Won the battle, now what?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Your response is what is asinine.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.

Belief that God exists, or belief that God does not exist, is merely that...a belief. Not demonstrable fact.

That you and others here have such trouble understanding this simple concept shows a profound lack of any real intellectual development.

"Probable Cause" would of necessity fall into that category of "Not demonstrable fact", as "Probable Cause" has as a basis for its' functionality, 'belief'. Therefore, charges based on 'Probable Cause' cannot be proven nor dis-proven and are subsequently 'legal nullities'.

Jerry Carlos

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Your response is what is asinine.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.

Belief that God exists, or belief that God does not exist, is merely that...a belief. Not demonstrable fact.

That you and others here have such trouble understanding this simple concept shows a profound lack of any real intellectual development.

What I said obviously went over your head.

For one, "disproven" isn't even a word.


Secondly...
If you're claiming that one cannot prove God does exist, then you're right. Not because it's mere belief, but because the term "God" is a title given to a being that is indicative of infinity. Any mathematician will tell you that infinity cannot be proven. Does that mean it's mere belief that infinity exists? No. It means we, humanity, are incapable of comprehending it.

If you're claiming that one cannot prove God does not exist, then you're correct also. Simply because one cannot prove a negative.

So, what you're essentially asking is for someone to prove the existence of God. Asking someone to disprove the existence of God is erroneous because God has not yet been proven. One cannot disprove that which has not yet been proven.

I would say your whole paradigm in this matter is paradoxical.

What you should be asking is whether one's understanding of God is true and correct. But, you cannot do that because that is a violation of religious freedoms.

And you cannot ask someone to prove God either because that's imposing an impossibility on someone which is unlawful.

So, anyone who claims God is right in doing so. To deny one of such a claim is to deny one of his/her basic religious freedoms.

I would say this basic truth poses an absolute conundrum for you lawyers because your basic role is to establish jurisdiction over another man in order to rule him/her according to man made laws. What makes you think your "laws" are supreme? Can you prove that your "laws" are supreme? Can you prove that I am subject to your "laws" or are you imposing them upon me by force?

That's what it all comes down to.

[dorkenbutt]

Lawpuppy has not answered any of the questions I put before him. I would love to see how he can prove the government is sovereign over a living man? Can you do that lawpuppy? Does case law make it so? That would be man's law, correct lawpuppy? You haven't even proven that the government can talk yet, have you? How about appear without an agent? If an agent appears who gives the agent the authority, huh lawpuppy? How can something that is a creation of the mind (government) that cannot talk, think, walk or sign anything give its agents (LOL!!!) authority to tax a man, sue a man, or otherwise have any authority over a man? Can this be proven lawpuppy? Oh, it can't? That's what I thought.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

Any mathematician will tell you that infinity cannot be proven. Does that mean it's mere belief that infinity exists? No. It means we, humanity, are incapable of comprehending it.

To the contrary, various branches of mathematics deal with infinity all the time, such as calculus and transfinite arithmetic. Google "Georg Cantor" and learn something. You will find that there are different levels of infinity and that, for example, there are "more" points on a line than there are positive integers.

Simply because one cannot prove a negative.

Some negatives are easily proven, such as the statement "There is no largest prime number". As long as the negative can be shown to be contradictory, it can be proven.

One cannot disprove that which has not yet been proven.

Yes you can, because the reason why it hasn't been proven yet may be because it's false and therefore disprovable.

Can you prove that I am subject to your "laws" or are you imposing them upon me by force?

All law is based upon the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Lawpuppy has not answered any of the questions I put before him. I would love to see how he can prove the government is sovereign over a living man? Can you do that lawpuppy? Does case law make it so? That would be man's law, correct lawpuppy? You haven't even proven that the government can talk yet, have you? How about appear without an agent? If an agent appears who gives the agent the authority, huh lawpuppy? How can something that is a creation of the mind (government) that cannot talk, think, walk or sign anything give its agents (LOL!!!) authority to tax a man, sue a man, or otherwise have any authority over a man? Can this be proven lawpuppy? Oh, it can't? That's what I thought.

Calm down, or the doctor will have to pump you full of Thorazine again, son.

Your questions have been answered. That the answers were not to your liking is irrelevant. Claiming they were not answered is a lie.

Your theory, such as it is, is moronic. It leads to absurd results if applied in the real world. If government has no authority over anyone, we have anarchy. That is clearly not what the Founders of this country intended. In fact, if you knew any history to speak of, you would know that George Washington himself, when President, used military force to crush an uprising, the Whiskey Rebellion, that was essentially a protest over excise taxes on whiskey imposed by the federal government. Clearly, the Founders did not intend that the government have no power to tax its citizens or do other things necessary to maintain order.

While in a collective sense the people could be said to be sovereign, that sovereignty is exercised through their governments, primarily at the national and state levels. If you knew any law, you'd know that when a court invokes the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," it does so on behalf of the government, whether federal or state. An individual can never claim "sovereign immunity."

The essence of your problem is that you're still stuck in an adolescent "rebellion against authority" phase. That's normal enough when you're 16, but by the time you're 20, it's time to snap out of it. Grow up. You don't have the right to do whatever you want without consequences. That's life. That's reality. If you don't like the system of government we have in this country, you have two choices: 1) Seek to change it; 2) Leave.

There's quite a few things about the government I'd like to change, but I'm damn glad I live here rather than in, say, Somalia. As former British PM Tony Blair recently said in a speech, "I think to a large extent you can judge a society by whether more people are trying to get out or get in. Clearly, America has more people trying to get in."

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Calm down, or the doctor will have to pump you full of Thorazine again, son.

