on any legislation, but it requires people to petition for a referendum.

Once again... all you are putting forth are your theoretical arguments, and conclusions which you are baselessly drawing from plain words whose meaning is obviously contrary to that which you are trying to give it.

Why don't you offer some judicial interpretation of these words instead of your own? It means nothing to say 'This is my interpretation of these words, yours is wrong' without any legal justification whatsoever.

The only thing worse than someone who does not realize their own ignorance is the person who holds that ignorance out as superior knowledge and wisdom. Get over yourself buddy.
edit on 13-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   



As to statutes being unlawful, the evidence of this readily apparent in judicial review. If statutes had the force of law simply by virtue of being a statute, judges would not have the authority to strike down a statute as being unlawful. Any first year law student should know this.


You claim that you 'never said amenability to judicial review made statutes unlawful or invalid'?

Then what exactly were you implying here?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90
 





Wrong. Judicial review is a means of control. It did not even exist until the Supreme Court decided itself that it had the authority to review the laws of congress (Marbury v Madison).


Nope you are wrong judicial review is in the federal constitution and is limited to determining law as within the scope of the constitution. The supreme court cannot make law allowing it to determine what is law, the law is already defined, it can only determine if legislatures are acting within the scope of thier authority... And Marburry vs Madison reaffirms this, you should actually read it sometime:

US Constitution Article III Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law [common law] and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;

What law? The law defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and echoed in the state constituions is the common law of America. The SC cannot interpret law outside this scope neither can state courts. That is what having limited government is all about.


Do you mind me asking where you believe that the 'common law' is defined as the sole law of the united states in the constitution? Because the constitution is pretty explicit in the law-making powers of the legislature. Article 3, s.2 actually explicitly states that the judiciary's power extends to the "Laws of the United States" i.e. laws passed by the federal legislature.

Article 1, s.7 US Constution: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law.

That is why federal statutes are law. Plain and simple. How yourself and other readers continually decide for yourselves that they are not, I don't know.




"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299.

"The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields." DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724


edit on 13-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


You tell a blatant lie when you say that judicial review is in the United States constitution - the power is implied, but it is not expressly stated in the constitution, hence why the Supreme Court decided that that power was within its bounds.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90
 


I do not agree, respectfully, with hawkiye when he asserts that if something is not expressly stated by Constitution that the authority does not exist,



hawkeye writes
Let me clarify, no authority exist in the legislature or other branches that is not specifically defined as within the their scope to legislate or act concerning it. For instance the Federal congress has no authority to legislate on criminal activity except in cases of treason and a few others defined in the constitution that is left up to the people in the several states. All their actions must remain within their scope period no exceptions. Now days most of it does not.


edit on 13-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



First it must be remembered that that US Constitution, as well as every state constitution was written with the expressed intent to limit the power of each respective government.
IT WAS NOT WRITTEN WITH THE INTENT TO LEGISLATE RIGHTS TO PEOPLE.

The 10th Amendment States:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


link to source

Hawkeye is correct. It states EXPLICITLY that any power asserted by the US Constitution is not only limited to the Constitution itself, but that power is solely intended to be limited in scope by the Constitution. All other....

"powers not delegated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people". -US Constitution
edit on 3/13/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)


Um, then why does the US Constitution provide for the federal legislature to... legislate?

THAT is a power DELEGATED by the Constitution to the legislature. Unbelievable...



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


Duality.... I think that I might be able to answer your confusion regarding legislation and law.

This all hinges upon two acts:

The first is the Organic Act of 1871.
This essentially was the first step toward incorporating our nation after the civil war.

It must be remembered that Lincoln was horribly fearful for our economy after the war. With the newly freed number of men jobs would be scarce and the monies needed to fund this employment must come from somewhere.
Lincoln was adamantly against a central bank (funny that he was assassinated). At one time he proposed creating a colony in South America similar to Liberia in order to house the "freed" slaves.

So with Lincoln dead and out of the way. The first thing that congress did was create an act that would abolish the dual municipalities of the City of Washington and The District of Columbia and merge then into one single entity known as the District of Columbia (this was for a very specific reason that I will get to in a minute).

The second aspect of this explanation rests with the next District of Columbia Act of 1801. This act is by far the most unknown, but influential acts in the history of this country.

This Act created a foreign corporation in the District of Columbia and it was named THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A FOREIGN CORPORATION... open and ready to do business, oh yeah, it also has the responsibility to protect the rights and liberties of its "citizens/employees", but not by the means originally intended by the Constitution.
It does so the same way a corporation would handle internal issues.
With codes.

Now, it all started out rather harmlessly as this corporation originally made money the old fashioned way... tariffs, corporate taxes, etc...

However, with the "ratification" of the 14th Amendment, everything changed. (4 states did not originally ratify this Amendment and in order to get it passed the then President used his "emergency war powers" to completely replace each of the respective 4 state's representatives with lackeys who eventually ratified the 14th Amendment)

The US Constitution did not originally address citizenship because Federal citizenship was a BAD thing.
We were originally citizens of the state (country) of our birth.
We had God given rights that were not legislated, but ours by right of birth.

The only reason for a trial was if ONE person had a problem with another PERSON.

That is what makes a LAW different from a LEGISLATED STATUTE or CODE.

With a law a victim must be present.

The reason that we have statutes and codes that are considered law is because the 14th Amendment makes us all citizens/employees of the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and therefore our rights are legislated to us instead of God given by birth.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.






edit on 3/13/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/13/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join