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: 19
153
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





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.


It is not my responsibility to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with you, and in spite of your assertions that you have "proven" legislation is law, you have done no such thing. Further, I have repeated over and over the simple logic that the map is not the territory as a simple way to understand the difference between legislation and law.

You cannot, no matter how clever you may think you are, grow a crop of corn on a map. All that map can do is lead you to an area where you can grow corn. The same holds true for legislation. Legislation is not the law itself, and all it can do, at best, is point to the 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.


Here is a fine example of your woeful failure to prove legislation is law. Claiming you have proved it is not proving it, and pointing to legislation that declares the authority to legislate law does not prove legislation is law. It is no different than claiming you currently reside in the United States because you are sitting on a map of the United States.

Here is the most important thing to understand about your ridiculous assertions, and your delusional belief that you are somehow making cogent arguments. There is a reason that just governments acknowledge the right of jury, and that reason is that government agents who declare themselves "experts" on the law, i.e., the priest class judge and lawyer set, cannot be trusted to actually operate within the bounds of the law. Indeed, as you have handily shown, and as Josephus wisely pointed out, you do not argue law, you argue the merits of a legal system, and pretend that this is law.

From the very beginning of this thread, you have entered and taken an attitude that only you and the priest class lawyer set can fully understand the "complex beast" that is law, and that the average person has no business making interpretations of that law. However, under a just government, when a person is charged with a crime - and again Josephus as correctly stated that a crime requires a victim - that person is entitled to a jury of his peers when facing the monstrosity of the state. That right to a jury of peers exists because in the end, it is the people who hold the inherent political power, and all juries, under just governments, have the power to nullify legislation repugnant to the law.

If a jury refuses to convict a person in spite of the facts that clearly show that this person has "violated" the letter of legislation passed, there is not a damn thing that can be done about it. The jury that has refused to convict will not face any criminal charges for doing so, and the person charged with the "crime" has been acquitted of the charges and has the legal authority to walk away from his accusers a free man.

When a defendant relies on a jury of peers, he is decidedly placing his trust in people who are not in any way "legal experts", and trusting that these non legal experts know the law. The law is not difficult to know, and for all those who do believe it is, this is only because they have fallen prey to the nonsensical utterances of the priest class lawyer set who genuinely belief that all they have to do is utter their mystical incantations and their magic spells will silence the opposition. Some people love to be mystified, but those who know the law have little regard for mystics.

Gravity did not come into play because Isaac Newton wrote down the mathematical equation describing properties of gravity. Gravity all ready existed and the law behind it existed long before Newton sat underneath an apple tree. A scientist did not grant people gravity, and the priest class lawyer set do not grant people rights, and the governments created by people certainly do not grant those rights. Only a fool believes that people would create a government so that government could in turn grant them rights.




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.


Sigh. This is precisely why I remain convinced that you have not even bothered to read Marbury v. Madison, even though you cited it!


The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.


Here Chief Justice Marshall is getting to the heart of the debate between you and I regarding law and legislation. For Marshall the question is can a legislative act be passed that is contrary to the Constitution that gave the legislature the authority to legislate, but in analyzing this question, Marshall speaks to law and the long held principles of law.


That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.


Here Marshall is arguing why the Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it must be noted that he has expressly acknowledged that the establishment of government through Constitution is a right of the people. All governmental power flows directly from the people.

He is further arguing that the creation of government is an awesome effort and not one that should be capriciously and arbitrary done based upon whimsy, and for this reason, the establishment of a written Constitution is not taken lightly and great consideration is put into how that Constitution is written. He further speaks to the clear and undeniable limits placed upon the branches of government established by this Constitution.


The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.


Here Marshall is speaking clearly to the limitations placed upon Congress, and that just because they have been given the authority to legislate that this does not mean that they can pass any form of legislation regardless of the clear limitations placed upon them and expect this to be treated as law. Read carefully the last sentence of what I just quoted from Marbury v. Madison:

It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Too plain to be contested. Now, before you start yammering on about how Marshall is merely speaking to the supremacy of the Constitution and that this does not apply to legislation not being law, but merely evidence of law, make sure you take the time to actually read the Bill of Rights, something I sincerely doubt you have ever bothered to do. That pesky little Bill of Rights is a real thorn in the priest class lawyer set, which is why they are always yammering on about "civil rights".

From the get go, regarding the Bill of Rights, these first Ten Amendments make clear that they are not granting the people any rights, but instead are prohibiting government from denying and/or disparaging the rights that are at all times retained by the people. Take special note of the Ninth Amendment, and pay close attention to its language. The Bill of Rights, very much a part of that Constitution that Marshall is speaking to, are enumerated rights that preexisted that Constitution.

People all ready had the right to worship freely, they all ready had the right to speak freely, to publish freely, and to peaceably assemble, and they all ready had the right to keep and bear arms. It is not as if prior to the creation of the Bill of Rights the people of each state didn't have the right, and were not keeping and bearing arms. It is not as if they didn't have the right to speak freely, and it is not as if they could not speak freely prior to the passage of the First Amendment. These rights existed before any legislative act was written acknowledging them. Since the right to speak freely, and the right to keep and bear arms existed long before any legislative act acknowledged those rights, whence came that law?

Was it some "unwritten" law decided by common law? No, it was not some ancient grant to the people by some ancient wise tribunal, it was, as it remains, quite simply the law.


Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.


You, of course, clearly disagree with the former part of Marshall's argument just quoted and instead agree with the latter, and have been in this thread arguing that it is absurd for the people to think that they can limit a legislature to legislating only that which is either rooted in law, or does not in anyway contradict law. You clearly want to argue that the people are subject to any act of legislation that comes down the pike, regardless of how tyrannical it may be, and regardless of what rights be trampled upon in the process. This is who you are.




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.


You may as well be looking in a mirror while saying this. It is your ignorance that has been on full display in this thread, and it is why more than just I pity the fools who obtain your services as an attorney. For you, the inevitable degree you obtain in law will be the actual knowledge of law you have, which in the end, is nothing more than a flimsy piece of paper sitting in a frame. As long as there are posers such as you representing the profession of law, then there will be people from all walks of life who will show their utter contempt for your priestly ways, and your woeful and inexcusable ignorance.




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Marshal was establishing judicial review and while creating the Supreme Court job description he elevated its role so it would from then on be a relevant branch of government.

(two lines to say more than your diatribe on Marbury)

...hey, to the poster that said you had to pass the Bar exam to practice law.....ask someone who went to a Wisconsin law school, how he did on the Wisconsin Bar?

Isn't there a 3L or two out there that could just slice and dice up some of these ignorant rants and posts on this thread?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Haven't we done USC 28 Section 3002 before? You made a partial quote from the definitions sections which is meant to apply only to that particular Act, which is a debt collections act.



