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: 24
153
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Hey Duality, nice to see ya.

What did you think about the statute missing their enacting clauses?




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


For the last time, YOU have been duped, YES, a "person" has been held to INCLUDE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS. Barrons Law Dictionary 2nd Edition. It states it perfectly clear.

PLEASE for the love of god, read what this guy wrote, he recites and uses as reference, ALL the law dictionaries. This is not BS, it is fact. It is printed and has been established by law professors and legal scholars. It is what it is and to argue any differently is to be ignorant of the true facts. Many of the posters here have referenced this very thing. But this website PDF is about the best I have seen.

www.nomoretyranny.org...


We may also say that the straw man is a "person" according to the legal dictionary.


"Person. 1. a human being. 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being…" [Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition]


The straw man may also be said to be an "artificial person" which is also defined in the legal dictionary.


"An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. – Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; legal person; moral person." [Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition]


A straw man may also be thought of as a "legal fiction."


"Legal fiction. Assumption of fact made by court as basis for deciding a legal question. A situation contrived by the law to permit a court to dispose of a matter …" [Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition]


As we explore further, we must distinguish between the straw man (an it or person), and the real, flesh and blood being (human being) which we will call a "man." "Man" has a legal definition.


"A human being. A person of the male sex. A male of the human species above the age of puberty. In the most extended sense the term includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children. … In feudal law, a vassal; a tenant or feudatory." [Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]



So yes, a "person" IS NOT a flesh and blood living soul. Void for vagueness removes the term "human being" from the above definition reference "Person". I am sure it was put in there to decieve.

So please duality90, stop "claiming" that a person is a human being and that the legal reference means nothing in court. A statute that refers to a "person" DOES NOT mean a flesh and blood living soul such as you and I.

Again, ALL courts are courts of commerce UNLESS and UNTIL we recognize the judges oath of office so that we know he is acting as judge and not as BANKER!!

Legislative statutes are nothing more than REGULATIONS because the legislature can legislate FOR the people but NEVER ever TO the people. They can not make any rule or law that would violate or infringe on our Natural Born Rights. Thats all folks.
edit on 16-3-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:24 PM
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.


I didn't offer merely an opinion.........Marbury established judical review......Where did I say I disagreed with the greatest jurist of all times?.........and in fact, if I could fart in your general direction, it would be appropriate commentary.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 





I didn't offer merely an opinion.........Marbury established judical review......Where did I say I disagreed with the greatest jurist of all times?.........and in fact, if I could fart in your general direction, it would be appropriate commentary.


What are you, some silly bureaucrat from the Department of Redundancy Department? It was well established long before your flatulent post that it was Marbury v Madison that established judicial review. Your pointless post added nothing to the thread but the odious stench of self important flatulence pretending to be erudite discourse, and you continue now with this same strategy.

Everybody farts, but fools think it clever to announce theirs.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by duality90
 


For the last time, YOU have been duped, YES, a "person" has been held to INCLUDE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS. Barrons Law Dictionary 2nd Edition. It states it perfectly clear.

PLEASE for the love of god, read what this guy wrote, he recites and uses as reference, ALL the law dictionaries. This is not BS, it is fact. It is printed and has been established by law professors and legal scholars. It is what it is and to argue any differently is to be ignorant of the true facts. Many of the posters here have referenced this very thing. But this website PDF is about the best I have seen.

www.nomoretyranny.org...


We may also say that the straw man is a "person" according to the legal dictionary.


"Person. 1. a human being. 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being…" [Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition]


The straw man may also be said to be an "artificial person" which is also defined in the legal dictionary.


"An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. – Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; legal person; moral person." [Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition]


A straw man may also be thought of as a "legal fiction."


"Legal fiction. Assumption of fact made by court as basis for deciding a legal question. A situation contrived by the law to permit a court to dispose of a matter …" [Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition]


As we explore further, we must distinguish between the straw man (an it or person), and the real, flesh and blood being (human being) which we will call a "man." "Man" has a legal definition.


"A human being. A person of the male sex. A male of the human species above the age of puberty. In the most extended sense the term includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children. … In feudal law, a vassal; a tenant or feudatory." [Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]



So yes, a "person" IS NOT a flesh and blood living soul. Void for vagueness removes the term "human being" from the above definition reference "Person". I am sure it was put in there to decieve.

So please duality90, stop "claiming" that a person is a human being and that the legal reference means nothing in court. A statute that refers to a "person" DOES NOT mean a flesh and blood living soul such as you and I.

Again, ALL courts are courts of commerce UNLESS and UNTIL we recognize the judges oath of office so that we know he is acting as judge and not as BANKER!!

Legislative statutes are nothing more than REGULATIONS because the legislature can legislate FOR the people but NEVER ever TO the people. They can not make any rule or law that would violate or infringe on our Natural Born Rights. Thats all folks.
edit on 16-3-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)


Oh dear, not this again.

The author of that website makes no reference to any established law or precedent and, towards the latter part of his discourse, completely makes up what a contract is and how one is formed. His lack of substantive knowledge is quite obvious.

I'm not doubting the validity of legal fictions nor the existence of 'straw-men' - but you, as an flesh-and-blood individual, are a legal person. You have legal personality, just as do corporations and other 'legal fictions'.

The fact that you are a legal person has been highlighted not only through various cases and the relevant judgments cited through this thread, but also the very definitions you provide (it should be noted by the way that legal dictionaries give meanings of legal terms, but say little or nothing about the current state of the law).

