New Yawk Citee Inc.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals. City of Salina, 737 P.2d at 983. No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them. We must all abide by the valid laws,

But Consent is prerequisite to Applicability, or often is in many cases. Any law that is based on relationships, for example.

No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them

It's more than a simple declaration, when viewed in light of other actions. It takes a complex declaration, and evidence that excludes applicability. I could possibly prove that the law in question is inherently excluded by the very same pleadings of the plaintiff.

But the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence with the accused, in any case. Most claims fail by their own statement.

So let me extrapolate from the above court ruling:

Enforceable law is declared by simple but strict application to the consent of the pleadings against any person,.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

So who have you removed from office by force?

Seeing as I am not in your nation, that doesn't apply to me.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Exactly. Rob talks big, but he doesn't have the guts or the power to remove even his local school superintendent by force.

How would you know anything about me? FYI, I would stake myself against you any day of any week.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

How would you know anything about me? FYI, I would stake myself against you any day of any week.

I'm sure that you're quite a "big man on campus" type at your White Aryan Resistance meetings.

So anyway, can you name even one government official you have removed by force? Local, state, federal, I'm not picky.

[moishanb]

What needs to be remembered by all of us non-attorneys is that our behavior is a huge factor in developing, preventing, and succeeding in our endeavors for court actions.

There is literally 100's of ways to get remedy in any adversarial setting, but behavior is the most critical remedy.

We are brought up presuming things to be such and such, and when everyone believes the presumption, it then becomes fact, or shoud I say in fact. Here are some examples of presumptions:

-NAME-is Name and is me
-I am a the person written about in the statutes/codes/etc.(you are not the 'person')
-The constitution provided us with rights
-The courts are lawful and derive power from the consitution
-Authority is not permission(it is)
-The law is law
-The courts have authority without our consent
-Judgements are not offers
-Charges are not offers
-We have no choice about acceptance of court renderings

I can go on and on. Yes, the posts seem to go on tangents, and it will always be this way. However, the question always comes down to where is the contract that binds me? If there is a contract, then it can be challenged, once brought forward by the proponent of the rule, which is mostly unlikely, since there is 99% of the time a presumed contact/agreement between us and the statute/code/ordinance being applied to the person, that is rarely challenged.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by robhalford88
How would you know anything about me? FYI, I would stake myself against you any day of any week.

Thing is, it just doesn't work that way. There is no example of anything different in the last 6000 years of recorded history to tell us otherwise. Stake all you like, the people who wield power in society and the world rarely touch a weapon. There's always someone bigger who's willing to do it for them. Thats reality.

And these powers are to a degree doing the will of the universe, appointed to "reward good, and punish evil". Up to a point. Each of us is appointed to some degree in this way- so the question for any of us is up to the challenge?

The real power is from "on high", and you wont find it in any particular building. His Temple is not made by human hands.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

But Consent is prerequisite to Applicability, or often is in many cases. Any law that is based on relationships, for example.

Um, no. The laws apply to you whether you consent or not. In Skurdal, it was the criminal and traffic laws of Montana. Skurdal was in Montana, so the laws applied to him, regardless of whether he consented. That was the whole point the court was making. If you object, you need to leave. Voluntary presence = consent to have the laws apply to you. See Burnham v. Superior Court, the previously cited Supreme Court case.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

It's more than a simple declaration, when viewed in light of other actions. It takes a complex declaration, and evidence that excludes applicability. I could possibly prove that the law in question is inherently excluded by the very same pleadings of the plaintiff.

What we have here is functional illiteracy causing you to infer something the Court never implied. There is no declaration a man can make, no matter how simple or how complex, that will exempt him from the laws. The idea that you can exempt yourself from the law is the "invitation to anarchy" the Court declined. Again, the way you "exempt" yourself from the laws of a particular place is to get your arse out of there. Go to another state or country. Otherwise, quit your whining.

[andrewmitch]

and that is our point. the courts have basically said that if you are born within our borders we have complete control over you. and they get away with that because they have the guns. either man is born free or born into the hands of the state. you clearly worship the idea that man is born into the hands of the state. and that is the evil of it. the irony though may be that one day your position of power as a minion for the state may dissappear and you too will be reduced to the status of slave or worse - and this could easily apply to your heirs too. by the way, i'll assume you don't celebrate Independence Day given you firmly believe that no man or group of men has the right to ever be independent from the state.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The laws apply to you whether you consent or not. In Skurdal, it was the criminal and traffic laws of Montana.

There is no such thing as "the laws"; even an illiterate can see that. There are "such laws that apply in this case"

Traffic is a perfect example. There is one law for residents, and another for 'nonresidents'. Same place, same persons, different rules.

Want a criminal example? Try frauds. There has to be a relationship of some sort ('consent') between the parts to ever get so far as ' harm by deceit'.

Or all those statutes that criminally enforce contracts...and military law comes to mind as well, for those who have consented to join that 'state'.


Since there are clearly situations where it is commonly understood to be possible the voluntary origin of the jurisdiction...makes one wonder if perhaps there is more than meets the eye in law: a fictional system to regulate fictional persons.

Of course everything really just happens randomly, no rhyme or reason whatsoever...one star however is firm in the heavens: always "get" a lawyer, any lawyer, and DO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS! No arguments! Pay up and shut up, doctor knows best.

[andrewmitch]

good points

they are just policy

corporations can not create laws

policy only applies to those who are under the jurisdiction of the corporation

if you were really breaking a law you would go to jail you wouldn't be able to pay some fine...they don't want to send you to jail because you would be a drain on the system and wouldn't be able to make them $ - so they allow you to buy your way out

any moron could see the perversion we are practicing

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I'm sure that you're quite a "big man on campus" type at your White Aryan Resistance meetings.

So anyway, can you name even one government official you have removed by force? Local, state, federal, I'm not picky.

Yeah, why don't I prove myself to some unknown nugget on the internet, whom I care not one jot about his/her/its' opinion?

Better luck next time, flat earther.