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: 27
153
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by greenovni
The barrister reference was not to you. We have had may barristers / lawyers (or those who simply act like them on forums) in these past 25 pages and unfortunately no one has been able to answer that question.


Ok, no problem. Thanks for the clarification.

While I was happy to comment on the general points made by Freemen in relation to English law and the videos that have appeared in this thread of appearances before an English court, I don't think it would be sensible for me to comment on the specific point you raise regarding the constitution of Florida (other than to suggest seeking professional advice - possibly seeking a free consultation or contacting a relevant charity/organisation). It's a bit outside the jurisdiction I deal with...

However, as I mentioned above, I would expect a lawyer in Florida would begin by identifying the SPECIFIC statute relevant to the claim against you and check the basic point underlying your argument, i.e. whether a COMPLETE copy of that statute does indeed omit the enacting clause. In relation to English statutes, you sometimes see free websites which contain the main parts of statutes but omit some of the somewhat confusing legal verbiage which does appear before the main parts.

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 25-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)


The whole statute, from the title to the very last word written is missing the enacting clause. Please remember that while I do quite a bit of research in the web, I also do the same at the law library at the law college.

At this time, besides myself, there are 4 Florida lawyers from the FL college looking into it and none have been able to find an enacting clause for any single statute.




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni
The whole statute, from the title to the very last word written is missing the enacting clause.


I doubt I'll be able to take things much further since I'm not a lawyer in Florida, but I'd be interested if you could tell me which SPECIFIC statute you are referring to.



At this time, besides myself, there are 4 Florida lawyers from the FL college looking into it and none have been able to find an enacting clause for any single statute.


Edit to add - ok, I've now spent a few minutes looking into this and have found enacting clauses on statutes in Florida (including on a statute in relation to child support).

I haven't read all this thread - surely someone has pointed this out before???

SURELY this has been pointed out before this thread got to PAGE 27? If not, I can write up the details and relevant links, but I'm currently assuming someone has posted this information already in this thread but I couldn't face reading the entire thread due to the painful amount of nonsense and misconceptions in the first few pages.

Assuming the presence of enacting clauses has indeed been pointed out before, why is this thread still discussing the point as if enacting clauses were absent???


edit on 25-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Yes I misspelled ONE word at 6 am, when you misspelled the same word about 50 times across many posts...and it is the crux of your argument. This suggests that MINE was a typo, and yours suggests a serious misunderstanding of all factors involved. There is a simple solution to your situation as you eventually described it in your response. Sometimes liberal justices will decide that the acting father in the formative years is still responsible for the support of their non-fraternal children simply because they willingly took on the role when they believed they were the father AND/OR that their continuance in that role is in the benefit of the child. Why don't you simply get a dna test and put the whole thing to rest? The only reason you wouldn't go this route, In good Faith, is that you Are the father and it IS your kid. That's the only reason you would leap on some weird freeman BS about how the judiciary system has no right to prosecute you. You are grasping at straws and still continue to make yourself look worse to a court of law. Pray that your prosecutor is unaware of your proclivity for abovetopsecret.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Guy is grasping at straws. The law requires he pays child support for his children (gasp). He is arguing that some sort of loophole exists that he is not constrained by 'common law' (ie the court of public opinion, or precedent)...though he contends that he is conclusively not the father and therefore possesses an open-and-shut case and would not have to resolve to such ridiculous court-room antics...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by greenovni
The whole statute, from the title to the very last word written is missing the enacting clause.


I doubt I'll be able to take things much further since I'm not a lawyer in Florida, but I'd be interested if you could tell me which SPECIFIC statute you are referring to.



At this time, besides myself, there are 4 Florida lawyers from the FL college looking into it and none have been able to find an enacting clause for any single statute.


Edit to add - ok, I've now spent a few minutes looking into this and have found enacting clauses on statutes in Florida (including on a statute in relation to child support).

I haven't read all this thread - surely someone has pointed this out before???

SURELY this has been pointed out before this thread got to PAGE 27? If not, I can write up the details and relevant links, but I'm currently assuming someone has posted this information already in this thread but I couldn't face reading the entire thread due to the painful amount of nonsense and misconceptions in the first few pages.

