05-30-2008, 10:18 PM
|
|
Unplugged
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 152
|
|
One case ruling says it all, pass it on so others can know the truth
The rights of the individuals are restricted only
to the extent that they have been voluntarily
surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies
of government.
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
|
05-30-2008, 10:40 PM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,148
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeagas68
The rights of the individuals are restricted only
to the extent that they have been voluntarily
surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies
of government.
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
|
Please Notice that I emphasized two words in the citation above.
The citation is very descriptive and very truthful. One thing that puzzles me.
Why did the citation fail to mention "men","women", or "man", "woman" and "nationality"?
Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.
__________________
Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit.
If ever the laws of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.
'Many are the plans in a man's heart,
but it's the Lord's purpose that prevails."
Proverbs 19:21.
"The most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen."
Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1916-1939) referring to the responsibility of voters.
|
05-30-2008, 11:28 PM
|
 |
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois Republic
Posts: 3,308
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts
Why did the citation fail to mention "men","women", or "man", "woman" and "nationality"?
Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.
|
This has really been puzzling me lately too.
Well, more than just puzzling me, to tell the truth.
Man.
Woman.
Individual.
Person.
If it pertains to man/woman why not say the specific words plain, clear, straightforward, forthright, simple and true? |
05-31-2008, 04:03 AM
|
 |
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: kingdom of heaven
Posts: 1,564
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrg
This has really been puzzling me lately too.
Well, more than just puzzling me, to tell the truth.
Man.
Woman.
Individual.
Person.
If it pertains to man/woman why not say the specific words plain, clear, straightforward, forthright, simple and true?
|
Without Prejudice.
Persons can be like unto roles created by the statutes, bylaws or laws of a body politic such as a 'state'. In a states statutes you might find the term 'applicant', 'director', 'police officer', or 'judge'--such are persons or personas.
Quote:
|
The latin word for mask is persona.
|
Individual seems to be a word that is used in contrast to an organization or a plurality. But in any case it seems that individual refers to a person rather than persons. Appears that when the term 'individual' is used by a state it means a unit of itself.
A city from without can be perceived to be an individual--that is a distinct unit. From within, the City of San Franscico could view the persons making up the city as a collection of individuals.
Similarly, from without, the United States could be perceived as a singularity. From within, the United States itself could perceive each of the 50 States to be individuals.
According to some, when a man alienates his own will he ceases to become a man [with respect to political theory or theories concerning sovereignty]. As for what constitutes such alienation that isnt neccesarily the topic of discussion. But such might include taking an oath of allegiance or entering into a contract.
Quote:
|
If it pertains to man/woman why not say the specific words plain, clear, straightforward, forthright, simple and true?
|
Because it doesnt. Can a state can only act on any but its own creatures or the creatures of another state per a compact or agreement with that state? Can a state have any more rights or power than a man or men that created it?
Regarding the word 'man', one might use caution and wisdom. The word man can mean 'vassal'.
Quote:
1. A person who held land from a feudal lord and received protection in return for homage and allegiance.
2. A bondman; a slave.
3. A subordinate or dependent.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *vassallus, from *vassus, of Celtic origin; see upo in Indo-European roots.]
|
From the Free Dictonary:
Quote:
Man
12. One who swore allegiance to a lord in the Middle Ages; a vassal.
|
Quote:
|
1303 (implied in vassalage) "tenant who pledges fealty to a lord," from O.Fr. vassal, from M.L. vassallus "manservant, domestic, retainer," from vassus "servant," from O.Celt. *wasso- "young man, squire" (cf. Welsh gwas "youth, servant," Bret. goaz "servant, vassal, man," Ir. foss "servant"). The adj. is recorded from 1593.
|
Other potentially relevant terms: free man, son of God, child of God, sovereign, freeborn, suae potestate esse, man on the land.
Free man pretty much means not a serf. freeman is not necessarily synonymous with free man.
__________________
All rights reserved. No Liability Assumed. No Value Assured. Without Recourse. Private. Not for hire.
Last edited by fulltitle : 05-31-2008 at 05:19 AM.
|
05-31-2008, 05:23 AM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: kingdom of heaven
Posts: 1,564
|
|
|
Magna Carta
Without Prejudice.
The relevance of the Magna Carta. Remember before even England existed, men had rights. Magna carta dealing with free men.
Quote:
|
(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.
|
How might one consent to a sheriff taking your stuff?
Quote:
|
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
|
Who are you equals or peers if you are a free man?
__________________
All rights reserved. No Liability Assumed. No Value Assured. Without Recourse. Private. Not for hire.
|
05-31-2008, 05:48 AM
|
|
Unplugged
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 181
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrg
This has really been puzzling me lately too.
Well, more than just puzzling me, to tell the truth.
Man.
Woman.
Individual.
Person.
If it pertains to man/woman why not say the specific words plain, clear, straightforward, forthright, simple and true?
|
In court papers, one must identify oneself:
Comes now, Plaintiff, John Doe, a natural person... |
05-31-2008, 05:52 AM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 375
|
|
jeagas 68
The ideas presented in this head note from the case ruling appears to be very important to all of us. However, I have learned so many times head notes might mean nothing when read in the context of the entire case ruling.
Please post the entire case for all of us to read. I assume most of us do not have access to Texas cases reported in the Southwestern Reporter.
If you can, please shepardize the case to make sure the ruling has not been overturned by a higher court or another case ruling from some future date.
Thank you for your diligence.
Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com |
05-31-2008, 09:15 AM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: kingdom of heaven
Posts: 1,564
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by indago
In court papers, one must identify oneself:
Comes now, Plaintiff, John Doe, a natural person...
|
Without Prejudice.
re: 'natural person'. If it has a first name and a last name then a legal fiction is being discussed.
__________________
All rights reserved. No Liability Assumed. No Value Assured. Without Recourse. Private. Not for hire.
Last edited by fulltitle : 05-31-2008 at 09:20 AM.
|
05-31-2008, 10:06 AM
|
|
Unplugged
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 152
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joseph sugarman
jeagas 68
The ideas presented in this head note from the case ruling appears to be very important to all of us. However, I have learned so many times head notes might mean nothing when read in the context of the entire case ruling.
Please post the entire case for all of us to read. I assume most of us do not have access to Texas cases reported in the Southwestern Reporter.
If you can, please shepardize the case to make sure the ruling has not been overturned by a higher court or another case ruling from some future date.
Thank you for your diligence.
Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com |
If you Google it, you will see the many different links which mainly are within the same context.
I don't live in Dallas myself or even in Texas and some of the free access sites probably do not go back to '1922.
I was hoping someone who lived near there could get access to this somehow and find out what your asking for.
'SD |
05-31-2008, 10:27 AM
|
|
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois Republic
Posts: 3,308
|
|
|
...........................
Last edited by mrg : 05-31-2008 at 01:11 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
|
|