Can you explain what you mean by 'court of commerce'? It sounds suspiciously like another term wholly contrived and purely for the benefit of the freeman arguments, rather than reflecting any real correlation to the law. How you think that the state/judge/court gains any benefit whatsoever from the vast majority of civil legal claims (which are between private parties), I don't know. What does the state possibly stand to gain from Mr.X suing Mr.Y for damages for breach of their contract?

More broad assertions of a conspiracy with nothing that would be widely accepted as proof to back them up.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


Having reviewed the statutes you provided, I have several questions. The statute in question is Chapter 61: DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE; SUPPORT; TIME-SHARING, which comes in two parts. Part I begins with Section 61.001 which describes the purpose of Chapter 61:


— (1) This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied.

(2) Its purposes are:
(a) To preserve the integrity of marriage and to safeguard meaningful family relationships;
(b) To promote the amicable settlement of disputes that arise between parties to a marriage; and
(c) To mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage.


In spite of its assertion that this chapter shall be liberally construed and applied, it has a tendency to get pretty specific. That specificity lies with marriage. Interestingly, marriage is not defined by this chapter in either Part I, or Part II. Marriage is, however, defined by Florida Statute 741.212(1) and defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman, further providing that the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such union. Under this definition, it would appear that Chapter 61 does not apply to you, unless the provision declaring this chapter to be "liberally construed and applied" means that the state of Florida can do whatever it damn well pleases and in spite of its own statutorily defined meanings can arbitrarily expand the scope of those meanings to whimsically apply to whomever a judge decides they apply to.

Was Section 61.001 used in the matter?

In regards to the title of this thread in relation to Chapter 61, it should be noted that 61.011 makes this distinction:


61.011 Dissolution in chancery.—Proceedings under this chapter are in chancery.


However, the term "chancery" is not defined by either Part I or Part II of Chapter 61, and I have not found any other Florida statute defining the term. Failing a statutory definition, we must then turn to the ordinary usage of the word.


The old English court in which the monarch's secretary, or Chancellor, began hearing lawsuits during the fourteenth century.

The decisions rendered there were based on conscience and fairness rather than on the strict common-law Forms of Action. In the United States, courts like the old chancery have been called courts of chancery or courts of Equity.


legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

The same online dictionary offers a lengthy legal definition for equity which offers in part:


Equity and the common law represented opposing values in the English legal system. The common law was the creation of a judiciary independent from the Crown. Common-law courts believed in the strict interpretation of statutes and precedential cases. Whereas the common law provided results based on years of judicial wisdom, equity produced results based on the whim of the king's chancellor. Commonlaw judges considered equity Arbitrary and a royal encroachment on the power of an independent judiciary. Renowned seventeenth-century judge John Selden called equity "a roguish thing" and noted that results in equity cases might well depend on the size of a chancellor's foot.


Which seems to suggest that the distinction between common law courts and courts of equity is one of whimsy. It would appear, based upon this distinction that when entering into a court of chancery or equity that one is agreeing to forgo common law principles and accept the whims of the judge hearing the case. Even so, if you were hauled into this court against your will and under age, and since the statute itself seems to be in regards to marriage, it is hard to imagine how this simulation of legal process could have any lawful bind upon you. Indeed, where neither Part I nor Part II of Chapter 61 define marriage, or chancery, it does define what a child is. Under Part II, Section 61.503 defines "child" as:


(2) “Child” means an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.


Didn't you say that you were under the age of 18 years of age when the judge rendered his ruling making you the "legal" parent of the child in question? If so, then you were, at the time, legally defined as being a "child" yourself, which seems to bring into question the issue of consent regarding any simulation of legal process that might declare that you "voluntarily" waived your rights to a common law court in favor of a chancery court, or court of equity.

It is also worth pointing out at this point, that neither Part I, nor Part II offer any statutory definition of the term "parent". There is a phrase; "Person acting as a parent" that is defined by Section 61.503(13) that states:


(13) “Person acting as a parent” means a person, other than a parent, who:

(a) Has physical custody of the child or has had physical custody for a period of 6 consecutive months, including any temporary absence, within 1 year immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding; and

(b) Has been awarded a child-custody determination by a court or claims a right to a child-custody determination under the laws of this state.


There is not, however, any definition provided for the term "parent". The ordinary usage of the word parent is:


a : one that begets or brings forth offspring b : a person who brings up and cares for another


A question I have that doesn't seem to have been addressed thus far is whether or not you ever attempted to have any DNA testing done to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that this child is not your progeny? Wouldn't a simple DNA test clear up this matter once and for all?

There is Section 61.12 which is titled; Attachment or garnishment of amounts due for alimony or child support. This section clearly allows for garnishment regarding alimony or child support but given that this section is in Chapter 61 and the purpose of this Chapter is clearly stated as being in regards to marriage and the dissolution of marriage, it is difficult to understand how this applies to you.

I suppose the language in 61.001 that states "...and to safeguard meaningful family relationships" could be "liberally construed and applied" to a "person" not married to another "person" but undeniably one of the "parents" to the "child" in question, but you have asserted several times that this child is not your biological child so the question remains how did the judge come to the determination that you were a "legal parent" of the "child"?

There is the matter of Section 61.10 which is titled; Adjudication of obligation to support spouse or minor child unconnected with dissolution; parenting plan, but this section seems to be in regards to a "spouse" which according to Florida Statute 741.212(1) would mean someone legally married, of which you were not.

