Cody's Right to _____

[weishaupt1776]

This is from a debate in another thread:

Originally Posted by palani

It is apparent after reading the first 5-6 pages of this post that Codee has no right to travel despite whatever the heading proclaims. Codee evidently has a right to proper proceedure since that is all he is arguing.

After he has proven successful beating one proceedure guess what ... another proceedure will be instituted in its' place that may or may not be more successful for the states' revenue grab.

Wishing you the best of luck with this approach, Codee. You aren't dealing with laws that are fixed and remain constant from generation to generation. You are going to do battle with proceedure until you pass. Seems like a gross waste of resources that could be better used in more productive pursuits.

Originally Posted by Codee

Ispend like a half hour on every state. If you learned how to read the code and how to break it it would all seem very simple and clear as day.

The rule is easy. If it is administrative you have a remedy out.

There is no point in declaring a total loss a worthy stand.

Originally Posted by palani

Seems like a gross waste of resources that could be better used in more productive pursuits.

Originally Posted by Codee

As far as I am concerned my approach to SMJ challenge is one of the only PRODUCTIVE pursuits on this enire site. But go ahead and concider a complete loss in redemption scemes a worthy pursuit.

You want to live in a world where the laws never change. That is not reality. Laws change and so do people. If you cannot keep up you will be run over. Time to start doing the work.

[palani]

Thanks, Weis

I guess this is neutral turf?

If Codee has a drivers license then does he have a 'right to travel' or does he have a contract with an insurgent state?

If Codee has a contract (whether the state is insurgent or not) is he violating that contract when he drinks while driving (presumably not water or orange juice)?

[weishaupt1776]

Next exchange:

Originally Posted by palani

I am not declaring your effort to be a total loss. You evidently do have some success with it. However, you might be building on a foundation of sand as administrative rules and proceedures change frequently. The only way to keep up with the changes is constantly to apply effort and energy.

Also, folks who decide to remain within the system and are taking benefits from it should also be supporting it. This is part of silent contract that is formed by accepting things like social security, drivers licenses, voter registration and passports. After accepting these 'cookies' and the adhesion contracts that are associated you become a criminal if you don't obey all laws; if you know this and don't intend to obey these laws then you are essentially a criminal.

Possibly a better plan might be to stay out of the system entirely, don't accept 'cookies' from the cookie monster and stay in honor with no argument. The law, statutes and governments implemented after the 14th amendment become foreign law and do not require obedience.

Originally Posted by Codee

Lets see here. In california they have changed it 3 times in 100 years. Not too hard to keep up with.

Not hard at all.

The fact that this seems hard simply means that you do not yet know how read code well.

It takes me but 30 minutes per state on average.

Christ! Just go to the definitions and read!!!!!

Sure some states are harder then others but just because something is difficult does not mean to give up on it.

PLEASE DO NOT INTERUPT THIS THREAD WITH THIS STUFF.

I have heard all of your arguments for "being in the system" and that I "hack at branches."

I know you want one little cure all in a neet little bundle. I will not entertain those fantasies. There are plenty of threads willing to entertain such things but this thread is SPECIFICALLY to offer a diffrent approach. This thread is NOT to debate wheather the enire meathod is as strong as a theory that has never won. So please. Enjoy your out of the system argument in the other threads. I do not care to address any of those arguments ever again and specifically not hear. The argument is wrong and just as usual you have brought up some THEORY and ther is ZERO law in your post. ZERO law = bad theory.

Your strawman- codes don't apply- stuff will never work.

Originally Posted by palani

Please state just what has changed 3 times in 100 years. I have browsed through the California contitution and it looks like it was changed on a daily basis.

Is this a public or private forum? If private, are you the holder in due course or owner? Can you post anything you like without a challenge of its' validity or truth?

Here is some LAW -
1) Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.
2)Ignorance of fact, is the want of knowledge as to the fact in question
3)Ignorance of the laws of a foreign government, or of another state; is ignorance of a fact.
4)Ignorance of a fact is not and cannot be criminal.

I'll let you connect the dots. Seems pretty clear to me though.

Here is some more LAW :

195. Right of the citizens when the nation submits to a foreign power.

In the case of a real subjection to a foreign power, the citizens who do not approve this change are not obliged to submit to it: — they ought to be allowed to sell their effects and retire elsewhere. For, my having entered into a society does not oblige me to follow its fate, when it dissolves itself in order to submit to a foreign dominion. I submitted to the society as it then was, to live in that society as the member of a sovereign state, and not in another; I am bound to obey it, while it remains a political society: but, when it divests itself of the quality in order to receive its laws from another state, it breaks the bond of union between its members, and releases them from their obligations.

212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

I never mentioned the strawman theory; however, since you brought the subject up, it is rather cute and I have not doubt this is a mechanism used to control 98% of the population. Once you know about it, it is easily defeatable by rebutting all presumptions.

Again, you are bringing up another theory I have never bought into. Those who buy into this one seem to be out to get something for nothing and the system will usually win.

On the contrary I can tell you that I do live in a universe in which the laws are fixed. I expect to wake up in the morning experiencing the constant affect of gravity. I expect to breath air that contains approximately 20% oxygen. I expect public officials/actors to take an oath to support a standard government and to provide a surety bond in the event that they don't perform according to the oath they took.

Now it is my turn to ask a question. Do you think that drinking and driving is responsible?

[weishaupt1776]

The plot thickens:

Originally Posted by codee

Pretty lame commentary.

[Codee]

I can hold as many licenses as I wish and it affects the lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a case based on pure administrative LAW, ZERO.
I can make my SMJ argument with out diminishment AT ALL from the following

1) hiring an attorney to represent me

2) Having a Social security Number

3) Spelling my NAME LIKE THIS

4) Using FRNs

5) Not objecting at the right time

6) Having a drivers License

7) Arguing

8) Dishonoring any presentment

9) Any other pay-tree-rot crap.

[weishaupt1776]

and the beat goes

Originally Posted by codee

I will petition Jason to remove every one of your non-cited commercial crap posts from my thread.

Have a nice day.

[weishaupt1776]

Next response:

Originally Posted by palani

Gee, Codee, I thought anyone who could wade his way through any state code in 30 minutes would instantly recognize the LAW and wouldn't need cites.

Here goes -

The first (on ignorance) is Bouviers' 1856 law dictionary. Not made up at all.

The next three (rights of citizens, citizens and natives and inhabitants) are Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1.

Kindly provide evidence that this is your thread. Kindly provide evidence that any of my posts are 'commercial'. Kindly provide evidence that you don't charge for the information you are requesting people to email you for in the first several posts of this thread.

Other than these comments, my observation is that there is too much irrational garbage in Codees' comments to respond to. I urge you to seek professional help. Confine your drinking to water and orange juice. Be happy!

[Codee]

...sell their effects and retire elsewhere.

That means you leave the area Palani. It does not mean that god is going to protect you from the invading government.

Praying would be more effective then those dictionary sites.

[weishaupt1776]

Alright last one

Originally Posted by palani

Is this the judgement of the court?

Please be more explicit. Facts not in evidence.

Those were definitions. The only one I extrapolated was the last one because Bouvier only gave an example of a man who marries a woman who is already married.

Thank you. I am not a pro and do not intend to act as one.

[Codee]

So could someone especially Palani explain this other more effective meathod to me that beats tickets than arguing SMJ?

I would LOVE to see it in the form that one would turn into court for dismissal.