Law Notes for Your Protection

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The license isn't for having a car nor even being in the car, but for bringing that car onto the public roads where it would be in close proximity to other cars and to people.

AWAY FROM HERE WITH ANTI SUI JURIS DECEIT!!!

[Steel]

One cannot sue the King, at least not without the King's permission

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

AWAY FROM HERE WITH ANTI SUI JURIS DECEIT!!!

Translation: your facts, logic, and citation to the actual law are interfering with my childish fantasies! Waaah! Waaah!

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by gldskr

If the law enforcement system presumes you are a 14th amendment citizen, signing ARR only enhances their position and proves the jurisdiction.

gldskr

How about signing “without” the “UNITED STATES” in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1746(1) ?

This enhances my position and their lack of jurisdiction !

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Translation: your facts, logic, and citation to the actual law are interfering with my childish fantasies! Waaah! Waaah!

More projecting from the anti sui juris!

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

How about signing “without” the “United States” in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1746(1) ?

This enhances my position and their lack of jurisdiction !

28 USC Sec. 1746(1) contemplates geography not jurisdiction, because if it did, it would be a non sensical impossibility. The USC is a corporate code and only concerns corporate matters.

Whatever you sign, in whatever manner, within a specific jurisdiction, admits the jurisdiction.

The trick isn't to deny your STRAWMAN, because he is there whether you like it or not, but to control his actions in your favor.

Example; You need electricity so you sign up at your local utility as Dillon Hunt. Your first statement is addressed to your STRAWMAN, DILLON HUNT. Did you authorize this, of course not, but that is the only way they will do business with you. They presumed you did and because you need electricity you allow the relationship to continue. Jurisdiction is admitted.

They need to deal with your STRAWMAN for tax purposes. If you skip out on your bill they can write it off. If Dillon Hunt skips out, they have to sue you. Its a limited liability issue. Fortunes must be made and ledgers balanced, lawsuits add friction to the machine.

Whatever corp. government do***ent you sign will be governed within that jurisdiction.

Solution; Don't sign corp. government do***ents unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences.

gldskr

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by gldskr

28 USC Sec. 1746(1) contemplates geography not jurisdiction, because if it did, it would be a non sensical impossibility. The USC is a corporate code and only concerns corporate matters.

The second sentence is the REAL nonsense there.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The second sentence is the REAL nonsense there.

Is this:

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The second sentence is the REAL nonsense there.

indeed FACT, or, perhaps OPINION, or, mere CLAIM?

Does Lawdog have a verifiable record of posting "...FACT not OPINION..." as he CLAIMS or, does LAWDOG post somewhat rhetorically convoluted OPINION ("belief") as may be illustrated in LAWDOG'S own words?

If FACT:

Can you substantiate the FACT with verifiably valid proof positive?

If not, why not?

Will you substantiate the FACT with verifiably valid proof positive?

If not, why not?


If this is merely your CLAIM:

Can you PROVE your CLAIM scrupulously adhering to academically prescribed and accepted process of left hemispheric higher order meta-cognitive skills through demonstrating application of comprehensively analytical prior first hand knowledge, proven and verifiably validated,demonstrating conclusive evaluative epagoge based upon the whole of the above successfully complete and impartial exercise?

If not, why not?

Will you PROVE your CLAIM scrupulously adhering to academically prescribed and accepted process of left hemispheric higher order meta-cognitive skills through demonstrating application of comprehensively analytical prior first hand knowledge, proven and verifiably validated, demonstrating conclusive evaluative epagoge based upon the whole of the above successfully complete and impartial exercise?

If not, why not?

Thus far, how, precisely is it not FACT that you have a, by now, substantial record of default, claiming that you WILL NOT respond?


How, precisely, would it not, rather be that you, in FACT cannot uprightly, straightforwardly, forthrightly, honestly, and impartially respond with integrity, nor can you afford to?

[Shoonra]

The problem is that mrg has already said that he doesn't regard court decisions as any sort of proof, so, for all the psychobabble about "meta-cognitive" and the like, mrg has pretty much ruled out all the accepted methods of supporting legal arguments.
Of course, mrg has yet to support his own assertions in any proper way, so it's wash.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The problem is that mrg has already said that he doesn't regard court decisions as any sort of proof, so, for all the psychobabble about "meta-cognitive" and the like, mrg has pretty much ruled out all the accepted methods of supporting legal arguments.
Of course, mrg has yet to support his own assertions in any proper way, so it's wash.

Well, Shoonra, mrg (aka mindlessly repeating gibberish) appears to be a loudmouthed drunk with a thesaurus fetish. You can't really expect too much from someone like that.