It would appear that the closest thing to any meaningful language that might apply to you, or at the very least language that could be "liberally construed to apply" to you would be Section 61.13 which speaks directly to the parents of the child and is not concerned with the relationship of the parents in terms of "spouse" or "marriage". However, according to you the only thing that "established" you as the "parent" was the accusation made by the mother of the "child", and the judges willingness to accept the testimony of the mother as valid evidence of your parentage.

There are many questions that arise just reviewing what we have so far. The biggest question is, however, have you ever attempted to have a DNA test done to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt parentage or lack thereof? It seems that this is the issue, whether or not you are actually the parent of the child, and if you are not, then clearly, undeniably the judgment rendered against you was in error.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


Have you had a chance to read/reply to my PM yet?

Given the extremely unusual facts of your case (and the fact that much of it seems to be very technical and procedural i.e. can you challenge the validity of your admission of paternity by signing that document all those years ago, given that you were under duress? if that amounts, legally speaking, to duress in the circumstances), and though you may be loathe to do so, I think that predicating the entire case (and what will presumably be some rather substantial maintenance payments) on the validity of legislation (which is actually part of the State constitution isn't it? as in, those 'Florida States' are basically a small civil-code which is actually part of the text of the State constitution, right?) is going to be quite a bold thing to do.

Given that you have quite alot to lose here, you would honestly do well to consult someone with specialist knowledge of family law and civil procedure in Florida. Given that the facts of your case are extremely unusual, you would stand to benefit from expert advice. Besides which, is there any harm done in giving yourself as many grounds to argue as possible?

Best of luck.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Methinks that you answered your own question when you stated that "the proceedings in this chapter are in chancery."

From that point forward the rest of the statute is more or less moot, because it is at the will of whatever the hell the judge's wants. (they are merely guidelines, but to us they are the LAW)

I could be wrong about this, but this is like having a caveat in a bill, kind of like the one that allowed congress to "opt out" of the health care plan in one of the many bills that have been put forth to be passed concerning health care.

Caveats are little know but often used ways of the legislation basically saying "yeah, these rules are for you guys ALL the time, but, some of them only apply to certain people all of the time, depending upon how we feel about it."

The law is a bitch.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 

One more time here duality90........


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


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


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

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

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


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

OTHER THAN HUMAN BEINGS!

Why? Why do the "statutes", and they ARE specific, why do they use the word "person", which encompasses foreign and domestic corporations, and not human beings. The inference of one is to the exclusion OF ALL OTHERS. That is very real. The statutes ARE NOT law, but regulation. And they use the word person to show that it is corporate activity, WE ARE corporate "beings". There have been many threads on ATS about how we have a bond created from our birth certificate and we are traded on Wall Street. I have shown this to many people. Dunn and Bradstreet is where you wil find your "strawman" being traded. ALL CAPS letters of your name WITH your home address. My name is traded as several other "corporations" who i have no idea WHO they are but it has MY address attached to it. How does that work?

All of your rhetoric about ME being a legal person is pure BS, I am not now nor have I EVER been a "legal person". NEVER, YOU can not make a legal determination FOR me and neither can the court. If the judge is an elected official and he does this, it is illegal and the case must be dismissed for conduct. The judge can not practice law from the bench and he can make no legal determination of WHO and WHAT my being is.

Many here will explain the same thing, so get that into your head. You are sounding more like a problem than a part of the solution.

I AM NOT A PERSON!!!


Just to make it perfectly clear, the reason the statutes USE the word "person" is because the courts HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER flesh and blood living souls. WE, as in man, created government TO SERVE US, they can make no law, legislation or any other code or ordinance that would infringe on our Natural Born rights. So, insofar as the court was CREATED to regulate and CONTROL the legislation, which GIVES BIRTH to corporations, the statutes CAN NOT be applied to flesh and blood living souls directly, so how do they get it to apply to us without our knowing it? They use the word "person" because we were taught that in school, it was DRILLED into our heads. BUT....many people, as well as some attorneys, have exposed the fraud and now it is spreading. The truth shall set you free. If you, duality90, love being enslaved, good for you, I and so many others here do not, and will fight to the death, to keep the truth alive. Try as you will to bury it or distort it, but it is still there for all who have the sight, to see.Yes, the truth shall set you free.
edit on 17-3-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


You are correct. Person in black's law dictionary is defined as a creature, I believe.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Methinks that you answered your own question when you stated that "the proceedings in this chapter are in chancery."

From that point forward the rest of the statute is more or less moot, because it is at the will of whatever the hell the judge's wants. (they are merely guidelines, but to us they are the LAW)

I could be wrong about this, but this is like having a caveat in a bill, kind of like the one that allowed congress to "opt out" of the health care plan in one of the many bills that have been put forth to be passed concerning health care.

Caveats are little know but often used ways of the legislation basically saying "yeah, these rules are for you guys ALL the time, but, some of them only apply to certain people all of the time, depending upon how we feel about it."

The law is a bitch.


Equity isn't really quite that plainly 'at the discretion of the judge'. There are of course paramaters and guidelines to follow as laid down by prior decisions. It is actually quite rare that a judge is given discretion to reach a decision that is 'fair given all the circumstances'.

Equity seeks largely to stop unconscionable or bad faith conduct of a party. At the heart of it, it seeks to stop a party benefiting from his legal rights where to do so would be to allow him to commit some act which would lead to an unjust result (i.e. man and woman buy a house together with the property registered solely in the man's name. He promises her half-ownership. It would be unconscionable to allow him to sell the house and receive all of the proceeds by virtue of him being the sole legal owner when he had promised his wife a half share and she acted, in some way, to her detriment in reliance on that promise i.e she paid the mortgage instalments).