Your questions have been answered. That the answers were not to your liking is irrelevant. Claiming they were not answered is a lie.

Your theory, such as it is, is moronic. It leads to absurd results if applied in the real world. If government has no authority over anyone, we have anarchy. That is clearly not what the Founders of this country intended. In fact, if you knew any history to speak of, you would know that George Washington himself, when President, used military force to crush an uprising, the Whiskey Rebellion, that was essentially a protest over excise taxes on whiskey imposed by the federal government. Clearly, the Founders did not intend that the government have no power to tax its citizens or do other things necessary to maintain order.

While in a collective sense the people could be said to be sovereign, that sovereignty is exercised through their governments, primarily at the national and state levels. If you knew any law, you'd know that when a court invokes the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," it does so on behalf of the government, whether federal or state. An individual can never claim "sovereign immunity."

The essence of your problem is that you're still stuck in an adolescent "rebellion against authority" phase. That's normal enough when you're 16, but by the time you're 20, it's time to snap out of it. Grow up. You don't have the right to do whatever you want without consequences. That's life. That's reality. If you don't like the system of government we have in this country, you have two choices: 1) Seek to change it; 2) Leave.

There's quite a few things about the government I'd like to change, but I'm damn glad I live here than in, say, Somalia. As former British PM Tony Blair recently said in a speech, "I think to a large extent you can judge a society by whether more people are trying to get out or get in. Clearly, America has more people trying to get in."

Who is government? Is government a creation of man, yes or no? You can't even answer simple questions like that. Your answers are moronic lawpuppy, if you call them answers. What did you answer? Please explain?

I am not talking about changing government. Did I say anything about change? I asked you if government can be sovereign over man. Is government a man? Can it breathe? Can government talk? Can it think? I'm still waiting for your answers.

I also have no problem with authority. Is the authority government or the Constitution? Is the Constitution a limitation on government or man?

You are the liar lawpuppy and have not answered my questions. Did you not say you were not going down that slippery slope (paraphrase)?

I am in agreement with others on this forum and you need to be ignored like all quatlosers. You responses are pathetic and I wonder how you even got through law school? Is it because they did not teach you any law? If I get banned for that I do not care. I cannot believe this site allows people such as yourself here. Topical non-responsive bologna from someone that always has to practice at law. You need a lot of practice, IMHO.

[Lawdog]

Well son, when someone whose opinion actually matters agrees with you regarding my fitness to practice law, I'll start worrying. But I won't be holding my breath.

What you know about law would fit into a thimble. I've probably already forgotten more law (based on classes I took but in areas I never practiced in) than you'll ever know.

The government is the one with sovereign immunity in certain instances. Not you. Not me. An individual can never raise sovereign immunity as a defense in a case, whether civil or criminal.

The people created the government, yes, and they GAVE their collective sovereignty to the government. Get that through your thick skull already.

For the final time, your questions have been answered. I don't give a s**t that you don't LIKE the answers. Any further asking of these questions will be summarily ignored, as you're just wasting my time.

Grow up. Get a life. Move on.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Well son, when someone whose opinion actually matters agrees with you regarding my fitness to practice law, I'll start worrying. But I won't be holding my breath.

What you know about law would fit into a thimble. I've probably already forgotten more law (based on classes I took but in areas I never practiced in) than you'll ever know.

The government is the one with sovereign immunity in certain instances. Not you. Not me. An individual can never raise sovereign immunity as a defense in a case, whether civil or criminal.

The people created the government, yes, and they GAVE their collective sovereignty to the government. Get that through your thick skull already.

For the final time, your questions have been answered. I don't give a s**t that you don't LIKE the answers. Any further asking of these questions will be summarily ignored, as you're just wasting my time.

Grow up. Get a life. Move on.

Since when did the people (men and women) give their sovereignty to government? Prove it? Now if you are talking about the legal fictions out there that call themselves US citizens, then I would agree with you. They're all deaf dumb and blind and its idiots like you that practice at law all the time that lead them to the slaughter.

You have no answers worth anything and you do not know what I know or do not know. You also do not know my educational background. You're just a presumptive jack**s that is full of himself.

BTW, how am I an individual? I am a man, prove otherwise, if you can, LOL!!!

The only one that matters would be who? You? <rolling eyes>

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Since when did the people (men and women) give their sovereignty to government? Prove it? Now if you are talking about the legal fictions out there that call themselves US citizens, then I would agree with you. They're all deaf dumb and blind and its idiots like you that practice at law all the time that lead them to the slaughter.

Dorken, lawdog is right.

When the citizen of a state votes (who acknowledges they are US citizen as demonstrated by any state's motor voter or voter registration application), they are empowering the representatives to act in their behalf in those areas as identified by the various Constitutions. Therefore, through the act of voting, the people are granting their individual sovereignty to the elected representatives to act on their behalf.

At one point I had a document from one of the state archives (as I recall, it was Pennsylvania) where, from the government's viewpoint, it is a privilege for a citizen to vote and be represented in the legislative body.

As backward as I feel that characterization is (since the existence of the government would not be possible without the people and their consent), that is their view on the matter.

To provide a simple example. Think of the confusion which would be created if you gave several people power of attorney on the same subject at the same time. One person may act one way and another person may act another. This should illustrate why someone claiming to be a citizen can not claim they have sovereignty over the government.

Further, there are certain areas that a man or woman could never claim sovereignty over the government (obvious example: negotiating treaties on behalf of the US) regardless of their citizenship status.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

I would say your above comment is an exact reflection of yourself.

Yes, that's his MO also described as;
Psychological projection, or "Freudian projection", a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or emotions.

One who has psychosis might have this attribute.