Question regarding the "straw man" theory..., page 1

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:55 AM

link

OK ATS, this is my first thread, so please be kind. I searched for something relevant to what I'm about ( ask), but couldn't find a thread I believed sufficient enough to pose a question or two regarding a particular idea behind the straw man theory.

I've followed the strawman theory for several years. In fact it was the beginning of my journey down the proverbial rabbit hole that eventually led me to this site roughly 4 years ago. Unfortunately ( or fortunate, depending on how I'm viewed) I only recently decided to join the conversations. Enough about that.

My question is this, for those of you that follow this theory;
if registering ones automobile is just a ruse by the state to gain ownership, then what does that say about particularly pet registration but also other registrations such as guns?

I'm more interested in what it implies regarding pets, but any type of registration may be addressed.

I've attempted to research this on my own in the past few days, but relocation and loss of home computer where searches were saved and being limited to only my cellphone for the moment has rendered my attempts quite tedious.

Thanks for any and all help.

Bob Sholtz

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 10:09 AM

link

reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

if by strawman you are referring to the fictitious legal entity created upon your birth and given your same name, but in all caps, i can help you with some things.

here are three court cases that nullify any legislative attempt to require registration.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) "If the state converts a Liberty into a Privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

print 'em out and carry a copy in your wallet and automobile.

these together nullify ANY legislation that would infringe on a constitutional right.

deessell

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 10:50 AM

link

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

So, you would be prepared to go to court then? That's where you would need to be in order to use those as defence.

Sankari

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 10:53 AM

link

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

if by strawman you are referring to the fictitious legal entity created upon your birth and given your same name, but in all caps, i can help you with some things.

If you believe the law doesn't apply to you, it necessarily follows that those court cases don't apply to you either—so you can't use them as a defence.

Awkward!

Bob Sholtz

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:06 PM

link

reply to post by deessell

So, you would be prepared to go to court then? That's where you would need to be in order to use those as defence.

yes. i keep them with me mainly so that i can add a charge of perjury to the arresting officer if that ever happens. officers are under oath on the job (not to tell the truth, but to protect and uphold the law), and knowingly violating an oath constitutes perjury.

explaining to an officer that, on top of other rights violations, he will be charged with perjury (and explaining how he is committing perjury) has been one of the most effective things to make the officer back down and go on his way.

edit on 3-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Bob Sholtz

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:14 PM

link

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

if by strawman you are referring to the fictitious legal entity created upon your birth and given your same name, but in all caps, i can help you with some things.

If you believe the law doesn't apply to you, it necessarily follows that those court cases don't apply to you either—so you can't use them as a defence.

Awkward!

you seem not to know much about law. statutory "law", judicial precedents, and constitutional law are all different things. as a human being and citizen i recognize constitutional law and judicial precedents (that don't themselves violate the constitution). statutory law is the law of contracts, and entry into any form of contract is voluntary.

judicial law and constitutional law together are known as "common law", it supersedes all legislation.

the first court ruling i quoted is a supreme court case, it IS the law. it has been the law for decades.

so in summary, legal laws apply to me. rule making or legislation that violates my rights is, as has already been decided in court, void.

InverseLookingGlass

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:46 PM

link

I'm not a lawyer but I've observed some things about the "justice system" in the US.

1. It's only illegal if the law is enforced by police and you are tried and convicted in court. If any one of these things is missing you are within the law.
2. Upon first intersection with the "law" apparatus, you will encounter gatekeepers (LEOs). LEO's are judge jury and potentially executioner. LEO's have their own set of informal and irregular codes that are centered around their emotional state of mind. These codes have nothing to do with the US constitution or any general morality. Questioning the authority of a LEO is dangerous and is among the actions which can escalate quickly to a death penalty. A LEO ending your life is not illegal unless the conditions of #1 are met and they rarely are if ever are.

Make sure your will is up to date when you argue with the gatekeepers. My advise is comply quietly and get a good lawyer. You can get away with almost anything.