Again, my own knowledge is different from that of both the US and Florida but I'm surprised to see that reference (splitting a court of common law and a court of chancery) still being used. It is unusually archaic. We still use the term 'chancery' to refer to cases dealing with equity, but no single, purpose-fit court exists solely for the purposes of equity cases anymore.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by duality90
 

One more time here duality90........


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


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


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

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

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


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

OTHER THAN HUMAN BEINGS!

Why? Why do the "statutes", and they ARE specific, why do they use the word "person", which encompasses foreign and domestic corporations, and not human beings. The inference of one is to the exclusion OF ALL OTHERS. That is very real. The statutes ARE NOT law, but regulation. And they use the word person to show that it is corporate activity, WE ARE corporate "beings". There have been many threads on ATS about how we have a bond created from our birth certificate and we are traded on Wall Street. I have shown this to many people. Dunn and Bradstreet is where you wil find your "strawman" being traded. ALL CAPS letters of your name WITH your home address. My name is traded as several other "corporations" who i have no idea WHO they are but it has MY address attached to it. How does that work?

All of your rhetoric about ME being a legal person is pure BS, I am not now nor have I EVER been a "legal person". NEVER, YOU can not make a legal determination FOR me and neither can the court. If the judge is an elected official and he does this, it is illegal and the case must be dismissed for conduct. The judge can not practice law from the bench and he can make no legal determination of WHO and WHAT my being is.

Many here will explain the same thing, so get that into your head. You are sounding more like a problem than a part of the solution.

I AM NOT A PERSON!!!


Just to make it perfectly clear, the reason the statutes USE the word "person" is because the courts HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER flesh and blood living souls. WE, as in man, created government TO SERVE US, they can make no law, legislation or any other code or ordinance that would infringe on our Natural Born rights. So, insofar as the court was CREATED to regulate and CONTROL the legislation, which GIVES BIRTH to corporations, the statutes CAN NOT be applied to flesh and blood living souls directly, so how do they get it to apply to us without our knowing it? They use the word "person" because we were taught that in school, it was DRILLED into our heads. BUT....many people, as well as some attorneys, have exposed the fraud and now it is spreading. The truth shall set you free. If you, duality90, love being enslaved, good for you, I and so many others here do not, and will fight to the death, to keep the truth alive. Try as you will to bury it or distort it, but it is still there for all who have the sight, to see.Yes, the truth shall set you free.
edit on 17-3-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)


How can you consistently fail to grasp that you are a legal person despite actually showing evidence yourself that the term legal person encompasses you as well as corporate entities?



I AM NOT A PERSON!!!



Hahaha! That must be one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in a while.

I am not a 'slave', Sir. I am an independent thinker. It is you who have plainly been enslaved by the wholly theoretical and presumptive arguments of the freeman movement. JP Zodeaux and other users have made interesting arguments concerning the authority and legitimacy of government to legislate/regulate the lives of its citizens/subjects, which although theoretically insightful and thought-provoking, are at odds with both the reality of the situation as well as the actual power given to government. I think that far, far too much is being read into the autonomy and inherent 'power' of the individual within the legislative framework of government. Yes, the republic exists to serve the public, but it does not exist to serve every whim and desire of the individual. If that were the case, there would cease to be any point in governance as government would not have the fundamental authority nor power to govern.

I don't really understand what is so difficult to grasp about the concept of legal personality. If you have no legal personality, as you claim, then you can derive no rights from government, nor can you have any rights against it, or others. If you, as you claim, are not a 'legal person', you have no rights which are enforceable in a court of law, because in the eyes of the law, you do not exist.

Every person has legal personality - it is a self-evident attribute of the individual rather than a characteristic granted in certain instances to individuals.

All your talk of inalienable rights becomes worthless when you ask who is going to enforce those rights. If it is your inalienable right not to be harmed nor detained with cause, what are you going to do when you are arrested and want to enforce your right to know what you are arrested for? The judiciary exists to enforce the rights granted to individuals. If you have no legal personality, you have no means by which to enforce your rights.

The entire purpose of law is to regulate the relationships and activities of individuals for the greater good of society. If people (as you claim) are not subject to judicial action (be that either for their benefit or detriment), there is no point in having a system of law.

Furthermore, if I might ask you, what becomes of your argument about citizen's 'legal personality' being traded and sold (when you say this, do you mean in the sense that money is made to keep Social Security coffers well-stocked?) when a citizen is not born in the United States? Before I even had a green card my name was printed on legal documents in capital letters, even before I had a permanent address in the USA (let alone having stepped foot in the country). As has been pointed out by various users (including my self) American courts have dismissed the claim that capital letters have any particular meaning, connotation, or legal implication as being utterly absurd, false, and without any legal grounding whatsoever.

Furthermore, if you don't mind me asking, how do you think that there is any money to be made in trading your birth certificate? Unless your details are being sold amongst identity thieves, I can see no ostensible value in a document which registers your birth in the United States so you can derive American citizenship and other rights (like enfranchisement upon reaching age 18) as a person born in the United States. Your 'name' in itself is without any monetary value whatsoever. If you can show me some sort of clever or bizarre financial practice where trading your name (how you would even prove proprietary ownership of an individual's name, I do not know. I have never seen any case recognizing the name of an individual - unless a copyright or trademark, like a trade name - as a chattel), then I will gladly look at the evidence provided and perhaps admit that I was wrong and had been tricked.

