Quote:
|
Originally Posted by weishaupt1776
amennse, they are colorably getting "jurisdiction" under the doctrine of "strict liability" which in their fictitious playground precludes the need for a scienter
|
I'm sure what your saying is accurate so I have no issue. I had noted our Edward I claim about the weapon, where he says he didn't know the weapon was there. Scienter self defense. But since I am on the scient of Edward the first, King of England, I stood back and mused the relations here. I ask the question what is the common element of the school property, the truck property and the weapon property. My answer was interstate commerce. The school representatives wanting to partcipate in wealth redistrbution from Rome would be enrolled into societas en commendita. This enrollment in turn would create an "estate", a sum total of legal interests, regulatable from the central source, Rome. As to the truck and weapon it is obvious they originate elsewhere and cross state boundaries giving rise to excise taxes etc. Federal reserve notes, not extinguishing debts, would leave Admiralty to attach a lien against the property and the protecting of that lien creates property rights for regulator authority. I saw this in the Ruby Ridge incident where the court papers showed the shotgun used in that incident was engaging in interstate commerce. Anyone have that documentation online?
The truck and weapon, engaging in interstate commerce creates a superior national authority not a state or local authority and this for revenue purposes not peace purposes. The theory of Rome is peace thru prosperity. The officers being of local origins would be acting for the revenue measures of Rome which would be to exact and collect fees from captures. This is called privateering where an individual entity using their own resources go to find the enemies of the Crown, capture and then share in the spoils of the capture. (Trading with the enemies act).
So originating with Cardozo and Learned Hand,
"strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent[1]). The plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Strict liability is imposed for legal infractions that are malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, therefore, neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
I see trespass on the estate as the tort for which strict liability would lie. The investigating officers find evidence of mala prohibitum (no registration, vin removal, weapons) violations and then commence proceedings for an "action on account." The account is the legal relations between the school district and District of Columbia. That account is damaged by the disobedience to the rules for the use of that property so in court the magi says, quo warranto, by whos authority do you damage this property? No warrant or license from higher authority being shown then Edward is guilty. Actions on account have terms and conditions to meet for violations, pay or stay or both. I think maybe people miss the fact that school properties in relation with D.C. are private properties and not public. In my limited perspective anyways. I have no idea what the commercial affidavit of truth is.