Commercial Affidavit of Truth: Not all it's cracked up to be

[Lawdog]

DEKALB COUNTY v. DEASON, 221 Ga. 237 (1965)

It is generally accepted that the one essential feature necessary to constitute a court of record is that a permanent record of the proceedings of the court must be made and kept. A definition of such record generally accepted is that it is a precise history of a suit from its commencement to its termination, including conclusions of law thereon drawn by the proper officer for the purpose of perpetuating the exact state of facts.

Id. at 238.

And what does a Montana statute have to do with a case in Virginia? Focus, son, focus.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

So Lawdog, what valuable service were the cops providing to the "public" by harassing a man who was doing his duty as a father by supporting his little girl at a school event?

In a post-Columbine world, people tend to get pissed when you take a firearm onto public school grounds. I suspect that's why the local prosecutor decided to make an example of this guy.

That and his "the laws don't apply to me" nonsense.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

In a post-Columbine world, people tend to get pissed when you take a firearm onto public school grounds. I suspect that's why the local prosecutor decided to make an example of this guy.

That and his "the laws don't apply to me" nonsense.

Notice how the least concern is an actual violation of law- the offense is "anti-soviet behaviour", aka "a bad attitude"

Meanwhile an armed and upright Man in a Columbine situation is exactly what is needed- there needs to be 10 such Men!

But you see, that means less work for the lawdogs. Fee me!

After all, they invest a lot of Time and Effort in arranging these massacres, and Beelzebub is hungry for children...

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

In a post-Columbine world, people tend to get pissed when you take a firearm onto public school grounds. I suspect that's why the local prosecutor decided to make an example of this guy.

That and his "the laws don't apply to me" nonsense.

I must interject here once again, so you people won't drink LAWDOG Kool-aid.

The law is the contract that is formed insided the purported courtroom. When you step inside the boxed arena, instead of it being a physical boxing match, it becomes a paper and words(action) match. "I understand" is a form of agreement, and within every agreement there is a contract. Claiming you have no contracts that binds you to a code, ordinance, statute, etc. makes no difference. Once you go into the adversaries arena(boxed area), the schooled 'contractors' create the contract/agreement and it is all voluntary in their eyes. That is what the current system is about, 'strict liability', also worded as "you are strictly liable for the contract/agreement we just created with you, voluntarily of course, through your actions and responses in the purported court, and your mailbox 'love letters' from the purported court.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by moishanb

The law is the contract that is formed insided the purported courtroom. When you step inside the boxed arena, instead of it being a physical boxing match, it becomes a paper and words(action) match. "I understand" is a form of agreement, and within every agreement there is a contract.

Oh boy ... hypothetical conversation ...

***************
YOU: "2+2=4"

ME: "I understand and agree that 2+2=4"
***************


Is there a contract just because I "agree" with you on a particular fact or because you "understand" something?

Uh ... no.

All contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts.

Logic 101.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Oh boy ... hypothetical conversation ...

***************
YOU: "2+2=4"

ME: "I understand and agree that 2+2=4"
***************


Is there a contract just because I "agree" with you on a particular fact or because you "understand" something?

Uh ... no.

All contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts.

Logic 101.

""Agreement" is not synonymous with "promise" or "undertaking." It signifies a mutual contract, on consideration."" Andrews v. Pontue, 24 Wend.N.Y. 285, Wain v. Warlters, 5 East, 10


What type of agreement are you speaking of?

Conditonal, executed, executory, express, implied, parol, secret, not yet defined?

Would you like to play a game? Since I invited you to play, and you have already agreed because you have a duty to agree(and because I say so), I'll make up the rules as we play, which you have to follow, to play this game(but your already playing since you are here), which you are already playing, in fact. The game has only 2 rules for now, but that can change as I own this game. The first rule is you have already agreed without even saying you agree. Within your agreement there is a contract, which is invisible to you, and only I can see. The other rule is found in 2 CFR, in the reserved section. The only way you can get out of this agreement is by getting the reserved section of 2 CFR, which is reserved and cannot be disclosed to you. If you try to fight this agreement, which has an invisible contract within it, you will have to form another contract with my private court to get out of the invisible contract within the agreement that you already are presumed to have made, in fact. Now we have another agreement, with an invisible contract within the agreement, so that even if you disproved the first, you could not disprove the second contract. Oh, while I'm making up the rules, there is a rule that if you claim fraud on the original, or second contract, you must create a new contract to claim fraud on the old contract, which loops you back in, and this can go on until I get tired of playing, and you have nothing more to entertain me with.

I do conditionaly agree with you that all contracts are agreements, and that not all agreements are synomous with contracts. However, within every agreement, there is a contract. And, 2+2=4(I don't stand under this fact, and I agree without consideration)

I hope the group finds some humor in this post!

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

My purpose is to keep a few people from drinking the kool-aid, so to speak. Posting proof that certain theories don't work in the real world is enough to convince some people not to play with fire.

Thank you.

[amenmesse]

I've noticed a gross lack of scienter for crime from Ed in this case, but I wonder if the same is true with puppy.

Bouviers
SCIENTER, knowingly.

2. A man may do many acts which are justifiable or not, as he is ignorant or not ignorant of certain facts. He may pass a counterfeit coin, when he is ignorant of its being counterfeit, and is guilty of no offence; but if he knew the coin to be counterfeit, which is called the scienter, he is guilty of passing counterfeit money. A man who keeps an animal which injures some person, or his property, is answerable for damages, or in some cases he may be indicted if he had a knowledge of such animal's propensity to do injury. 3 Blackst. Comm. 154; 2 Stark. Ev. 178; 4 Campb. 198; 2 Str. 1264; 2 Esp. 482; Bull. N. P. 77; Burr. 2092; 2 Lev. 172; Lord Raym. 110; 2 B. & A. 620; 2 C. M. & R. 496; 5 C. & P. 1; S. C. 24 E. C. L. R. 187; 1 Leigh, N. P. 552, 553; 7 C. & P. 755.

Admiralty, being born of Babylon wouldn't know or understand "conciousness". Not having conciousness of right or wrong there can be no scienter, hence statutes that imposed duties without a measure of the state of mind for the mindless to obey.

Admiralty Law: Not Just for the Specialist
Craig H. Allen
"Admiralty’s origins are ancient indeed. Elements of maritime law can be found in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon1 (circa 1780 B.C.). Mediterranean maritime
codes developed roughly a millennium later."

[weishaupt1776]

amennse, they are colorably getting "jurisdiction" under the doctrine of "strict liability" which in their fictitious playground precludes the need for a scienter

[deacon]

Virginia's even better!
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.

(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)