All you have done repeatedly is assure me that some sinister organization is trading your name, without providing any purpose for doing so nor means of making money off of that.

And for the last time... read the most basic possible construction of the words. Statutes apply to persons as well as corporations because it obviously does not make sense to say that it is a crime for an individual person to commit financial fraud and not a corporate institution (like a bank), and vice versa. If you also don't mind me asking, how do you suppose that statute cannot apply to the individual and yet common-law rights and definitions can? If we are to suppose that 'law' can never apply to non-consenting individuals, murder in the united kingdom would not be a crime as it could apply only to 'persons' (as you define them i.e. corporate bodies) and not people like you and me (when a person unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerem natura... et c).

It is also necessary for the law to extend legal personality to corporate bodies so that they can be held liable for industrial accidents (corporate manslaughter) or negligent homicide of an individual. I see this attribution of legal personality to corporate bodies to be neither sinister nor suggestive of any conspiracy.

As to your citing of the legal maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterus', can you actually explain what relevance that has to your argument? That is a maxim of statutory interpretation which merely purports that, if something is not listed in a statutory provision, it is excluded. How you have come to the conclusion that that general and non-binding theoretical principal excludes individual people from the remit of statutes, I remain uncertain.

Your quoting of the Church of Scientology explicitly validates my point. Therein, the Court states that the term 'person' denotes both individuals and a variety of entities other than human beings. Just as the term 'car' includes in a scope a variety of automobiles beyond those which are four-door sedans, so too does the term 'person' include in its scope legal entities other than individual human beings.

Forget not the judgment of the court in that same case (itself citing another judgment of the USSC) which has been cited ad nauseam here:


"where the language of an enactment is clear and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the words employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning intended." at para.12


A statute does not have to state that it applies to individual people as well as corporate entities because both are included within the meaning of the term. It is superfluous to further define the meaning of the term than is necessary with knowledge of the legal meaning of the term 'person'.

I think you have either not read the judgment in full, or are purposely misinterpreting both the explicit implicit meaning of that quote. The question at issue there was whether or not the Church of Scientology could have documents released to it from the DEA that would compromise the informant source from which it came. The question there was whether it was purely individuals or individuals as well as other entities (such as law enforcement agencies et c) were exempted from the Freedom of Information Act if said entities/individuals had supplied information to the law enforcement authorities.

I think that you not only read the isolated statement wrongly, but also read it wholly out of its context of statutory interpretation.

If you are going to quite boldly proclaim that your own interpretation of precedent is " held true in both law and fact", you could at least be putting forth statements into the public domain that are at least plausible.


openjurist.org...


Once more, despite your constant assertion that you are not a legal person, nor are individuals legal persons, you have not supplied any evidence or material from which I, nor anyone else, could ascertain the validity of that assertion. Your quoted portion of that judgment almost says the exact opposite actually - CSC contended that only an individual came within the protection of that clause, whereas the court held that the meaning of 'person' there could be read so as to include individuals as well as organisations. The Court had recourse to the travaux preparatoires and the legislative history to answer that question where the conclusion to be drawn was not already obvious enough on a plain reading of the words.

The point of law at question in that case was one of statutory interpretation and did not actually involve whether or not legal personality was being attributed to individuals or corporations. It simply sought to clarify the intended meaning the word 'person' in an insolated statute (the FOIA). If you are going to cite cases, it would do you well to read the judgment at least partially rather than cherrypicking quotes and relying entirely on them.

I apologize if there was any hostility in that post, but it obviously renders me no pleasure to see my argument dismissed as "total BS". On that point: Pot - meet kettle.



edit on 17-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Hello guys! I'm not home right now so I'll answer all the questions as soon as I get back.

Greenovni



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





JP Zodeaux and other users have made interesting arguments concerning the authority and legitimacy of government to legislate/regulate the lives of its citizens/subjects, which although theoretically insightful and thought-provoking, are at odds with both the reality of the situation as well as the actual power given to government.


Either you are correct and the ideas that I and others have been promulgating in this thread are at odds with the reality of the situation as well as the actual power given to government, or you are incorrect and are mistakenly using the current legal paradigm to mean "reality of the situation" and are ignoring, at least in terms of the United State, the Constitution which specifically defines and limits the actual power given to government.

The Bill of Rights within the federal Constitution stands a perfect example of some of the limits that have undeniably been placed upon the U.S. federal government. Of course, the reality is that in spite of those limits, all three branches have been guilty of defying one or more of the Bill of Rights and will endeavor to redefine what right means, will argue that a specific right was not violated, even when overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise, and will all too often simply ignore the outrage of the people over these disparagement of rights and continue to deny and disparage the rights of individuals in the name of government.

This is the reality. That governments do trample all over the rights of individuals. Here is another reality. That denial and disparagement of rights is not lawful. We, you and I, can quibble over the "legality" of these unlawful acts, but any denial or disparagement of a right, whether it be by government or by the average mug on the street, is unlawful. Licensing schemes present themselves as lawful, however, by definition, a license is a grant to do something that would otherwise be illegal. This is legality. There is no lawful licensing scheme that can grant people the privilege of denying or disparaging the rights of others. When what is considered to be legal becomes unlawful, then legality becomes a joke.

