|
Convolusionism
I am starting a new legal term:
Its the opposite of "legalese." I am going to call it "convolusionism"
CONVOLUSIONISM
The practice and/or procedure of ignoring the obvious, and proceeding upon a presumption, of such twisted and convoluted verbiage, that no two people can agree with, or understand the point.
What HUGE amounts of baggage y'all carry around.
To claim as legal knowledge that which one cannot support by fact or evidence is useless legal knowledge, if it is knowledge at all.
I will type this real slow- CHARACTER OF THE PARTIES.
We are dealing with the administrative application of law normally reserved to state regulated entitites, to a distinct class of living souls outside of that administrative scope.
Y'all are trying to adapt presumptions (TRUST FAMILY NAME, War and Emergency Powers) or, more likely, someone else's presumptions, to any given state of things. All these presumptions have as their core issue the character of the parties.
Would someone of YOUR nature and character be required to do or forbear from doing any thing? Would someone of THEIR nature and character be required to do, or forbear from doing the same?
Does the jurisdiction having this alleged authority to hear and determine, have the same authority to compel YOU into its jurisdiction when it proceeds upon hearsay, and not fact, and no real parties plaintiff?
Does the state, have the authority to do indirectly, by presumption of a statute, that which it cannot do directly? The answer is that the state cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
The state cannot cut your jugular vein (declaring an emergency) then apply butterfly bandages (the legislation) to SLOW the blood flow and perpetuate the emergency. It never had that authority. If I do not have it and YOU do not have it, then pray tell from whence did the state get it??????
Are YOU obliged to, and does the jurisdiction have the authority to compel you into aiding the state in obtaining a conviction against YOU?
My questions remain still unanswered: I guess I'll answer them:
Can the state force anyone [more particularly YOU] into making a contract with a third party? Maybe, If one is a creation of the state. Can it force me personally? NO
Can you say involuntary servitude, peonage, and Bailey v.Alabama 219 US 219?? YES that's what it would be if the state forced me into a contract relationship with a third party.
Because there exists, I believe, in every state the statute compelling liability insurance, and because there exists a statute compelling liability insurance upon every officer/agent on the highway, can we agree that the presumption exists that ALL on the road are mere insurable interests (creatures of contract)? You should be agreeing with me here.
Where is the constitution in all this? It's still there, but not in that lower inferior court jurisdiction.
I'll stop before I "convoluse" myself.
SansRecours
|