Taxpayer Examined

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

What I am saying is that I have posted over and over again that Blackstone is the considered a top authority on defining the common law.

The terms and uses in the constitutions and statutes have his language in mind. I do not care to get in to squabbles over "His language" or any crap.

Just know that Blackstone is the court's preference in determining and they are not budging.

Ok fair enough.
I will agree that what you just stated in the above quote to be true In,at,for within,concerning,by LAW and the list goes on.
It took me watching the movie Hannibal Rising last night to bring me back to what is really happening here in this discussion. And many other threads.

To get an worthy opponent or adversary beat or at least off guard it is a good tactic to get his/her attention elsewhere and then to maybe come in from another angle and stab the opponent in the back or at least wound him/her. Once this is accomplished then you can come in for the kill.

So weather this is the tactic that Cody is using here was intentional or not the ruse has worked very well here in this thread and many others. OR

Maybe Cody's intent was to try to expose to us what the court system, the twisters and attourner's use on the unsuspecting people of this land that are presumed to be by assumption,presumption or through acquiescence to be subject/compulsory or voluntary members of, or under the control of any of the State Bar Association and/or any State Bar Association Member, or a subject of any entities created by any State Bar Association member or Members in Association whether State, National, or International Associations.

It is my understanding that for someone man,woman,or child to be subject to the laws,bylaws,codes,rules of any association,group,club or citizenry one must first be a member of said association,group,club or citizenry. and you must have joined and/or agreed to be bound by these laws,bylaws,codes,rules only after knowingly willingly and after being fully informed of all consequences volunteer to join said association,group,club or citizenry.

Is someone automatically a member of any of these groups just because one is born on the soil within an area known by some geological boundaries as some entity?

Is it possible for a fetus to be born in a fictional or artificial entity?

I will agree that an artificial entity can be birthed within an artificial entity. (not born)

---------------------------------------------------------------
I conditionally accept your offer on proof that I am your property.

[rottweiler]

Oh no, not more Crown construction again Lawdog.

The anti-federalists promised to support the constitution now for a Bill of Rights later. The Bill of Rights are the will of the drafters of the constitution and the SCHICK decision refers to "those two provisions"- "3d clause of 2, article three and Article 6 of the Amendments".

If you think natural rights can be amended away you are wrong. Each person, one by one, must expressly waive their rights individually and even then it is still reversable.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Thanks for posting that, dude.
thanks

Quote:
In the 3d clause of 2, article 3, of the Constitution, it is provided that 'the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;' and in article 6 of the Amendments, that 'in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.' If there be any conflict between these two provisions, the one found in the Amendments must control, under the well-understood rule that the last _expression of the will of the lawmaker prevails over an earlier one.


In another thread, some nitwit claimed I was wrong when I said the original body of the Constitution and the Amendments are subject to the "last in time" rule of legal interpretation. Here's a Supreme Court case that says I was right. Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking it up.
__________________




In another thread, some nitwit claimed I was wrong when I said the original body of the Constitution and the Amendments are subject to the "last in time" rule of legal interpretation. Here's a Supreme Court case that says I was right. Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking it up.

[rottweiler]

Does it really?

Or does it say "If there be any conflict between these two provisions, the one found in the Amendments must control."

It does not say "if an amendment is found to be in conflict with the constitution's original text, that the amendment will win."

A provision in this case is what the particular contract clause provides for, not the whole damn contract. In this case "these two provisions" are specifically "3d clause of 2, article 3, of the Constitution" and "article 6 of the Amendments."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ownmaster
I am showing right here the supreme court reciting how conflicts between the main text of the constitution and any amendment that the amendment will win.

Do really not see that in my post?

SCHICK v. U S, 195 U.S. 65 (1904)

In such a case there is no constitutional requirement of a jury. In the 3d clause of 2, article 3, of the Constitution, it is provided that 'the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;' and in article 6 of the Amendments, that 'in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.' If there be any conflict between these two provisions, the one found in the Amendments must control, under the well-understood rule that the last _expression of the will of the lawmaker prevails over an earlier one.

That right there says that .

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
See unabridged law dictionary for definition of 'as'. 'As' has been defined such that it can mean 'as if'.

For example:



Does it mean John is an adult? If no then what does as mean?

Does it mean that John will be tried AS IF an adult?



Was the meaning of the sentence obscured? If I wrote it that way would I have really been "adding words" to the sentence and twisting and contorting it into a total different spiel. Retniap remember that quote concerning natural persons was written by someone who might have been high skilled with nuances of the the English language and likely had his hands on at least one unabridged law dictionary.

If "Blackstone" meant to say...



Then why didnt he? =D

What was the likelihood that said Blackstone was highly skilled with nuances of the English language--even to the esoteric extreme? What are the chances that said Blackstone had access to an unabridged law dictionary or other dictionary?

P.S. I didn't realize I was building any aspect of my with Cody steadfastly in mind.
Sorry it was not my intention to bring you down to that level.
***

Regarding indoctrination centers...hah..as if. The level of English they teach in some U.S. highschools is probably the equivalent of giving one just enough rope to hang onself.

Thank you for your explanation of {*as*if } much appreciated.

[rottweiler]

The constitution is not a statutory construction and the Bill of Rights are Articles in addition to, not Amendments of.

I see no difference between Article III section 2 clause 3 and Article VI of the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

That is exactly what it is saying. It is saying that since the amendment was enacted LAST it rules. It has nothing to do with the amendment being the sixth or not. The sixth amendment is treated the same as any other would be during statutory construction.

However I do not think this is the thread for all of this.

Rott, is your position that the people did not reserve to themselves the right to say "oops"!

[rottweiler]

Unalienable rights are self evident and don't need to be expressed in the constitution. However, the Bill of Rights were simply a enumeration of natural rights for the purpose of making it easier to protect them from attornment.

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

What does "In addition to" mean?

I see it as meaning:

1) Not part of the original whole.

2) Something that is subsequently being "added" on to the previous whole.

[rottweiler]

That comes out of the Magna Carta/English common law.

Everyone is born with it but almost everyone waives it.

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

People have a natural right to have a warrant presented?

I don't know... That seems kind of generated based upon politics rather than nature.

I don't buy it.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Ownmaster post 70

I do not care if you agree with me or not. I am smarter than you and you can teach me very little, if anything at all.

I guess that about sums it up.

[rottweiler]

I didn't see this question until just now.

You are considered to be resident alien of the de jure Maine state.

You were born with the right to be a Citizen of Maine state by virtue of being born within the geographic borders of the land called Maine but never claimed it, you expressly waived that right.

Your parents signed you up with a private foreign commune called the US and State of Maine instead.

What I am telling you is sovereignty is not geographic. It is personal.

"The idea of sovereignty was not associated in the Teutonic mind with dominion over a particular portion of the earth’s surface; it was distinctly personal or tribal; and so was their conception of law." Taylor, Science of Jurispr. 133.

Two men can look the same. One can be a slave and the other free all because of a contract.

If you want to buy a used car that is a bad deal do I have a right to stop you?

If the private foreign federal union is going to profit off you, do they have a lawful duty to educate you as to whether it is a bad deal? No, they are going to sell you on it.

Originally Posted by ss_stealth

Rottweiler,

If I am to believe that there are more than one governments (de jure/de facto) here in the zone I refer to as the United States of America how would this rule apply if, physically, I am within the borders of my de jure state (Maine) but also within the de facto State of Maine? I seemed to be interdimensional, stuck in limbo... subject to both sets of rules???