That is the reality of the situation. This is why more and more people are not only showing strong disrespect for lawyers, but are also showing strong disrespect for the law, and this is why I have fought so hard to distinguish law from legislation. It is not an understanding that legislation is not law that would tip the balance of civilization and push it over the abyss into the depths of madness. It is the confusion of legislation with law coupled with the profound disrespect for the law that will push civilization over the edge of the abyss. When the law is no longer respected and understood for what it is, i.e., the acknowledgment of rights and the attempt to put justice back in when there is an absence of justice, then the people have been poisoned by the well are no longer sane.




I think that far, far too much is being read into the autonomy and inherent 'power' of the individual within the legislative framework of government. Yes, the republic exists to serve the public, but it does not exist to serve every whim and desire of the individual. If that were the case, there would cease to be any point in governance as government would not have the fundamental authority nor power to govern.


It is a contradiction of terms to speak of the autonomy and inherent power of the individual within the legislative framework of government. The inherent political power of the individual exists outside of the legislative framework of government and no attempts should ever be made to view that inherent political power within the legislative framework of government. Further, I have not read any post in this thread where someone was arguing that the republic exists to serve every whim and desire of the individual. Quite the contrary, what I have read is several members asserting that the people do not exist to serve the every whim and desire of government. Members such greenovni, hawkiye, Josephus, and Lightrule have been arguing that they want government to back the hell off of and let people alone when no crime is being committed. This is quite different than what you are suggesting. In fact, your suggestion that people want government to exist to attend to the every whim and desire of the individual is a Marxist ideal, which is no where near the ideal of any of the members in this thread who arguing that government comes with clear and definable limits.

There is a strange convolution to the sentences I quoted above. On the one hand, you suggest that the members in this thread are arguing that government exists to serve the every whim and desire of the individual, but then you argue that such a notion would dis-empower government to the point of uselessness. The irony is that the opposite is true. When people eschew a republic designed to protect the rights of the individual in favor of a democracy where the majority rules and use this form of tyranny to direct government to appease the every whim and desire of the individual, such a mandate requires an immense amount of authority by government. When the people insist they have a right to "health care", and then everyone unofficially agrees that "health care" means some sort of insurance scheme, and government is expected to somehow create an insurance scheme that facilitates this supposed "health care", the result is an expansion and presumed empowerment of government, not the other way around. This is demonstrably so.




I don't really understand what is so difficult to grasp about the concept of legal personality. If you have no legal personality, as you claim, then you can derive no rights from government, nor can you have any rights against it, or others. If you, as you claim, are not a 'legal person', you have no rights which are enforceable in a court of law, because in the eyes of the law, you do not exist.


This is just not true. People do not need to be statutorily defined by the legislature they empowered before they can seek justice from the courts they established. It is also a blatant falsehood that people do not have rights unless they are statutorily defined, and your insistence that rights are derived by the very government the people created is astoundingly incorrect. Rights preexist government. I have all ready pointed to the fact that Americans were worshiping according to the dictates of their own conscious, were speaking freely, were publishing freely, were peaceably assembling, and were keeping a bearing arms long before the First and Second Amendments were written.

I have also pointed to the infant who cries and cries as self evidence that no legislation was required to grant that infant the right to wail, and of course, the infant doesn't, before wailing, stop to ask if it is legal to do so, that infant cries by right. Not a right granted by legislation, but by the natural right that belong to all people. I have made the argument that the basis of government - just government - is based on the individual right to self defense, and that it follows that individuals have the right to collectively come together and form a government to protect and defend the rights of the individual.

This right to self defense is not just a human right, it is the right of all living creatures. The rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to keep and bear thorns. The porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to keep and bear needles, and the skunk does not need permission from the state in order to carry its stink. Every living being has the observable and self evident right to self defense. The skunk has the right to stink, and the rose, by any other name, has the right to smell as sweet. These are rights not derived by government, but rights that exist, with or without government.




Every person has legal personality - it is a self-evident attribute of the individual rather than a characteristic granted in certain instances to individuals.


If a "legal personality" is self evident, then it needs no statute to declare it so. What is self evident needs no explanation. The explanation that statutes need to exist to define people in terms of "legal personality" so that government can have the authority to act as government is an explanation, and not a very good one at that. What is self evident is that people preexist government, and did not come into existence because some legislature created an act making it so. These people created the government, and based upon your argument, those people who initially created the United States government, having themselves not being defined by statute as a "legal personality" then could not have possibly derived the right to create the government to begin with.

When you build a house of cards, it is inevitable that the house will come tumbling down.




All your talk of inalienable rights becomes worthless when you ask who is going to enforce those rights. If it is your inalienable right not to be harmed nor detained with cause, what are you going to do when you are arrested and want to enforce your right to know what you are arrested for? The judiciary exists to enforce the rights granted to individuals. If you have no legal personality, you have no means by which to enforce your rights.


Before addressing your specious argument that inalienable rights become worthless, it is first important to clarify that it should read "nor detained without cause", not "nor detained with cause". Government most certainly has the authority to detain a person with cause, and no one has the right to not be detained with cause. Individuals, however, do have the right to not be detained without cause.

In terms of who is going to enforce these rights, the obvious and self evident answer is the individual possessing the right. When exercising the right to speech, it is the individual speaking who enforces their right to speak. When exercising the right to keep and bear arms, it is the individual keeping and bearing arms who has enforced that right to do so. The question is not who will enforce unalienable rights, the question is, once a right has been denied, or disparaged, who will enforce the law? This is a huge distinction between what you are arguing, and what many members in this thread are arguing. It is worth repeating that Josephus hit the nail on the head when he stated that you were merely arguing the merits of a legal system and not at all arguing the law.




