Quote:
|
Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham
But Consent is prerequisite to Applicability, or often is in many cases. Any law that is based on relationships, for example.
|
Um, no. The laws
apply to you whether you consent or not. In Skurdal, it was the criminal and traffic laws of Montana. Skurdal was in Montana, so the laws applied to him, regardless of whether he consented. That was the whole point the court was making. If you object, you need to leave. Voluntary presence = consent to have the laws apply to you. See Burnham v. Superior Court, the previously cited Supreme Court case.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham
It's more than a simple declaration, when viewed in light of other actions. It takes a complex declaration, and evidence that excludes applicability. I could possibly prove that the law in question is inherently excluded by the very same pleadings of the plaintiff.
|
What we have here is functional illiteracy causing you to infer something the Court never implied. There is no declaration a man can make, no matter how simple or how complex, that will exempt him from the laws. The idea that you can exempt yourself from the law is the "invitation to anarchy" the Court declined. Again, the way you "exempt" yourself from the laws of a particular place is to get your arse out of there. Go to another state or country. Otherwise, quit your whining.