Assuming the presence of enacting clauses has indeed been pointed out before, why is this thread still discussing the point as if enacting clauses were absent???


edit on 25-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)


Please share where you found these as they are nowhere written in the Florida statute books.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni
Please share where you found these as they are nowhere written in the Florida statute books.


Yes they are...

I'm happy to post details but it will take up a few more minutes of my time, particularly if I post images of the enacting clauses on statutes from Florida to back up the answer to your question.

Can you first:
(1) answer my question about which SPECIFIC statute you are concerned about
(2) tell me that no-one else has already posted this information in this 27 PAGE long thread. I don't want to waste my time...

If you want to briefly explain the basis of your repeated statements that the enacting clauses are not written on any Florida statute, I'd be interested in that as well. It is simply wrong.

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 25-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by czerro
Yes I misspelled ONE word at 6 am, when you misspelled the same word about 50 times across many posts...and it is the crux of your argument. This suggests that MINE was a typo, and yours suggests a serious misunderstanding of all factors involved. There is a simple solution to your situation as you eventually described it in your response. Sometimes liberal justices will decide that the acting father in the formative years is still responsible for the support of their non-fraternal children simply because they willingly took on the role when they believed they were the father AND/OR that their continuance in that role is in the benefit of the child. Why don't you simply get a dna test and put the whole thing to rest? The only reason you wouldn't go this route, In good Faith, is that you Are the father and it IS your kid. That's the only reason you would leap on some weird freeman BS about how the judiciary system has no right to prosecute you. You are grasping at straws and still continue to make yourself look worse to a court of law. Pray that your prosecutor is unaware of your proclivity for abovetopsecret.


I wonder what your problem is.

# 1 English is my second language, thank you for correcting my spelling!

# 2 This happened from a 1 night stand, never was there for said child, have never even seen said child's school report card, never attended any birthdays & I have seen said child 3 - 4 times in my life if that so your argument of "willingly taking the role of a fater" is null.

A home DNA test was taken, came back as NOT THE FATHER, biologically impossible. Asked the court to ORDER a DNA test to legally establish paternity, denied by the judge because the time period to contest paternity has long passed.

So yes, I HAVE IN GOOD FAITH been asking these bastards to ORDER the legal DNA test, been denied which calls for another way to handle the fraud committed by both the courts and the custodial mother.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by greenovni
Please share where you found these as they are nowhere written in the Florida statute books.


Yes they are...

I'm happy to post details but it will take up a few more minutes of my time, particularly if I post images of the enacting clauses on statutes from Florida to back up the answer to your question.

Can you first:
(1) answer my question about which SPECIFIC statute you are concerned about
(2) tell me that no-one else has already posted this information in this 27 PAGE long thread. I don't want to waste my time...

If you want to briefly explain the basis of your repeated statements that the enacting clauses are not written on any Florida statute, I'd be interested in that as well. It is simply wrong.

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 25-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)


Florida Statute Chapter 61

Florida Statute

Please note that I was never married to this woman and it was a 1 night stand.

The basis of the statement that the Florida statutes are missing enacting clauses is the books called " Florida Statutes" at the law library.

Now, I know that the BILLS themselves do have the enacting clause as I have seen them myself, but I am not civilly charged with breaking a bill, I am charged with non payment of child support (for a child that is not biologically mine) Using statutes from the FL Statutes book.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by czerro
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Guy is grasping at straws. The law requires he pays child support for his children (gasp). He is arguing that some sort of loophole exists that he is not constrained by 'common law' (ie the court of public opinion, or precedent)...though he contends that he is conclusively not the father and therefore possesses an open-and-shut case and would not have to resolve to such ridiculous court-room antics...


She's not my child

I never said that I am going the common law way, I said that the statute is void because it is missing its enacting clause.

In order to answer your third point that says:


though he contends that he is conclusively not the father and therefore possesses an open-and-shut case and would not have to resolve to such ridiculous court-room antics


You must see the video of another father in Florida, that proved with court ordered DNA that he is not the father and yet he is stuck with child support for a kid that is not his nor that he ever "willingly" played the father role.

He didn't even know that there was a kid that was pinned on him!



Here is the CNN article on the same case

As you can clearly see, it is not an open a shut case even proving via court ordered DNA test that the child is not biologically yours.