The entire purpose of law is to regulate the relationships and activities of individuals for the greater good of society. If people (as you claim) are not subject to judicial action (be that either for their benefit or detriment), there is no point in having a system of law.


The purpose of law is to maintain a harmonious balance in the universe. This is why gravity exists, it is why the planetary laws of motion exist, as well as the laws of motion themselves, and it is why the rights of the individual exist. That harmonious balance in the universe is, for all intents and purposes, the greater good. When an individual has had a right, or rights trampled upon, that balance has been unbalanced, and the purpose of government is to somehow bring balance back. Government cannot, nor will they, return a balance of justice as long as it is believed that arbitrary and whimsical legislation can carry the force of law.

In terms of not being subject to a judicial action, people can only be subject to those judicial actions that are within the scope of the law, not legislation, but the law. As an example, the so called "chancery" legislation of Chapter 61 that the O.P. has presented is a case in point, and particularly since the O.P. was a "child" as defined by that chapter, the assertion that the O.P. is undeniably subject to the judicial action made under this legislation of chancery is dubious at best. The O.P. had a right to expect a common law court in the matter, and if the only thing that bound him to the whimsy of chancery was his own signature, then this gives much credence to what many members in this thread are arguing. Although, I tend to agree with you, and that under the law of contracts, no such contract was made that would have legally bound the O.P. to the subjugation of the judicial action he has been forced to swallow for so many years.

As a "child" his signature agreeing to allow proceedings to be heard under a legislative act of chancery and in a court of equity was not a meeting of the minds, and no valid contract was made. The O.P. has the right to petition for a redress of grievances. It is understandable, and to your credit instead of speaking to the statutes and advising the O.P. in any way, why you are advising the O.P. seek out competent assistance of counsel, and it is understandable that you would view this competent assistance of counsel as being some specialized attorney. An attorney versed in "family law" may or may not be that proper assistance of counsel. I suppose it depends upon the attorney the O.P. finds, if in fact he goes that route. If the O.P. avoids seeking assistance from an attorney, this is also understandable as too few attorneys have regard for the law, and far too many show unbelievable reverence to legislation instead. Under such a condition, finding competent assistance of counsel in the form of an attorney is tantamount to finding a needle in a haystack.




Once more, despite your constant assertion that you are not a legal person, nor are individuals legal persons, you have not supplied any evidence or material from which I, nor anyone else, could ascertain the validity of that assertion.


You have done nothing to show the validity that government has the right and authority to statutorily define individuals as "persons" and then to use this definition as an excuse to intrude upon their lives and regulate their rights. It is arguable that a statutorily defined "person" is subject to the licensing schemes so consistently imposed upon people who choose to go into business for themselves. Indeed, these licensing schemes have become so pervasive that in certain fields, one need not even go into business for themselves and simply just choose a profession where a legislature has deigned "authority" to regulate it.

All people have the right to life. As a part of the condition of the right to life, it follows that all people have the right to earn a living. This does not mean that individuals can do any thing they please to make a living, and a hit man cannot argue that they have the right to assassinate people because they have a right to earn a living. While they most assuredly do have the right to earn a living, they do not have the right - outside of defense - to kill people, regardless of how well it may pay. Further, a doctor, or a lawyer has the right to practice these professions, and the regulatory schemes that intrude upon this right are only valid for those who voluntarily agree to the intrusion.

I have handily demonstrated by pointing to the study done on death by doctoring where nearly a quarter of a million people per year are killed because of medical incompetence that licensing schemes do nothing to prevent incompetence. An afternoon driving in Los Angeles would most likely be enough experience to understand that drivers licensing schemes do not prevent incompetence. What these schemes do is empower government beyond the point of justice, and close up a system that would otherwise be open. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is applicable outside of heat, and all, and I mean all closed systems tend towards entropy. Empowering a government to create a closed system is...well, it is just insane.

Your tone and tenor has become much more civilized these past few days and you are to be commended for this. I get that you are just as passionate about your point of view as I am mine, and I urge you to maintain your passion - as wrong as I think your point of view is - but that you have made a clear effort to temper your passion with civility is noted and much appreciated. We do not have to agree in order to be civil with each other, and it is truly through civility that if either side has valid points, that they will be better understood.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have bowed out of the debate, as I am not as versed in the secret language of legislation as others here prove to be. I have been following along closely. I had to point this out though:


This right to self defense is not just a human right, it is the right of all living creatures. The rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to keep and bear thorns. The porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to keep and bear needles, and the skunk does not need permission from the state in order to carry its stink. Every living being has the observable and self evident right to self defense. The skunk has the right to stink, and the rose, by any other name, has the right to smell as sweet. These are rights not derived by government, but rights that exist, with or without government.


This right here is literary genius! Applauds to that line in particular, keep up the good fight in exposing these people as the frauds I know them to be.
edit on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:35:40 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have bowed out of the debate, as I am not as versed in the secret language of legislation as others here prove to be. I have been following along closely. I had to point this out though:


This right to self defense is not just a human right, it is the right of all living creatures. The rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to keep and bear thorns. The porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to keep and bear needles, and the skunk does not need permission from the state in order to carry its stink. Every living being has the observable and self evident right to self defense. The skunk has the right to stink, and the rose, by any other name, has the right to smell as sweet. These are rights not derived by government, but rights that exist, with or without government.


This right here is literary genius! Applauds to that line in particular, keep up the good fight in exposing these people as the frauds I know them to be.
edit on Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:35:40 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Do not count yourself out yet. You have question, there is no such thing as a stupid question, just a stiupid response if it does nothing to further the debate or does not give you enlightenment.