Find the rest of the terms here:

28 USC 3002


I am sorry what is your point? The code is defining what the terms mean to the judiciary. In the first position for the term "United States" it defines it as federal corporation. Which means first and fore most is is a corporation. So any time they judiciary is referring to the "United States" they are referring to that corporation.

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 





Marshal was establishing judicial review and while creating the Supreme Court job description he elevated its role so it would from then on be a relevant branch of government.

(two lines to say more than your diatribe on Marbury)


You've said nothing at all. You have merely offered your opinion, and it is one rooted in empty rhetoric. If you disagree with Marbury v. Madison you're going to have to offer up more than two pithy little lines in order to explain why you think the Supreme Court erred, or you can break wind and pretend that's good commentary.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You've said nothing at all. You have merely offered your opinion, and it is one rooted in empty rhetoric. If you disagree with Marbury v. Madison you're going to have to offer up more than two pithy little lines in order to explain why you think the Supreme Court erred, or you can break wind and pretend that's good commentary.


HAHA! I choked on my water upon reading that. JP you my friend are "WINNING!" baaahaha, pass the tiger blood?

I hope you do not think of me as a lowly priest class psychopath...


-Lightrule


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



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 





I hope you do not think of me as a lowly priest class psychopath...


Not at all, my friend. Having an education in law does not instantly relegate that person to the priest class set, and indeed, there are even licensed attorneys who manage to avoid the mysticism of the priest class set. Tragically, they are few, and far between, and too many of them are as pigheaded and as arrogant as the pretentious priest genuflecting all through this thread.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





Well, as unbelievable as it seems, for our purposes of discussion, a bill passed by both houses and signed IS law. No matter how crazy. This can be prevented by the executive branch by veto. If they both approve, it IS law until ruled unconstitutional by a court.


The 18th Amendment was upheld by the SCOTUS as being Constitutional, but this did not prevent the people from recognizing the error that the Supreme Court made. You are necessarily ignoring the fact that juries can, and sometimes do, nullify legislation. In the matter of the 18th Amendment its subsequent repeal was due to the fact that juries across the nation refused to convict manufacturers and importers of alcohol. The 18th Amendment was a bogus Amendment, and while plenty of so called "legal experts", including Supreme Court Justices deigned to use their "legal expertise" to utter their mystical incantations declaring the prohibition of alcohol law lawful, the people knew better. No amount of ooga boogooing and presto magic declarations could change that.




That's not exactly how I would put it. Remember that our Constitution is more than the words on the original document. It includes amendmends and decisions of the Supreme Court on Constitutional matters. Congressmen aren't expected to know the intricacies of Constitutional Law, and even the Justices have different opinions. It is impractical to insist that every law and regulation will always be found Constitutional. Indeed what's Constitutional has changed over time.


Brother Charles, it is patently absurd to suggest that the people we elect to pass legislation need not know the "intricacies" of Constitutional Law. It is, in fact, Constitutional Law that grants them the authority to legislate, and it is more than reasonable to expect a Congressman to know that law.

Further, it is not true that what is Constitutional has changed over time, what has changed over time is opinions regarding what is Constitutional, and the two are not the same. It was long held that the sun orbited the earth, and that was the prevailing opinion. Just because it was the prevailing opinion, it never made it true, and long before Galileo advocated a heliocentric universe, the earth was orbiting the sun, and not the other way around.




As one poster has pointed out, legally speaking, that law would be effective and lawful until it was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court.


That "one poster" you are referencing is the dunce pretending to be a legal expert. It is not true that legislation is lawful until the Supreme Court declares otherwise. To illustrate my point, let's take a look at the recent ruling in Citizen's United. It is not as if the Supreme Court caught wind of the fact that Congress was "chilling speech" and so they intervened and took a look at the offending legislation that did this. Citizen's United was charged with violation of the BPFR Act for running commercials advertising their documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared their actions illegal, and Citizens' United disagreed. This challenge to the BPFR placed the legislation in question, and it became a matter for the courts do decide whether or not the legislation was lawful or not.

The question was not did Citizen's United air these commercials, the question was did they have the right to do so? Of course, the First Amendment was always clear on this matter, and its opening passage; "Congress shall make no laws..." makes it pretty damn clear that Congress had no authority to tell people when they could run a political campaign commercial. The Bipartisan Finance Reform Act, or that portion that sought to "chill speech" was unlawful the moment it was passed, and the Supreme Court striking it down was merely the proper course for the judiciary, not the starting point of that legislation's illegality.




In the UK, there is an oft-cited example to illustrate the fact that the legislature can enact whatever law it pleases so long as it is within it's remit.

"Parliament can legislate to ban smoking on the streets of Paris, should it wish to. It does not mean that anyone would stop smoking on the streets of Paris, but the fact would remain that, in English law, it is illegal to smoke on the streets of Paris".


This only demonstrates the delusional state of tyrants. A legislature can pass an act prohibiting asteroids from crashing down upon the planet, but this will not accomplish a damn thing, and most importantly do nothing at all to support the law. What damn difference does it make that Congress would declare asteroids crashing down on earth illegal when asteroids crash down on earth? Will the executive branch arrest those asteroids, and then will those asteroids be afforded due process of law?

The UK may as well argue that Parliament can act as absurdly as they wish to because this is the nature of legislatures. It is a truism that people get the governments they deserve, and if people have absurd legislatures, it is fairly argued they deserve that. It is becoming increasingly clear, the world over, that people have come to understand they deserve much better than buffoon's claiming authority over people, and because people are coming to understand this, the buffoon's do not stand much of a chance. All the buffoonery and huffing and puffing in the world will not save them from the lawful defense of liberty.




It is of course slightly bizarre to hear that, but the point is legally valid.


Legally valid to whom?


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



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by charles1952
 





Well, as unbelievable as it seems, for our purposes of discussion, a bill passed by both houses and signed IS law. No matter how crazy. This can be prevented by the executive branch by veto. If they both approve, it IS law until ruled unconstitutional by a court.


The 18th Amendment was upheld by the SCOTUS as being Constitutional, but this did not prevent the people from recognizing the error that the Supreme Court made. You are necessarily ignoring the fact that juries can, and sometimes do, nullify legislation. In the matter of the 18th Amendment its subsequent repeal was due to the fact that juries across the nation refused to convict manufacturers and importers of alcohol. The 18th Amendment was a bogus Amendment, and while plenty of so called "legal experts", including Supreme Court Justices deigned to use their "legal expertise" to utter their mystical incantations declaring the prohibition of alcohol law lawful, the people knew better. No amount of ooga boogooing and presto magic declarations could change that.



Is this the basis for all of your arguments? 'We can't trust lawyers to tell us what the law is because lawyers do not know the law'. I suppose it becomes much easier to prove your point when you decided that you don't need the law to justify any of your claims. Your rhetoric is quite interesting, but it is all purely speculative and without solid or concrete grounding in fact or law. Despite your frankly pathetic levels of hostility, I will begrudgingly admit that I admire your resolve.