So, now, get back on your high horse, claim that it is an open an shut case and that I should bend over while the courts support a woman that is clearly committing FRAUD without fighting back.
edit on 25-3-2011 by greenovni because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni
Now, I know that the BILLS themselves do have the enacting clause as I have seen them myself, but I am not civilly charged with breaking a bill, I am charged with non payment of child support (for a child that is not biologically mine) Using statutes from the FL Statutes book.


Ah, I understand the point you are making now...

I hadn't understood you are suggesting a distinction between "bills" (which clearly have the relevant enacting clauses) and "laws" (even if, presumably, the bills bear all necessary signatures to pass them into law).

Looking on the Internet, I see that at least one American author has sought to explain that argument at some length. You may be familiar with the relevant book, since it appears to support your argument (and provides some arguments in support of it): "The Authority of Law" by Charles A. Weisman. Images of the relevant pages from that book (pages 22-25) are at the links below in case they have not been mentioned in this thread already:
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...

However, the book by Charles A Weisman does not seem to cite any authorities directly supporting the basic argument. Also, while (as I've said before) I'm not familiar with the laws relating to constitutional matters in States in the USA, I've just done a few basic Google searches and isn't this an argument that has been rejected by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in relation to bills in Minnesota and wouldn't the same reasoning be applied in Florida??

www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us...


Legal Topics: Enacting Clause
An enacting clause is the constitutionally required portion of a bill which formally expresses the intent that it become law. See Article IV, Section 22 of the Minnesota Constitution: "Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Minnesota." This language appears on every bill that goes through the legislature and is signed by the governor to become law.

New laws are first published in Laws of Minnesota, also known as the session laws. The enacting clause appears at the beginning of each law. Minnesota Statutes is a compilation of the general and permanent laws of the state arranged by subject. The enacting clause is not reprinted here. For more information on the difference between the Laws and Statutes, see Frequently Asked Questions About the Minnesota Legislature: Laws, Statutes and Rules from the Minnesota Legislature. The original bills signed into law by the governor and bearing his signature are filed with the Secretary of State.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals explained this process in Ledden v. State, 686 N.W.2d 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004):



Appellant next contends that the statutes under which he was convicted are unconstitutional because the printed copies of the Minnesota Statutes do not contain the enacting clauses. In support of this proposition, appellant refers to the Sjoberg court's holding that "a statute without an enacting clause is void." Sjoberg, 73 Minn. at 212, 75 N.W. at 1118. But appellant misinterprets the context in which the word "statute" is used. In Sjoberg, the constitutionality of chapter 250, Laws 1897 was being challenged. Because chapter 250, Laws 1897 was not codified at the time the court addressed the issue, the court used the word "statute" in reference to the session laws. [At the time the Sjoberg case was litigated, the most recent codification of the Minnesota laws was 1894. The Minnesota laws were not re-codified until 1905.] Thus, appellant's reliance on Sjoberg is misplaced.

Appellant's argument also confuses the laws of Minnesota with the codified statutes. Although the Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, they are not the laws themselves. See Minn. Stat. §3C.13. The actual laws of Minnesota as passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, or enacted without signature or over veto, and filed with the secretary of state, are contained in the session laws, which do contain the required enacting clauses. See Minn. Stat. §3C.06 (2002). In contrast, the Minnesota Statutes are enacted laws that are codified, organized, and assembled by the revisor of statutes. See generally Minn. Stat. §3C.10 (2002). The laws are codified to provide the public with a usable collection of the laws of Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 3C.08, which sets forth the required contents of the Minnesota Statutes, does not require that the enacting clauses be republished in the Minnesota Statutes. To require that the enacting clause be republished in the Minnesota Statutes every time a law is passed or amended would lead to an absurd result because so many laws have been amended time and time again. See Minn. Stat. §645.17(1) (2002). Accordingly, we conclude that the omission of the enacting clauses from the Minnesota Statutes does not render the statutes unconstitutional, and there is no constitutional deficiency in appellant's convictions.


Federal legislation works the same way. The Statutes at Large (authorized in 1 U.S.C. §112) are the session laws and the United States Code (authorized in 1 U.S.C. §204) is the equivalent of Minnesota Statutes. For more information see How Our Laws Are Made, from the LiIbrary of Congress.


By the way Greenovni, my earlier answer over-simplified the statute/bills distinction because I did not know or think it was relevant to your point. I apologise for that over-simplification. I just wanted to avoid introducing terms and distinctions which are, at best, confusing...