Bob Sholtz

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:24 PM

link

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

not good advice. using such an approach may cause one to inadvertently waive certain rights that would protect you in court. it also encourages police to do whatever they want. sure, the charges against you may be dropped, but the one foisting illegal charges and violating your rights will get away with it.

informing them of the law in a polite manner is the first step. if they disagree, inform them of the consequences of arresting you. for example, one might say "the courts have already established this as law, they've already ruled in my favor. if you arrest me you'll face charges for false arrest, rights violations, perjury, etc"

if they don't back down, and end up arresting you, take 'em to court, but make sure you're on sturdy legal footing first.

never consent to searches, and never "understand" the miranda rights.

ETA: if it is for a ticket, refuse to sign the summons. it is a contract, and all contracts are voluntary.

disclaimer: using any of these tactics does not mean we have entered into a contract for me to be your legal counsel.

edit on 3-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

CheckPointCharlie

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:30 PM

link

So then, if registration(s) equate a contract, and I believe they do, how can the state confiscate something unregistered like farm equipment?

Additionally, if the idea behind registrations is for the state to gain co ownership, what's the purpose of registering pets? Is it just more red tape or to gain ownership of "Fido" as we'll? I realize its possible (they ) don't want us to own anything, but I'm looking for a bit more insight than that.

NoRegretsEver

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:40 PM

link

reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

This kind of info is an endless rabbit hole of questions, speculation, and mostly something that will cause your head to explode if looked into properly.

The trap that we all enter, and most of us entered when we were born (and imagine I have been looking into finding out how to retract everything, because in fact our parents have signed the agreements such as birth certificates, and even baptismal cards, and the same defense that children a certain age cannot be held or sentenced as adults, should mean that we can opt out due to being infants and not being aware of the papers signed) IF and only if we can find a way out of that, then do I feel we can then start from scratch.

If your looking for an easy answer concerning this, it cannot be found. One question will have an answer.... that will lead to another 5 questions.

Peace, NRE.

Bob Sholtz

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:54 PM

link

reply to post by NoRegretsEver

should mean that we can opt out due to being infants and not being aware of the papers signed

that is one method of opting out, and a valid one too. there are laws against suckering minors into legal contracts.

CheckPointCharlie

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:14 AM

link

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

if by strawman you are referring to the fictitious legal entity created upon your birth and given your same name, but in all caps, i can help you with some things.

here are three court cases that nullify any legislative attempt to require registration.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) "If the state converts a Liberty into a Privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

print 'em out and carry a copy in your wallet and automobile.

these together nullify ANY legislation that would infringe on a constitutional right.

. In the second ruling, doesn't "abrogate" mean abolish?

I ask because.... Are they allowed to limit our rights?

Bob Sholtz

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:45 AM

link

reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

no. the only way that rights can be taken away is through due process of law. this does not refer to legislation, but to those found guilty of criminal activities. the right to liberty can be taken away, as can life and property, but only if one is found guilty of committing a crime (violating another's rights).

CheckPointCharlie

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:14 AM

link

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

no. the only way that rights can be taken away is through due process of law. this does not refer to legislation, but to those found guilty of criminal activities. the right to liberty can be taken away, as can life and property, but only if one is found guilty of committing a crime (violating another's rights).

I apologize if I wasn't clear. What about limiting rights?
A favorite argument is not having the right to yell "fire" where there is none. This is an example of limited rights, no? So you're aware, I understand the concept not infringing on others. But if we apply that logic to registrations, is it not the same thing? Also, this isn't to defy what you've written. I fully believe that you are correct. I just wanna be sure.

Bob Sholtz

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:25 PM

link

reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

I apologize if I wasn't clear. What about limiting rights? A favorite argument is not having the right to yell "fire" where there is none. This is an example of limited rights, no? So you're aware, I understand the concept not infringing on others. But if we apply that logic to registrations, is it not the same thing? Also, this isn't to defy what you've written. I fully believe that you are correct. I just wanna be sure.

to be charged with a crime for yelling "fire" in a theater or other such place, the prosecution would have to demonstrate how the act of yelling fire either violated the rights of others, or caused harm. they would most likely attempt to charge the person with a felony for declaring a state of emergency where none existed (police do this a lot by turning on their lights and sirens. it's a felony if there is no emergency), but this only applies to people who choose to live under the contract.

conceivably one could get away with it if there was no injured party, but there is nothing to be gained from such an action, only the risk of hurting others.

requiring registration is the act of converting a right to a privilege (you cannot have/do "x" unless you abide by "y" terms and conditions). you would be right in thinking it sounds suspiciously like a contract. one does not need a permit or a registration to engage in constitutionally protected acts.

the only limitation on constitutional rights occur when an action would violate the rights of another.