Again though, all you have said time and again is that authorities cannot usurp the independence of the people, when time and again, it is quite obvious that not only are legislatures empowered to usurp the absolute (and I mean that in the strictest possible meaning of the word) independence of the people (i.e. by regulating their lives through law), but that such laws are considering binding by the Courts.

As yet, you have not offered a single shred of evidence to support the argument that legislation is not law. It is a power delegated to the United States to pass federal laws. This is enshrined quite early in the US Constitution. You argue that governments are not allowed to do this - what prohibits them? Where has this ever been established as legal precedent? You provide nothing substantive, whereas myself and other readers/posters, in defense of common sense, have.

Whenever you are confronted with a legal and evidential argument that you cannot overcome, you immediately dismiss it as 'legal mysticism', the meaning of which I presume to be 'legal arguments that I simply refuse to believe in'.

Furthermore, this is not a criminal case! There is 'burden' of proof. If anything, the burden is upon you to displace the universally held belief that legislatures are empowered to pass acts which bind their people.

What you suggest goes to the heart of the United States Judicial and Legal system, insofar as there is no longer any legal legitimacy to do anything, apparently.

I would say that that is a claim, the burden of which is placed solely upon you to prove. Myself and other posters need not show you where our claims emanate from (even though we have). Look around you. Look at the way the world works - look in the legal textbooks. If you are attempting to prove that the earth is square, it is upon you to disprove the dominant paradigm.

You berate me constantly claiming I have not disproved anything. You yourself have offered no evidence or arguments other than 'the people hold all the power' and that 'all of this is just legal hocus-pocus'. Instead of flattering yourself with your flawed, albeit interesting, arguments, why you don't you offer some 'proof' yourself?

Although I guess evidence is probably just a work of 'mysticism' as well, no?








As one poster has pointed out, legally speaking, that law would be effective and lawful until it was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court.


That "one poster" you are referencing is the dunce pretending to be a legal expert. It is not true that legislation is lawful until the Supreme Court declares otherwise

Sorry, it is!


To illustrate my point, let's take a look at the recent ruling in Citizen's United. It is not as if the Supreme Court caught wind of the fact that Congress was "chilling speech" and so they intervened and took a look at the offending legislation that did this. Citizen's United was charged with violation of the BPFR Act for running commercials advertising their documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared their actions illegal, and Citizens' United disagreed. This challenge to the BPFR placed the legislation in question, and it became a matter for the courts do decide whether or not the legislation was lawful or not.

The question was not did Citizen's United air these commercials, the question was did they have the right to do so? Of course, the First Amendment was always clear on this matter, and its opening passage; "Congress shall make no laws..." makes it pretty damn clear that Congress had no authority to tell people when they could run a political campaign commercial. The Bipartisan Finance Reform Act, or that portion that sought to "chill speech" was unlawful the moment it was passed, and the Supreme Court striking it down was merely the proper course for the judiciary, not the starting point of that legislation's illegality.




In the UK, there is an oft-cited example to illustrate the fact that the legislature can enact whatever law it pleases so long as it is within it's remit.

"Parliament can legislate to ban smoking on the streets of Paris, should it wish to. It does not mean that anyone would stop smoking on the streets of Paris, but the fact would remain that, in English law, it is illegal to smoke on the streets of Paris".


This only demonstrates the delusional state of tyrants. A legislature can pass an act prohibiting asteroids from crashing down upon the planet, but this will not accomplish a damn thing, and most importantly do nothing at all to support the law. What damn difference does it make that Congress would declare asteroids crashing down on earth illegal when asteroids crash down on earth? Will the executive branch arrest those asteroids, and then will those asteroids be afforded due process of law?



It is merely an illustration of the powers of government; an example to explain how the legislature can quite freely legislate as it pleases.


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



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 





Marshal was establishing judicial review and while creating the Supreme Court job description he elevated its role so it would from then on be a relevant branch of government.

(two lines to say more than your diatribe on Marbury)


You've said nothing at all. You have merely offered your opinion, and it is one rooted in empty rhetoric. If you disagree with Marbury v. Madison you're going to have to offer up more than two pithy little lines in order to explain why you think the Supreme Court erred, or you can break wind and pretend that's good commentary.


Your criticism of this poster sounds suspiciously and eerily like a description of your own posts thus far on this forum.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Prior to the movement to incorporate THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which is a corporation and not a country by definition, life in this country was VERY different.

Look up the term UNITED STATES in Black's Law Dictionary and you will see that it is legally a corporation, as in a BUSINESS corporation.
Any incorporated body is essentially a business, whether it is a city or it is business.

Incorporated businesses sell stock, mostly, in order to build liquid capital. This is one of the privileges of being an incorporated body, the ability to leverage future earnings for current liquidity.

That is consequently why you can get a loan for a house, or to go to school.

The main difference between the incorporated city and business is that one sells bonds and the other sells stocks.
Both instruments are used to raise the necessary currently needed liquidity by leveraging future earnings.

Profits are the future earnings of businesses.
And taxes and fines are earnings of incorporated cities.

Both are essentially the same. They operate using the same set of rules (the UCC), because they both exist under contract law.

When people are charged in court, if the charge is victimless, then the charge is called a "commercial charge".
All victimless crimes are accompanied with a FINE.

These collected fines are all then placed into a fund which is used to pay the interest on the initial bonds that were collected.
The more "tough on crime" a town. The more bonds are needed to build more jails, hire more police, pay more judges, etc....
This then requires more victimless "commercial charges", because crimes that involve a victim usually end up in more prison time, which results in convicts who are more or less drains on the system rather than active payers into the system.

Prior to the incorporation of the Federal Government. The US Constitution had the expressed intent to limit the power of the Federal Government. Legislation was made law only if it pertained to taxes in the form of tariffs or interpretations of the limits of the Federal Government.

Towns and commonwealths were the norm and they are very different than incorporated cities. Still today, in any state, the sheriff is the only state law man with the power to enforce the law, and that includes deputy sheriffs. That is why the sheriff is an elected official. They also happen to run the jails and issue warrants.

I suppose that what I am trying to explain is that prior to the incorporation of cities, which made individuals found in a said town now a citizen of said city.
In a town our rights were god given by birth and not legislated.
If a town was in existence then no bonds were issued and the only lawman was the sheriff, who was voted upon by the people and was paid by the fund that was collected to pay all city workers. This fund usually consisted of monies gathered through taxes on business interactions. Prior to the completely un-constitutional 16th Amendment, businesses were always taxed before the people.

When cities incorporated then more services were desired. In order to pay for this bond auctions were held and codes were voted upon by the city council, however, the only people who were subject to these codes were resident citizens, if and only if, these were victimless crimes.

