Why does the State intervene on Criminal Matters?

[netwrkranger]

George Gordon also mentions the following:

HJR-192 terminated national federal common law by way of abrogation of the gold clause and outlawing US citizens from owning gold. US government declares bankruptcy in 1933.

We also can't forget that during that same year, Erie Railroad v Thompkins overturns a century of federal procedure.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

Wrong. Police powers were originally found in the people. The state's police powers were created by the US Supreme Court

And where did the people give up this power, in the form of a constitutional amendment, or such consent of law?

”He who bids to be ruled by the arbitrary will of another, instead of consent of law, will be ruled by wild beasts.” [L] –Aristotle, Politics, III, 16, 1287a, 30

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

George Gordon also mentions the following:

HJR-192 terminated national federal common law by way of abrogation of the gold clause and outlawing US citizens from owning gold. US government declares bankruptcy in 1933.

But hasn't HJR-192 been since repealed?

I agree that it would appear that there is no federal common law, but strictly speaking, w/ HJR-192 out of the way, there should be, no?

[netwrkranger]

psholtz wrote:
But hasn't HJR-192 been since repealed?

I agree that it would appear that there is no federal common law, but strictly speaking, w/ HJR-192 out of the way, there should be, no?

Yes, I believe HJR-192 has been repealed.

Good question. I have no definitive answer for that one.

Personal opinion, the common law is still there for those willing to "pick it up". Releasing one's self from the equitable interests of contracts and trusts placing one's self into equity/admiralty jurisdictions is key.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

George Gordon also mentions the following:

HJR-192 terminated national federal common law by way of abrogation of the gold clause and outlawing US citizens from owning gold. US government declares bankruptcy in 1933.

We also can't forget that during that same year, Erie Railroad v Thompkins overturns a century of federal procedure.

George Gordon is an idiot. He's a high school dropout who got crushed twice when he appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals on matters (one criminal, one civil) he had lost at trial on.

I'll post the cases later.

[netwrkranger]

It is my understanding that he is a common law freeman.

He pays no taxes.
He has no SSN.
He is still making broadcasts and the State hasn't taken away his liberty nor shutdown his broadcasts.

What does a person's educational background have to do with the quality of information? If the information is factual, it is fact.

Nikola Tesla dropped out of college. I guess we shouldn't use AC electricity since he is a college dropout ??
Michael Faraday never attended college. I guess electromagnetism doesn't exist since it was discovered by a guy who has no credentials?

Does one need a degree in order to speak facts?
Shouldn't we judge the information and not the person?

Aren't you also getting into the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem?

- netwrkranger

[netwrkranger]

Codee wrote:
I guess when you post that the guy told you that the bible was the source of all law, and then that turns out to be based on bogus sources... then maybe George is not giving "factual" information.

So are you discounting all the information on account of 1 piece that allegedly is bogus? You found the source yourself, so how is it bogus? Your research lends credence to the position that the Bible at least had influence on Common Law.

Since there is an error or errors on a bill I receive, the the bill doesn't exist? There is no bill?

So you need a degree to give information? You need a degree to speak truth or facts? Is that what you are implying?

- netwrkranger

[netwrkranger]

Codee wrote:
You asked what does education mean when the info is factual.

Wrong. I asked is an educational degree a requirement for an individual to give factual or quality information? Isn't fact an intrinsic property in and of itself regardless of the properties of the issuer?

netwrkranger wrote:
What does a person's educational background have to do with the quality of information?

A person's education is a property of the person, not of the information they provide. Sure, they will have been trained to execute a given action in a prescribed fashion, but that doesn't guarantee the factualness or quality of the info. They maybe seen as a subject matter expert in a given field recognized by some agency, authority, or society. There may even be the presumption the information is of a "higher quality" just on the credentials of the individual, but that in and of itself does not qualify the information as factual.

Perhaps you should question me for clarification before issuing your perceptual bias?

Your argument is one of credibility which is formed from the word credit meaning 'to believe or to trust'.

If you don't trust (or believe) the source or information, that is certainly your personal prerogative.

[netwrkranger]

Wrong! You misread.

Misquote themselves? That's funny. Just how does one misquote themselves? I know what I said and I know what my intent was.

Some retort there. I see you didn't address my question at all. *** copout *** cough, cough..... Go right for the insults....

I see the kingdom of Codee taking root here.. I wonder when your tourettes will kick in full bloom? I see occasional flaring from post to post.

You are good at making mountains out of mole hills.

Your position has been made clear. Gordon has no credibility with you as well as myself . You are free to leave. I wouldn't want you to subject yourself to such non-credible information and people.

Perhaps you need to recheck your facts as well? My screen name has no space nor an 'o' in netwrkranger. Perhaps this is a case of seeing what you want and not what is?? Perhaps I should call your credibility into question over your inability to relay a mere screen name correctly?

Since I'm not contributing to the original subject matter of the post, I'm out. You are free to retort in whatever fashion you desire (which I presume you will).

Regards,
netwrkranger

[netwrkranger]

Correction: George Gordon and I have no credibility with you.

Fair enough =D.

Regards,
netwrkranger