BrianFlanders

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:44 PM

link

Originally posted by CheckPointCharlie

My question is this, for those of you that follow this theory;
if registering ones automobile is just a ruse by the state to gain ownership, then what does that say about particularly pet registration but also other registrations such as guns?

I'm more interested in what it implies regarding pets, but any type of registration may be addressed.

I don't think it's so much a ruse to gain ownership as it's just the state's way of gaining arbitrary authority over people. A mandatory registration puts you in a state database. It's not so much about ownership as it is about tying you to whatever has been registered. If they want to track you down, vehicle registration is useful. If they wanted to ban your type of dog, they'd need to know who owns which dogs.

That's my two cents as a non technical non lawyer.

0m3gakn1ght7

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 10:03 AM

link

It's very real.

Registration precedes confiscation in any case

-Children
-Guns
-Car
-Phones
-Forum accounts

Redarguo

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:06 AM

link

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you seem not to know much about law. statutory "law", judicial precedents, and constitutional law are all different things. as a human being and citizen i recognize constitutional law and judicial precedents (that don't themselves violate the constitution). statutory law is the law of contracts, and entry into any form of contract is voluntary.

judicial law and constitutional law together are known as "common law", it supersedes all legislation.

Not quite, constitutional law is usually made by legislation, for example the English constitution although not a single document consists of about ten various acts. Some may also arise from common law principles (ie declaratory and rule of law theory). Constitutional law is any law that defines the states (and any branches off) powers.

The common law is law made by the courts (hence why a written constitution is not common law ) on a case by case basis ( in areas based on common law, on non statutory areas and by the use of statutory interpretation), setting precedence which must be followed by lower courts (stare decisis). A higher court can overrule or reverse precedence set in a lower court, and a supreme court (in the UK at least) can depart from its own prior decisions. It one of the main benefits of the common law legal system, that the law can adapt in areas not legislated for ether unforeseen, or new developments. ie murder in common law was (loosely)defined as unlawfully causing an injury which ended an others life. This precedence was established by the House of Lords (then the UKSC). However due to medical advancement, this decision was reversed as a case was brought in which a spouse who beat his wife so severe, that she died after having life support turned off, argued that he did not kill his wife, the doctors did by removing life support. The law prior to the development of life support, did not consider it.

Ironical in your post, contract law is almost entirely based on common law principles. For a contract to be valid certain conditions must be met. Firstly the offeror and offeree must be in agreement to be bound by certain conditions. They also need to have intention to create a legally binding agreement, ie you can not have a contract by deception, it would be void.

Contact and tort make up the body of law known as civil law, ie to settle disputes between individuals and provide a remedy to those who have suffered harm in tort or from a breach of contract. You can not be punished in civil law (except for contempt) only forced to compensate for damages caused. Your post seems to suggest that civil law is the only law and applied the principles to include criminal. ie because a contract needs consent you go to all law needs consent (forgetting that tort can arise from intentional, reckless and negligent actions) or that all law is contract.

Criminal law can generally be described as public law, ie effects and applies to the public as a whole and will be applied regardless of consent. ie where as those bringing a civil claim can choose to end proceedings, in criminal law that authority rests solely on the state. The courts are also separate, criminal courts try criminal cases and civil courts hear civil ones ie a civil court has no jurisdiction in criminal matters and can not conduct prosecutions. (except appeal courts although they do have criminal and civil divisions). The standard of proof varies greatly, beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal trial and on the balance of probability in a civil. I don't know about you but I much prefer the criminal standard of proof if my liberty is at stake. In a criminal trial the object is to punish those found guilty. Lastly criminal and civil action can be brought for the same event. ie I get hit by a car, the driver may face criminal proceedings and also I can bring a separate claim and sue the driver for damages. Both actions are independent, even if he is found not guilty, because of the lower standard of proof in a civil claim I could still win a civil case.

