George Gordon and Common Law

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Bottom line: George Gordon is a con artist. He will make whatever claims he can (huge success rate, never been to jail, etc.)

George Gordon freely and openly admits that he's been to jail at least 37 times.

He admits it could be well more than that, but that he lost count around 37.

As far as his 90% success rate is concerned, yes that's a quote from George himself. I haven't tried to independently verify it.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by palani

The eminent legal scholar LawDog might have just uttered a falsehood. As all governments today encroach upon rights perhaps all that is left are privileges and immunities.

I haven't looked this up yet (another thing that's on my to-do list), but apparently if you look up U.S. Senate Document 108-17, pp. 1006-1007, Footnote 37, you'll see that what you're saying is correct: U.S. citizens in fact have substantially less "rights" than the American people have.

In fact, what U.S. citizens have is probably properly called government-granted privileges, not rights.

You can find more info here:

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

I haven't tried to independently verify it.

Like most of his students

I have no desire to independently verify it and I'm not one of Gordon's students.

I'm simply passing along to you information that I've heard from Gordon's mouth.

I listen to him as much (if not more) for his NWO rants, as for his legal "advice"..

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

a suijuris member passing on "apparent" (really "supposedly", as it does not appear anywhere in the post) information form a loser like Thorton without verifying it! No way!

Prove that Thornton is a loser..

No hearsay, remember!

Maybe you should attack you to do list and THEN post with it being verified.

I'll attack my to-do list if and when I desire.

Certainly I will not be compelled into doing something contrary to my desires by some common slave.

Funny how you have time to post but not to verify.

It's "funny" only to a neanthertal luddite.

To a civilized human who has reached a higher evolutionary state, it's quite obvious that it's easier to do an Internet search (matter of seconds), than it is to take time out of the business day to go the law library or pay the GPO $250 for the Senate document and wait 2 weeks for delivery.

Like I said, I will go the library and verify if and when my desire moves me.

Not a moment before.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

So you peddle in hearsay. Awesome. We needed more of that and less verification.

How could you care to pass it on and also not verify it?

When people play videos games too much, they have a tendency to begin conflating reality w/ fantasy.

I have a sense that that's what's happening here.

This is an Internet discussion board where people come to trade thoughts, ideas and discussions.

This is not a court of law where every statement made has to be signed, sealed and certified under the penalty of perjury as being true, accurate and 100% correct. In fact, strictly speaking, pretty much anything that comes across a computer screen is technically hearsay, so I don't how you expect to participate in an online discussion forum like this w/o nexusing w/ "hearsay" at some level.

Your argument is both specious and frivolous

Get a grip, slave..

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The Articles of Confederation are no longer in force. You won't find them cited as binding law (as opposed to historical curiosity) in cases after 1787.

Just a matter of historical curiosity, and of judicial curiosity (considering that 'law' is interpreted by the judiciary and considering that the judiciary determines what is law), please show the reading audience where the Judiciary has spoken and in speaking (writing opinions) has stated that "The Articles of Confederation are no longer in force."

Your comment is the equivalent of saying that the Magna Charta is no longer in force. Therefore, speaking for myself and maybe one of two others on this forum, I am requesting to prove your claim by delivering documentary evidence to support your claim. Documentary evidence would not be construed to mean your personal opinion as you have not declared to any of us that you hold the title within the judiciary of "Judge", that title also does not include the opinion of the poster formerly known as 'judgeroybean', as he has not delivered proof of his entitlement to such title.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

Yeah, questioning and verifying makes one a slave... OK.

Questioning and verifying are noble attributes, and are to be encouraged, but an abusive, insulting, name-calling attitude and a bitter, vitrolic hatred of specific personalities (Gordon, Thornton) betray deep character flaws which cannot but impede an individual from mastering his own thoughts, desires, emotions and actions.

And if you are not the master of yourself, what are you the master of?

That is, after all, the magic of American government: it is self-government. One must first govern the "Self" (i.e., your own Self, i.e., Self-government), before you can reasonably expect your servants in the outer bureaucracies to bow to your Will and serve you (i.e., self-government, in the more conventional sense that that phrase in used in connection w/ American government).

However following and reposting comments from someone that seems cannot win at all, and cannot accurately conclude what law means... Freedom ho!

I don't know that George Gordon or Bill Thornton "cannot win at all".. it seems to me they are doing quite well for themselves, but again... I confess I am using the word "seems" and that you're going to latch onto that as "hearsay"..

Whatever.

But indeed, in the end, I agree.. Freedom is the goal we have in sight (if you were not, indeed, being sarcastic above).

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

I think the creation of a more perfect union implies that the old union is gone and replaced.

Looks like all common sense points to this. I know the courts are not fond of having to state that the sky is blue.

If that were the only consideration that was mentioned in the document, it might be construed as having some validity, however, when your quotation abandons the remaining considerations, thus the singular thought of a "creation of a more perfect union", becomes an ambiguous statement. Furthermore, there was no "Union" at the time until the document was signed, sealed and delivered. Therefore, the statement itself becomes a contradiction and ambiguity when the question "More perfect than what" is thrown into the picture.

The statement reads:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The more interesting point, is that the signatories of the Constitution were delegates of another group of people than the delegates of the Articles of Confederation. Two opposing factions of people that must pull together in order to survive. One has the money the other has the man power. The two cannot survive independently of the other when the entirety of the two have previously become accustomed to the use of a 'money' system. Those that have the money will of necessity require those that need the money, and those that do not have the money, will of necessity have to cede to those that have the money in order to facilitate their needs that cannot be obtained without the money. So it would appear to me, that the Constitution was the result of a little financial coercion being applied by those that had the money. What is it that is said about agreements that are entered into as a result of 'coercion'?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

If non-scholar palani had a point he was trying to make, it remains obscure.

Possibly not as obscure as you would like it to be.

The Articles of Confederation, being perpetual, are perpetual. They are in effect today. In a similar manner California might derogate to the laws of Mexico when California laws are ineffective as their domain was once Mexican.

In my own location west of the Mississippi and within the Louisiana Purchase I might also refer to the Treaty of Cession for that land transfer:

Originally Posted by Louisiana Purchase Art III

Art: III

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.

I suppose you might next tell me that the Louisiana Purchase is no longer in effect as well. If you go this route I would suggest you give your opinion to the French as they might be interested in recovering their territory.

Any other brilliant legal observations?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

I think the creation of a more perfect union implies that the old union is gone and replaced.

Technically, the Constitution is to "form a more perfect union"..

It is possible to "form" things from pre-existing (and still extant) material.

In fact, I think the word "form" implies that that which is formed *must* be pre-existing. The word does not imply the "creation" of a new entity ex-nihilo...