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 25-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by greenovni
Now, I know that the BILLS themselves do have the enacting clause as I have seen them myself, but I am not civilly charged with breaking a bill, I am charged with non payment of child support (for a child that is not biologically mine) Using statutes from the FL Statutes book.


Ah, I understand the point you are making now...

I hadn't understood you are suggesting a distinction between "bills" (which clearly have the relevant enacting clauses) and "laws" (even if, presumably, the bills bear all necessary signatures to pass them into law).

Looking on the Internet, I see that at least one American author has sought to explain that argument at some length. You may be familiar with the relevant book, since it appears to support your argument (and provides some arguments in support of it): "The Authority of Law" by Charles A. Weisman. Images of the relevant pages from that book (pages 22-25) are at the links below in case they have not been mentioned in this thread already:
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...

However, the book by Charles A Weisman does not seem to cite any authorities directly supporting the basic argument. Also, while (as I've said before) I'm not familiar with the laws relating to constitutional matters in States in the USA, I've just done a few basic Google searches and isn't this an argument that has been rejected by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in relation to bills in Minnesota and wouldn't the same reasoning be applied in Florida??

www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us...


Legal Topics: Enacting Clause
An enacting clause is the constitutionally required portion of a bill which formally expresses the intent that it become law. See Article IV, Section 22 of the Minnesota Constitution: "Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Minnesota." This language appears on every bill that goes through the legislature and is signed by the governor to become law.

New laws are first published in Laws of Minnesota, also known as the session laws. The enacting clause appears at the beginning of each law. Minnesota Statutes is a compilation of the general and permanent laws of the state arranged by subject. The enacting clause is not reprinted here. For more information on the difference between the Laws and Statutes, see Frequently Asked Questions About the Minnesota Legislature: Laws, Statutes and Rules from the Minnesota Legislature. The original bills signed into law by the governor and bearing his signature are filed with the Secretary of State.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals explained this process in Ledden v. State, 686 N.W.2d 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004):



Appellant next contends that the statutes under which he was convicted are unconstitutional because the printed copies of the Minnesota Statutes do not contain the enacting clauses. In support of this proposition, appellant refers to the Sjoberg court's holding that "a statute without an enacting clause is void." Sjoberg, 73 Minn. at 212, 75 N.W. at 1118. But appellant misinterprets the context in which the word "statute" is used. In Sjoberg, the constitutionality of chapter 250, Laws 1897 was being challenged. Because chapter 250, Laws 1897 was not codified at the time the court addressed the issue, the court used the word "statute" in reference to the session laws. [At the time the Sjoberg case was litigated, the most recent codification of the Minnesota laws was 1894. The Minnesota laws were not re-codified until 1905.] Thus, appellant's reliance on Sjoberg is misplaced.

Appellant's argument also confuses the laws of Minnesota with the codified statutes. Although the Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, they are not the laws themselves. See Minn. Stat. §3C.13. The actual laws of Minnesota as passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, or enacted without signature or over veto, and filed with the secretary of state, are contained in the session laws, which do contain the required enacting clauses. See Minn. Stat. §3C.06 (2002). In contrast, the Minnesota Statutes are enacted laws that are codified, organized, and assembled by the revisor of statutes. See generally Minn. Stat. §3C.10 (2002). The laws are codified to provide the public with a usable collection of the laws of Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 3C.08, which sets forth the required contents of the Minnesota Statutes, does not require that the enacting clauses be republished in the Minnesota Statutes. To require that the enacting clause be republished in the Minnesota Statutes every time a law is passed or amended would lead to an absurd result because so many laws have been amended time and time again. See Minn. Stat. §645.17(1) (2002). Accordingly, we conclude that the omission of the enacting clauses from the Minnesota Statutes does not render the statutes unconstitutional, and there is no constitutional deficiency in appellant's convictions.


Federal legislation works the same way. The Statutes at Large (authorized in 1 U.S.C. §112) are the session laws and the United States Code (authorized in 1 U.S.C. §204) is the equivalent of Minnesota Statutes. For more information see How Our Laws Are Made, from the LiIbrary of Congress.


By the way Greenovni, my earlier answer over-simplified the statute/bills distinction because I did not know or think it was relevant to your point. I apologise for that over-simplification. I just wanted to avoid introducing terms and distinctions which are, at best, confusing...