Now the reason for this diatribe is because the creation of enforced codes in the incorporated cities is the perfect metaphor for why our rights are now legislated instead of god given.

If a victim does not exist then how can something be a crime?

edit on 3/14/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
What most people do not know about contract law is that it rules every aspect of our life.

From the time of our birth, when we are issued a "trust" with the social security administration, until we pass, and are issued our last check from the IMF by way of the Social Security Administration.

This trust is a corporate body with a name, which is our birth name, but it is in all capital letters. The corporate body is, by law, a ward of the state, however, parental obligations are bestowed upon the individuals who claim responsibility by birth certificate.
We are still a ward of the state and the state is our father.
That is the reason for the maternal listing of the maiden name on the birth certificate.
But if two individuals present themselves as the contractually obligated parents by signing the birth certificate, then although the state has the ultimate power of child, the "parents" have been contractually assigned "parental" obligations.

The birth certificate is just another contract.

This is similar to the contracts that slaves would use to buy their freedom. It was called a deed of emancipation and it is what children essentially use today to divorce their parents.
A slave could not technically be a free man, so what would happen is a corporation would be set up with the exact name of the said slave and he would sell him to himself.
This was one of the arguments used during one of the many decisions by the supreme court after the "ratification"of the 14th that gave all the rights and privileges of citizens to corporations.

Every time we sign our name to anything where it is represented with all capital letters, then we are acknowledging responsibility for the corporate body straw man that is our fictional self under contract law.
This is purposefully confusing as hell people and I am trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand.

You can agree to a contract without even giving complicit consent to agreement to the contract.

This can be argued in court as a type of adhesion contract, and that is the tactic of the freeman.

The contract that we entered into at birth with the SSA through means of our birth parents speaking upon our behalf is an adhesion contract.
When we become of age to legally contractually bind with another, and we are not dependents of our parents, according to UCC law, then we can withdraw our contractual obligation to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which was due to the 14th Amendment.
This is not a "social" contract, they do not exist and they are a product of fanciful imagination.

This is an adhesion contract that we can dismiss with our signature on government documents by holding the Federal Government's entrance into this contract, on our behalf....

"without prejudice".

in other words.... without our consent.

Rights can only be legislated to things that are owned. At that point they are not rights they are privileges.
Rights are inherent gifts from God bestowed to us simply because we were given the miracle of life.

Research the US prior to incorporation.
Research the public climate prior to the 14th Amendment.
Research the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Try to understand BOTH of their positions.

Do that... And you will know my friend why we live in 1950's Stalin's Russia.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
Prior to the movement to incorporate THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which is a corporation and not a country by definition, life in this country was VERY different.

Look up the term UNITED STATES in Black's Law Dictionary and you will see that it is legally a corporation, as in a BUSINESS corporation.
Any incorporated body is essentially a business, whether it is a city or it is business.


It appears to me that you have not read many of the posts that both myself and various other posters have made concerning the legal definition of corporation. We readily confess that the term 'corporation' has commercial connotations (as you say, a business is the first thing springs to mind when hearing the word); what we say, however, is that the term 'corporation' means something quite different in law than it does in common parlance. A corporate body (either sole or aggregate - the former being composed of one person, and the latter of two or more) does not have to be a business in order to be incorporated. As we have said, the purpose of incorporation is to give a fictional entity (i.e. Mom and Pop Enterprises) legal rights, such that it is accorded legal personality, and can have it's own debts without making it's backers (i.e. the owners) personally responsible for it's finances (ie. if it were to default on a loan payment, the creditors could not recover by seizing the owner's personal property - a creditor will only be able to take that which is the property of the incorporated body). Look at the etymology of the word. 'Incorporation' - just by looking at it you can tell the word has something to do with 'giving a body' or 'putting in a body [corporeal form]'. That is what incorporation does in a legal sense. It makes a new 'person' recognized under the law.

I admittedly have used a small business as an example here. Think however of your local municipal government.
I will use the City of Houston as I lived there for several years prior to going to University. The City of Houston is a corporation because it needs to be able to enter into contracts in it's own name as well as provide accountability to it's residents by being able to be sued in Court. If the city was not incorporated, someone would have to provide adequate securities for loans taken from banks to finance public works, amongst other things. It is highly unlikely that any single individual would actually have the requisite assets to provide adequate security, nor would any individual be insane enough to do so.

Through incorporation, the City of Houston (as a corporate body) is able to function effectively. That is all that incorporation does. A corporation (for the last time does not have to be a business.



Incorporated businesses sell stock, mostly, in order to build liquid capital. This is one of the privileges of being an incorporated body, the ability to leverage future earnings for current liquidity.

That is consequently why you can get a loan for a house, or to go to school.



I am sorry, but you misunderstand what a mortgage is. How do you expect a bank (mortgagee) to leverage future earnings for current liquidity when it is the bank that is stumping up the purchase price for the house in question? Sure, the bank basically has an unbeatable security by way of charge (I haven't done property law in a while so I can't recall what the actual legal interest is that a mortgagor grants to the mortgagee i.e. what the actual interest in the property the homeowner gives to the bank in exchange for the money provided. But that is irrelevant to this discussion.), and it makes money in the future, but by no means does it leverage its future earnings for current liquidity like you would expect of the sale of a security (i.e. sale of future earnings).

This point is not entirely relevant to the main argument at hand here, but I'm just trying to set the record straight on the matter. Debtor/creditor relationships are legally very different from those between shareholders and the bodies issuing the shares.




The main difference between the incorporated city and business is that one sells bonds and the other sells stocks.
Both instruments are used to raise the necessary currently needed liquidity by leveraging future earnings.

Profits are the future earnings of businesses.
And taxes and fines are earnings of incorporated cities.

Both are essentially the same. They operate using the same set of rules (the UCC), because they both exist under contract law.



I am not intimately acquainted with the UCC, but I am fairly certain it has nothing to do with taxation. It is a body of harmonising legislation which facilitates interstate commerce. It has nothing to do with taxation.




When people are charged in court, if the charge is victimless, then the charge is called a "commercial charge".
All victimless crimes are accompanied with a FINE.


Can you show me an instance where this term is used or from where it originates? I have never seen that used in legal documentation, nor has it appeared in any texts or websites I have been looking at on the matter. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a 'commercial crime' in the sense that you mean it i.e. Breach of Contract. If you evade tax, you are charged with a crime - a crime relating to personal commercial affairs, admittedly, but a crime punishable in either state or federal prison nonetheless. Tax evasion is a crime in the same sense that murder is a crime. The state/federal government may pursue your assets even after you have been tried and convicted in the criminal justice system in a civil suit, but that is nothing new. People regularly sue each other after one party has committed a crime against the other i.e. I hit you while driving drunk and break your legs. I am tried and convicted in a criminal court. There is nothing to stop you from suing me in a civil action so that not only am I punished through prison, but you are able to sue me in tort for the damage and suffering I have caused you through my negligence.

