Can anyone answer this question?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Codee

Can you show me where corpus delecti is part of modern state law?

Not sure about other states, but here's one for Wyoming:

97-1-010. Right of accused to defend.

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, to have a copy thereof, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. When the location of the offense cannot be established with certainty, venue may be placed in the county or district where the corpus delecti [delicti] is found, or in any county or district in which the victim was transported.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes...97/Title97.htm

[Friendsplacect]

If that is true where is the "corpus delicti" as: "the fact of a crime having been actually committed, the violation of someones right, the injured party or damaged property ?

Sounds like Marc Stevens book "Adventures In Legal Land"

[Codee]

OK. My point is you cannot use 300 year old common law for situations that have been completely covered by modern statutory law.

Agian your thing is showing that in all CRIMINAL prosecutions however an administrative infraction is not criminal.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Codee

OK. My point is you cannot use 300 year old common law for situations that have been completely covered by modern statutory law.

Agian your thing is showing that in all CRIMINAL prosecutions however an administrative infraction is not criminal.

LOL - Just thought I'd share (and pointed out the significance of criminal and offense in bold).

[Dillon Hunt]

double post

[Dillon Hunt]

It's not about Law, It's about agreements/contracts, As you know that is how government assumes power over people. You just put the kind of law the contract is to be decided on.

All contracts state which laws and jurisdiction the contract is made under. As I stated in another fourm.

MAXIMS OF LAW
To him consenting no injury is done.
He who consents cannot receive an injury.
Consent removes or obviates a mistake.
One who wills a thing to be or to be done cannot complain of that thing as an injury.
The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law.
He who approves cannot reject.
Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supersedes such understanding as the law would imply.
Manner and agreement overrule the law.
Certain legal consequences are attached to the voluntary act of a person / corporation.
It is immaterial whether a person / corporation gives assent by words or by acts and deeds.
A fiction is a rule of law that assumes something which is or may be false as true.
Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.
There is no fiction without law.
Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions
Fiction is against the truth, but it is to have truth.
In a fiction of law, equity always subsists.

The STATE is a fiction of law.

That is one of the reasons the r4c works, it is a refusal to contract for an unstated reason ! and it's a special appearance so jurisdiction in not assumed by us nogotiating by notices or letters. Nogotiation presumes, by us communicating with the gov. that they have authority.

Thanks

http://www.breaktherulesandwin.com/index2.html

[Codee]

Well you struck out. Maxims of law are not law. They are maxims. Maxims are maxims, law is law. I can even show you the statutes which say that maxims are nothing more then a guild and do not import absolute rules or law. Thus when the legislature chooses to depart you had better find a reason why they cannot or once agin this "suggestive force" law is not going to prove your rights nor motivate a judge to protect them and they would be correct for refusing this argument.

PS "agreements" are "law" as to the parties involved... as in the constitution was an agreement by the states. Again you start talking about what is and is not law and in the end Dillon I must say that you seem incredibly ignorant of the law, what it is, how it is evidensed, how law is constructed, the purpose of the courts, the differenses in civil law, criminal law, and administrative law, the function of hte government and its structure, the governemnts duties, your obligation to law and just about every thing you have talked about so far. I strongly caution you not to "help" others with this stuff you know so little about. Maybe it is time to start reading more and posting less. JMYO

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

It's not about Law, It's about agreements/contracts, As you know that is how government assumes power over people. You just put the kind of law the contract is to be decided on.

All contracts state which laws and jurisdiction the contract is made under. As I stated in another fourm.

MAXIMS OF LAW
To him consenting no injury is done.
He who consents cannot receive an injury.
Consent removes or obviates a mistake.
One who wills a thing to be or to be done cannot complain of that thing as an injury.
The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law.
He who approves cannot reject.
Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supersedes such understanding as the law would imply.
Manner and agreement overrule the law.
Certain legal consequences are attached to the voluntary act of a person / corporation.
It is immaterial whether a person / corporation gives assent by words or by acts and deeds.
A fiction is a rule of law that assumes something which is or may be false as true.
Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.
There is no fiction without law.
Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions
Fiction is against the truth, but it is to have truth.
In a fiction of law, equity always subsists.

The STATE is a fiction of law.

That is one of the reasons the r4c works, it is a refusal to contract for an unstated reason ! and it's a special appearance so jurisdiction in not assumed by us nogotiating by notices or letters. Nogotiation presumes, by us communicating with the gov. that they have authority.

Thanks

http://www.breaktherulesandwin.com/index2.html

[Dillon Hunt]

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 definition of MAXIM. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason. also a general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of conduct

[Dillon Hunt]

Novations are law too.

NOVATION, civil law. 1. Novation is a substitution of a new for an old debt. The old debt is extinguished by the new one con- tracted in its stead; a novation may be made in three different ways, which form three distinct kinds of novations.

2. , The first takes place, without the in- tervention of any new person, where a debtor contracts a new engagement with his credi- tor, in consideration of being liberated from the former. This kind has no appropriate name, and is called a novation generally.

3. The second is that which takes place by the intervention of a new debtor, where another person becomes a debtor instead of a former debtor, and is accepted by the creditor, who thereupon discharges the first debtor. The person thus rendering himself debtor for another, who is in consequence discharged, is called expromissor; and this kind of novation is caned expromissio.

4. The third kind of novation takes place by the intervention of a new creditor where a debtor, for the purpose of being discharged from his original creditor, by order of that creditor, contracts some obligation in favor of a new creditor. There is also a particu- lar kind of novation called a delegation. Poth. Obl. pt. 3, c. 2, art. 1. See Delega- tion

[rottweiler]

I exercised my 6000 yr old common law inalienable rights just the other day when the police were trying to get me to the door so they could give me a citation. I decided to leave no doubt whatsoever that I was not accepting their quasi civil salesmanship so I ignored them just like I could if they were common door to door salesman.

Originally Posted by Codee

OK. My point is you cannot use 300 year old common law for situations that have been completely covered by modern statutory law.

Agian your thing is showing that in all CRIMINAL prosecutions however an administrative infraction is not criminal.