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 25-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)


Notice how they say that "Although the Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, they are not the laws themselves"

Which then brings up the point that is the statute is not the law itself, how can one be brought to court for breaking something that is not the law?

I can see if the court says that Greenovni broke LAW # so and so, but to says that Greenovni broke statute number 61.00 and then say that statutes are not the law themselves is just crazy.

I tell ya, the courts are nuts!

My motions are already filed in the court house so we'll see what happens. And to be honest, if I had the cash to be able to pay them off, I would have.

The problem there is that if I take care of a kid that is not mine, that takes from the kid that IS mine and the court refuses to understand that.

Btw, did you watch the video of the other non bio dad in court?

What do you think about that?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by greenovni
Now, I know that the BILLS themselves do have the enacting clause as I have seen them myself, but I am not civilly charged with breaking a bill, I am charged with non payment of child support (for a child that is not biologically mine) Using statutes from the FL Statutes book.


Ah, I understand the point you are making now...

I hadn't understood you are suggesting a distinction between "bills" (which clearly have the relevant enacting clauses) and "laws" (even if, presumably, the bills bear all necessary signatures to pass them into law).

Looking on the Internet, I see that at least one American author has sought to explain that argument at some length. You may be familiar with the relevant book, since it appears to support your argument (and provides some arguments in support of it): "The Authority of Law" by Charles A. Weisman. Images of the relevant pages from that book (pages 22-25) are at the links below in case they have not been mentioned in this thread already:
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...
republickeepers.squarespace.com...

However, the book by Charles A Weisman does not seem to cite any authorities directly supporting the basic argument. Also, while (as I've said before) I'm not familiar with the laws relating to constitutional matters in States in the USA, I've just done a few basic Google searches and isn't this an argument that has been rejected by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in relation to bills in Minnesota and wouldn't the same reasoning be applied in Florida??

www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us...


Legal Topics: Enacting Clause
An enacting clause is the constitutionally required portion of a bill which formally expresses the intent that it become law. See Article IV, Section 22 of the Minnesota Constitution: "Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Minnesota." This language appears on every bill that goes through the legislature and is signed by the governor to become law.

New laws are first published in Laws of Minnesota, also known as the session laws. The enacting clause appears at the beginning of each law. Minnesota Statutes is a compilation of the general and permanent laws of the state arranged by subject. The enacting clause is not reprinted here. For more information on the difference between the Laws and Statutes, see Frequently Asked Questions About the Minnesota Legislature: Laws, Statutes and Rules from the Minnesota Legislature. The original bills signed into law by the governor and bearing his signature are filed with the Secretary of State.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals explained this process in Ledden v. State, 686 N.W.2d 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004):



Appellant next contends that the statutes under which he was convicted are unconstitutional because the printed copies of the Minnesota Statutes do not contain the enacting clauses. In support of this proposition, appellant refers to the Sjoberg court's holding that "a statute without an enacting clause is void." Sjoberg, 73 Minn. at 212, 75 N.W. at 1118. But appellant misinterprets the context in which the word "statute" is used. In Sjoberg, the constitutionality of chapter 250, Laws 1897 was being challenged. Because chapter 250, Laws 1897 was not codified at the time the court addressed the issue, the court used the word "statute" in reference to the session laws. [At the time the Sjoberg case was litigated, the most recent codification of the Minnesota laws was 1894. The Minnesota laws were not re-codified until 1905.] Thus, appellant's reliance on Sjoberg is misplaced.

Appellant's argument also confuses the laws of Minnesota with the codified statutes. Although the Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, they are not the laws themselves. See Minn. Stat. §3C.13. The actual laws of Minnesota as passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, or enacted without signature or over veto, and filed with the secretary of state, are contained in the session laws, which do contain the required enacting clauses. See Minn. Stat. §3C.06 (2002). In contrast, the Minnesota Statutes are enacted laws that are codified, organized, and assembled by the revisor of statutes. See generally Minn. Stat. §3C.10 (2002). The laws are codified to provide the public with a usable collection of the laws of Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 3C.08, which sets forth the required contents of the Minnesota Statutes, does not require that the enacting clauses be republished in the Minnesota Statutes. To require that the enacting clause be republished in the Minnesota Statutes every time a law is passed or amended would lead to an absurd result because so many laws have been amended time and time again. See Minn. Stat. §645.17(1) (2002). Accordingly, we conclude that the omission of the enacting clauses from the Minnesota Statutes does not render the statutes unconstitutional, and there is no constitutional deficiency in appellant's convictions.