Again, I have not studied criminal financial crimes in any great detail at all, so I concede that I may be wrong on the matter, but it would appear to me that you have describe in civil terms what is a criminal matter. I would be happy if you can show me evidence or an instance of an individual being given a 'commercial charge' in the state prosecuting him, but as far as I can tell this is basically just a load of gobbledegook dressing itself up in the clothing of legal terminology. If a crime is victimless (as with tax evasion) it still remains within the province of criminal law and criminal prosecution. It is against the law.




These collected fines are all then placed into a fund which is used to pay the interest on the initial bonds that were collected.
The more "tough on crime" a town. The more bonds are needed to build more jails, hire more police, pay more judges, etc....
This then requires more victimless "commercial charges", because crimes that involve a victim usually end up in more prison time, which results in convicts who are more or less drains on the system rather than active payers into the system.



The state cannot prosecute people nor seek to recover unpaid taxes unless someone has actually evaded taxation. Your premise would suggest that the more 'tough on crime' a town is, that somehow there is a positive correlation between that and the number of people who evade tax? That makes no sense. I would also like to add that given the size of some of the bonds municipal corporations like Houston issue (I believe there was something like 4 billion dollars worth of bond money raised to pay for the cities sewerage works), it is extremely, extremely unlikely that mere fines from individuals would ever be enough to satisfy the dividends that those bonds promise.

Courts and Judges are state expenditures, as far as I know (and can tell) in Texas, for instance.

sunshinereview.org...




Prior to the incorporation of the Federal Government. The US Constitution had the expressed intent to limit the power of the Federal Government. Legislation was made law only if it pertained to taxes in the form of tariffs or interpretations of the limits of the Federal Government.


If you don't mind me asking, where in the Constitution is the power to legislate on anything beyond taxation or external economic policy limited? As far as I could tell from Article 1 s.8,9,10 Congress is granted a variety of competences in legislation, and prohibited only from a few areas.




Towns and commonwealths were the norm and they are very different than incorporated cities. Still today, in any state, the sheriff is the only state law man with the power to enforce the law, and that includes deputy sheriffs. That is why the sheriff is an elected official. They also happen to run the jails and issue warrants.



What about metropolitan police departments? There are numerous law enforcement agencies in Greater Houston which work alongside County Law Enforcement (i.e. Sheriffs). Sheriffs do not issue warrants. Judges do.

The County is the domain of the Sheriff - the city is the domain of the metropolitan police officer, even if their jurisdictions overlap.




I suppose that what I am trying to explain is that prior to the incorporation of cities, which made individuals found in a said town now a citizen of said city.
In a town our rights were god given by birth and not legislated.
If a town was in existence then no bonds were issued and the only lawman was the sheriff, who was voted upon by the people and was paid by the fund that was collected to pay all city workers. This fund usually consisted of monies gathered through taxes on business interactions. Prior to the completely un-constitutional 16th Amendment, businesses were always taxed before the people.


I don't know what the history of policing is, but surely many towns incorporated into a cities even if they were of modest size due to the benefits that came from municipal incorporation? I have been through some tiny, tiny towns in South East Texas that propped up with the railroad in the 19th century and all of them had individual police departments. I also don't think there was any ever such concept as 'citizenship' of a town or city. Residency, yes, citizenship, no.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what relevance does federal taxation have on local police in states? I did not think that the federal government paid for local police departments in states.

It should also be borne in mind that several states still do not impose any individual income tax. When I worked back in Texas, I paid taxes for various things, but state income tax was not one of them (even had I made enough to be liable to federal taxation, I still would have had no income tax to pay to Texas).

I'm actually learning quite alot from you (so I thank you for your post), but I don't think that there is anything particularly unconstitutional about federal income tax. Is the power to lay and collect taxes "for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" not an expressly delegated power to the legislature? I will admit that I was quite surprised when I read that income tax had only been around since 1913, however.






When cities incorporated then more services were desired. In order to pay for this bond auctions were held and codes were voted upon by the city council, however, the only people who were subject to these codes were resident citizens, if and only if, these were victimless crimes.

Now the reason for this diatribe is because the creation of enforced codes in the incorporated cities is the perfect metaphor for why our rights are now legislated instead of god given.

If a victim does not exist then how can something be a crime?

edit on 3/14/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)


Well... quite simply by their being either an act prohibited at common law, or one derived from statute. There is no requirement of a victim within the legal definition of crime. Buggery was for a long time a crime in the United Kingdom at common law - it was not abolished by statute until the 20th century. There is no victim for that crime (assuming it was willing, otherwise the crime would be rape) but it was regarded for a long time as a perfectly valid crime.

All that is necessary to incur criminal liability is an intent to commit a crime (i.e. requisite 'mens rea' - 'guilty mind') and the commission of some actual physical act contrary to the law.

You once more delve into an extremely theoretical argument when you discuss 'god-given' versus 'state-sanctioned' rights. You may very well be of the belief that you, as a human being, have intrinsic rights derived from natural justice et c. That is not of any practical use in safeguarding your rights however, and humans have for a long time decided to put these rights in writing - a sort of 'social contract' (although I may be using that term in a very different means than was intended by Rousseau) to make legislatures accountable in court for their breaches of that document. Furthermore, were we not to recognize the validity of constitutional rights, how otherwise would you ensure the safeguarding of rights of free speech et al? They are granted to you by constitution, and it is that document which prevents the government from suppressing free speech.

I apologize because I do not feel that my response to your post has resulted in any particular or cumulative conclusion, but instead consists of a series of retorts. Take from it what you will.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

What most people do not know about contract law is that it rules every aspect of our life.

From the time of our birth, when we are issued a "trust" with the social security administration, until we pass, and are issued our last check from the IMF by way of the Social Security Administration.

This trust is a corporate body with a name, which is our birth name, but it is in all capital letters. The corporate body is, by law, a ward of the state, however, parental obligations are bestowed upon the individuals who claim responsibility by birth certificate.
We are still a ward of the state and the state is our father.
That is the reason for the maternal listing of the maiden name on the birth certificate.
But if two individuals present themselves as the contractually obligated parents by signing the birth certificate, then although the state has the ultimate power of child, the "parents" have been contractually assigned "parental" obligations.

The birth certificate is just another contract.

This is similar to the contracts that slaves would use to buy their freedom. It was called a deed of emancipation and it is what children essentially use today to divorce their parents.
A slave could not technically be a free man, so what would happen is a corporation would be set up with the exact name of the said slave and he would sell him to himself.
This was one of the arguments used during one of the many decisions by the supreme court after the "ratification"of the 14th that gave all the rights and privileges of citizens to corporations.