JPZ is one of the greats here, his wording is very to the point and spot on. duality90 however is missing the point and is all over the place with his ideas. This stems from his schooling, which he "believes" is correct and is about "Common Law", nothing could be further from the truth. Law schools DO NOT teach "Common Law". The one rule in which all common law is based is....Do unto others... no victim, no crime. Be responsible and you need no governing. It is not hard to see who benefits from all the crime and thus is suspect to causing all the crime. No crime, no need for cops or judges or LAWYERS!!!

I owe NOTHING "to" the "State" as I recieve nothing there from. I can protect myself and family, so I need no police, if my house starts on fire, I will put it out and rebuild, I fabricate with metals so I construct those things th city needs for water and sewer, as a result of that they owe me for my work, fair trade.

More later but do not bow out.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   




Thank you for taking the time to dig into the statutes.

First let me clear some things before proceeding.

When I was 16, I live in CT, when I met the 29 year old woman and had the 1 night stand I was brought into CT court.

The original judgment was done in CT and when my mother forced me to sign some papers, that was done in CT also but not at the courthouse, it was done in a place called the NOW and up to this day, I have no clue what the NOW building does or is.

I moved to FL years later and then I got hit with a "foreign" child support order here in FL.

I told the judge that the mother told me directly that the child was not mine in FL, he told me that even if it was not mine, I was legally declared the father and there is nothing he could do because that is what the statute says.





I remember hearing that the court was a court of equity when I asked what type of court it was.





Yes, I was 17 when the child support and paternity 2 minute hearing happened in CT, unfortunately, the hearing officer in FL does not care one bit.





Yes, I asked the hearing officer in FL for a DNA test, denied, and even if there is a DNA test that clearly shows that I am not the father, I am still stuck since I am "legally" the father.

I spoke to my "child" and told her that she has the right to know who her real dad is, I spoke to her mother and after months of fighting they finally agreed to one of those DNA tests that you can buy in Walgreens. I swabed myself here, sent it to CT so they could swab the kid and then they mailed it in.

According to that test, I am not the father BUT since I was not there to swab her myself, I have no clue what they sent in to the lab.





The judge asked me if I had ever slept "with this woman" I said yes, 1 time & I wore a condom, the judge then asked her if she had other sexual partners during that period.

She answered, "not that week" and the judge looked at me and said, "You are the father as you have admitted to having "sexual relations" with this woman"

Done, I am the "dad"

Total time in front of the judge "2 minutes"





I am trying to get a LEGAL DNA test ordered but the hearing officer is not having it. The "law" says that even is proven by DNA not to be the bio dad that you only have certain amount of time to contest it and if you miss the deadline, you're stuck forever.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by duality90
reply to post by greenovni
 


Have you had a chance to read/reply to my PM yet?

Given the extremely unusual facts of your case (and the fact that much of it seems to be very technical and procedural i.e. can you challenge the validity of your admission of paternity by signing that document all those years ago, given that you were under duress? if that amounts, legally speaking, to duress in the circumstances), and though you may be loathe to do so, I think that predicating the entire case (and what will presumably be some rather substantial maintenance payments) on the validity of legislation (which is actually part of the State constitution isn't it? as in, those 'Florida States' are basically a small civil-code which is actually part of the text of the State constitution, right?) is going to be quite a bold thing to do.

Given that you have quite alot to lose here, you would honestly do well to consult someone with specialist knowledge of family law and civil procedure in Florida. Given that the facts of your case are extremely unusual, you would stand to benefit from expert advice. Besides which, is there any harm done in giving yourself as many grounds to argue as possible?

Best of luck.


I have no other choice but to go after the validity of the law itself. I have been with 2 lawyers on this case and neither could do anything but take the little money that I had.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 





The judge asked me if I had ever slept "with this woman" I said yes, 1 time & I wore a condom, the judge then asked her if she had other sexual partners during that period.

She answered, "not that week" and the judge looked at me and said, "You are the father as you have admitted to having "sexual relations" with this woman"

Done, I am the "dad"


The Judge CAN NOT make a legal determination FOR you or ABOUT you when sitting on the bench. The "referee" or hearing officer CAN make the "suggestion", but the Judge CAN NOT make that determination HIMSELF from the bench.

Reject their OFFER of Contract. IF you go before a judge or hearing officer, DO NOT give them a name and reject all offers of contract. It does work every time, it pisses them off and they may threaten you but these are empty threats, most people cave to these threats, unknowingly.

www.landrights.com...

Check out the site about, copy and paste and review it and change the name and words to suit your case. Remeber when you put your name on it it should look like this "John-Henry: Doe". Semi-colon before your family/last name. It is not a representation of the "fictional" you. Which the court is seeking to contract with. The court recieves money or compensation for these misdeeds. It's all about the enslavement of man and the removing of our wealth and re-distribution to the elite.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Please do not rely on daddio's advice. It doesn't work. He's offering legal advice (practising law) which I doubt he's qualified to give. Where are the successes? We've been through this before in this thread. I strongly suggest going to State Bar Association, letting them know you have no money for representation (If that's the case). Also check the County for referrals. Look for family law institutes in Florida, maybe father's rights advocacy groups. Who knows, you might need a bankruptcy attorney.

Where are you going to turn when the judge throws out the paperwork that's been suggested you use? Some annonymous voice on ATS? Do your very best to find a professional in Florida.



new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join