Federal legislation works the same way. The Statutes at Large (authorized in 1 U.S.C. §112) are the session laws and the United States Code (authorized in 1 U.S.C. §204) is the equivalent of Minnesota Statutes. For more information see How Our Laws Are Made, from the LiIbrary of Congress.


By the way Greenovni, my earlier answer over-simplified the statute/bills distinction because I did not know or think it was relevant to your point. I apologise for that over-simplification. I just wanted to avoid introducing terms and distinctions which are, at best, confusing...

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 25-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)


Notice how they say that "Although the Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, they are not the laws themselves"

Which then brings up the point that is the statute is not the law itself, how can one be brought to court for breaking something that is not the law?



I don't think that they meant that the statute is not law, merely that the compiled collection available for public viewing does not include every relevant amendment/enactment which would provide a 100% accurate image of the law (largely because of the number of technical points that would be inserted throughout the statute, making it practically unreadable for the average user).

Unfortunately, it would appear that IsaacKoi has pinned down the answer to your questions greenovni


Are you not planning to contest the validity of the admission of paternity you signed (admittedly, under duress), given that you were only 17 at the time?

Edit: As you recall, I had also asked if you were able to find a comprehensive publication/edition of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes (including all technical provisions). Were you able to?
edit on 26-3-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenovni
Notice how they say that "Although the Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, they are not the laws themselves"


Hi greenovni,

I think it is fairly clear they meant that the series of PUBLICATIONS entitled "Minnesota Statutes" only evidence the laws of Minnesota, in the same way that the material on the Florida state website indicates the laws that have been passed.

The laws are, I presume, that bills that have received all necessary approvals.

As you may know if you've looked at a few of them, those bills tend to be written in terms of amendments to existing statutes (e.g. a typical paragraph in a bill may be along the lines of "In Statute XIXIXI para YIYIYIY, the words "not less than 50 years" shall be inserted after the word "for" and the final subclause shall be deleted", whereas the Florida state website will then publish the full text of the revised statute).



My motions are already filed in the court house so we'll see what happens.


Well, good luck with them.

All I'd repeat is that you may benefit from seeking professional legal advice (which may - if the situation in Florida is similar to the situation in England- be available free or at low cost via a pressure group or charity, or a free initial consultation with an attorney).

My reason for participating in this thread at all, even though it relates to a case under a foreign legal system, was simply due to a concern that some other people in this thread were spouting what would be considered in England to be fairly obvious nonsense.

Perhaps a conspiracy forum is not the best place to get sensible legal advice?

Surely in Florida there are charities or pressure groups to support fathers in your position? (I know there are several that are fairly proactive and organised in England).

I'd merely suggest that you look into such groups and see if they have a forum or contact line to call BEFORE the hearing of your motions.

By the way, while you may well be out of time to appeal against the Judge's ruling against you in relation to paternity, they may be scope for extending time in your case. I obviously don't know about the position in Florida, but in England there are various grounds upon which a late appeal can be brought in the light of new evidence that was not available at the original hearing (e.g. where it becomes clear that the original judgment was obtained by fraud). Or you may have a claim against the mother if she misled you and/or the Court. Again, I must stress that I'm not familiar with the laws of Florida and can only suggest that you make sure you have exhausted the possibilities under those laws before you focus solely on ways to challenge the existence of those laws...

All the best,

Isaac

edit on 26-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Namaste1001

Originally posted by Wrong

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by Wrong
"THE COURT WILL NOW TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE JUDGES OATH OF OFFICE SO THAT WE KNOW HE IS ACTING AS JUDGE AND NOT AS BANKER."

-That'll get you thrown out in no time.


Thrown out is a dismissed case. Not giving your name will get you thrown out too, case dismissed. Works every time because they don't want others to know and learn. Should have seen the look on the peoples faces when I spoke, priceless.


Thrown out and in contempt if you keep it up. Don't answer the judge, contempt of court. Too many people try and find a conspiracy where there is none.


Give up Wrong. There are plenty of documented cases to support what is being said in this thread.

The only thing you are discrediting (which I believe is your intention) is yourself.



No hes absolutely right.