Every time we sign our name to anything where it is represented with all capital letters, then we are acknowledging responsibility for the corporate body straw man that is our fictional self under contract law.
This is purposefully confusing as hell people and I am trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand.

You can agree to a contract without even giving complicit consent to agreement to the contract.

This can be argued in court as a type of adhesion contract, and that is the tactic of the freeman.

The contract that we entered into at birth with the SSA through means of our birth parents speaking upon our behalf is an adhesion contract.
When we become of age to legally contractually bind with another, and we are not dependents of our parents, according to UCC law, then we can withdraw our contractual obligation to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which was due to the 14th Amendment.
This is not a "social" contract, they do not exist and they are a product of fanciful imagination.

This is an adhesion contract that we can dismiss with our signature on government documents by holding the Federal Government's entrance into this contract, on our behalf....

"without prejudice".

in other words.... without our consent.

Rights can only be legislated to things that are owned. At that point they are not rights they are privileges.
Rights are inherent gifts from God bestowed to us simply because we were given the miracle of life.

Research the US prior to incorporation.
Research the public climate prior to the 14th Amendment.
Research the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Try to understand BOTH of their positions.

Do that... And you will know my friend why we live in 1950's Stalin's Russia.


Dude, it really peeves me when people plainly have not read the vast number of responses on these exact topics.

Everything you have said there is legally incorrect.

Your definition of contract is incorrect.

The UCC has nothing to do with regulating your relationship with your parents.

The state is not your legal father and you are not a ward of the state.

The fact that parties names are capitalised in court documents has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on who the name refers to. JOHN SMITH v UNITED STATES is a court case where John Smith raises action against the United States. Capitalisation has absolutely nothing to do with this. I posted various legal sources above dispensing of this absolutely stupid argument several pages earlier in the thread, which you have not read or looked at.

Please read here to have this stupid myth finally put in it's grave.

home.hiwaay.net...

Please, do some actual research instead of simply taking every single claim of the freeman movement as being the unquestionable truth.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 
I think the original poster is doing a fantastic job of revealing the craziness of the court - and conducting him/herself extraordinarily well. I used to testify as an expert witness in court, though do not have much to offer in the way of differences between contract/common/admiralty law. Clean, clear and polite is the way to go even when placed under stress and duress.
Just so we are all clear, though, "statues" are what you find in parks and rotundas and museums; "STATUTES" are what we should be referring to here when discussing statutes under the law. Best of luck in your case.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by starwisdom
reply to post by greenovni
 
I think the original poster is doing a fantastic job of revealing the craziness of the court - and conducting him/herself extraordinarily well. I used to testify as an expert witness in court, though do not have much to offer in the way of differences between contract/common/admiralty law. Clean, clear and polite is the way to go even when placed under stress and duress.
Just so we are all clear, though, "statues" are what you find in parks and rotundas and museums; "STATUTES" are what we should be referring to here when discussing statutes under the law. Best of luck in your case.



Once again
English is my 2nd language. The court is crazy, I was told today that DRUGDEALING IS a source of income when I said that the only way to pay this fast would be drug dealing!!!!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





Is this the basis for all of your arguments? 'We can't trust lawyers to tell us what the law is because lawyers do not know the law'. I suppose it becomes much easier to prove your point when you decided that you don't need the law to justify any of your claims.


On the contrary, it is I who has relied solely upon the law, and you who has done nothing but rely upon legislation to support your claims. In fact, you are so in over your head in this thread, that all you can do is blatantly lie and pretend I said things I did not say.

I said what I said, and did not say what I did not say.

It is irrelevant whether lawyers know the law or not. What is relevant is that people representing themselves as "legal experts", which can certainly include lawyers, but most assuredly includes you, who is admittedly not a lawyer, but quite clearly not to be trusted, say things such as:




Again though, all you have said time and again is that authorities cannot usurp the independence of the people, when time and again, it is quite obvious that not only are legislatures empowered to usurp the absolute (and I mean that in the strictest possible meaning of the word) independence of the people (i.e. by regulating their lives through law), but that such laws are considering binding by the Courts.


It is perfectly clear that you haven't a clue as to what law is. Pay strict attention to your own language:




it is quite obvious that not only are legislatures empowered to usurp the absolute (and I mean that in the strictest possible meaning of the word) independence of the people


Do you have any idea what the definition of usurp is?


1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority. See Synonyms at appropriate. 2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land. 3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.


This is how foolish and ignorant you are! Never mind the fact that you are advocating tyranny, pay attention to your own poor use of language. It is a contradiction in terms to state that legislatures are "empowered" to "usurp". An usurpation is done without any legal authority, and as such there has been no empowerment, outside of brute force, to accomplish this.

You have undone yourself with this ridiculous remark:




Again though, all you have said time and again is that authorities cannot usurp the independence of the people, when time and again, it is quite obvious that not only are legislatures empowered to usurp the absolute (and I mean that in the strictest possible meaning of the word) independence of the people (i.e. by regulating their lives through law), but that such laws are considering binding by the Courts.


Let's look at that stupid assertion again:




Again though, all you have said time and again is that authorities cannot usurp the independence of the people, when time and again, it is quite obvious that not only are legislatures empowered to usurp the absolute (and I mean that in the strictest possible meaning of the word) independence of the people (i.e. by regulating their lives through law), but that such laws are considering binding by the Courts.


And again:




Again though, all you have said time and again is that authorities cannot usurp the independence of the people, when time and again, it is quite obvious that not only are legislatures empowered to usurp the absolute (and I mean that in the strictest possible meaning of the word) independence of the people (i.e. by regulating their lives through law), but that such laws are considering binding by the Courts.


This is who you are:




Again though, all you have said time and again is that authorities cannot usurp the independence of the people, when time and again, it is quite obvious that not only are legislatures empowered to usurp the absolute (and I mean that in the strictest possible meaning of the word) independence of the people (i.e. by regulating their lives through law), but that such laws are considering binding by the Courts.


You are a complete fool, and even petty tyrants would make a mistake by having you represent them. You are just not smart enough to couch your language and hide your intent.

I have personally been up against legislation that had no legal authority, and I spoke to this in that other thread. I was charged with the "crime" of selling my DVD collection on a public sidewalk, and the legislation that was used against me, LAMC 42(b) prohibits street vendors from doing so. It took me less than 20 minutes to have the charges dropped against me in a court of law. I didn't waste my time asking the judge whether the court was an Admiralty court or otherwise, I simply just challenged the jurisdiction.

While my challenges of jurisdiction at first seemed to rankle the judge, he was clearly not of the priest class set, and by the end of my challenges his genuine respect for me was readily apparent. I did not rely upon an attorney, and had I done so the legislation itself would have never been challenged, and because the facts regarding that legislation were indisputable, that attorney would have lost the case for me, and charged me a pretty penny to do so.

