Cody's Right to _____

[mrg]

Your codes and statutes are not Law.

What you call "law" is a deceptive and deceitful figure of speech that is merely propaganda, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Law.

Those codes and statutes are rules and are enforced by armed mercenary soldiers.

To equate codes and statutes with Law is the height of cynicism, and hypocrisy.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

Your codes and statutes are not Law.

WRONG.

Please prove that statutes are not law.

Keep in mind that your Common law includes statute in force and effect in England at the declaration of Independence.


But thank you for you uncited worthless opinion MRG. I have been missing those.

CITATION IN LAW PLEASE THAT STATUTES ARE NOT LAW.


Here is mine

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 4 LEGISLATIVE


SEC. 8.

(b) The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may
enact no statute except by bill. No bill may be passed unless it is
read by title on 3 days in each house except that the house may
dispense with this requirement by rollcall vote entered in the
journal, two thirds of the membership concurring. No bill may be
passed until the bill with amendments has been printed and
distributed to the members. No bill may be passed unless, by
rollcall vote entered in the journal, a majority of the membership of
each house concurs.

[theincubus]

Originally Posted by Codee

WRONG.

Please prove that statutes are not law.

Keep in mind that your Common law includes statute in force and effect in England at the declaration of Independence.


But thank you for you uncited worthless opinion MRG. I have been missing those.

CITATION IN LAW PLEASE THAT STATUTES ARE NOT LAW.


Here is mine

That won't be happening anytime soon Codee.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

Your codes and statutes are not Law.

What you call "law" is a deceptive and deceitful figure of speech that is merely propaganda, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Law.

So the california Constitution is nothing more than propaganda?!? Yeah right. And then you state that the California Constitution has nothing to do with law?!?! Yeah right!
Citation in law please!

Those codes and statutes are rules and are enforced by armed mercenary soldiers.

So what? What does that have to do with the law's applicability to an individual natural person? NOTHING. Thank you for you unsupported, incited, "fact" that even if true means nothing.

To equate codes and statutes with Law is the height of cynicism, and hypocrisy.

To state that all statutes are not law or that to even equate the two is wrong, without offering a credible citation or.... MAKES YOU AN IDIOT!!!

A hypocrate?!?!?! You are simply delusioned.

[mrg]

Today, 01:29 PM

theincubus theincubus
Waking Up

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 18

Here is mine

That won't be happening anytime soon Codee.

Today, 02:52 PM
Codee
Moderator

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Freedom. some call Cal.
Posts: 1,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrg
Your codes and statutes are not Law.

So the california Constitution is nothing more than propaganda?!? Yeah right. And then you state that the California Constitution has nothing to do with law?!?! Yeah right!
Citation in law please!

So what? What does that have to do with the law's applicability to an individual natural person? NOTHING. Thank you for you unsupported, incited, "fact" that even if true means nothing.

To state that all statutes are not law or that to even equate the two is wrong, without offering a credible citation or.... MAKES YOU AN IDIOT!!!

[palani]

Here is what Bouvier says about maxims of law

MAXIM. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.

2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain bow the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210.

Blackstone describes them thusly:

SOME have divided the common law into two principal grounds or foundations: 1. eftablifhed cuftoms; fuch as that where there are three brothers, the eldeft brother fhall be heir to the fecond, in exclufion of the youngeft: and 2. eftablifhed rules and maxims; as, “that the king can do no wrong, that no “man fhall be bound to accufe himfelf,” and the like.

Beginning to sound familiar, Codee?

[palani]

Originally Posted by Codee

According to your weak argument.... YES they still apply.

referring to:

An officer de facto is frequently considered as an officer de jure, and his official acts are of equal validity.

This sentence is referring to a single de facto officer, not an entire de facto government. Consider just who the body politic is who thereby make themselves SUBJECT. If there could be such a thing as a de jure officer in a de facto government his acts still only apply to the SUBJECT - the body politic. Wouldn't his acts still be 'of equal validity'?

Better learn to read Law, Codee. It starts with the white space between the words. It is what left out that is important, not what is written.

[mrg]

Those codes and statutes are rules and are enforced by armed mercenary soldiers.

Define Law.

[Codee]

Do you just find it ammusing to be annoying. This is not my thread so I do not care but it is disrepecful to quote an entire page just to request the ever so stupid "define 'law'"

I have a mind to tell your lame butt to learn how to use a dictionary. Do you have a problem understanding alphabetical order????

Well stupid boy here you go. A dictionary definition for a word's definition... The appropriate use of a dictionary.

Originally Posted by Bouvier's Law dictionary

LAW. In its most general and comprehensive sense, law signifies a rule of action; and this term is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. 1 Bl. Com. 38. In its more confined sense, law denotes the rule, not of actions in general, but of human action or conduct. In the civil code of Louisiana, art. 1, it is defined to be "a solemn expression of the legislative will." Vide Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. s. 1, n. 4; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1-3.

2. Law is generally divided into four principle classes, namely; Natural law, the law of nations, public law, and private or civil law. When considered in relation to its origin, it is statute law or common law. When examined as to its different systems it is divided into civil law, common law, canon law. When applied to objects, it is civil, criminal, or penal. It is also divided into natural law and positive law. Into written law, lex scripta; and unwritten law, lex non scripta. Into law merchant, martial law, municipal law, and foreign law. When considered as to their duration, laws are immutable and arbitrary or positive; when as their effect, they are prospective and retrospective. These will be separately considered.

Originally Posted by Lex Law

LAW - Rules established by a governing authority to institute and maintain orderly coexistence.

An act of Congress (state legislature) that has been signed by the president (governor) or passed over his veto by Congress. Public bills, when signed, become public laws, and are cited by the letters 'PL' and a hyphenated number. The two digits before the hyphen correspond to the Congress, and the one or more digits after the hyphen refer to the numerical sequence in which the bills were signed by the president during that Congress.

Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/law

law (lô)
n.
1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2.
a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.
3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.
4. A piece of enacted legislation.

[palani]

Codee posted (post 18 - sorry I skipped over it while the action was heavy)

Now you need to show that the 14th created a wrong or a tresspass.

If I had been alive and part of the body politic of my state (country) one day before passage of the 14th amendment and the next day I woke up not a member of the body politic I guess I would feel certain property rights would have been ripped away from me. This is presuming immediate communications were possible, that I knew there was such a thing as the expatriation act and that I immediately took advantage of expatriating out of the new class of body politic formed. Now everyone else continues on fat, dumb and happy, voting for all the officers they want, constructing new law that applies only to them, the new body politic; eliminating substance as currency, converting rights into privileges, eliminating the form of law that the country was founded upon and going bankrupt several times in the process.

Now doesn't this seem like the basis for an action of trespass? My elected officials in congress and at the state level HAD NO RIGHT TO REFORM THE BODY POLITIC. This act was fraud.