A little knowledge is dangerous. All these crazy theories about what will work and not work in court and most all of them are poppycock.

I once had a client who said if he wrapped himself in the American flag they could do nothing to him.

Most of the theories here sound as whacky.


Our legal system:

Each state differs. A state could have a legal system based on a code like Louisiana. Where everything is made by the legislature.

Most states are a hybrid. You have legal statutes which is law enacted by the legislature. And most ALL states also utilize common law.

Common law is simply the interpretation of cases to form a law. It is an old method of law and not irregular or anything of a conspiracy.

Contract law, etc etc which you mention above is an area of law and not a form of law. Your mixing apples and oranges. Or I should say you are mixing oranges with vegetables.

What I mean by this is contract cases can arise in a courtroom where common law is utilized (most all courtrooms)

For a matter of expedience and knowledge the local governments seperate civil cases from criminal cases. And within civil cases they separate tort (i was hurt) from contract cases etc.

But its just as a matter of expedience and efficiency and has NOTHING to do with jurisdiction.

It is true there are situations where you can use jurisdiction as a defense. The only real time that can happen is in contract cases where you werent in the state when the act alleged occurred.

Most all states allow for general jurisdiction over criminal cases - in other words commit a crime in the state you are subject to its powers.

Jurisdiction is complicated and you spend a whole year in law school learning it.

Most all states have 'common law' courts by that I mean almost all courts in the nation utilize common law.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by greenovni
Notice how they say that "Although the Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, they are not the laws themselves"


Hi greenovni,

I think it is fairly clear they meant that the series of PUBLICATIONS entitled "Minnesota Statutes" only evidence the laws of Minnesota, in the same way that the material on the Florida state website indicates the laws that have been passed.

The laws are, I presume, that bills that have received all necessary approvals.

As you may know if you've looked at a few of them, those bills tend to be written in terms of amendments to existing statutes (e.g. a typical paragraph in a bill may be along the lines of "In Statute XIXIXI para YIYIYIY, the words "not less than 50 years" shall be inserted after the word "for" and the final subclause shall be deleted", whereas the Florida state website will then publish the full text of the revised statute).



My motions are already filed in the court house so we'll see what happens.


Well, good luck with them.

All I'd repeat is that you may benefit from seeking professional legal advice (which may - if the situation in Florida is similar to the situation in England- be available free or at low cost via a pressure group or charity, or a free initial consultation with an attorney).

My reason for participating in this thread at all, even though it relates to a case under a foreign legal system, was simply due to a concern that some other people in this thread were spouting what would be considered in England to be fairly obvious nonsense.

Perhaps a conspiracy forum is not the best place to get sensible legal advice?

Surely in Florida there are charities or pressure groups to support fathers in your position? (I know there are several that are fairly proactive and organised in England).

I'd merely suggest that you look into such groups and see if they have a forum or contact line to call BEFORE the hearing of your motions.

By the way, while you may well be out of time to appeal against the Judge's ruling against you in relation to paternity, they may be scope for extending time in your case. I obviously don't know about the position in Florida, but in England there are various grounds upon which a late appeal can be brought in the light of new evidence that was not available at the original hearing (e.g. where it becomes clear that the original judgment was obtained by fraud). Or you may have a claim against the mother if she misled you and/or the Court. Again, I must stress that I'm not familiar with the laws of Florida and can only suggest that you make sure you have exhausted the possibilities under those laws before you focus solely on ways to challenge the existence of those laws...

All the best,

Isaac

edit on 26-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)


Foreign law or not you also recognize misplaced conjecture. I quote simply to drive home some sense into this fantastical diatribe.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Dear Heff and others,

I thought I saw a post here where one fellow offered to have others PM him to get instruction as to how to back a Judge into a corner into recusing himself, etc. Do any of you remember this? Thanks very much.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


This is a long shot, but here goes.....a man being told he has to pay child support could argue that it is an unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection....a woman can walk away from motherhood through adoption, abortion, safe haven abandonment, etc, but there isn't any way for the hapless man to walk away from fatherhood.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


Sue her for fraud !!!



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
As already stated, this is not a tax case. It is a child support case for a child that is not biologically mine, from a 1 night stand when I was 16 and the "lady" in question was 29.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by echofoxtrot
 


Why wasn't she prosecuted for statutory rape?




top topics



 
153
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join