You are the most vile sort of government sycophant, and while you have the absolute right to express your opinions, if you act upon your beliefs in the manner you assert is legal, you will be acting criminally, and do not have that right to do so. This is who you are:




Again though, all you have said time and again is that authorities cannot usurp the independence of the people, when time and again, it is quite obvious that not only are legislatures empowered to usurp the absolute (and I mean that in the strictest possible meaning of the word) independence of the people (i.e. by regulating their lives through law), but that such laws are considering binding by the Courts.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90
 




I have personally been up against legislation that had no legal authority, and I spoke to this in that other thread. I was charged with the "crime" of selling my DVD collection on a public sidewalk, and the legislation that was used against me, LAMC 42(b) prohibits street vendors from doing so. It took me less than 20 minutes to have the charges dropped against me in a court of law. I didn't waste my time asking the judge whether the court was an Admiralty court or otherwise, I simply just challenged the jurisdiction.

While my challenges of jurisdiction at first seemed to rankle the judge, he was clearly not of the priest class set, and by the end of my challenges his genuine respect for me was readily apparent. I did not rely upon an attorney, and had I done so the legislation itself would have never been challenged, and because the facts regarding that legislation were indisputable, that attorney would have lost the case for me, and charged me a pretty penny to do so.

You are the most vile sort of government sycophant, and while you have the absolute right to express your opinions, if you act upon your beliefs in the manner you assert is legal, you will be acting criminally, and do not have that right to do so. This is who you are:


I am enjoying and learning from all of the back and forth arguing on my thread. That being said, I too am challenging jurisdiction. I am being as respectful as humanly possible but firm.

I think in my case, the best bet if to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. My motion is nearly complete (17 pages), just one or 2 more trips to the law library to make sure that my i are dotted and my Ts crossed sort of speak.

Now, what I do not know is what is going to happen next after I bring my motion to the clerk of court and the opposing attorney (I need to serve them).

If any ideas or expertise can be shared, please do so



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90
 



On the contrary, it is I who has relied solely upon the law, and you who has done nothing but rely upon legislation to support your claims. In fact, you are so in over your head in this thread, that all you can do is blatantly lie and pretend I said things I did not say.


Sorry, let's go through that once more:




On the contrary, it is I who has relied solely upon the law, and you who has done nothing but rely upon legislation to support your claims



Legislation is not law?

Evidently noone had told Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, lawyers, legal academics, jurists, senators, representatives, law students, police officers, law enforcement officials, government/ethics teachers, and citizens, who have all plainly been the subject of an extremely elaborate lie.

Alternately, you could have just proposed possibly the most breathtakingly and awe-inspiringly stupid legal argument that anyone may have uttered, ever.

The posters on this thread may priapistically encourage your idiocy in claiming that no legislation is law because people have not directly consented at all times to it (how you do not realize the insanity of that need, I do not know. No law could ever be effective if that was the case. Which it very patently is not.) but I see straight through your pseudo-intellectual attempt to draw support by pandering to vague and legally false concepts of just what the individual is capable of. We have been over consent being implicit, but plainly because that does not accord with your beliefs, you simply choose to push it under the rug - out of sight, out of mind, right?

You cloak your meaning in words whose definition do not accord with your argument. You claim that you have used 'the law' to show me that legislation is not law. That statement is paradoxical. You cannot disprove legislation's validity by using that body of rules which is (in modern times) largely predicated upon statutes emanating from legislatures. Yes, case-law (the 'common-law' as you would pretend to know it, I suppose) arises in the wake of statutes, but that makes no difference to the validity of that legislation whatsoever.

You have not 'shown' anything, and you have not 'proved' any of your arguments. You have just asserted your belief that, because individual consent has not been asked of every citizen to every law, no such law can exist. That position is at odds with both reality and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, as well as various appellate courts across the United States.




It is irrelevant whether lawyers know the law or not.



Apparently no-one needs to know anything in the world of fantasy that you inhabit.

As regards my use of the word usurp. Fair point, it was a mistake to use that word to describe what I was trying to. I meant that legislatures do not require the express consent of the people to every single legislative act as in a referendum. The implicit (if not arguably express) consent to be governed at both the state and federal level is given every day by every citizen in recognizing the legitimacy of their government, as well as continuing to pay their taxes and derive rights under both state and federal constitutions.

Congress does not need to receive approval from every single citizen of the United States for a law to be both effective and constitutional. That is just not true.

You have once more magicked a lie out of thin air, and although I appreciate what you are getting at theoretically, legally and practically speaking, what you are claiming is simply not true. It is perhaps the most fundamental and basic aspects of delegated governance (i.e. why we even have a system of central government) is so that we can have our lives and interactions regulated in order that we don't have to go about trying to enforce what we perceive to be our rights ourselves. Without government, we descend into anarchy. That is simply human nature. Legislatures are empowered to legislate on behalf of their people (even if they would not necessarily agree with the content of such legislation) for their common welfare, and so that they do not have to take matters into theri own hands.

Consent is either absolute and total, or it is nonexistent. Once that consent is given, the only way to revoke it is by either replacing the government (election) or by removing that system of governance entirely (overthrow). You do not get to pick and choose what applies to you, because what benefits you may harm others, just as what harms others may benefit you. Legislatures legislate for the general welfare and in the collective interest of their people.

If you honestly believe that you as an individual are so incomparably important that you are able to invalidate any law as you please based on your personal consent, you are both arrogant, immature, unrealistic, and perhaps slightly delusional.




I have personally been up against legislation that had no legal authority, and I spoke to this in that other thread. I was charged with the "crime" of selling my DVD collection on a public sidewalk, and the legislation that was used against me, LAMC 42(b) prohibits street vendors from doing so. It took me less than 20 minutes to have the charges dropped against me in a court of law. I didn't waste my time asking the judge whether the court was an Admiralty court or otherwise, I simply just challenged the jurisdiction.

While my challenges of jurisdiction at first seemed to rankle the judge, he was clearly not of the priest class set, and by the end of my challenges his genuine respect for me was readily apparent. I did not rely upon an attorney, and had I done so the legislation itself would have never been challenged, and because the facts regarding that legislation were indisputable, that attorney would have lost the case for me, and charged me a pretty penny to do so.




Let's examine this triumphant victory for the average joe in the street in the face of overwhelming and threatening government hostility.

The Los Angeles Municipal Code? Presumably you were given a small fine for operating without a licence. I can understand why you would be annoyed by that. I regret to say that I cannot find a published version of the LAMC available online freely, so I can't look up what the maximum fine is, but I imagine it would be fairly minimal, relatively speaking.

Can you elaborate on your argument? What it was that swung the case in your way? Because all I am being told is important is that, by the end of the hearing, "the judge's respect [for you] was readily apparent". At least you covered the substantive bits.