@ OP: The stawman is a logically impossible. Artificial persons were created in order to allow a group of persons to incorporate in law and act as one (although corporation sole do exist also). Such artificial persons are known as legal fictions; something that is false (that a corporation is a person) but for the purpose of law (fe to enter into contract, be prosecuted, sue/be sued, own property etc) is treated as fact. By definition a natural person can not be a legal fiction. In FMOTL circles there also seems to be confusion between what a "person" is with "legal personality". In short a person has legal personality i.e a person can have the legal personality, of an employer or an employee, of an adult or a child, of a landlord or a tenant. People can have many legal personalities and those which are attached to you will grant various rights and responsibilities. ie as a tenant I will have certain rights and responsibilities as would a landlord.

There are also many statutes that use the word person that could not apply to an artificial one, ie the Offences Against the Person, an artificial person can not be wounded. Or acts that specifically differentiate between artificial ones, ie the Corporate Manslaughter Act. Which can put blame on the company hierarchy up to and including its directors, was brought about specifically because the criminal justice system had difficulty prosecuting corporate beings with laws specifically designed for natural ones. That said as a tenant the bulk of law concerning landlords will not apply to me, the same as most traffic law won't apply to a pedestrian or the bulk of corporate law will not apply to the individual.

Here another thread with the principle that created artificial persons

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: sp

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

My question is this, for those of you that follow this theory;
if registering ones automobile is just a ruse by the state to gain ownership, then what does that say about particularly pet registration but also other registrations such as guns?

I'm more interested in what it implies regarding pets, but any type of registration may be addressed.

Registration and ownership are two separate things. In a loose example, I buy an Xbox. By the law of contract I am its owner as evidence by the receipt. Now I then register the Xbox with Microsoft, this is need for the extended warranty/ repair service. By registration I have not transferred ownership of the property, the same for the purchase or transfer of title of anything. Ownership and transfer of ownership has a precise meaning in law. As do regulations on things that need to be registered. An example of this would be in the corporate sector, many things are regulated and require various permits and registration, the companies are not owned by the state.
edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

Redarguo

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

ETA: if it is for a ticket, refuse to sign the summons. it is a contract, and all contracts are voluntary.

Yes, tickets are voluntary, they are an alternative to arrest and prosecution, you can ask for the latter (and may win if you have not violated any law/ prosecution can not prove its case). Also the police are not the best people to challenge the law with, legal challenges are the realm of the courts.

If arrested laws of habeas corpus will dictate that with in a certain time from your arrest that you be brought before a judge to determine its legality. If your arrest and detention were illegal then through civil means, you would be entitled to compensation of writ of false arrest/ imprisonment. Most jurisdictions have stick codes in place for when an arrest can take place (ie PACE Act) to prevent this from happening, not to say it doesn't happen (however bending the rules is not much use when reasonable suspicion can justify an arrest). In the UK we have the added protection of the Human Rights Act, which allows individual to launch claims for compensation under the convention

It's very real.

Registration precedes confiscation in any case

-Children
-Guns
-Car
-Phones

But all these things could be confiscated with out registration, in fact im sure guns would be. Do you think social services could not "confiscate" children of illegal immigrants who were mistreating him? There is no link between registration and confiscation, in regards to the OP unregistered, uninsured ect cars can be confiscated with no registration needed.
edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

I don't think it's so much a ruse to gain ownership as it's just the state's way of gaining arbitrary authority over people. A mandatory registration puts you in a state database. It's not so much about ownership as it is about tying you to whatever has been registered. If they want to track you down, vehicle registration is useful. If they wanted to ban your type of dog, they'd need to know who owns which dogs.

That's my two cents as a non technical non lawyer.

An accurate description.

edit on 14-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

moonlightpushazz

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link

HI,

I have a question and concern. My fiancee used the strawman approach in court. Well as soon as he started representing himself using his strawman the Judge handcuffed him and gave him contempt of court. Could someone please help me. All he did was said he was there for His legal name next thing he knew the judge said arrest him. Is there something I could do? He did nothing wrong, wasnt even warned that he could go to jail she just cuffed him. Any help would be appreciated

Thank You