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!

[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.)

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

In a post-Columbine world...

Strange that term "Columbine."

Stranger still "post-Columbine world."

Very double entendre-esque.

The "Role" of "Government"

Say, its only a paper moon

Sailing over a cardboard sea

Yes, it's only a canvas sky
Hanging over a muslin tree

It's a Barnum and Bailey world
Just as phony as it can be

But it wouldn't be make-believe
If you believed in me.

Music by Harold Arlen, lyrics by E. Y. Harburg and Billy Rose

Websters Dictionary 1913

Click here:YouTube - World's Shortest Political Quiz
Should a service or product be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Originally Posted by Farmer Giles

The more I think about the role of government the less I find things for them to do.

Supposedly, that is why the Constitution was written.

That is the story, anyway.

But no sooner than the ink was dry Tory Loyalist bastard attoney Esquires re-pre-sent-ing their banker Esquire owners began their war upon it.

It is war.

That is, perhaps, why the Constitution was written, and why it has been so often "re-written," and, in so many "ways."


What, in fact, is "law?"

I know one.

How is it other than that the term "law," (other than one), is but tactical rhetorical artifice--ancient propaganda perpetuated by ages of constant repetition, as well as by incessant tactically applied raw threat, duress, coercion, and bloody violence--perpetrated by design of despots propped up by war financiers/investors/profiteers, and applied by the minions and mercenaries of both to "convince" domestic populations that these so called "laws" legitimate "authority?"

Shall we not call "it" what it is, rather than what has been propagated?

Why perpetuate the confusing of arbitrary with immutable?

If one very carefully discerns, might one perhaps find that much, if not most, "legislation" is, in fact, and/or amounts to, ex post facto bills of attainder, that the "legislators" (who for the greater part have been found to neither write nor read them), will deny it, and the PRIVATE monopoly trade guild Esquire Bar Association's "legal" arm of its racketeering syndicate (so-called "court") will "uphold" these bills by bald assumpton of force under color of "law" backed by arms of private corporate municipal mercenary troops who demonstrably will lie, steal, manhunt, kidnap, plunder, rape, and murder, as, historically, and currently shown, will any mercenary (or "imperial") armed forces of domestic conquest and occupation?

Not only has any so-called "separation of powers" devolved to utter bastardy, with the ascendancy of the Esquire Bar Associations, whose legacy is that of absolute war upon the body of the Constitution before the ink had even dried, it is ******uous bastardy.

"Congress," as well as the so-called "state" "legislatures," especially today, are but a rubber stamp for the PRIVATE for-profit monopoly trade guild Bar Association Esquires who, in fact, for PROFIT of ungainful employment, actually "conspire," develop, write, and actively promote and "lobby" these immense self-perpetuating dung-heaps of "frivolous" regulatory legal gibberish, such as the IRC and other worthless and ignonimous tomes, for a foreign oligarchy/cabal of bloody war financiers/investors/profiteers, as well as run the dog and pony show carn-i-val circus that "upholds" them, and "advise" the "executive" who by now is well established as dictator of Public Policy through the "practice" of "executive order."

SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES
..Part VIII. Disposition of Cases
Rule 45. Process; Mandates

1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

If what now passes for American "republican" "government" is not the essence of institutionalized ******uous bastardy, I do not know what, then, is.



MOST PEOPLE, thought that John signed the Great Charter of English Liberties and became good King John afterwards.

This is wrong.

As soon as John got the rebel barons to disband their armies he waged holy war against them for the rest of his life.




"Congress" is a self-preserving, self-serving "make-work" redundancy.

The "courts" are either executive military courts martial tribunals, on one side, or private monopoly trade guild BAR Association commercial slave auctions, whorehouses, banks (banc, banque) and their casinos, on the other side.



The executive dictates to both.

(As in, "Can you take dic-ta-tion?")



All are foreign.

All are Columbine.





They dance with Harlequin.


Arlecchino, Servant of Two Masters




It is a Masquerade.

A marionette pantomime.




Si può?... Si può?... Signore! Signori! ... Un nido di memorie.




Recitar! Mentre preso dal delirio,
non so più quel che dico,
e quel che faccio!
Eppur è d'uopo, sforzati!
Bah! sei tu forse un uom?
Tu se' Pagliaccio!

Vesti la giubba,
e la faccia infarina.
La gente paga, e rider vuole qua.
E se Arlecchin t'invola Colombina,
ridi, Pagliaccio, e ognun applaudirà!
Tramuta in lazzi lo spasmo ed il pianto
in una smorfia il singhiozzo e 'l dolor, Ah!

Ridi, Pagliaccio,
sul tuo amore infranto!
Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!




No! Pagliaccio non son!


La commedia è finita!

The more I think...the less I find...