I have no idea what the circumstances were, nor whether that section of the LAMC has been sent back for revision, so it is entirely possible that you did successfully argue whether or not the court in question had jurisdiction to hear your case.

What were the circumstances? What sort of court was the case heard in? Was the judge actually a regular bencher, or a justice of the peace?

If it was the latter case (as I imagine it was, given that it is quite rare that you are hauled before a court with higher authority for a summary/ticketable offence), your ability to get your case dismissed may not at all suggest anything to do with invalidating the Municipal Code or even proving that it was 'unlawful' as you say (although I would find it honestly remarkable if a City like Los Angeles was incapable of producing it's own municipal code which could not stand up to judicial scrutiny) - the case may merely have been that the non-lawyer judge (as most, if not all, justices of the peace are) simply did not have the relevant legal knowledge to decide on the issue, and declined to send the case to a higher court on the basis of practicality - i.e. would it really serve any purpose to incur judicial expenditure to hear your case on a point of law if your fine was not particularly important or heavy?

Again, you may perhaps be the Thomas Erskine of the laity, but purely on the facts you have given me, there is no way to tell.



Your arguments are funny in that you sound like a broken record on repeat. What "law"? All you have said is that legislation is not law. That is just not true, and your refusal to concede that remains jaw-dropping. Your basis for that claim (unfounded as it is in law) is that legislatures are not allowed to pass law. Then just what is the point of legislatures? What meaning do the fairly clear words in the US Constitution regarding federal legislative authority to pass law have? All you do is say 'sorry, but legislation is not law'. And that's it. No explanation. Zilch.

If you actually look at what I said in my prior (instead of repeating it ad infinitum for effect), I said that legislatures are empowered to overstep the absolute, entire, and constant, direct consent of the people. I concede that the choice of the word "usurp" was inappropriate to convey the idea I wanted to - I am human, and evidently am not infallible. By your definition of what 'consent' is to authority, however, no government could ever exist on the basis that governments never receive 100% approval from their citizenry.

Your inability or unwillingness to comprehend just what law is (how dare you have the insufferable arrogance to tell people that you know the law when you make this up as you go along) is as outrageous as it is humorous.

Your hatred for lawyers and your belief and encouragement that people act pro se in court is as bizarre as it is dangerous. Lawyers overturn laws with a fairly regular consistency, and win cases for their clients on a daily basis. It is not in a lawyer's best interest to simply do what is 'easiest' and let the client go down sinking. Why, you may ask, would the 'parasitic' lawyer want to stand up for his client?

Simply put, if you lose cases constantly, you will gain a completely terrible reputation, and will never, ever be hired by anyone who is able to understand that a lawyer that wins cases is better than a lawyer that loses them on a regular basis.

Just as it is in a surgeon's best interest to keep their patients alive on the table, so is it for a lawyer to be able to win his cases and put his client in the best position possible. At the end of the day, if the surgeon's patient dies, or the lawyer's client goes to prison, they both get paid regardless. But it is completely and fundamentally opposed to their rational self-interest to allow this to happen, as the resulting tarnishing of their reputation would make them practically unemployable.

To state that is in the best interests of people to not hire lawyers to defend themselves is both irresponsible and inane. God forbid anyone reading your fairytales actually takes your advice and declines legal counsel, should they ever need it.



You may have dealt with bad lawyers in the past, and there are admittedly many out there who see only green and a paycheck in their client's eyes and circumstances, but by no means does that account for all or even a majority of lawyers. I have had dinner with several members of the bench here in the UK and even once had the honor of dining alongside the (recently deceased) head of the UK Supreme Court.

How you can have the gall, the arrogance, and frankly the meanness to say that those men were not guardians of human rights, the rule of law, and the common sense of justice, is both outrageous and unacceptable.

I implore you to read a book by an eminent judicial scholar and judge, Sir Thomas Bingham, entitled 'The Rule of Law'. Perhaps then you will adjust your venomous tone and cast out whatever wickedness and vicious, unwarranted hatred it is that has taken root inside of you, Jean Paul Zodeaux.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by duality90
 




I have personally been up against legislation that had no legal authority, and I spoke to this in that other thread. I was charged with the "crime" of selling my DVD collection on a public sidewalk, and the legislation that was used against me, LAMC 42(b) prohibits street vendors from doing so. It took me less than 20 minutes to have the charges dropped against me in a court of law. I didn't waste my time asking the judge whether the court was an Admiralty court or otherwise, I simply just challenged the jurisdiction.

While my challenges of jurisdiction at first seemed to rankle the judge, he was clearly not of the priest class set, and by the end of my challenges his genuine respect for me was readily apparent. I did not rely upon an attorney, and had I done so the legislation itself would have never been challenged, and because the facts regarding that legislation were indisputable, that attorney would have lost the case for me, and charged me a pretty penny to do so.

You are the most vile sort of government sycophant, and while you have the absolute right to express your opinions, if you act upon your beliefs in the manner you assert is legal, you will be acting criminally, and do not have that right to do so. This is who you are:


I am enjoying and learning from all of the back and forth arguing on my thread. That being said, I too am challenging jurisdiction. I am being as respectful as humanly possible but firm.

I think in my case, the best bet if to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. My motion is nearly complete (17 pages), just one or 2 more trips to the law library to make sure that my i are dotted and my Ts crossed sort of speak.

Now, what I do not know is what is going to happen next after I bring my motion to the clerk of court and the opposing attorney (I need to serve them).

If any ideas or expertise can be shared, please do so




I accidentally just deleted a long post I made in response to this (incredibly frustrating), but just as you would consult a Doctor (trained professional) for hear trouble, so should you consult a lawyer for at the very least, cursory advice. Most good lawyers will offer this for free initially until you decide whether or not to recruit him.

Do be careful, and exercise diligence, as you can almost be assured that the other party is coming to the table with the best help they can get. Their purpose is to defeat you - remember that Courts in America are adversarial and not inquisitorial.

That being said, if you absolutely must go down the route of jurisdictional challenge, do be careful. To successfully challenge jurisdiction in cases is extremely rare, and the literature on the internet seems to be of dubious legal validity.

i.e.

www.scribd.com...
1215.org...
www.opposingdigits.com...

The last one has apparently given jurisdiction an entirely different meaning than one would find in any of the legal literature. Beware.

Best of luck with your case.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Marshal was establishing judicial review and while creating the Supreme Court job description he elevated its role so it would from then on be a relevant branch of government.

(two lines to say more than your diatribe on Marbury)

...hey, to the poster that said you had to pass the Bar exam to practice law.....ask someone who went to a Wisconsin law school, how he did on the Wisconsin Bar?

Isn't there a 3L or two out there that could just slice and dice up some of these ignorant rants and posts on this thread?




It is impulse and passion, and not reason, that seem to prevail on ATS. Particularly this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join